How do you change the electronic speed sensor - is it coded into software, or a hardware swap out to alter the speedo reading when you change tire diameter to lower engine rpm's at a given speed?

 

I am also interested - lower rpm would be nice.

 

Finally, the voice of reason! Shifting in place of braking is quite possibly the worst of all Consumer Reports "educated" driver habits.

 

This is not something that is easily modified.

I would consider changing the gearing if you're serious about this.

 

The dealer should be able to recalibrate your speedo. One of my other obdII cars has a hypertech programmer with the tire size feature built in. I'd try to stay with a similar roll out sized tire, though. 2-3% is a very acceptable tolerance.

 

Actually the best way to slow down is to coast. Don't wear the brakes, or the clutch and use less gas.

 

Some companies sell black boxes that modify the pulse to match different final drives for the S2K. Odds are the same part could be used on the Fit.

 

I don't know about Honda, but most car speedos are a few percent on the optimistic side. I just did a trip in my Mazda MPV family fridge with my Garmin GPS and the car speedo was about 3-4 percent more than the GPS speed. Should you upsize your tires a reasonable amount, you shouldn't have to worry about the speedo. It might cause it to be bang on.

 

How easy it to change the gearing, could you swap out a final drive from an AT? This gearing must be in the differential - is it ?

 

If you swapped the final drive, then first gear might be a little too tall for San Francisco type hills.

 

The NA Fit Sport's tires (195/55R15) are 2% bigger than the rest-of-the-world's (185/55R15) and the regular tires (175/65R14).

<wavy lines>
My first car was a very used Civic 1200; on the rear I had the normal 155/80R12, and on the front the only cheap used tires I could get locally, a pair of 'huge' 155/80R13 from an Accord.
</wavy lines>

 

+1.

FWIW, I had two 89 Civics in a row. Bought the first one new, sold it at 154,000 miles. Bought the second one with 60k on it, sold it at about 235,000 miles.

Never needed to replace a clutch.

 

NOTE: This rationale only works if you DON'T drive like a crazy bastard. Naturally, in my S13, when I'm coming up to a 25mph turn at 60mph in 4th, I can't coast, I have to drop two gears, bring the nose to my exit line, countersteer, and stand about halfway down on the throttle while my rear tires complain about it

 

Does anyone know if the Fits mileage ratings come from the new revised EPA guidelines? Not sure if it goes into effect for 2007 or 2008.
Honda says the Fits ratings are based on EPA 2007 tests.
The old tests were way out of date and critics say actual mileage figures were 10 to 15 percent lower than EPA figures.

I had manual trannys for most of my life. Getting older and lazy so the Auto is the way to go for me.

 

EPA Proposes New Test Methods for Fuel Economy Window Stickers


Release date: 01/10/2006
Contact Information: John Millett, (202) 564-4355 / millett.john@epa.gov

(Washington, D.C.-Jan. 10, 2006) To provide consumers with more real-world fuel economy information when shopping for cars, SUVs, and pick-up trucks, EPA is proposing new methods to determine the city and highway mpg estimates that appear on the window stickers. The new methods will take effect for model year 2008 vehicles, which will generally be available for sale in fall of 2007.





Since the Fit is a 2007 model year vehicle (and since the new rules have not yet been officially adopted anyway), the answer would be...


NO.

 

Looking at mileage ratings for this car, there is no way that it should have epa estimates below 40mpg. Japan has rated the efficiency of this motor within 15% of the iDSI 1.3 motor which gets about 50mpg. Here's the tov asia article.

http://asia.vtec.net/Series/FitJazz/lseries/

No wonder we're hearing reports of 40+ mpg. Good power and economy.....praise Honda!

 

If we paid more attention to the traffic light patterns, density of traffic and did not love the sound of our air intake and lovely acceleration of the MT our fuel economy should kill an AT anyday.

 

[quote=Gordio;28670]http://www.cartalk.com/content/colum...tember/09.html

Recently i've been hearing auto, b/c of software advancemnts, actually gets better mileage than manual. This was maybe 2 months ago. Then the common arguement against this was torque converter. This article kinda mentions the countercounterarguement.


I'm no rocket scientist, but it seems that the gearing for auto tranny cars are geared differently than sticks. 5th gear ratio for automatics are 0.552, while manuals' 5th gears ratio is slightly higher at 0.727. I imagine that autos don't rev as high while driving at 60 mph. My Fit with the stick revs around 3200 rpm in 5th.

It could be as simple as gear ratios. Or it could be a combination of the technology available for automatics versus manuals. I remember once upon a time when manuals got better mileage. And that was less than ten years ago. My, oh my how times (and technology) have changed.

 

Why are you digging up a five year old thread?

 

And why are you READING a five year old thread?