Manual Transmission, Hwy Mileage
i usualy get 42MPG! but for some reason my last few trips of 100+ miles have been giving me 36-38, its soooo weird! i think the winter gas just hit
edit: ahhh i looked again after i done a bunch of city driving mixed in with highway, and its at 39 with 200 miles... sorry about the false reply lol
Edit2: i just got 35MPG on another 100 mile trip.. idk whats going on...
EDIT3: just did another 100 miles and got 41.+MPG... argh.. i think i figured it out.. its the speed that gets me the MPG.. when i do 80+ miles per hour i get crappy MPG
edit: ahhh i looked again after i done a bunch of city driving mixed in with highway, and its at 39 with 200 miles... sorry about the false reply lol
Edit2: i just got 35MPG on another 100 mile trip.. idk whats going on...
EDIT3: just did another 100 miles and got 41.+MPG... argh.. i think i figured it out.. its the speed that gets me the MPG.. when i do 80+ miles per hour i get crappy MPG
55-65 seems to be the sweet spot for MT GD3s.
well I'm back from my road trip..
My highway mileage was anywhere between 34-36mpg, that is going approx 73-78mph.
In the NC/TN mountains, backroads and the blue ridge parkway I was averaging 40+mpg..
So in conclusion, the M/T highway mileage (70+ mph) is good. But I get much better mileage (40+mpg) around town and in the burbs keeping it under 50mph.
btw; the Fit was sooooo much fun driving around on the Blue-ridge parkway and on all the twisty mountain roads
My highway mileage was anywhere between 34-36mpg, that is going approx 73-78mph.
In the NC/TN mountains, backroads and the blue ridge parkway I was averaging 40+mpg..
So in conclusion, the M/T highway mileage (70+ mph) is good. But I get much better mileage (40+mpg) around town and in the burbs keeping it under 50mph.
btw; the Fit was sooooo much fun driving around on the Blue-ridge parkway and on all the twisty mountain roads

Local driving in Florida was giving me 35-36mpg and all I can attribute it to was the stop and go driving w/ traffic lights every 1/4mile in those developed areas. Little chance to just run along with all those lights.
I was also able to compare 'flat land' driving to the 'terrain' driving common up north and see the ups and downs I'm accustom to help with the MPG's. The downs give the Fit a chance to smooth things out that you never get in flat driving.
I'll get a better feel this next week in that I'm heading up to Caribou Maine and will have a good mix of turn-pike driving profiles. My past experience has shown me I'll pull an average of 36-38mpg, but will see if the 'winter blend' effects that.
Back home I'm in the 38-40mpg range again with my local driving.
I was also able to see the negative effects of buffeting head winds on my journey. FIT takes them hard.
this is what im seeing...using the 'roadtrip' app i use religiously...i average 35.4 mpg
36.7 mpg average for an 800 mile LAX - SAC rt. 70 mph average speed. For those not familiar, the I-5 and US 99 route includes a 4000ft mountain climb (the "Grapevine").
Tires were 32psi. Weather was mild, some heavy rain encountered and the A/C was used for a couple of hours.
Tires were 32psi. Weather was mild, some heavy rain encountered and the A/C was used for a couple of hours.
43.2 mpg Phoenix, AZ to Blythe, CA at the posted speed limit.
37.0 mpg Blythe, CA to Los Angeles, CA keeping with the speed of traffic.
I've averaged 36.3 mpg over approx. 37,000 miles doing mostly city driving.
37.0 mpg Blythe, CA to Los Angeles, CA keeping with the speed of traffic.
I've averaged 36.3 mpg over approx. 37,000 miles doing mostly city driving.
Wow, amazing how everyone seems to be getting high 30s and low 40s. My used '08 Sports A/T so far has averaged low 30s. Best was around 34 mpg. Then again I only get close to the speed limit window around town +/-.
I cruise around high 70's to low 80s.
Not complaining though considering my other car is a WRX.
Both are fun to drive.
I cruise around high 70's to low 80s.Not complaining though considering my other car is a WRX.
Both are fun to drive.
Going at 70-75 you make your engine work hard against the wind resistance. I can get 41 on the highway going 65 and around 40 mpg driving in the city... I never drive faster than 65 so I can't say what the actual mpg would be like. Also depends on whether you are going uphill or against the wind.
I drive aggressively. Try to get up to speed limit shifting at around 4k-5k when doing town and city driving. On highway I do 80-90 avg. When all is said and done, my tank averages at about 280+ 10-15 miles depending on how much highway driving I did that tank. I know I'll probably get flamed for this post since this is the "eco" forum, but I thought I might as well share my numbers for people wondering in case they decide that they want to put their foot down that day.
PS. I do not use CC as most of the NJ traffic is too annoying to be able to comfortably use CC
Hope my numbers have been useful.
PS. I do not use CC as most of the NJ traffic is too annoying to be able to comfortably use CC
Hope my numbers have been useful.
I average 38-39 mpg, all highway. Kind of. On the way to work it's 75mph for 30 miles. On the way home, at rush hour, it's 30-40 mph, mixed with stop and go, mixed with some 65mph stretches. So I guess you'd call it combined mileage.
I am sure this has been mentioned before.....I only have 100 miles on my fit. On I-10 this morning I was thinking I wish my MT had a 6th gear for lugging around over 60 that would probably add a few more MPG
With lower gearing, the engine would need to work harder, so it would need to but more fuel to do the same work. With higher revolutions, the ratio of inertia and momentum balance out the fuel ratio and amount of revolutions per minute. So, higher revving engine with lean fuel mixture JUST MIGHT be more economical that lower revving engine that has a richer fuel mixture.
Only the engineers could say for certain whether taller gearing would save fuel on these specific cars (and with consideration of numerous other factors).
Not necessarily. Possibly, but not certainly.
With lower gearing, the engine would need to work harder, so it would need to but more fuel to do the same work. With higher revolutions, the ratio of inertia and momentum balance out the fuel ratio and amount of revolutions per minute. So, higher revving engine with lean fuel mixture JUST MIGHT be more economical that lower revving engine that has a richer fuel mixture.
Only the engineers could say for certain whether taller gearing would save fuel on these specific cars (and with consideration of numerous other factors).
With lower gearing, the engine would need to work harder, so it would need to but more fuel to do the same work. With higher revolutions, the ratio of inertia and momentum balance out the fuel ratio and amount of revolutions per minute. So, higher revving engine with lean fuel mixture JUST MIGHT be more economical that lower revving engine that has a richer fuel mixture.
Only the engineers could say for certain whether taller gearing would save fuel on these specific cars (and with consideration of numerous other factors).

gives you an idea of what it looks like. You can see "islands" that show you the fuel consumption rate. This may or may not include the "road load" which takes the actual rolling resistance and wind resistance into account. It could just be the engine on a stand.
To get better highway mileage, you can install a lower gear, but if you don't have the torque to support it, the mileage will go down. This is why engineers like flat torque curves.
How do you do it?
Also, does the rear spoiler helps, or is it for looks only?
Is it possible to "purchase" that ECOn that those 2012 civics/crz have and install
it on the the fit
Also, does the rear spoiler helps, or is it for looks only?
Is it possible to "purchase" that ECOn that those 2012 civics/crz have and install
it on the the fit
Last edited by phenoyz; Jun 8, 2011 at 09:44 PM.
I don't get much real Highway in on our Fit as the only times the fit sees highway is on long trips (loaded up with the family, and a cargo box on the roof).
Our "family vacation" of 1231 miles had the yakima roof rack up top with a cargo box (thule Sidekick). I also had the fairing on the rack which hurt economy. Driving 65-70mph fully loaded, I was averaging about 33-34mpg, Driving 80mph, I was getting 29-30mpg.
I did a test with my regular commute and the rack/fairing on by itself. Averaged 37mpg. Took the Fairing off and just had the windjammers on and the economy went up to 39+. Rack came off and I'm at 40+
My daily commute is 26 miles of Vermont Country roads with a few stop signs and a few 25mph towns. Most of the commute is 50mph road so I'm usually around 55mph except for the towns. Based upon the last car (which had an AVG MPH gauge as well), I average just over 40mph on my daily commute.
My car is totally stock and the lifetime average is just under 38mpg. My last few tanks were 40-41 and the computer is reading 44.5 right now - it's usually 1-2mpg high. (had the TSB done a year back)
~SB
Our "family vacation" of 1231 miles had the yakima roof rack up top with a cargo box (thule Sidekick). I also had the fairing on the rack which hurt economy. Driving 65-70mph fully loaded, I was averaging about 33-34mpg, Driving 80mph, I was getting 29-30mpg.
I did a test with my regular commute and the rack/fairing on by itself. Averaged 37mpg. Took the Fairing off and just had the windjammers on and the economy went up to 39+. Rack came off and I'm at 40+
My daily commute is 26 miles of Vermont Country roads with a few stop signs and a few 25mph towns. Most of the commute is 50mph road so I'm usually around 55mph except for the towns. Based upon the last car (which had an AVG MPH gauge as well), I average just over 40mph on my daily commute.
My car is totally stock and the lifetime average is just under 38mpg. My last few tanks were 40-41 and the computer is reading 44.5 right now - it's usually 1-2mpg high. (had the TSB done a year back)
~SB



