gas saving tips for all you fitfreaks out there.

[KayJai]

Someone needs to send this to Myth Busters! Those guys will figure it out!

[cspan37421]

slow down. Not while filling the tank - slow down your speed on the road.

I have taken trying to set personal mpg records a challenge, when I am not in a hurry on a long drive. The best I ever got in any car was 49 mpg in my '88 Honda Civic. That was on a 300 mile trip back in the days when 55 mph was a common highway speed limit. I filled it with just over 6 gallons, and the trip was nonstop.

I am replacing my '95 Camry LE with the Fit. When I bought it the Camry was rated 20/28 by EPA, but I always did a bit better, 23/31 was common. Recently I saw that EPA has retroactively lowered mpg estimates, even for my 95. which I think is now 19/27.

But I found that if I didn't drive 70 mph, if I could have the guts to put the thing at 55 and set the cruise control, I could do quite well for highway mpg. Even with A/C on, I would regularly top 40 mpg, and my personal best was 45.4 mpg in the Camry! It is hard to see it go, with performance like that, but realistically, few people are willing to drive that way.

Still, I look forward to trying to break 50 in my new Fit, and I suspect it can be done - just not at 70 mph.

Now, getting high mpg at high speed - I don't know how you can do it without the thing being so aerodynamic you have to lay down flat in it.

[LizardKing]

Originally Posted by sp00n3R

4. If you look at the trigger you'll see that it has three delivery
settings: slow, medium and high. When you're filling up do not
squeeze the trigger of the nozzle to the high setting. You should be
pumping at the slow setting, thereby minimizing vapors created while
you are pumping. Hoses at the pump are corrugated; the corrugations act
as a return path for vapor recovery from gas that already has been
metered. If you are pumping at the high setting, the agitated gasoline contains
more vapor, which is being sucked back into the underground tank, so
you're getting less gas for your money.

I get a lot more gas in until the pump finally shuts off when I pump it slowly. I pump it as slow as I can. squeezing the handle just enough so it doesn't shut off. I get so much more in, in fact, that sometimes I pull the nozzle out to see if the tank has been overfilled. Once in my old Ford Escort, I wasn't paying attention to the pump, it never shut off, and gas sloshed out the top of the fuel tank all over me, so that always scares me.

By the way, by "so much" I mean about 9-10 gallons, rather than it shutting off at 7-8. I'm not one of those guys who put 12 gallons in a 10.8 gallon tank!

[Steeldog]

Originally Posted by cspan37421

slow down. Not while filling the tank - slow down your speed on the road.

I have taken trying to set personal mpg records a challenge, when I am not in a hurry on a long drive...

But I found that if I didn't drive 70 mph, if I could have the guts to put the thing at 55 and set the cruise control, I could do quite well for highway mpg. Even with A/C on...

Still, I look forward to trying to break 50 in my new Fit, and I suspect it can be done - just not at 70 mph.

I have no doubt that 50+ mpg is doable in a Fit. But I would surely hate to find out you got rear-ended and killed due to traveling 55mph in a 70 zone.
The Fit's biggest Achilles' heel, safety-wise, is its rear-end crash rating of "poor" by Consumer Reports (or whatever testing body they use).

[cspan37421]

Originally Posted by Steeldog

I have no doubt that 50+ mpg is doable in a Fit. But I would surely hate to find out you got rear-ended and killed due to traveling 55mph in a 70 zone.
The Fit's biggest Achilles' heel, safety-wise, is its rear-end crash rating of "poor" by Consumer Reports (or whatever testing body they use).

Thanks for your concern, and being rear-ended for going under the speed limit is why I never tried such a thing on my motorcycles.

However, as best I can tell, there's no such thing as a rear-end crash rating by either Consumer Reports or the federal government. There's front impact, side impact, and rollover ratings, but no rear-end impact rating that I found either in the CR review of the Fit, the annual car survey issue, or on my Fit window sticker. In fact, the only item on the fit that even had as much of half a black circle is the trunk room. The rest is at least "empty circle" (i.e., medium, or the 3rd category out of 5), and of course most is in the red (category 4 or 5, very good to excellent).

Whether I break 50 mpg or die, I'll post either way

[btw, I only drive under the limit when traffic is light.]

[Steeldog]

Originally Posted by cspan37421

Thanks for your concern, and being rear-ended for going under the speed limit is why I never tried such a thing on my motorcycles.

However, as best I can tell, there's no such thing as a rear-end crash rating by either Consumer Reports or the federal government. There's front impact, side impact, and rollover ratings, but no rear-end impact rating that I found either in the CR review of the Fit, the annual car survey issue, or on my Fit window sticker. In fact, the only item on the fit that even had as much of half a black circle is the trunk room. The rest is at least "empty circle" (i.e., medium, or the 3rd category out of 5), and of course most is in the red (category 4 or 5, very good to excellent).

Whether I break 50 mpg or die, I'll post either way

[btw, I only drive under the limit when traffic is light.]

Thanks, and you're right, I din't read that on CR, it was on CarTalk.com . My mistake. Here's what they have on their site: (It looks F'd up but you can see it)
IIHS Crash-Test Ratings*

2007 Honda Fit

Side, Driver TorsoGoodSide, Driver Pelvis/LegAcceptableRear, Dynamic RatingPoorSide, Rear Passenger Pelvis/LegGoodFrontal Offset Crash Test Performance, Right Leg/FootAcceptableSide, Driver Head and NeckGoodSide, Rear Passenger Head ProtectionGoodFrontal Offset Crash Test Performance, RestraintsGoodSide, Rear Passenger Head and NeckGoodSide, Rear Passenger TorsoGoodFrontal Offset Crash Test Performance, Structure/safety cageGoodRear, Seat Head/Restraint GeometryAcceptableSide, Structure/safety cageAcceptableFrontal Offset Crash Test Performance, ChestGoodRear, Overall RearPoorFrontal Offset Crash Test Performance, Left Leg/FootGoodFrontal Offset Crash Test Performance, Overall FrontGoodFrontal Offset Crash Test Performance, Head/NeckGoodSide, Overall SideGoodSide, Driver Head ProtectionGood
*Results are for the 2007 Honda Fit Sport and may vary with airbag options




setTimeout("BVcheckLoadState()", 15000);

[cspan37421]

Ah, the insurance institute for highway safety. I remember those guys.

I checked out their website at iihs.org and found that the Fit was not alone in getting a "poor" rating for rear crashworthiness. So did various models of Civic, Accord, Element, and Pilot. My guess is that vehicle size is not the main reason they ended up with that rating.

See:

Head restraints: Honda

[cspan37421]

PS please check my thread on outfitting my fit - I'd love your feedback there, too. Thanks,
cspan

[anti]

Has anyone seen a difference in MPG when running AC or windows down. Someone told me recently that cars are so aerodynamic now that having your windows downs slows the car to an extent that running the AC is more fuel efficient.

[cspan37421]

I heard that on Click and Clack too (NPR, Car Talk). Haven't done the experiment but I think that with some highways as high as 70 mph around here, wind resistance is a greater drag on economy than the operation of an A/C unit.

[FITs2aT]

Mythbusters did the air drag v.s. air conditioning experiment on a show a while back.
If I remember correctly - while doing less than 60 km hr, it is more fuel efficient to have the windows open.
Over 60km hr it is more effiecient to run the ac due to the drag.

[anti]

Yeah I looked up the mythbuster's results(they actually testes this one twice):

Going less than 50mph it is more efficient to leave your windows down, but going greater than 50mph it is more efficient to use your A/C.

Also its in mph for us yanks.