Howdy, Stranger!

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





Honda Fit vs Honda Civic

SylviaSylvia Posts: 1,636
edited April 7 in Honda
Compare the Fit to the Civic. Which do you prefer?
«13456712

Comments

  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    I'm curious. Would you choose a 5 door Civic or a Fit if both were available in the USA and Canada?

    Civic hatch that is available in Europe has Magic Seats too.

    The Civic hatch would complement the Fit very nicely in the Honda lineup.

    It would also offer the features that I say are lacking in a Fit and then some. Like refrigerated glove box, dual zone airconditioning, push button start, aluminum drilled pedals, sunroof...and more.
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Posts: 678
    ...and don't forget the 6-speed manual transmission standard along with 3 engine choices.

    Of course the US (if it did get the Civic 5 door) would probably only get 1 engine and a 5-speed manual.
  • claudius753claudius753 Posts: 138
    Pics of the European Civic I have seen are of the 3 door. If it came across looking as it does in europe, then no way in hell. I hate the full width headlight and the hatch back has that 'bubble' look sort of like the Hyundai Elantra hatch. I prefer more wagonish looking hatches like the Mazda 3, Kia Rio, or Honda Fit.

    I do like the interior of the Civic hatch and I would absolutely love to have a 2.2 iCTD.

    I have to say that I am fairly impressed by the Fit, it has been winning comparisons in a few different car mags. Too bad we didn't get the CVT-7 or the iDSI engines.
  • It's the "bubble-butt-ness" of the Civic hatch that makes me even more thankful that I'm able to get the Fit in its current body. My fear is if I wait for the full model change that's due in the next couple of years, I'm not going to like what I see.

    (But if I do, I can always hand down my 2007 to the wife, and get myself a new one!)
  • b4wrnb4wrn Posts: 10
    The Civic on the United Kingdom Honda site looks like a 3 door but the rear doors are "hidden". The door rear door handle in the the rear quarter panel. I agree the bubble back is "interesting" but would reserve comments when and if I ever get to see it in person. :surprise:
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Posts: 678
    I think the 6-speed MT from the Civic hatchback would be nice in the Fit/Jazz, but I am much happier that I have the Fit, and not the new Civic 5-door (I did like the 7th generation 5-door though).

    I am also particularly happy I have the 1st generation Fit. It will be interesting to see how the 2nd generation will look, but I didn't want to take the chance.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    As far as I know, this is not covered in one of the 1001 Fit sub-threads. :P I see the Fit being compared and cross-shopped with everything from Aveo to Mazda3 to Mini, but is the Civic a natural comparison also? Is anyone trying to decide between a Civic and a Fit? Their prices overlap. Aside from the hatch v. trunk issue, the Civic is almost as economical, offers slightly more passenger capacity, offers slightly more standard features, and I dare say, for most people in this segment, the 2 probably offer a similar driving experience. And brand and reliability considerations wouldn't even be issues to skew the comparison!
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    Yes, I am comparing the Fit and Civic with the Mazda3i sedan still a possibility. To get the features I want, I am comparing the Fit Sport manual with the Civic EX manual Sedan. No price overlap between those models though. I also considered the base Mini, but questionable reliability and the closest dealer being 100 miles away eliminated it.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    Why not a Civic LX manual? Wouldn't that be closer to the Fit Sport in terms of equipment and price? In fact, in Canada there is a Civic DX-G model (no alloys) that would be less expensive than a Fit Sport.

    FWIW, we've had our Mini for over 1 year now. Only "repair" required is a replace a burnt out interior dome light bulb! But of course, your mileage may vary. ;)
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    On the Civic, I want the alloy wheels, the better stereo with auxiliary input, the split fold rear seat, and the exterior temp indicator. I would rather not have the moonroof, but the headroom was ok when I test drove it. I am one of those who wants a small fun economical car, but I don't want to give up the amenities to which I am accustomed.
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    If Car & Driver magazine is right, in terms of handling and acceleration, the Fit is more of a budget Civic Si hatchback than a budget Civic. If ever a car could be divided between "young" and "old," it's got to be the Fit and the Civic. The Civic actually HAS an older demographic; yet to be determined for the Fit. If I didn't have a family now, I'd buy a Fit just for its handling. Handling on the level that C & D raved about is hard to find on ANY sub $30k car, much less an entry level from Honda.

    That having been said, the Civic is the more "responsible" and certainly the more main-stream purchase.

    Keep in mind the Scion xA (with a form-factor similar to the Fit) is NOT the success story of the Scion line - it's the quirky xB (box). The xA was expected to be 80% of sales, the xB 20%, and instead those numbers were reversed. Which points out that, traditionally, small conventional gas saving vehicles don't sell well (unless dirt cheap with an enormous dealer network, like the Chevy Aveo).

    Since the Scion was introduced in 2004, we've had a real continuing gas crisis, but my guess is still that the Fit will be a low volume car for Honda compared to the Civic and Accord (even the Civic has been dropping off in sales prior to the '06 redesign). Honda's recent decision to re-allocate production from the Fit to the Civic for North America says a lot about their sales expectations for the Fit.
  • twoktwok Posts: 5
    For what it's worth: the first 300 miles traveled, a mix of mostly interstate driving, with 100-plus mile commutes (total), up steep hills and down narrow curving mountain roads, on city streets clogged with traffic and in tight parking garages, this (Sport AT) car is (in a word) fantastic overall: quiet, responsive, powerful enough, stable at 70-80 mph, effortless in turns at any speed, ergonomically comfortable and usefully designed for cargo, with a (for me) great sound system. Heat and AC have had a try-out as Mid-Atlantic region's wonderful spring weather has served up a need to test both; no complaints at all - much better than I'm used to on my older Toyotas. (It appears to have a larger cargo area than either my co-workers' 2004 Forester or 1998 CR-V). No mpg report yet, but first tank was definitely not on full when I picked it up, so I need to wait 'till the second fill-up. I like it so much, with gas prices sure to continue rising, I'm going to try to sell my wife on one. I would like to test-drive the manual, though, to have that to compare against. I wonder about the clutch/brake pedal spacing and engine noise at 75-80. Thanks again to all the diligent regular posters for helping me come to a decision on this car, which seems absolutely brilliant.
  • growwisegrowwise Posts: 297
    Brilliant alright... But what about the price? Isnt this creeping into Civic territory?
  • sd_driversd_driver Posts: 49
    The Fit is not a cut-rate Civic. I think a Fit is worth 90-95% of a Civic price for a comparably equipped Fit. Throw in the new 1.7 liter V-TEC, and a few minor interior upgrades, and I think the Fit is worth the price of a Civic or more purely because of it's functionality with it's hatch and higher roof-line.
  • ephemere1ephemere1 Posts: 12
    But what about the price? Isnt this creeping into Civic territory?

    What are the advantages of the Civic over the Fit? It has better driver-side ergonomics (height-adjustable seat, telescopic steering wheel, arm rest, dead pedal). Anything else? The Fit seems more practical with its interior space and actually felt a bit roomier to me in the back seat for passengers. Yet the Civic is much more popular. Why? Is it style? I'm honestly curious because I'm considering both cars but don't understand what I'd be getting with the Civic over the Fit.
  • mwqamwqa Posts: 106
    Once you decide the versatility is important, a sedan just doesn't 'hatch' it. :)

    I would cross shop the Fit with the Matrix, not the Civic, esp in Canada where the Fit costs more. My girlfriend called the Fit a '3/4 Matrix' and I agree. Shame that the Fit's interior is not as solid, though.
  • The idea of the price creeping into Civic territory has come up a few times.

    The thing is, in every car line, a loaded x often starts to overlap with a base next-model-up. A loaded Civic similarly creeps into Accord territory. I don't know why this is an issue or why anyone would find it surprising.

    Apart from that, there seems to be an assumption that the Civic is necessarily a better car; that apart from price, if people had their choice of a Fit or a Civic, they would choose the Civic. But each has advantages over the other and will be preferred by some people. The Civic certainly doesn't have near the cargo carrying capacity of the Fit, so the Fit would better fit my needs, regardless of price. (I suspect I'd also prefer driving the Fit, from what I've read.)
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    I, too, have been comparing the Fit to the Civic. The ergonomic advantages you mentioned are important factors. I think the Civic has more passenger room, front and rear. But of course, the Civic cannot match the Fit for cargo capacity or flexibility -- and this ultimately may be the deciding factor for someone cross-shopping the 2. I also think the Civic has a more upscale feel to the interior. For not much more money, you can get things like auto up/down windows, variable intermittent wipers, heated mirrors, outside and engine temp gauge, locking glove box, locking gas door. Not deal-breakers each by itself, but taken as a whole, it makes the Civic seem "more car for the money". Styling is always subjective, but you're essentially looking at 2001 styling for the Fit vs. 2006 styling for the Civic. The Civic just looks nicer, IMO. It looks fresh, whereas the Fit has a somewhat dated, awkward look to it. It sells inspite of its styling, not because of its styling. The Fit will get better mpg, but probably not by that much in real life driving. The Civic has Honda's latest i-Vtec technology whereas the Fit is using last-generation Vtec. My gut feeling is that, unless you need to carry bulky cargo on a fairly regular basis, the Civic may provide a more satisfying ownership experience in the long run.
  • jbwestjbwest Posts: 16
    I test drove a Civic automatic right after test driving an automatic Fit Sport this weekend, and compared to the Fit, the Civic felt like it had been shot full of novocaine. Where the Fit is delightfully responsive to inputs from the steering wheel, paddle shifters and pedals, the Civic felt sluggish and numb. Which is not to say the Civic is bad in the grander scheme of things, because it's certainly not -- it's a very good car, and it certainly offers a level of comfort and isolation unavailable in the Fit -- but in my opinion that isolation is more a negative than a positive, making the Civic feel, compared to the Fit, totally average, like any random rental car.

    I just depends on what you value more -- a car with a little more edge and immediacy to its controls, or one that cossets and pampers you more and in so doing disconnects you more from the road. I guess which driving experience I prefer is obvious. ;)

    The other biggest difference between the Civic and Fit for me from the driver's seat is the commanding view out that the Fit provides. Here again, the Civic is like most mainstream cars in offering a less-than-expansive view out, relatively speaking; the Fit, on the other hand, offers truly exceptional visibility through the windshield and tall side windows. That, combined with the driving experience and the passenger room offered by its tall-body packaging, is what I liked most about the Fit. (Now, if only it had a sunroof! I've never owned a car without one, and I'd miss it -- but not as much as I'd miss it were it a different car with a less expansive greenhouse.)
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Posts: 678
    "My gut feeling is that, unless you need to carry bulky cargo on a fairly regular basis, the Civic may provide a more satisfying ownership experience in the long run."

    To me it is not just about how much it can hold. I usually don't carry lots of bulky items. As has been mentioned before, one of the glaring omissions from Honda's NA line-up has been a hatchback. I for one only would purchase a sedan (or any "stepback" vehicle) if I really couldn't get a hatchback I wanted. Just personal taste. However, the Fit is just so much more versatile regardless of actual cargo capacity.
    Regarding the interior room, the Fit and Civic have very similar figures. The difference is how the interior is executed. I feel somewhat cramped inside the Civic in terms of headroom and general space. The Fit feels open and airy and I prefer the higher, more upright seating position.
    The 2001 styling might apply for the outside (looks are subjective), but for the massive interior in a small exterior size and utilization of space the Fit wins by a landslide.

    "For not much more money, you can get things like auto up/down windows, variable intermittent wipers, heated mirrors, outside and engine temp gauge, locking glove box, locking gas door."

    I don't know how the Civic is equipped in Canada, but you would need the EX for the variable intermittent wipers and outside temperature gauge in the US. Unless I am just not seeing it on the specifications page, the US Civic doesn't even come with heated mirrors.
    The MSRP of US$13,850 for the Fit and US$16,710 for the Civic LX is $2860. Hardly what I would call "not much money". Also, don't forget that the Fit is positioned below the Civic, so naturally some amenities in the Civic will be left out of the Fit.
«13456712
This discussion has been closed.