2015 Honda Fit Second Drive - CleanMPG Forums

For those unfamiliar with cleanmpg.com. These guys squeeze every MPG possible from a car using hypermiling techniques. Using such techniques they managed 61.1 MPG from a CVT Fit!

 

"the following morning the 2014 Jetta SE with the new 1.8L turbo and 5-speed MT bested the Fit."

whoa!

 

What did the GE8 achieve?

 

There are a couple GEs on there that got 60.25mpg.

 

So well within margin of error. I'm not impressed.

 

You're going to compare vehicles that have gone under heavy modifications and been driven numerous times compared to one that's been driven twice?

 

I was under the assumption that MPG for the GE8 would have been stock also. If that's not the case than obviously disregard what I said.

 

For those who did not take time to read the linked article:

From the Midwest Automobile Media Association (#MAMASC14) Spring Rally in Elkhart Lake, Wisc. -- The 2015 Honda Fit provides a lot to like. The most configurable seating of any car probably in the world right now thanks to those oh so cool magic seats. It also provided the best FE of the day despite 20+ mph winds as indicated. Like most Honda's, the aFCD probably under reports the actual too! -61.7 MPG over a 7.7 mile country/suburan loop- Addendum, the following morning the 2014 Jetta SE with the new 1.8L turbo and 5-speed MT bested the Fit. The Fit however is more mainstream AT vs. MT. The 2015 Honda Fit with its own 5-speed MT? Probably mid 80’s on this particular suburban/country RT drive loop even with the wind.

It is one test, so no huge conclusions should be drawn.

 

No, they are just submissions from users of the forum. It's my understanding that they are not on a set course as well, but just them driving their daily lives. So one could have more/less hills, could have been a less windy day, etc. etc. The conditions of the two measurements are vastly different.

 

That test was with the CVT. The Jetta was a manual. At anything below highway speeds a manual can FAR exceed any automatic for maximum mpg. For the CVT Fit to be close to a manual Jetta, I'm impressed.

 

Can you comment on why, the manual transmission car will typically have better fuel economy for the hypermiler?

I have always found that a manual equipped car will get better fuel economy. But in the past few years, the EPA ratings for automatics, and particularly for CVTs, are usually better than those for manuals. Even when the real world fuel economy of the manual is usually as good or better than and higher rated auto.

 

Several reasons. First is coasting. At city speeds, the car will roll a long way with no extra input. If it's in gear, you have to feed it more fuel to overcome the engine's internal drag, but you gain very little forward motion from that.

It's easy to do coasting with a manual, so you'll do more of it than in an auto. Shifting from D to N and back is an inefficient process and the computer has to figure itself out each time. I do it all the time in my Odyssey, but it takes over a second to get everything engaged. That's a second of gas burned doing nothing.

One of the biggest is being able to choose your preferred combination of speed/rpm/engine load. An automatic will only allow certain combinations. Best mileage comes with low rpm and high load. Try that in an auto and it'll downshift you into higher rpm. Also, most autos have a limit to what speed they'll "lock up" top gear. Below that and the transmission is slipping. CVT's may be different, I'll have to try one to find out.

Also, seeing the road ahead and "pre-shifting" to be in the right gear for the next event, instead of the car's computer reacting in the moment.

Out on the highway, rpm rules. Well, that and aerodynamics, but if we're talking about the same car then that's a constant.

 

An automatic is reactive, a manual lets you be proactive.

the auto wants to be in the highest gear it can be, but it doesn't know what the hell is going on. It can't downshift before you stomp on the gas, instead it gets surprised and downshifts a few times until it finds the right gear.

In an EPA test cycle where everything gets driven according to a specific profile, an automatic can look good- it can even be made to look better than a manual. In the real world there's just no comparing the two. A shift solenoid that looks at load and throttle position won't do what you want as well as your hand and foot, and it can't anticipate anything. Once you get used to thinking ahead for shifts, you end up looking ahead and anticipating more things. Higher mileage just falls into place after that.

 

A CVT might mitigate the "shifting too much" issue, since it smoothly goes from one ratio to another and there is no need to jump down a gear just in case the driver suddenly wants acceleration. Designed properly it would adjust its ratio to achieve the correct balance of power and economy to satisfy the driver's inputs.

Of course that depends upon good programming, but it certainly is a lot more feasible with a CVT than it was with the old-style autos.

 

C'mon. Even during that second the engine is propelling the vehicle. Recent automatics get better mpg simply because they have more gear ratios, up to 9, that let the rpm be lower and finally lower than manuals. Worse, the better automatics, like dual clutch ones actually make usual manuals look very poor in comparision with how quickly they change gears. Even the latest hydraulic automatics have an edge.. Paddle shifters encourage selection of the gear needed - and quicker.
Make no mistake if F1 uses automatics, and they do, manuals have joined hydramatics in the junkyard. And if you want to claim manuals indicate more skill show me changing gears without using a clutch. Otherwise, slip quietly back into history.

 

I regret I even mentioned that minor point about delayed engagement, because it totally distracted from my main points.

The manual allows more mpg to a trained driver because the driver has full control. Most importantly, full control over the combination of rpm and throttle. All the automatics I've driven will downshift too soon and spike the rpm, pushing it out of the efficient low-rpm/high-throttle zone. (optimum BSFC)

Maybe a paddle-shift DCT would be better since it is driver controlled. I've never driven one. That's kind of a third option that's neither manual nor automatic. The Fit doesn't offer one, so that's irrelevant here on the Fit forum.

My other car is an automatic Odyssey. Around town I can get 25 mpg, 30% over its EPA combined. Compared to that, I can easily, all day, every day, year round, get 100% over (double) the Fit's EPA rating. For hypermiling, manual is absolutely, hands down, better than a traditional automatic.

This is my daily driver. I use it for commuting, running errands, picking people up at the airport, hauling feed sacks and hay bales, sheep, lumber, furniture, etc. Without all those extras, it could be even higher.

 

Same guy was at the San Diego preview and got this result:

 

I'm not competing with a computer and some solenoids in a "quickest gear change" contest. I don't care about how fast a piece of machinery can operate. As a driver, I know what I want to get done. I can also look at traffic and other conditions around me. I can see how other drivers around me are acting, put all of this together and actually see into the future. Even the briefest moment of advance knowledge beats the fastest acting automatic, which is only reacting to throttle and load inputs.

Don't confuse the paddle shifters on an a Honda with what happens in F1. No matter how many hydraulics they use to change gears, they've still got an honest to God pile of gears in there. No matter how nice your Fit's paddles are, they work through a torque converter.

It's not about using a clutch; I'm not a cult member or anything. I don't care how the transmission is shifted as long as I'm the one who decides when it gets done and it actually happens that way. It could be voice activated for all I care, as long as
1. It doesn't shift unless I tell it to.
2. There is a direct mechanical connection from the crankshaft to the tires.

It'll be a long time before fancy shift mechanisms are practical in cars that sell for $15k. So until then I'll call it a manual and insist on a clutch, but that's really just kind of shorthand.

 

CVT after launch, and AT w/TLO sort of qualify.

 

Actually, they qualify fine, but the workings of auto transmissions are rather mysterious to some so they prefer to believe "common wisdom".