I have the 5MT and I drive ALL country roads here in VT (we have practically no highways). That's why I get the MPG that I do. I'm rarely up at 70+mph (have over 30K on the odo over 2 years and about 3K of that is highway). When I am up at those speeds I find the economy drops unless I can sit in a line of vehicles with a minivan in front of me to help cut through the air (mind you I do NOT tailgate)

Not to be a doubting thomas here but I like to play devil's advocate. I've had 75mpg on my economy gauge before... I pulled out of the gas station at the top of a hill and drove about a mile down. Practically didn't even touch the gas pedal. If you had a video of you toggling through the different settings and it showed 50mpg and 250miles on the trip meter, it would be much more believable (even 100 miles or so can fairly easily be faked if you started out at the top of the rockies and headed down...)

~SB

 

Have done so more than once, in person.

Its not an Acura or such kind of interior, but nothing bad either like people make it out to be. Less cubbys to store stuff compared to the Fit, but the Fit has a sea of super cheap plastic that in the Civic is better with at least some of those surfaces being textured. Plenty of plastics though. Have not looked into the EX-L model though, but generally Hondas with leather tend to be a class up in interior quality feel.

The Civic gauge displays/i-MID is really nice stuff, but moving the audio display away does make the regular radio (non navi models) look a bit odd since its just buttons in the area without a display.

A nice application of a good protectant really improved the interior look of my Fit btw. It looks like utter cheap stuff when I got it new... I use Meguiars NTX Tech Protectant, stuff lasts forever. Even after months of no application, the plastics still look way better than the dull look it had new.

 

What's not to believe? Rural roads through UT, ID, WY means no A/C usuage and speeds 40-50mph in 5th gear with infrequent stops. Look at the speedo in his photos. 47 mpg calculated at the pump should be easy under those conditions with a M/T. I wouldn't be surprised to see over 50mpg under those conditions with some added eco-miling driving technique.

_

 

So I test drove a m/t sport and liked it much better than the first time I drove one. Unfortunately, I pt a deposit on a base a/t before I read these forums. I live in New York State. Can I still back out of the deal if I haven't picked the car up yet? Thanks in advance!

 

True story. I get the same thing occasionally, and i live in a 100% flat terrain, so no downhill bs. 50mph in 5th with no stops = ridiculous mpg. 50-60mpg is attainable under favorable conditions

Having said that, the OP shouldnt expect those numbers regularly. Thats kind of a rare situation. I do almost exactly 50/50 city/highway mileage.. and combined with my occasional need to hear vtak ().... i get around 34-35 mpg. Which is more than the fit is advertised to do so, you cant complain.

 

Fit base AT with almost 3K miles. Averaging 36, high of 42, ~ 50% urban 50% highway, driving with light foot. I expect it to improve 5-10% after 10K. I got the Base due to the EPA estimates. I upgraded the wheels (still 15") tires, & put a Progress rear sway bar -- not wishing I had got a Sport one bit.

I doubt you beat the mileage you are getting with your current Civic.
I have had five 92-97 Civics (including 3 Del Sols) & all averaged 30-33 city & 40-45 highway. I really appreciated all of them, but the Fit is a better car than all previous ones. More space, more comfort, better handling, safer, and roughly equivalent MPG.

 

I have a 2011 Fit Sport Auto with about 1700 miles on it now. The average for the 1700 miles is about 32.2 (on the dash, my actual count is a little lower). I would imagine the M/T would do a little better, but since my last 4 cars were sticks I really wanted an automatic for sitting in traffic and such.

For the 2012 Civic debate... Honda definitely took a step back with it. Sure, it will be a great reliable car. But now they have a lot more competition which upped the stakes. Now, you can get the same reliability, if not better, and get something that actually looks good (exterior and interior). The Korean brands are offering 10 yr warranties, and much better factory equipment. Two each is own, but I certainly would not be buying a new Civic. I'd go Elantra, Focus, Cruze, or even the Mazda 3. A diesel Jetta would be sweet, but its also the priciest.

 

I can see an Elantra, Focus or Mazda 3, but seriously, the Cruze? I'd rather buy the Accent, no thank you on the Cruze.

 

45 mpg is definitely attainable in my experience on the rural roads at 50 mph. Otherwise 35 mpg is more likely, particularly if highway driving is 70+ mph. I agree it's unlikely you will do any better than the old Civic and you may even do a little worse. Driving probably has more to do with mileage than anything else. The 5MT is not gutless but if you push it mileage will drop fast.

 

Thank you all for the responses! Everyone has been extremely helpful. I am going to test drive the auto one more time before I make a final decision. No matter what, I know I am going to love the Fit and all it has to offer!

 

I love my 2011 fit sport mt. I get around 44 with all highway and 33 when I just do city. I have a lead foot however.

 

The engines are mostly a wash. The Civic LX had a 1.7L non-VTEC. 115HP/110lb-ft. The Fit's got a little marginally higher max HP, marginally lower torque. Curb weights are about the same. I think it's mostly in the shorter gearing (VTEC may also help a bit), but the Fit just feels way peppier than my Civic LX coupe ever felt.

 

well, I have a 01 Civic LX MT and a 11 Fit Sport AT. I got around 35-37 overall mpg with the Civic, and 32-33 overall mpg with the Fit.

 

If you want best MPG get a 5MT Base or Sport won't make a difference.

 

DOOP :Facepalm:

Forgot that the LX was sans VTEC. (D17a1). The D17A2 is the one that had VTEC. My Wife had a 98 EX with a D16Y8 which was a peppy little engine.

I change my status. the Fit will likely be a little peppier once Revved. The Civic would be a little easier to drive as it has more torque.

~SB

 

So, I test drove both transmissions and liked both in different ways. The manual definitely had more power to speed up to get on the highway or change lanes with a lot of traffic. The one thing I noticed is the noise of the engine on the highway driving 65 MPH as well as the fact that it was at 3500 RPM. The manual I test drove was a 2009 because that is all I could find to try. Would the RPM be any different on a 2011? I found the automatic (2011) to be quieter on the highway.

I'm leaning toward the m/t as I have driven stick for over 15 years and am not sure I am ready to give that up.

 

They're the same iirc.

(2009 vs 2011)

 

Correct, No engine or Transmission changes from 2009-2011. My 2009 is at about 3200 rpm at 65mph. The auto is quieter on the highway but it downshifts at a gust of wind or the tiniest little hill.

~SB

 

I finally chose my car. It's the 2011 M/T Sport. The came into the dealer today and I immediately knew during the test drive that I would regret getting the automatic, even though I really liked it. I know I will love having the extra power when I need it. I greatly appreciate everyone's input over the past few days! I pick the car up on Monday and can't wait to start tracking the gas mileage.

 

Congrats - enjoy your new car and let us know how it goes. Get a list of things you want to do to it too.