Why isn't MPG better for the Fit?
 

Please don't take this as a troll or flame post. I currently own four Hondas - a 2006 Pilot, a 2006 Ridgeline, a 2004 Element, and a 1997 NSX. My father owned a 1st gen Fit and liked it very much. I have driven it and found it a practical and fun car. But for such a compact car with a small engine, its fuel economy is not impressive. The new 2013 Accord 4 cyl, even in Consumer Reports tests, achieved 40 MPG on the highway. That car weighs about 1000 lbs more, has more power, and accelerates quicker than the Fit.

What is the issue with the Fit's fuel economy? If you removed 1000 lbs from the Accord it would accelerate like a demon and easily attain 45 MPG.

It the Fit's engine just old Honda, and nowhere close to what should be in the car?

I have a question. What items would you remove from an Accord to get rid of 1000 lbs?

cheaper tiner frame lol and plastics

How about this instead, since my comment was intended to be hypothetical - take the Accord engine, and retrofit into the Fit? I know mechanically this is not possible.

But consider simply the 2013 Accord engine, with its CVT transmission, in the Fit. This engine has 185 hp. What would 185 Hp feel like in the Fit? If this engine can achieve 27/36 MPG in the 3500 lb Accord, what could it do in the 2400 lb Fit?

I would guess that the Fit would have a 0-60 time of 6.0 seconds with better fuel economy.

Or the real question should be why isn't the engine in the Fit better?

Well the 4 cylinder Accord CVT sedan is advertised to achieve 36 mpg (2013 Honda Accord Sedan - Performance - Official Honda Site). And that seems to be the highest fuel economy figure for the Accord's variants.

Obviously, you can achieve better figures than the EPA estimate - people get over 40 mpg with the Fit too.

Plus, the Accord's engine has direct injection, which is uses fuel more efficiently.

And in 2013, Accords have a feature called Eco Assist, with a "normal" mode and "econ" mode. I don't know what it does really, but it sounds like it can save fuel and sacrifice power.

In summary, the 2013 Accord has new technology and improved fuel economy. The Fit's engine is older.

The 2013 has newer engine technology. Direct injection being one of them. It also has this little thing called torque which it produces 181 ft-lbs of at 3900 RPM compared to the Fit's 106 ft-lbs at 4800 RPM.

So the Fit has to work harder to move less while having a less economical engine to begin with. Once the Fit gets a new motor it'll probably see better economy than it already has but it does get a lot better than what the sticker says in the first place as well.

I think you said it. But when does the Fit get a modern engine? The Fit has the potential to be a 50 MPG gasoline car with a more respectable effort from Honda.

Kinda like comparing the Ford Ecoboost V6 in the F150 to the engine in my Ridgeline. The Ford has more than 100 more HP, 150 more TQ, pulls a truck that weighs about 1000 lbs more, tows more, accelerates much faster, and achieves the same MPG as my Ridgeline. Honda should be embarrassed.

From what I've seen/heard honda is working on moving all their motors over to direct injected or the "earth dreams" motors. 50 mpg is pushing it but high 30's low 40's is posible.

Comparing the ecoboost to the ridgeline is not even close to fair. The ecoboost is turbo charged. Forced induction is the easiest way to produce economical power which is what the Ecoboost V6 does. Honda offers no OEM turbocharged motors other than the Acura RDX as far as I know.

I think it is fair to compare the Ecoboost to the Ridgeline. FI is just one way to produce more power. Close your eyes and its just an engine. Ford has just done more for truck power than Honda has. I think Ford made the Ecoboost too strong actually. Few F150 owners need that much power. Ford instead could have reduced boost and increased MPG more.

Honda spent the last decade fiddling with VTEC instead of DI or forced induction. The RDX is no longer a turbo 4 - its a standard Honda V6 now. That suggests Honda abandoned the turbo, at least for a while, as an engineering choice.

The Fit is not very aerodynamic, and at highway speeds that's what you're using the gas for- pushing a cube through space.

i notice that if i use the cruise control it helps regulate the amount of gas being used and gives better MPG. (on highways. )

FI is a way to produce more power while using less fuel. Honda shouldn't have ever made the ridgeline to begin with. No one is going to say "Man honda makes a great truck"... ever. I know a lot of people that trade in their older F150's for the Ecoboost because of the better fuel milage and still being able to tow just as much and most people are going the completely opposite way you are suggesting. Giving it more boost and getting more power.

Not every F150 driver is a tool that just wants a truck. Quite a few actually use them to carry stuff and tow. No one in their right mind uses a Ridgeline for towing because it was never really meant to do that well.

This is also true. Hence the reason most hatchbacks get worse gas milage than their sedan counterparts.

an additional TALL SIXTH GEAR would go a lonnnnnnggggggg way in increasing the HWY mpg.

really taller overall gears would help....1st is completely useless. (manual trans)

What would 185 hp feel like in the Fit... it feels pretty damn good. Though I only got about 26 mpg

I <3 these OMG MPG LULZ threads.

1st is completely useless? So I guess you skip it all together and only use 2nd - 5th right?

What good is a "TALL SIXTH GEAR" if you can't use it anywhere except a flat road or a downhill? It was geared the way it is for a reason. It doesn't make any power in the low RPM.

Who cares about MPG when you're having fun! :vtec: :lol:

I swear there are more MPG threads here than there are on the CRZ forum.

What makes you believe that a sixth gear would not benefit the highway fuel economy? Have you ever driven on a highway? At 70mph my rpms are so sitting at around 3200...that's buzzy. A taller sixth gear would at least knock them down to 1500. Works wonders in our Challenger. Sure you have no power...but that's what an overdrive gear does.

Yes I have driven on a highway. 5th at 80 was about 4000 RPM. 70 mph at 3200 RPM is normal for any 4 cylinder. My CRZ's 6th at 80 is about 3500 RPM. The difference between your challenger and the fit is that it can produce the necessary amount of power to keep the car moving at low RPM. The fit can't.

Ok, I'll bite.. take a look at the amount of torque with respect to weight and Cd that your Challenger has vs the Fit at 1500rpm

And 3200 on the stock 5th gear in the Fit at cruise.. which is taller than 1:1 already, then going down to 1500 would be abysmal for fuel economy under that much load. Everything in that motor would hate you for effectively lugging it everywhere.

Regardless of what motor you have in your Challenger, it is actually capable of generating decent torque at low RPMs, like 1500.

Try accelerating your Fit (even a little bit) starting at 1500 RPM, you'll dump more gas trying to do so than your would downshifting and using the lower gear's extra torque.

Who cares if the motor is spinning at 3200 rpm? The amount of fuel required to keep it spinning at that speed is low. Do you have the throttle at 1/2 to keep it going at 3200 rpm? No. There should be very little throttle input to keep it there.

40 mpg hwy is easily achievable in the Fit between 65-70mph. It was meant to be a city car, not a highway cruiser. If you want to do 80mph interstate blasts get an Accord or American full-size car.