Here in Raleigh NC the highways have lots of hills so i'm getting around 31-32mpg (Combined-Mostly highway) per tank according to the meter depending on how soft I am on the gas pedal.

Has anyone ever asked if their MPG was on flat, hilly, mountains, etc roads when they discussed their milage? I'm hoping that as the car gets broken in she'll get more sippy on the gas cup so to speak.

 

Definitely a factor. I'm on the opposite coast and I'm constantly climbing hills too. Our underpowered cars don't do so well going uphill. Guys in flat Texas are probably getting better mpg than us hikers.

 

Of course it matters how fast you were going in the first place.

Rolling hills should "theoretically" cancel themselves out (going up requires more "gas", but coming down uses less).

But not all is a guarantee.

From Caldwell, ID to Prosser, WA is about 288 miles. I pumped gas in Caldwell and then pumped again in Prosser during my road trip, my receipt shows that I drove 274 miles on that tank, using 6.607 gallons of gas... for a tank best ever, 41.47 MPG. That required a bit of traversing of the Cascades.

But the tank before that, from Heyburn to Caldwell was only 28.08 MPG. But it included a stopover in Twin Falls for lunch.

Interesting... eh?

edit: turns out... BOTH are actually elevation drops. Heyburn is 4,154, Caldwell is 2,375 and Prosser is 666 ft above sea level.

In fact, the next 3 tanks were roughly 37 MPG... and that's considering I was going up and down the Cascades around Mt Rainier then into Vancouver and back down to California. With another tank high, 41.38 MPG from Seaside, OR to Klamath, CA.

Then my tanks through Texas were in the low 30s!!!

 

No, you use more gas going uphill than you save going downhill.

Think of it this way- there's probably a steep enough hill that you'd get only 10 mpg going up. So even if you shut your car off (infinite mpg) on the way down you'd still average only 20 mpg. There's a hill near my parents' house that's so steep I can't bear to look at the mpg meter when I drive up the hill.

 

That's right. The fuel savings downhill never equals fuel expense uphill.

As an aside: That's the natural law holding back most green technology. Hybrid regenerative braking never equals the fuel expended to accelerate, although it helps (regular cars waste it entirely). Hydrogen fuel cells and battery technology often require more energy input overall than if you just burned the fuel directly inside your engine.

 

F2L

I live over in GSO, NC which is 'hilly' as well.

I have only filled up my new 2012 Sport AT three times. The first two tanks, primarily in-town driving with minimal interstate driving, yielded 31mpg per fill-up.

On my last fill-up, Tuesday, I inflated the tires to 42psi all the way around. I then drove round-trip from Greensboro to Rougemont...approximately 150 miles and was showing 38.4mpg on the car's real-time guage. Of course this is not as accurate as 'fill and figure' calculations...but until now I haven't seen numbers near this.

I also noticed with the higher pressure in the tires, I don't feel as if I'm having to push the car along like I once did, especially up steeper hills.

Just an observation from another local owner.

 

@dwhopson: Thanks for the tip. I will try adding more air in the tires and see what impact that has. Weird that they would under-inflate them stock like that.

 

By 'they' do you mean Honda? They didn't. The inflation maximum shown on the tire is the maximum the tire should ever be inflated to, it's not what's best for this particular car model. Honda chose the pressure based on (a compromise between) handling, traction, tire life, gas mileage... I'm pretty sure I've read a lot of places that inflating more than recommended gives slightly better mileage and tire life at the expense of traction (braking, for example) and ride (stiffer with more inflation).

That said, it's better to be overinflated a couple of lbs vs underinflated, so if you're not checking your pressure regularly then aiming for a couple of lbs over isn't a horrible idea (the TPMS doesn't light up until you're a few lbs under), as tires may lose a lb a month just from sitting there.

 

Still on the same tank...at 275 miles and am approximately halfway between the half and quarter point on the gauge. Normally, I'm at approximately 300 miles when the fuel light comes on (give or take a few miles). Again, I have 150 highway miles on this tank...so this is semi-mixed driving.

Tire pressure in my tires, from the dealership, was at approximately 34psi front and rear. I was a little surprised. Usually, it's door spec.

I will say that adding the extra tire pressure (to 42psi) has helped a lot with in-town driving. It drives like a completely different car. Before, I was starting to think I had made a serious mistake in trading to the automatic version of the fit, due to gas mileage and performance in-town (where I do approx. 95% of all my driving). Now the car seems easier to get to speed and then 'coast' like I read about in so many post here. I also don't have to constantly 'push' the car. This becomes a laborious task when you live in a hilly region.

I'm still within sidewall spec...and will keep an eye on tread wear. There is so much information on this and other forums regarding tire inflation, the only way I think one will ever know the truth is to try things out for themselves and see what their results are.

 

Average 36mpg and it's not flat in Sonoma County. That's not trying. Have done much better.

 

UPDATE:
With the recent change of weather here in NC my MPG has increased significantly.
I'm at 2.3k miles on the new fit now and getting around 39mpg so far.
The car only has a 10 gallon tank and i'm now getting as many miles as my old Saturn did with a 13 gallon tank.

I haven't increased the air pressure in my tires yet or changed anything from the stock settings (OEM tires still...waiting for them to wear out before I get a set of Conti DWS).

 

Only the testers. I live only a few miles frfom you and my AT mileage is the same. I don't try to max mpg either.