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

135678

Comments

  • kagedudekagedude Posts: 407
    Would you sacifice horsepower for a smaller engine but better mileage and emissions?

    Do you consider the Fit to be underpowered?


    Just going by the numbers (109hp/105torque), it looks like the Fit is a slow car. My old 2002 Hyundai Accent is rated with almost the same horsepower and it did 0-60 in about 11 sec.

    However from Car and Driver's last issue, you will see the Fit does 0-60 in 8.7 sec, the best one in the quarter mile, as well as passing lane handling (They said it even bested the Corvette Z06). I've driven 4 adults in my Fit Sport 5spd and I don't feel it being underpowered at all. It really sprints and is very comparable to the Mini rather than an entry level car.

    Maybe to really maximize the fuel economy, Honda can offer the smaller engine as long as they can keep the 0-60 to between 10-11 sec to match the Hyundai Accent but you get way way much better gas mileage than the already great gas mileage of 37 mpg real world usage.

    For me, it satisfies me with what I want in terms of power and fuel economy. Instead of "I drive a fast car but I spend a lot for gas" or "I get great mileage but its a slow car", you get "I drive a fast car and I get great gas mileage!". :blush:
  • chrisducatichrisducati Posts: 394
    109 hp is more than enough for me. I find in my daily driving that people crawl away from traffic lights and slowly accelerate Yet they want the biggest fastest engine they can get. Most people could live with lower powered engines. I have been driving our old Suzuki with a 1.6 that I think made 97hp when it was new. It gets about 40mpg and probably makes less than 97hp now that it has over 300k miles on it. I find it more fun to drive than any of our other cars with twice the hp. I tend to always be waiting on someone to pull away from traffic or waiting for a clear spot to fly around them. :shades:
  • kagedudekagedude Posts: 407
    If you meant the Suzuki Swift GT, that made 100hp and 0-60 in 10 sec. I loved that car. I remember Suzuki posting that number on their ads. :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The weight of my very peppy Accord is 3,239 lbs with 166 horsepower. This equals out to 19.5 lbs. per hp.

    The weight of the Fit is 2432 lbs with 109 hp, qhich equals out to 22.3 lbs per hp.

    This may seem like a big difference, but if you take into account the weight of 2 passengers in my Accord, the power to weight ratio is similar to that of a Fit with one driver. I think I could handle that small difference.

    Any car that can accelerate to 60 miles per hour (not in a hard start with wheelspin, but a street start at 5-60MPH) in less than 10 seconds should be perfectly adequate if not more-so on today's roadways. Shoot, 10 years ago, my 1996 Accord was brand new with only 130 hp through a 4-speed auto. It's a little poky in comparison to today's cars, but interstate speeds havent changed much since then, cars have just gotten more advanced in acceleration. I could keep that car's power and take the increase in mileage anyday.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    If you load up with passenger and cargo, then the drop-off in performance is much more pronounced on a lower-powered car. ie. Fit v. Accord. But I think most people will primarily use the Fit as an urban commuter carrying no more than a couple of passengers. So I think for most, it'll be alright.
  • tsgeiseltsgeisel Posts: 352
    I really dislike the re-desgined look of the Civic - what I consider to be a Prius-wannabe look. I prefer the styling of the Fit, and I especially like the idea that it's a hatchback.

    On the other hand, I just picked up a new '05 Elantra GT for about the same or less than a fully-loaded Fit, so who am I to be comparing.

    But the new Fit seems to be filling the same kind of niche as my old '96 Civic DX hatch. Just improved. (Well, except for the 3ft increase in turning radius, according to edmunds. Weird.)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    But the new Fit seems to be filling the same kind of niche as my old '96 Civic DX hatch. Just improved. (Well, except for the 3ft increase in turning radius, according to edmunds. Weird.)

    Wider tires (195mm on the Fit Sport vs 175mm on the Civic DX 1996 i think) and different track widths, maybe?
  • doan4udoan4u Posts: 105
    Fit is cheaper than Civic. Fit seem too small for me. It look like someone could kick-my-butt :cry: I love the Fit interior better than the Civic. I love the exterior of the Civic more than Fit. Conclusion, I would buy the Civic. But, if i was a high school kid, I prefer FIT.
    :shades:
  • midnightcowboymidnightcowboy Posts: 1,978
    LOL and apparently you can go off road in an SUV
  • hfounthfount Posts: 7
    Might as well argue which one (Angelina or Catherine) is prettier,as argue which is the better car. I myself went back and forth between the two of them to the point that I think the salesman would have rather seen me leave than stay longer and make the sale. The Civic was 1500 dollars more and my rational brain kept saying "this is an incredible car, why would you possibly go "economy" for such a small difference in price." The Civic was sporty inside and out and handled like a dream. I found it comfortable and very cool with its digital speedometer. It really felt like the car that any pragmatic person would choose. Still it was just a car and the Fit had the funk factor. In the end I screwed the pragmatism and went with the funk, very unlike me and maybe about time. Anyway I don't see how you could go wrong with either car and the difference is mainly about style preference. And to contradict an earlier post a little "I am enthusiastic about the Fit and I don't get enthusiastic about much.... I smile everytime I look at it, never mind drive it.

    HOWEVER, my mileage has been disappointing and I do wonder if it would have been the same in the Civic. Not sure if it is me, the model or the specific car.
  • jbwestjbwest Posts: 16
    Since you say you've been disappointed with the mileage you've been getting so far, hfount, may I ask what kind of MPGs you've seen? And are you driving the automatic or manual transmission?
  • hfounthfount Posts: 7
    I have the manual transmission and over 600 miles have averaged at about 32mpg, which includes a lot of highway miles. Last half tank was all city and I only got 25mpg. Not horrific but I was looking for a car with REALLY great mileage, and passed over cars like the Mazda 3 because of this My '97 Sienna van gets 20 in town and is about twice as big and faster. This little car should do better. It appears others are getting much better mileage. so despite my careful driving it may be me or my specific car....
  • aaykayaaykay Posts: 539
    I think one of the points in the Civic's favor is that the suspension of the Civic is a 4-wheel independent suspension. A stiffened version of it (as present in the Civic Si), would beat the pants off of anything within the sub 25K price range, from a handling perspective.

    The Fit is better from a utility/space utilization standpoint. But like the other cars in its class (Scion xA/xB, Echo, Yaris) etc., it has been equipped with a cheap Torsion beam non-independent suspension in the rear. Rough roads/bumpy roads would certainly not be the forte of this car, I would presume.

    Also, after the redesign, the Civic employs newer technology, with the ACE body structure, newer engine technology etc. The FIT is a more older design (several years old in other markets) and is due for a redesign....even though in North America, it is a newly introduced model. So the technology employed within the FIT is also older and would be updated shortly.
  • rx7doodrx7dood Posts: 3
    I just went for a test drive in the fit and its won me over compared to the civic.

    I have a fun car (my Trubo RX7) I am looking for something with good daily driving functionality and the fit is it.

    also like many have said the fit is more fun to drive imo. The hp to weight ratio is better in the fit.

    as the above poster mentioned yes the civic has some new technology but the there are still many issues/quirks with some of it. The fit is tested and provent already.

    i'm going with a fit sport over a civic EX.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    rx7dood said: The hp to weight ratio is better in the fit.
    .
    .
    The Civic's power to ratio is much better than the Fit, actually. If comparing an EX Civic to a Fit Sport, here are the figures:
    .
    .
    .
    Honda Civic EX 5MT: 2740 lbs/140 horsepower = 19.57 lbs per hp

    Honda Fit Sport 5MT: 2471 lbs/109 horsepower = 22.66 lbs per hp

    I think you made a wise decision on your car purchase, just had your figures a little misstated. Hope you don't mind that I clarified that for the other readers. :) Enjoy your new ride!
  • chrisducatichrisducati Posts: 394
    I hated the new Civic when if first came out but the exterior has grown on me. Still am repulsed by the interior. Still for a small car a sedan just will not work for me and as Honda did not give us the great Civic 4 door hatch that Europe got, the Fit is the only Honda on my list.
  • earthearth Posts: 76
    I have the manual transmission and over 600 miles have averaged at about 32mpg, which includes a lot of highway miles. Last half tank was all city and I only got 25mpg. Not horrific but I was looking for a car with REALLY great mileage, and passed over cars like the Mazda 3 because of this My '97 Sienna van gets 20 in town and is about twice as big and faster. This little car should do better. It appears others are getting much better mileage. so despite my careful driving it may be me or my specific car....
    -------------------------------

    Sorry to hear about the mileage on that standard transmission Fit. I get 26.8 miles per gallon on my Civic 06 EX Coupe with Nav and automatic trans city only driving. No lead foot, but with some air from time to time.
  • aaykayaaykay Posts: 539
    The lack of a 4 door hatch Civic is the only reason why I would seriously consider the Fit. Having owned wagons (hatchbacks) in the past, I would definitely prefer it over a sedan. The Civic is defintely a much more refined product - engine, transmission, suspension etc - than the Fit.

    If it is purely mileage (and if you could live with a Sedan), then the new Toyota Yaris with 34City/39Hwy (Automatic) should be a serious consideration. I am not a big fan of 2 door hatches and hence the Yaris hatch is not in the running.

    Of course, since I have a 2005 Odyssey EX-L with Navigation, with its cavernous interior, I certainly have more than enough space to move things in - but a small hatch would certainly be handy too.
  • slowpedalerslowpedaler Posts: 62
    I gave up some utility but I love the interior and exterior of the Civic, and they get similar mileage. Also, the Civic has a stronger motor and suspension. I also like that the styling is fresh. The Fit is old and looks it. Too much like the previous Si.
  • johnnyvjjohnnyvj Posts: 112
    Y'know, the new Civic is a really awesome car. Really. But when I sit in one on the dealer's lot, the same thought keeps flashing through my head:

    Not QUITE enough interior room. :(

    Maybe I'm just used to my CR-V, with its loads of headroom and cargo carrying ability, but when I'm in the new Civic, I feel a little claustrophobic. Probably doesn't help that when I sit in the back seat, my head touches the ceiling (and I'm only a torso-y 5'10")... this is the downside of 'swoopy' roof styling...

    But I guess Honda had to do SOMETHING... if the Civic had a bit more interior room, who'd buy Accords until the next-gen redesign? :D

    Speaking of which, you sit in an Accord or a Fit right after siting in a Civic, its like "Ahhhh... now THERE's the room."
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    I had the same impression. Given that the Accord VP is several hundred less and is essentially a slightly bigger Civic LX(same seat coverings, same seats, same door panel coverings, same fuel door switch...) Yeah, all me a gluttonous American if you will, but more space for less money is not a bad thing. :)

    Note - they also had a Civic Value Package as well last year, and it sold for about $14K. But I suspect that they didn't want to tank Fit sales. The Value Package is suspiciously missing from the Civic this year. They also appear to have dropped the GX as well, despite it being the best truly green vehicle on the market. Pollutes a fraction of what a hybrid does, and gets 65MPG equivalent.

    Filling from home, though - Edmunds noted that it's closer to $1 a gallon. Even paying retail prices, though, Edmunds also reported this:

    Because the fuel is pumped at different compression rates, the exact amount of fuel in the tank is difficult to gauge. Consequently, we couldn't provide our own fuel economy findings. All we can confirm is that the GX will go 200 miles on an average of $10 worth of CNG.)

    $10 worth of CNG gets you 200 miles. That's 65mpg, thanks to the insane gas prices, and it'll get better as gas keeps creeping up. Even if you are paying $2.50 a gallon out in the Midwest or wherever, that's still 50mpg.

    But not this year. *sigh*.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    I am also comparing the Accord to the Fit. The Accord addresses several of the Fits shortcomings, has much more room (yes less versatile for large items - wish they still made a wagon) and does not use much more gas.

    Also I want a manual tranny and they are all made in Japan, so that is not an issue.

    Now if the Fit got EPA 43-45 on the highway like the old civic HX and Toyota Echo did, then that would further distance it from the Accord.
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    "Also I want a manual tranny and they are all made in Japan, so that is not an issue."

    Huh?

    Maybe the transmission is made in Japan, but just about all Accords (Manual or Auto- V6 or 4) are made in the US. All Fits are made in Japan.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,456
    Accords with manual transmissions are made in Japan (at least the 4-cyl - have not looked into the 6-cyl). They only make automatics in the U.S.
  • aaykayaaykay Posts: 539
    At least till last year, a huge majority of the 4-cylinder Accord SEDANS (Manual and Automatic) were assembled in Suzuka, Japan. But they have been mixing the assembly in Japan, the US and also a few in Mexico.

    None of the Accord Coupes (4-cyl and 6-cyl) are made in Japan. None of the 6-cyl Accords (Sedans or Coupes) are built in Japan.

    Either way, I intensely dislike the "refreshing" the Accord received last year, specifically in the rear. The earlier rear-end looked nasty but I had grown used to its look but the new one is worse. Honda needs some really good designers to do their cars justice.
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    "I intensely dislike the "refreshing" the Accord received last year,"

    That's what happens when you try to fix an inherently poor design. It's hard to believe the Accord and the TL came from the same company, much less the same platform! :confuse:
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Posts: 678
    "Accords with manual transmissions are made in Japan (at least the 4-cyl - have not looked into the 6-cyl). They only make automatics in the U.S."

    That's absolutely not true.

    My dealer has an Accord VP, 2 Accord LX, and an Accord EX made in Sayama, Japan. All of them have 4-cylinder engines and automatic transmissions. Those are the only 4 (out of 25+) made in Japan. The rest are manufactured in the US.
    The EX-V6 6MT in the dealership is made in the US (Marysville, Ohio to be exact).

    Country of origin makes no real difference on what kind of Accord it is. It is true that the Accord coupé is only made in the US, but in terms of transmission or engine it makes no difference.

    ...and they do make Accords with manual transmissions in the US, because when I went to pick up my Fit, I checked out an Accord LX 5MT and I clearly remember it was US-built.
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    Wrong. My 2003 4 cylinder Manual LX Sedan was made in Ohio. All of the manual 4 cylinder ones to choose from back in Dec 2002 at my dealer were made in North America. My dealer has 6 manuals on the lot right now. Zero of them are made in Japan.
  • aaykayaaykay Posts: 539
    I disagree. Your dealer probably received a lot that was shipped from Ohio. Check back a month later and you might find a different situation. When buying your 2003 4-cylinder Sedan, the vehicle lot the dealer received, again probably came coincidentally from Ohio.
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    Maybe it is regional. Out of the 5 or so I was picking from none were from Japan. That was one of the things I was looking for. They have about 2 out of 70 Accords from Japan right now. Both are autos.
This discussion has been closed.