Civic hybrid incident? Can you explain further on that? I was really wondering where honda fit fits in. I took a look at the shops but Fit is never included.

My assumptions are because of the economy, that's why models like these exist?

generic viagra

 

It's a link in my post.

 

Yeah it was big news!

 

People don’t care for sport car’s gas mileage during winter, because it gets worsened for their fuel and the economy. They find that engine is chilled and also during the coldest season. Trips don’t do well with that kind of issue. Their radiator will not do proper in that car with that kind of economy gas mileage.

 

Looking at Honda's website, the specifications for the 2013 Fits, curb weight (in Lbs): Base at 2577 lbs and Sport at 2617 lbs (Nav Sport is at 2628 Lbs). 40 Lbs of added curb weight doesn't seem that much but I recall the other forum posters who swapped out the stock wheels (weight of approx. 19 lbs/wheel) to lighter ones (specifically Enkei ones weighing in around 9~10 lbs/wheel). The overall reduction (in wheels alone) 36~40 lbs and yielded better performance and better mileage.

So I would venture to guess that the added weight does make a difference.

 

Read this:
Car guys: Why is unsprung weight so bad? - AnandTech Forums

 

great info!

 

my 1980 malibu maybe got 10 mpg cause it was a six but i'm happy with 20+ mpg city. although highway my malibu did pretty good but 30 + is better than 18mpg also lol

 

if you will not have heavy tires and high power engines then you will surely be not able to move on for a high speed. so with high wheels and powerful engines the mileage may suffer a bit . its natural.../........

 

That's really interesting.. Zenmervolt on that forum said:

"Rotating mass must be accelerated/decelerated every time the speed changes, and it's harder to accelerate the rotating mass. Since most rotating mass (aside from the engine and the tranny) is unsprung weight (half-shafts, wheels, brake rotors), a reduction in unsprung weight generally entails a reduction in rotating mass, which helps acceleration. It is rotating mass that is roughly 3 times harder to accelerate than normal weight. Plain old unsprung weight is not any harder to accelerate. Basically, rotating mass must be accelerated twice every time the car speeds up, it must be accelerated linearly (in the direction of the vehicle's travel) and rotationally (in the direction of its spin).

As for a reduction in unsprung weight independant from rotating mass, this generally improves the suspension's ability to work properly. Unsprung weight contributes to inertia in the suspension, which in turn affects the geometry assumed by the suspension."

A few thoughts:

But, at the same time you have an increase in friction and rolling resistance with the larger, wider tires on the Sport which should affect mpg noticeably, right? Imagine if you had thin wheels and tires, like a race bike on the car.. you would not only decrease unsprung weight you would also decrease rolling resistance and probably improve mpg substantially, but at the cost of handling?

On a side issue, if you decrease the weight at the axle level with lighter wheels/tires, aren't you shifting the center of gravity higher up and thus decreasing handling ability?

 

This is an interesting website where you can compare you mileage with others for the same year and model (click here)

I just wish they were more clear about the type of car, auto, stick, sport/base, etc.

 

It is definitely the heavy wheels and wider tires causing the difference in fuel mileage and performance.. I'm posting this based on my own personal experience of using three different wheel/tire combinations...

 

we always sacrifice some mileage for better traction and stability due to additional weight on any vehicle. In most cases this is much less noticed on the highway millage than the city. The fit sport was not modified by the factory with any additional power to make the fit sport more aggressive from the throttle. Personally I would have liked for them to make them a turbo model but it was not to be. It handles like a sports car but can't back it up in acceleration. My 07 has a k&N air cleaner (NO cold air yet) and I run from the cat back no resonator muffler and a Murroso spiral flow muffler 2 1/2 inch reduced to stock pipe size inlet and 2 inch out. this gave me a good lower end response and a good power in the full range. I gained about 2 miles per gallon (1 additional trip back and forth to work per tank!) I am trying to reduce the interior sound from the muffler as it's louder inside than outside I believe. I coated the spare tire space with a sound deaden-er spray but will likely need to add more and started spraying the underside as well. need warmer weather for this. As is the case with all engines if we go to free of flow in the exhaust we must correct the air fuel ratio to work with it and the stock computer can't and wont correct for too much so using the stock pipe size to the spiral flow made good sense and worked. To those who want the sound you will be pleased as well it sounds strong!

 

If Sports get less mileage with an auto, why don't they get less than a Base when both are using a stick?

 

The reason why a stick model of fit gets better mileage than does the stick is due to a problem that has plagued automatic transmissions from the first models of automatic trans. The design of an automatic unfortunately actually robs horsepower to work the hydraulics and always has some slippage designed internally to make the everyday drive pleasant for the owner. In drag racing the automatic is reprogrammed with no creature comfort when it shifts gears. This arrangement virtually made the stick on the drag strip a dinosaur. The stick on the street model of cars however has far less loss and slippage designed in than does an automatic thus better mileage. If we all didn't care about smooth, jerk free shifts the automatic would do the same on the street as well. Also though keep in mind a racing trans tends to wear parts out faster due to the harsh shift on the parts.

 

I think what overthehill is asking is this; he seems to think that when a base model and a Sport model both have a stick, the Sport doesn't get worse gas mileage. If this were true it would rule out the difference being the tires/wheels causing the lower mileage with the Sport, but I'm not sure where he got his information.

 

Yes, that is the question. I don't see where trim or tires affected the official mileage of the two with MT. The Sport and the Base sticks are both rated 27/33/29. Only the Base Fit auto is rated 28/35/31. The ratings don't make sense.
2013 Honda Fit - Specifications - Official Site

 

Wow.. that is interesting.. now what?

 

the gear ratios on a base and a sport are different base has long gears before each shift sport have shorter gears for more acceleration and u wont get as good miles as base

 

In the past and even today we found we could adjust tire height to gain top end speed or gain lower end launch. a shorter tire launched better and a taller tire gave better top end speed. horsepower with good tire traction made taller a good choice for the track thus dragsters have tall rear tires. this proved true in street driven cars. If for example a man, or woman drove the freeways all the time and long distances a swap to 15 inch tires from 14 inch and perhaps an inch taller tire may yield 2 or 3 miles per gallon better. I have found no information showing the stock fit has any different engine or drive train changes other than tire sizes and trim. A stock fit tire and rim may be shorter than is the sport tire and wheel combo and thus give the sport a feel of some performance change. If the sport indeed does have taller tires it would balance any weight change on the open road. Personally I would trade off better road stability from wider better tracking tires for a mile or two per gallon if need be. My sport feels great on the highway even in the wind.