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
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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).
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.
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..
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.
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.
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?
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.
Do you consider the Fit to be underpowered?
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!".
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.
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.)
Wider tires (195mm on the Fit Sport vs 175mm on the Civic DX 1996 i think) and different track widths, maybe?
:shades:
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.
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.
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.
.
.
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!
-------------------------------
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.
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.
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?
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."
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*.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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!
Compare a Fit Sport to the base Civic(LX in other markets). Less than $1000 seperates them.
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.
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