Does anybody know what the specific differences are in the LX and EX CVT models that give the LX a higher fuel economy rating (33/41 for LX vs 32/38 for EX)? I saw that the LX is about 100 lbs lighter, but I can't believe that would net 3 mpg more on the highway.

I also see that the LX does not have paddle shifters, but does that make a difference if you never use the paddle shifters in the EX? Is there any other difference in the transmissions?

Does the LX have any aerodynamic advantages?

 

The LX supposedly has some underbody panels that aren't on the EX. Now that parts books are appearing on the web someone might figure out what they are.

Also, the LX has taller profile tires on 15" rims that may have lower rolling resistance than the lower profile tire on the EX.

I'm sure that Honda was well motivated to break past that magic 40MPG number and the LX was the trim that was the easiest to get there.

 

Yeah, something's up with the LX auto specifically.

LX auto is +4 mpg over the manual. (highway)
EX auto is +1 over manual.

Or to put it another way, LX and EX manual are the same, while LX auto is +3 over EX auto.

 

They might have tweaked the ECU programming as well to increase mileage in the EPA cycle. There also might be some wishful thinking in play, as we've recently seen from other manufacturers.

Remember that the manufacturers self-certify their mileage figures. The tricky bit is for them not to overstate the mileage so much that a large body of owners realize that the numbers are inflated. That's where Kia and Hyundai messed up. Perhaps Honda is limiting their exposure by applying the high numbers to only one trim.

From an older thread:

 

Very interesting, that's a good point I had not considered. It's probably more a publicity thing to get that magic 40+ mpg number to use for advertising, while at the same time limiting their exposure as you say. With only one trim getting the 40+ mpg, they can still make the blanket statement that "The Fit is a 40 mpg car!!!"

I wonder if the LX manual is also getting the special under body parts? And if they can be fitted to the EX for a small bump in highway mpg?

 

I cannot say for certainty that the LX manual does not get the LX CVT aero bits, but the one press comment about the extra aero bits on the LX was specific to the CVT. Also it is worth noting that the LX CVT loses 26 pounds of sound deadening that is on the LX manual.

So the three things that we know Honda did to Improve the fuel rating of the LX CVT were:

1. Taller 60 vs 55 series tires of a different, but not yet publicized specification.
2. Underbody aero, including a different front spoiler
3. Weight reduction of 26 pounds from not installing some sound deadening material.
It is probably a good bet, as George stated, that the CVT may be programed differently.

How all this will perform in the real world, vs the dynamometer fuel economy testing, is yet to be seen. To that end, I am wondering if any of the aero changes are just factors plugged into the dynamometer. If so, the difference might only be thousandths of Cd but through rounding get put in as an extra hundredth. (Like 0.31 Cd vs 0.30 Cd)

 

Just a thought:
Maybe the LX CVT is programmed to default in Eco mode, while the others are not. EPA tests are run in whatever the default mode is, so they could just make Eco the default and gain whatever extra it adds.

 

Good point. As long as SOME people are getting Honda's advertised numbers, there can be no case made to say their mileage reports are incorrect or off. I honestly thought the 3rd GEN was going to have even better mileage than what's stated but I guess it's hard to pull that off when the motor is making 130 horsepower now.

 

That would be a possibility, however, over on the CR-Z message board, most of the testing concluded that Econ mode did not improve fuel economy for those who drive for best mileage. On the CR-Z, the Econ button, dulls throttle response, resulting in very slow acceleration unless you really step on the accelerator. Again taking away control from the driver. Some even found they got their best fuel economy using sport mode, that actually sharpens throttle response.

 

26 pounds would make a miniscule difference in mileage.

A scary thought that occurs when I see that the rear weight dropped is that they might have taken the spare tire out of the LX and put in one of those horrid "seal and inflate" bottles. I really hope that they didn't do anything that stupid.

 

I have been scared now for 5 years with this setup on my Canadian 09 Sport.

I love all this discussed on advertised mileages. Hell no one is going to ever approach those figures in the real world. And really can anyone notice the difference say between 40 and 41 mpg in their wallet?

 

Not sure what you mean about not being able to achieve 40MPG in the real world. My lifetime average in my 2009 Fit sport is 35MPG. And on the few occasions where I drove for best fuel economy as a priority, I was able to achieve 40MPG. About 10% of all Fit drivers posting on Fuelly.com have a lifetime average of better than 39MPG. So achieving 40 MPG, or more, in the new Fit should be relatively easy.

But I totally agree with you that once you get around 33MPG,(3gallons/100 miles) anything more than that is really just about bragging rights, as the actual $ savings at US gas prices is minimal.

 

Yes, getting 40 in this car is pretty easy if that's what you focus on. Once you get past 33 mpg the bragging rights are fun, but the savings actually get serious.

I've owned this car less than four months:
By the time I hit four months, I'll have saved more than $350 over the Fit's EPA rating. You might call that minimal, but I don't.

Even minor changes in mpg add up. My fuel log uses the 29 mpg combined rating- if I use the 33 mpg highway rating I've only saved $210.99 over the EPA rating- a difference of four mpg in how you look at things chopped almost $120 off my savings to date.

 

It should be rather easy to beat the 40 mpg actual mileage in a 2015 Fit EX CVT. My new one was reported over 42 mpg average for highway use at 70 mph. This was brand new, not even really broken in. No special handling, just the Eco mode. A/C also engaged.

I expect it will easily get consistent mid 40s mpg with no effort and higher if I pay any attention to acceleration, passing, etc.

 

At 33MPG, one MPG better is worth about $700 over the life of the car. Hardly an amount to toss in the trash!

At 40MPG one MPG is still worth about $500. If you have five extra Franklins that you don't care about please send them my way and I'll let you brag all you like!

As Franklin himself said, "Take care of the pence, for the pounds will take care of themselves."

 

Point made

Here is my point, getting 33MPG is easy, all you have to do is drive a Fit, drive normally, without any special effort and 80% of us will get that kind of fuel economy or more. Compared to the average car, that is getting say 20MPG, your lifetime savings over 150,000 miles amounts to about $12,000 in fuel costs at $4/gallon. ($30,000 vs $18,000) That is real savings!

However, to average a lifetime 43MPG in a GE Fit, like Charlie does, it requires quite a bit of effort. That effort probably includes lots of coasting, limited speeds, not using A/C and shutting off the car at stops. Yes, I agree that you could potentially save an additional $4228 over 10 years and 150,000 miles. Whether spending about 4285 hours of restrained and calculated driving effort is worth it to save $4228 in fuel costs is up to the individual driver. But whatever, the effort or calculation, this amount of savings pales significantly compared to the $12,000 savings realized by going from 20MPG to 33MPG.

For me, it would take me 24 years to drive that many miles! So I have decided I will drive my Fit for comfort and driving fun and pass on the potential $175/year savings available to me from hypermiling. As always YMMV!

 

TCroly- it's all just different aspects of the same thing, and you summed up the wider view perfectly.

I really enjoy driving and was already focusing and calculating before I started driving for mileage, but once I got hooked on that I couldn't stop. This isn't granny driving by a long shot: carrying all your momentum through a corner isn't for the faint of heart and my last tank's average speed was... above my area's posted limit.

A big part of the enjoyment is that I can do it all the time- traffic conditions can make you give up hope of making it somewhere on time or even just reasonably late, but you can always work to burn less gas. Money saved and mpg numbers are just how you keep score.

 

That is a very good way of summing up hypermiling! And as long as it adds to your driving pleasure it is a win-win

 

I have not seen anything official from Honda that states that the LX has additional components to make it more aerodynamic. I'd like to know if this is true and more details.

I did notice that my 2016 LX CVT has an interesting piece of plastic in the rear wheel wells that might have something to do with aerodynamics. Please look at the picture below and let me know if the EX has the same thing:

https://goo.gl/photos/MKUGwwFkPt9qva4H6

 

It is called a strake, used for increased aerodynamics, supposedly.