2018 Honda Fit Gas Mileage

[3-Wheeler]

Hi,

My wife and I just picked up a new 2018 Honda Fit, and I am amazed at the fuel economy of the new car.

Like the Honda Insight, the new Fit has an instant MPG display bar, that ranges from 0 to 90 mpg.

Including town driving, with some good 55 mph country roads thrown in, I typically get 49 mpg when driving her car. On the highway at a constant 55 mph, the instant MPG display shows 60 mpg on a flat road with no wind.

Jim.

[Ecky]

Manual or auto? I'm guessing auto.

My partner tends to average 44-48mpg over her commute in a 2007 manual, target speed of 55mph on the highway and little traffic. I'm guessing it's close to 50mpg at that speed. The gearing of the manual is lousy for economy but it still does very well.

[RedDevil]

The new Fit is a totally different breed than the old (pre-2015) Fits.
The gas only Fit gets better economy than the previous model Fit hybrid...

[Baltothewolf]

My roomie has a 2018 fit, and I have no problem getting 40-42 at 75mph with the AC on.

[mpg_numbers_guy]

Is it an LX? The LX is rated higher in fuel economy than the other trips.

36 MPG combined - about 20% more fuel efficient than the typical 90s-00s Civic. Quite impressive that the real world numbers are reflecting this too, since EPA numbers generally underestimate our older cars.

[ProDigit]

My 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco would get similar MPG results, with about 40HP more.
I would occasionally hit 70+MPG at 40-45MPH in final gear;
60MPG at 50MPH, and 50MPG at 60MPH.

Once above 75MPH, the turbo wastegate would kick in, and MPG would drop drastically.
Not a good car if you regularly drive at more than 80MPH.

The fit has a very tiny engine, and is non-turbo. By default they are over-revving for good MPG. If they would do 2500RPM at 70MPH (CVT) you'd get much better gas mileage than if they would do 3500RPM at 70 (manual).
That being said, this vehicle works best in the city, because it has a CVT.
Hatchbacks with CVT lack the aerodynamics of a Sedan car, and have more gearing friction than a manual geared car.
If they only had 1 or 2 more gears on the manual, or their gears spaced out more, the manual would get even better MPG. However, the 1.5 liter engine would need a turbo to keep up with the HP demands for highways.

For that reason I prefer sedans with turbo engines. They usually are geared taller (run lower RPM at highway speeds) and usually run below where the turbo kicks in.

I currently have a Ford Fiesta ST with 1.6liter Turbo engine. It runs at 3k RPM @80MPH, and gets an average of 33-34MPG. If it was geared properly at 2,5k RPM at that speed (it has plenty of power to do so), it would be getting 40MPG avg as well.

For eco cars, I would say 1.5 liter turbos give much better MPG, and have more torque/HP than their 2.0 liter NA variants.
Still, nothing beats a turbo powered 2.0 liter Atkinson engine in terms of MPG. The 2.0 atkinson engine gets great gas mileage, but a turbo on it, and it's an awesome sports engine!