I get that MPG with my MT driving fairly hard. Going easy I can do better.
Honda did not screw it up the government did especially for the MT.
FYI the 07 was epa like 31/37 and the 08 (same car) was like 28/34 when the new testing procedures were put in effect.

 

interesting... that is almost my commute in a nutshell.. highway driving at 55, some "cough" freeway (more like '30-40 mph at best' way).. and a little city driving. prev. vehicle was getting 16, so the time between fillups and cost is waaay down.

 

That is SO GREAT to hear.

One of the criticisms of the CARS/Clunkers program was the opinion that people who get a car that has much better mpg than their former car would then drive much more. Virtually wiping out any gas savings for the consumer, and not helping with reducing the gas usage overall (as a nation).

How has your experience been? You probably didn't change jobs just to have the opportunity to drive farther and spend the same amount on gas that you used to. But do you find yourself making or considering longer trips than you used to?

Certainly there is a "new car feeling" with any car, new or new-to-you. A period of adjustment, where you DO have to drive it to get used to it. To know how it handles. To know how it steers, starts, stops, accelerates. What it can and can't do. And that doesn't depend on mpg or a government program. It's a common sense, practical thing. Even if you had gone from a 45 mpg hybrid to a combine. You still have to get the feel of the vehicle. Duh.

I personally didn't buy through CARS, and do get much better MPG in my Fit than my old car. The only reason I'd consider a trip at this point is because I have a DEPENDABLE car. I probably won't make a trip. And with under 2,000 miles on the car in 9 months, I'm not a big driver.

I just wonder about what other people do. Do you want to make trips? Or take long drives? Besides the getting to know the car thing. And is it because of the mpg, or because it's a car that is so much better than whatever you had before?

 

you know, I have heard the most ridiculous criticisms of clunkers, but never that one.. and it, I think, takes the cake. even better than that everyone who used the clunker program was going to go bankrupt or end up repo'd because we couldnt afford the payments.

You are correct, the purchase of a new car did almost NOTHING to my driving needs. I still commute the same distance to work and to the store, etc. only difference being that the fit is getting 40mpg and the ole' wrangler got 16. In my case the payment on the fit after clunkers and a cash payment from savings is $200/mo, which is mostly covered by the gas savings. At present the cost difference is $50. If gas keeps going up we'll be ahead of the game at just over $4 /gal. So no - I dont drive any additional miles, and no I wont be going bankrupt due to the evil goverment handout.

The other criticism I heard is that for a lousy 4mpg, the construction of a new vehicle far outweighted the env. benefits of the new vehicle. Im not sure about the avg. clunkers buyer, but in my case, a 24mpg ( 250% ) increase surely justifies the manufacture of the fit, esp with it not being a hybrid, so no batteries, etc.

I suppose the one aspect that is different is that a longer trip is no longer something to hem and haw about, but those are rare and far between. I doubt they add anything statistically relevant to my consumption. the daily commuter grind is what I got this car for and thats where 99% of its miles go.

 

Well, I'm not driving more than I used to--but I'm driving the Fit more than I drove either of the two vehicles it replaced. I clunked a '94 Dodge truck that wasn't getting much use. I also sold vehicle number two, a '99 Civic that was my daily driver. So the Fit has replaced two vehicles with one that gets better mileage than either. I bought the Fit thinking it would be basically a commuter car, and assuming that we'd keep using our other car my wife's '02 Accord V6 for longer trips. But the Fit drives better than we expected on the highway, so we now make most of our longer trips in it--while the Accord gets mostly local duty.

Our total mileage driven is about the same, but a lot more of the total is being done at 35-39 mpg rather than the 20-25 mpg of the Accord.

 

Good to hear. Just to back what I'd read, because I posted TONS of news links during CARS/Clunkers, here's one that mentions what I talked about:

Drivers could end up burning more gas. That's counterintuitive, since drivers must trade in their old car for one that gets significantly better mileage in order to get the rebate. But with a fresh ride in the driveway, buyers are likely to change their driving habits. Surveys by research firm CNW Marketing Research have found that clunker-upgraders drove their old vehicle about 6,200 miles in 2008, barely half the typical annual mileage of 12,000. But most said they'd drive their new car more and take longer trips. CNW's math shows that if clunker-upgraders drive just 90 percent of the annual average mileage in the first year of ownership, they'll end up burning an extra 61 gallons of gas, even though they get better mileage. Multiply that by 750,000 vehicles, and cash for clunkers would result in an additional 46 million gallons of gas being burned.
As a consolation, the program will unambiguously cut down on greenhouse gas emissions, since today's cleaner engines more than make up for extra miles driven. CNW pegs the greenhouse-gas reduction due to clunker retirement at 92 percent or more.


5 Downsides to 'Cash for Clunkers' - Rick Newman (usnews.com)


And a whole page of links to various news stories grumbling about CARS:
Cash for Clunkers: Postgame Analysis | The Big Money

------

Ideally, skydiverman is a very good example of the benefit of the CARS program. Because of the huge gain in mpg. The fact that you already had some savings lined up for the purchase. I'd guess it's much more comfortable than the Wrangler, and certainly has more cargo space. More usable space all around. And you don't have any major repair costs, as you would if you had bought something else, like the oft clunked Cherokee, which wouldn't have helped your mpg anyway.

Blyndgesser is another good example of what the program was meant for, in spirit. You replaced TWO cars! And, your NEW purchase saves gas even over the car you kept. You already were doing longer trips, but now use a car that is more efficient.

The way the article mentioned makes it sound, it's like people won the lottery and all decided at once to quit their jobs and drive to the bottom of Chile, for fun. Well, in the US, driving for a unique cafe experience...in South Dakota...for fun.

Sure, all that could be fun, but people didn't just strike the mother lode. They got a car and a great deal on their trade-in, which meant a great deal on their new car. Life goes on. Folks still do what they did, go to work or school or stores. The things they have to do. And it makes those have-to-do things a bit easier on the budget for gas.

For many people, it's easier on every part of their daily have-to-do list. Their new car may be more comfortable, have more features, be easier to use, or have more useful items/options.

And if folks DO decide to take a trip, they probably won't get stranded (at least not in the Fit). One could fairly easily nap in the vehicle if necessary if one gets too tired to continue. That's much safer than trying to drive while tired.

As far as getting rid of a rarely used truck, that's a good thing. Many places have truck rentals. If you really have to have a truck for a couple days, rent it. You can have building materials delivered. All kinds of options.

 

While I'm sure there will be some people that will drive more because it costs less, I highly doubt that they will be in the majority. Most people I know already think they drive too much/too far and currently it's not like the price of gas is prohibitive like a year+ ago. I currently spend about $40-$50 less/month on gas from the 2007 Altima 3.5SE. That plus the insurance savings and lower payments saves me about $120-$130/month. that said, I didn't trade on the CARS program as nothing we owned qualified.

My average speed (based upon the AVG Speed Calculator from the Altima - same commute in he FIT) is 40mph so it seems like 40mph/40mpg is the winning combination for me.

~SB

 

I drive when I need to and when I want. Not going to change my style or habits. I am a science teacher, and the wacko idea that cars are warming the Earth is just that: wacko. The so called warming is normal and cyclical. Mostly caused by sunspots and volcanic activity. (Acutally, the ice caps are reforming and growing, not shrinking. Jupiter and Saturn have warmed by the same percentage, and there are no cars there) I bought the Fit because I like it, and I get great mileage, which saves me money.

 

I would not call the idea, wacko. Yes, the earth had gone hot and cold many times in the history of the planet. How do you know we are not speeding up the cycle?

Should not all the planets in our solar system raise by the same percentage of temperature if the sun is causing it?

Can you point me to the sources of ice caps growing and other planets warmed by the same percentage? I would like to read them.

 

Actually, I think the believers now prefer to call it "climate change" rather than global warming. That way their asses are covered no matter which directions temps move.

 

Ein..let's not make this a forum on other topics, but the data being thrown around by the greenies is years old, and twisted by those with an agenda. Speeding up? How is it that Jupiter and Saturn have the same percentage changes that we do? That is the point, they have no cars...soooo..it is at least a pretty good guess that it is Sun caused, not man caused. The radical greenies, including their mesiah, Gore, are people who want a cause..any cause, to follow. It is their religion, and facts are of no interest to them. The Earth was about 7 degrees warmer 1,000 years ago than it is now. No cars then. The point is that it certainly appears that Man is not the cause, or probably adding enough to "change" to alter our life-style on the say-so of fringe greenies following a politician who polutes more with his private jet than 1,000 cars do all year. That said, lets keep this to Fits, and not politics.

 

I have no doubt that Mankind has an impact on the earth. To think however that it is strictly due to GM, Chrysler, etc... is not rational either. Deforestation, automobiles & motorized transportation, etc... all take part.

I'm doing my part by driving a fun & economical car, recycling, and buying organic when possible as well as other things.

~SB

 

I am thinking in terms of pollution and gas usage, when I talk about "saving the world".

My Fit, even with the little bit of driving that I do, uses less gas and pollutes less than my former car. And that matters.

When folks can look at any part of the world and NOT see pollution, then we will be in a much better situation. Breathing is better. Views are better.

Pollution doesn't stop at city, county, state, or country borders. It swirls all over the place. You don't have to have a polluting factory or car in your neighborhood to suffer the consequences of those things existing.

Everything is so related, our cars come from far away. Foods and clothing. Products.

It helps when we can do a bit. And that might mean having a less polluting vehicle. Using less gas means more than pocketbook savings. It means lower burdens on refineries, and no need to build new refineries. It could mean less importing of crude oil.

All those things matter.

Just like not using light bulbs when you don't need them. Little things add up when done on a grand scale. It all matters.

And the Fit does so much for so many, that it DOES make a difference. If you can reduce two vehicles into one, that's a big difference. If you can increase your mpg, that's a big difference.

 

Sure we have an impact, but not enough to change the overall climate. That is nature herself. Me, I still have 4 cars and use them all. My Fit is simply fun and reliable, not to mention cheap to buy and drive. Recycle if you wish, I do, but not because some green weanie tells me to for their false religion

 

Frankly, I think that was just another load of crap to hold back the program. Glad it didn't, because C4C was my only ticket into a brand new car. Otherwise, I would have been forced to buy above my means in a few years, or get yet another gas guzzling clunker.

I drive exactly as much as I did pre-fit. I just enjoy getting further on my hard earned dollars doing it. I think adults know one thing about driving on todays roads- it can be deadly and the 'fun' factor isn't enough to increase driving habits, that's for sure. There isn't really any fun to be had on the road. 95% of the time it's a nightmare. And because of the reality of todays roads, I don't think a cheaper trip is enough to bring anyone out for the hell of it. It's just the usual trips, only cheaper. And as I scan the roads now here in NY, the cars are most definatly shrinking- a good thing.

Dan

 

shockwave..it helped a lot of people get out of their old cars for a reasonable, well, more reasonable, price. I can't see many people driving more than they used to. You drive to get where you are going. The Fit is fun to drive, but not enough to make useless trips. (I use my Solstice for that) Put the top down in that and it is more fun than any human should be allowed to have with their clothes on!

 

frankly this whole global cooling - wait no global warming - wait, no, global climate change thing is 100% pure horse manure. that temperatures swing is known, and that man is responsible is 100% conjecture unsupported by any ACTUAL facts. That said, there is nothing wrong with producing a heck of a lot less greenhouse gasses, and reducing our dependance on foreign oil, as well as saving a few $$$ at the pump. :-)

On the article taffeta posted above - that stat is probably due to the clunkers themselves. My old wrangler for example got less than the statistical norm for a commuter, as it was my "other" vehicle. In the summer it got lots of use, and in the winter, but in between I used a jeep libby also which gets about the same mileage as the wrangler did, but had heated seats and leather :-). Now with the fit, I do 100% of my commuting so it gets way more miles per year than the clunkered vehicle - but what the article attempts to deceive us into thinking and what is not actually true is that I as a consumer now drive more miles - which I dont. I have in a way, and Im sure this was true for more than just me, replaced USING 2 vehicles. I still have the libby, but It is just a snow and hauling things vehicle now and we drive it about once every 2 months or so just to keep the battery charged.

 

First two tank loads on my new '09 Sport MT - I'll guess 60% highway

1st - 37.9 mpg calc, 40.2 on meter
2nd - 36.9 calc, 41.1 on meter.

I'm happy with that.

 

from the original posting

 

nice! i'd be happy too. thats good mpgs'