Originally Posted by gyrotor
(Post 789900)
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. Dealers have no ability to reprogram any settings specifically, only reflash specific programs with pre-canned code from Honda. I would lean out my USDM L15a a bit if I could. |
Originally Posted by gyrotor
(Post 789890)
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
Originally Posted by rhyneba
(Post 789897)
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!!
Originally Posted by gyrotor
(Post 789900)
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. ~SB |
It's the same car for the entire U.S. market, correct?
Sounds like Honda programs the same fuel mixture in the ECM regardless of which state the car is delivered to. If that's the case, that explains the wide spread in mpg reports (in my opinion). It's pretty sad that we owners do not have the latitude to adjust the mixture in our own cars. |
Well the fuel mixture isn't static; it's dynamically altered based on the Manifold Absolute Pressure and Temperature (MAPT) sensor that would take into account varying altitudes. The software uses a data table or "map" that considers many variables (MAPT is just one). Less dense air at higher altitudes should result in a leaner mixture (as there is less oxygen). Intuitively this should mean better mileage but less horsepower. The EPA frowns on messing with this although aftermarket "tunes" are available for most cars (not for 2009-10 Fits yet). These are basically hacks.
I'm no expert; maybe someone else can add to this. |
Thanks Steve! That explains allot!!
I just spoke with my dealership and they stated that the same ECU mixture settings are set regardless of which state the car is delivered to. They also confirmed that they do not have the ability to go in to the ECU and change this setting. If they did, this would void the warranty. Therefore, if an aftermarket tune becomes available in the future, owners will be voiding their warranties should they choose to do one while their car is still under warranty. Greg |
Gyrotor,
There's any number of possible explanations to your various inquiries. Corolla vs Fit - We'd have to know the actual aerodynamic numbers. The Fit is very tall for a subcompact, giving it a large frontal area for a car its size. Even though the AT Fit is geared taller than the manual, I wouldn't be surprised if the Corolla is geared taller still. The Corolla had 20% more displacement but ~2% more horsepower. It's not uncommon for larger, lower specific output engines to be able to offer equal or better mileage because their additional toque means they don't have to be flogged as much. Sometimes the smaller engine is more sensitive to the factors below because it has to work harder. Variation of Fit mpgs - Driving style is obviously a big one, but so is terrain, temperature, seasonal gas blends, A/C usage, etc. I know you're not happy with the mileage you're getting, but it's possible that with a new vehicle in the middle of winter, you may be experiencing the worst mileage the Fit will get in your hands. Edmunds Long Term Blog as of November had a range of 25 mpg to 39 mpg for their '09 Fit. This is the exact same car being driven in and around the same metro area and on some trips. That right there should prove that one Fit is capable of huge mpg variation depending on driver and conditions with no ECU variations in play. Mixture adjustability - no mass market manufacturer is going to offer up easy user-adjustability of something as critical as air-fuel mixture. Besides changing emissions from what the factory setting had to meet, you'd also be changing cylinder temps, tolerance for pre-detonation, etc. Needless to say, there's a miniscule percentage of people qualified to make adjustments like that and actually know/monitor what the consequences are. It's possible the Fit could get some ECU mod/piggyback board/plugin module at some point but these rarely produce big efficiency or power gains on normally aspirated cars. |
After owning and driving a 98 Corolla for 5 years that consistently got 34 mpg (using Colorado gas as well as gas in other states) in all conditions of driving in several states, I find it difficult to believe that the mpg of the Fit is that sensitive to the driving conditions discussed on this forum. I've also read several posts that state that the lowest mpg experienced in the 2009 model in hilly, high altitude, and cold conditions was 32 to 34 mpg. Same car, same conditions, drastically different mpg experienced!
Edmunds' numbers simply bare this out. They're just numbers, not evidence of how they are derived. Also, the fact that the fuel mixture is dynamically altered based on what the computer senses in the outside environment makes me even more leary that driving conditions are the only contributing factors. Frankly, putting that much control into a computer and out of the hands of the owner puts far too much faith in technology. Personally, I don't believe the Fit's technology is capable of setting the right engine settings based on what it senses from the outside. I still insist that this an ECU issue more than anything else and until someone proves otherwise (with hard evidence), that's my story and I'm sticking to it. BTW, this opinion is being expressed by an engineer who lives "technology" daily.
Originally Posted by txmatt
(Post 790623)
Gyrotor,
There's any number of possible explanations to your various inquiries. Corolla vs Fit - We'd have to know the actual aerodynamic numbers. The Fit is very tall for a subcompact, giving it a large frontal area for a car its size. Even though the AT Fit is geared taller than the manual, I wouldn't be surprised if the Corolla is geared taller still. The Corolla had 20% more displacement but ~2% more horsepower. It's not uncommon for larger, lower specific output engines to be able to offer equal or better mileage because their additional toque means they don't have to be flogged as much. Sometimes the smaller engine is more sensitive to the factors below because it has to work harder. Variation of Fit mpgs - Driving style is obviously a big one, but so is terrain, temperature, seasonal gas blends, A/C usage, etc. I know you're not happy with the mileage you're getting, but it's possible that with a new vehicle in the middle of winter, you may be experiencing the worst mileage the Fit will get in your hands. Edmunds Long Term Blog as of November had a range of 25 mpg to 39 mpg for their '09 Fit. This is the exact same car being driven in and around the same metro area and on some trips. That right there should prove that one Fit is capable of huge mpg variation depending on driver and conditions with no ECU variations in play. Mixture adjustability - no mass market manufacturer is going to offer up easy user-adjustability of something as critical as air-fuel mixture. Besides changing emissions from what the factory setting had to meet, you'd also be changing cylinder temps, tolerance for pre-detonation, etc. Needless to say, there's a miniscule percentage of people qualified to make adjustments like that and actually know/monitor what the consequences are. It's possible the Fit could get some ECU mod/piggyback board/plugin module at some point but these rarely produce big efficiency or power gains on normally aspirated cars. |
uh so I guess you have a problem with all electronically fuel injected cars? Your corolla was one too wasn't it?
|
Originally Posted by gyrotor
(Post 791685)
Also, the fact that the fuel mixture is dynamically altered based on what the computer senses in the outside environment makes me even more leary that driving conditions are the only contributing factors. Frankly, putting that much control into a computer and out of the hands of the owner puts far too much faith in technology. Personally, I don't believe the Fit's technology is capable of setting the right engine settings based on what it senses from the outside.
I still insist that this an ECU issue more than anything else and until someone proves otherwise (with hard evidence), that's my story and I'm sticking to it. BTW, this opinion is being expressed by an engineer who lives "technology" daily. I do miss my manual throttle, I hate the electronic throttle. If I can get a controller that gives me real 1:1 control of he throttle opening I will buy one. |
Uh--so--no Steve, that is not correct and I'm not even going to grace that with a response. These forums degenerate into banal arguments too easily.
Originally Posted by Steve244
(Post 791765)
uh so I guess you have a problem with all electronically fuel injected cars? Your corolla was one too wasn't it?
|
Originally Posted by gyrotor
(Post 792137)
Uh--so--no Steve, that is not correct and I'm not even going to grace that with a response. These forums degenerate into banal arguments too easily.
More on the corolla: http://lh5.ggpht.com/_xibTly9JtDk/Sz...corollampg.jpg I think you've got a touch of buyer's remorse and you're grasping. Please report back to us after you've resumed your normal commute and run a few tanks through the Fit. |
I feel that the honda fit is under powered they should have used a 1.8 liter motor. There must be a lot of ethanol in the gas because the more ethanol the richer it will run. Ethanol is now used across the USA that is one reason of last years gas hike. So people that had real gas with mtbe now have ethanol and is seeing a lower mpg. They can use more than 10 percent up to 13 percent with out stating it on the pump, that is why I recommend premium gas because 1. compression and 2. ethanol in premium gas ethanol is used less because not needed to raise octane. I use bp for two reason they said you could get 28 more miles per tank which there test car is a small compact which has a small tank and they are starting to use butanol which has a higher btu count for higher mileage. I get 2-3 mpg more so the expense is not that much more than regular plus my car has more power. In my wifes town and country 3.8 liter fully loaded I got 27mpg average drive to Washington DC. compared to 24 with regular. Idle was smoother and engine ran cooler too. I do think that the average should be around 35 mpg in the new Honda Fit w/auto. I have an 08 w/5 speed and get 38 mpg. The new ivtec should be more efficient so I dont understand why mpg is low except to say bad gas with lot of ethanol.
|
Why should the average be 35mpg when epa ratings are 30 (31 in the base)?
Please, premium fuel in a Fit is not needed/waste of money. Do some reading. |
I have been averaging about 29mpg in my 2010 TW sport.
Is this unusual? My commute is a mix of highway and city. About 20 minutes to work each day, and 20 min home. 15 miles each way. Car has about 2300 miles. EDIT: For the record. I couldn't care less about mpg. I usually avg about 75mph on the highway and I'm no granny when it comes to city driving. I also have a complete Thule roof rack with fairing. |
Originally Posted by 2010TaffetaWhite
(Post 792309)
I have been averaging about 29mpg in my 2010 TW sport.
Is this unusual? My commute is a mix of highway and city. About 20 minutes to work each day, and 20 min home. 15 miles each way. Car has about 2300 miles. EDIT: For the record. I couldn't care less about mpg. I usually avg about 75mph on the highway and I'm no granny when it comes to city driving. I also have a complete Thule roof rack with fairing. I had a fairing on both my integras and the moment I took it off, I gained ... 3mpg! Picked up Wind Jammers for my yakima and just ran without the fairing on the Thule as the square bars didn't really howl that much.. and again, for the record, with 10% ethanol in our gas and temps dipping down below zero at this point, I am still averaging over 31mpg with no highway (country roads) and no hypermileing techniques (but with Idling to warm up the car or keep the Family warm) ~SB |
Originally Posted by specboy
(Post 792370)
With the Edit info... you are right on Target! Take off the thule (fairing) and there's another 3mpg, Drop to 60mph and there's yet another 3mpg... no problems there.
I had a fairing on both my integras and the moment I took it off, I gained ... 3mpg! Picked up Wind Jammers for my yakima and just ran without the fairing on the Thule as the square bars didn't really howl that much.. and again, for the record, with 10% ethanol in our gas and temps dipping down below zero at this point, I am still averaging over 31mpg with no highway (country roads) and no hypermileing techniques (but with Idling to warm up the car or keep the Family warm) ~SB Also...I was driving on the highway the other day and reset my trip. After babying the throttle for about 20 miles I was averaging like 43mpg. Must have been on a slight downhill most of the time! haha |
Originally Posted by 2010TaffetaWhite
(Post 792380)
Awesome. I was thinking the purpose of the fairing was to increase the mpg, but your logic is contradicting that. I have it on a pretty steep angle, but 3mpg is quite a jump! I'll consider slowing down too. :)
Also...I was driving on the highway the other day and reset my trip. After babying the throttle for about 20 miles I was averaging like 43mpg. Must have been on a slight downhill most of the time! haha ~SB |
Originally Posted by Steve244
(Post 792308)
Why should the average be 35mpg when epa ratings are 30 (31 in the base)?
Please, premium fuel in a Fit is not needed/waste of money. Do some reading. The EPA changed the way it measures mpg see link 2008 Fuel Economy Tests I get 38 mpg average (2 years) compared to everone 31 mpg. So if your Happy spending more money using regular go ahead. I have many years using and getting the benefits of Premium and I dont care what you think. I thought this web site was to help people not tear them apart. Dont accuse me not reading, where is your proof that premium fuel is a waste of money? If regular gas gave me the same mileage as premium gas, I would agree with you and use it. Just wait until 15-20 ethanol blends come out. If premium gas was to hurt my car it would say so in the owners manual. My car was made in Japan which premium is 96 r/m octane. Check this link topic16 Look at knock free 10.0 compression is 98 octane. Premium gas is just a more stable and denser fuel that doesnt knock as easy as regular so you can run leaner which the ecm automatic adjusts. Also it burns cleaner and has more saturated hydrocarbons. |
The EPA's ratings were wildly optimistic prior to 2008.
On the issue of using premium gas when it's not required: Mazor: "All this does is do a very good job of draining your wallet. People used to put in a tank of premium to get 'the good stuff' to help their engines stay clean. But now they put detergents in all grades so it doesn't really get you anything." Beard: "If you have car designed to run on 87 [octane], it doesn't help to run it on higher-octane-level gas. But there are several exceptions." He said that the 3.5-liter Chrysler engines are designed to run on mid-grade gas (89 octane) and it allows them to advertise a certain peak horsepower. However, it will run well on regular gas. "The difference is very small," he said. The Fit is not designed to run on mid-grade or premium gas. It doesn't hurt (although there is anecdotal evidence about fouling), but it doesn't improve performance on a car that doesn't need it. Here's another: She's right. Engines designed for regular fuel don't improve on premium and sometimes run worse. And today's engines designed for premium run fine on regular, too, their makers say, though power declines slightly. USA Today And another: In a December report on "60 Minutes," Andy Rooney said, "There are a lot of things I'd do if I was rich... I'd fill up with high-test gas instead of the 89-octane I usually buy now." I don't know what kind of car he drives, but if it's one that doesn't require premium, he'd be wasting his money. And another: But for standard cars on the road today, purchasing premium gasoline is simply paying a premium for a fuel that delivers no added benefits. "If you think you need it," Green says, "you're being very eccentric." Cecil says it best: Dear Cecil: In this time of high gasoline prices, the Teeming Millions need your guidance (well, at least I do). What is the difference between premium and regular gas, and is this difference worth the extra money? I normally put premium gas into my car because I don't mind paying two or three extra dollars at the pump. Am I being scammed by the gas stations, or is the benefit to my car worth it? — Jeff, via e-mail Not to introduce a radical concept, Jeff, but have you tried reading your owner's manual? If it says to use premium, my advice is to use premium. If it says regular, use regular. The fact that your note indicates no acquaintance with such matters suggests that you may in fact be a scam victim, assuming by this you mean "someone who believes what he hears in commercials." I have a hard time working up much outrage over this deception, since discovering the facts requires so little effort. If you don't mind paying the extra money for no reason, don't expect the oil companies to suffer any pangs accepting it. In most of the U.S., regular gas has an octane rating of 87, midgrade gas is 89, and premium is 91 or 92. (Octane ratings are lower in the mountain west due to the effects of thin air on internal combustion.) Contrary to widespread belief, the octane rating doesn't indicate how much power the fuel delivers; all grades of gasoline contain roughly the same amount of heat energy. Rather, a higher octane rating means the fuel is less likely to cause your engine to knock or ping. Knock, also known as detonation, occurs when part of the fuel-air mixture in one or more of your car's cylinders ignites spontaneously due to compression, independent of the combustion initiated by the spark plug. (The ideal gas law tells us that a gas heats up when compressed.) Instead of a controlled burn, you get what amounts to an explosion--not a good thing for your engine. To avoid this, high-octane gas is formulated to burn slower than regular, making it less likely to ignite without benefit of spark. The majority of cars are designed to run on regular gas, and that's what the manuals tell the owners to use. Higher-performance cars often require midgrade or premium gas because their engines are designed for higher compression (higher compression = more power), and regular gas may cause knock. If your car needs high-octane gas, the manual will say so. Using high-octane gas in a car designed for regular accomplishes little except more rapid combustion of your money. Some refuse to believe this, claiming, for example, that premium gives the family Toyota better mileage or more power. These people are in dreamland. Others say premium is purer or contains detergents that will cleanse your engine of uncouth deposits. Likewise misguided thinking--government regulations require detergents in all grades of gasoline. (BP Amoco, I notice, asserts that its premium gasoline contains more detergents than legally required; if you think that's worth 20 extra cents a gallon, be my guest.) Some automotive types claim that using premium in a car designed for regular will make the engine dirtier--something about deposits on the back side of the intake valves. I've also heard that slower-burning high-octane gas produces less power when used in ordinary cars. Believe what you like; the point is, don't assume "premium" means "better." Occasionally you get some genius who takes the opposite tack--he spends an extra 10 or 20 grand buying a high-performance car, then decides he's going to save three bucks per tankful using regular instead of premium as specified. He figures as long as the engine doesn't knock he's OK. Wrong, carbon monoxide brain. Car engines nowadays contain knock sensors that detect detonation and automatically retard the spark to compensate. The delay means maximum gas expansion occurs when the piston is farther along in its downstroke and thus there's more room in the cylinder head. This reduces peak cylinder pressure, eliminating knock but also giving you less power and poorer mileage. You may ask: Don't knock sensors make it hard to tell when an old car needs higher-octane gas? Years ago, when your beater started pinging on grades or under acceleration, that was the sign that carbon had built up in the cylinders, increasing compression, and it was time to switch to high-test. Now the knock sensors compensate, which seemingly might conceal the problem. Don't fret--today's fuel injection systems precisely meter the fuel-air mix, resulting in fewer unburned hydrocarbons and less carbon buildup. If you're still concerned, I'd say it makes more sense to spend $6 on a bottle of carbon clean-out juice than an extra $150 a year on high-priced gas. — Cecil Adams |
Originally Posted by SilverBullet
(Post 792470)
The EPA changed the way it measures mpg see link 2008 Fuel Economy Tests
I get 38 mpg average (2 years) compared to everone 31 mpg. So if your Happy spending more money using regular go ahead. I have many years using and getting the benefits of Premium and I dont care what you think. I thought this web site was to help people not tear them apart. Dont accuse me not reading, where is your proof that premium fuel is a waste of money? If regular gas gave me the same mileage as premium gas, I would agree with you and use it. Just wait until 15-20 ethanol blends come out. If premium gas was to hurt my car it would say so in the owners manual. My car was made in Japan which premium is 96 r/m octane. Check this link topic16 Look at knock free 10.0 compression is 98 octane. Premium gas is just a more stable and denser fuel that doesnt knock as easy as regular so you can run leaner which the ecm automatic adjusts. Also it burns cleaner and has more saturated hydrocarbons. Something of interest would be to find out what your commute is like. Most people on this forum are in a suburban area surrounding a major city (NYC, LA, etc...) and for them, the driving conditions are totally different. My drive is anything but stop & go but also not highway. When I was in NJ, it was almost all Stop & Go. ~SB |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:36 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands