Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Introductions
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-24-2014, 03:29 PM   #11 (permalink)
Beating EPA Unmodded
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 143

Blue Eagle - '10 Honda Civic LX
Team Honda
90 day: 31.12 mpg (US)
Thanks: 4
Thanked 29 Times in 23 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sendler View Post
There are 142 2015 Honda Fit's posting on Fuelly.
.
2015 Honda Fit Mileage
.
It looks like the standard trans may have slightly better F.E.
Keep in mind, though, the people that buy the different Fits. People that buy the manual in the Fit are more likely looking at how THEY can get good mileage. People that buy the auto either don't care about FE or are just listening to EPA's ratings. I know more people that accelerate and drive slower with a manual than people that do that with an auto. Most people with an auto think that if they drive faster they will get better fuel economy.

I'm sure that without mods and EOffC both trannies can get the same FE.

__________________

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to awcook For This Useful Post:
kc750 (03-21-2015)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 12-24-2014, 04:52 PM   #12 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 2,643
Thanks: 1,502
Thanked 276 Times in 226 Posts
Naw, I think some of the stick shift purchased are those who can drive a stick and to keep the friends and family who cant from driving their vehicle.

Cvts are an acquired experience at driving. I rather have a multispeed conventional automatic as the cvt seems to hunt worse than any auto Ive had.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Cobb For This Useful Post:
kc750 (03-21-2015)
Old 12-26-2014, 08:57 AM   #13 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,150

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,784
Thanked 1,919 Times in 1,246 Posts
Well, continuously variable does tell you right off the bat that it isn't going to find one ratio and stick with it... But a friend of mine with a Subaru CVT loves it with its sport mode and paddle shifters. I just bite my tongue.

What's important is that a CVT is a different kind of animal than regular transmissions- BSFC is more important than ever because you can hit your RPM and let the transmission move the car.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fat Charlie For This Useful Post:
kc750 (03-21-2015)
Old 12-26-2014, 10:39 AM   #14 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,020 Times in 1,303 Posts
I've had considerable experience driving a CVT, particularly Nissans versions. I like them but they do require adifferent technique. Accleration is a matter of picking the rev point and lettting the transmission do the work. Neutral coasting is a breeze at any legal speed.

In my 08 Altima coupe, the torque converter was more of a clutch, locking up at any speed over 12 MPH. The "belt" was a segmented steel design and it was a "push belt" configuration with the metal belt segments acting as "shoes" that gripped the driven cone using a special fluid. Nissan warranted the tranny for 10 years and 120k miles, and the transmissions were built by JATCO, a subsidiary of Nissan corp.

Been a Nissan fan ever since I saw the first 240Z in November 1969, but not so much a fan now as I was earlier. Seen a 83 diesel Maxima hit 864k miles on the original engine, before cranking compression was too low for it to start cold without boosting the battery. The owner was ranting at the service writer and got me involved, told him he was crazy to complain about that engine!

regards
mech
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
kc750 (03-21-2015)
Old 12-26-2014, 11:06 AM   #15 (permalink)
In the fasting lane
 
RedDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
Posts: 3,970

Red Devil - '11 Honda Insight Elegance
Team Honda
90 day: 50.59 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,693
Thanked 2,212 Times in 1,432 Posts
My CVT is maxed out 80% of the time, doing 1000 RPM for every 30mph (so 60 mph takes 2000 RPM).
25% of the time the engine ticks over at 1100 RPM, it will go no lower.
Yes, there is an overlap. 33 - 35 mph (max ratio at minimal revs) is the FE sweetspot on my Insight

I do accelerate at a fixed (higher) RPM when I'm in a hurry, which is, ah, seldom
__________________
2011 Honda Insight + HID, LEDs, tiny PV panel, extra brake pad return springs, neutral wheel alignment, 44/42 PSI (air), PHEV light (inop), tightened wheel nut.
lifetime FE over 0.17 Gmeter or 0.1 Mmile.



Investors woes:
"In hindsight, I should have placed a bet on the horse that won the race"
"In hindsight, I should have bet more on that horse"
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RedDevil For This Useful Post:
kc750 (03-21-2015)
Old 03-21-2015, 11:34 AM   #16 (permalink)
New2EcoModding
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4

Pearl - '15 Honda Fit EX
Thanks: 14
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Quick update:
I have over 5000K now so I'm a little more inclined to try to improve my FE numbers. Years ago I had a Honda Prelude with a stick and I loved that car! Years later I bought a Civic with a slush box and hated it. For fun I drove a Honda VFR750 and occasionally a CB1. I mention this because in my experience, the engines performed better if they occasionally saw redline or the rev limiter in the case of the motorcycles.
I haven't posted any pictures of the car because it's white and the snow is just starting to disappear
I've finally added my fuel log to Fuelly.com. I'm also listed as KC750 over there and on the Fit Freak Forums. I see some so you over there as well I didn't want to post my fuel log here because I'm not hypermiling yet and may never get much beyond the EPA rating. I live and work in the same city, and while I use the highway, 50% of my driving is on the city streets and the other 50% is during the rush. During the week, I'm a 60K a day guy; on the weekends, I might do 150-200k with longer highway trips.
I chose the CVT because of the lower revs at highway speed and the fact that I was in traffic most times. No point lamenting not getting the stick now; I just need to learn how to get the most out of the CVT with paddle shifters for downshifting and short shifting up while accelerating. I have a Scan Gauge II and a WiFI OBD dongle so I have the tools to I need to improve.
I was wondering, should I just continue this thread with regular updates or start new threads for individual topics?
Are there many other 2015 Honda Fit owners here with the CVT as well? PM me and I'll start to follow your posts.
Great forum!
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to kc750 For This Useful Post:
RedDevil (03-21-2015)
Old 08-12-2015, 10:55 PM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: SoCal
Posts: 12
Thanks: 2
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I just rented a 2015 Honda Fit with CVT with 2521 miles on the odometer for a weekend trip in Michigan. I drove 180 miles on the highway between 63mph-65mph with cruise control set. It was a warm summer day on a flat highway with 2 passengers.

I was hoping to break 40mpg but I ended up blowing past it when the trip computer read 52.3mpg at the end of my drive! 9 more miles in the city brought the total trip mpg down to 50.8mpg. Color me impressed!

I previously owned a Civic VX and currently own a Prius so I'm well versed in efficient driving. However, I really wasn't expecting to crack 50mpg. What's more is my two passengers were family I hadn't seen in a while and I wasn't putting much attention into hypermiling as a result. I suspect a lot more could be done with this car with a well dialed-in foot.

I was so surprised with the results, that I started looking around the web to see if anyone else was seeing these kind of numbers. I'm happy to find this thread. Good luck to you, KC750.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2015, 11:15 PM   #18 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 2,173
Thanks: 1,739
Thanked 589 Times in 401 Posts
The CVT is awesome. Be tempted to get one myself, if I were in the market.

Bet you could do mid-50's if you tried.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 01:49 PM   #19 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Asheville NC
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I wouldn't want to rely on the trip computer to tell me the miles per gallon used for any trip. By recording how much fuel it takes to top off the tank (I let the pump shut off automatically) I get slightly lower mpg numbers than the computer reports. While the mileage information that the computer uses is probably going to be the same info I can get from looking at the odometer, I'm not sure if it measures the amount of fuel used as accurately as the gas pump where I buy gas - local laws require that these must be frequently calibrated to keep them honest.

I've been getting about over 40 mpg on the highway with the LX (no 100 pound moonroof) with the CVT - by using the info for gallons of fuel used from the service station pump. The car's computer indicates slightly over 41.

On the highway, at 60-75 mph, the CVT keeps the engine at much lower revs than you can get with the top gear in the manual transmission. We are talking about 2000 rpm. There is just no way you can get gas mileage with the manual transmission that is as good as with the CVT, no matter how you drive the manual. In 6th gear at 70 mph the rpm's are over 3000. You can't do it around town either as the CVT is constantly seeking the lowest engine speed that will keep the engine from lugging. You just can't do that with only 6 gears. Increased frictional losses in the CVT aren't enough to make it less efficient overall.

Except for my very first car, an old used car which I only kept a few months, this is the first time I've bought a car with an automatic transmission and I'm glad I did it. Will the CVT last long, without repairs or excessive maintenance? I hope so. We'll see. The basically same transmission has been in Civics for awhile, so it's not like they don't have a history of refinement and success.

As far as accelleration goes, there is negligible loss when compared to the auto trans. Put the shift lever in S and the car will go from 0 to 60 in about 9 sec. The paddle shifters aren't necessary for maximizing accel and won't help you get better better fuel economy. Just drop the shift lever into S and floor the "throttle pedal" until you reach the speed you want. In most cases, D mode has plenty of accel. You'll get about 11 sec from 0 to 60. The paddle shifters might be useful only for controlling the gear ratios for better control of the car in rain, snow, cornering, or going downhill, but won't make any difference in accelleration.

I'm not sure it is really a "throttle" pedal. What does the electric motor that it controls actually move? And does the thing that moves always move the same amount with the same degree of peddle-press? I don't actually know. But I know it doesn't control a flap in an airflow passage that has a fuel-air mixture - because I know all the fuel is pumped into the cylinders, rather than sucked through the intake valves via the intake manifold.

Last edited by nomenclator; 10-05-2015 at 02:08 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2015, 03:40 PM   #20 (permalink)
Hypermiler
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,320

PaleCivic (retired) - '96 Honda Civic DX Sedan
90 day: 69.2 mpg (US)

PaleFit - '09 Honda Fit Sport
Team Honda
Wagons
90 day: 44.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 611
Thanked 428 Times in 280 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomenclator View Post
On the highway, at 60-75 mph, the CVT keeps the engine at much lower revs than you can get with the top gear in the manual transmission. We are talking about 2000 rpm. There is just no way you can get gas mileage with the manual transmission that is as good as with the CVT, no matter how you drive the manual. In 6th gear at 70 mph the rpm's are over 3000. You can't do it around town either as the CVT is constantly seeking the lowest engine speed that will keep the engine from lugging. You just can't do that with only 6 gears. Increased frictional losses in the CVT aren't enough to make it less efficient overall.
You're right on the highway part. There's not much you can do about the high rpm. Around town it's a whole different story. See my mileage log. I only have 5 gears to work with, too.

I like the new Fits, but they didn't offer enough over my older one to be worth a trade. Especially with the 6-speed manual not getting a better top gear ratio than my old 5.

__________________



11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Tags
2015, cvt, fit, gk model, honda

Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com