If you plan to run the car till it runs out of gas, that's not necessarily a good idea.

https://www.kimstoyota.com/running-out-of-gas.htm
https://itstillruns.com/happens-car-...s-6147198.html

Actually running dry -

 

I don't listen to unknowledgeable people. What kind of credentials do they have. Like most people, you accept those opinions that you think are true.

 

I've run a fuel-injected engine out of gas before. Nothing bad happens. I was driving up the front side of a steeply sloped bridge with very little gas left. The slope starved the pump, located in the front of the tank, for fuel.

The fuel pump is embedded inside the gas tank in a special little indentation in the bottom of the tank. The metal in the tank, especially in the FIT, because it also comprises a cross-floor side-impact brace, is more than sufficient to cool the pump. The guy in the video was a tool. Fuel injection systems run continuously in a loop, so by the time the engine dies there's nothing but air and vapor in the line. The pump needs to run enough to purge that air & vapor. Putting the ignition on ACC will run the pump. You can hear it if you listen carefully.

The guy on itstillruns should stick to finance. He's an idiot to pretend at having expertise which he clearly doesn't. For example, given the location of the pump at the lowest point in the system, the fact that the fuel is continuously recirculated, and the tank is sealed against vapor loss, no buildup of sediment can occur on the bottom of the tank. The fuel pump IS the bottom of the tank - by design.

I appreciate the thoughtful warning, and will look into it further, but my experience and knowledge of how these systems work tells me this is not a problem. If it were, how could the gas filter or lines ever be replaced or repaired? You're going to get air in the system when you do that, guaranteed. Also, when the car was new at the factory, it had an empty tank, empty fuel pump, empty lines, and empty filter, yet must have started perfectly fine with no damage to the system.

 

+1

side note: I refuse to acknowledge youtube as a viable source of automotive info

 

40.5 mpg in my 2018 Honda Fit Sport 6 speed.

 

One leg of the trip i averaged over 80 mpg- Gotta love rolling hills and sub 55 mph speed limits.

 

 

Millage for round trip from Victorville, Ca to El Paso, Tx going east on I-10 and returning I-40, heading north through the back roads of New Mexico coming home from Demming, NM to Holbrook, AZ via hwy-180. Very mountainous terrain on the last half of that leg, with summit of ~ 8,800ft.

We drove mostly 75-80mph in all kinds of wind & terrain, from 150ft below sea level in Palm Desert to the 8,800ft summit, and avg altitude on I-40 around 5,000ft.

The car is bone stock, EXCEPT, I removed the windshield wipers to reduce noise & drag.

 

This is one of the main reasons I got a Fit. The gas mileage is great. I've averaged 42.4 for over 50,000 miles. The Prius does better, but it's more expensive, and I'd have to pay for the electricity. It would take way too long to break even on the price difference.

 

I bought the Fit for the gas mileage and it has exceeded expectations. Since it's been warming up, my mileage has returned. Last two tanks have been 43.722 MPG and 44.172 MPG. Got 46.285 MPG in early April!

 

Are you going by the display on the dash or using a calculator ? The computer of the car can be off up to 2 m.p.g. above the calculation . Impressive either way .

 

Hand calculations, sort of as I have Google Sheets do the math for me lol. Miles traveled divided by gallons filled up. I created a Google form that populates the spreadsheet for me. ***NERD ALERT!***

 

I use the car's display as a quick guide. When I buy gas, I enter it into Automotive Wolf Pro. That keeps track of everything automotive. I also enter it into fuelly.com.

Purchase Automotive Wolf Vehicle Management Software for Windows

 

When driving in such altitude extremes, I'm convinced the car's gauge MUST be correct, driven by the engine fuel injection system, or the engine would run lean or rich, which would be very noticeable, by smell, tail-pipe color, and performance. On the other hand, gas pumps aren't nearly as accurate, and fuel volume changes with temp.

Removing the windshield wipers makes 3-5mpg difference - most notable at freeway speeds or into headwinds, although I'm convinced the FIT leaves a suction behind it that limits further gains.

BTW, I think lowering the FIT might be counter-productive, as air sticks to both the road and the bottom of the car, so moving those to things close enough together to bump into each other is bad. I noticed the Kia Soul rides at the same height, and several other vehicles as well, so guessing a lot of wind-tunnel testing when into ride height decisions.

Good window film here in the high desert, or the heat of Yuma, AZ makes 3-4mpg savings as well, as the AC doesn't have to work nearly as hard. The noise of the AC fan on high gets to me after a couple of hours too, and it's so much more comfortable sitting on the sunny side. If you can afford it, get the 3M Crystalline Film. 97% heat rejection, even on the very light tints. Works great on my windshield. I went with the 3M film one step down, and very dark on the back 5 (3+ 2 little slot windows) windows, and LOVE the privacy it affords. I can go to Home Depot with tools in the back to get supplies and not have to worry about theft. It also rejects the most heat (5% visible light pass IIRC) The front 3 windows got the Crystalline Film. It's a real spoiler. When you get in a "naked" vehicle it's almost unbearable. When parked, running errands around town, the car, with back windows cracked, doesn't heat up very fast either, so AC is 2 minutes from done when restarting.

Finally, I bought a set of Michelin Defender H+T 80k miles, and LOVE THEM. They roll better, corner better, have a higher speed rating, and are reported to do better in the rain (we don't have much here). I wish they had a better heat rating, but with an 1,100lb rating each, guessing that isn't going to be an issue on the FIT.

 

Guessing the lower cold weather millage is about higher air density, and thus, more drag. The engine compensates within a very wide range. Same reason aircraft are more efficient at high altitudes.

At high altitudes (5-7,000ft), in hot weather driving down I-40 into a headwind, I can get 45mpg because of the thin air. Again, I think this is because the FIT leaves a vacuum behind it. The little hood over the back window, which I LOVE, and think looks sharp, is probably exacerbating the problem, but I'll put up with it to have the back glass shaded, rear camera mounted, and a protected parking place for the rear windshield wiper.

As you can see on the chart here, at 6,000ft, in 110F temps, the air density the body and engine feel is almost 11,000ft. Read your actual elevation off the "Standard Temperature" line, and follow the pressure altitude line to the vertical line representing the outside temp and you get the pressure altitude. Conversely, we're at ~ 3,000ft here, but on a cold 20F morning, the pressure altitude is only 1,000ft.

 

Same purchase decision here! Plus, I'm retired, so only drive 7k a year, even with long vacation trips. I wanted a vehicle that will run for years and years and do so for the lowest cost. The FIT had the lowest cost of ownership of any car in the US in 2016 when I bought it, and Honda cars have given me less trouble (none, in fact) than Nissan, VW, or Mazda, so the decision was fairly easy. I sometimes get an itch for a Civic, but my wife loves the zero lift-over when grocery shopping, and our dog loves to ride on a thick rug with the back seat flat behind the driver.

 

Yesterday, I filled the tank of my 2015 with high octane non-ethanol from Stewart's, something I do about once a month. Then I went on a 150 mile drive. By mile 99, cumulative mileage was 52.7 I was driving mostly on highways, but not much over 60. Then I hit the traffic. A 2 1/2 hour trip turned into four hours. Even with all that sitting in traffic, mileage for the 150 miles was 47.7 mpg. Coming home at midnight, there were no delays, but I was mostly on the Interstate driving 65+ mph, going from sea level back up into the mountains, so it was mostly uphill. Mileage for that half of the trip was 47.5. For 52,000 miles of driving, the car has averaged a little over 43 mpg.

I've always believed that a car designed to use regular gas isn't going to benefit from using high octane. This 300 mile trip makes me wonder. I'll have to try another tank with my typical local driving.

 

I've tried 93 for multiple tanks and I didn't see any appreciable increase in MPG. Surprisingly the first tank I got horrible MPG. I guessed that the ECM was relearning the new fuel type.

 

Yeah, same here. I'll try another tank and see if there's a difference.

 

I recently posted this on my other thread:


​​​