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

1356712

Comments

  • > The Civic has a little more legroom, a nicer interior, and more power.

    "more power" comparisons can be misleading, if it's just numbers on paper... because power isn't just a matter of horsepower, but weight, gearing, etc. So if by "more power" you expect it to feel peppier, you really need to drive them to see. Sometimes even comparing 0-60 doesn't tell you what "feels" quicker.
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    I did drive both models back to back, and the Fit MT was peppy and fun. The Civic MT was plain fast just like my 2003 Accord MT 4 cylinder.
  • irnmdnirnmdn Posts: 240
    It's a dumb sedan that is, well, boring.
    Compared to bland mini-minvan looking Fit?
  • Ah, so the "more power" comparison was from personal experience, got it.
  • > Compared to bland mini-minvan looking Fit?

    No one can win that one. And neither is likely to find its way into the Museum of Modern Art.
  • If your into sedans, the civic does look good, I've tried to see that. I'm not really into sedans so it just doesn't do anything for me.

    I like to see utility in design, so the Fit looks beautiful to me. When I first looked at it I discounted the fit because it struck me like you say a mini mini van.

    The shape of the Aveo and matrix are very similar to the fit. In person I just don't find them as appealing as the Fit. I guess it is the whole package of the Fit, it gives me that 'oh wow' feeling. happy motoring
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    "I like to see utility in design"

    So, how do you like the Pontiac Aztec? Apparently you can go camping too in the friggin' thing. :P
  • johnnyvjjohnnyvj Posts: 112
    >It's a dumb sedan that is, well, boring.
    >>Compared to bland mini-minvan looking Fit?

    Having seen one in real-life, I'd never compare it to a mini-minivan, bland or otherwise. Credit to Honda for keeping the lines ever so slightly sleek, and the hood low. It honestly looks nothing like a minivan IRL.

    However, you could make a case for it somewhat resembling a Toyota Matrix, which isn't that much prettier than a minivan. ;)
  • ramoramo Posts: 66
    You're a real fit disturber, aren't you? Must be a Canadian!
  • bodble2bodble2 Posts: 4,519
    Why, thank you. I'll take that as a compliment!
  • micwebmicweb Posts: 1,617
    The 2006 Civic has a major engine upgrade. If you go to the Honda press release website they explain the many interior design changes in the engine. Basically, they designed it to "sip gas like a 1.5 and perform like a 1.8." It is probably a more expensive engine to make than the 1.5 in the Fit. The Fit also gets great gas mileage, but simply because they limit the size of the engine, the amount of horsepower, and the engine is pulling around a slightly lighter vehicle.

    In Asia, people buy Fit's because they slot in at a lower price than Civics; same with Polos vs. Golf and the Vitz (Yaris) vs. Corolla. MOST people in those countries would rather have the larger car, but taxes, initial cost, and insurance keep them in the smaller car.

    Over here, we have "niche" markets where a MINI is comparable (to its intended purchasers) to a Mustang.

    Honda deferred bringing the Fit over here in fear it wouldn't sell - the price differential to the Civic isn't great enough to deter the typical American buyer. MINI reversed the perception that "small" automatically equals "cheap" (a perception that grew out of Hyundais, Kias, and Aveos) and Honda is trying to ride the same phenomenum.

    Toyota is a money making, mass production house. They can sell a few Yarii to people looking to save a little money and get a little better gas mileage. No need for "super subcompact" for them. Honda has to pick their battles - make the best product in the nice, and hope their customers will pay the premium. In no way is the Fit designed to take sales away from Civics. On the other hand, the Fit isn't just a smaller Civic, it's a microwagon with incredibly versatile seating and almost as much interior space as the Civic. So that, and its pricing, and its gas mileage, relative to the Civic, all confuse us and give us headaches.

    Personally I am glad they came up with a HONDA that handles like the (base) MINI, for less. How many enthusiasts will appreciate that, and in the large driving community, how many people will see the value in the Fit - and how many will just think its just another a tuner car (fart can muffler, etc.).

    I just hope it finds a niche like the CRX, instead of disappearing from sight like the Civic Wagon (which was a great little car).
  • raychuang00raychuang00 Posts: 541
    The 2006 Civic has a major engine upgrade. If you go to the Honda press release website they explain the many interior design changes in the engine.

    In fact, what Honda did with the R18 engine on the 2006 Civic was to combine i-VTEC valve timing control with an SOHC valvetrain; this is why this 1.8-liter engine is rated at 140 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) but still gets very good fuel economy.

    The L15A VTEC engine uses a VTEC-E valvetrain where the variable timing only occurs on the intake side--it's similar to the 1.6-liter I-4 engine found on my 1998 Civic HX CVT coupé.

    If Honda had been able to incorporate the SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain into the L15A engine, we could have seen horsepower around 117-120 bhp (SAE 08/04 net), lower emissions, and maybe 5-7% better fuel economy compared to the current L15A VTEC engine.
  • thatsmycallthatsmycall Posts: 54
    42.7 mpg estimate/ 158 miles mostly highway, sport AT, up to 75 mostly 65, small amount stop and go rush hour, some town errands, most all under 3500rpm. Plenty of power in this little dude. Keep it under 60 and you will get really good mileage.
  • mikecaponemikecapone Posts: 47
    "f Honda had been able to incorporate the SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain into the L15A engine, we could have seen horsepower around 117-120 bhp (SAE 08/04 net), lower emissions, and maybe 5-7% better fuel economy compared to the current L15A VTEC engine."

    Or even better: They could keep horsepower around 110 hp, downsize the engine to 1.3 or 1.4 and increase fuel efficient significantly.

    I'm tired of seeing all gains in efficiency going to more horsepower instead of fuel efficiency. We don't need more horsepower..
  • mankomanko Posts: 9
    "Or even better: They could keep horsepower around 110 hp, downsize the engine to 1.3 or 1.4 and increase fuel efficient significantly.

    I'm tired of seeing all gains in efficiency going to more horsepower instead of fuel efficiency. We don't need more horsepower.."

    Sorry, I'll take an increase in horsepower any day over an extra couple of miles. 109 HP is marginal as it is, so any increase would be welcome. I'm not so poor I can't afford the $4-5 dollars I might save per tank, and I'd rather enjoy driving then waste time trying to be some miser milking every last mile out of a couple bucks worth of gas.
  • vchiuvchiu Posts: 565
    That's the problem of Honda not considering the Fit Seriously enough with a full range of engines.

    Basically, they have 1,2 and 1,3 available in European Market. Those would certainly satisfy some US customers.

    For my part, I would like a turbocharged 1.5 because I hunger for torque, but everyone should have the model that fit his/her needs and priorities.

    Knowing the 1.3 IDSI is sold in China as well, the factory consumption figures only change by 0,1L/100 compared to the 1,5 , which means basically nearly nothing.

    Should you really want a mpg increase, the Fit should be in diesel, with maybe 10 mpg more.

    So more powertrain choices, more options, will certainly make a broader audience happy. the limited offer for the Fit means Honda do not consider the N/A seriously as they did for China. If they combined the existing options /powertrains existing in other countries, they could do easily.
  • mwqamwqa Posts: 106
    I have a 1992 Mazda 323 (82hp, 92 ft-lbs torque, curb weight 2238lbs) that has been able to get me from point A to point B the 11 years I've had the car.

    It's been OK in the city and I've gone on 4-5 hour highway runs and there hasn't been a problem. (I haven’t had to wear ear muffs, either.) I've notice a lack of power on accelerating hard, or when the car is full of passengers, but nothing dangerous.

    So, my question is -

    What is the minimum acceptable horsepower in an alternate engine and what sort of gas saving (and, more importantly to me, emissions saving!) can be expected?
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Posts: 678
    "Sorry, I'll take an increase in horsepower any day over an extra couple of miles. 109 HP is marginal as it is, so any increase would be welcome."

    For a car the size and weight of the Fit, 109 is not marginal. Most people don't even know how much of their engine's power they actually use in normal driving.
  • shneorshneor Posts: 66
    I drove a 1988 Mazda 323 for the last 12 years. Great little car, good cargo/passenger capacity, but down to 26 mpg. I've taken it on 12-hour drives, and on rough dirt roads, no problems. Last week, I bought a Fit BM. Lots more cargo capacity, more comfortable, more fun to frive, better handling and about the or a touch better turning radius than the Mazda. Over 440 miles, I got a steady 34 mpg, keeping rpm under 4,000. Now I'll try to stay under 3,500 rpm. It's quieter than the Mazda, and so far has easily enough acceleration. I think that the Sport auto will get the best mileage, especially with the car in "S" mode, and using the paddle shifters.
  • mwqamwqa Posts: 106
    Would you sacifice horsepower for a smaller engine but better mileage and emissions?

    Do you consider the Fit to be underpowered?
This discussion has been closed.