Regardless of its source, a few extra pounds isn't going to cause the large difference in mileage that Honda reported.

The published numbers are from prototypes and are probably a few pounds different in the production cars, but they don't change them in the literature.

Tire diameter isn't enough to make much difference either especially since the car's own MPG figure is determined by its odometer which is affected by the tire size. You need to correct for actual MPG.

I suspect some wishful thinking in the LX's numbers!

 

No argument here.

Especially not when you consider the variability in brands and models that deviate from the theoretical diameters I calculated. Honda could use one wheel rpm to mph variable for both LX and EX and be under 1% error in either case.


...perhaps with a bit more CYA in the EX's.

 

And I don't doubt that they do, since those instrument's accuracy is usually ±4%, always in the "let's not get sued" direction. Speedos read high, odos read low.

Manufacturers are given quite a lot of latitude in reporting EPA mileage numbers. Some have played faster and looser than others and gotten caught.

I think that Honda is playing it a bit cagier by inflating only one trim's mileage, which allows them to advertise that magic 40+mpg figure with less danger of having to hand out gas cards to the entire fleet of owners. If they are called on it they can obfuscate because they claimed different figures for different trim levels.

 

Fuely.com shows us a difference of .7 mpg when comparing the 2105 LX to the EX-L (no EX listed for 2015). I suspect we're looking at the EPA guidelines automatically hitting cars with a penalty when paddle shifters are added.

 

Y'know, I thought that the cars were tested in the "default" mode, but some research casts that into doubt. Apparently, the car is tested in all different modes and the worst mileage mode is the one reported.

Read after the first paragraph:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&client=ubuntu

 

Nice find, George. So the LX CVT has "Low" for engine braking when descending steep grades (probably not used in the EPA cycle) but the EX CVT replaces that with the evil "Sport" mode and paddle shifters that cost it MPG in the rating.

[edit to add for those who don't know… the paddle shifters can be used in both "Drive" and "Sport."]

 

Perhaps they just added the EX...

Fuelly Fit LX 2015 = 37.2 mpg

Fuelly Fit EX 2015 = 37.1 mpg

Fuelly Fit EX-L 2015 = 36.5 mpg

Seems that either a "Sport" mode or paddle shifters is a penalty in the ratings.

 

The numbers of vehicles is still pretty small.

 

So this is published by Honda and you said you wanted not published by Honda, but..... this is certainly not the usual list of details

I'm pretty sure this is the media release they would give out to the magazines for accuracy reasons. Honda Media Newsroom - Honda Automobiles - 2015 Honda Fit - Powertrains

 

Man this thread derailed. Here's a difference:
LX side mirrors can fold against the car.
EX side mirrors can not (camera).

Made me happy, my wife is using the LX as a back up mail delivery car, and she's already torn the side mirror off her 2010 Focus...

 

Both mirrors on my EX fold up. The camera is so far outboard and so far forward on the bottom of the mirror there's no way it would interfere.

I was bound and determined to buy an LX, except that Mrs. Loves Purple made that choice for us, and it meant an EX. The only downside was that without an AUX input, she wouldn't be able to hook up her Sony Walkman cassette tape player--if she could find it. The iPod Touch I bought her to replace it uses USB, so it works fine in the EX. Now I so heavily use most of the EX features, I wouldn't want to go back.

 

I guess the EX I tried at the dealer just needed a break in then because they didn't move when I tried.

 

Stellgod, thanks for trying to get the thread back on track.

 

It's not the wheels and tires. The LX manual, also with the 15" wheels, doesn't get the extra mpg, only the LX CVT.

 

One inch in tire size in a small car+moonroof and a few goodies is a huge factor, unsprung weight, rotational mass, and gearing are all affected.

 

im sorry but the manual Lx is attached to one of you fine folks that's why it doesn't capitalize on the extra Mpg ...Honda is conservative and accurate with their claimed mpg in my experience.

 

All that is irrelevant when comparing the LX and EX tires. They're practically the same outside diameter, thus gearing is unaffected. The shorter sidewalls of the EX tires offset the one-inch larger diameter rim (to keep OD about the same), and the use of lighter aluminum material should offset weight gain that would occur with a larger diameter, wider steel wheel.

Other than looks, there is practically very little difference between them, but the EX's shorter sidewalls on a wider rim give a little better tire stability and handling, while the LX's taller sidewalls make it a little better for absorbing potholes. That's about it.

 

Umm, size for size, steel wheels are usually lighter than most alloy wheels. The only exception are alloys that are actually made for racing, which generally are too expensive and not flashy enough for boy racers.

 

Apparently you've never seen a set of te37s, slipstreams, rpf1s, 949s etc lol

 

Stock steel wheels: 18 pounds each (data from FF site)
Volk TE37s in 17x8: 16.3 pounds each (data from Volk site)

6.8 pounds saved on four wheels, $3300 removed from wallet.

That's about $500 per pound saved! It would have to be a pretty flush boy racer to sport a set of these!