Wait lists are a problem if you need a car now, not in a few months. I will probably be in that position come spring. And call me weird, but I'm not crazy about paying MSRP for a car. I buy the lowest priced car that meets my needs. It doesn't have to be the best possible car that meets my needs. So if the Fit is at MSRP and I can get a few thousand off another car that meets my needs, guess which one I will buy?
How many dealers actually have waiting lists going yet? Any?
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:
It will be tough. 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.
Oh, especially the Aveo! That's probably the lowest priced car of the lot!
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.
The 1.3 Engine with 50mpg highway - it'll be this decade's VW Bug. In the 60s it was the Bug, in the 70s, it was the Civic, in the 80s it was um - the Mitsubishi Mirage/Dodge Colt/etc(half a dozen simmilar hatchbacks) - in the 90s - total dead space, thanks to the SUV craze...
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.
"Once the Fit gets its full model change (FMC) in (probably) calendar year 2007, I expect Honda to switch Fit production to the USA..."
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.
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.
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.
quote: 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."
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.
I really think any decision whether to build Fits in the U.S. will depend on how much the Fit cannibalizes Civic sales. If that happens, I wouldn't count on Honda rushing to pour more Fits into the U.S. market. Why do you think they waited so long to bring the Fit over here? (Hint: what is the unit profit on a Fit? What is the unit profit on a Civic?) Besides, if they sell only a few Fits, they can not only demand full MSRP and thereby get a decent profit on the cars, but they can draw buyers into the showroom and try to switch them to a Civic if there aren't enough Fits to go around ("Sorry, there's a 3 month wait on the Fit, but look over here, this Civic LX is only $30/month more--a dollar a day--on a 3-year lease and it's a much nicer car...").
From the information I've gathered, the Versa has a 102 inch wheelbase, is 166 inches long, 67 inches wide, and 60 inches tall. The cargo capacity seems to be 16 cu. ft. seats up (seat bottom all the way back) and 45 cu. ft. seats down. With the ability to recline the rear seats as well, the back seat is VERY comfortable...plenty of space underneath the front seats. If I remember correctly, the Fit also has a reclinable rear seat, but the legroom unfortunately isn't as good as the Versa.
Sure it's bland, but that's what happens when engineers try to maximize interior space, minimize external dimensions, and design the car around government regulations and for a low price point--not a lot stylistic freedom left. But it's a clean design, IMO, and that means it should wear well over time. Maybe the next Fit will be more highly styled--look at what they did with the new Civic.
Scratch the "government" part, since it's 100% Japan market designed.
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.
I didn't say "U.S. government." An example of the thought re government regulations that went into the design of the Fit is the great score that it got on the European test for pedestrian safety. I suspect that didn't happen by accident. Also I'm sure that Honda took the European and U.S. crash tests into account when designing the car.
The way cars will look in the future is largely dependent on the crash tests done in Europe, Japan, and the US. The Euro/NCAP's pedestrian test has led to a new generation of cars that have more space between the hood and the engine block. This often means creating a more round frontal area.
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.
"look at what they did with the new Civic" - that's MY big fear. I don't like the new Civic. I think they went overboard with the cab-forward design, and that huge sweeping windshield. Sitting in the driver's seat, you have no idea where the front bumper is. My first reaction, upon seeing the new Civic? Eww!
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.
And you can see the front bumper on the Fit? :surprise:
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 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.
Does anyone know when you sit in the Fit, do you get a little higher seating position and better view of the road similar to the Ford Focus and PT Cruiser? I have a PT Cruiser and one of the things I like about it is that the seats are higher and you almost get the feeling like you're sitting in one of the small SUVs as it relates to the road view. Anyway, it would be nice if the Fit had a smiliar view of the road. It's not a deal breaker for me but would be a nice feature. Also, I understand that it hurts the aerodynamics of the car to have higher seats (because it requires a higher roof) and hurts the gas mileage to a certain extent. I used to have an '85 Civic hatchback and it sat pretty low and it was just fine for me considering the fantastic gas mileage it had.
Does anyone know if the CVT transmissions in the oversea's Fits are very reliable and what the life of them is before they require major maintenace. I read on another forum that when they need maintance, it's quite costly. If that's the case I sure hope they offer the Fit with a manual transmission because if I get one I plan on keeping it at least 15 years (I had my last Honda for 18 years) and don't want to spend $thousands to keep it running after 10 years or so.
They have less moving parts, no torque converter to blow out, and last a really long time. For 90% of people, replacing the belt is all you will need to do.
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.
I drive a 2005 Honda City, a sedan model of Fit (Jazz), in Asia. My car is still quite new. The CVT in my car so far runs very smoothly. I like it better than the normal auto transmission.
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.
Honda has been using the CVT for several years. I know that the HR-V (intro in 1999) has always used a CVT as its automatic transmission. I have heard as well (as plekto said) that the CVT is simpler (less parts), and both cheaper and easier to repair. I think the reason why Honda doesn't use it on more mainstream models like the Civic is that the Honda CVT is better suited for smaller displacement (1600 cc or less) engines.
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!
The limit for CVTs currently in use is about 200ft-lbs of torque, with 150 being a safer limit. HP is meaningless in the equation. So this limits it to smaller engines.
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.
Yes stepped CVT shifting defeats the purpose of the diesel equation - instead it gives you the option of more standard set gear performance! The best of both worlds - 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:
I would say a well-kept manual won't even need the clutch replaced. Never worn out a clutch yet, and have had cars at 200k miles or more, and the cluth has always been fine.
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.
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.
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! I think the Fit will sell like hotcakes, especially for urban drivers. The flexible rear seat design makes it extremely useful as a cargo carrier (I'm threatening to call it a grocery mom car ).
"Including the twelve to fifteen hours of labor required for removal/installation, count on $4500 to $6000, and closer to $10,000 if you have an Audi!"
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've had a Civic HX and have an Audi A4 with. I'll grant you that a 5 speed will accelerate marginally better and get marginally better gas mileage. However, for those who don't like to row, the CVT bets the dickens out of 4& 5 speed autos: mileage & acceleration very close to the stick. In "sport mode" CVT equals A4 5spd is is & is quicker between 30-& 60 mph) It's velvetly smoothness makes is a joy for normal driving :shades: . Perhaps replacement cost is frightening, but how many of us drive our cars beyong 150K? I would definitely go for the CVT in a Fit!
My present car has 138k (Maxda mx6). Most of my cars go over the 150 k mark. 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. :P
I would prefer a 5-speed, but I need to be able to share the car with my wife, so I will be going with whatever automatic they offer (CVT, CVT-7 or otherwise).
There's no good reason a woman can't drive stick as well as any man. Plus, it's more fun. Few men or women go back once they learn.(unless the car they are driving is a piece of junk that is)
For those who would still choose Honda's CVT disregarding the known risks but not fully publicised should read messages 363 of 403 onwards about some owners' unpleasant experiences with their Honda CVTs under 'Honda Civic Hybrid Owners: Problems and Solutions'. Ask yourself how much is the replacement of a new CVT?
There are quite a few serious complaints and owners' concern about the Honda City CVT in the Autoworld.com.my several months back.
dewaltdakota, I empathize with you. In order to teach someone a skill, two things have to be true: the person can learn the skill, and the person wants to learn the skill. In the case of my DW, #1 is questionable but #2 is a definite, "NO WAY!"
THANK YOU, backy! I tried teaching her how to drive a 5-speed, when I had my previous Honda Civic. No go. She has serious dyslexia issues, which manifests itself in ways, such as she'll want to press the clutch, and accidentally step on the gas or brake instead (thinking left foot, but using right foot). The level of coordination needed just isn't there.
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.
From what I know, the big issue with Honda's CVT is that you do need to change the transmission fluid on a regular basis and have the clutch checked every 30,000 miles or so. I do that and so far no problems with my car!
I wouldn't trade my DW either. She hates driving a stick (and finally admitted that after 20+ years, after the clutch on my daily driver was ruined recently--she thinks she may have done it). Also she does have some coordination issues so it's not just an attitude thing. So while I would love to get a 5-speed on my next car, which could be a Fit, I don't know it is the wisest choice given that my DW may need to drive it occasionally.
I think some of these problems are connected to the fact that it is part of the hybrid system and I don't think the Fit would have much of these. The reasons I am only purchasing the 5-speed Fit are based on the inherent design of the CVT, not the problems some people have had with CVTs.
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:
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: