Ok, sorry if this might be a repeat or dumb question, but why does the LX have a better rated fuel economy than the EX?

Am I missing something here?

 

Mostly, it's weight.

 

PThe weight difference is so small that it cannot account for the difference in mileage.

My theory is that Honda desperately wanted to beat that magic 40MPG mark. Since manufacturers self-certify it is just a matter of fudging one's own test a bit. The bugaboo is that if your customers don't get that mileage and they talk to each other you can end up in an embarrassing situation like Kia and Hyundai where the noise got so loud that even the EPA finally had to take notice. That's bad PR and expensive to boot.

The solution to that is to lowball just the LX trim. This means that Honda can trumpet the "Fit gets 41MPG!!!" line, and if upscale owners complain they can point to the small print lower ratings of the EX and EXL. The smaller population of LX owners and confusion with higher trim levels will hinder efforts to compile data if the LXs don't live up to their numbers.

 

The specs says that the weight is the same though.

So I think its because on the EX the 16 inch wheels bring down the mileage? I can't see what else would make the weight difference. I mean a side mirror window camera can make a difference? LOL

 

According to cars.com:

The LX weighs a 85 lbs less than the EX and 98 lbs less than the EX-L (all with CVT), and smaller wheels are more conducive to fuel economy. I also assume that the tires are different. Maybe the LX has LRR tires, or simply has a set of more economical tires standard...

I guess the aerodynamic underbody makes a big difference?

 

Except that all trims get the same underbody fairing.

The Cars.com info goes back to when the only info available was press releases and speculation.

 

I wonder exactly how much lighter the LX's smaller tires on steel rims with wheel covers are than the EX's 16" tires with alloy wheels. Has anyone heard how much this contributes to the LX's 85 lb weight advantage? I would guess it's somewhere between 3-5 lbs per tire/wheel, but that's just a WAG. The fact that this additional weight is rotational and unsprung weight, further increases it's negative affect on performance and fuel efficiency.

 

My wife first noticed this when we were shopping for her new Fit. The dealer people had never noticed it!

The LX does have some differences and I would love to see a drag race between an LX and an EX. I know back when I worked in the industry we learned from the fuel engineers that they would tune a model just to maximize its MPG on the EPA regulated test drive. We learned that by accident while trying to figure out some strange test results with the EFI readings. Seems the fuel programers didn't make this info public.

Anyway, our EX-L beats its MPG ratings and comes closer to the LX ratings. I have gotten 44-45 MPG driving 65-70 MPH (over a 100 mile drive). 42 MPG on the highway is common.