It would be great if there were someone on here that lived in your area. You could then do a trade for a week and compare the results.

I'm getting 38 MPG in the city, but we don't have much bumper-to-bumper traffic here. Also not too many hills where I drive. I don't use headlights in the summer. Don't even need the fan, usually. Those little things add up.

One of the big mysteries is how the EPA gets their rating. How would anyone really know?

I was wondering about the US and Canadian ratings. From looking at this page it would appear that the Canadian ratings are actually even more generous. (More like the older ratings on US cars?) Roughly 20% difference. Things that make you go, "Hmm?"

 

Uh no, it's not a mystery. It's is precisely documented.

Google EPA rating, and it brings you to the government site:
Fuel Economy
Then you click on About->How Vehicles are tested and it shows you how in layman's terms.

There's a link for "detailed testing" if you are a geek and enjoy the scientific details.

If you're a super geek then you can dig even deeper to the national labs website and find the official documentation and specific procedures written for the automotive engineer audience or bureaucrat.
(40 CFR 600)

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...00_main_02.tpl

 

I lived in LR for a while. I got high 20s if I never did any highway driving, low 30s if I did a mix of driving. I never found the shifting to be annoying, but that's clearly subjective. Honestly, living there I found the inadequacies of the AC to be much more bothersome. Depending on where he lives, he's dealing with rolling hills, frequently bad traffic on the interstate (and AR drivers are the biggest jerks I've ever encountered), or both.

Regardless, this is pretty much a tempest in a teacup. The milage numbers are pretty close to the EPA tests, so there's not much to explain there. The transmission is busy because of the low engine power and lockup torque converter. The OP now just wants to bash Honda. There's really nothing left to explain.

 

I agree. The OP has been given plenty of advice and tips. He refuses to accept any of it. Honda basher!!!! ARRRGGGH

Edit: This was a very dumb post on my part. The OP did not deserve this at all. He posted his angry remarks and I quickly apologized.

Post edit: After reading all the posts on this thread the OP really has anger management issues. I wouldn't bother helping on this thread at all if I were you!

 

Refuses to accept any of it?? Only one suggestion out of all your blathering was actually something a) that I hadn't already tried and b) that was actually meant to be useful. All the rest of the 5 pages of this thread is everyone else on here jumping all over me for trying to sincerely come on here and see if anyone could help. When you couldn't, your lame f#*#*ING excuse is that "oh he ought to accept the way the car is simply because its a Honda." Don't you dare for one second come after me on here when you're the one that RAN OUT OF ADVICE and was forced into a position where the only thing you had left to offer is crap like "He hates Honda" ESPECIALLY when I have posted multiple times in this thread that I have owned Hondas in the past and liked them. If your so tunnel-visioned that you want to swear loyalty to a car company even after they have shown trouble keeping up, then go ahead. If you have nothing left to offer then leave this thread. But don't come after me after you simply have run out of ideas by saying it's all my fault. That makes you sound like a 5 year old. Moron.

 

Good point! I can only speak for myself that in this case I had nothing new to offer. I should have left you alone on this one my bad. Sorry dude! I am feeling kinda stupid now. I wish we can take some posts away. But as in life there are no do-overs. I will be more careful.

 

Bought the Fit 12/09. Drive less than 2000 mi. a year, but I made a move a couple years ago where I did 3600 mi. (4 1/2, 800 mi round trips). The trip was 80% flat, 20% hills/mountains. With the cruise set to 73 mph I got 34-35 mpg. Around town I was getting 26-27 mpg. A couple of months ago I decided to leave the odometer/mpg/oil status/trip odometer readout on the mpg screen. By being able to monitor my pedal dynamics with this readout, I'm able to get 28 mpg for the last 2 tanks,. Hope this helps.

 

I'd be pissed.

 

Have you tried leaving yours on the avg MPG display. You seem susceptible to feedback and the power of suggestion.

 

Welcome to the world of Ethanol. Winter gas too has a big effect as the temps get warmer and because of temp changes phase separation happens causing problems. Ethanol is used for lowering low temp emissions but has drive-ability problems especially in spring and fall.

 

That would be a waste of energy. If I drove more, maybe.

After visiting Fitfreak daily since I joined 12/09 I get the distinct perception, which may be wrong, that there are 2 categories of Fits. One is that gets great mileage but suffers from limp acceleration. The other is mediocre mileage but with better pick-up. Mine is the 2nd category, and I prefer it that way, as I tend to be somewhat aggressive and like the fact that I can goose it when needed. My previous car was a '98 Corolla which got the same mileage, maybe slightly better, but was a pig and was not nearly as utilitarian or fun to drive.

 

Because he's getting basically the EPA numbers, rather than the extreme numbers from the internet? You seem to have anger issues.

 

Woah! this is something I want more info on. So If I gas up at a place that has 10% Ethanol then that would cause my mpg to fall?

Edit:

Found this using Google:

"It is a well-known fact that pure Ethanol is a third less efficient than gasoline. Pure Ethanol can deliver 76,100 BTUs per gallon while pure Gasoline delivers around 114,100 BTUs per gallon. Adding Ethanol to your gas will not add more power, it will lessen the amount of BTUs and therefore lessen your gas-mileage. So pure gasoline delivers more MPG than gasoline with 10% ethanol."

Well well. Time to shop around for some ethanol free gas...if it even exists anymore?

Edit #2:

Shell stations in Canada have ethanol free gas. Just so happens I gassed up this aftenroon with some 10% Ethanol (cost me $42 Vs $110 in my old GMC Acadia). My next tank will be at shell and I will be able to compare the effect on my Fit.

 

Check here. It's not clear that Shell offers fuel in Canada as ethanol free in anything except 91 octane and even then it might be only some stations. The BTU content of e10 (10% ethanol) gasoline is 3.3% less than pure gasoline. In order to be cost effective, if you were to buy 91 octane as opposed to regular, it would need to be no more than 103% of the price of regular.

The impact on MPG if you got 35mpg on pure gasoline, with e10 you'd get 1.1mpg less. ( or 6.72 L/100km would go up to 6.94)

 

Noted. 103% is not a big margin to play with at 91. The hunt is on for some cheap 87 ethanol free gas. Wish me luck!

 

Also, the reason for E10 is to substitute for MTBE. MTBE is a pollutant that is getting phased out. Gas milage will drop somewhat as a result, but our groundwater and surface water will remain drinkable; a worthwhile tradeoff IMO.

 

Ethanol-free gas stations in the U.S. and Canada

Incidentally, some states, like Iowa, have mid-grade gas (89 octane) at cheaper prices than regular (87 octane) gas. This is because the mid-grade at a lot of stations is the grade that adds the ethanol, and the corn farmers in Iowa get subsidized for it, and the savings is passed on to the consumer. So you can pay more for 87 octane in that state, but it will be ethanol-free (at most stations.)

 

Its not all about btus, Higher octane allows higher thermal efficiency which at high loads in the lower rpms the engine is knock limited. The motor will run richer with regular at 11:1 air fuel instead of lambda at loads over 70 percent.

 

No, it won't. It's designed for less than 87octane (regular in Japan is 89RON).

bwahahahahahaha.

 

Well I guess the only way this thread could get worse is an octane debate....