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

245

Comments

  • micwebmicweb Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 564
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 106
    Would you sacifice horsepower for a smaller engine but better mileage and emissions?

    Do you consider the Fit to be underpowered?
  • kagedudekagedude Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 4,514
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 1,978
    LOL and apparently you can go off road in an SUV
  • hfounthfount Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 3,469
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 3,469
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 4,514
    "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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.
  • aaykayaaykay Member Posts: 539
    You are probably right there about the regional aspect. When we lived in Los Angeles, every single 4-cyl Honda Accord Sedan on the lot in Valencia Honda, was assembled in Japan. And that was a huge dealership with hundreds of Accords on the lot at any point in time. I don't find too many of those Japanese Accords now, here in MN.
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Member Posts: 678
    That used to be the case for the Accord and still is for the CR-V (Western US: Japan, Eastern US: UK). However, I am in California (San Diego county) and only a small number of the Accords are Japan made.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    How is the sitting position of the Fit VS Civic. Is the seat in the Fit as close to the Floor as in the Civic?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I found the Civic's driver's seat more comfortable than the Fit's because the Civic has a height adjuster, and also the wheel telescopes. I think the Civic has a dead pedal too, so all in all the Civic "fit" me better than the Fit.
  • hondafulhondaful Member Posts: 32
    You sit higher in a Fit than in a Civic. One reason I replaced my 92 Civic EX 4 door with a 99 Isuzu Oasis (1st gen. Honda Odyssey) is the more upright seating position. When I bought the Civic, the driving position was a major plus, but after I developed some leg and back problems, that driving position became a major annoyance! I really loved that Civic EX, though - it handled better than the CRX Si that it replaced.

    It looks to me like the Fit may be the best of both worlds for me - a seating position similar to the Oasis/Odyssey and the handling of the old Civic EX! image
  • bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    ....to take a long, hard look at both of these cars. I came to one conclusion: I don't know why anyone wouldn't spend the extra $3K to get the Civic. It is infinitely nicer in every way than the Fit.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Make that less than $1000 more.

    Compare a Fit Sport to the base Civic(LX in other markets). Less than $1000 seperates them.
  • jesswhite1982jesswhite1982 Member Posts: 9
    Before I learned about the Fit, I was originally interested in the Civic sedan. I test drove both cars, and I have to say that I had more fun driving in the Fit. I still felt young and peppy inside of it, whereas I felt a bit older and subdued inside the new Civic. It's hard to explain, but even with all the added amenities, the Fit was the car that drew me in.

    It's defintely a matter of personal choice if you're torn between these two cars. They're both great cars, for different reasons.

    Incidentally, I liked the look of the Civic better before the redesign for some reason. Maybe it's because I'm more used to that design - everyone I know who drives a Civic has the old design. I probably would have had more trouble choosing between the two if the Civics were the same as the '05 models.
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,514
    Personally, I think Honda did a great job overall with the new Civic styling. (OK, maybe they could tweak that front grill a touch). In fact, I would rate the new Civic as perhaps one of the 3 most attractive models in the entire Honda/Acura lineup --- behind only the TL & S2000.
  • kipkkipk Member Posts: 1,576
    I don't know why anyone wouldn't spend the extra $3K to get the Civic. It is infinitely nicer in every way than the Fit.

    Folks that want or need extra space to haul stuff may not be happy with a Civic sedan.

    Folks with lower back or leg problems might prefer the sitting position of the Fit.

    Looks like I could open the back of the Fit and let two 130# Rottweillers, or one 200# Nubian Doe, or a reasonably large item from Home Depot slip right in there.

    That might be a bit of a squeeze for a Civic.

    Now... If they brought back the Civic Wagon, .... ;)

    Kip
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles