Fuel economy

I think it's the weight. From Consumer Reports, Dec. 2000 and Dec.

2006:

Toyota Echo: 28 city, 46 highway (manual, 2,150 lbs.)

Toyota Yaris: 26/42 (manual, 2,370 lbs.), 23/44 (auto, 2,430 lbs.)

Honda Fit: 26/39 (manual, 2,495 lbs.) , 22/43 (auto, 2,535 lbs.)

The Yaris has about the same engine as the Echo.

"larry moe 'n curly" ...

Wickeddoll® wrote:

I think it's the weight. From Consumer Reports, Dec. 2000 and Dec.

2006:

Toyota Echo: 28 city, 46 highway (manual, 2,150 lbs.)

Toyota Yaris: 26/42 (manual, 2,370 lbs.), 23/44 (auto, 2,430 lbs.)

Honda Fit: 26/39 (manual, 2,495 lbs.) , 22/43 (auto, 2,535 lbs.)

The Yaris has about the same engine as the Echo.

LMC

Thanks. Why would they make that tiny car heavier? Doesn't make sense to me.

Natalie

Vehicles get heavier for several reasons, usually related to improving safety, comfort, convenience, and/or capacity. More structural strength or improved crumple zones tend to add weight due to more or heavier material. Things that improve comfort like more sound-deadening material, cushier seats and interior, thicker carpets, etc. add weight. Convenience items like interior lighting, mirrors, GPS, remote keyless entry, extra accessory outlets, etc. all add a little weight here and there. More capacity usually means more weight. Springs with more capacity weight more, as do a larger engine, larger AC system, larger tires and brakes, or a stronger frame to carry more payload.

"Ray O"

Ah. Thanks, Ray. As usual, you're very informative.

:-)

Natalie

From CR on-line - 2000 Echo manual - CR Overall Mileage - 38, City - 29, Highway - 46, 150 mile Trip - 44, Weight - 2,150 From Cars.com - Exterior body width - 65.4" ; Exterior height - 59.4" , Drag Coeffinient - 0.29 (Product = 1127)

From CR on-line - 2007 Yaris manual - CR Overall Mileage - 34, City - 26 Highway - 42, 150 mile Trip - 40, Weight - 2,430 lb From Cars.com - Exterior body width - 66.5", Exterior height - 57.5", Drag Coeffinient - 0.29 (Product = 1108)

From CR on-line - 2007 Honda Fit Sport manual - CR Overall Mileage - 34, City - 26 Highway - 39, 150 mile Trip - 40, Weight - 2,430 lb From CR on-line - 2007 Honda Fit Bas automatic - CR Overall Mileage - 32, City - 22 Highway - 43, 150 mile Trip - 38, Weight - 2,535 lb From Cars.com - Exterior body width - 66.2", Exterior height - 60.0", Drag Coeffinient - 0.29? (my guess) (Product = 1151)

If the Fit has a similar drag coefficient to the other cars, it will have higher aerodynamic drag, and therefore lower highway mileage.

Looks like the gearing of the Sport model is also a factor.

The weight probably effects city mileage more than highway mileage. Highway mileage (at least in the real world) is more affected by aerodynamics. The Fit is a relatively tall vehicle, which will hurt the highway mileage. Toyota is really good at getting good EPA numbers (and real highway numbers too). I have always suspected this was accomplished at least partially by going with low tension piston rings, which has some negative effects as well (more blow-by). I've always though this was the main reason for the problems with sludge, but I don't really know.

Ed

More safety equipment, more sound deading, more comfortable seats, the Fit is taller (more steel), etc., etc.

Ed

"Ed White" ...

Hmmm didn't look taller to us, but it was about 3 cars ahead of us.

Thanks for all that other info you gave in the previous post, Ed.

Natalie

You're welcome!

Hummm, that pound vs mpg curve looks pretty accurate.. My Corolla clocks in about 2500-2600 plus me plus gear. And I get about 41-maybe 42 mpg tops at 65 mph. City will vary to how much stop-go vs boulevard driving, AC, number of people, etc.. I can do as low as maybe 27, but can do 30+ city if no weight, and not a lot of stops. I predict the new 09 Corolla might do a tad less than the previous 03-08 version. It weighs more according to what I've seen so far. I've finally seen a couple or three on the streets lately. I do think the new version has a better look than the previous.. Kind of a baby Camry look in the front, and I think the rear looks a good bit better. The car looks to be slightly wider, but I'm not sure if it really is or not. Might be an illusion.. What is weird is how the auto's are getting getting better highway mpg than the manuals.. ?? All I could guess is the auto O/D gear must be higher ratio than the top gear in the manual. ?? Mine is auto tranny and I get what was EPA listed for the manual.. "41 highway" using the "old" method. They rate the 09 Corolla as 35 highway, but I know it must surely actually do better than that. I think the old highway ratings are more accurate than the new. But I think the new city ratings are probably more accurate than the old for the average driver. :/

Hummm, that pound vs mpg curve looks pretty accurate.. My Corolla clocks in about 2500-2600 plus me plus gear. And I get about 41-maybe 42 mpg tops at 65 mph. City will vary to how much stop-go vs boulevard driving, AC, number of people, etc.. I can do as low as maybe 27, but can do 30+ city if no weight, and not a lot of stops. I predict the new 09 Corolla might do a tad less than the previous 03-08 version. It weighs more according to what I've seen so far.

******* Wow, you're getting great mileage on that Corolla! This isn't a very big town, but depending on what part you're in, there aren't many stop signs. The problem with them, is that they're synched *together*, rather than in sequence. Dumb, IMO. So to get out of my housing subdivision, I have to sit at a light that changes every 2 minutes *on the dot*, no matter what the traffic is like, unless I'm turning right. The light that's parallel to that one changes at precisely the same time ours does. Dumb, the sequel.

I've finally seen a couple or three on the streets lately. I do think the new version has a better look than the previous.. Kind of a baby Camry look in the front, and I think the rear looks a good bit better. The car looks to be slightly wider, but I'm not sure if it really is or not. Might be an illusion.. What is weird is how the auto's are getting getting better highway mpg than the manuals.. ??

****** Ya got me, but Camrys and Corollas are just too ubiquitous. I have a hard enough time finding my Echo in the parking lot! ;-)

All I could guess is the auto O/D gear must be higher ratio than the top gear in the manual. ?? Mine is auto tranny and I get what was EPA listed for the manual.. "41 highway" using the "old" method. They rate the 09 Corolla as 35 highway, but I know it must surely actually do better than that. I think the old highway ratings are more accurate than the new. But I think the new city ratings are probably more accurate than the old for the average driver. :/

********

I'm sure Ray, Ed and Bruce have some insight on that.

Natalie

You're comparing apples to oranges. The mileage standards have changed, IIRC, beginning with this model year. So, the fuel economy for the Fit are lower than what they would have been under the old standards.

Jeff

You're comparing apples to oranges. The mileage standards have changed, IIRC, beginning with this model year. So, the fuel economy for the Fit are lower than what they would have been under the old standards.

Jeff

Thanks, but I got some very different responses from others.

Read on.

Natalie

The methodology for determining EPA fuel economy did change in 2008. You can go to the EPA's web site and look up some older vehicles to see how they would do using the 2008 measurement methods.