By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
All of the dealers near where I live are idiots, and they say they don't know anything (even things Honda has publicly announced) about the Fit. I just want to be near the top of the list if there is some sort of huge demand surge when it arrives. However, that thing about 90 000 cars is excellent news if it's true.
I'm really not looking forward to the dealership experience with the Fit this spring. It's going to be a pain dealing with the salesperson when I know probably 10x more about the car than they do. :mad:
I basically just want to take both a 5-speed and a CVT out for a test drive to see how they compare. Then pick a color, buy the 5-speed and go. The car is basically going to be the same as the one sold in Europe (apart from the engine and cosmetic differences), so I already know enough about what it's really like.
Of course, I can't be too fast or the guy will think he can take me for whatever it's worth. I will have to pretend I'm also considering the Yaris, XA, Rio5, and the Aveo.
...OK, not the Aveo.
Not that it will make any difference if the Fit is in short supply and getting MSRP, and people are willing to pay it. The Honda salesperson can just smile and say, "Next!"
Alas, that's the max they could probably squeeze out of the Honda factory in Japan that builds the Fit for North American sales.
Once the Fit gets its full model change (FMC) in (probably) calendar year 2007, I expect Honda to switch Fit production to the USA (Marysville OH or East Liberty, OH) or Canada (Alliston, ON), so Honda could build as many as 275,000 Fits per year for North American buyers.
But now it's going to good again - Honda quality, cheap to run, cheap to insure, and very versitile. Yeah - they are going to sell millions of them. Probably more in the U.S. than they do in the rest of the world if they do it right.
That soon? The CR-V has been sold in the US since MY1997 and it has been selling over 140 000 units annually for the past few years. However, only in 2006 are they going to start producing them in the United States.
Now, I don't think Honda is going to wait a decade to produce the Fit in the US, but considering that it took them almost 5 years to even bring it over, I don't they are going to "jump the gun" when it comes to building US Fits.
I know this is the Fit discussion board, but I wonder if the Versa 4 door is influenced by the Nissan-Renault partnership, because I swear I see the Renault Thalia / Dacia Logan when I look at the Versa sedan. By the way, what exactly are the dimensions of the Versa hatchback? How much bigger is it than the Fit?
I can't wait for the North American Auto Show in two weeks so I can see the Fit for myself, and have all my questions answered. It's down to which color it looks best in.
raychuang00, "2006 Honda Fit (Jazz)" #1175, 23 Dec 2005 8:56 pm
Actually, if I remember correctly most of the world's production of the CR-V was sold in the USA. Relatively few CR-V's were sold in Europe and Japan, especially given the size of the current model.
But with the continuing high price of gasoline in the USA, if Honda builds the right specs for the Fit, American Honda Motors will have to seriously look at North American production because 250,000 Fits per year for the USA market could be filled rather quickly.
I'll second that - plus they're the one's that have created most the disinformation that's going around as gospil right now. Reel in your bad dogs Honda :P
I was originally going to reply to both, starting with yours, but I ended up deleting that part, and forgot to create a new Title. My apologies!
"Actually, if I remember correctly most of the world's production of the CR-V was sold in the USA. Relatively few CR-V's were sold in Europe and Japan, especially given the size of the current model."
That's why I was wondering why the Fit would immediately start production in the US after only one year of successful US sales, when the US is not the primary market for the car. On the other hand, the US is the biggest market for the CR-V and for the past decade of successful sales it has been produced only in Japan or the United Kingdom.
Happy Holidays everyone!
It's a great car compared to the competition. It's cheap, not a slug, gets good gas mileage, and is a Honda. Just what Honda need to hook a generation of late 20s, early 30s first time buyers.
From a previous post...
Call me crazy, but I actually think the new generation Odyssey looks quite good. It is far more attractive and sporty-looking than the previous generation.
I also think the Fit/Jazz looks very nice. Sure, it's not a Ferrari, but I can guarantee it will turn people's heads when it arrives in the US. There aren't really any cars that look like it in America. Maybe the Aveo, but that's a big stretch.
Despite the somewhat similar body shape, the Aveo looks dull and weak like it could get tossed around a bit. Everything from the headlights to the frail body shape scream out "Look! I just bought the cheapest car in America." (No offense to Aveo owners
Meanwhile the Fit has a solid appearance with aggressive lines. It also has (dare I say) a somewhat sporty look to it for a supermini category vehicle.
Wait until you see it in real life.
I definitely want to get my Fit, while I know I still like the overall design. If I'm forced to wait, due to a supply shortage, and they make it fugly, come the end of the current model cycle, I'm going to be forced to look elsewhere for my gas sipping commuter car.
I don't think you need to worry about a huge sweeping windshield every appearing on the Fit. It's just not gonna fly on that kind of vehicle--a two-box 5-door hatchback that must cram as much usable interior room as possible into every inch of sheet metal.
I agree.
Also, while the purpose of the Civic's new design was to give it a more sporty, upmarket, and luxurious appearance, the purpose of the Fit is to minimize the exterior, but maximize the interior.
The current Fit is about 60 inches tall and 150 inches long. Seeing that the car is STILL a strong seller in Japan (3rd place in November) considering its age, it shows something about the mass appeal of the design. Honda will want to keep the next generation fairly close to this one. So, you can probably expect a similar height of about 60 inches, and maybe a bit longer (+ 2-4 inches) since cars usually grow a little from generation to generation. However, the body proportions will probably remain largely the same. A large sloping windshield simply will not fit into that kind of body shape.
OTOH, they accelerate like slugs compared to a 5-speed or more modern automatic. The reason they are popular in small cars are that they maximize fuel economy and torque at any speed, plus generally weigh a bit less. So the CVT Fit will be a great city and hill climbing car, but won't leave them in the dust at the stoplight or onramp.
Of course, a 5-speed has none of the compromises as long as you can deal with a clutch.
However, quite a few Honda City owners in Asia complained about the 'slips' in the CVT. (see the Autoworld.com.my website). Despite public 'outcry', Honda (as far as I know) in Asia gave no reply or response, excepting directing its dealers to use a new CVT fluid. Accordingly, I always drive my car with some concern that the CVT may fail anytime. It is not a good feeling.
Audi and Toyota seem to be more confident with their CVT. They are using the CVT in more powerful cars. If Honda CVT is reliably, why Honda does not use its CVT for the 2006 mainline Civic? Could it be the fact that every manufacturer has certain design variation from the theory of CVT? And Honda is not really on top of it yet.
I am going to get a 5-speed Fit regardless of CVT reliability. My last Honda (1987 Accord 2,0i) lasted my family 18 years and about 257 000 miles (415 000 km). The car was absolutely bulletproof, but it had an automatic which required expensive repairs somewhere around 245k miles. Those expensive repairs lasted only until I got rid of it. That's actually the only reason why I did...the engine was still flawless. I also plan to keep my Fit for that long (or longer) and I definitely would rather stick with manual for several reasons.
This is completely off topic, but is it true that the only mechanical thing that needs to be replaced in a well-kept manual is the clutch? Thanks!
Since you can't change gearing ratios fast, maximizing for speed isn't really doable. But maximizing for torque and fuel economy is, which is how they are designed.
In essence, it gives your engine the same driving habits of a diesel engine - lots of power, good fuel economy, and speed somewhere else in the equation. So, they tend to be slower. OTOH, a small car like this isn't powerful enough to go fast, so it's a good combination. My only gripe is that they are using a "stepped" version, which sort of defeats the purpose.
Me? I'm looking at the 5-speed.
My Suzuki Burgman 650 has a CVT that can be over rode in a six speed simulation - you lose the out right mileage efficiency and in exchange you get the performance potential of conventional set gear ratios. :shades:
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=6264
CVTs Hit Their Stride
No longer just a tech curiosity, the new generation of shiftless transmissions offers a real alternative to conventional automatics.
OTOH, comparing a CVT to an automatic, it's a no brainer. They want $2500 for a new transmission these days, and maybe $1200 if you find someone who's even willing anymore to rebuild it.
***Note - this depends upon the type. Ford and Toyota use a planetary gear type arrangement that is a cinch to fix and replace(plus no torque converter). Most others are eally expensive. No info on which type Honda uses in the Fit, though. Likely the more expensive model with a troque converter, in which case, YMMV compared to a 5-speed.
http://cvt.com.sapo.pt/ivt/ivt.htm - info on who uses a "proper" CVT in their cars.
The last three times I've had a automatic transmission go bad, it gave me exactly 2 block warning every time. Working working - dead as a rock piece of slag that has to be towed. OTOH, a proper(see above) CVT will give you tons of warning and is easy to service - hardly any more complex than fixing a clutch.(though still twice as expensive)
Me - I still prefer stickshift:
- Less efficient than a CVT, but still decent compared to a typical automatic. Lighter as well.
- Great for hills and twisties, where you *want* serious drivetrain resistance, and then full power. Most CVTs and automatics change gears at least once during a hard turn and it's dreadful. The solution lately has been to just add more power to compensate, but since 90% of cars are FWD, it adds a whole other set of problems. Me? I just leave it in 3rd and power in and out of the turn.
- Brakes last 3 times longer. Last traffic jam I was in, I switched gears 4 times in ten minutes. Most cars can happily creep forward at 5-10mph or so in 2nd gear, so it's a matter of just being patient and leaving enough room ahead of you. My old automatics? Eat front brake pads every 15K-20K miles, like they were snack-food.
- Cheaper by far to repair a clutch(90% of the time what's wrong)
- Can be driven half-dead to get you to the mechanic. The 2-block-it's-a-rock scenario never happens.
- Can push-start your car.
- Can be towed properly by leaving it in neutral.
- Can be driven with a completely dead clutch, if you know the right rpm/mph combinations. Great to get it to the mechanic.
What's interesting about the Fit/Jazz is that you have almost as much passeger space as the previous-generation Civic on a car that is far smaller than the Civic--and has amazingly small turning circle along with it!
This article summed up precisely why I will be purchasing the 5-speed manual Fit. Despite some nice advantages, the drawbacks of the CVT are quite significant in my opinion. The way I like the car to feel when I drive it coupled with my desires to keep the car for a lengthy period of time are not going to be found in the CVT. Also, the price tag of the rubber belt breaking would stick in my mind from the minute I left the lot. Even though the repair prices will go down eventually, until they do I will stick with manual.
I would think the weirdest part about driving a CVT is that everything one expects from a traditional automatic has to be mimicked separately with another device. Things like "creeping at a stoplight", gear shifts, everything normal, etc. is done artificially. I will be very interested to test drive the CVT Fit this coming Spring.
I would definitely go for the CVT in a Fit!
We are not sure that the fit will definetly have then CVT.
Honda hasn't told us. It looks this way, but until we have the specs, nothing is sure.
This is why I hope Honda does keep the CVT automatic for the 2007 Fit to be sold in the USA.
There are quite a few serious complaints and owners' concern about the Honda City CVT in the Autoworld.com.my several months back.
We tried for months, but she became very frustrated and mad with herself, which compounded the issue. I can't blame her for something that's out of her control.
I wouldn't trade her for nuthin' though
Raychuang, you have a CVT. Do you ever notice a "rubber-band" feeling (similar to what the article stated) when you drive your CVT?
I totally understand the frustration that can come from learning a manual. I taught myself and that was actually several years after learning to drive only with an automatic. I was very discouraged at first, but I end up loving it now, and I probably won't go back to automatic. However, I guess manuals aren't for everyone...not even in Europe. Manuals only occupy 90% of sales. That means 10% of the buyers still don't want them.
hopefully the new Fit information comes soon. I want to start talking about that instead. :shades: