The more I think about this the more it bugs me.

You can compare mileage ratings here:
Side-by-Side Comparison

Not only is the 2009 gas tank .2 gallons less than 2008, the 2009 Fit reports getting less mileage than 2008.

Makes me wish Honda had increased the gas tank by .2 gallons. I hate having to fill up before I've gone at least 300 miles on a tank.

 

I just noticed in the brochure that the Auto Transmission gets higher MPG than the Manual. Can this be right? Manuals usually get more MPG. What accounts for this?

 

This is interesting, I thought that '09's are getting more mpg?

 

The best I ever got commuting (mixed, stop and go) in my 07 was 32mpg. During the breakin, same route, I am consistantly getting 36+ in my 09.

 

what are you using to compute the mpg? I have a GD and when I drive it normally I usually get 37+mpg without trying.

 

These MPGs you guys are quoting are above what the sticker is showing. Are you guys running recommended tire pressure? Are you hyper-miling like crazy? I'd like to know "real-world" results where tires are at recommended pressure and the person is just driving normally--so I can get a realistic assessment.

What accounts for your higher MPGs than the sticker?

Are you guys driving MTs or Autos?

 

Mine's a Sport Auto with Navi. I am quoting what I caluculate, not what the computer shows. The computer is about 4 miles better milage. I would imagine around town would be much lower. I drive pretty normal, 65-70 on the highway, and I don't typically race around town. Even so, I am definitely not hypermiling. It really suprised me that the milage was that much better than my 07.

 

Brochure and Honda website say AT Sport gets:

27 city
33 highway
30 combined

Hopefully, the MT will get above what the Brochure is quoting too. Anybody running an MT and without exception getting better MPG than brochure quotes?

 

everyone gets better MPG than the brochore.
the EPA sets the standards on MPG now so they are
all low.
but if you drive normal you will see good MPG.

i do alot of highway which is under 55mph
and i get over 37MPG
last fill was 37MPG
the one before that was 43MPG
this is all hand calculated not the
dash computer. the dash was off
one time by 2.5MPG and another time
by 4mpg
so i def don't trust it.

 

I reset my trip odometer (and hence, the mpg average) before a 50 mile 100% highway trip on flat terrain, 70 mph, no AC, and the trip showed avg 44.2 mpg. Wow. I expect when I get around to manually computing at next fillup, I'll see something like 4 mpg less than the computer average. Hell, I'll take 40mpg!

 

You can't compare your milage to his because his daily commute and driving style is different from yours. What is relevant is that he has had both cars and is driving the same routes so his results are comparable.

 

Anybody know why the Auto is ranking higher than the MT in mileage?

Honda Base Fit Manual: 27/33/29
Honda Base Fit Auto: 28/35/31

I find this discouraging because I always enjoyed getting better mileage by choosing an MT. Why all a sudden in an Auto getting better mileage?

 

the gear ratios have changed for manuals in 09
thus making the auto have more MPG

do a search on gear ratios
this has been discussed before. i even posted
a thread with actual speeds and rpms for both
mt and at trannys

 

I've done several runs with my fit. Recording them all. I only have 1600 miles on it so far. and I get

Freeway all the way 42 mpg. I got about 410-20 miles on a full tank (did this twice)

City with large hills. Talking takes engine to 5-6rpms to maintain speed up where I daily. I get an average of 28-32

 

The EPA test got more accurate and suposedly more like normal driving.
Changed speeds and accelerastion/deceration rates. But the test program is nothing like I drive and probably not yurs either. It does provide a valid comparision between vehicles though and that is the primary reason.
As for the revised gas tank size it probably relates to the change in body structure. There perhaps is less room for the tank and still meet the crash regs.

 

Gearing. The auto only needs something like 2200 rpm at 60 mph while the manual needs something like 2800 rpm. Since the engine is 1500 cc, or 91 c.i. for both the auto will get better mpg in spite of 5% higher 'geartrain' losses.

 

The auto turns 2200 rpm at 60 mph and the manual 2800 rpm. The more times you fill the cylinders the more gas you use ...

 

Uhhh, what's that you say?

 

Although (and I'm not looking at the dyno charts right now, but most engines run this way) you get more torque at higher rpms for a given gear ratio. Maybe (or not!) Honda decided that most MT customers would be enthusiasts and geared the thing to run at higher rpms for more perceived peppiness. It would be interesting to interview the engineers to find out the REAL reason this is so. I think both AT and MTs should have had the same overall gear ratio. I mean, one can always downshift if an increase in peppiness is needed...

 

That sucks!

What's the advantage of higher rpms--just more torque? What exactly does this increased torque do for the driver?