General Fit Talk General Discussion on the Honda Fit/Jazz.

Mods that increase fuel efficiency

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 31, 2008 | 10:01 AM
  #101  
pcs0snq's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,049
From: lake worth FL
On this for Eco area... ops forgot to put a sticky on it. Use the search tool.
PS Shawn has one now see if he can tell you how much it helped the FE.
PSS a stock Fit 1.5l is in no way HP or TQ limited from the TB inlet outward.

One tester left the ECU inlet charge temp sensor off that resulted in a dangerous lean burn. Of course that had better FE but at what cost lol
 
Old Dec 31, 2008 | 11:26 AM
  #102  
rreyes99's Avatar
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 57
From: High Point, NC
Want Better MPG?

Want better MPG? Get an 80’s Civic. It’s got a smaller engine with no power but will get you in the 50MPG range. Now the choice you made to drive a Fit is great, as this is the best cheap car with all the technology it has in it. I personally think that Honda could have made it lighter to improve better MPG.

The best Mod you can start with is the Scangauge II, it will get you to stay under 2.5RMPs leading to better driving habits and avoid jack rabbit starts.

Now, so far no one has mention anywhere on this thread anything about maintenance. Keeping you car properly maintained will help keep your MPG and perform like day one specially your air filter and faithfully changing your oil.

…A quick note, why make better fuel efficient vehicles when the one that will benefit will be the general public….the victims here will be the oil companies and hurt their profits. Now, do you think these car companies would want to do that to the oil industries? Didn’t think so…the technology is in place to use….it would be available if the environmentalist would lift restrictions!!!!
 
Old Jan 1, 2009 | 04:12 PM
  #103  
mahout's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Originally Posted by gonang
Alright, there are several discussions that intakes increase your mpg's. I'm getting an intake whether they do or not. But what other parts could you put on your car other than intakes that increase fuel efficiency? (Other than carbon fiber parts which make your car lighter).

All other mods such as ignition recurving and F/A ratio retuning are likely to result in emissions not meeting fedral standards.
The ones that can work are lighter wheels and tires and tires with less rooling resistance such as those recently introduced so the manufacturer can offer higher mpg claims. Higher tuire pressures up to a point, also helps by reducing rolling resistance.
A good airplane wax job also helps, as does taping all door joints not used.
And naturally, 20wgt oil.
 
Old Jan 2, 2009 | 11:43 AM
  #104  
DOHCtor's Avatar
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 622
From: Québec city
Originally Posted by pcs0snq
Yes of course you can take the other side and say because it's not proven it could work and that's what I would expect on this form, a contrary view no mater how obvious things are. lol

I have not tested the items on my list, but have read every note on this Eco area, helped a few with testing methods here, around my shop and on the Cleanmpg form.

Tire size was just proven by mayout to NOT work read this
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/eco-...ring-mods.html

Shawn and others tested a K&N and inlet pipe.

Fuel type is been debunked many times and proven more costly
My fit takes less gaz with the 215\40r17 then with my 175\65r14 winter tires... Granted i have to check out my speed as the bigger tires are affecting my speedometer but when i do the 500km trip that separate Drummondville and Rimouski, it costs a couple dollars less to fill-up!! Tried a couple of times in summer to switch tires and roll at the exact same speed and check out how much gas i put in it and always had the same conclusion... They were both inflated to 40Psi Cold and both sets of tires are in the 40 pounds range (Each! :P)...

Marko!!
 

Last edited by DOHCtor; Jan 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM.
Old Jan 2, 2009 | 12:48 PM
  #105  
SFactor2's Avatar
Banned
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 149
From: Negative Repland (exiled by fragile ego's and "can't handle the truth" babies) LMFAO ;P
Originally Posted by JBElliott
Because everyone knows that tractor beams take up a lot of power to run and would therefore lower the mpg. With the grappling hook I can just hook on to the car or truck in front and turn off my Fit altogether and get infinite mpg for the time I'm in tow.
just get a "transporter"
 
Old Jan 2, 2009 | 12:56 PM
  #106  
SFactor2's Avatar
Banned
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 149
From: Negative Repland (exiled by fragile ego's and "can't handle the truth" babies) LMFAO ;P
Originally Posted by Red Iron Crown
It does on the highway, at least according to the EPA and its Canadian equivalent. Must be due to the taller gearing and the locked torque converter (no loss vs. manual).
....vs. manual????
manuals don't have torque converters to lock..lmao
 
Old Jan 2, 2009 | 01:08 PM
  #107  
mahout's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Originally Posted by DOHCtor
My fit takes less gaz with the 215\40r17 then with my 175\65r14 winter tires... Granted i have to check out my speed as the bigger tires are affecting my speedometer but when i do the 500km trip that separate Drummondville and Rimouski, it costs a couple dollars less to fill-up!! Tried a couple of times in summer to switch tires and roll at the exact same speed and check out how much gas i put in it and always had the same conclusion... They were both inflated to 40Psi Cold and both sets of tires are in the 40 pounds range (Each! :P)...

Marko!!

Sorry, but I'd have to see it to believe it.
 
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 07:20 PM
  #108  
wdb's Avatar
wdb
Member
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 977
From: the Perimeter
5 Year Member
Originally Posted by DOHCtor
My fit takes less gaz with the 215\40r17 then with my 175\65r14 winter tires... Granted i have to check out my speed as the bigger tires are affecting my speedometer but when i do the 500km trip that separate Drummondville and Rimouski, it costs a couple dollars less to fill-up!! Tried a couple of times in summer to switch tires and roll at the exact same speed and check out how much gas i put in it and always had the same conclusion... They were both inflated to 40Psi Cold and both sets of tires are in the 40 pounds range (Each! :P)...

Marko!!
I'd like a little clarification on this. Are you saying that you drove the same route, filled up the tank before and after at the same location, and used fewer gallons with the summer tires? If so, then it would not matter if your speedo calibration was affected by the tire diameter, because you covered the same amount of ground in each case.

Pretty good information, thanks for sharing.
 
Old Jan 13, 2009 | 08:19 PM
  #109  
DOHCtor's Avatar
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 622
From: Québec city
Same route, same tanks and similar condition... did less miles on the odometer with the bigger tires (Of course!) so i think it's the reason why they save fuel because the larger tire should take more fuel because of increased friction and increased wind drag!

Hint, Put taller tires and travel slower to accomodate!!

Marko!!
 
Old Jan 14, 2009 | 08:25 AM
  #110  
mahout's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Originally Posted by DOHCtor
My fit takes less gaz with the 215\40r17 then with my 175\65r14 winter tires... Granted i have to check out my speed as the bigger tires are affecting my speedometer but when i do the 500km trip that separate Drummondville and Rimouski, it costs a couple dollars less to fill-up!! Tried a couple of times in summer to switch tires and roll at the exact same speed and check out how much gas i put in it and always had the same conclusion... They were both inflated to 40Psi Cold and both sets of tires are in the 40 pounds range (Each! :P)...

Marko!!

You didn't mention whether the terrain was flat or hilly. Sounds like flat. The 215/40x17's have a diameter of 23.77" which is much closer to the 'design' tire than the 175/65x14's, which have a diameter of 22.95".
Have you conducted a true odo reading evauation to find out the real speedo and odo error?
That 4% increase in rpm to go the same speed can be the reason you get better mpg with the 215/40x17's, especially if there's little hills or changes in speed.
 

Last edited by mahout; Jan 14, 2009 at 08:32 AM.
Old Jan 14, 2009 | 12:29 PM
  #111  
wdb's Avatar
wdb
Member
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 977
From: the Perimeter
5 Year Member
^^^^ Speedo and odo error get factored because he filled up at the same place and time and traveled the same route each time. The calculation then becomes gallons per trip, and the sole variable is the wheel/tire combo. Your terrain comments are interesting though.
 
Old Jan 14, 2009 | 02:40 PM
  #112  
mahout's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
Originally Posted by wdb
^^^^ Speedo and odo error get factored because he filled up at the same place and time and traveled the same route each time. The calculation then becomes gallons per trip, and the sole variable is the wheel/tire combo. Your terrain comments are interesting though.

Just because the starting and ending points are the same does not mean both were the same distances. Just rounding a corner can have a 10% difference in the distance travelled. Its one of the most important lessons in high performance driving where you find the line that yields the highest average speed. I'd rather see the mileage between fills and the gallons to fill. In 250 km (155 mi) the error can be as much as 25 miles just to manuevering in traffic.
And of course having hills really changes everything. Thats usually the reason why we don't all get DOT mpg; their test has no hills and we do.
PS you don't get back going downhiill after an uphill.
If the mpg is within 5% for both there is probably no significant difference.
To do it best you need the mileage and fillups for at least 10 trips. The problem as many have noted is the difficulty of refilling to the same fill level.
 
Old Jan 14, 2009 | 08:53 PM
  #113  
DOHCtor's Avatar
Member
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 622
From: Québec city
I filled to the cap to eliminate that source of error... The distance is less with the 17inches because the wheels are higher... (something like 15km less!!) I have seen a difference of less then one kilometer going through that trip with the same tires of course! (Only highway driving...) Both sets of tires were inflated to 40 PSI! Similar weather! Rimouski is sightly less elevated then Drummondville so downhill in the long run!! Same Motor oil, stock car with rear seats removed, etc...

Marko!!
 
Old Jan 15, 2009 | 08:30 AM
  #114  
mahout's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,371
From: NC USA
[quote=cavie187;275569]Turbo charging will actually increase mpg. It atomizes the fuel, brings the air to a static temperature, and increases the airflow.


Where did you get this from? Fisher carb people?
 
Old Jan 15, 2009 | 09:16 AM
  #115  
mikejet's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,520
From: West Covina, CA
Install bike rack and bike. Drive half way to destination. Bike other half!
 
Old Jan 23, 2009 | 01:04 AM
  #116  
StillHaveaFit!'s Avatar
New Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 27
From: Milton, Fl
Notice the rim size difference? Are the larger rims lighter? Do you have light weight tall rims and heavy steel short rims? Too many variables.
 
Old Feb 15, 2009 | 02:16 PM
  #117  
jousai7's Avatar
New Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 13
From: Virginia
CAI = MPG loss..by bringing in colder denser air the car will add more FUEL to compensate thus generating more power and lowering your mpgs...thast why Hot air intakes are popular..run piping from under ur exhaust mainfolds into your intake alows hotter temps(~120) of air into ur engine, the car will sense this and spray less fuel, higher temps also increase atomization of the fuel, therefore you burn less better ^^
 
Old May 8, 2009 | 01:06 AM
  #118  
Contrabida Face's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 523
From: Vallejo, CA
Originally Posted by jousai7
CAI = MPG loss..by bringing in colder denser air the car will add more FUEL to compensate thus generating more power and lowering your mpgs...thast why Hot air intakes are popular..run piping from under ur exhaust mainfolds into your intake alows hotter temps(~120) of air into ur engine, the car will sense this and spray less fuel, higher temps also increase atomization of the fuel, therefore you burn less better ^^
didn't know that^^^

thanks.
 
Old May 8, 2009 | 01:10 AM
  #119  
keepitpg's Avatar
i love college
iTrader: (10)
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,410
From: Monrovia, CA / SLC, UT
Originally Posted by jousai7
CAI = MPG loss..by bringing in colder denser air the car will add more FUEL to compensate thus generating more power and lowering your mpgs...thast why Hot air intakes are popular..run piping from under ur exhaust mainfolds into your intake alows hotter temps(~120) of air into ur engine, the car will sense this and spray less fuel, higher temps also increase atomization of the fuel, therefore you burn less better ^^
good call!
 
Old May 8, 2009 | 10:46 AM
  #120  
mfitz's Avatar
New Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 12
From: Albany, ny
Originally Posted by JBElliott
I plan on adding a grappling hook to the front of my fit. I'm working on a way to disengage the hook and reel it in so that I won't need a new hook every trip I take. I figure this mod should get me up towards the 50 mpg range. Wish me luck
Electro magnet!
 



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:09 AM.