EPA MPG insane

[specboy]

Originally Posted by citabria7

specboy...Yeah, it's been over 100 since about May. Into the low 90's this week. Feels cold! Frost? I think we had some of that in '86. A Wednesday, I believe.

29 when I went to work this morning... had to scrape the windshield yesterday morning. Ahhh fall is upon us... and Killington and a few of the higher peaks have a nice thin coating of snow.

And I'm noticing a drop in economy now that the temps are getting lower. I've had the Fit idling a bit this past weekend so it's been an uphill battle trying to get the economy back up where it usually resides. (currently at 38 on the computer and I'm usually around 39 calculated) once I've had a few cooler weather tanks, I'll post a history of the fuel economy based upon date/avg temp.

~SB

[citabria7]

Specboy..Man, that's cold! Even when the mileage is low because the A/C is on, it still gets far better than I expected. I got the Fit just for a grocery getter, but the more I drive it, the more I like it. Unless I am doing the twisties with my Solstice, the Fit is what I like to drive the most. With better struts and tires, just might be as much twisties fun as the Solstice.

[specboy]

Originally Posted by citabria7

Specboy..Man, that's cold! Even when the mileage is low because the A/C is on, it still gets far better than I expected. I got the Fit just for a grocery getter, but the more I drive it, the more I like it. Unless I am doing the twisties with my Solstice, the Fit is what I like to drive the most. With better struts and tires, just might be as much twisties fun as the Solstice.

Just wait... we'll have a week of sub-zero mid february...

~SB

[FIT410S]

do you all think its better to drive at 3k-3500 rpm's?

[specboy]

Originally Posted by FIT410S

do you all think its better to drive at 3k-3500 rpm's?

vs. What? and for what reason?

for fuel economy, I drive between 2500 & 3000 but that's because I'm usually in 5th and speed limits here are 50 on most all roads.

The lower the RPM, the better the economy... but remember not to lug the engine.

~SB

[twfit]

I recently got a used 2008 Fit Sport (5-sp auto), and one of the reasons was for gas mileage. BUT it's only getting 24mpg! This is combined city/freeway. My 1992 Accord got better gas mileage than this! The last two fill-ups have been the same result - just a wee bit over 24 mpg. Also filling at empty it stops at about 9 gallons. I thought the Fit had a 10.5 gallon tank??
This car is still covered by manufacturer warranty. Do you think I should take it in to the dealer?

[pmnoy]

If you are filling up right when the light comes on, you should only get that much in. the light comes on (if memory servers) with about 1.4 gallons left in the tank.

[meanmud]

Originally Posted by twfit

I recently got a used 2008 Fit Sport (5-sp auto), and one of the reasons was for gas mileage. BUT it's only getting 24mpg! This is combined city/freeway. My 1992 Accord got better gas mileage than this! The last two fill-ups have been the same result - just a wee bit over 24 mpg. Also filling at empty it stops at about 9 gallons. I thought the Fit had a 10.5 gallon tank??
This car is still covered by manufacturer warranty. Do you think I should take it in to the dealer?

The Dealer isn't going to be of any use - are you calcualting or is the car's computer giving you the 24mpg?

My VERY first tank and I calculated 35.1 mpg - mostly highway.

[specboy]

Originally Posted by meanmud

The Dealer isn't going to be of any use - are you calcualting or is the car's computer giving you the 24mpg?

My VERY first tank and I calculated 35.1 mpg - mostly highway.

09 has a computer and is consistently 5 mpg off (average). If the 08's have a computer(not sure), I hope his numbers are calculated and not off of the computer. 5mpg high running 24mpg... or 19 calculated would be a killer in the fit. My Altima got 27 and my Ridgeline gets 19-20.

I'm still averaging over 38mpg with over 4000 miles on the odo and maybe 50 miles of highway total.
~SB

[Aviator902S]

24 mpg (U.S. gallons) is definitely low. This may not indicate a problem though, especially if you typically cruise on the highway at over 75 mph, as many people do. City stop-and-go driving (especially short hops with a cold engine) will also suck fuel by the keg-full.

But do re-check your calculation methods. First, fill the tank right up to the filler neck to insure it's completely full. (I know, this is not recommended from a wasted-fuel perspective, but it's the only way to insure that you're getting an accurate fuel-burn measurement). Reset your trip-odometer to zero.

Next, take a drive of at least one hours' duration (one way) at a constant highway speed of between 60 and 65 mph. Do not exceed 70 mph. Stay in the right-hand lane if you must.

Now re-full your tank to the top of the filler neck again. Record the exact number of gallons and fractions thereof it took to do this, as well as the number of miles racked up on the trip-odometer.

Divide the number of miles driven by the number of gallons consumed and you'll have your accurate real-world miles per gallon.

[Occam]

I always found that Honda tended to get ~EPA ratings... back in the pre-2007 EPA rating days. The new ratings are 3-4 mpg lower across the board!

In the old system (they released both numbers in 2007, so you can get a good feel for the difference), the 28/34 of a 5MT was officially listed as 33/38. The 27/34 of a Auto Sport was officially listed as 31/37.

So far, i'm getting 27 if I'm lead-footed, 30-ish if I baby it (city), and usually 37-40 on the highway from my 27/33 rated '10. I do find it odd that the mileage rating is so low. Back in '01 when I bought a Civic, the HX model had 36/44 on the window sticker, which even in the revised EPA system is 31/39.

Did they cancel the HX spec to keep it from challenging the Civic Hybrid and Insight, much like they seeminly short-gear the manuals and then show how their 'engineering' has made automatics just as frugal as manuals?

[Aviator902S]

Originally Posted by Occam

I always found that Honda tended to get ~EPA ratings... back in the pre-2007 EPA rating days. The new ratings are 3-4 mpg lower across the board!

In the old system (they released both numbers in 2007, so you can get a good feel for the difference), the 28/34 of a 5MT was officially listed as 33/38. The 27/34 of a Auto Sport was officially listed as 31/37.

So far, i'm getting 27 if I'm lead-footed, 30-ish if I baby it (city), and usually 37-40 on the highway from my 27/33 rated '10. I do find it odd that the mileage rating is so low. Back in '01 when I bought a Civic, the HX model had 36/44 on the window sticker, which even in the revised EPA system is 31/39.

Did they cancel the HX spec to keep it from challenging the Civic Hybrid and Insight, much like they seemingly short-gear the manuals and then show how their 'engineering' has made automatics just as frugal as manuals?

Those older Civics, like most economy cars of the day, had lower horsepower engines and taller gearing than that of today's Civics and Fits, which of courser translated into better fuel economy back then--- at the expense of acceleration.

As for the "superior" fuel economy of the Fits with auto trans vs. manuals, yup: Honda simply gave the automatic tall enough gearing to overcome the inefficiency of the automatic. But this move of course came at the expense of performance: The manual Fit only takes about 8.5 seconds to reach 60 mph from a stand-still. The automatic requires a glacial 11 seconds and change.

Regarding the formerly accurate EPA ratings in previous years suddenly going off the rails in more recent models, I guess we can only speculate:

Honda has always been on the leading edge of building fuel-efficient engines, ie: squeezing the best fuel economy per horsepower out of their engines. Only VW has better efficiency, and even then only by the slimmest of margins. But VW's reliability doesn't even come close to Honda's.

With the demand by consumers for better performance over the last five years or so Honda has had to meet the challenge, and there's only so much fuel efficiency that can be wrung out of today's gasoline and deisel engine technology. After that, ANY performance increase can only be obtained by one of three means:

1. Reducing vehicle weight, which tends to increase price, reducing the manufacturer's ability to compete in the market place.

2. Increasing horsepower, which of course has the side-effect of increasing fuel consumption.

3. Reducing gear ratios to provide more brisk acceleration. This of course causes higher rpms at highway cruise modes, which leads to excessive fuel consumption due to the higher hp being produced at that higher rpm. Alternatively Honda could have went with an extremely tall 5th gear to compensate for this, but drivability would have noticeably suffered and they knew this. A sixth gear would be the most effective fix, but that option is not yet available in North America.

It seems Honda has, to varying degrees, utilized a cocktail of most of the above strategies. But the net result seems to still be more fuel consumption, even though the EPA ratings have gone up. Has Honda finally thrown in the towel and begun exaggerating their claims, much the same as the domestic manufacturers do?

[specboy]

Originally Posted by Aviator902S

Those older Civics, like most economy cars of the day, had lower horsepower engines and taller gearing than that of today's Civics and Fits, which of courser translated into better fuel economy back then--- at the expense of acceleration.

My Wife's Civic EX coupe was a strong 33/38mpg performer with the same commute as I currently run. I haven't had a chance to really test the City MPG but my "country road driving" in the fit has been between 36 & 40mpg. About the same as the old civic. The EX had a 1.6L engine so it would consume more gas than a 1.5 but it was more aerodynamic than the Fit so that's where it made up the difference. The fit has probably on 1-2 hp less than the civic (which was Pre-SAE at 127hp on a D16Y8 SOHC VTEC motor.) I see no reason why honda dropped their Economy ratings on the HX... our EX was almost there...

Originally Posted by Aviator902S

It seems Honda has, to varying degrees, utilized a cocktail of most of the above strategies. But the net result seems to still be more fuel consumption, even though the EPA ratings have gone up. Has Honda finally thrown in the towel and begun exaggerating their claims, much the same as the domestic manufacturers do?

A bit confused by this... Personally, I don't think honda is exaggerating anything. I'm well above (and most people are too) the Sticker ratings on the Fit. I've done[... maybe...] 100 miles of true highway driving over the last 4000 miles and have yet to get to (let alone go below) the Highway rating. (current Calculated Economy is in my sig) I think honda may be underestimating the capability of this vehicle. The problem is, the biggest variable in economy isn't the car, or even the driving conditions... but the driver and that is a HUGE variable that no one can count on. I'm guessing they aim low to be on the safe side. It ends up being a pleasant surprise for most drivers.

Something of note is safety regulations and weight. My fit is the same weight as my wife's civic but is safer. With added safety features, usually comes weight... as was stated above, with weight comes one of two things, compromise in fuel economy or the additional cost associated with reducing weight. (in this case, I think a little added cost and a bit more on the economy side.)

Also, since it is not a dedicated FIT platform, any changes need to be carefully considered as they could potentially affect the FIT, Insight, Civic Hatch, Freed, and many others.

~SB

[Occam]

Originally Posted by Aviator902S

Those older Civics, like most economy cars of the day, had lower horsepower engines and taller gearing than that of today's Civics and Fits, which of courser translated into better fuel economy back then--- at the expense of acceleration.

As for the "superior" fuel economy of the Fits with auto trans vs. manuals, yup: Honda simply gave the automatic tall enough gearing to overcome the inefficiency of the automatic. But this move of course came at the expense of performance: The manual Fit only takes about 8.5 seconds to reach 60 mph from a stand-still. The automatic requires a glacial 11 seconds and change.

Regarding the formerly accurate EPA ratings in previous years suddenly going off the rails in more recent models, I guess we can only speculate:

Honda has always been on the leading edge of building fuel-efficient engines, ie: squeezing the best fuel economy per horsepower out of their engines. Only VW has better efficiency, and even then only by the slimmest of margins. But VW's reliability doesn't even come close to Honda's.

With the demand by consumers for better performance over the last five years or so Honda has had to meet the challenge, and there's only so much fuel efficiency that can be wrung out of today's gasoline and deisel engine technology. After that, ANY performance increase can only be obtained by one of three means:

1. Reducing vehicle weight, which tends to increase price, reducing the manufacturer's ability to compete in the market place.

2. Increasing horsepower, which of course has the side-effect of increasing fuel consumption.

3. Reducing gear ratios to provide more brisk acceleration. This of course causes higher rpms at highway cruise modes, which leads to excessive fuel consumption due to the higher hp being produced at that higher rpm. Alternatively Honda could have went with an extremely tall 5th gear to compensate for this, but drivability would have noticeably suffered and they knew this. A sixth gear would be the most effective fix, but that option is not yet available in North America.

It seems Honda has, to varying degrees, utilized a cocktail of most of the above strategies. But the net result seems to still be more fuel consumption, even though the EPA ratings have gone up. Has Honda finally thrown in the towel and begun exaggerating their claims, much the same as the domestic manufacturers do?

The 2001 Civic LX weighed in at 2465 with an MT, 2515 with a (4 speed) AT.
It had a 115-hp engine.

The HX model was 2434/2504 lbs, depending on whether one got the MT or CVT. Power was 117 horsepower, and owing to its variable valve timing.

The Fit weighs in at 2489 with a MT, 2575 with an Automatic (2520/2604 in "Sport" trim) And has a 117 hp engine.

What I'm wondering. Given a similarly powered engine (with smaller displacement no less), and similar weight, from the same manufacturer... why not a bigger difference? Especially when you consider that in 2006, the Civic bumped up to a 1.8L 140 hp engine, gained weight (2654/2716 for an LX depending on transmission), yet the fuel economy by the old EPA standard went from 32/39 to 30/40.

[FITMugen]

I got 38 mpg on the highway on my 2008 Civic MUGEN Si. I got 41 mpg on the highway on my 2009 Honda FIT Sport AT. When I compare the engine: 197 HP 2.0L (Civic Si) vs 117 HP 1.5L (FIT). I think Civic Si engine has more advantage of HP/Litre ratio, 98.0 vs 78 HP/Litre.

[specboy]

Originally Posted by Occam

The 2001 Civic LX weighed in at 2465 with an MT, 2515 with a (4 speed) AT.
It had a 115-hp engine.

The HX model was 2434/2504 lbs, depending on whether one got the MT or CVT. Power was 117 horsepower, and owing to its variable valve timing.

The Fit weighs in at 2489 with a MT, 2575 with an Automatic (2520/2604 in "Sport" trim) And has a 117 hp engine.

What I'm wondering. Given a similarly powered engine (with smaller displacement no less), and similar weight, from the same manufacturer... why not a bigger difference? Especially when you consider that in 2006, the Civic bumped up to a 1.8L 140 hp engine, gained weight (2654/2716 for an LX depending on transmission), yet the fuel economy by the old EPA standard went from 32/39 to 30/40.

What difference are you expecting to be bigger? the HX actually put out about 112hp and not 117 because of the SAE changes but was more aerodynamic than the fit. The additional torque and Economy only tuned engine helped keep the Civic HX mileage up there. The fit, while it has a smaller engine, is actually more powerful and isn't specifically tuned for economy. It is also a box with a pointy nose and is less aerodynamic.

Originally Posted by FITMugen

I got 38 mpg on the highway on my 2008 Civic MUGEN Si. I got 41 mpg on the highway on my 2009 Honda FIT Sport AT. When I compare the engine: 197 HP 2.0L (Civic Si) vs 117 HP 1.5L (FIT). I think Civic Si engine has more advantage of HP/Litre ratio, 98.0 vs 78 HP/Litre.

That 6th gear on the Si is a pretty tall one. I wish my integra had a 6th gear back when I had it as cruising on the highway was painfully loud. The B18 had a beautiful note when revved but being up there while cruising for hours was not pleasant. My fit is quieter than my GS-R was. The torque on the K20 is also MUCH better than the L15.

~SB

[Occam]

Originally Posted by specboy

09 has a computer and is consistently 5 mpg off (average). If the 08's have a computer(not sure), I hope his numbers are calculated and not off of the computer. 5mpg high running 24mpg... or 19 calculated would be a killer in the fit. My Altima got 27 and my Ridgeline gets 19-20.

I'm still averaging over 38mpg with over 4000 miles on the odo and maybe 50 miles of highway total.
~SB

5 mpg off? Maybe they fixed that for '10. Mine is generally within .4 mpg of a hand-calculation.

[bronx finest]

Great mileage in the '09-'10's eh? I've been considering a Fit!

[rhyneba]

There is an update to the PCM to correct the computed fuel economy. I don't have the bulletin number right now but I can look it up later. I'm a service advisor at a Honda dealer, the bulletin said the computer is using a wrong data set to compute the figure, it's off by 10%, I think it said. The update is covered under warranty until 8/80.

On a somewhat less technical note, does anyone else love their Fit more than that think one should love an automobile? Not that I do, or anything....

[Black3sr]

Originally Posted by rhyneba

There is an update to the PCM to correct the computed fuel economy. I don't have the bulletin number right now but I can look it up later. I'm a service advisor at a Honda dealer, the bulletin said the computer is using a wrong data set to compute the figure, it's off by 10%, I think it said. The update is covered under warranty until 8/80.

On a somewhat less technical note, does anyone else love their Fit more than that think one should love an automobile? Not that I do, or anything....

Canada too do you know? and what is 8/80?