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

16781012

Comments

  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,629
    Not when you consider it's a real-world test that includes some tough city driving (CR is located near NYC). I'm sure others will get better FE on the Civic--just as others will get better FE with the Fit. The key thing about these numbers is that they are from the same course, and the fuel consumption is measured precisely, using the same technique for both cars, so there is some consistency for comparison. Otherwise it gets down to an endless discussion of e.g. "My sister got XX mpg in the Civic" and "My neighbor got XX mpg in the Fit", with no basis for comparison.
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Posts: 504
    Controlled environment comparisons = apples to apples
    Internet anecdote comparisons = apples to oranges

    It is up to you to decide, of course, which one you want to believe.
  • kipkkipk Posts: 1,576
    dromedarius,

    My wife drives her CR-V daily and is seriously in love with it. I do a lot of running around locally. That task falls to the Pilot.

    For my daily uses, the Pilot is somewhat big and not as much fun to drive as the CR-V.. My wife is not interested in trading with me. However for trips, Pilot is definitely the car of choice for us. Sometimes there is a boat in tow. Don't intend to get rid of it any time soon. Would just like to keep the door dings, shopping cart scratches, and miles off of it. Use it for the ROAD, towing and so forth car.

    Something small and "Zippy" that gets good mileage seems like a good idea for my local driving.

    And I agree, the purchase price, insurance and so forth make a small 3rd car seem foolish. Here is the kicker. There is not much price difference in keeping the Pilot and Buying a small runabout or Trading the Pilot for something that would do it's job.... and still be too big. :)

    Thanks,
    Kip
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    We get it. Bad press about the Civic must be untrue, but isn't for the Fit, right?

    :sick:
  • bottgersbottgers Posts: 2,028
    I haven't seen any bad press for either vehicle. What are you talking about?
  • bottgersbottgers Posts: 2,028
    The reason I said 28 MPG sounds way low for the Civic is because I'm currently driving a '99 Corolla and no matter how hard I drive it, it never has gotten less than about 32 or 33 MPG. The new Civic is even better on gas than my Corolla so I would think no matter how it's driven, it shouldn't get less than my Corolla gets.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,629
    I don't understand your comment. I thought you discounted the EPA ratings earlier, so how do you know that the Civic is better on gas than your '99 Corolla? Also the '99 Corolla is a much different car (e.g. lighter, lower-powered engine) than the current Civic, so I don't know how you can make a FE comparison between the two without actually driving them both on the same route--which btw is what CR did with the Civic and Fit.

    I find it interesting you would seemingly value a comparison such as this (your '99 Corolla to the current Civic, not driven under similar conditions) to a study such as done by CR which compared two current models on the exact same route that was a mix of city and highway driving designed to mimic real-world conditions.
  • bottgersbottgers Posts: 2,028
    The EPA ratings listed earlier are numbers from the new rating system. Based on the rating system my Corolla was rated under, my Corolla had a highway rating of 39 MPG and the newest gen Civic had a rating of 42 MPG (I don't remember the city ratings). Why would I compare the ratings for my Corolla using the old rating system to the new Civic using the new rating system? Talk about comparing apples to oranges. Also, while the Civic is slightly heavier and more powerful than my Corolla, it also has a much more technically advanced engine than my Corolla has. My Corolla doesn't even have VVT. The 1.8 liter Civic engine is going to be far more efficient than the 1.8 in my Corolla, even in a heavier car.
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Posts: 504
    What you are doing is this. You have a theory like "The Civic should get a better mileage than your '99 Corolla." Then we have a finding like the CR's.

    If your theory conflicts with a finding that has a well-documented basis for comparisons, then the burden of proof shifts to you to disprove that finding with your own finding. And citing anecdotal evidence collected off the internet would not do it because there is no basis for comparison for such datum. You do not disprove a finding with a theory. You disprove a finding with a finding. You have not done that thus far.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,629
    I was not comparing apples to oranges, but I think you are. FYI, under the old EPA rating system, the Civic AT was rated at 40 mpg highway, and (I think) the MT was rated at 38 mpg. But you are talking about overall mpg here, so you need to at least look at overall mpg ratings.

    And FWIW, I've found that having "VVT" on a car doesn't mean it will get better FE than a car without VVT. There's several other variables that affect FE. I got excellent FE on several cars that did not have VVT, including Corollas, Civics, and Sentras. I don't think it's a good idea to assume one car will get better FE than another car because one has VVT and one does not.

    P.S. The difference in weight is nearly 10%, which I think is signficant; e.g. Corolla CE MT 2414, Civic DX MT 2628.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,629
    Here's another data point to consider. People can post their actual FE on fueleconomy.gov. This data provides a FE comparison using a larger sample size than 1, although there's still the issue of differences in driving styles, routes, conditions etc. But as the sample size grows, those differences even out. Here's what's on fueleconomy.gov for the 2007 Civic and Fit (chosen to get a larger sample size than for 2008 models):

    Civic AT - 30.9 mpg, 59 samples
    Civic MT - 31.5 mpg, 20 samples
    Fit AT - 32.8 mpg, 26 samples
    Fit MT - 35.4 mpg, 39 samples

    Something interesting though... the Fit Sport AT is averaging only 30.0 mpg with 47 samples. I wonder if this is an example of how driving style affects mpg, i.e. those who choose a "sport" model might drive more aggressively than those who drive the base model? Hmmm....
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Posts: 504
    One way to control the data integrity with this kind of database is to eliminate the highest and lowest numbers, and take the median with the rest of the data. I have not done so with either the Fit or Civic results in the fueleconomy.gov, but it might be interesting to see.
  • bottgersbottgers Posts: 2,028
    ...of a power increase is the more powerful version Fit supposed to get?
  • Re: highway ride. Not sure what issue specifically you're talking about, so I'll just ramble.

    From a rolling turn in second gear, I get to 60-65 by the end of the on ramp. The limit is 75 MPH were I live, but it really only takes another 5 seconds to get near that. And traffic in the right lane is never that fast anyway. I've never felt the car was underpowered to do anything remotely normal on the freeway.

    I cruise at about 80 mph for 10 miles. Yes, there is road noise. It's not like my wife's TSX, which itself has lower profile tires. Yes, there is some wind noise. I've never found either to be distracting or overwhelming.

    I've never found the handling or "weight" to be unsafe, up to 85 mph that is. Never gone over that.

    So 10 miles at 80 mph (3000 rpm on an AT), then the rest your typical rush hour freeway: pockets of 40 mph, then a 1/2 mile of bumper-to-bumper, then some 15 mph, etc.

    I get 36 MPG this way. If I do a whole tank at 65-75, I get 38 easily. 330 miles between fill-ups.
  • all the light rail construction has created a rattle in the dash. Top center. Need to get that fixed, under warranty I hope.
  • "If I do a whole tank at 65-75, I get 38 easily. 330 miles between fill-ups."

    Thanks for your report, but it indicates that you are pumping only 8.7 gallons when you fill (330/38=8.7). Is that correct? Are you really stopping for gas with 2.1 gallons left in the tank? Is it indicating empty or are you just very conservative with extending the range?
  • kipkkipk Posts: 1,576
    Wonder if the Fit will/would possibly share the 1.8L engine with the Civic. Possibly as an option in the Sport, if nothing else.

    Since it is not unusual to see "Real World" mpg numbers for the Fit and Civic so close, it would seem that moving up to the 1.8L would be a win-win for the Fit.
    EPA average numbers are 25/36 Civic and 27/33 for the Fit.

    Comparing the Civic and Fit automatics show the Civic being 220+/- # heavier than the Fit. Fit has a bit more frontal area, which could be the reason for the Fit dropping off a bit of MPG at highway speeds , compared to the Civic. Or it could be that the 1.5L simply is working hard and would also drop some MPG if in the Civic at highway speeds.

    Has anyone seen/heard anything solid on the possibility of more power/mpg for the Fit model change next year?

    Kip
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,629
    The Fit is getting more power for the 2009 MY, about a 10% bump for the 1.5L engine.

    However, I don't know why a larger, more powerful engine would help the Fit when cruising on the highway. Highway cruising takes very little horsepower. Maybe better aerodynamics would help the Fit there. The new Fit does look a little sleeker than the current model, but I don't know the respective drag coefficients.

    Also, the Fit's EPA fuel economy is actually better than that of the Civic. The Fit averaged 31 mpg for the MT and 30 mpg for the AT, according to the EPA. The Civic averages 29 mpg for both the MT and AT.
  • kipkkipk Posts: 1,576
    backy,

    Certainly not disputing any of your post. Just exploring some possibilities. :)

    According to https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do

    With the automatics, which are more interest to me than the manual shifts:

    Fit..... Real world 32.8--21--43....EPA 30--27--35

    Civic...Real world 30.9--22--42....EPA 29--25--36

    Notice that Real world FIT drivers are averaging 1.9 better.
    However, Their lowest (city) is actually lower than the heavier Civic and the highway is 1 better.

    What we don't know is "HOW" they are driven. ie, does the driver of the Civic tend to drive faster on the road do to better handling, at speed, and less road noise? Does the Fit run a little harder in the "burbs" do to it's quickness and fun to drive status?

    My point is, that with the extra 250+pounds of the Civic and the larger engine, it still gets extremely close to the Fit in mileage. Makes me wonder if that 1.8L engine, as is, in a lighter car could get even better mileage than it is getting in the Civic. Also there would be the benefit of better performance. Even if the 1.5L receives a 10% boost, it still falls short of the 1.8L in standard output.

    Increasing HP of a proven engine, often times results in poorer mileage. Often times that HP boost comes with an increase in RPM to achieve the results. It performs better, but gets poorer mileage. The Civic Si would be an example of that.

    Certainly would like to think that Honda wishes to hang on to it's "Best Fuel Mileage" status, but will they?

    Just some ramblings! :shades:

    Thanks,
    Kip
This discussion has been closed.