From what I have heard, it's identical to the Japanese version other than a few things like DOT approved lights and so on. No inrease in weight. No doom and gloom.
The EPA tests are much more forgiving. 38mpg is by European combined standards(UK), which are about 20% less than U.S., especially for highway. It will get 40mpg with *stick*, as an average. CVT isn't as efficient, actually, since you can shift into 4th or 5th quicker - I did it on my old car at about 40mph - and crept up to highway speeds. Skipping 4th entirely was also an option.
But that's not the real reason to get one, IMO. It's an entry-level Honda that doesn't suck like most every other entry level car. 35mpg, even, and built like a Civic - it's not just about fuel economy. It's about affordable transportation that isn't a tin can.
So it turns out that a friend of a friend is a Honda mechanic - and they're already receiving training for repairs/maintenance on the Fit. I inquired about what type of engine we're getting in the U.S. and this guy's unconfirmed report suggests it will be a 1.2l for the base model, and a 1.4l for the "sportier" models. Apparently this would match the specs in other markets, no? Let's see if this report comes true!
I am exited about the prospect of the Honda fit for the US.My main point in wanting a Honda would be their good reputaion in engines and manual transmissions. I would want a manual trans because of lower replacement cost. Many people compare gas mileage to their older cars. The emission standard today are a lot tougher in the US. It may be harder to wring exra mpg out of smaller engines after reaching proper emission levels than larger engines.As for the Civic, if shape and length are any indication, it should have a much better aero profile than the Fit.So if the fit does better in highway mileage than Civic it probably won't be by much. As for the competition, I have a feeling the new Rio and Acent will give the Fit, Yaris,and Versa a tough battle.
But that's not the real reason to get one, IMO. It's an entry-level Honda that doesn't suck like most every other entry level car. 35mpg, even, and built like a Civic - it's not just about fuel economy. It's about affordable transportation that isn't a tin can.
The GTI is one nice hatchback. Is this the new design? I saw some of those over in London last week and they are great looking cars. I wonder if anyone will "drool" over the Fit when it arrives--maybe they will just thinking about the money saved on gas!
I love this car. Went to the dealership (in Asia) to check it out several times about 4 years ago. Can't wait to have it here in USA. Honda has "grown up" Civic to leave room for a small car. I guess the gas price and Scion xA would or have pushed its appearance here. Hope the rumors are true!
Fit/Jazz Japan website gives km/l fuel consumption figures that work out to 56 mpg for 1.3L engine and 48 mpg for 1.5L. That's a Japanese standard test that's said to about like EPA combined hwy & city. That's exciting but hard to believe, given that MT Toyota Echo (1.5 L) got EPA 41 mpg on the "hwy" according to EPA and 46 mpg on a real highway according to Consumer Reports.
It may be believable if Japan uses imperial gallons which is abot 20% less than a US gallon.(It appears everybody but the USA uses imperial gallon measurements)
So a Fit 1.3 L mileage translates to 45hwy/city combined and 1.5l is 38mpg hwy/city.
The problem with the Civic HX was the weird marketing that Honda used. It did not come with air conditioning. Who nowadays, buys a car without air conditioning? So if you wanted it on the HX, you had to buy it as an accessory (as opposed to an option I guess). One local dealer told me at least $1500 for this. Plus labor. So all of a sudden, the HX is about the same price as the LX, with less features. Why bother? The 2 hp rating over the LX wasn't enough for the vast majority of customers. The HX was a strange bird, and a bit ill conceived given the plethora of other models in the Civic range, IMO.
I am excited (seems like an oxymoron when talking about an economy car) about the Fit, and hope it gets here soon. If it breaks the $15k barrier though, I think sales will be slow. But I am still paying over $3 a gallon where I live, and my '95 Explorer getting 16 mpg, (let alone the $800 repair bill on my power steering) is getting very old very quickly.
Anyone know/speculate whether the Fit can seat 3 children (two with the simple booster seats, one with a rear facing car seat) in the back? It won't be used very often (if ever) for them, as I have a '05 Sienna, but it's good to know if I ever needed to transport the whole family in it, or not.
On the 2005 Civic with manual transmission, the difference was LX 38/32 versus HX 44/36. That was a 5 mpg difference on average. If the HX had been offered in the 4 door, I would have bought one. I did not understand restricting it to the much less popular 2 door either. I still hope for a HX, FE, or HF version of the new Civic 4 door in future model years with a manual transmission and standard A/C. A five door hatch would be even better.
I also believe the Fit should have at least one model that matches or exceeds the HX 44/36 numbers.
I don't think you could do 3 kids in it. There appear to be only four seats. The 9.6m turning radius is 31.5 ft. That's 3.2 ft smaller than the Mini and smaller than any other car to be sold in the U.S. It's going to be amazing in and out of traffic and in twisties.
I found all the under 35 ft turning radius vehicles that I could. MR2: 34.8 ft Echo 2 dr: 32.8 ft Mini:34.8 ft Aveo: 32 ft Wrangler: 33.5 ft Scion XA: 34.8 ft Miata: 34.2 ft IS300: 34.1 ft(sleeper 3 series killer) RX-8 34.8 ft(wow, considering it's size) 350Z 35.4 ft S2000 35.4 ft(huh? Same as a 350Z?) SLK 350 34.5 ft Z4 32.2 ft(as expected of BMW)
The Fit's really agile. Only a Land Rover Defender 90 is smaller, at about 22 ft(!!!)but that's not sold in the U.S. Anymore. Yes, not a misprint - you can almost turn a Defender's wheels perpindicular to the vehicle.
...Is the reason why it will be an extremely popular car in much of the USA, especially for urban driving. It would certainly be one of the easier automobiles to do parallel parking, that's to be sure.
They list it as turning *radius* - I didn't catch it late at night
It'll fit(lol) 5 people? Nice. I can't see any real proiblems with it from here - it's shaping up to be a modern version of the old CVCC. And, just as revolutionary compared to the competition's bloat and excess, as it was back in the 70s.
What get me is that the MR2 and S2000 have such poor handling compared to the competition, despite being very small cars. The Smart Roadster and the Solstice look to be very small as well. It's definately in good company, though a suspension "kit" with beefier struts and swaybars will be almost required to keep up with the tight handling.
Suspension kit, exhaust kit, chip swap, racing flywheel, turbo/supercharger... has "tuner" written all over it Expect to see modded 160-180HP versions out that compete against the Cooper S very soon.(well, OUT, though not from Honda - lol)
EDIT: They sell an AWD version in Japan. Would be a nice base for a rally racer I bet.
Yes you can fit 3 children it the Fit. I have been in the fit in England. Unless they changeit in some unexpected way for the US version you will be VERY impressed with both the gas mileage and the amount of room inside. Plus the really amazing thing is how they fit so much room itno such a small exterior package. It's like a carnival illusion!
It could be SULEV or PZEV, as there are many non-hybrid cars that fall into those categories. But probably not AT-PZEV, since that means "Advanced Technology PZEV" and means that the car uses alternative fuel, gas-electric hybrid, or other special technology. I suppose if Honda made a natural gas or hybrid variant of the Fit, it could be AT-PZEV.
Right now, AHM hasn't made the engine choice for the US/Canadian market Honda Fit public. I'm hoping for 1.5-liter L15A i-DSI and/or the 1.5-liter version of the 1.3-liter SOHC i-VTEC I-4 engine found on the 2006 Honda Civic Hybrid sedan.
Which do you think would be better? The i-DSI or the SOHC i-VTEC?
I guess the latter would be more high-tech and potentially more powerful, but I've read good things about the two spark plugs per cylinder of the i-DSI and its fuel econmy and emissions seem to be really good. But then, maybe the SOHC i-VTEC matches it.
I guess the latter would be more high-tech and potentially more powerful, but I've read good things about the two spark plugs per cylinder of the i-DSI and its fuel econmy and emissions seem to be really good. But then, maybe the SOHC i-VTEC matches it.
It explains the philosophy behind the i-DSI and VTEC engines used on the Honda Fit/Jazz models.
The 1.3-liter i-DSI engine found on many Fit/Jazz models offers good fuel economy but its low power will not be suited by American driving tastes; if Honda offers the i-DSI engine option expect the displacement to be 1.5 liters, which would produce an engine around 95-100 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) output with more usable torque in the lower rev ranges.
While the current 1.5-liter VTEC engine on the Fit/Jazz models sold in eastern Asia/Australia/New Zealand does have very good power, you need to rev it quite high to get that power (the bane of many VTEC engine designs), which would sacrifice fuel economy to get that power.
Enter the new SOHC i-VTEC engine recently introduced on the Civic Hybrid sedan. Already rated at 93 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) in the 1.3-liter form on the Civic Hybrid, by increasing the displacement to 1.5 liters and doing some changes to the timing of the SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain power in the 110-115 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) range is within reach; because of the new valvetrain design, the engine will likely have a wide torque band and fuel economy very close to that of the i-DSI engines.
The 1.3-liter i-DSI engine found on many Fit/Jazz models offers good fuel economy but its low power will not be suited by American driving tastes; if Honda offers the i-DSI engine option expect the displacement to be 1.5 liters, which would produce an engine around 95-100 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) output with more usable torque in the lower rev ranges.
I don't agree that a 1.3 liter engine would not suit American driving tastes. There is little or nothing offered in the US with this small of an engine with fantastic fuel economy (say, overall mpg of 45-50)...other than hybrids. With the high gas prices currently I think many people in the US would buy a Honda that has fantastic fuel economy but is a little underpowered. I had a 1985 Honda Civic hatchback with a 1.3 liter engine (76 HP) that was woefully underpowered but I drove it for 18 years and even at the end was getting over 40 mpg occasionally. You just learn to drive it a different way....I always joked that my Civic had "reverse-turbo"....when I needed more power I just turned off the air conditioner....for that sudden rush of power. With newer technology a 1.3 liter engine wouldn't be "that bad" and definately alot better than the 1985 Civic version I once drove. I would agree with you though that many people would bypass a small 1.3 liter engine BUT there are many people that don't care that much about how fast they go 0 to 60 in and are more concerned about fuel economy. I definately think there is a big enough market here in the US to support the sales of a small 1.3 liter engined Honda. Where else could you get a $12,000-$13,000 quality car that would get 45-50 mpg combined? I hope the rumours of the base FIT having a 1.2 liter engine are true. I'm extremely interested in the FIT for a 2nd car for my daily commuting, but if there isn't a big improvement of fuel economy over the Civic, what's the point?
FWIW, the '85 Civic with the 1.3L engine had only 60 hp--in a car that weighed 1836 pounds. The 1.5L had 76, except in the CRX HF where it had only 58 (curb weight 1713)--but that car was EPA rated 49/54!
So if 60 hp for 1800 pounds was adequate 20 years ago, 100+ hp for 2400 pounds should be more than adequate now.
Actually Honda does have an affordable little car with high MPG - the Insight. But it has one glaring problem that can't be overcome - it only seats two people.
So the sales are terrible. But nobody who is interested in one cares about power - Honda really neds to understand that - that the U.S. market has several segments and the segment that favors efficiency and being frugal(retireed people students commuters etc) - power is just not on their list of important things. A four door Inisght would sell five times better btw.
I really hope someone from Honda Corp reads these forums because this is what I've heard from my friends over the years. What they want in a car. - Good mileage. High-tech engine. - Seats four people minimum. Hatchback/cargo area is better of course. - Not built like a tin can. Look at a Kawasaki Vulcan 500LTD - it's clearly a smaller "baby" version of their main line, right down to the gauge of metal, strength of the welds, the gauges, and so on. The Aveo comes to mind as an example of ticky-tacky. Cheap switches, flimsy interior pieces... ICK. A Golf or Mini are the ideal(so far) - Luxury options are available. Sunroof, leather, good audio, foglights, ABS, etc. Not required, but it's a good thing to have it be a normal car. Paying for floormats and door locks and so on isn't cool. - Safe. ABS is 20 year old technology, now, and it should be standard. The problem is that if it isn't, finding a car WITH it on the lot means 99% of the time, a special order or a fully-loaded version. Same with side airbags. Raise the price a few hundred dollars, but make safety items standard.
Notice how power isn't the goal here.
The 1.2L engine, at almost 50mpg, and with no competition in the market, would sell incredibly well, especially to delivery companies and anyone with a need for great economy. First time buyers would buy every one you could produce. High MPG and ABS/Safety for under $15K is the magic price-point.
The Insight? Drop it. 60 MPG isn't half what hybrid technology can do, and it won't ever sell well in the U.S. due to the two-seats.(even a single rear seat for a child would be enough, actually) Make the 1.2L version of the Fit the new Insight. Since the Fit/Jazz is made off of the same platform, why not just drop the ugly duckling of the family?
**note - one more thing** CHANGE THE NAME. "Fit" doesn't go over well - everyone I've talked to has this blank look. "Jazz" - change the name to it, PLEASE. It's a U.K./U.S. thing, I guess, but the image of "a car that fits" versus a car that's "small and jazzy" - no question which works better all-around. You'd sell at least 5-10% more with just a better , more "American" name on it.
FWIW, the '85 Civic with the 1.3L engine had only 60 hp--in a car that weighed 1836 pounds. The 1.5L had 76, except in the CRX HF where it had only 58 (curb weight 1713)--but that car was EPA rated 49/54!
You're right....I had mistakenly thought that my old '85 base model Civic Hatchback had 76 HP when in fact it had only 60 HP....and it was still enough for me. I could cruise on the freeway with the air on at 65-70 fairly easily. I can only imagine what a similar sized car with 80-90 HP might feel like compared to my old 85 Civic....a hot rod! Of course, the Fit will be 300-400 lbs heavier than a '85 Civic hatchback but I still think 80-90 HP is enough.
People interested in little economy cars want economy, GET IT. Not a tough concept. Quit overloading your smallest cars with yesterdays "larger" engines and start bringing over your European size engines BOTH gas and diesel. They will sell.
Boy racers will buy your civic si's not the insight, fit or jazz. Give us want we want, and that primarily is the highest fuel efficiency out there.
Toyota recently completely blew it with their brand new 2006 Yaris. In Canada Yaris gets 41 mpg city and 51 mpg hwy, which is 1 mpg less in the city and 3 mpg less on the highway than last years 2005 Echos, both hatch and sedan.
2006 Corolla is rated at 40 mpg city and 53 mpg highway.
Yaris grew by some 230 pounds over 2005 Echo hatch and now gets even worse mileage than the still 230 lb. heavier Corolla, (that’s 460 pounds total heavier than 05 Echo's) with Corolla's larger 1.8 engine to boot. How is that mileage difference even possible? What were they thinking???
I was set to buy the Yaris but I will NOT reward Toyota's stupidity. I was expecting a smaller more fuel efficient engine, or at least if the same 1.5 litre which it is, for mileage to be still improved but no such luck. I am tired of hearing auto manufacturers say "Well it only lost a few mpg"
IDIOTS. The point is they should be gaining a few mpg, EVERY YEAR, not losing. The other tired song and dance of "More Power and same mileage" is also B.S. What could the mileage HAVE increased by had you not upped the horsepower is the real question.
HONDA, Time to change your thinking finally. You have a chance here to take the lead and market share by bringing in the smallest engines you can, even if only as an option, just give us the choice. I WILL BUY, and doubtless many others will as well.
'06 CorollaCE L/Km 7.1/100Km(City) Canade 5.3/100Km(Hwy) Canada 7.1=1.8762 US gal & 100Km=62.14 miles, so US conversion is 33mpg city? 5.3=1.4005 US gal & 100Km=62.14 miles, so US conversion is 44mpg hwy? Works out to 38.5 combined mpg.
'06 Yaris L/Km 6.9/100Km(City) Canada 5.5/100Km(Hwy) Canada 6.9=1.8233 US gal & 100Km=62.14 miles, so US conversion is 34mpg city? 5.5=1.4534 US gal & 100 Km=62.14 miles, so US conversion is 43mpg hwy? Works out to 38.5 combined mpg.
To all, I believe my calculations are correct. Please advise. If correct, I agree totally with you Smlcarguy. Not a big improvement at all. My '91 Civic standard hatch was rated at 33/37 city/hwy (35mpg combined). I don't really see the need for me to purchase a new car for such a minimal return.
On the Honda AU website (Jazz) the calculations work out to 41 combined mpg for the SOHC i-DSI and 39 combined mpg for the SOHC VTEC. The i-VTEC should improve these numbers correct? :confuse: ">
The reason is simple: American drivers are so used to torquey engines that they will likely reject the L13A 1.3-liter i-DSI engine, even if that engine offers good fuel economy. If you read that article I referenced from the Temple of VTEC Asia website, note the author of the article said that the i-DSI engine emphasized fuel economy at the expense of higher-end power; that sacrifice will be less noticeable with the L15A 1.5-liter i-DSI engine found on the Honda Fit Aria four-door sedan sold in Southeast Asia and Japan.
Given the new SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain design (found on the R18 engine on the Honda Civic sedan/coupé and the gasoline engine from the 2006 Civic Hybrid) now available, an L15 engine with this new valvetrain will offer a decent compromise--power very close to that of the L15A VTEC engine but with fuel economy very close to that of the L13A i-DSI engine.
In the end, I think we will see two L15 engines, one with the i-DSI cylinder head and one with the SOHC i-VTEC cylinder head, like I said earlier.
Simply put, the Fit isn't ever going to be a sporty car. Peolpe who are buying it are looking for a small car that's fun to drive, but with Geo Metro efficiency.
"Used to torquey engines..." what are they listening to?
Oh right - the SUV crowd. The sportscar crowd. The luxury sedan crowd. Not the frugal economy crowd. We don't care at all about power as long as it can get up to 70 mph or so with enough speed. We want a small economical car.
15K and 40mpg? Might as well just buy a used Prius or a Corolla. If anything, it should be a 1.0L turbo engine with 50mpg. The Geo Metro sold very well, if you remember. The Fit, even with the 1.2L engine, though, is twice the car a Metro ever was, and with way more power.
If I had to choose between 10 or even 20% more power and 5mpg, given that gas is going to hit $4 a gallon before a year or two pases, give me the economy.
TO HONDA:: Seriously. $15K and not much better milaeage than a Corolla? 90% of U.S. buyers will buy the bigger vehicle. So it has to be $12K to compete, OR offer really astounding mileage for $15K. With a 1.2L as an option, you could actually make more profit - they'd pay $14K for a 50mpg highway vehicle. The 1.2L engine is a must or it will flop, just like the Insight has. Btw, 2+2 version of the Insight would double sales.
I'll buy one the day it's announced if it has a 1.2L engine as an option. If it's the 1.5L, I'll probably just buy a 2-3 year old VW TDI instead.
If I remember correctly, the Honda Jazz sold in Europe with the L13A i-DSI engine is rated at 0-60 times of 12 seconds. That ain't going to cut it in the USA market.
That's why I see the Fit sold in the USA to at least have the L15A i-DSI engine, mostly because that will cut the 0-60 time to just over 10 seconds due to some valve timing changes and CVT programming changes for shifting ratios on the transmission specific to the US-market model.
The reason why Honda developed the SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain was to offer more power without affecting fuel efficiency. Note that on the 2006 Civic sedans the new R18 engine using new valvetrain design offers 140 bhp (SAE 08/04 net), yet does not sacrifice fuel economy compared to the old D17 engine used on the 2001-2005 model year Civics that have quite a bit less power. This is why I do see Honda offering the 1.5-liter SOHC i-VTEC engine on the Fit in the US market in a more sporting model.
If I remember correctly, the Honda Jazz sold in Europe with the L13A i-DSI engine is rated at 0-60 times of 12 seconds. That ain't going to cut it in the USA market.
...but the point is for the car to be a fuel-conserving vehicle, and not a performance machine. Anybody who buys a vehicle in the US with a 1,3 liter engine and 0-60mph times of 12 seconds is looking for a thrifty vehicle, not one to show off at trafficlights. Honda should offer two engines. A 1,3 i-DSI in the base, and possibly a 1,5 in the sport version. Of course, they probably won't since they aren't going to offer much choice (for engines) especially in an entry-level car. Most Honda models in the US have only one engine option, unlike Europe were each model usually has 2 or 3 engine choices. Don't look for them to start changing this with the Fit. Also, although technical numbers are important and good for comparison, it is the real life performance that matters. I have seen Jazzes zipping through cities, speeding down motorways, etc. It really is a quick little car, and having a Honda engine, it is sure not to dissapoint.
The 1.3L engine with stickshift, though, is close to 10 seconds. That's perfectly acceptable. My aging Buick does 0-60 in about 10-12 seconds, which is common for older cars with automatics and tall gears.
The reality, though, is that 15 seconds is adequate for everything other than the OMG THE ONRAMP IS 50 FT LONG! scenario. 90% of people don't push their cars even a little bit when getting onto the freeway. Check out how long most people take to get to highway speed the next time you are a passenger. 15 seconds goes by and they are maybe there by then. 20 if there is no tricky merging and they aren't in a hurry.
The Fit has the same power to HP ratio with the 1.5 engine as a base 5-speed Mini. That's a quick little car. Go drive one - it's no slouch. Sacrificing 20% of that speed for better mileage - it would drop it to Echo performance, which is fine, actually.
We really need a special order option for the 1.2L engine. Sell the 1.5L as standard, but if we want the super-frugal option and will order it up front that way, why not let us have it?
Me too to plekto and smlcarguy. I feel the same way. I want efficiency above all. Price is secondary, and reliability, tertiary, and I am deeply disappointed at these microscopic or nonexistent increases in efficiency. I couldn't give a flip about power or torque or options.
Fifteen years ago I was hoping for 10% increases every year. Each successive year disappoints even more than the last.
Well, at least we will have a few more things to choose from in 2006. I, too, am also considering a used VW tdi but the prices for used ones are through the roof lately.
I also would like to see the highest efficiency possible with the Fit. If the car is targeting people who want efficiency then Honda should pull out the stops. Just like they squeeze extra power out of an S2000, they should squeeze extra mpg out of the Fit.
Remember the VW bus with 52 hp. Now that was underpowered. A fit with 80-90 hp or so should be plenty. I had a Scirocco with 76 hp and it felt quite peppy (it was a little lighter though).
1. People forget that because US-market cars will have more safety equipment installed standard (including longer bumpers), that means the empty weight of the Fit in US-legal trim may be well above the weight of the Fit/Jazz models sold elsewhere in the world.
2. A lot of American drivers don't appreciate slowpokes accelerating to freeway speeds on freeway onramps. This is especially true in California; I live in Sacramento, CA and believe me, people accelerate onto the freeway at surprisingly fast speeds.
Given what I just described, a Honda Fit with the L13A i-DSI engine ain't going to cut it. Given that Honda does offer a 1.5-liter L15A i-DSI engine, that's why I eventually see the US-market Fit with the two 1.5-liter engines I described earlier.
I think you folks forget that the 60-76 bhp Hondas from the 1980's are quite a bit lighter than the Hondas of today. Given the emphasis on small-car safety from groups like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the USA and the European New Car Assessment Programme, the need for improved safety has sent the weight of small cars quite a bit higher; compare a Honda Civic four-door sedans from the 1980's to the current model and note the 2006 models are 600-700 pounds heavier, most of it due to built-in safety engineering of the entire body structure and all the safety equipment installed as standard on the current car.
However, you forget that California is the #1 market for several models of automobiles. I expect the #1 market for the US-model Fit to be California, especially since our state is so car-crazy.
Hmmm.. Its not so much that I have forgotten that California is the #1 market for whatever. Its that I never cared to know about it in the first place. Sorry, but California is just another state to me. Believe me, there are a few states east of Ol' Miss that are fond of cars, too.
But in one post, you say the Fit doesn't fit in the U.S. while in another, you say you expect California to be the #1 market for the Fit.
They did this for the Metro - you could choose the 3cyl or the 4 cyl engine. Some people actually opted for the 50mpg option.
For me, though, build quality and safety are #1 - power is not on the list, and MPG is second. I could get an Echo or some other tin can like an Aveo, but the point of the Fit/Jazz is that it's a solid little car.
The bottom line: If it doesn't beat the Matrix/Vibe's MPG by at least 5-8, it's unsellable. Think about it. The Matrix gets 40mpg highway and is the size of an Airwave - Honda's next model up. The Fit will look like a 3/4 size Matrix, so if it's not available with a seriously frugal engine, nobody will buy it after looking at the competition.
The 1.5L engine by itself is a marketing disaster. The market in the U.K. and the U.S., in terms of likes and desires, is very simmilar. We have the luxury AND the frugal as possible crowd. Give us the smaller engine as an option and watch sales take off. (Just wait until the Smart Car comes over)
Hey, you should look at the Aveo before calling it a tin can - it is pretty well made, from what I have seen of it. Also, it actually makes its stated horsepower, unlike the Corolla and Scion xA which got down graded in rated horsepower. Fit and finish are very good. I don't quite trust a product from a formerly defunct Daewoo factory, but it is selling very fast.
So Aveo is part of the competition, like it or not. Ignoring competition is what happened to American makers when the Japanese came here with their "tin cans" the first time around, after all.
The bottom line: If it doesn't beat the Matrix/Vibe's MPG by at least 5-8, it's unsellable. Think about it. The Matrix gets 40mpg highway and is the size of an Airwave - Honda's next model up. The Fit will look like a 3/4 size Matrix, so if it's not available with a seriously frugal engine, nobody will buy it after looking at the competition.
I have to disagree on that! While the Matrix/Vibe "twins" have sold fairly well, there has been a number of concerns about its build quality and the engines available for the car, especially the high-revving DOHC 170 bhp engine that sounds quite raucous at high RPM's. If Toyota had offered a better engine on this car it probably would have sold quite a bit more.
Besides, the Fit/Jazz is physically quite a bit smaller than the Matrix/Vibe, something that drivers will appreciate, especially for urban driving and commuting. And of course, Honda engines usually can be revved to redline without making unpleasant noises on average.
"A lot of American drivers don't appreciate slowpokes accelerating to freeway speeds on freeway onramps. This is especially true in California; I live in Sacramento, CA and believe me, people accelerate onto the freeway at surprisingly fast speeds."
You're right...alot of drivers don't appreciate slowpokes accelerating to free way speeds. You know, SO WHAT!!!! Also, you talk like California is the only place people drive fast. Here, in Dallas if I drive the speed limit of 60, I get passed continuously like I'm standing still. So, don't think California is any different than any other state as far as driving styles go. Having said that, I don't give a crap if some person in a car with a big engine behind me has to slow down a little while I enter on to the freeway while driving a car with a smaller engine. It's not MY problem, it's THEIR problem. And you seem to forget that times are changing with the price of gas. You're going to see more slowpoke cars out there as time goes by. Even in California. Get used to it!.
Comments
The EPA tests are much more forgiving. 38mpg is by European combined standards(UK), which are about 20% less than U.S., especially for highway. It will get 40mpg with *stick*, as an average. CVT isn't as efficient, actually, since you can shift into 4th or 5th quicker - I did it on my old car at about 40mph - and crept up to highway speeds. Skipping 4th entirely was also an option.
But that's not the real reason to get one, IMO. It's an entry-level Honda that doesn't suck like most every other entry level car. 35mpg, even, and built like a Civic - it's not just about fuel economy. It's about affordable transportation that isn't a tin can.
People looking for efficincy of the engine are probably less interested in the inefficient packaging of a two door.
1985 Civic S 3-door hatchback, about 2000 pounds, 1.5L 12-valve engine, 76 hp, EPA 30/34.
So we have made a lot of progress since then!
But that's not the real reason to get one, IMO. It's an entry-level Honda that doesn't suck like most every other entry level car. 35mpg, even, and built like a Civic - it's not just about fuel economy. It's about affordable transportation that isn't a tin can.
Agreed!
But I have had a few people drool over it.
:P
So a Fit 1.3 L mileage translates to 45hwy/city combined and 1.5l is 38mpg hwy/city.
I am excited (seems like an oxymoron when talking about an economy car) about the Fit, and hope it gets here soon. If it breaks the $15k barrier though, I think sales will be slow. But I am still paying over $3 a gallon where I live, and my '95 Explorer getting 16 mpg, (let alone the $800 repair bill on my power steering) is getting very old very quickly.
Anyone know/speculate whether the Fit can seat 3 children (two with the simple booster seats, one with a rear facing car seat) in the back? It won't be used very often (if ever) for them, as I have a '05 Sienna, but it's good to know if I ever needed to transport the whole family in it, or not.
I also believe the Fit should have at least one model that matches or exceeds the HX 44/36 numbers.
I found all the under 35 ft turning radius vehicles that I could.
MR2: 34.8 ft
Echo 2 dr: 32.8 ft
Mini:34.8 ft
Aveo: 32 ft
Wrangler: 33.5 ft
Scion XA: 34.8 ft
Miata: 34.2 ft
IS300: 34.1 ft(sleeper 3 series killer)
RX-8 34.8 ft(wow, considering it's size)
350Z 35.4 ft
S2000 35.4 ft(huh? Same as a 350Z?)
SLK 350 34.5 ft
Z4 32.2 ft(as expected of BMW)
The Fit's really agile. Only a Land Rover Defender 90 is smaller, at about 22 ft(!!!)but that's not sold in the U.S. Anymore. Yes, not a misprint - you can almost turn a Defender's wheels perpindicular to the vehicle.
Also, the Toyota Yaris will have a turning circle (not radius
All qibbling aside, the Fit concept is a serious, significant vehicle.
If Fit sells well here, the Ractis is sure to follow.
It'll fit(lol) 5 people? Nice. I can't see any real proiblems with it from here - it's shaping up to be a modern version of the old CVCC. And, just as revolutionary compared to the competition's bloat and excess, as it was back in the 70s.
What get me is that the MR2 and S2000 have such poor handling compared to the competition, despite being very small cars. The Smart Roadster and the Solstice look to be very small as well. It's definately in good company, though a suspension "kit" with beefier struts and swaybars will be almost required to keep up with the tight handling.
Suspension kit, exhaust kit, chip swap, racing flywheel, turbo/supercharger... has "tuner" written all over it
EDIT: They sell an AWD version in Japan. Would be a nice base for a rally racer I bet.
The Fit is going to be a wonderful little car and an extremely wise one to purchase.
Unless they changeit in some unexpected way for the US version you will be VERY impressed with both the gas mileage and the amount of room inside. Plus the really amazing thing is how they fit so much room itno such a small exterior package. It's like a carnival illusion!
I have read in a couple places that it will be SULEV or AT-PZEV. Could it be? That would be really cool for a non-hybrid car.
Thanks,
I guess the latter would be more high-tech and potentially more powerful, but I've read good things about the two spark plugs per cylinder of the i-DSI and its fuel econmy and emissions seem to be really good. But then, maybe the SOHC i-VTEC matches it.
You might want to read this article:
http://asia.vtec.net/Series/FitJazz/lseries/index.html
It explains the philosophy behind the i-DSI and VTEC engines used on the Honda Fit/Jazz models.
The 1.3-liter i-DSI engine found on many Fit/Jazz models offers good fuel economy but its low power will not be suited by American driving tastes; if Honda offers the i-DSI engine option expect the displacement to be 1.5 liters, which would produce an engine around 95-100 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) output with more usable torque in the lower rev ranges.
While the current 1.5-liter VTEC engine on the Fit/Jazz models sold in eastern Asia/Australia/New Zealand does have very good power, you need to rev it quite high to get that power (the bane of many VTEC engine designs), which would sacrifice fuel economy to get that power.
Enter the new SOHC i-VTEC engine recently introduced on the Civic Hybrid sedan. Already rated at 93 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) in the 1.3-liter form on the Civic Hybrid, by increasing the displacement to 1.5 liters and doing some changes to the timing of the SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain power in the 110-115 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) range is within reach; because of the new valvetrain design, the engine will likely have a wide torque band and fuel economy very close to that of the i-DSI engines.
Thanks raychuang00 for posting it.
http://asia.vtec.net/Series/FitJazz/lseries/index.html
I don't agree that a 1.3 liter engine would not suit American driving tastes. There is little or nothing offered in the US with this small of an engine with fantastic fuel economy (say, overall mpg of 45-50)...other than hybrids. With the high gas prices currently I think many people in the US would buy a Honda that has fantastic fuel economy but is a little underpowered. I had a 1985 Honda Civic hatchback with a 1.3 liter engine (76 HP) that was woefully underpowered but I drove it for 18 years and even at the end was getting over 40 mpg occasionally. You just learn to drive it a different way....I always joked that my Civic had "reverse-turbo"....when I needed more power I just turned off the air conditioner....for that sudden rush of power. With newer technology a 1.3 liter engine wouldn't be "that bad" and definately alot better than the 1985 Civic version I once drove. I would agree with you though that many people would bypass a small 1.3 liter engine BUT there are many people that don't care that much about how fast they go 0 to 60 in and are more concerned about fuel economy. I definately think there is a big enough market here in the US to support the sales of a small 1.3 liter engined Honda. Where else could you get a $12,000-$13,000 quality car that would get 45-50 mpg combined? I hope the rumours of the base FIT having a 1.2 liter engine are true. I'm extremely interested in the FIT for a 2nd car for my daily commuting, but if there isn't a big improvement of fuel economy over the Civic, what's the point?
So if 60 hp for 1800 pounds was adequate 20 years ago, 100+ hp for 2400 pounds should be more than adequate now.
So the sales are terrible. But nobody who is interested in one cares about power - Honda really neds to understand that - that the U.S. market has several segments and the segment that favors efficiency and being frugal(retireed people students commuters etc) - power is just not on their list of important things. A four door Inisght would sell five times better btw.
I really hope someone from Honda Corp reads these forums because this is what I've heard from my friends over the years. What they want in a car.
- Good mileage. High-tech engine.
- Seats four people minimum. Hatchback/cargo area is better of course.
- Not built like a tin can. Look at a Kawasaki Vulcan 500LTD - it's clearly a smaller "baby" version of their main line, right down to the gauge of metal, strength of the welds, the gauges, and so on. The Aveo comes to mind as an example of ticky-tacky. Cheap switches, flimsy interior pieces... ICK. A Golf or Mini are the ideal(so far)
- Luxury options are available. Sunroof, leather, good audio, foglights, ABS, etc. Not required, but it's a good thing to have it be a normal car. Paying for floormats and door locks and so on isn't cool.
- Safe. ABS is 20 year old technology, now, and it should be standard. The problem is that if it isn't, finding a car WITH it on the lot means 99% of the time, a special order or a fully-loaded version. Same with side airbags. Raise the price a few hundred dollars, but make safety items standard.
Notice how power isn't the goal here.
The 1.2L engine, at almost 50mpg, and with no competition in the market, would sell incredibly well, especially to delivery companies and anyone with a need for great economy. First time buyers would buy every one you could produce. High MPG and ABS/Safety for under $15K is the magic price-point.
The Insight? Drop it. 60 MPG isn't half what hybrid technology can do, and it won't ever sell well in the U.S. due to the two-seats.(even a single rear seat for a child would be enough, actually) Make the 1.2L version of the Fit the new Insight. Since the Fit/Jazz is made off of the same platform, why not just drop the ugly duckling of the family?
**note - one more thing**
CHANGE THE NAME. "Fit" doesn't go over well - everyone I've talked to has this blank look. "Jazz" - change the name to it, PLEASE. It's a U.K./U.S. thing, I guess, but the image of "a car that fits" versus a car that's "small and jazzy" - no question which works better all-around. You'd sell at least 5-10% more with just a better , more "American" name on it.
You're right....I had mistakenly thought that my old '85 base model Civic Hatchback had 76 HP when in fact it had only 60 HP....and it was still enough for me. I could cruise on the freeway with the air on at 65-70 fairly easily. I can only imagine what a similar sized car with 80-90 HP might feel like compared to my old 85 Civic....a hot rod! Of course, the Fit will be 300-400 lbs heavier than a '85 Civic hatchback but I still think 80-90 HP is enough.
Honda USA & Honda Canada LISTEN UP!
People interested in little economy cars want economy, GET IT. Not a tough concept. Quit overloading your smallest cars with yesterdays "larger" engines and start bringing over your European size engines BOTH gas and diesel. They will sell.
Boy racers will buy your civic si's not the insight, fit or jazz. Give us want we want, and that primarily is the highest fuel efficiency out there.
Toyota recently completely blew it with their brand new 2006 Yaris. In Canada Yaris gets 41 mpg city and 51 mpg hwy, which is 1 mpg less in the city and 3 mpg less on the highway than last years 2005 Echos, both hatch and sedan.
2006 Corolla is rated at 40 mpg city and 53 mpg highway.
Yaris grew by some 230 pounds over 2005 Echo hatch and now gets even worse mileage than the still 230 lb. heavier Corolla, (that’s 460 pounds total heavier than 05 Echo's) with Corolla's larger 1.8 engine to boot. How is that mileage difference even possible? What were they thinking???
I was set to buy the Yaris but I will NOT reward Toyota's stupidity. I was expecting a smaller more fuel efficient engine, or at least if the same 1.5 litre which it is, for mileage to be still improved but no such luck. I am tired of hearing auto manufacturers say "Well it only lost a few mpg"
IDIOTS. The point is they should be gaining a few mpg, EVERY YEAR, not losing. The other tired song and dance of "More Power and same mileage" is also B.S. What could the mileage HAVE increased by had you not upped the horsepower is the real question.
HONDA, Time to change your thinking finally. You have a chance here to take the lead and market share by bringing in the smallest engines you can, even if only as an option, just give us the choice. I WILL BUY, and doubtless many others will as well.
'06 CorollaCE L/Km
7.1/100Km(City) Canade
5.3/100Km(Hwy) Canada
7.1=1.8762 US gal & 100Km=62.14 miles, so US conversion is 33mpg city?
5.3=1.4005 US gal & 100Km=62.14 miles, so US conversion is 44mpg hwy?
Works out to 38.5 combined mpg.
'06 Yaris L/Km
6.9/100Km(City) Canada
5.5/100Km(Hwy) Canada
6.9=1.8233 US gal & 100Km=62.14 miles, so US conversion is 34mpg city?
5.5=1.4534 US gal & 100 Km=62.14 miles, so US conversion is 43mpg hwy?
Works out to 38.5 combined mpg.
To all, I believe my calculations are correct. Please advise. If correct, I agree totally with you Smlcarguy. Not a big improvement at all. My '91 Civic standard hatch was rated at 33/37 city/hwy (35mpg combined). I don't really see the need for me to purchase a new car for such a minimal return.
On the Honda AU website (Jazz) the calculations work out to 41 combined mpg for the SOHC i-DSI and 39 combined mpg for the SOHC VTEC. The i-VTEC should improve these numbers correct? :confuse: ">
Given the new SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain design (found on the R18 engine on the Honda Civic sedan/coupé and the gasoline engine from the 2006 Civic Hybrid) now available, an L15 engine with this new valvetrain will offer a decent compromise--power very close to that of the L15A VTEC engine but with fuel economy very close to that of the L13A i-DSI engine.
In the end, I think we will see two L15 engines, one with the i-DSI cylinder head and one with the SOHC i-VTEC cylinder head, like I said earlier.
"Used to torquey engines..." what are they listening to?
Oh right - the SUV crowd. The sportscar crowd. The luxury sedan crowd.
Not the frugal economy crowd. We don't care at all about power as long as it can get up to 70 mph or so with enough speed. We want a small economical car.
15K and 40mpg? Might as well just buy a used Prius or a Corolla. If anything, it should be a 1.0L turbo engine with 50mpg. The Geo Metro sold very well, if you remember. The Fit, even with the 1.2L engine, though, is twice the car a Metro ever was, and with way more power.
If I had to choose between 10 or even 20% more power and 5mpg, given that gas is going to hit $4 a gallon before a year or two pases, give me the economy.
TO HONDA::
Seriously. $15K and not much better milaeage than a Corolla? 90% of U.S. buyers will buy the bigger vehicle. So it has to be $12K to compete, OR offer really astounding mileage for $15K. With a 1.2L as an option, you could actually make more profit - they'd pay $14K for a 50mpg highway vehicle. The 1.2L engine is a must or it will flop, just like the Insight has. Btw, 2+2 version of the Insight would double sales.
I'll buy one the day it's announced if it has a 1.2L engine as an option. If it's the 1.5L, I'll probably just buy a 2-3 year old VW TDI instead.
That's why I see the Fit sold in the USA to at least have the L15A i-DSI engine, mostly because that will cut the 0-60 time to just over 10 seconds due to some valve timing changes and CVT programming changes for shifting ratios on the transmission specific to the US-market model.
The reason why Honda developed the SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain was to offer more power without affecting fuel efficiency. Note that on the 2006 Civic sedans the new R18 engine using new valvetrain design offers 140 bhp (SAE 08/04 net), yet does not sacrifice fuel economy compared to the old D17 engine used on the 2001-2005 model year Civics that have quite a bit less power. This is why I do see Honda offering the 1.5-liter SOHC i-VTEC engine on the Fit in the US market in a more sporting model.
...but the point is for the car to be a fuel-conserving vehicle, and not a performance machine. Anybody who buys a vehicle in the US with a 1,3 liter engine and 0-60mph times of 12 seconds is looking for a thrifty vehicle, not one to show off at trafficlights. Honda should offer two engines. A 1,3 i-DSI in the base, and possibly a 1,5 in the sport version. Of course, they probably won't since they aren't going to offer much choice (for engines) especially in an entry-level car. Most Honda models in the US have only one engine option, unlike Europe were each model usually has 2 or 3 engine choices.
Don't look for them to start changing this with the Fit.
Also, although technical numbers are important and good for comparison, it is the real life performance that matters. I have seen Jazzes zipping through cities, speeding down motorways, etc. It really is a quick little car, and having a Honda engine, it is sure not to dissapoint.
The reality, though, is that 15 seconds is adequate for everything other than the OMG THE ONRAMP IS 50 FT LONG! scenario. 90% of people don't push their cars even a little bit when getting onto the freeway. Check out how long most people take to get to highway speed the next time you are a passenger. 15 seconds goes by and they are maybe there by then. 20 if there is no tricky merging and they aren't in a hurry.
The Fit has the same power to HP ratio with the 1.5 engine as a base 5-speed Mini. That's a quick little car. Go drive one - it's no slouch. Sacrificing 20% of that speed for better mileage - it would drop it to Echo performance, which is fine, actually.
We really need a special order option for the 1.2L engine. Sell the 1.5L as standard, but if we want the super-frugal option and will order it up front that way, why not let us have it?
Fifteen years ago I was hoping for 10% increases every year. Each successive year disappoints even more than the last.
Well, at least we will have a few more things to choose from in 2006. I, too, am also considering a used VW tdi but the prices for used ones are through the roof lately.
Remember the VW bus with 52 hp. Now that was underpowered. A fit with 80-90 hp or so should be plenty. I had a Scirocco with 76 hp and it felt quite peppy (it was a little lighter though).
1. People forget that because US-market cars will have more safety equipment installed standard (including longer bumpers), that means the empty weight of the Fit in US-legal trim may be well above the weight of the Fit/Jazz models sold elsewhere in the world.
2. A lot of American drivers don't appreciate slowpokes accelerating to freeway speeds on freeway onramps. This is especially true in California; I live in Sacramento, CA and believe me, people accelerate onto the freeway at surprisingly fast speeds.
Given what I just described, a Honda Fit with the L13A i-DSI engine ain't going to cut it.
I think you folks forget that the 60-76 bhp Hondas from the 1980's are quite a bit lighter than the Hondas of today. Given the emphasis on small-car safety from groups like the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in the USA and the European New Car Assessment Programme, the need for improved safety has sent the weight of small cars quite a bit higher; compare a Honda Civic four-door sedans from the 1980's to the current model and note the 2006 models are 600-700 pounds heavier, most of it due to built-in safety engineering of the entire body structure and all the safety equipment installed as standard on the current car.
But in one post, you say the Fit doesn't fit in the U.S. while in another, you say you expect California to be the #1 market for the Fit.
Which is it?
For me, though, build quality and safety are #1 - power is not on the list, and MPG is second. I could get an Echo or some other tin can like an Aveo, but the point of the Fit/Jazz is that it's a solid little car.
The bottom line: If it doesn't beat the Matrix/Vibe's MPG by at least 5-8, it's unsellable. Think about it. The Matrix gets 40mpg highway and is the size of an Airwave - Honda's next model up. The Fit will look like a 3/4 size Matrix, so if it's not available with a seriously frugal engine, nobody will buy it after looking at the competition.
The 1.5L engine by itself is a marketing disaster. The market in the U.K. and the U.S., in terms of likes and desires, is very simmilar. We have the luxury AND the frugal as possible crowd. Give us the smaller engine as an option and watch sales take off. (Just wait until the Smart Car comes over)
Hey, you should look at the Aveo before calling it a tin can - it is pretty well made, from what I have seen of it. Also, it actually makes its stated horsepower, unlike the Corolla and Scion xA which got down graded in rated horsepower. Fit and finish are very good. I don't quite trust a product from a formerly defunct Daewoo factory, but it is selling very fast.
So Aveo is part of the competition, like it or not. Ignoring competition is what happened to American makers when the Japanese came here with their "tin cans" the first time around, after all.
I have to disagree on that! While the Matrix/Vibe "twins" have sold fairly well, there has been a number of concerns about its build quality and the engines available for the car, especially the high-revving DOHC 170 bhp engine that sounds quite raucous at high RPM's. If Toyota had offered a better engine on this car it probably would have sold quite a bit more.
Besides, the Fit/Jazz is physically quite a bit smaller than the Matrix/Vibe, something that drivers will appreciate, especially for urban driving and commuting. And of course, Honda engines usually can be revved to redline without making unpleasant noises on average.
You're right...alot of drivers don't appreciate slowpokes accelerating to free way speeds. You know, SO WHAT!!!! Also, you talk like California is the only place people drive fast. Here, in Dallas if I drive the speed limit of 60, I get passed continuously like I'm standing still. So, don't think California is any different than any other state as far as driving styles go. Having said that, I don't give a crap if some person in a car with a big engine behind me has to slow down a little while I enter on to the freeway while driving a car with a smaller engine. It's not MY problem, it's THEIR problem. And you seem to forget that times are changing with the price of gas. You're going to see more slowpoke cars out there as time goes by. Even in California. Get used to it!.