Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Honda Fit

16768707273200

Comments

  • 204meca204meca Posts: 366
    It was possible to get 55 mpg in the real world with the 92 VX -- I did on several occasions. I have been able to beat the EPA figures for every Civic I owned (85 wagon,88 AWD wagon, 92 VX, 92 Si, 97 HX, 97 Del Sol Si. Actually the engine that was easiest to get good mileage out of was the 125 HP Si engine -- it was very easy to get 33-35 in town & 40-45 on the highway with both Sis that I owned.

    It can be done under the right conditions if you drive as though you have an egg under your foot. I will be surprised if the the Fit can't be beat the EPAs when driven carefully. Problem is the average driver is too heavy footed & does not intentionally drive to get the best mileage.

    Sure the smaller engine would do better, but sometimes you need the extra oomph, especially if you have several passengers or a heavy load. The 1.5 is the right engine for the US. That said, I agree that it is disappointing that the Fits MPG can match the original VX.
  • mebmanmebman Posts: 100
    You are correct. I paid 26,000 dollars for a Toyota Prius for the mpg, (only to be disappointed that it doesn’t get the 60mpg they claim). I average about 48-50 combined mpg. The expensive hybrids are about the only choice for that kind of mileage. Honda really had a phenomenal chance here and blew it. This car could have been a milestone, not an auto show footnote. All they had to do was leave the CVT7 in it that they already had on the 1.5ltr sport in Australia (39/45 mpg). It has plenty of power and much better mpg's. You really didn’t have to go to the 1.3 engine to get over the 40mpg hump, just leave the stinking tranny alone! Honda intentionally sabotaged this car, knocking it down several pegs for some unknown reason. It cost them money to make this car with a different tranny than everywhere else in the world. The only thing I can conclude is that they didn’t want to steal thunder from their hybrid projects.
    So when some of you say to quit whining about the low mpg's, you do not understand that this is what is important to us. If you can’t get stellar fuel economy from Honda or Toyota (without buying an expensive hybrid) you've got no place else to go in the USA. What a rip-off that EVERYONE in America has to pay the price for the average Americans apathy about fuel efficiency.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,708
    It boggles my mind that they apparently changed the steering so drastically. That's about 3 ft larger turning radius if that's correct, which is a HUGE negative. That's exactly the same poor handling that the Mini has(should be closer to 30ft, since a venerable and much larger Volvo 240 could turn tighter than a Mini can)

    Sigh. Why does Honda cripple the car instead of giving us the SAME DARN THING THE REST OF THE WORLD GETS? Why do we have to suffer with second-rate everything and some guy in India, South Africa, or even Iceland can get the newest versions when they come out? It just makes no sense.
  • WARNING: Stupid question about turning radius ahead...

    When they measure turning radius, do they measure simply the wheel track, or the entire length of the car? I guess what I'm saying is: Could the difference in turning radius measurement be simply because the bumpers stick out further, or did they really change something in the steering to adjust how tight a radius it can turn?
  • tomsr1tomsr1 Posts: 130
    While researching the Fit at Honda UK I saw the Accord
    Tourer. WOW,why can't we have cool cars like that here?
    Anyhow if it is any indicator then the Fit will sell
    like $1 gas because the Scion Xb is a hot item and it is ugly.A roomy econobox that goes over 30 miles on a gallon
    is needed and does not need to be ugly.The biggest problem
    is in Southern California people drive too fast and merging
    onto the freeway could be a :cry: terror rush with only 1.5 litres.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,708
    It's a terrifying experience even with a 200hp+ car. Ther are a couple of 20-30 ft onramps in places as well, and one that has a stoplight/traffic control system with 0ft runup - it's a light, a line, and the freeway.

    Crazy out here. Lol.
  • brudusbrudus Posts: 3
    I am looking at the Fit & Versa as my potential future cars. One thing I am really impressed by in the Versa is the interior space -- both front and rear seat leg room, if one believes the specs (41.4/38.0), are spectacular. I couldn't find similar numbers for the Fit, and although I am 5'10 (178cm-ish) I am cramped in a corolla and push the seat all the way back even in Accords. I read somewhere that the Fit has poor driver leg room, can anyone confirm/deny this? I understand the fit will be 10in shorter than the versa.

    What I don't get is why don't they let you move the driver seat all the way back, even if it leaves no room for the passenger behind you -- on many cars with the driver all the way back there's already no place for a passenger, just 10 inches of perfectly good space.
  • PFFlyer@EdmundsPFFlyer@Edmunds Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 5,808
    The Forums' members at Edmunds have been going crazy this past year waiting for more information on the 2007 Honda Fit. This sweet, little ride has quite a bit of zip!

    http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee8e567

    PFFlyer@Edmunds

    Moderator - Hatchbacks & Hybrid Vehicles

  • From the Fit Specs Chart:
    Interior Measurements (Fit | Fit Sport)
    Headroom (in., front/rear) 40.6 / 38.6 | 40.6 / 38.6
    Legroom (in., front/rear) 41.9 / 33.7 | 41.9 / 33.7
    Shoulder Room (in., front/rear) 52.8 / 50.6 | 52.8 / 50.6
    Hiproom (in., front/rear) 51.2 / 51.0 | 51.2 / 51.0
    Cargo Volume (cu. ft., seat up/down) 21.3 / TBD | 21.3 / TBD
    Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 90.1 | 90.1
    Seating Capacity 5 | 5
  • rlh2rlh2 Posts: 11
    Any plans for offering Honda's navigation system as an option on the 2007 Fit?
  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 1,636
    http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee8e567

    Photo slideshow, links to show coverage (options listed there I believe).
  • The closest direct competitors to the Fit are the Kia Rio5 and the Chevrolet Aveo 5-door hatchback. The Fit is WAY better than both the Rio5 and Aveo, mostly because of 1) better quality interior, 2) definitely a better engine and 3) definitely way better automatic transmission.

    Because the Fit's 5AT is based on the same unit used on the 2006 Civic models, that means in terms of "real world" driving the Fit will likely sport better fuel efficiency than both the Rio5 and Aveo, since having that fifth gear means smoother shifts during acceleration and more relaxed engine cruising at freeway speeds.
  • rlh2rlh2 Posts: 11
    Thanks! Didn't see a nav option after quick look. Am interested since nav appears to be an option from this photo link.

    http://www.din.or.jp/~ymko/sab050115-013/info170115.html

    Possibly not a planned option for US version?
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    Hehe...and by the same token:

    buyer: I'd like something with really high fuel economy please.

    salesperson: well, I have this Civic Hybrid here, will get you almost FIFTY mpg! Costs about $22,000.

    buyer: Hmmm, kind of pricey. What else do you have?

    salesperson: Wellll, I have this Fit over here, will get you about 45 mpg, costs a little over half the price.

    buyer: Aw heck, sign me UP!

    Can't impinge on those wonderful hybrids...

    For the poster above, I am pretty sure turning radius is measured at the wheels, and it is probably wider here relative to other-market Fits because Honda has put wider tires on the Fit here. I will bet, but I haven't checked.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    So then, as a potential buyer, to get the better fuel economy you either have to go uglier (the new Versa, 38 combined is being reported?) or go to a sedan or drop 2 doors (Yaris).

    I still think the Fit will have the driver's edge over those models, but both of them should start lower in price than the Fit and provide better fuel economy.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • brudusbrudus Posts: 3
    I missed this info somewhere, all I could find was general length/width data... Is there a website with this (and possibly additional) info? Thanks
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,630
    I have driven the '06 Rio (Rio5 has an even nicer interior) and it has a very nice interior for a low-priced car, and that fact is mentioned in every review I have seen on the Rio/Rio5. Since the U.S. fit isn't yet available to drive (or for me even see up close) I can't compare the two yet. How did you reach the conclusion that the Fit has a better quality interior than the Rio5?

    I know one thing... based on the interior numbers just posted, the Fit may be out of the picture for me because of its limited rear leg room. I sometimes need to haul long-legged teenagers and even adults in the back seat, and 33+ inches isn't going to cut it unless there is some "magic" in how legs and knees actually fit (ha ha) into the back seat.
  • That Gathers navi unit is an dealer option in Japan (I think it's owned by Honda), though Honda does have their own hard drive navi unit available that can have a backup camera hooked up to it. I'm doubting it'll be offered as an option though.

    "Thanks! Didn't see a nav option after quick look. Am interested since nav appears to be an option from this photo link.

    http://www.din.or.jp/~ymko/sab050115-013/info170115.html

    Possibly not a planned option for US version?"
  • brudusbrudus Posts: 3
    Yeah, 33 is on the small side from my perspective too. The legs will fit if you chop them off and put them in the spacious trunk, and put the trunk in the body... Never mind. :)

    BTW the versa fuel numbers everyone is talking about are with CVT. With manual they'll be basically identical to the Fit numbers (based on a rough .9*38 = 34.5 calculation).
Sign In or Register to comment.