The fact that when I drove around LR I got 30ish mpg should be evidence that 30ish is a reasonable expectation for the area.

 

I get higher numbers than EPA estimates because my main commute is rolling hillside and there are portions I can put the car out of gear and literally coast for a few miles until I have to get to higher elevations. Even though the injectors cut off going downhill in gear I save gas by coasting out of gear because I'm not spending gas going back uphill on the rolling sections due to engine braking. During that section the instant meter is pegged, the car is probably getting over 100mpg.

If I were driving the beltway every morning I'd probably be getting 30 as well. I bought the car expecting to get 35, I'm getting that and better depending if I head into the mountains on the weekends. If I had a different commute though I wouldn't expect that kind of mileage.

Also as with anything it all depends on the driver. While I wouldn't bet money on it, I'm pretty certain I can drive anyone else's manual vehicle and get better mileage than they do while driving the car just as fast. I've probably been driving manuals longer than a lot of people on this board have been alive. It doesn't take a lot of tweaking your driving style to reduce your fuel consumption. Get to speed, back off slightly but keeping speed. Watch the instant meter and keep it above 40 as much as you can.

 

And this is exactly where we differ in opinion. If I really have to work that hard and concentrate that much on my driving habits, just to get the upper end of the epa estimate on this car, then it's still a fail. Why should I have to expend so much effort just to get what I reasonably expected based on the numbers I was given? In other words, with the highway driving I do, I should be getting mid to upper level of epa anyway, THEN if I wanted to see if I could get even higher than the rated mileage, I could put all that effort in. I shouldn't have to do it just to get what I am supposed to get.
Let me put it this way. My first Honda was a 2001 Accord 4 door LX, manual transmission, bought in November of 2001. I CONSTANTLY got above 30mpg in this car with a mixture of city and highway driving, in the SAME climate, on the SAME roads (actually it was probably worse roads because at that time I was in Fayetteville, in the hilly area of the state, and constantly starting and stopping on pretty good grades). And this is from my own personal calculations which I had to do back then because there were no mpg meters in the car. Bigger car, heavier car, bigger engine. Why have we gotten to a point where I have to work SO hard JUST to get the SAME mileage I was getting years ago from the same company WITHOUT TRYING?
In a way I understand what you are saying, yes it depends on the driver, and the climate, and everything else under the sun. But I guess my point is that Honda used t be able to put cars out that got this mileage without even trying, so why should I continue to support a car company that makes me work 5 times as hard just to try and HOPE to get the same mileage, especially on a car that is supposed to give it to me anyway?? If I was TRYING to get 38 or 40mpg, then I would agree with you. I am only trying to get 33-34. And I can't. I will try your suggestions for another couple weeks, even though I shouldn't have to, but my honest opinion is it won't make a lick of difference. And then we'll all be back on here again arguing over climate, AC, roads, speed, and all that, when I had no trouble getting the same or better mileage out of a car they produced 10 years ago.

 

I don't think your expectations are reasonable. How long is your daily commute? How much of driving on the interstate is at a point where you can just set the cruise control vs having to adjust speed because of traffic? Do you take 430 at either end, with the giant hill or the poorly designed merger onto 30? Drive cantrell? Those hills zap mpg. Short commutes mean your engine is in warmup mode (Based on my Ultragauge, warmup is 5-10 minutes just for coolant to get to temp, oil should take a bit longer).

Different classes of cars have different expectations of fuel economy. Older cars, especially Asian cars, were much lighter but changes in safety standards means modern cars weigh more. The Fit weighs almost as much as that old accord. Hatchbacks like the fit are going to have a greater drag coefficient to a sedan.

 

As regards EPA estimates, be aware that these are actually set by the manufacturers themselves. They estimate the city/highway MPG, and the EPA verifies the numbers only on 5-10% of models available for sale in the US.

As a result, when combined with the consumer pressure for higher efficiency, there is an acknowledged amount of "cheating" going on. Not out-and-out fraud - the EPA picking models at random to test prevents that - but slight rounding errors, adding optimistic assumptions, etc.

And anecdotally, certain cars seem to have more unrealistic estimates than others. The Fit, as you've seen on this forum, for MANY people gets at or above the EPA estimate. (Not you, though). However, and also anecdotally, many of the other cars in this class claim to get 40mpg on the highway ... but only a few people, who drive in very perfect circumstances, can claim to hit it. You do have to wonder why similar cars, similar weight and power, claim to do so much better than the Fit. More optimistic? Well, I can't prove anything

But here's something to think about, a very quick comparo. 2012 models.
Hyundai Accent. EPA 30/40/33. Fuelly (actual owners): 32.7
Honda Fit. EPA 27/33/30. Fuelly: 33.2

Now I can't break that out by trim level or body style, and that could make a difference. However. I point out to you that not only are the Fit Sport fuelly contributors exceeding what the EPA estimate is for the Fit - and the Hyundai is not doing so - the Fits are also exceeding in the real world the mpg of the supposedly more efficient Accent. This was sort of fun and I might add more later.

I guess what I'm saying is, many MANY cars have EPA estimates further off base than the Fit. If you think that you can go do better, relative to the Fit, in another marque, or a 1990 Accord, then go! Do it! Please! Come back and tell us all about it! It would be interesting to hear and we could all learn something about the topic.

 

You knew I was going to do this, but:

2011 Honda Fit Base w/ AT
Curb Weight: 2489 lbs

2001 Honda Accord LX Sedan w/ MT
Curb Weight: 3031 lbs

I am pretty sure that 550 lbs should make quite a positive difference in fuel economy, especially with a smaller engine tuned to give optimal mpg, yet it doesn't--and in fact gets worse.

The drag coefficient on 2001 Honda Accord Sedan is listed as 0.34, while the 2011 Fit is 0.35. The difference is so negligible that you would have to drive for years at higher speeds than these cars are capable of to see any real noticeable difference.

And again, Fayetteville (where I spent 9 years driving my 01 Accord around) is overall MUCH hillier terrain than those areas of Little Rock you mention, which by the way, I am hardly ever around because we are actually in Maumelle. Relatively flat, and mostly interstate between home and work (Conway.) Also, 3 1/2 of those 9 years I had the Accord were spent driving from south Fayetteville up to Bentonville to work at the Wal-Mart home office, in constant stop and go traffic on the only interstate in the area. If you really stop and think about the specs and situations you are presenting, it makes no sense whatsoever for me to be getting worse fuel mileage in the Fit than I did in the Accord. Yet that is exactly what is happening.

 

Yup, I missourced some numbers real quick from wikipedia. Oh well.

The long story short, you aren't happy with the fit, you should get rid of it and get another car so we all can continue our circle jerk.

 

Happens to the best of us. Brain farts are universal lol

 

The long story short is that you can throw every excuse in the book at this issue but it doesn't change the fact that my Fit is a disappointment for good, justifiable reasons.

 

I don't think being within 2-3 (10%) mpg of the EPA estimated millage is a justifiable reason for being upset. But keep being pissy, it suits you.

 

Seb makes a very good point and I am going to take it up. Why DOES a car that's newer, lighter and with a similar cod get worse mileage?

Clearly there are many factors. It's a different type of transmission; there are differences in tires and programmed shift points; Seb is comparing his personal experience and not any sort of official rating (the 91 LX actually got worse mpg than the current civic by the EPA ... although they are not directly comparable because of the recent update to the standards).

I might raise one which I have heard persuasively discussed. The reason could be ... the Fit isn't powerful enough. If you calculate the power/weight ratio for the two cars, they're similar; but the torque/weight ratio for the Accord is a lot better (I did this but in a spreadsheet so I can't easily post it). Now this isn't perfect - the torque numbers are always listed as peak, and don't necessarily match the torque available at a low RPM - but it's the best I can do.

The argument goes like this: assuming that you are going to want to stop and go similarly in any given car, in the underpowered car you're going to be revving the nuts off the engine to a greater extent. If in the Accord you could get fine acceleration by shifting up at 2500rpm and you need to wind the Fit out to 3500 to get that, you may end up actually burning more gas. The efficiency savings from the smaller engine usually comes only from weight savings (and fewer moving parts potentially). Put another way, an engine which isn't appropriately matched to the weight of the car can end up being far less efficient than you might think, while the lazier, bigger engine can allow more relaxed driving without much of an economy penalty. Maybe this doesn't apply when you match the engine to a CVT, as the Fit has with our engine everywhere else in the world; maybe that's a reason for the Fit's surprisingly low fuel economy.

Usually this argument is brought up by people driving heavier cars which have received "more efficient" but far less torquey engines as an economy option. A good example is one of the many SUVs that have recently got a 4-cyl option in addition to the 6. People buy them and then report their gas mileage is only a tiny bit better than the 6, and get all bent out of shape because drivability is poor.

The reason this doesn't totally convince me is that, I know that all else equal, in order to move a certain weight up to a certain speed in a certain amount of time ... you need the same amount of power applied over that time. Clearly a V8 Camaro has lots of torque vs its weight and I don't think this helps the fuel economy at all! However, I have heard it often enough that I do believe it. I DO think a car can be underpowered for the tasks demanded of it, and you end up burning more fuel than you would think because of it.

This isn't a perfect analogy, but if you asked my friend Cameron who is very strong to help me move my sofa, it could be done quickly and without much sweating. I am shrimpy and I would struggle to move the thing and there would be lots of grunting. I would certainly FEEL like I had done a lot of work afterwards, whereas it would be no big deal for him. Does this translate to engines? Again I'm not completely convinced. But I think there's something to it.

 

I have a 2000 grand voyager LX fully loaded I get 27-28 Highway. The Fit is slightly under powered but premium gas helps that. The OP even admitted 2 people drive the car so the ecu is not tuned to the driver. It takes a tank or two for the ecu to start thinking about re-tuning. It does this so any adjustment it makes wont hurt the engine.

 

Just refilled the tank this evening and calculated the mileage on the last tank of gas.


28.4. No joke.

Inexcusable in EVERY way.

 

28 mpg.

OMG.

Look at all the other owners of 5AT Fits, THEY ALL GET SIMILAR MPG.

YOU MADE A MISTAKE. YOU GOT THE INFERIOR TRANSMISSION.

ITS NOT HONDA'S FAULT.
ITS NOT ANYONE'S FAULT, EXCEPT YOUR OWN.

 

Wrong. It IS Honda's fault for not matching the EPA numbers on their AT Fit cars, and luring people into buying them expecting MUCH better than what we are getting. It is NOT our fault for believing the car company is being honest with their numbers you moron.
I made a mistake by getting the AT? How is it MY Fault for trusting the numbers Honda posts on their AT Fits?? It is very MUCH so Honda's fault you blind loyalist worshiper.
28.4 is completely inexcusable when the EPA estimates bear out MUCH higher numbers. And there have been PLENTY of other people both on here and elsewhere on the web with the base AT that are claiming 35 and even over. I am not even asking for that, I am only asking to at least get midrange EPA estimate when so much of my driving is highway. The real world mileage I am getting is SO far down on the low end of the range that there is no excuse. I swear to God I don't have any idea why that is so difficult for you to wrap your brain around.

 

Go buy a Hyundai/Ford/Chevy/Toyota with a 40 mpg hwy rating, have fun experiencing the exact same mpg.

OMG THEY AREN'T RATED PROPERLY FOR YOUR/YO MOMMA'S DRIVING HABITS.

FF.net, what is wrong with my Fit, over the course of my ownership its averaging 36 mpg, that's not what the EPA told me to expect!

 

You know what, I am not done with you yet because you are such an idiot.
The automatic transmission is the INFERIOR transmission?
Here are the numbers for the base AT Fit vs MT:

2011 Honda Fit 4 cyl, 1.5 L, Automatic 5-spd, Regular Gasoline
28 City
31 Combined
35 Highway
$1800 per year

2011 Honda Fit 4 cyl, 1.5 L, Manual 5-spd, Regular Gasoline
27 City
29 Combined
33 Highway
$1950 per year

From those numbers, what the FRICK is so difficult to understand about why I am not happy?

 

Wow. You're getting the EPA combined rating for your car.

MIND. BLOWING.

And its worse because the car has to work a lot harder to fight through the drivetrain losses of an AT vs. the MT.

 

I can't even respond to this post, its so fucking stupid.

 

28 = 31??