Don't know, and don't really care. I don't really care about the inaccuracy that much. My issue is with a smart ass dealer who says that his product, Honda, is not as good as a Pontiac. I can tell you from experience, the Honda is light years better than a Pontiac, other than the one accuracy issue. Just think of what that stupid fool said.

 

Did he really say that?
I thought he just meant they are not the same (though one might be better than the other), and shouldn't be compared.
Regardless, that Honda dealership does not sound like caring about own customers concerns. In more severe situations (not quite this one) I would write a complaining letter to the general manager of the dealership about service dept's poor attitude.

 

We have a new Fit, and it seems to be doing very well for mileage according to the display (slightly over 40 mpg). First tank was filled by the dealer, and some miles not by us, so not a good one for a comparison/calculation. This next tank we'll be able to compare displayed mileage with an actual calculation. Just wondering what the collective experience has been--does the readout reflect reality, or is it optimistic?

 

Onboard gauges gave readings virtually identical to my ScanGauge II. I trust the onboard ones enough to do away with the SC entirely.

 

mine has been pretty darn accurate.

 

Synthesthete, I would expect the ScanGauge II and the car's computer to read the same, since they are probably accessing the same electronic data. Do you think they are also accurate when compared to the real life hand calculation based on the odometer and the gas pump reading? I assume Andy_Fit thinks so.

 

scangauges have been known to be extremely accurate.

but there's only one way to find out for yourself.

 

Actual calculated mpg have been 3-4% lower than the dash gauge for me.

 

Interesting, fellow Wisconsinite, I'll post my comparison when we do the next fill.

 

Are you THE John Kuhn?

 

I seem to consistently get about 1.5 mpg less than the display reads.

 

Since I've gotten my new 6 speed EX, I've become obsessed with those darn lights that change from blue to green, and it's DEFINITELY affected how I am driving....not for the better, either.


My fuel economy SUCKS. I've never had such poor numbers on a stick shift. I do some stop and go on the way to work, but on my old FIT I was averaging 30-34 mpg per tank. In my new one, it's consistently been below 30.


That indicator is driving me nuts! I think it's gotten into my head and now I shift whenever the light is blue. I get my best mileage when I'm not paying attention to it, and just shifting by feel....But it's so hard to ignore!


I wish I could turn it off.

 

This is what I usually see

 

Ha, ha, no but I have a lot of fun with it. Probably 30 yrs too old and 100# too light!
It will be interesting to see if our first measurement comes up similar to you guys.

 

Yeah, I just go "ooh, look at the pretty colors" then ignore them. Better fuel economy when I don't pay attention.

 

+1 With my mixed driving my computer usually calculates about 43 mpg. My actual mpg manually calculated is usually about 41.5.

I always have the econ button on and always reset the mpg computer after fill-up.

 

Same here. I watch the instant fuel MPG gauge above the clock. It tells me when I'm driving the car harder and allows me to lighten up on the gas when I can. My mileage just went back up after being in the low 30s for the winter. AVG is around 37-38MPG. I can get 40-41MPG if I'm really easy with it on the highway.


I get 32MPG with an empty utility trailer, and with a full load of about 550 pounds or so of cargo im around 28-29MPG or so.

 

So far mine has been accurate to hand calculations-- +/- a tenth. I've only filled up 3 times though, so we'll see if it stays accurate over the long run.

 

I don't even notice the lights anymore, I never look at them.

 

Kuuuuuuhn! (will only be understood by Packer fans)