When the Fit was finally revealed, and the specs advertised, many people were disappointed in the fuel economy. The new Civic actually appeared to get 2 more MPG on the highway than the Fit.

Well I just picked up the April issue of Consumer Reports. The non-hybrid Civic had a CR overall fuel economy of 28 MPG. Interestingly, both the Scion xA, and xB got a CR overall fuel economy of 30 MPG. The xA was rated at 32/37 MPG for the MT, and 31/38 MPG for the AT by the EPA, while the Civic was rated at 30/38 MPG for the MT, and 30/40 for the AT by the EPA. The Toyota Corolla was rated at 32/41 MPG for the MT and 30/38 for the AT by the EPA, but CR's overall fuel economy was 29 MPG. The Civic and Corolla tests done by Consumer Reports were done with an AT.

Based on the similar configuration of the Scion xA, it's very possible that the realistic fuel economy of the Fit could actually be better than we expected.

 

Yea, i was wondering about this too (based on logic and no research). Also I know different sizes get rated different. The new hybrid accord gets lower EPA only b/c its heavier and gets a different EPA test, but honda claims it gets similar mileages. I also noticed all small vehicles don't get higher than >38mpg (aveo is 33) when larger vehicles commonly are high, so something must be wrong w/ these pictures. Corolla got EPA 39 highway, when scion says 38ish, and the only explanation is EPA tests cars of differnet sizes differently .

 

If you notice, the official NA FIT specs are using the NEW 2007 EPA mileage estimates, which are supposed to be a lot closer to actual gas mileage. The other estimates are using the CURRENT estimates (2006), which are known to be flawed.

 

Very true Shneor. Also I mean you will purchase this car for more reasons than just Fuel Economy. there are many other options offered on the Fit that no other models offer at all.

 

I have learned not to really trust the gas mileage ratings that automotive magazines or Consumer Reports gives a car. They drive the cars like psychos. I realize that it is somewhat of a real world test, and that some people rev their cars high every time they shift, but they seem to average around 10mpg less than most people that I talk to. My aunt and two of my friends average around 40mpg in their corollas, and my uncle averages 52mpg in his prius. My 1991 civic is rated at 35mpg on the highway and I average 39mpg all around. I think if you drive the car without accelerating too fast, you will see #'s higher than 38mpg.

 

Consumer Reports testing engineers "drive the cars like psycho's"? Where do you get that information from? Do you know one of the automotive testing engineers at CR? Did you witness them testing their cars at the 327-acre test facility in East Haddam, CT? Did you ride along with them while they performed fuel economy tests, reflecting a realistic mix of city, country-road, and highway driving?

 

I've come to trust Consumer Reports mileage numbers in their real world tests.

The ones I don't trust are the anecdotal numbers you get from people that don't religiously keep their fuel mileage over a long period of time.

 

I must drive like a CR psycho - I get the same stated ACTUAL mileage average on my CRV that they did,,,

 

I didn't actually mean that they drive the cars like maniacs. I only exagerated to stress my point. I definately agree that you can't trust the poeple that test their mileage once because it may greatly fluctuate between tanks of gas. My brother for example got 17mpg on his first tank in his integra gs-r because he reved the thing to the moon every time. These car testers don't exactly try to get the best mileage they can. And I understand that isnt their job, they are trying to test all aspects of the cars performance. I just think that the numbers they come up with are based on somewhat harder than real life driving styles. (Or maybe I just drive like nancy) I altered my driving to a more aggressive style for a whole tank of gas and lost 5mpg. I drive around 65%/35% country and city respectively. So I am saying that I personally, don't rely too much on their mileage performance when considering a car because I know they drive the cars more aggressively than I do, and so much depends on the way you drive your car. I ask people what they get in their car and try to do some research (fueleconomy.gov).

 

I am amazed, the fit officially gets 38mpg. Thats less than the civic!

 

Hm. Somebody did not read the thread before responding to it

 

no just reiterating .

my spyder can get 35-40mpg on the highway .

 

I think fuel economy of Fit(for city driving) is not that bad considering it's using NEW EPA mileage estimates. It's not a good idea to compare Fit with other cars that using different EPA standard.

Fit is more of city car than highway car. Compare to new civic, Fit has very short gear ratio(MT), which indicate the car was not built for highway driving. For people who drive alot on highway Fit is not a good choice. Even with 30 extra hp new civic does better on highway b/c of their tall geaing(style of car should help too).

Hybrid car is there for someone lookin for extream fuel economy.

Fit is not just for fuel economy, it's about total pakage: price, VTEC engine,versatile magic seat , decent lookin in/out, honda refinement and reliablility.

I think Fit has good balance between fuel economy and performence.

 

As much as VTEC is fun in the right form, it's not a big selling feature on the Fit.

My 1990 Civic Si didn't have VTEC (ok, weighed less, and had almost no options), and even with the sporty gearing (great acceleration for the amount of power it had), could still do highway fuel economy similar to the new Civic. I frequently averaged 6.5L/100km in the summer, and a few 5.8L/100kms on trips to Montreal and Toronto.

 

VTEC engine(even though it's only SOHC) definetly is attractive selling point for me. Honda makes best 4 cylinder engine and compare to other competitor's engine like Aveo, it is no brainer.

As for fuel ecomony of ur civic, like u mentioned already it's basically difference between VTEC engine and normal engine. VTEC engine does burn more fuel but only when it's activated(high rpm), so if u stay below 4k rpm, it wont drink alot of gas, i hope.

 

Do you only drive downhill or something? Thats 5-10 mpg over the EPA hwy FE figure.

 

I own the 2nd model that Honda/Acura offered DOHC VTEC in North America, a 1992 Integra GS-R. So, I know quite a bit about it. In short form, you have a second cam lobe that allows the motor to breathe better at higher RPMs. They also made some E-VTEC motors for improved fuel economy.

My 1990 Civic Si had a 1.6L SOHC motor, and back then was rated at 108hp. Not much more than the DX (maybe 18hp at the most). The main reason the DX had better fuel economy was due to the longer gearing. But even with the shorter gearing in the Si, I could still manage awesome numbers.

 

The VTEC in the L15A we'll get in the Fit is almost like VTEC-E though and not like the two or three-lobed cam VTEC.

 

Of course, the SOHC VTEC engine(L15A) wont have significant boost at certain rpm, but switch over is there(around 3600rpm), it's just not noticeble like K-series engine.

Just like new civic, Fit's 110 hp is underrated with new SAE spec. So, actuall hp of L15A engine is more like +120 at the fly wheel, i suspect.

 

If you think the VTEC switch over on a K series is noticeable, you need to go for a rip in something with a B series VTEC motor. No variable intake timing for a smooth switch over.