I joined in with a MPG rally today and here are the results. I was driving my 2009 Honda Fit Sport M/T with an EPA rating of 27-33 MPG. After 115.2 miles in the mountains, I burned 2.091 gallons and it averaged out at 55.0933 MPG and 204% of the EPA average city driving.

 

Very Nice!

 

Awesome!!!!!!!!

 

what mods? Thats some godly rating. LOL

 

are you sure you didn't overfill your tank before you logged the miles, and then filled it up to the pump's first stop to see how many gallons you burned? because i got over 50mpg like that easily when the pump's sensor malfunctioned and overfilled my tank. i'm pretty sure that's how some of you guys get big mpg numbers (by manipulating the pump in favor of putting out huge fuel economy figures).

edit: but if you were just going downhill in the mtns then i guess it would be very possible too.

 

Well, from Los Angeles to Fresno, passing the grape vine which is all up hill and then straights... My 2007 got 230mpg for half a tank and that includes a 60mm exhaust and homemade intake using 87 octane to the first click. I was cruising mostly 70mph and 100 in some. I'm sure I could had gotten a bit more if I wasn't playing with the gas to much.

 

Yeah, precisely. They never tell you they actually calculated a 30mpg tank before and after their 50mpg tank, so the real average is much less.

 

I've given it two days to see the reaction to this and can't hold back any longer.

There's no way !!!!!

Where are the guys that trounce some poor sucker for not searching before posting a thread? They should be hopping all over this with both feet.

 

Ok, to all of the people that don't believe me...

We started our trip at a gas station where I topped the tank off at the brim of the filler neck because just going to "the first click" is NEVER accurate. We made a 115.2 mile ROUND trip to, and around a local national park in the mountains. There is no "it was all downhill" crap because we went up and back on the same roads. Made it back to the same gas station and filled up on the same pump for accuracy. I also topped this tank off at the brim of the filler neck.


My "Mods" are, tires are inflated to 60 PSI, Mobil 1 full synthetic, and an extremely light foot.


If you want proof, I'll take any fitfreak member for a ride.

 

But the added weight of a passenger is going to affect your gas mileage...

Congratulations on a light foot. I've read several reports of hypermilers getting well over 100 mpg in the mountains, so 50+ from a Fit is believable.

 

I actually had my wife in the passenger seat navigating for me.

 

This is quite possible.

As a thought experiment, imagine going straight uphill. Not a steep hill, but uphill nonetheless. You might average about 28-32 MPG going up.

On the way back down, you can coast in neutral (200-350 MPG), or use the DFCO coasting in gear (infinite MPG), or turn off the engine and coast in neutral (infinite MPG).

Average for both trips will be almost double the MPG of the trip up the hill. So, if you got 30 MPG going up, your average after coming back down will be close to 60.

 

60 PSI????? I think the tire would explode at highway speeds at that pressure level... thats very dangerous... am I missing something? Most I ever over-inflated was to 32 psi, to amax of 40 psi in some bigger tires that were run-flats. My fit is only afew weeks old, I have no idea what the stock psi is, but I imagine its 29 to 34 psi.

 

The stock Dunlop SP31's are rated at a maximum pressure of 51 PSI, same as my Kumho's. If you inflate them to the max pressure, they actually stay cooler at highway speeds due to less flexing of the rubber. I wouldn't be surprised if they could hold 60.

Now, whether 60 is a good idea is another matter, but you can definitely do 51.

 

Here is my best with Jazz 1,4 (1,3)

 

Almost got to 50mpg, that would equate to 49.93mpg. Though I wouldn't really go buy the factory guage for accuracy. Only true way is to fill your tank up to the nozzle each and everytime you fill up and calculate from that.

Regardless of that, it should still be in that neighborhood and that neighborhood is GREAT if you are looking for efficiency. My factory guage is usually off slightly, for instance if it says I averaged 13km/liter (30.51mpg), when I fill up it will actually come out to about 12.7km/l (29.81mpg).

EDIT: Well if I extend the actual decimal placer out to 4 and 5 digits, it just turned out to 50.0453mpg. So you did join the club of 50mpg. hahaha I'll be lucky to see 33mpg and since taking delivery of the car on January 17, 2010, I have averaged a WHOPPING 12.26km/l (28.84mpg). Efficiency really isn't my primary concern especially trying to battle traffic in the Metropolis of Tokyo.

 

Hehe ... I'm using this to convert l/100km to MPG / Litre / MPG / MPG to l/100km / Liter / Convert fuel efficiency - eForecourt.com

You are right. My trip computer is too optimic for 0.3 l. So I'm actually still under 50 mpg in real (47). Getting better mpg with normal daily use of the car is pretty impossible I guess.

 

The only way to get a "running" Fit to do 50 mpg is downhill. Other than that, we all know, by now that the MPG gauge is exceedingly wrong, and the only true way to test mileage is with much use and much filling. On a typical fill-up, depending on the gas station cut-off pressure, you can easily get an error of .5 gallons on your fill-up test, after your trip. If you had this error alone, it would make your trip 44 mpg, which is possible at moderate speeds and level, or downhill conditions. If you had this error at both the original gas station fill-up and the tested fill-up station after your trip your error could be as much as 1 gallon total, which would make your mpg at 37 mpg, surprisingly, what would be expected by most people, like myself, in a MT Fit. A trip of 115 miles is not enough distance to determine accuracy of fuel economy, unless you had performed the trip with a separate test tank, calibrated and easily readable relative to quantity.

 

damn i get an average city/highway of about 29-30mpg hehe

 

Hmm...only about two months of mixed but mostly city driving and obviously I've never gotten close to that type of mileage. But of course I'm not trying. I'm not in a competition. I'm not driving up and down mountanious roads.

I don't know, 50mpg seems simple beyond the range of design. The Fit is not a hybrid. It doesn't have a dual source of momentum, no battery powering an electric motor for movement or assist. I'm not calling anyone a liar, I'm impressed if you are able to coax that level of MPG out of The Fit, regardless of how you may be topping off the tank or not. But since I know that The Prius, being a hybrid, designed and with an EPA rating of 50mpg, has to be driven in almost perfect conditions to consistently reach those numbers and IT does have an hybrid system, I'm sceptical of 50mpg claims for The Fit.

The second generation Toyota Prius has a similarly sized 4 cylinder engine to The Fit....it is however running on a Atkinsons Cycle plus it's aided by electric motors and a computer system that occasionally shuts the gas engine off. The second generation Prius doesn't average 50mpg.

If you're getting 50mpg in a Fit, without these hybrid assists? I have to think you are erroring somewhere in computation and/or doing an awful lot of coasting down hill. The Fit is an economical automobile, but it simply must be what it is, which in it's current incarnation is NOT a hybrid.

New Honda Insight drivers claim to be able to reach occasional 50mpg ratings. But again, they have hybrid technology aiding.

Sorry, I have to be sceptical because it boils down to simple reality of design. Unless you are coasting down hills for miles and miles, unless heavily modified I don't see how a Fit by design could be capable of posting those numbers.