(Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?

I was at a gas station/convenience store getting a cuppa and flirting with
the 20 year olds behind the counter when a Fit came in. At fisrt I thought
it was an Si and then saw the 4 doors.

"Nice Car"

"Honda lied"

"How so?"

The guy had driven from Connecticut to near the Vt border at highway
speeds, a trip of 75 miles, and had to put in 2.76 gallons of gas.

75/2.76=27.17 MPG HUH?! I get 21 MPG overall with an older Supra that
isn't quite running 100% and has a marginal AT besides!

I said jokinigly that he should keep his foot out of it! He said he barely
gets over 30 MPG overall, and since this is his first real trip with the
car he expected to at least be in the high 30's. It wasn't that warm and
he didn't have the AC one when he pulled in for gas.

Now, with an '87 Corolla Carb'd on a 95 degree day, I got 45 MPG at 75 MPH
with the AC on full blast, back in the day!

He also said when it's cold he barely makes it to 28 MPG...

 

There is a distinct possibility something is wrong with his Fit. Off and on
bad fuel economy (usually not even breaking 40 mpg) is a topic on Toyota
Prius forums and a few common causes have been identified. There is the
perennial problem of underinflated tires and the "operator error" of leaving
the defroster on (not knowing that means the A/C is running in mild
weather). Parking brake misadjustment has taken it's toll, and some Prius
cars have suddenly improved fuel economy 20-30% when the injectors were
replaced. Sometimes the cause is never found.

Mike

 

Why would anyone put in 2.76 gallons?

Gives you a big margin for error, different pumps will top out a
half-gallon off, easily, that would take it to 33mpg or so, still not
brilliant, but maybe in a believable range. Maybe the 75 was off by a
few, too. Make it 81 miles on 2.25 gallons and it's 36mpg.

My 2007 Accord EX4 is still not getting 30mpg, when the 2004 model
easily got 32mpg on a full tank, nearly regardless of speed.

Knock 500 pounds of weight off the Fit and it will get 20% better
mileage, too. Honda *has* to start paying attention to weight.

J.

 

JXStern wrote:

they pretty much can't. no manufacturer can unless los federales stop
serving the oilcos's interests by requiring heavier & heavier vehicles
in the name of "safety". if "safety" were the real goal, helmets,
5-point harnesses and roll cages would be mandatory.

 

Well, since we are talking anecdotal mileage, I should report that so far I
have averaged 35.69 MPH with just over 1065 miles. I have a Fit Sport 5
speed manual transmission. I'm always conscious of driving for economy, and
I try to time the stoplight, whenever possible and practical. I am more than
satisfield with my mileage, but it would be less if I drove with a heavy
foot. Consumer Reports averaged 34 MPH overall with their 5 speed.

Robert A. Cunningham

 

Some drivers unconsciously speed up and slow down;it seems they cannot
maintain a constant speed even on a level roadway.That will adversely
affect mileage.
I've ridden with more than a few of them,and it's very annoying.
Driving behind them is even more annoying.


Also,the Fit may not have been fully "broken in" yet.

 

At the expense of creature comforts and ease of use. But I agree with ya...

 

Miles per HOUR? ;-)
that makes for a really long trip.....almost 30 hrs to go 1065 miles! ;-)
(I know you meant MPG..)

It's odd that a person would stop for a fill-up that was less than 3
gallons.

What's the tank capacity on your Fit?

 

The manual says the fuel capacity is 10.83 gallons. When the low fuel
indicator lights up there is around 2 gallons remaining. You're correct, it
is odd to fill up that soon. Obviously, the more times you fill up, the
more accurate the overall mileage is. If I were the owner, I would not be
concerned on any mileage figure that was based upon less than ten gallons,
let alone three. OH, and yes, I meant to say 35.69 MPG, not MPH. I drive
a little slow, BUT NOT THAT SLOW

Robert A. Cunningham

 

I drove a Fit, and it seemed like an OK, car, but the Civic LX
*automatic* parked next to it was rated at 40mpg highway, while the 5
speed Fit I drove was rated at 36. I think it's short gearing at fault.
Ironically, my '95 Civic EX has gearing that is way too tall, but at
least it gets great mileage...

 

you keep posting that opinion, but you won't answer the question. what
rpm's are you pulling at 70mph?

 

I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as
repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender
damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of
components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear
quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that
would be totalled in today's steel technology.

I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the
weight up than safety. Maybe they can line the seats of a light
weight car with Dr. Scholls gel insole material.

The Honda Gellin, 44mpg!

J.

 

that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry
killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly
disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is
"good for america"!

popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".

 

I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean
cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers
were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of collisions
were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile,
expensive piece to repair. I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and,
man, were they ugly!) and when the bad numbers came out. I was still working
in the same place; I only worked there 3 1/2 years, so it didn't take long
for the bumpers to get their failing grade.

Mike

 

i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in
a 10mph collision?

 

Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw
had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of
today's bumpers.

The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had
stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over
those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.

Mike

 

but dude, 2.5mph bumpers mean that the frame starts to deform at 2.6mph.
the plastic bumper cover may be cheaper as a single item, but the
frame of the vehicle is not!!!

[honda stuck with 5mph btw even though it's no longer mandated, so
5.1mph for honda.]

 

As Pardee suggests, there may be other factors at work with the 5mph.
And there may be other factors at work when going to composites, the
game changes.

I agree, tell it to Honda. Heavy is just a low-tech way to get there.


J.

 

My '86 Civic Si (still for sale!) has 5 MPH bumpers, and they don't
use any kind of hydraulic mounts, as far as I know. They use spring
steel mounts.

 

it's not honda, it's nhtsa. honda know all about light and economical -
crx hf is a shining example. 50mpg, no problem.