Jdm Vs Usdm 1.5l
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 215
From: toronto
Jdm Vs Usdm 1.5l
why does the JDM 1.5L get higher MPG then USDM 1.5Ls ??
the weight difference isn't that huge and as far as i can tell the engines are nearly identical ... is the CVT the reason ??
it gets nearly 10mpg more then our usdm ones ...
the weight difference isn't that huge and as far as i can tell the engines are nearly identical ... is the CVT the reason ??
it gets nearly 10mpg more then our usdm ones ...
Originally Posted by KnifeEdge_2K1
why does the JDM 1.5L get higher MPG then USDM 1.5Ls ??
the weight difference isn't that huge and as far as i can tell the engines are nearly identical ... is the CVT the reason ??
it gets nearly 10mpg more then our usdm ones ...
the weight difference isn't that huge and as far as i can tell the engines are nearly identical ... is the CVT the reason ??
it gets nearly 10mpg more then our usdm ones ...
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 215
From: toronto
thats what i thought at first so i took at the look at the km/l ratings which still show a nearly 30% difference between NAD and JDM figures
the only thing i can think of is a different system for rating fuel economy, like the EPA standard vs the JDM standard ... oh, i found a really cool site with info on the L series engines take a look guys
http://asia.vtec.net/Series/FitJazz/lseries/index.html
the only thing i can think of is a different system for rating fuel economy, like the EPA standard vs the JDM standard ... oh, i found a really cool site with info on the L series engines take a look guys
http://asia.vtec.net/Series/FitJazz/lseries/index.html
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver, Canada
Quoted from Edmunds.com
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX?14@@.f0c139c/499
No magic there. They can get crappy mileage too.
BTW, the Canadian Fit Base is rated for 32 MPG City and 39 MPG Highway, despite being the exact same car. (but with daytime running lights...)
EPA estimates aren't the ONLY estimates out there - you cannot compare across countries properly that way.
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX?14@@.f0c139c/499
Sorry to barge in here suddenly. The difference between the official mileage estimate and the real world MPG is a frequently discussed topic among the Fit owners in Japan as well. On the basis of Japan's "10-15 Mode" system, which I will just say is even more unrealistic than the EPA, the 1.5 liter CVT FWD (in Japan, the default Fit tranny is CVT) trims officially range from 20.5km/L to 18.6km/L(approx. 48.5MPG to 44 MPG). But it is a well-accepted fact in Japan that the Fit not only practically never reaches these figures, which is true in almost all vehicles using this official measurement system, but also that, for some reason, the discrepancy between the official figures and the real world ones is particularly significant with the Fit, when compared with other cars.
I personally drove a 1.5 liter CVT AWD Fit (wish we could have this trim in the U.S.!) that I rented for a day in Japan. This trim was rated 18.0km/L (approx. 42.6MPG), but after driving all day and emptying the tank, I only got about 11km/L or about 26MPG. I do grant that my driving took this Fit anywhere from city stop-n'-go to steep mountain roads and back, and considering the condition, even 26MPG was a good number. But it wasn't 42.6 or anywhere near the official figure.
I am not knocking the Fit by mentioning the above. What I am basically trying to say is that in Japan this kind of mileage discrepancy is quite well-known, and yet the Fit sells very well. I think that people there just don't put all that much weight on the official figures and look instead at the car's true attributes, including a decent if not eye-popping real world mileage.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that in Japan you can fairly easily knock $1,500 or more off the Fit's MSRP due to stiff competition.
I personally drove a 1.5 liter CVT AWD Fit (wish we could have this trim in the U.S.!) that I rented for a day in Japan. This trim was rated 18.0km/L (approx. 42.6MPG), but after driving all day and emptying the tank, I only got about 11km/L or about 26MPG. I do grant that my driving took this Fit anywhere from city stop-n'-go to steep mountain roads and back, and considering the condition, even 26MPG was a good number. But it wasn't 42.6 or anywhere near the official figure.
I am not knocking the Fit by mentioning the above. What I am basically trying to say is that in Japan this kind of mileage discrepancy is quite well-known, and yet the Fit sells very well. I think that people there just don't put all that much weight on the official figures and look instead at the car's true attributes, including a decent if not eye-popping real world mileage.
Of course, it doesn't hurt that in Japan you can fairly easily knock $1,500 or more off the Fit's MSRP due to stiff competition.
BTW, the Canadian Fit Base is rated for 32 MPG City and 39 MPG Highway, despite being the exact same car. (but with daytime running lights...)
EPA estimates aren't the ONLY estimates out there - you cannot compare across countries properly that way.
Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 32
From: north bend, WA
Originally Posted by KnifeEdge_2K1
the only thing i can think of is a different system for rating fuel economy, like the EPA standard vs the JDM standard
Just look at the EPA estimates for cars like the Prius, that car and other hybrids just perform really well in the EPA test. Real world mileage on the prius is way lower than EPA estimates from what I've seen
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
