(Anecdotal) Fit only getting 27 MPG?

Page 3 of 3  


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?
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

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...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

you keep posting that opinion, but you won't answer the question. what rpm's are you pulling at 70mph?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I'm not the guy that you posted the question to about the RPMs at 70 MPH, but I purposely ran my Fit up to 70MPH, which is not easy to do on L.A.'s crowded freeways, and the tachometer indicates around 3,400 RPM at 70 MPH. My Fit is a 5 speed manual transmission. Hope this helps.
Robert A. Cunningham
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robert A. Cunningham wrote:

I don't know where that intermediate comment came from, but I'm the one who suggested short gearing, and I think I'm right. A car geared for freeway cruising in overdrive should be running at about 2500-2800 RPM at that speed. This reminds me of something that Volvo pulled with the 140 series, way back when: you could get an optional overdrive unit for the manual shift cars, but if you got stuck with a basic 4 speed, it would be running 3500RPM at *60* MPH. Honda obviously wanted the car to be responsive in 5th, even at the expense of fuel economy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

"should"??? rpm's depend on the ratio that best balances motor output with the best point on its economy curve with the wind resistance/weight for that vehicle. so the number varies from car to car, motor to motor!!!

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

I had one of those! A 1970 145 with a 4-speed. Seeing the tach hover around 4000 rpm in top gear on urban freeways was strange. However, responsiveness is relative....
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

I had a '71 145 for a while: rusty body but the best suspension I'd even driven. No, it wasn't a powerhouse, but I still think they should have done what they did with the P1800, and put a higher final gearing on the 4 speeds... Another interssting factoid: the 4 speed P1800S was faster than the 5 speed, precisely because they had a higher final gearing, and would redline at 120 in 4th. The 5 speed would top out at about 110 in 4th, and go no faster in O/D.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 05:32:54 -0700, Michael Pardee wrote:

*I had a '73 1800ES...
http://www.volvoadventures.com/1800ESspec.html
Much more like this:
http://www.packracingproducts.com/acatalog/1800ES.jpg
And even more like this:
http://web.telia.com/~u11315307/falth2/images/1800es.jpg
FUN!!!!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

I'll bet you wish you still had it...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 02:15:01 +0000, mjc13<REMOVETHIS> wrote:

LOL! I was 19. Thing nickle and dimed me into the poorhouse (well, almost).
But you just looked so damned *COOL* driving it, who cared?! (Kinda like how I feel about the fuel 'economy' of my Supra, but that has more to do with the removable roof section...)
Rolled the damn 1800 right onto the roof. Thank God Volvo builds roll bars into their cars...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hachiroku ハチロク wrote:

To the best of my knowledge, the Studebaker Avanti was the only American car with an integral roll bar as part of the design. This car which was introduced in the spring of 1962, also had a fiberglass body, front disk brakes and a completely padded safety interior.
And driving was a pleasure as it sure was glued to the road. I loved that car and sure wish that I did not sell it but unfortunately, I had to thin the herd when I accepted overseas employment back in 1989...
JT
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.