Anyone own a Honda Fit?

[odie]

Just got 39.02 m.p.g. calculated . The display showed 38.2 overall . 309.4 miles with needle little bit below the 1/4 mark . Took 7.928 gallons of VALERO 87 w/10% ethanol at 1 click of the gas nozzle , leaving the needle above the FULL mark . Average temp of 60 and tires at 35 p.s.i.. The tank before got 36.55 calculated , display was 36.8 overall . Used the same pump of VALERO 87 at 1 click . 196.4 miles at a bit above the 1/2 mark . 50 for average temp . This is the 2011 base model w/ 5 speed auto . There's little over 1,500 mis. on it . Oil life still shows 90% . Likin' it so far .

 

[mhadden]

Yes. I, too, am averaging better than the EPA estimates. How the EPA returned 33mpg highway is beyond me, but with a 10/90 city/highway mix with speeds 65-75 on the highway, I'm getting a calculated 37.4mpg (LO:32 HI: 41).

 

[sciphi]

The AT versions get worse fuel economy than the MT versions from what I've read. The AT in these isn't the most intelligent unit out there, and will downshift at anything.

Our AT Fit averages about 31-32 mpg.

 

[odie]

We have light foots . Try to let it coast to stop lights and signs . Time lights so not to hit them . Do pulse and glide and let it coast down slopes , hills , etc.. Learned this with the help of a '06 Prius we had and input from PRIUSCHAT .

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
The AT versions get worse fuel economy than the MT versions from what I've read. The AT in these isn't the most intelligent unit out there, and will downshift at anything.

Our AT Fit averages about 31-32 mpg.


I just made a trip today in the 09 Fit and averaged about 34 per the computer. Speeds ranged between 65-70 with some hilly driving.

As a side note, after 50k, the rear struts seem to feel worn. The back end of the car was super jittery-- like there wasn't enough dampening. I have the tires set at 35psi cold (factory recommends 32 psi) so the tire pressure is not enough of a difference to cause that, I don't think.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
Originally Posted By: sciphi
The AT versions get worse fuel economy than the MT versions from what I've read. The AT in these isn't the most intelligent unit out there, and will downshift at anything.

Our AT Fit averages about 31-32 mpg.


I just made a trip today in the 09 Fit and averaged about 34 per the computer. Speeds ranged between 65-70 with some hilly driving.



That's terrible!

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

That's terrible!


I'll admit that I was driving in with absolutely no regard to fuel economy (aka somewhat erratically) and was actually sorta trying to see how well the transmission shifted (due to recent fluid changes).

 

[sciphi]

The Fit's driver is either on the gas or the brake. Both are treated like on/off switches instead of potentiometers. And, most of its mileage is zipping along the interstate at 75-80 mph. It does pretty well considering it's aerodynamically horrible for high-speed travel.

 

[CharBaby]

The Honda Fit scores high in comparison testing because of all of the things it can do well and all of the configurations you as the owner can do with the interior. It drives quite well too! But, it's not the car for everyone. The Fit can be noisy and uncomfortable for some owners. If a person doesn't need a car that does all of these things as the Fit does, get something else that's nicer, more comfortable to drive and has comparable MPG.

The Fit is kinda like the...Chevy Avalanch as compared to a Silverado. Do you need a truck that you can configure so many different ways? If so, buy the Avalanch. If not, the Silverado may suit your need better. Who knows?

 

[odie]

The display for overall mileage is showing 40.2 . It's been getting little better than what it shows . Keeping our fingers crossed so it stays that way .

 

[odie]

Originally Posted By: odie
The display for overall mileage is showing 40.2 . It's been getting little better than what it shows . Keeping our fingers crossed so it stays that way .

, ended up getting 38.84 m.p.g. calculated ( 170.2 mis. / 4.385 gals. ). Display showed 38.7 overall . Guess we can live with that .

 

[zanzabar]

35,677 on our 2009 MT Fit. Yes it rides a bit stiff, more road noise than other vehicles, but handles well and brakes are great.
Lifetime average mpg of 37.7 (displayed lifetime average = 43.2). I just changed the oil after nearly 10k miles and it took 3.5qts. Yes, Consumer Reports is correct, this is the most economical vehicle there is.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: zanzabar
Consumer Reports is correct


You are not allowed to say that on this board. It will usually incite rioting and the throwing of rotten vegetables.

 

[odie]

We're averaging 36 m.p.g. overall for calculated gas mileage for the base model 5 speed auto . There's about 2,200 miles on it . Upcoming winter will put a dent in the overall average

.

 

[sciphi]

Ours has been averaging 34 mpg with very, ahem, spirited driving on the interstate, and wearing the factory +0 sized 205/50-16 tires. Those size tires came on the Mugen Fits, and really improve the tracking and cornering.

 

[mcrn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLfK35O91gE

 

[mhadden]

Originally Posted By: mcrn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLfK35O91gE
I'd rather be in the Fit than the Yaris!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLnk5vhaQA

 

[mcrn]

Originally Posted By: mhadden
Originally Posted By: mcrn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLfK35O91gE
I'd rather be in the Fit than the Yaris!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBLnk5vhaQA


oh wow that is terrible!!

 

[Rand]

I recently had a loaner hyundai sonata 2011 6AT
and I got 39.5mpg highway.. overall was about 35mpg
its got a really high top gear and 200hp 2.4L DI engine.

If I wanted a midsize cruiser its pretty good.

I test drove a fit. I didnt like that to get any features I wanted I had to plop down 3k on the non base model.
that puts it out of its price range and into dangerous competition territory (this was 2 year ago)

Nissan also needs to get their act together..
S SL SWTF etc packages..

I can get a car with 3/4 the options i want or pay 3k more for a bunch of options I dont want.

 

[BrianWC]

60,000 mile 2009 Fit Sport AT owner here. I paid $17k for mine. I agree w/ the Silverado verses Avalanche comparison. If you don't need the Fit's versatility, the Civic might be a better option. The first time I drove a new Civic after buying my Fit, I cursed myself. But the first time I went to Lowes after that, I was happy again. I can throw an incredible amount of junkinto my Fit. My mpgs with 95+% highway driving range from 34-44 depending on mood. Usually on the low end w/ 75-78 mph speeds. The ride can be a bit busy but if you change out tires to the 205/55 size, things calm down and it turns the car into a real go-kart. I take corners scary fast in mine and don't think twice. It's also a fine car on the open road, especially if you do swap the tires. I've taken a couple of 7-8 hour trips in mine.