Fit vs. Civic mpg

[M1Accord]

Is there a reason Fit gets worse EPA mpg rating than a larger, heavier, and more powerful Civic? I have been getting about 42 mpg on highway and 25 mpg in city. Over the 2000 miles of ownership, my hand calculation is 37.8 mpg and Honda's mpg computer lists my overall average to be 37.6 mpg. But this is because I drive slower and more fuel conscious than grannies. If driven like normal, I would get EPA fuel economy.

What are you guys getting for your subcompacts?

 

[SLCraig]

Actually the whole reason I got a Civic was because the Fit got poo gas mileage comparatively. I actually went to buy a Fit but I decided on the Civic since most of the time I did not need the cargo space.

I calculated a few tanks this past summer and the average was around 37.6 with no particular driving style. Passing when necessary and some city (mostly secondary highway)

I could probably pull 40 in the summer under good conditions.

 

[RiceCake]

Truth be told, MPG between the two is very close except for highway MPG, which I expect to be purely because the Civic is more aerodynamically shaped, and given the higher power, probably geared better then the Fit.

In city the Fit is again, probably geared more aggressively to compensate for the lower power.

I wouldn't doubt that, driven gingerly, the Fit will get more MPG's then a Civic. The EPA fuel economy guidelines are a pretty "regular" standard that you can beat in any car if you try hard enough.

Realistically though, you're right. The Fit is a kinda lackluster car unless you want the modern equivalent to a station wagon.

 

[The Critic]

The utility of a Fit cannot be beat - and that is why you buy one over a Civic.

 

[Artem]

I also laughed at the rated MPGs the Fit displayed vs the Civic. I thought for sure that even though its not as aerodynamic as the Civic is, it would achieve better gas mileage given the smaller 1.5L engine vs the 1.8L in the Civic. It's strange indeed.

 

[M1Accord]

Yeah. I need the utility of the Fit and that is why I bought it over the Civic LX even though the LX would cost about $1k less for the entry LX versus my Fit Sport w/out nav. I personally like the non-nav dash better and couldn't justify the nav price increase.

The Fit is definitely way sportier with large allow wheels, nice instrument panel, better dash layout, and great cockpit view. The engine feel very preppy and ready to go all the time, too much actually since it always wants to lower gear while I try to coast to red lights, stop signs, or just down hills. I wish it comes with Eco mode to keep it in the highest gear possible.

I test drove the Civic with the Eco mode on and that may be while it felt like a neutered ride, nothing I envisioned the Civic to be. Well, you live and learn about test drive I guess. I went shopping for a Civic and bought a Fit, which has pretty much all I need minus the 40+ miles combined mpg that I figure I may get with my nanny driving style ever since moving 40 miles from work and fuel price digging into my wallet. But I can't live without a hatchback now that I own one. I just haul a nice over-sized coffee table home with room for the bar stools if my wife allowed me to buy the them. Since I need to keep a car seat with the Fit, I can't use it the way I really want to; seats down with a large cooler and blow up mattress in the back.

 

[Pajamarama]

Our 5 speed Fit averages between 35-38 mpg on each tank. That is based on about a 50/50 split between city and highway driving. Are you guys saying that Civics gets even better than this?

 

[sciphi]

Our Fit has achieved about 30-31 mpg since new being driven pretty quickly on the highway. When we try for fuel economy it will get north of 40 mpg highway. The automatic transmission downshifts at the drop of a pin for any sort of hill, which is annoying. All it does is make more noise and gulp more fuel without making any forward progress. And it doesn't need to since the L15A7 engine has enough torque to get the Fit and 2 occupants up some decent-size hills without a downshift at highway speeds. Basically, the transmission is programmed to be "sporty". Thankfully the flappy paddles or careful manipulation of the accelerator can minimize the downshifting.

Our Cruze whips the Fit silly for highway fuel economy even though it's a bigger, heavier car with a smaller turbocharged engine. The highway gearing is better since it's a more powerful engine and it's sleeker through the air. Trips where the Fit is getting 38-40 mpg the Cruze will get 45-48 mpg.

They're both quite useful for their respective missions. One's a city car that gets used mainly in the city, the other's a highway car that spends most of its time on the highway. One's great for hauling things, the other's great for hauling people.

 

[M1Accord]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Our Fit has achieved about 30-31 mpg since new being driven pretty quickly on the highway. When we try for fuel economy it will get north of 40 mpg highway. The automatic transmission downshifts at the drop of a pin for any sort of hill, which is annoying. All it does is make more noise and gulp more fuel without making any forward progress. And it doesn't need to since the L15A7 engine has enough torque to get the Fit and 2 occupants up some decent-size hills without a downshift at highway speeds. Basically, the transmission is programmed to be "sporty". Thankfully the flappy paddles or careful manipulation of the accelerator can minimize the downshifting.

Our Cruze whips the Fit silly for highway fuel economy even though it's a bigger, heavier car with a smaller turbocharged engine. The highway gearing is better since it's a more powerful engine and it's sleeker through the air. Trips where the Fit is getting 38-40 mpg the Cruze will get 45-48 mpg.

They're both quite useful for their respective missions. One's a city car that gets used mainly in the city, the other's a highway car that spends most of its time on the highway. One's great for hauling things, the other's great for hauling people.


The Fit needs an Eco mode like the Civic. There are times I am doing 50 mpg cruising on a nice highway and bam, I am getting 20 mpg instant fuel economy because there is a hill or I need to go a little faster. The worse part is when there is a downhill and I want to coast down and take the momentum to go up without using much fuel. It would only work if I keep a super light pressure on the gas pedal to keep the car in 5th gear, otherwise it would shift down to 4th or even 3rd, depending on previous speed, to engine the car. WTH Honda. This is not a Audi TT or even a Miata. It is a a subcompact commuter car that looks sporty.

 

[M1Accord]

Originally Posted By: Pajamarama
Our 5 speed Fit averages between 35-38 mpg on each tank. That is based on about a 50/50 split between city and highway driving. Are you guys saying that Civics gets even better than this?


I am getting the same with my 2012 Fit. Each morning my fuel economy goes as there is no much traffic; 37.6 to 37.7 or 37.8 mpg. Then it goes down to 37.7 in the evening when I hit city traffic on the way home. Of course, any gain will be wiped out when I take my wife to school in straight city, dropping the fuel economy to 37.5 mpg. I never reset my trip meter in hope the car keeps life time average, which is currently 37.6 mpg after dropping down from 37.7 mpg before taking my wife to school and swinging back their a second time to go some shopping for bus driver appreciation week.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: The Critic
The utility of a Fit cannot be beat - and that is why you buy one over a Civic.

When you look at just the passenger volume, the Civic sedan comes in a couple cubic feet greater than the Fit. Then you look at cargo volume....BLAM! the Fit far exceeds the Civic. It's 7-9 cubic feet greater than the Mazda2/Fiesta, Yaris, Rio, and Versa hatchbacks.

 

[asiancivicmaniac]

If it's a brand new car, it may still be breaking in. From personal experience, mileage start going up once the engine is broken in. I had a brand new 2004 Civic once and it was getting 26-28 suburban driving and after several thousand miles that went to 30-32.

 

[The Critic]

Originally Posted By: asiancivicmaniac
If it's a brand new car, it may still be breaking in. From personal experience, mileage start going up once the engine is broken in. I had a brand new 2004 Civic once and it was getting 26-28 suburban driving and after several thousand miles that went to 30-32.

Any improvement in mpg is going to be from the tires wearing down and the oil shearing, not from the engine breaking in.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: M1Accord
It would only work if I keep a super light pressure on the gas pedal to keep the car in 5th gear, otherwise it would shift down to 4th or even 3rd, depending on previous speed, to engine the car. WTH Honda. This is not a Audi TT or even a Miata. It is a a subcompact commuter car that looks sporty.


Funny; one of the reasons I love Honda's transmission programming is BECAUSE it's quick to downshift and give me the response I'd like out of the engine. For the most part, all I've driven before our two current cars are brands where you seemingly have to mash the pedal to the floor to get a downshift. And then it's a downshift of two gears at once.

And I still drive those types of brands on a daily basis at work.

Given the choice, I pick transmission programming that downshifts quickly every time.

But, as evidenced by this thread, you can't make everyone happy at the same time. I do agree that an ECO button would be useful. Everyone makes fun of the ECO button, but its implementation could be very much like the "Power" and "Normal" mode of older transmission shifting buttons. Our old Jeep Cherokee had one, and many Toyotas had them a decade ago. If you want a responsive transmission, you can use Power. If you want a true slushbox that only responds to gross movements of the accelerator pedal, you can use Normal.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: M1Accord
The Fit needs an Eco mode like the Civic. There are times I am doing 50 mpg cruising on a nice highway and bam, I am getting 20 mpg instant fuel economy because there is a hill or I need to go a little faster. The worse part is when there is a downhill and I want to coast down and take the momentum to go up without using much fuel. It would only work if I keep a super light pressure on the gas pedal to keep the car in 5th gear, otherwise it would shift down to 4th or even 3rd, depending on previous speed, to engine the car. WTH Honda. This is not a Audi TT or even a Miata. It is a a subcompact commuter car that looks sporty.


I don’t think you understand how this works. When the car is going up a hill it is doing considerably more work than when on flat ground. Hence the engine burns far more fuel. However, on the decline, it is doing far less work—you should see the mpg go all 9’s or at least very high. Average out both sides of the hill, and it is likely to be close to what you see on flat ground.

Or, are you complaining because the transmission is downshifting while going down a hill, for additional engine braking, so as to control speed? I think my recent drive in a Toyota was doing that, may have unlocked the convertor during engine overrun or something similar (engine speed seemed to drop when I would let it coast on the highway, then jump up when got on it, then it’d bump down to a steady level). If so, have you tried using the cruise control? I recall reading that some vehicles are better at holding a gear with cruise engaged: the thinking is, the ECU, in an attempt to make the vehicle “sporty” will downshift aggressively, getting the car into the powerband “just in case”; while with cruise on it may recognize that fuel economy is more desired.

You could try gently accelerating up, prior to the hill; and then letting it scrub off speed as you climb it. That might help it stay in top gear, and locked up. In the end though I think this is just normal operation for a high-rpm engine that is being asked to lug for fuel economy—any time it needs to do real work, it’s going to double-downshift.

 

[CharBaby]

Those folks that I have spoken with seem to get better city mpg with the FIT and those with the Civic get better hiwy mpg. YMMV but, one needs to decide which vehicle for their driving style and needs. The FIT is certainly the most versital of the two and if one does mostly hiwy driving, the Civic may be better in that specific area of hiwy MPG, IDK!

 

[Hounds]

Originally Posted By: M1Accord
Is there a reason Fit gets worse EPA mpg rating than a larger, heavier, and more powerful Civic? . . . .

Gearing. The Fit is geared "short"; the Civic is geared for Bonneville.

 

[MrWideTires]

Originally Posted By: Hounds
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
Is there a reason Fit gets worse EPA mpg rating than a larger, heavier, and more powerful Civic? . . . .

Gearing. The Fit is geared "short"; the Civic is geared for Bonneville.


I think this plays a huge role. My friend's Civic 1.8 revs like 2600rpm on the interstate while a Fit is screaming at 4000rpm... it's annoying.

 

[adolan21]

I think the Fits mpg is underestimated. I've never had a car that I totally destroyed the window mpg sticker this badly. I've gotten about 1 or 2 mpg over the window sticker on other cars but not 5 mpg over in the city and 7 mpg on the highway. I would average about 31 to 32 mpg in town and 40's easily on the highway. Mine was a 5 speed and I'd usually shift between 3000 and 4500 rpms. And also the utility can't be beat.

 

[BrianWC]

Owner of an 09 Fit Sport auto who traded in for a Civic Si checking in. This was my biggest disappointments with the Fit. I drive primarily highway miles and my daily commute totals over 120 miles roundtrip. When I was all out hypermiling it as best I could, I could get well over 40 mpg. The best mpg I got off a tank was a 100% highway tank in the 50's. But the second I drove with the least bit of heavy right foot, it was bye-bye fuel economy. By the time I traded it in, and the thrill of trying to hypermile was replaced with "why is my car so slow," I was rarely seeing more than 33 mpg. With my Si, albeit with premium gas, I see 33 mpg effortlessly with, um, lots more spirited driving. Even when I'm not bouncing off the rev limiter, the speed limit went up on the interstate I drive so that 33 mpg comes at overall much faster speeds.

Yes, utility was better in the Fit. But I've found that for shopping trips, the Civic's trunk swallows up just as many if not more Wal-Mart bags.

Interior-wise, I know some people have issues w/ the new Civic. I can't speak to that as much since I've got my Si with nav and that makes the dash/console a lot more tolerable. Beside, the 2013 is supposed to address a lot of the interior concerns.

But over with the Fit, great car! It is incredibly well-built for being such a slight subcompact. I traded mine off w/ 90k miles and changed the oil at less than 10k miles only once. It's just not an interstate mpg champ.