Meh... I get around 24mpg but driving is mostly short trips in town.

Watch the mpg display tick down when idling... that will affect your
average if idling a lot.

 

I get 33 city 35 highway....Seems like the MT gets better mpg with less fuss

 

Oh jeez,
Did you actually believe that you could come on this site and bash our car and it would be ok? You do realize that we are Fit Freaks?

Nobody said our Fits were perfect. Although they have been called the number one car in our category for so many years and in all the markets….
On this site there are tuners and ricers…..tuners are so quick to put down ricers. But it the end…we love our Fits.

So please…..Be a sport or an RS.

You don’t like your Fit? Sell it. Get in it and drive off a cliff for all we care.

I’ve been a Fit owner for all but two months and it’s the best car I’ve ever owned and the list is long and distinguished.

On this site there are 100 ricers for every tuner. Tuners just wish that they could crack the ECU problem and ricers just want some good advice on where to by quality emblems…some descent rims….and slam it down…..low.

Tuners want to track their Fits. Did you EVEN know that the Fit has an awesome history as a track car….probably not.

So here is my plea.

Tuners don’t hate ricers.

I had no idea just a few months ago what an AWESOME car the Fit was. I will be ricing my Fit to the max. And then, my wife willing, I will become a tuner and track my Fit and all that entails.

You don’t like our Fits, fine. Pay us no mind. Move on. You’re a Tuner? Awesome support the ricers…one day they might be tuners and track their AWESOME FITS….

 

Part of the problem may be that the pedal is so feather-weight that you can't tell when you're pushing it, much less touching it. I added springs to mine to stiffen it.

I seriously doubt the transmission has anything to do with this. The transmission isn't designed to behave just like transmissions of 10 years ago. It's designed to eek out every last bit of fuel economy that it can. Two big factors are the torque converter that locks and partial-locks at low speeds and the grade logic system. The car can detect the level of incline and decline and adjusts shift points on the fly. There's another thread on here somewhere that has a copy of the shop manual that has graphs of the shift points relative to speed and angle of the car.

So, yes, the transmission seems shift-happy, but I seriously doubt it's broken in any way. The poor economy is coming from something else.

 

So I finally checked the actual ratings for the car, looks like others did too. The original post says you are getting 30 mpg. The non-sport car is rated at 28/35/31. It sounds like you are getting very close to that.

It's tough to know if you are being very gentle or slightly aggressive - even you can't really know since you can only compare it to yourself, not to any of the other posters on this thread - but I would say that your mileage, being very close to the estimate, rules out any major issue with the car. Certainly you can check tire pressures and change transmission fluid and all that good stuff, and it may help, but I would not say there's anything major wrong.

I used to be able to regularly get well over the EPA estimates. Carmakers have begun designing to the test, though, and I am finding with a modern car I have to try actually really hard. I can still do it, but I gotta be honest, I'm a bit obsessive about it. My wife ends up just below the EPA estimate consistently, driving in what I consider a pretty normal fashion. It's also tougher with an automatic; the manual guys have an easier time of it.

As to why an older Accord could hit similar mileage, it could be because an older Accord weighs a similar amount, but has less frontal area (the Fit is quite tall). C&D just did a really great article about actual mileage vs the rated mileage (all of the compacts currently shooting for ~40mpg on the EPA test). Well, the Cruze and Focus for example did quite poorly and didn't actually get anything close to 40mpg - both of those requiring you to buy a special fuel economy model - while the Hyundai and Mazda did much BETTER than the estimate. I find this interesting because Hyundai and Mazda don't even need to roll out a special fuel-sipping model - they just make it a priority in the original design, and it shows vs Chevy/Ford who are trying to engineer it back into the car afterwards. That's a little off topic, but, I thought it was interesting.

To sum up, it sounds like your mileage is as portrayed by Honda. That might be a tough pill to swallow, maybe. I personally will be upset if I don't consistently beat 30. My first tank (including the test drive!) was 31 (this is a Sport) and I thought that was poor; driving in a very focused manner, I'm currently around 34 in my 2nd tank. So I think if you try you can beat the EPA, but ... I think you'll have to REALLY focus on it. I suspect that is what the fuel economy mavens hitting 40 are doing

 

I didn't come on here to bash the Fit. Go back and look at my first post. I came on here to try to get some advice or sugggestions on why my Fit is not living up to standards, and you bash me after I tried YOUR suggestion that didn't help.
Sounds to me like you're more upset about being wrong about resetting the ECU doing anything, than you are about my presence here.
Tune/rice up your wonderful Fit for all I care, good luck eeking ANY more HP out of that miniscule engine that makes it dangerous to merge onto the interstate, while not giving anything (like decent MPG other manufacturers get out of larger engines and larger cars) back in return.
As for the statement that professional reviewers love the Fit, and that it comes out #1 in its category every time, maybe THAT is why I am upset, because that is exactly what I went by when encouraging my mom to get one. I'm no conspiracy theorist but I do think there is a definite bias going on here. Why no mention of the awful auto shifting? Why no mention of the fact that if you have any back seat passengers, they must, repeat MUST, raise the headrests to sit decently, which EXTREMELY limits the rear view visibility of the driver? Why no mention of the fact that spark plugs are more impossible to get to than on any other car, you have to take the F@&$ING COWLING OFF TO GET TO THEM! WTF is that all about??
I love the people on here (including you apparently) who think that the Fit can be made into ANY kind of "driver's vehicle." All that does is show your blind loyalty to a car company who has rested on their laurels for WAAYY too long, and as a result is driving customers away by promising unrealistic EPA fuel estimates, arguing with customers who aren't getting anywhere close (re: the lady who sued about the Civic hybrid), only offering options in upper models that are available in lower models of competitors (if you want bluetooth in a Fit, sorry but you have to buy the most expensive one and get the whole nav package to go with it) and generally being assholes about the whole thing until someone like Consumer Reports gets sick of it and finally knocks one of their cherished cars off their top 10 list. I tried your suggestion, it had absolutely no effect, get over it. And don't ever tell me what a performance car should be--the Fit it ain't.
As for me, I am going to try to convince the hell out of my mom to get rid of it asap and go with anyone else. Have fun with your blind loyalty.

 

My Fit Sport was purchased in July of 2006.. I decided to go ahead and drive the hell out of it when it was obvious that about 32 MPG was about as good as it was going to get... To my surprise the fuel mileage began to improve the more it was driven.. It was possible to drive at 80 and 90 MPH and get over 37 MPG and never below 34.5 when I was doing a lot of city driving with the A/C blasting away during the summer.. Even after installing larger, heavier tires and a supercharger I am able to get between 27 and 32 MPG... The worse mileage was a little over 26 MPG with the 10PSI boost supercharger. When stock I got 42 MPG when on vacation in far south Texas that included a couple of trips into Mexico.. I drive kind of slow when I drink Mescal.

 

The Fit is not for everyone and the same goes for all other cars out there in the market. Doing your homework helps. Test-driving helps... Purchases are made for different reasons and expectations. Bottom line is if you're happy then it's a good buy. If you're not happy then it's time to rethink your decision.

Have a great day everyone, whether you have a Fit or not!

 

Wait, this is your mom's car. She drives it most (all?) of the time. So far you've told us she's getting average EPA MPG. Then you go off on a rant. It sounds like there's another problem here.

Tell us more, about your mother.

 

I just noticed one of his complaints...

Rear passengers HAVE to raise the head rest to sit comfortably, but that SEVERELY limits the view of the driver.... right?

Um, if you have a rear passenger, wouldn't their head rest be behind THEIR head? So therefore, wouldn't THEIR head actually be what's blocking your view?

As for the spark plug complaint not being mentioned in reviews.... simple, car reviews are done from driver's perspective, not a mechanic.

Personally, if you're comfortable enough to be yanking spark plugs, who gives a damn about a cowl that's "in the way"?

Nitpick much?

 

Since you mentioned the lady suing, well maybe you didn't know, but Honda counter-sued and won. She never should have won and in reality the judge should have dismissed the case immediately upon it being introduced.

My Fit is not at all dangerous getting on the highway, in fact, it's other people in my way...ALWAYS!!! My lifetime average is 29mpg and I am more than satisfied as I've got a heavy foot and deal with the insanity inducing traffic of the Tokyo Metropolis, where the expressways become parking lots quite often and city roads are traffic light laden.

One last thing, at 30mpg versus 35mpg, going say 18000 miles per year, rounding down to 10g per a fill up results in fuel costs of $2280 and $1954 per year with gas at $3.80. So in 5 years you spend $1630 more. Now take into consideration resale value of the Fit versus other cars in this class and I'm sure you just made up that $1630 and a bunch more. Just something to consider before having your mom toss the Fit and lose several thousand more for a possible improvement in FE.

 

Hahahaha I've riled you all up by pointing out severe deficiencies in the performance and expected EPA of the Fit and you all jump all over me simply because a) your quick fixes don't work and b) none of you wants to admit you bought an underwhelming car, the ONLY reason of which to buy would be its expected EPA which you aren't getting. And none of your opinions of me negate the fact that the car simply isn't as good as other choices from other manufacturers.
I put 203,000 miles on my 2001 Accord that was a bigger car, and got at least as good fuel mileage as the Fit. I had an 07 V6 manual Accord that was a dream to drive. My point? I HATE the fact that Honda has used it's accomplishments in the past to lure people into trusting everything they put out now, it's too bad that most of the rest of you can't admit to being duped. Even if it was getting 32-33mpg I would still hate the way it shifts, but at least I could deal with the tradeoff. Do any of you have a REAL excuse for letting Honda get away with unleashing this pretense on an unsuspecting public? I sure don't.
Now to be fair some of you actually tried to help (even Dwalbert who later jumped all over me) and I appreciate it. But in the end, there are much better choices. No one wants to admit they made a $17000-$19000 mistake, but at least I'm honest. And a $1630 loss getting rid of this thing won't phase my mom, she doesn't need the money. It's the principle.

 

Well, bye.

 

The only reason huh?

Well, in a magical world, I guess I'd take something else, but Honda has done a great job with the car considering the known laws of physics.

What happened to me, and probably some other manual transmission owners, is that the car gets better mileage than we thought it would. What's not to love from our standpoint?

Most importantly, what's the better choice from another manufacturer?

 

MT FTW....not alot of disatisfied MT owners out there just saying

 

I don't think I made a mistake at all as I wanted a Fit for a very long time and mine is far removed from how I took delivery of it from the factory and I'm even happier with it now then I was then. The EPA numbers mean jack & shit to me as I am not in the US. The fact that you are getting right at or very slightly under, I don't know what your complaint really is about. What has Honda really duped people into with the Fit? You really are a bit out of your mind on this one. If you and your mom dislike the Fit, so be it, trade it in. Get another manufacturer's product.

The one riled up here is YOU. Now you are essentially on the attack saying that others are basically just sheep and baaahhhhhhhing to Honda just because. That is completely asinine on your part.

 

For what its worth, I just got back from a road trip with a rented Chrysler Town and Country. Its a $30,000 vehicle. The seats lacked good thigh support, the arm rests were crappy, the steering pulled hard to the right (so much so that my wrist hurts from holding the wheel against pressure), the milage was right at EPA estimates (which is one of your complaints), the transmission shifts at most hills on the interstate (6 speed means that the last gear is horrible for anything not flat), etc.

Its fine if you don't like the fit. The car clearly isn't for everyone. If you (or really your mom since its her car) don't like it; go buy a different car. Just don't come in and complain about stuff like spark plug changes if that isn't what you are having a problem with.

 

Sigh. there is most likely nothing wrong with your Fit. The OBD2 system would certainly pick up abnormal operation. The high Mpg requires extreme focus.

 

Stick a fork in this thread...I think it's done.

 

Why Honda Is In Even More Trouble Than You Think [Deep Thoughts]