Here in Tennessee virtually all stations offer the ethanol mix and searching for "pure" gas will cost you more than the 5% energy savings. The one dealer that I know of charges a premium for no-ethanol fuel. Reminds me of a friend who would drive 10 miles to save a nickel on a can of peas, gas was 50 cents/gallon and his car got 15 mpg, then factor in his time.


On the low side or this thread my worst MPG was 9. Stupid (me) here forgot to press stop after going to raise windows in case of rain. Accessory on for 24 hours, killed battery. Honda Care sent out man with charger, 45 minutes after call, batter boosted. I sat in car with engine running for another 45, all good but you get ZERO mpg like that.


Save the ethanol for tacos.

 

So these are the numbers for the return trip. The MPG numbers are lower than my outbound trip, but I did drive a bit faster so that may have played a part (along with the winds, temp, gradients, etc). Tires were set at 34 PSI on 07-24-2015. Please note that the return-trip was done without any stops, meaning that the Fit was in continuous operation for about 17 hours (of course, with the exception of gas, restroom stops, and a bite to eat):

Tucson, AZ, to El Paso, TX (07-25-15):
354.30
8.853 GALLONS from a Valero Gas Station in Ozona, TX. The gas for the leg was from a Chevron Gas Station in Tucson, AZ.
354.3/8.853 = 40.02 MPG
Except for approximately the first 40 miles, it was all highway at about 75-78mph with several up and down-hills. Temps were about 100F with the AC fan alternating between 1 and 2.

El Paso, TX, to Ozona, TX (07-26-2015):
336.30 MILES
8.471 GALLONS from a Valero Gas Station in El Paso, TX. I filled with Plus (88octane) since for some reason the regular was labeled 86 octane. I guess that's an El Paso thing.
336.30/8.471 = 39.70 MPG
All highway at 80mph for a while, then at around 73-74mph. Several up and down-hills. Night driving, but AC still on due to warm night.

Ozona, TX, to Schulenburg, TX (07-26-2015):
305.6 MILES
7.223 GALLONS from a Stripes Gas Station in Ozona, TX.
305.6/7.223 = 42.31 MPG
All highway at around 68-70 mph. Minor hills and gradients. Night driving, but AC was on due to warm night.

The remaining 82 miles to Houston are part of my current tank so I don't have numbers for that; however, the gauge says 45.9mpg, so that means that in reality I'm probably about 42-43mpg.

It was a loooong drive (about 17hrs 15min). I think that the Fit handled very well, and only wish that the seat would have been more comfortable. Although still not ideal, the seat bothered me less on this return trip, so maybe my body is finally getting used to it.

 

I saw someone post about these "disappointing" numbers.
I did some research and the 2015 Fit has the highest mileage of any non-hybrid hatch out there. The Yaris was 38 Hwy, and the Sonic was only 34-36 according to a Chevy Rep...

Anyway...

The wife and I just took my Fit on it's first (sort of) extended trip. We went from Lowell, MA to Lindenhurst, Long Island, NY and back - 500 Miles, averaging 38.8 MPG - used about a tank and a half, with a fuel cost of about $35... YEAH BUDDY

 

2015FIT, again, thanks for the detailed write-up. It's good to know those 40 mpg numbers can still be had at those higher speeds.

 

The wife and I took the Fit to the beach over the weekend. She drove, which means there's no attention paid to eco driving (good way to really push the car). That being said, with her constant speeding up to brake (trying to break her nasty habit), we still got 37.9, and that's with 4 of us in the car, cargo area full of luggage, the air generally pumping at 3 or 4 the entire way, and generally driving about 75mph. Also, driving in downtown Jacksonville is an mpg killer.
It wasn't fantastic compared to the numbers I've been getting with the Fit, but it's still pretty good given the difference in driving conditions, driver, and constant air pumping - I've never driven it with the air above 1.

Driving back, I got it back up to 40mpg, but the air was still pumping to keep the kiddies in the back happy, and traveling west from Jacksonville is basically and uphill drive the entire time.

My wife drives a Pilot, which gives us plenty of room for taking family trips and is super comfortable to drive/ride in, but I wanted to see how the Fit would be. I was very pleased with the comfort level of the car. We had plenty of room for luggage and all the random items children have to bring but never actually use.

We used to have a CR-V, and I'll be honest, aside form the cargo area being a little smaller, the Fit nets a more comfortable/roomy ride. There's more room up front, the back seat gets better leg room. Also, we keep a small cooler, and bag of misc. snacks in the backseat floor, which just sits between the kids' legs, but the oldest generally complains about it irritating her legs. With the magic seats, we were able to slide the cooler and the snack bag under the back seats - the CR-V did not have this option.

Complaints:
1. Lack of console area in front noticed when we hit drive-thru and you can't just sit something on the console like you can with Pilot or CR-V.
2. No place for wife to put purse. - fits in console in Pilot, fit under console in CR-V. Issue solved by putting under backseat.
3. The lack of cup holders in the back seat is really annoying, and the only reason it wasn't an issue is because the carseat and booster have their own cup holders.

 

I don't have anything super detailed like 2015FIT's write-ups, but yeah...barring the horrid traffic of anywhere in NY (which is where the average plummets....) I was probably getting 41-42 at 70-75MPH

 

Alphabitter, it sounds like you've got the Fit figured out in terms of trip-taking and how to fully utilize every nook and cranny. I'll bet it was killing you to see your wife's lower mpg average.

 

I don't know what fuel you guys use but over here in Australia we have e10, unleaded 91 and premium 98, I fueled up with $25 of 98 from 4 notches before E the fuel light just came on, and I got about 350kms out of it? I then went back to 91 same amount $25 4 notches from E light came on and I got 650ish kms out of it?
what's going on? premium usually is better hence the cost difference 1.27 and 1.48

to confirm it was the fuel I tried twice with; never using the a/c, coasting when possible, flat road driving, from fully stop to take off i never went over max revs 1500rpm on highway 2000-2200rpm and didn't put my foot down. Do these cars burn 98 faster?

 

When you filled up with the 98 octane, you added 16.892 litres, when you filled up with 91, you added 19.685 litres. You have to make sure you fill your tank the exact same way every time, not the same $ amount or the same amount of fuel, but stop at the first or second or third or whatever click of the pump the same way every time you fill. And don't just compare one tank to the next, it won't be that accurate, you have to calculate it over a few tankfulls to get the most accurate reading.

 

That extra 3L wouldn't get me 300km more though. So if I keep using 98 eventually I'll get more kms? I'm Losing 300km each time really.
I'll fill up each time to 3 clicks and let it empty till the fuel light comes on and see how I go.

 

The method you used to calculate fuel efficiency has inherent flaws in it and won't work (and this is confirmed by your 300km difference). In your calculation, you have to use the amount of fuel you add after your tank is empty, not the amount you think was in the tank prior to emptying it. You mentioned you filled up with 4 notches left on the gauge both times, but that's not going to give you a very accurate estimate of how much fuel was in the tank both times, it could be 2,4, 6.... litres off from one tank to the next.

Try this procedure: Fill your car up, when the pump nozzle shuts off at the 1st click, don't put any more gas in. Drive until your fuel light comes on, then add gas, stopping again at the 1st click. Do your first calculation based on the fuel you just added and the km's you just drove. Do this over 3-4 tankfulls and use the same pump with your car parked in the same direction and you should have a pretty accurate reading. Good luck and keep us posted.

BTW, using 98 vs 91 will not make any noticeable difference, you're just spending more money.

 

As the proud owner of a 2015 EX with 2040 miles on it, I can safely report that the mileage calculations are at least 2 to4 mpg generous and bear little resemblance to reality.

I don't think for one minute that the problem has anything to do with Honda's more than capable engineering staff. This can be squarely laid at the feet of MARKETING dinks and their virtual world that forsakes ethics for sales.

The fact that the calculations are uniformly inflated is the primary evidence of this.

This is a deliberate manipulation of reality to misinform owners and gull them into bragging on their mileages to their friends and co-workers, inaccurate though the figures may be. It's crowd sourcing, a form of word of mouth marketing in its vilest form.

It's sad for Honda to indulge in such tactics and demeaning to its customers, but this is the nature of marketing in the world we live in. It also makes me wonder what other fantasies are being foisted on Honda customers by the shills.

 

LMAO!!! Has every one lost their minds??? NICE, first post dude....

 

Go to fuelly.com and click on any make and model car, and you'll see what people are actually getting.

 

I like minimal/simple, so I was really pleased that we could comfortable take a trip in such a small car. It really is bigger on the inside.

My mpg drop was difficult to watch, but I also love my wife, so I kept my mouth shut. :P

 

Well played, my friend!

 

I routinely got between 42 and 45 real world MPG, as recorded by an Automatic dongle, in my Mini Cooper with 70,000 miles. I am getting about 38, as recorded by the Fit itself, in my 2015 Fit with about 500 miles. I expect that the mileage will improve in the fit, but as it stands now, the Mini had better fuel economy, and is also a hatchback.


That isn't to say that I am disappointed in the Fit. I can put regular in it, whereas I had to fill the Mini with 93 octane. When all is said and done, the Fit is less expensive, per mile, than the Mini was, and I can fit more in it. Excuse the pun.

 

If you actually care about mileage, you do your own calculations.

If you don't care at all, being within a few mpg is accurate enough for conversation. It's also more than twice as accurate as 2 to 4 mpg off on a 20 mpg car. Quite respectable, I'd say.

Yes, Honda misleads customers about their fuel mileage: They do it by understating their claims. They say I'm driving a 29 mpg car!

 

The understating you refer to is a result of the conservative nature of the EPA rating that Honda has to report. I agree with the poster that the in-car readings are deliberately left inflated. They are extremely consistent, which means they could easily be corrected with a software tweak. Not to say Honda is the only one doing this, my '14 VW Sportwagen TDI has averageed exactly 2 mpg high on the readout compared to reality, recorded every tank for one year. The error ranges from 1-3, which I think is a result of uneven tank filling. My guess is all the automakers do this, for customer bragging rights, which help sales. In the end, after you've established the degree of error, the readout is still fun to monitor, since it's easy enough to subtract 2 from whatever it says.

 

On every car I've ever owned, the dash gauge has always been a little optimistic. This is no secret. That's just the nature of the beast. Manufacturers want to make sure they're competitive and keeping up with the other auto brands. I agree though, I wish they'd make they're calculations mirror the actual results. They have the know-how but it's going to take some higher power to get them all to change. Any given auto mfr definitely doesn't want to fall behind the others.