(Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?

Page 1 of 3  
I was at a gas station/convenience store getting a cuppa and flirting with the 20 year olds behind the counter when a Fit came in. At fisrt I thought
it was an Si and then saw the 4 doors.
"Nice Car"
"Honda lied"
"How so?"
The guy had driven from Connecticut to near the Vt border at highway speeds, a trip of 75 miles, and had to put in 2.76 gallons of gas.
75/2.76'.17 MPG HUH?! I get 21 MPG overall with an older Supra that isn't quite running 100% and has a marginal AT besides!
I said jokinigly that he should keep his foot out of it! He said he barely gets over 30 MPG overall, and since this is his first real trip with the car he expected to at least be in the high 30's. It wasn't that warm and he didn't have the AC one when he pulled in for gas.
Now, with an '87 Corolla Carb'd on a 95 degree day, I got 45 MPG at 75 MPH with the AC on full blast, back in the day!
He also said when it's cold he barely makes it to 28 MPG...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

bad fuel economy (usually not even breaking 40 mpg) is a topic on Toyota Prius forums and a few common causes have been identified. There is the perennial problem of underinflated tires and the "operator error" of leaving the defroster on (not knowing that means the A/C is running in mild weather). Parking brake misadjustment has taken it's toll, and some Prius cars have suddenly improved fuel economy 20-30% when the injectors were replaced. Sometimes the cause is never found.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Some drivers unconsciously speed up and slow down;it seems they cannot maintain a constant speed even on a level roadway.That will adversely affect mileage. I've ridden with more than a few of them,and it's very annoying. Driving behind them is even more annoying.
Also,the Fit may not have been fully "broken in" yet.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Why would anyone put in 2.76 gallons?
Gives you a big margin for error, different pumps will top out a half-gallon off, easily, that would take it to 33mpg or so, still not brilliant, but maybe in a believable range. Maybe the 75 was off by a few, too. Make it 81 miles on 2.25 gallons and it's 36mpg.
My 2007 Accord EX4 is still not getting 30mpg, when the 2004 model easily got 32mpg on a full tank, nearly regardless of speed.
Knock 500 pounds of weight off the Fit and it will get 20% better mileage, too. Honda *has* to start paying attention to weight.
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JXStern wrote: <snip for clarity>

they pretty much can't. no manufacturer can unless los federales stop serving the oilcos's interests by requiring heavier & heavier vehicles in the name of "safety". if "safety" were the real goal, helmets, 5-point harnesses and roll cages would be mandatory.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At the expense of creature comforts and ease of use. But I agree with ya...
--
Phil



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 12:33:40 -0700, jim beam

I think safety can be had with composites, but they might not be as repairable, you might have to total a car with what is just fender damage even on a monobody. But if you build the composite car out of components in the first place, maybe you could replace the rear quarter and have *better* repairability, able to restore a car that would be totalled in today's steel technology.
I think it's much more the desire for a plush feel that keeps the weight up than safety. Maybe they can line the seats of a light weight car with Dr. Scholls gel insole material.
The Honda Gellin, 44mpg!
J.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JXStern wrote:

that's not going to happen. remember 5mph bumpers? the auto industry killed those asap because the fender bender repair business suddenly disappeared overnight! frequent costly repairs for minor damage is "good for america"!

popular misconception. designed right, you don't need heavy to be "plush".

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think a bigger factor was that the bumpers actually increased the mean cost of repair for low speed collisions. The problem was that the bumpers were damaged beyond repair at higher speeds, and a whole lot of collisions were between 5 and 10 mph. The 5 mph bumpers became another fragile, expensive piece to repair. I remember when the bumpers were mandated (and, man, were they ugly!) and when the bad numbers came out. I was still working in the same place; I only worked there 3 1/2 years, so it didn't take long for the bumpers to get their failing grade.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

i don't get it. modern 2.5mph bumpers are /less/ expensive to repair in a 10mph collision?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes - the 5 mph bumpers could run over $1000 on a $3000 car. The ones I saw had multi-stage hydraulics as opposed to the simple hydraulic mounts of today's bumpers.
The cars I had at the time, a 1970 Capri and a 1969 Lotus Europa, had stamped steel bumpers. I think the modern bumpers are an improvement over those but the 5 mph bumpers probably weren't.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

but dude, 2.5mph bumpers mean that the frame starts to deform at 2.6mph. the plastic bumper cover may be cheaper as a single item, but the frame of the vehicle is not!!!
[honda stuck with 5mph btw even though it's no longer mandated, so 5.1mph for honda.]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One of my neighbors had a rear end collision,and the bumper bar underneath was mounted on crushable spacer brackets;the bar withstood the crash,but the spacers need to be replaced,along with the urethane plastic bumper cover.(that was already removed when I saw the car)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:41:17 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

Where are you?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

Upstate NY. Here's the as:
http://albany.craigslist.org/car/345979338.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:12:56 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

WHOA! Very Nice!
If I ever get a job that *PAYS* again, I might be interested! Right now I'm doing newspapers in between and am looking for ~$250 beaters.
I certainly would NOT use that on a paper route!!!
And I know where mechanicsville is. I used to live in Pittsfield MA and used to go to Lebanon Valley a lot. Also, many trips through to Toronto ans Selkirk and Waterford when I worked for GE.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

A somewhat similar '86 was up on Ebay last month: nicer body but original clutch, which must be worn. It was also the least desirable color - white. The bidding stopped at $2500, the reserve not met. I may go that route, and put up a 'buy it now' price of $1995. People don't seem to appreciate these cars enough around here. Anyway, if anyone here wants to buy it and restore it, or at least treat it gently, I'm flexible on the price, as long as it's cash. The biggest problem with the car is a driver's side rainwater leak that the dealers could never even find, much less fix...
I'm still amazed that this 91HP car would outdrag the 125 HP EX Sedan I replaced it with.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

did you ever do the power/weight ratio calculation?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 04:03:25 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

If I ever get a real job again...
Can I fit a matress in it?
I have an '85 Corolla GTS (I'd like to put them up against each other...) an '88 Supra an '89 Mazda 626 an '89 Subaru GL Hatch and an '05 Scion tC.
I got told "One more friggin car, and it better be something you can *sleep* in!" ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

Maybe a kid's mattress. I've tried to sleep in the car, and it's about 1' too short.

I think the GTS would win. 16 valves and, what, 120HP? vs 12 valves and 91HP, in a body only slightly heavier. But with the set of Bridgestones I ran for 9 years, I think my car would have won in the corners.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.