So from posts here, 42 MPG CALCULATED (not BSM) is the maximum anyone has achieved with either an '09 MT or AT, is that right? Need something to aim for! Getting 36 MPG consistently with my AT Sport right now...

Hmm...seems that those posting the 40+ MPG hand calculated readings tend to overfill their tanks (defined as "put more gas in after 1st click of nozzle"). Doing more reading here to get realistic numbers for my AT, since I stop putting gas into my tank after the 1st click.

 

My trip back from Vegas where I was achieving around 42 mpg was gauged by just subtracting 4 from the 45.9 on my comp. But it seems about right. I know I can get more if my drive didn't include strong headwinds and steep inclines. I'm sure someone here has achieved higher mpg, maybe from the AT.

 

my best hand calculated is 43.5 MPG.
no hyper crap either. just don't go over 55 and you'll be good.

this last tank i filled up i was thinking i would get realy good MPG
sad to say i got 42.6 mpg.
on the 42.6 the BSM was reading 49.2 which is why i couldn't
wait to hand calculate. the whole time driving i was thinking
49-4=45 mpg. sorry that wasn't the case.


good luck on your MPG

 

My REAL world is about 5 miles per gallon less than the display

Huntington Beach, CA to Laughlin, NV meter read 43.3
Laughlin, NV to Huntington Beach, CA meter read 43.7

When I used a calculator and figured my actual mileage it averaged 37.5 for the round trip.
Come on Honda, you're not even close!!!!!! You are better than this!!!!!

I have contacted Honda about this. I suggest that others contact Honda also.

 

This was our second tank and was much more city driving. We got 305 miles to the tank (AWFUL!) but had an INDICATED 37.6... Yeah, the computer was almost 8 mpg too high! Being that far off is totally unacceptable. It's basically useless.

And I'm now convinced that the second half of the fuel gauge runs a lot faster than the first half. The indicated mileage was pretty average throughout the whole tank, but we had 200 miles at 1/2 tank, then the second half only lasted 100 miles??!

Booo!

 

I just completed my first tank of gas in my fit. Hand Calculated, it came to 35.25 mpg. According to the gauge, it was 39.5. I've got a manual. I hope it gets better as she breaks in more. Still though, MUCH better than my 89 Jeep cherokee was!!!!!

 

I just filled up last night and according to the rough calculations from that, I got about 7.1 L/100km (Yeah I'm Canadian) which translates to 33 US MPG or 40 Imp MPG. This is while the computer quoted 7.0 L/100km = 34 US MPG and still roughly 40 Imp MPG. This is on my M/T sport.

I think you people need to be clear whether you're quoting IMPERIAL gallons or US gallons 'cause that makes a huge difference. By the looks of it, I'm pretty sure most people are quoting imperial MPG.

 

I am not sure but the shape of the gas tank can make a difference as to your 200 VS 100 miles on half of a tank of gas.

Please report your metered VS actual mileage to Honda. Who knows it may be as simple as a re-flash of the computer through the OBD2 port once Honda rewrites a program.

Honda indicated to me that they are not aware of the problem. Maybe if enough of us call.....

What great marketing strategy. Have people tell everyone that they are getting 40 MPG when they are really getting 33-35. Sells a lot of cars!

 

I just finished the remaining 1/2 tank where my first half tank was highway driving from Vegas to LA. The first half I did 277 miles and the computer read 45.9. I assumed it would approx be 41.9 calculated.

When I just filled up now my comp read 43.3 and manually calculated was 41.1! The last half tank was my usual weekly work commute where I would average around 34-35 calculated.

So it's possible I was achieving more than 42 mpg on that highway romp.

 

I would think that the milage quoted from US "FitFreaks" would be in US gallons.

Thats what I am quoting in my milage calculations.

 

Heh yeah I was thinking that too...I think I got mixed up with the HW ratings, which I just looked up and are better than I remembered (which is why the 40+ numbers looked a little fishy at first). I just hope that Canadians who are replying with MPG comparisons aren't accidentally converting to imperial gallons because that's the more common one if you do a search on the web!

 

Ok, well I'm not sure it's THAT much better, but I got corrected numbers (my wife gave me the wrong numbers). Calculated 32.9 vs. indicated 37.6 -- better but still nearly 5mpg off.

 

On my 2nd tank of gas, the computer read 40.4. When I checked it manually I got 36.4. This is with my Sport Manual Transmission and about 60% highway and 40% city driving.

 

According to the computer read, I got this average from a 450-mile round trip from Atlanta to Knoxville this past weekend...

I'm hoping to reach that ever-elusive 80mpg mark one day.

 

just got 365 miles on this last tank.

 

I double my first tank will give me more than 300 miles. I am crossing my fingers. :-(

 

WOW! 43.5 MPG??? What is your car's specs (ok it's a SSM 2009 but is it MT or AT)? Sorry, I'm too lazy to look through this whole thread. Now off to figure out what 55 miles/hour translates to in km/hour....88.5 km/hour. Well traffic moves awfully fast around here so I've been setting my cruise at 95 km/hour on the "highway" (= 59 miles/hour) and 75 km/hour city (= 47miles/hour), where possible/safe of course! I try to keep my RPM below 3000. Guess 2000 would be more fuel efficient but I haven't been able to attain that and NOT get run off the road. Drivers around here are a TAD aggressive...

 

Well I'm averaging 5.7 L/100 km on BSM, 6.5 L/100 km hand calculated which = 36 US MPG. I think the "early" readings on this thread were US MPG on the BSM, not hand calculated. Most people on this thread are American so I doubt they'd be reporting Imperial MPG...

 

What would my 42 mpg calculated translate to?

 

Here's a conversion website that may help.

Miles per gallon converter