They wait for the customer to complain. Some dealers don't like doing it, even though it only takes a few minutes.

 

i just finished the first tank of gas on my 09 dx auto. my combined calculated mileage was just under 41mpg. i was pleasantly surprised.
i thought i was driving the thing moderately hard. i guess not.

my '92 civic dx hatchback was averaging 36 so i knew i had to beat that number to truly be satisfied. the civic dx was absolutely gutless compared to this new car so it's the best of both words.

 

Plus heavy traffic, and waiting at lights. Even with a light foot, coasting on downslopes, and turning the engine off at lights that involve a wait of more than 30 seconds, 27 mpg is the best I can do on a 6-mile commute in Atlanta in December.

 

OK - Since I haven't seen a reply to my post to the "Mileage reports: Automatic transmission (5AT) thread, I'll try to evoke a response by copying an edited version of it here. Just filled my third tank and it yielded 28.93 mpg - another dissapointment. Any response to my ECU question will be appreciated. Thanks!


Hello everyone! Proud owner of a new 2010 AT fit here and so far I am pleased with it over-all. I did not record mileage for my first tank as it was provided by the dealer with unknown fuel type and actual level.

My 2nd tank yielded a an MPG calculation of 28.8, which, to me, was a disappointment (even taking into account that I'm still in the break-in period). I've done allot of reading in the fitfreak and edmund forums and the MPG threads seem to indicate that most drivers are getting mid to high 30s consistently in mixed driving.

I inflated my tires to 45 psi and I just filled up with my 3rd tank. Calculated MPG was 28.93 (hardly a noticeable increase).

What I don't understand is why the spread in actual experienced mpg is so wide - 23 mpg on the low end and 43+ mpg on the high end. Many people have even recorded high 30s and low 40s right out of the gate on their first tank.

My suspicion is that this seems to indicate that the ECUs of these cars are being tuned by the manufacturer or dealer with dramatically different settings. I've read about the scangauge and software update to the mpg computer but neither of these appear to be actual re-programming solutions to tweak the ECU settings.

If certain people are getting mid to high 30s no matter how hard they drive their car (as some have noted), then there's no reason why the rest of us can't achieve the same results. Frankly, I don't believe that mere driving habits, tire psi, ...etc are the primary factors causing this very wide spread.

Has anyone investigated the actual ECU settings of this car and how they can be optimized for MPG? Can this optimization be done through the dealer or some other performance shop?

Thanks in advance!!

 

I think the high numbers should be taken with a grain, frankly. Last week I filled up, reset my trip miles, and then did 120 miles almost all highway. My gauge was over 40 mpg's for that trip. THAT trip. To round out the TANK of gas, it came in at the usual 30 mpg overall. The automatic's EPA is 28/33 or something right? You're right in there, as am I. I've never hit high numbers- always right in line with EPA. Far as I can tell over 2,000 plus miles on my Fit, city driving you'll be lucky to hit 30 mpgs, more likely coming in at the rated 28. Highway, you can do much better because there's more opportunity to do better. In my experience, combined average over a tank comes in right at EPA ratings.

So, in answer to your question which is why the wide spread in claims, I believe the main factor is humans fudging the numbers to look good when posting about it- not anything mechanical. Not better Fit's verses worse Fit's. Not magical Fit's verses disenchanted Fit's. Mine is no better than yours, most likely. It's the person telling the story honestly, verses padding it. And it's stupid really- they fool no one but themselves.

Your mpg readout of 28.9 should give you no cause for concern. It's doing perfectly. It's not a hybrid. Gas will be used and the needle will drop. 28-34 on average is quite good, imo.

Dan

 

GY, During the summer, shortly after I picked up the fit, I was running over 40mpg but currently I am running in the Mid 30's due to the fact it is in the teens. I noticed you are in Colorado and about 5800 feet in elevation. The low temperature and elevation along with the amount of ethanol the local gas stations have in their fuel will have potentially a significant impact as well as the type of driving. The fit is most efficient at 50-60mph based upon my driving tests and gets better as the weather gets warmer. My Altima dropped about 6 or 7mpg in the winter and my fit is doing about the same.

As for ECU tuning... dealers only reflash the ecu with what honda gives them, they won't even cosider (nor do they have the ability) to modify the programming. Companies such as Hondata are in that business and spend ALOT of time testing to get it right.

~SB

 

I agree with Shockwave199, EPA hwy estimate is probably pretty close to real world conditions. Since getting the software reflashed, I've been tracking actual and reported consumption in a spreadsheet:

HTML Code:

Date	 		Miles	Gallons	Calc MPG	Ind MPG
December 5, 2009	190	5.75	33.04		31.8
December 7, 2009	137	4.20	32.62		32.3
December 11, 2009	172	7.09	24.27		27.2
December 18, 2009	255	9.25	27.57		26.5

Cumulative		754	26.29	28.68

The first two fills were about 50/50 city and highway driving; the last two fills were exclusively congested city driving in cold weather. I got stuck for a half hour waiting to park at the VA hospital last week, and watched the indicated mpg fall steadily while going nowhere. I attribute the continuing discrepancies between calculated and reported MPG to filling errors; although I try to top off the tank at each fill, it's difficult to be consistent -- over time I expect these two figures to converge. Tire pressures: 38F/35R, approximately 5000 miles on the engine (still running on breakin oil).

The Fit isn't a hybrid, so congested traffic mileage sucks. Steady speed on the highway, using cruise control and Sport mode to lock it into 5th gear, I consistently see around 38 mpg; hypermiling techniques could probably bump it a little above 40, but nothing I do (engine off at stops, coast down hills, slow starts, drive by the instant gauge) keeps it above 28 in the hills of Atlanta traffic. Cold weather and short trips worsen mileage even more.

 

And, Honda would probably risk substantial fines from the feds if dealers could change ECU mapping.

 

My suspicion is that people reporting remarkable mpg are unrealistic. Either they've planned their run to maximize mpg, or they're taking a fraction of their trips as calculated by the car's computer to avoid the low mpg parts (or they're fabricating results).

Driving surface roads, short trips I get about 27mpg.

My normal commute is a mile of surface roads and 24 miles of metro Atlanta interstate, a combination of stop and go and driving steady speeds. Back and forth to work I get between 32 and 34mpg.

Your calculated 29mpg is where it should be. If it makes you feel better I noticed an increase of about 10% after the first 3,000 miles, but this isn't scientific.

 

If I put my foot into it, and ignore the instant mpg guage, I get 25 around town. If I pay attention to my acceleration (the ol' egg on the accelerator pedal trick) I get 27-28 around town. On two seperate 300 mile highway trips, at ~70 with the air compressor running and a few pockets of California traffic jams, I've gotten around 38-39 (39.1 on the first, 38.4 the second). Driving around town without my usual climb (a residential street climb from sea level to to about 500 feet), I can consistently beat 30 mpg. Combing a small mountain kills the mileage.

This is all with a 2010 5AT, with an MPG meter that has proven accurate. The 27 city seems reasonable, but 33 hwy is definitely on the low side.

Note: as a habit, I run in manual mode on the highway. I lock it in 5th - the extra torque provided by the unlocking clutch on the lockup torque converter gives enough oomph for most grades, and I can click down when necessary.

With my extra legroom mod on the gas pedal, and slghtly modifying the armrest (lowering the "down" angle) I've found the Fit to be a more comfortable road car than I'd ever have imagined. Far more comfortable than the Element ever was. In a way, it feels a bit like a lower, sportier, 1st gen CR-V (wife used to have one of those).

 

The only way to achieve the low 40mpg is to drive under 60 mph on the freeway in the summer. And 90% of the drivings are on the freeway.

If anyone looks at my Fuelly chart, winter is killing my milage.

 

Thank you all for your replies. I must admit that I am surprised that so many people fudged or fabricated their numbers. I must have read over a hundred reports of mid to high 30s in mixed driving.

The biggest thing I'm upset about is that I traded in my 98 Toyota Corolla that was consistently getting 34 mpg no matter how I drove it. This is a car with a larger engine (by 0.3 L), 3 more HP, and 14 more ft-lbs of torque than my new Fit and is 12 years older with the same vehicle weight. You'd think that I would at least be able to match the MPG of the Toyota but that is not the case.

The salesman stressed that the rated mpg of 27/32 is significantly less than reality so he seemed to confirm the reports I was reading on the threads.

I would also like to remind you all of the poll results posted here:

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/eco-...poll-60-a.html

These results indicate the largest group of Fit owners are experiencing a real-world average of 33-35 mpg and I would be perfectly happy to be in this group.

So--Here I am with a car 12 years newer, smaller engine (by 0.3 L), 3 less horsepower, 14 ft-lbs less torque, same weight, and more aerodynamic than my previous car and it gets LESS mileage. I challenge anyone to give me a reasonable explanation for this.

BTW, I checked Hondata and they do not have a tuning product for the Fit to my knowledge.

Thanks again!!

 

It looks like a pretty even spread between 27-35mpg. I'd be in the largest group with my 33mpg. Average life-long mpg? Well if I were honest it'd be in the next group down, but what's to keep me from cheating?

The sharp decline above 35 seems to indicate people were pretty honest.

I hate to contribute to the hype, but give it a few thousand miles. I was surprised by the performance improvement around 3500 both in power and mpg. It went from 31-32 mpg to 33-34mpg (calculated) and noticeably faster acceleration on the on ramps. ymmv.

edit: checking edmunds for 98 corollas, they were rated at 27/34/30 city/hwy/combined with a 5spd manual. In 2008 the EPA's method for determining mpg became less optimistic (more realistic). I'm not saying you're fudging the numbers on your Corolla, but maybe your driving habits have altered with the new car. Give it a while and let us know how you're doing.

 

Thanks Steve! I'll do that.

If there's any hope left for me to match my previous car's performance, it's in the fact that I'm still in the break-in period.

I will also be transitioning to full synthetic Amsoil and transmission fluid so I'm hoping that will help as well.

Also, I've been driving mostly city miles lately since I've been on vacation. Once I go back to work, I will resume my normal 75-80% highway driving and if I achieve greater than 34 mpg in that scenario, I will stop concerning myself with this issue. If I don't, then I will come to the conclusion that I made the wrong choice in vehicles to upgrade from my Corolla. After all, my main purpose for the upgrade was to improve on the Corolla's mileage, not the other way around.

For some reason, my Toyota yielded 34 mpg whether it was 100% city or 100% highway. If the Fit yields 29-city and 38-highway, I will consider that more than breaking even since most of my normal "working" mileage is highway.

I will be adding my vote to the poll once I'm through my break-in. More to come.

Thanks,
Greg
(Sorry - forgot to mention my name in my previous posts.)

 

I'd disagree that alot of people are fudging their numbers. My numbers have only recently begun to drop and that is due to the climate. I was at the high side of many discussions but not by a whole lot. I could have also done better with a bit more attention to fuel economy. I don't follow the hypermiling techniques because many of them are dangerous. I do let off the pedal and let the engine slow me down for stop signs and I don't rev to 5K when accelerating from a stop. I also do drop gears when passing and have no problems revving to Redline when needed.

I drive 0 highway but all country roads. Here's my daily commute. 26 miles, Speed limit is 50 with (2) 25mph towns, (2) 40mph towns, and 3-4 turns at stop-signs not to mention tractors and hills.

Here's the breakdown of Calculated economy since I purchased the car (I use a Windows Moblie application on my phone called GasUpLogger and this is the .CSV output (formatted with Pipes instead of Commas):
Date | Odo | Trip | Gas | mpg
08/08/09 | 171.0 | ---- | 0.00 |
08/16/09 | 577.0 | 406.0 | 9.69 | 41.89
08/23/09 | 923.0 | 346.0 | 9.31 | 37.18
08/30/09 | 1229.0 | 306.0 | 7.95 | 38.50
09/06/09 | 1648.0 | 419.0 | 10.16 | 41.23
09/13/09 | 1965.0 | 317.0 | 7.88 | 40.24
09/20/09 | 2252.0 | 287.0 | 7.48 | 38.35
10/01/09 | 2641.0 | 389.0 | 9.91 | 39.26
10/09/09 | 3020.0 | 379.0 | 9.96 | 38.04
10/16/09 | 3385.0 | 365.0 | 9.93 | 36.78
10/25/09 | 3712.0 | 327.0 | 9.44 | 34.64
11/01/09 | 4041.0 | 329.0 | 8.59 | 38.31
11/08/09 | 4263.0 | 222.0 | 6.58 | 33.74
11/17/09 | 4609.0 | 346.0 | 9.68 | 35.73
11/29/09 | 4859.0 | 250.0 | 6.97 | 35.88
12/06/09 | 5175.0 | 316.0 | 8.59 | 36.78
12/13/09 | 5438.0 | 263.0 | 7.86 | 33.48
12/20/09 | 5739.0 | 301.0 | 8.91 | 33.78

Average: 37.4 with 5739 on the odo...

~SB

 

SB - It looks like your mpg actually decreased after break-in. Is that true?

I'm still of the firm opinion that the Fits with dramatically different MPG reports have different ECU settings. There is no other reasonable explanation in my mind. I'll be discussing this question with Honda customer service tomorrow.

Greg

 

I still think it has more to do with people's individual commutes/driving styles than anything else really. I've had tanks ranging from 30.7 to 42.7 mpg, and I'm pretty sure I could go lower. Here's my own history. You can also see a bunch of other Fits: http://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/fit/2009 (you can also see the mileage traveled and fuel used, so it's a little harder to fake, though you still could).

My worst tank was when I was doing a lot of short-trip, in the city driving -- I'd probably have done worse if I didn't have some highway driving in there to increase the tank average.

There's also the question of whether or not your area uses oxygenated fuels, altitude, etc. You could try calling Honda, but I think they'll just say it's normal...

 

So--Here I am with a car 12 years newer, smaller engine (by 0.3 L), 3 less horsepower, 14 ft-lbs less torque, same weight, and more aerodynamic than my previous car and it gets LESS mileage. I challenge anyone to give me a reasonable explanation for this.

Thanks again!!

Always one for a challenge...

Your car specs something like this:

Vehicle Name Corolla
Body Style 4 Door Sedan
Drivetrain Front Wheel Drive
EPA Classification Compact
Passenger Capacity 5
Passenger Volume (ft 88
Base Curb Weight (lbs) 2415
EPA Fuel Economy Est - City (MPG) 31
EPA Fuel Economy Est - Hwy (MPG) 38
New Revised EPA numbers 27/34

The Fit:

Vehicle Name Fit
Body Style 5 Door Hatchback
Drivetrain Front Wheel Drive
EPA Classification Small Station Wagon
Passenger Capacity 5
Passenger Volume (ft) 91
Base Curb Weight 2604 (Sport AT)
EPA Fuel Economy Est - City (MPG) 27
EPA Fuel Economy Est - Hwy (MPG) 33

Between the Fit's larger frontal area, a likely similar cd, stricter (richer running) emissions standards for new US cars and the newness of your Fit, any combination of these factors could cause your difference. Your Corollla also used 175 65 14 tires, another factor in fuel economy. Additionally, your engine produced more power and torque at a lower RPM, another way to keep the RPM down and fuel economy up.

While researching, I found the 2005 Odyssey and a 1988 CRX both had a CD of .30. Man what a difference inertia and frontal area have!

I'll trade a couple miles per gallon for 6 air bags, fun and copious safety engineering.

my 2 cents

b

 

I must disagree with the idea that airbags, fun, and safety engineering must necessarily translate to less mileage. After all, the engineers have had 12 years to improve on 1998 technology and with the smaller engine, they should have been able to, at least, match the corolla's mpg.

If someone can show me that ECU settings have been programmed identically in all markets, I will be quiet for the rest of this thread.

My 2 cents.

 

Do yourself a favor- get back to highway driving and your normal mix and then see what you have. You are certainly going to like what you see. I do almost all city and your numbers are right on for that. If your combined average is inclusive of 75-80% highway, your numbers will be going up for sure. I think you'll like the results. Good luck.

Dan