I think it would be a good idea to standardize the format in which MPG is posted. It is very easy to skew result by posting them differently. For example: If I drive 482.0 km (301.25 miles) and fill up with 34.167 litres (Gallons unknown, nonstandard measure) I am getting 7.089 L/100km (or 39.82 MPG imperial or 33.15 MPG US) as you can see there are 3 different results for the same case study.

Being Canadian I like to see what I am getting in L/km but I still prefer using an MPG format for discussion about gas consumption.

With implementing a standard format for posting fuel consumption I believe that it will clear up some discrepancies of people achieving 45+MPG while others are only getting 35 mpg.

I will try to find a formula for Imperial MPG and would suggest that people follow that formula. That is unless there is great opposition to this

 

Well, we're Americans, and we don't use those silly 'kilometer' things, and we fought hard to keep England's imperial stuff out... so we're gonna stick with 'Miles Per Gallon'.

 

miles per gallon>kilo......

 

For those who don't like math (like me) I have the following link. It converts US MPG to Imperial MPG to l/100km and km/l

Onyrix » How to convert MPG (miles per US and UK gallon) to l/100km and km/l (litres, km) » Dino Olivieri » IT Consultant, Web Expert, Computer Scientist

 

Not to be as direct as some of the others, but this is an American site and mostly American users in the Eco area.

Why not convert when you share to the standard US Gal and Miles? If I was posting in a Canadian site I would extend the same courtesy

 

i think that people should include some other things -

1. tire pressure, hot
2. approximate weight of contents in car
3. cruising speed
4. highway, city, or what mix of both
5. octane of fuel
6. modifcations

 

Sorry for causing all the drama. My only point was that everyone needs to post their numbers using the same calculations. I'm fine with reading American MPG. However, I do not believe that it is possible to be getting 47.9 MPG US as some are claiming. This means that a mile is 1.6km and a US gallon is 3.78541178 L (as apposed to and even 4 liters, that an imperial Gallon).

Now can we all get along.

 

Octane rating doesn't have anything to do with economy, so why include it?

 

So why not challenge the users that post the high numbers? is my avg over 4000 miles of 42.4 too hard to believe? What do you avg over the car life? Consider using clean mpg.

I'd bet this will be about the best chance you will have to learn what it takes to get top shelf Eco.

 

Well I have not been keeping to accurate of records but after my last fill i decided that i needed to. Right now I'm sitting at about 4500km on my 2008 fit sport. My km per tank continues to rise so obviously I am doing something right. As for FE over the "life" of my car, from the records I have it is 6.901L/100km (for those that don't understand L/100km low # is good, the aim is under 7) Since 7L/100km is 40 imperial MPG I am not doing too bad. However I do desire to get better mileage. It shouldn't take too long to build up my driving info, I fill up once a week. 90% city driving I would say.

As for mods: T1R quick shift, K&N drop in, and All weather floor mats

One more thing, I did look at joining cleanmpg.com but found the conversion to Canadian crap too confusing. So instead I joined up with BCGasPrices.com (powered by gasbuddy.com) it works smoother and tells me where the cheapest gas is.

Edit: One last question, what were the MPG #s on the window sticker down in the states?

 

"One last question, what were the MPG #s on the window sticker down in the states?"

The EPA changed the calc. for 2008 cars.
If you look at the Clean MPG green box below, in the lower right corner you will see the EMP rating for a MT 2008 Fit.
A few have 2007 like Rick and like mine they will show what it was 2007 2006.

 

i don't even pay attention to people's MPG claims. there's so many variables. it's like taking someone's street racing quartermile times or the infamous "butt dyno" LOL

 

As a European I’m only posting the usage here in this forum, because it may be interesting for you to know the usage of the JAZZ with CVT gear!

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/eco-...tml#post269714

Sure, it needs to be defined clearly, and calculated correctly.

That everybody quickly can translate into the favorite unite here, it may help if someone is sticking a translator (like the one of seeremlive) on the head of the eco page!?

 

i don't think anyone knows this with any degree of certainty. it's likely a non contributing factor (using 89, 91, or 93) but the forum hasn't been organized about keeping track of what people are putting in their tanks.

 

I would add to that that in theory there is no way you could get better Eco in a Fit than 87 does, unless it was detonating and that's never been reported or observed.

Further, know one on here has posted any real test data with A=B=A or anything that reassembles believability to support the concept. Just kids and clueless comments typing what the hope is true...