As great a car as the Fit may be, WHY is its rated fuel economy virtually the same as the heavier and more powerful Civic? I can only hope that real-world mileage beats the EPA ratings like Jeff found out.
Regardless, the new Fit is going to be a real winner for Honda!!
Yep. The combination of shorter gearing and EPA's rating system don't bode well for higher EPA rating. However, real world fuel economy should be much better.
Wizard wrote: Yep. The combination of shorter gearing and EPA's rating system don't bode well for higher EPA rating. However, real world fuel economy should be much better.
Jeff already proved it would be. He averaged an impressive 39 mpg
Wizard wrote: Yep. The combination of shorter gearing and EPA's rating system don't bode well for higher EPA rating. However, real world fuel economy should be much better.
Jeff already proved it would be. He averaged an impressive 39 mpg
Keep in mind that this was what was reported by the onboard trip computer, and there's no way of knowing how accurate that is until you run a few tanks through the car.
I had the same questions on the mpg compared to the Civic too.
My explanation includes 2 things:
1. The R18 on the Civic is superior in efficiency to this Fit's 1.5 (L15?)
2. The Fit's rear is less aerodynamic than the Civic's due to the hatchback design. A sloping rear windsheild would offer better aerodynamics. The ideal rear design for aerodynamics is like what the Honda Insight has.
1) Same tech on engine and no changes to other things like power steering.
2) More weight.
3) Shorter gearing.
What exactly did you expect the ratings to be?
As it was shown already with the Japanese models, FE is down, and it's normal.
We then go back to the reasoning of "for Honda that must be already good enough for their intended market".
1) Same tech on engine and no changes to other things like power steering.
2) More weight.
3) Shorter gearing.
What exactly did you expect the ratings to be?
As it was shown already with the Japanese models, FE is down, and it's normal.
We then go back to the reasoning of "for Honda that must be already good enough for their intended market".
I wasn't expecting it to go up significantly, but I certainly wasn't expecting it TO GO DOWN!!! I just thought that since this was an all-new model Honda would go the extra mile, to beat Toyota's mileage on the Yaris.
I wouldn't call it an all new model, and I don't see why you would expect mileage to improve much. The engine is the nearly same, it weighs 50 lbs more, and has shorter gearing.
To prevent complaints about cruise control bogging down the engine on hills, car manufacturers have lowered gearing in manual transmission cars. This usually leads to lower MPG than automatics of the same model.
It reduces the need to downshift and gives a sporty exhaust note as you cruise down the highway.
Some folks here already touched on it but I wanted to throw in my two cents.
Take the EPA numbers with more than a grain of salt, especially the MT numbers. With a MT the shift logic is infinitely variable based on what the driver chooses. All of my Honda MTs have far exceeded their EPA ratings (6th gen Civic EX EPA 28 combined while I got 35 no hypermiling, 6th gen Accord I4 EPA 24 I got 34 lifetime with some hypermiling during the last 20% of time I owned it, 8th gen Si Sedan EPA 24 while I'm at 34 with 6700 miles with consistent light hypermiling and daily bursts of spirited driving) while all of the Honda ATs I've spent significant time in seem to barely be able to beat their EPA ratings ('05 CR-V 4WD EPA 22 and I'm at 24, multiple 2nd gen Odysseys seem to get right at their EPA of 20 combined).
My bet is even if you drive a MT Fit a little more aggressively than an AT version you should easily be capable of besting the AT's FE numbers if you're willing to use your head.
I think Honda gets hurt on EPA rating for being aggressive with gear ratios. However, in real world, the aggression pays off (they benchmark worst case scenario, so doing better is easier). Honda seems to rely more on throttle than on gear ratios. EPA's system is friendlier with the latter.
The only problem with short top gear (besides high rpm cruising) may be in excessive engine braking when the vehicle is being brought to a stop. Still, it does help fuel economy since the rpm is high enough for fuel cut off for most part, and one could always glide in neutral to cover long distances.
My sister has a 2007 base with manual. Worst mileage to date is 34 mpg. Typically averages 38+ no problem. Usually drives 2-lane roads, no hypermiling. Something tells me if you're a bit conservative, you'll go way past their numbers.
Of course, the Auto writer for USA Today did very well with the automatic at high speeds on the highway. He usually gets terrible mileage with his test cars, often worse than 2008 EPA numbers.
The EPA ratings are based on what the typical driver of that vehicle will get. The typical MT driver is more aggressive, and more careless with shifting patterns. The AT handles the optimum shift points, and hence that driver will get better mileage. It has little to do with gear ratios.
There is also another factor at play here. EPA requires emissions levels to be an average for all the vehicles of that type. MT cars (because of driver habits) will usually emit more pollutants. While car manufacturers know that a certain percentage of drivers prefer MTs, they do not want to do anything to encourage "fence sitters" to buy MTs. The AT cars are both more profitable, and help their corporate EPA numbers.
Waldo wrote: The EPA ratings are based on what the typical driver of that vehicle will get.
Not really. A typical driver should do at least 10% better than EPA rating (and even better on highway). EPA rating can be played with (higher numbers published) by simply changing transmission logic to match the low rate of acceleration, low drag (no slopes, air resistance, minimum weight, AC rare) and low speed.
OTOH, short geared cars get punished, which, in real world, will likely take advantage of lower throttle under higher drag etc. I feel this is also the reason diesels get hurt on EPA rating as do most (if not all) Hondas. For example, if my 2006 TL were designed to be EPA rating friendly (and it can be), it would be gaining 1-2 mpg on EPA scale. Instead, it shows a huge improvement in real world. There's no way for a normal driver to get 26 mpg on highway in that car... unless normal driving involves cruising at 85 mph (then it will get ~27 mpg).
Waldo wrote: The EPA ratings are based on what the typical driver of that vehicle will get.
Not really. A typical driver should do at least 10% better than EPA rating (and even better on highway). EPA rating can be played with (higher numbers published) by simply changing transmission logic to match the low rate of acceleration, low drag (no slopes, air resistance, minimum weight, AC rare) and low speed.
OTOH, short geared cars get punished, which, in real world, will likely take advantage of lower throttle under higher drag etc. I feel this is also the reason diesels get hurt on EPA rating as do most (if not all) Hondas. For example, if my 2006 TL were designed to be EPA rating friendly (and it can be), it would be gaining 1-2 mpg on EPA scale. Instead, it shows a huge improvement in real world. There's no way for a normal driver to get 26 mpg on highway in that car... unless normal driving involves cruising at 85 mph (then it will get ~27 mpg).
How do you mean typical? I see ppl all day long who stop at the last second, use brakes going down hill and never really coast. Those are the ppl that complain that the EPA's #'s are way off and get terrible mileage.
Also highway means highway, not expressway. Highway includes stopping and starting and some idling in EPA tests.
MojaveAccord wrote: Some folks here already touched on it but I wanted to throw in my two cents.
Take the EPA numbers with more than a grain of salt, especially the MT numbers. With a MT the shift logic is infinitely variable based on what the driver chooses. All of my Honda MTs have far exceeded their EPA ratings (6th gen Civic EX EPA 28 combined while I got 35 no hypermiling, 6th gen Accord I4 EPA 24 I got 34 lifetime with some hypermiling during the last 20% of time I owned it, 8th gen Si Sedan EPA 24 while I'm at 34 with 6700 miles with consistent light hypermiling and daily bursts of spirited driving) while all of the Honda ATs I've spent significant time in seem to barely be able to beat their EPA ratings ('05 CR-V 4WD EPA 22 and I'm at 24, multiple 2nd gen Odysseys seem to get right at their EPA of 20 combined).
My bet is even if you drive a MT Fit a little more aggressively than an AT version you should easily be capable of besting the AT's FE numbers if you're willing to use your head.
FWIW, my personal experience second your thoughts.
I was just noting that "the rating can't get better given the 3 points I've mentioned".
When comparing MT with AT, I would be very surprised if the AT beats the MT's real world fuel economy in anything else than pure "top gear highway conditions".
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
