Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Fit vs Honda Civic

124

Comments

  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    If you're doing a lot of highway commuting and you're NOT needing the extra cargo space of the Fit, then I'd go with the Civic because it will be more stable on the highway and you'll get better MPG.

    I have a Fit because the high roof makes it easier putting kids in carseats in the back, plus there is a lot of storage space behind the back seat. Plus the high roof allows my wife to reach to the back easier to take care of the kids on the road.

    The advantage of the Fit is the versatile interior, but if you don't need it, then go for the Civic or Corolla.
  • clarksterynclarksteryn Member Posts: 18
    I did it! I have been thinking about this for many months and everytime I saw a Fit at the dealer, I had to go look at it. Finally, on Nov 12th, I traded in my '06 Civic LX Auto for a little red '08 Fit Sport Manual! :shades: I bought it in Topeka, KS (where my wife is currently activated on Title 10 orders) and immediately drove it home to St. Louis, the car now has 500 miles on it. I love it, I love driving a manual again. I had bought the Civic for my wife...long story, but she didn't like driving it so it became my car, but then I lost my SUV to my wife. I couldn't put anything in the Civic, yeah it gets a little better mileage and has some extra creature comfort features but it isn't as practical as the Fit. I now have a vehicle with some utilitarian features. I am so happy - Great little car!
  • mjoshimjoshi Member Posts: 44
    After reading thru forums it seems like Fit is having some issues with highway ride in terms of engine power, whereas Civic offers more refined drive compared to Fit. On plus side Fit offers more storage space compared to Civic. So what is feel of people on this forum ? I already own Honda Odyssey so space should not be a primary concern for me. The main thing for me is go around town and once in a while with 5 people on highway. What do you think better serves my need ? Also what is mpg difference between Fit and Civic in real world ? It seems like Fit is having issues with getting listed miles, is same case with Civic too ? Also 09 Fit seems to be coming out some time next year, should I wait for it of go with 08 Fit ?
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    If you don't need the cargo space, then I'd go for the Civic. What's your family size?
  • mjoshimjoshi Member Posts: 44
    My family size is 4 but we do keep getting company often on due to my younger sons cancer. We have Ody which is good for 7 people and I'm thinking of trading it later for either Sienna or Ody. At present I've Mazda 3 which I love but my wife wants to trade it for something automatic as she dont know how to drive manual.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    We also are a family of 4. We have a 7 passenger Ford Freestyle as our big vehicle when we need to carry more than 4 (3yr old and newborn), but I opted for the Fit instead of the Civic because of the extra space.

    We've been on my long weekend trips and with the Fit's 21CuFt of cargo space behind the 2nd row, we've been able to take the Fit instead of the Freestyle filling the back with a big cooler, suitcases, stroller, folding crib, etc. If I bought the Civic, we would have had to take the Freestyle instead, because the Civic would not have held everything the Fit can hold. Plus I like the high ceiling and open feeling of the Fit. The Civic seemed too cramped for me. And from the front seat, it's easy to reach back to take care of the little ones.

    As far as MPG, you'll get slightly better with the Civic, but then if you need to use your big car more often because you have the Civic, then overall you're really worse off MPG...at least that's how I figured it.

    But if you'll just use the small car for people, then the 4dr Civic, being wider and longer, will give you more 2nd row passenger space, especially for 5.

    Did you consider just getting a Mazda3 with an automatic? It's another really good car and probably more fun to drive than the Civic, although the MPG is worse. Personally if I wanted a small 4dr sedan, I'd get a Corolla. They just seem more comfortable inside to me. There's the Mazda3 5-door and Matrix, but I didn't like the driving position of the Matrix, and the Mazda3 5-door seemed small inside as compared to the Fit, even though the Fit is much smaller on the outside, probably due to the added height of the Fit.
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    So far I've test driven the Civic, Fit, Corolla, and Yaris. The Corolla is out completely because the driver's seat won't go back far enough for me to get comfortable. Between the Fit and Yaris, I preferred the Yaris as it feels more powerful. But of these four cars, the Civic is far and away the better vehicle. It's much more powerful, more comfortable, quieter, and way more refined than either the Yaris or Fit. With the Yaris and Fit, you never forget your driving an economy car. The Civic is just the opposite. It feels and drives more like a luxury car than an economy car. For me, this comparison is a no brainer.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    But if you need more space than the Civic's tiny trunk, then the Fit is the no brainer winner.
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    No necessarily. In that case I'd go with the Yaris hatchback.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Between the Fit and Yaris for utility, the Fit is the clear winner IMO:

    * 5 doors vs. 3
    * Fit has a larger cargo area with rear seats up
    * Fit has a larger cargo area with rear seats down
    * Fit has a standard 60/40 rear seat (which folds into the floor) vs. an optional 60/40 rear seat on Yaris (which does move fore/aft a few inches).

    Add to that the sharper handing of the Fit and its standard ABS and side bags/curtains, I think Fit vs. Yaris hatch is no contest in favor of the Fit.
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    Whatever. They are both nothing but cheap tin cans compared to the Civic.
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    They are both nothing but cheap tin cans compared to the Civic.

    The Civic had better feel better than the other two, since you'd be paying more for the Civic when comparably equipped.

    No doubt that the Civic rides better than the Fit. But if you need utility space, the Fit works better. That is the reason our household chose the Fit. But if you need not carry much, and are willing to pay more, I would highly recommend the Civic. You cannot go wrong with either car, so long as you know why you are getting the particular car.

    The Yaris Hatchback is a great commuter. But cannot carry much at all behind the rear seat, and the lack of two extra doors is a mighty pain if you need to carry extra people and/or luggage. But again, if you need a reliable commuter that gets an excellent mileage, the Yaris would be a winner for that purpose. It is all about what you are buying the car for.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    jacksan1,

    Good Post, and I pretty much agree with everything you had to say.
    " It is all about what you are buying the car for."

    We currently have an 03 CR-V and an 03 Pilot. So, hauling needs are pretty much covered.

    Our needs are for a "SCOOT" around town car. Something to keep some mileage off the other 2 in everyday running around.

    We have narrowed it down to a Fit or Yaris. A stripped down Yaris is considerably less money than a base Fit. To bring the Yaris up to the base Fit equipment level closes the $$$ gap to almost $0.

    So the decisions are whether we really need ABS, side curtain air bags, etc., for a "Do Nothing" run about. I seriously doubt this third car would ever get close to an Express Way. Although they say that most accidents happen close to home.

    I'm thinking that the Fit is a better value as equipped, but the Yaris is the clear winner as a stripped down "scooter" ! It also seems to turn a bit tighter.

    Drove a Civic and liked some of the features, especially the adjustable driver seat height. But for all practical purposes the Fit was a better Fit! :)

    Kip
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Whatever. They are both nothing but cheap tin cans compared to the Civic.

    Wow...the Civic I test drove didn't seem that much better in terms of "cheapness." The main thing I noticed was how cramped I felt in the Civic as compared to the Fit.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I agree. With the exception of some of the controls in the Fit (mechanical vs. electronic push buttons for example), I thought it felt as "solid" as the Civic. Even has a 5AT like the Civic. The Yaris, OTOH, did feel cheap and thin compared to the Civic. But at its price point, that should be expected I guess.
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    ...getting all the love for the Fit. Its weak engine almost completely restricts it's use to city driving only. There's no way I'd want to drive that thing on the highway for any extended period of time. The Yaris is not nearly as doggy and has almost as much cargo space with the rear seats down as the Fit. I don't even know why the Fit is being compared to the Civic as it's in a completely different league all together. It's much more powerful, quieter, rides nicer, handles better, it's seats are far more comfortable, the list goes on and on.... It should cost more, it's a FAR better car.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I'd be hard pressed to say the Civic handles better than the Fit. The Fit handles pretty darn well, e.g. outdoes a Ferarri F1 in lane-change slalom. If it's more power and refinement you're looking for, you'll probably like the new-for-2009 Fit better than the current model. Will have much more power (not as much as Civic but much more than Yaris), more room, more refinement. Looks like a nice package to me, especially considering it will cost a few thousand less than a comparably-equipped Civic.
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    It should cost more, it's a FAR better car.

    The funny thing is that in the birthplace of the Fit and Civic, the Fit outsells the Civic by something like an 8 to 1 margin, and in some months and years, it was 10 to 1. In a good month, Honda can sell 2,000 (more than half are hybrids) Civics in the Japanese market. In a good month, Honda has sold over 20,000 Fits in the same period to the same market. Again, it is not so much as to which car is better in an absolute sense, but rather, which car addresses the particular usage pattern/purposes at what price points.

    Of course, Honda would like to sell more Civics. There is more money to be made there.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Its weak engine almost completely restricts it's use to city driving only.

    What experience do you have with it? I've already taken my Fit on multi-state road trips with a few passengers and the cargo area so full of stuff I had to use the side mirrors to see behind me. I was able to easily drive 70-80 mph on the highway. I think your posts come from lack of experience more than anything else.

    The Civic is a nice vehicle in the class of the Mazda3 and Corolla. These types of compact 4-door sedans are good for their limited use as a people hauler. The Fit is designed to be much more versatile and practical. Yes you give up a certain amount of quietness and power. If Honda made a Civic 4dr hatch, then I might be in the market for it. But until then, the Civic/Corolla/Mazda3 class of 4dr sedans are too impractical to me.

    And we've had the Fit now for a little over a year and about 15,000 miles, and the car has been great for our family for a lot of uses. Having the Fit has really cut down on the need to use our big car for weekend trips because of all of the stuff we can put in. And the high ceiling of the Fit make it much easier to put kids in the carseats, which is a lot tougher on cars like the Civic. And the Civic feels so cramped inside as compared to the Fit.

    As far as price, if the Civic and the Fit were priced exactly the same I would have still bought the Fit. The Civic is slightly more quiet on the highway, it does not handle any better, has a slightly softer ride, and the seats aren't any better. But none this outweighs for me the greater practicality of the Fit.
  • dromedariusdromedarius Member Posts: 307
    Just interested, kip, but why are you looking to keep mileage off your other vehicles? If you are interested in resale, you're still better driving those vehicles rather than buying a relatively expensive car (for a third one) which has only been on the market for two years, and if you are interested in saving money you are better off w/two vehicles rather than three. It just seems if you are looking to keep miles off your other cars for resale value you're are better off A) getting rid of one of them and getting a small, cheap car or B) driving them and not picking up a third vehicle (and the accompanying insurance, license and tag fees, maintenance, etc.).

    Them's just my two cents!

    :blush:
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    I took it to mean he did it for fuel economy reasons, rather than preserving resale value on the other 2. As I've learned the hard way, the best way to preserve resale value is to sell as soon as you've determined the car no longer fits your needs and wants. A used car with low mileage is still a used car, and buyer/dealer will appraise it as such. And if the market trend changes, or if factory incentives come out, then the value of your used car will take a further hit. :cry:
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    ...I was preaching the wrong message to a Fit chior.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Well, realize what topic this is: Honda Civic vs. Honda Fit. ;)

    I think both are fine cars, but to me the Fit is much more versatile and a better value than the Civic, especially when the Fit gets a little bigger inside and adds a little more power next year, in addition to more modern styling. Then I'd be hard pressed to find any reason to go with the Civic vs. the Fit, especially with the price difference.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    ...I was preaching the wrong message to a Fit chior.

    Nobody said that the Civic is a bad car, but some folks just wanted the more practical Fit, so that's what they bought.
  • jacksan1jacksan1 Member Posts: 504
    ...I was preaching the wrong message to a Fit chior.

    Preaching you were.
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    The comparison might be a bit more interesting for me once Honda bumps up the power on the Fit, but then again, what's that gonna do to the Fit's fuel economy? It already gets less than Civic. What's my idea of a level comparsion between the Fit and Civic? How about a Fit with equal power and better fuel economy?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    To me, power isn't an end-all, as long as the car performs adequately. The current Fit has plenty of power for me, so I expect the new Fit will be just fine there. As for fuel economy, let's wait and see how the new Fit does before knocking it in that area. The current Fit gets better FE than the Civic, according to the EPA ratings.
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    I'm not seeing that. Most of what I've seen from owners reporting FE for the two has the Civic doing a little better than the Fit.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Here's another data point for you then: when CR tested both cars on the same course, which mimics real-world driving in the city and highway, the Fit AT averaged 32 mpg (34 for MT) and the Civic EX averaged 28 mpg (hybrid did 37). Since we'll be hard pressed to find someone who has measured FE on the same real-world course with both cars, I think these numbers (which follow the EPA ratings in that the Fit is a little better than the Civic) are useful.
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    28 sounds way off (low) for the Civic.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 9,731
    We get it. Bad press about the Civic must be untrue, but isn't for the Fit, right?

    :sick:
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    I haven't seen any bad press for either vehicle. What are you talking about?
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    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 Member Posts: 18,949
    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 Member Posts: 2,030
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 18,949
    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 Member Posts: 18,949
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 2,030
    ...of a power increase is the more powerful version Fit supposed to get?
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    10%
  • fitman548fitman548 Member Posts: 172
    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.
  • fitman548fitman548 Member Posts: 172
    all the light rail construction has created a rattle in the dash. Top center. Need to get that fixed, under warranty I hope.
  • zombietom3zombietom3 Member Posts: 74
    "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 Member 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 Member Posts: 18,949
    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 Member 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.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles