(Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?

There is a distinct possibility something is wrong with his Fit. Off and on 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

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.

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.

Well, since we are talking anecdotal mileage, I should report that so far I have averaged 35.69 MPH with just over 1065 miles. I have a Fit Sport 5 speed manual transmission. I'm always conscious of driving for economy, and I try to time the stoplight, whenever possible and practical. I am more than satisfield with my mileage, but it would be less if I drove with a heavy foot. Consumer Reports averaged 34 MPH overall with their 5 speed.

Robert A. Cunningham

>

"Michael Pardee" wrote in news:XOSdnbdZi6VC1wfbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@sedona.net:

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.

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

"Robert A. Cunningham" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Miles per HOUR? ;-) that makes for a really long trip.....almost 30 hrs to go 1065 miles! ;-) (I know you meant MPG..)

It's odd that a person would stop for a fill-up that was less than 3 gallons.

What's the tank capacity on your Fit?

The manual says the fuel capacity is 10.83 gallons. When the low fuel indicator lights up there is around 2 gallons remaining. You're correct, it is odd to fill up that soon. Obviously, the more times you fill up, the more accurate the overall mileage is. If I were the owner, I would not be concerned on any mileage figure that was based upon less than ten gallons, let alone three. OH, and yes, I meant to say 35.69 MPG, not MPH. I drive a little slow, BUT NOT THAT SLOW :)

Robert A. Cunningham

I drove a Fit, and it seemed like an OK, car, but the Civic LX

*automatic* parked next to it was rated at 40mpg highway, while the 5 speed Fit I drove was rated at 36. I think it's short gearing at fault. Ironically, my '95 Civic EX has gearing that is way too tall, but at least it gets great mileage...

you keep posting that opinion, but you won't answer the question. what rpm's are you pulling at 70mph?

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.

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".

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

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

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

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.]

"Michael Pardee" wrote in news:3bmdnehpZ5gS3QHbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@sedona.net:

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)

But a lot of carmakers, esp the Japanese, responded quickly and designed the *car* around the *bumper*.

My 1978 Corolla looked kind of awkward with these big bumpers 'tacked on' to it, the 1980 that replaced it was nice!!

Where are you?