Honda Fit

dudleyr

Hard to believe mileage is worse than Corolla, which has a much larger and much more powerfull engine and carries more weight.

I expected more from Honda. Very dissapointed, but not too suprised. They really believe people who want efficient want hybrids.

jterran

Perhaps 100 pictures of the FIT just released at hondanews.com

plekto

Oh I hope they didn't also alter the suspension to where it has a 34ft turning radius.

But gheez - 31/38 for stickshift? That's um... I can't wrap my mind around it. My dad's 1996 Park Avenue gets 21/28 and weighs 1400 lbs more, with an engine well over twice the size. Explain to me how a Civic gets nearly the same mileage, with tons more power and weight.
Civic:
Base Number of Cylinders: 4 Base Engine Size: 1.8 liters
Base Engine Type: Inline 4 Horsepower: 140 hp
Max Horsepower: 6300 rpm Torque: 128 ft-lbs.
Max Torque: 4300 rpm Drive Type: FWD
Plus, the Civic weights a couple of hundred pounds more. Dang. What'd they do, drop a Hyundai engine in it? How can it have less displacement, power, and weight to move around and get no better mileage?

Stupid Honda. What's wrong with you? Why do you always see U.S. consumers as second rate hicks and give us crap while the rest of the world gets the better models?

Sigh. I guess the truth is that Honda (and Sony) won't really change until the CEOs retire. Old biggotted men who still have no like for the U.S. despite the fact that we're the biggest single market for them. They can't seem to shake the idea of U.S. consumers as being second-class. Or it's just plain resentment and biggotry that filters down. I don't know. I just still can't imagine why the car is so crippled compared to what you could buy in the rest of the world years ago.

And don't even get me started on motorcycles. Honda just plain seems to hate us at times.

oldone1

I am hoping for a misprint. This is about the same gas milage I brought up on this site once before mentioning that my civic coupe HX could get 44 miles to the gallon with a 1.7 engine. Everybody poo pooed me saying no way. Does Honda know that the price of gas can only go up to match our international brothers?

dudleyr

Corolla and Civic both beat that highway mileage, and Accord and Camry are only 4 mpg behind 38-34. This is absurd.

Also noticed that the only way to get cruise is to get the version with the silly go-fast plastic cladding.

txptc

Also noticed that the only way to get cruise is to get the version with the silly go-fast plastic cladding.

Yeah, I also noticed the lack of cruise control being offered in the base model. Just another example of forcing someone to pay $1000-2000 for the "privilege" of having cruise control only to get "stuck" with a bunch of extras that they don't want.

backy

If you don't like the fuel economy of the Fit (which I don't), there's still the Versa on the way with its 38 mpg combined.

I have trouble fathoming why Honda can't get better fuel economy out of such a small car, given its great engine technology. It's not much better than that of the low-buck Korean cars. Maybe the reason the price is so low is that Honda isn't using its top engine technology on this car?

P.S. Regarding an earlier post re a $13k starting price... I didn't see pricing mentioned anyplace in the announcement. Is U.S. pricing available now?

txptc

Taken directly from Honda's website:
http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/index.aspx


And the Fit has even more to make you smile, like a 109-horepower, 1.5-liter, VTEC® engine; legendary Honda safety, including front, front side and side curtain airbags; plenty of storage compartments; and a super-friendly starting price of around $13,000. Plus, Sport models with automatic transmission come equipped with steering wheel-mounted paddle shifters. So step right in and take a closer look.

backy

OK thanks. That looks like a great price, but does it include A/C? I won't buy a car without it. Honda lowballs the Civic DX price by not including A/C or a stereo.

It's funny... I signed up for the Fit updates some time ago, and I've received NOTHING... not even an email today letting me know about the launch. So why bother to sign up? The general public gets more info on the Fit than people like me who ask for the "special" updates. :confuse:

makabe

Comes with A/C, power everything, am/fm/cd 4 speaker stereo, ABS and side curtain airbags.

Except for the EPA mileage and lack of cruise control on the base model, this looks good to me. I'd bet the actual hwy mileage is 42-45 with careful driving at 60 mph. we'll see.

nippononly

that they changed the gearing to make the car faster for the U.S., which is what has driven down fuel economy. I am sure if they made an economy version that was just slower gearing-wise, they could get the combined mpg up to 38-40.

Just look at what Toyota is accomplishing in the Echo/Yaris with an engine that is IDENTICALLY SIZED, in a car with IDENTICAL WEIGHT, and without actually comparing spec for spec, probably about the same size.

Yes, hatches are less aerodynamic, so the Yaris sedan will be a little slipperier, while the Yaris hatch is a smaller car.

But I do buy into the notion that Toyota and Honda are both low-balling the fuel economy in their smallest cars so that they don't step on the toes of their media-darling hybrids. In the process, they make them faster, which never hurts with the press.

But while I agree that a $13K Honda with that much content is a good deal, and the $15K Fit Sport should be a lot of fun to drive, I would pass with fuel economy that mediocre. I wish Honda would bring back the Civic HX. They cancelled it just as Americans were scared by spiking gas prices for the first time in 25 years. Sales of the HX would have probably gone through the roof this fall. 36/44, now THAT'S going easy on gas! Not 31/38.

hungarian83

Unbelievable.

Honda finally gives the US a small 5-door
It has a starting price around $13k
It has as much interior room as an Accord
A/C, CD player, tachometer, power everything, side airbags, ABS, side-curtain airbags ALL STANDARD

In other words the best-equipped car for the price.

...and the only thing anyone can do is whine about the fuel consumption? Yes, the consumption is pretty bad, but it's a 4 1/2 year old car!!!!! Toyota can only get 40 on the highway (2 mpg better) than the Fit and it's brand new. Meanwhile the city ratings for both are the same.

...and please stop with the 50 combined mpg thing. The only way you can get 50 combined in a 1200cc+ car is to either have a hybrid or a diesel. The only Fit/Jazz to break 50, and it hits exactly 50 (not a single mpg above) is the 1,2 i-DSI sold in Europe. Of course, if they sold that in the US people would be whining about the 78 hp and the 16 second 0-60 times.

By the way, the manual gets 33/38, not 31/38 as someone mentioned in an earlier post.

jterran

My guess on the disappointing Fit fuel economy numbers is that the vehicle is relatively high and this large frontal area reduces fuel economy. Compare the Mazda3 to the Mazda5 for example. Same engine. Much worse fuel economy for the Mazda5. But that would only explain part of it not all of it.

w9cw

Back in the mid-to-late '60s, when the Interstate highway system's speed limit was at least 70MPH across the country, there were plenty of European vehicles with 850cc to 1.2L OHV engines. And, they did very well on the highway running 70 to 80+MPH. So, I don't doubt the modern 1.3L Fit engine will also do very well.

carzzz

I would perfer the Jazz over 2007 sentra

http://www.nissannews.com/multimedia/nissan2007/800px/07_sentra_02.jpg

bostonjazz

I too am disappointed in the fuel economy - we had taken so much time here converting British imperial gallons and imagining the impact of airbag weight compared to Japanese models - but it's still the best in its class. However, I can't believe that Honda didn't seize the opportunity to become the gas mileage *leader*. When I first saw the Jazz in Europe, the CVT concept was very attractive (and presumably more efficient), but oh well.

From a business perspective - and this resonates with me as a consumer - the position Honda is staking out is not fuel efficiency alone: it's the TOTAL PACKAGE. And there's a whole lot of value in the package, I'll give them that.

Someone had a good suggestion - that non-hybrid fuel ratings are being lowballed so as not to steal the thunder from hybrids. I find that plausible. I also wonder about the EPA testing: am I correct that the EPA wouldn't have officially tested this car yet or is that part of the process of releasing such estimates as Honda did today? If 33/38 is Honda's internal/own estimates, that could be very favorable in that it's "real world" compared to the EPA tests.

This is miscellaneous, but I'm surprised how little difference there seems to be between the regular and Sport models, compared to other markets at least. Not even different engines?! Relative to paying $20k for a Matrix with 4WD or getting a Civic, I was planning to take advantage of getting a fully loaded Fit in the top trim. Unless I'm missing something, I can't figure why I'd buy the Sport though - don't care for the wheels, spoiler, could do without cruise control. Don't tell me I need to buy the Sport to hook in my ipod? Is keyless entry available on the base model?

Add me - a champion for this car - to the list of those who are very puzzled why I've never received an e-mail from Honda despite signing up months ago.

I'm also disappointed in the April availability date. As I recall, investors were told the Fit would arrive in Q1 - which ends in March. An extra month isn't a whole lot of time I guess.

The POSITIVES -

- As we expected, "safety for everyone" - the standard features are incredible

- As basic an innovation as it is (and a long-established one), what other car has the Magic Seats?

- Looks like the media is already picking up on the cargo space / as much room as a Corolla angle

So far I've found HondaNews.com to be the most useful site. Specifications (features, photos at other links as others have pointed out) -

http://hondanews.com/CatID2155?mid=2006010735878&mime=asc

dewaltdakota

I was trying to get an idea of what the paddle shifters would look like...

HondaNews Website - 2007 Honda Fit Sport interior

If you look at the close-up picture of the Fit Sport steering wheel, there's a small "plus sign" on the back side of the right side of the steering wheel, just above the cruise control buttons, and a "minus sign" on the opposite side. Is that them? :confuse:

mac91

I agree only 38 mpg is off-putting. Add the boring styling and I am back in my Accord wagon again (equally boring)until the next generation Fit comes around. Previously posted on this forum was a picture of a much nicer looking concept Fit. Here's hoping for that car with diesel/CVT.

coldstorage5

A loaded HONDA for 15K. I never thought this day would happen. Multiple airbags, loaded features, ac, rims, power everything. I dont have to buy the cheapest model inoder to afford the car. The gas mileage is fine. 35 mpg id very good. Remember it is not a hybrid, and honda had to make a car with a little more pop to sell in america.
Overall it has evrthing I want, I will buy. Just haveto see if it makes sense to buy the sport. Iam leaning that way.

raychuang00

First, I think you're forgetting that Honda is basing their EPA fuel milage rating on 2007 EPA certification. Given the EPA has said they are changing their methodology to reflect more "real world" mileage, the 2007 specs may actually reflect more what we'll get on normal driving, not the old, unrealistic methodology used on the 2006 and earlier tests. Also, don't forget the EPA test is based on the US gallon, not the British Imperial gallon, which is 20% larger than the US gallon. If we did the same 2007 EPA fuel mileage test with the British Imperial gallon the rating would be 37 mpg city, 46 mpg highway! Also, don't forget the L15A has been tuned to use 87 octane unleaded, not the 93+ octane gasoline that is available in Europe and much of Asia; because of that, the compression ratio probably has to be lowered and/or the VTEC timing changed, which will decrease the fuel efficiency slightly. By the way, the fuel capacity is 10.83 gallons, not bad for such a physically small car.

Secondly, while I am disappointed Honda didn't offer the Multimatic CVT on the Fit, the 5AT unit is probably a variant of the excellent 5AT unit used on the 2006 Honda Civic, well-known for its crisp and smooth shifts, automatic lowering of gears going downhill for engine braking, and no "hunting" between gears going uphill. My guess is that Honda changed some of the ratios on the 5AT to offer better acceleration, especially going onto freeways. It's certainly going to be better than the 4AT on the Yaris, which has been MUCH criticized for sapping the power of the engine. :mad:

As for the interior, the car is pretty much using the same interior as the recent MMC change for the JDM market, but it appears the car stereo is based on the European-market Jazz model. I also think Honda wisely kept all the seat configurations from the JDM Fit, including the Refresh seating configuration! I'm sure some are disappointed the US-market car lacks a sunroof, but I prefer it that way--no sunroof means more headroom as there is no headroom-impeding sunroof hardware to deal with.

The exterior looks like a cross between the Mexican-market Fit made in Brazil and the recent MMC JDM Fit, but with the unique to US-market longer nose to meet NHTSA bumper safety standards.

In short, I'll still take it over the Toyota Yaris, Hyundai Accent or Kia Rio. :shades:

borinda5

Well I am currently driving a 1992 Civic hatchback with a 1500cc engine in it that gives me 10 sec 0-60 times and yet still averages over 52mpg dispite its not being a hybrid or a diesel. So I was hoping that Honda would at least be able to match the fuel consumption of my 16 year old car with 400,000 miles on it. Up until this time I was wondering if the Fit would finally be the car that would approximate the performance of my ancient Civic so I could consider trading it in and buying a new car. But I guess I will find how many additional hundred thousand miles my car will go before Honda or someone else comes out with a car that can match its combination of fuel economy, handling, and load carrying ability.

spoot1

Well Honda just lost a sale to me due to the bad gas mileage. Please Honda, why can't you just give us the 1.3 (or even 1.2!!) with cvt and bump that mileage to 50+??

Not all of us care about being the fastest on the road!

I guess I will wait until the remodel and hope they come to thier senses.

dewaltdakota

When, again, are they supposed to go through a full re-model adjustment?

woknwo

I, as many, have eagerly waited for this day of 'Joy'...oh yawn... Yes, if the price stays reasonable, it's got the 'well-equiped' bang for the buck.. especially the safety of the side/front and side airbags (Love that Honda quality).. I agree with the gas mileage being being a huge deal-breaker for a high percent of this websites posters and followers. (My Civic also gets near 45MPG on the freeway).. Most were hoping for 50mpg Hwy, and 45 was the breaking point.. 38 is laughable. (And no, Hungarian guy, lot's of older Honda's get super MPG'S, some, as reported, up into the 50's, and they're not diesel or Hybrids..) The pics released today are nothing new..very ho-hum.. I'm not giving up though..(today is not a big surprise to me..) I am still excited to see in person,the fully optioned Fit, with the colored highlighted interior, and the 16" fatty wheels...The Ipod interfaced stereo is a welcome addition, and the sport has nice options and decent stereo. I hope the sunroof is somewhere in the mix..otherwise, I guess I'll just keep on keepin' on... :shades:

dudleyr

I did some quick calculations with the drive ratios and tire size, and the Fit is turning 2,944 rpm at 60 mph. As I suspected - this is why the highway fuel economy is not stellar. A 6th gear that brought this down to 2200 rpm or so would help things immensely.

This is probably why the new Nissan gets excellent mileage - it has lower rpm because of a 6-speed tranny.

If the Fit had taller gearing, I am sure it would gain 4 or 5 mpg on the highway. The Corolla gets 41 mpg with its 1.8 liter because it only turns about 2150 rpm at 60, and the 06 Civic (also with a 1.8) is turning just under 1,900 at 60 - hence its 40 mpg. BTW - the reason the manual Civic gets worse mileage on the highway is because it turns 2531 rpm at 60.

I wish they would give us taller gears and let us downshift if we need to. The reason I wan't a manual is because I like to shift.

-Dudley

bamacar

I agree those rpms are too high. What would the manual be turning at 70mph?

First Toyota disappoints with low mileage on the highway with the Yaris and no 5 door offered here.

Honda then follows with even worse mileage. We will see about the 2007 EPA numbers. If the Yaris and Fit can't best the heavier more powerful Corolla then neither come close to being ground breaking. Both should get at least 42-45 on the highway with the manual.

I still believe the Versa will have about 38 on the highway and not combined. It has a larger engine, is more Corolla and Sentra sized, and is heavier than the Toyota and Honda.

hungarian83

"And no, Hungarian guy, lot's of older Honda's get super MPG'S, some, as reported, up into the 50's, and they're not diesel or Hybrids..."

I am talking about EPA ratings...and that's what everyone is complaining about with the Fit.
The Civic CRX HF was the first US-market Honda to break the 50+ mpg mark for EPA ratings. Since then the highest non-hybrid was the Civic HX with 44 highway. Can you list some more EPA ratings for US-market Hondas with 50+ combined mileage?
Yes, we can all get higher mileage than the EPA. I have received very high 30s during a combination of very conservative city and highway driving in my old Accord which was rated 24/29.
So if this is the case regarding all Honda's, then I'm sure you too can get your Fit into high-40s, low-50s mileage.

And yes, woknwo, lot's of older Honda's get super MPG'S, some, as reported, up into the 50's, but they aren't EPA ratings.

plekto

http://www.edmunds.com/used/1992/honda/civic/3912/specs.html
There you go. 14 years ago, so it's definately a technical possiblity.
Check out the stats. 1.5L engine, 89HP. 44/55MPG. Virtually the same size and weight. This is why we are so upset. Honda CAN make a proper economy car but chooses not to.

The reason we are upset is that the car has sacrificed economy and the ULEV certification in order to give us a tiny bit more "power", depite the fact that the engine produces the same torque - just is geared for higher speeds. 100hp? 105hp? 109hp? It's worthless as a sportscar, so Honda should face the fact that it's a slower car and give us back the gas mileage.

But most of all, it's because we get the worst gas mileage version of the 1.5L engine out of the whole world. They specifically made it get worse economy than the model they sell in Japan, to the point where it gets worse figures than the engine in the Civic if you calculate power to wight ratios and then factor in mileage. Unless they also offer a 1.2/1.3 version, it's a no-sale for me. 85hp and 50mpg - that's the econobox we wanted.

The cruise control thing is no big deal to me, though. I only drive stickshift, so cruise is a bit of a moot point as it's easy to hold most manuals at a close enough speed for long periods of time, since they don't tend to want to drive faster/have a top gear that's almost like being in neutral downhill.

We can't get the Smart Car, the Fit(the REAL 50mpg Fit), the VW TDI... nothing in California, where the gas prices are $2.39 a gallon, down from $3 a gallon last summer(ie - we are paying *50 cents* more a gallon than most of the rest of the U.S.!) Sigh. So it's back to my search...

smlcarguy

To the Imbeciles / Idiots & Fools at Honda: How can you have screwed up so much with this opportunity to show true leadership and take a clear win in the mpg wars.

From my earlier rants (#929 etc) I calculated ..."My best guess mpg range for Canada is to 39.6 to 44.5 mpg city and 46.1 to 51.8 hwy. Most probably will be on the low end of these."

Sadly Honda you have proven me right!

Based on the 33/38 US figures adding 20% for Canada gives only 39.6 city and 45.6 hwy. There may still be a little wriggle room though, as a comparo I did for 2006 official Corolla mpg between Toyota ".com" & Toyota ".ca" didn’t reflect a simple 20% gross-up. For Corolla Cdn was still 3.61% city & 8.33% hwy higher in Canada than 20% gallon conversion ratio HOWEVER when same done for Camry Cdn city was virtually identical at only .08% higher city but 9.74% higher hwy.

Hard to say what this really means in real world terms. Different testing methods in both countries etc. but you would expect consistency in % terms at least.

Anyway, like Toyota with their Yaris, I am thoroughly disappointed in the projected Fit mpg and will not be delaying my buying decision any longer. I honestly do not really know yet what I will get but I guess I will have to go with cheap $ now as opposed to high mpg.

Don’t be surprised you folks still waiting for Fit if they try to pull the same B.S. marketing ploys as Toyota has confirmed for Canada. Everybody loves the Fit's great back seat features right? It wouldn’t surprise me if they replaced the base model with a standard back seat and forced everyone to upgrade to a higher level as well for that cool feature. If possible they probably will do it unless all European ones come standard anyway and it would cost them more to revamp than to just bring in as is.

With Toyota, they have confirmed in Canada for Yaris to get 60/40 split back seats you have to upgrade from "base" to "RS"... at guess what... only an extra $3300 or nearly an unbelievable 25% extra of the entire car price.

Of course you get all the other RS crap you really don’t want or need, but hey Toyota gets thousands more profit off your back because of it and after all isn’t that what this all boils down to lately. Profits, pure and simple.

I'm about the farthest thing from a bleeding heart Canadian Liberal there is and I hope they lose our next election before they destroy our country and I certainly don’t begrudge a profit for anyone but you know the only reason they offer crap one piece back seats is to force you to "upgrade" to their higher cost (profit) models. Is it that much cheaper at all to build a one peice seat no one would want, considering extra design, assembly line, suppliers etc costs. NO WAY, it's marketing pressure pure and simple.

It just Pi$$#s me off when you cant even get a good economy car any more without having to upgrade to get a few decent features that all levels should have right from the start.

Honda and Toyota, whatever I buy I will be sending you a copy of my sales invoice and a letter to you both explaining again how your poor model and fuel economy decisions have lost you my sale.

If any one else out there would care to do the same I’m sure Honda/Toyota et al. will more quickly get the point.

backy

Keep in mind that the 1992 Civic did not have to meet the IIHS crash tests. The Fit does, and is much heavier than that old Civic. Civics of the mid-'80s weighed under 2000 pounds. They too could get better fuel economy than the Fit. But I'd rather have the Fit in a crash.

OTOH, the Corolla and Civic of today are both heavier than the Fit... but they are nowhere as versatile, or inexpensive, as the Fit. You can buy a lot of gas for $4000 (difference between the MSRP of the Fit and the Civic LX).

Considering that I typically can best EPA ratings by 15-20%, 33/38 in a well-equipped car for $13k may not be that bad a deal. I might easily be looking at over 40 mpg in my real-world driving. I am a bit put-off though by those high rpm numbers. I prefer an engine that is more relaxed cruising on the highway.

makabe

I sold Hondas back in 92, and I never saw anybody get the EPA rated mileage on the VX. It would approach 50 if you were super careful, but nobody I knew ever saw 55 MPG. The CX on the other hand did get its EPA rated mileage at 42 city/48 hwy. That was the year Honda gave the base model civic a 5 speed (and lost the vinyl seats).

Count my vote for being peeved that honda did not give us the 1.3 liter model. I guess from a corporate standpoint you can't have a conventionally powered car costing $9K less getting better mileage than your fancy Hybrid.

Still waiting for a Fit Diesel. Maybe the next rev. Ho hum.

hungarian83

"Everybody loves the Fit's great back seat features right? It wouldn’t surprise me if they replaced the base model with a standard back seat and forced everyone to upgrade to a higher level as well for that cool feature. If possible they probably will do it unless all European ones come standard anyway and it would cost them more to revamp than to just bring in as is."

First, Honda isn't Toyota. Thank God.
Second, it would cost them more to design a regular back seat since EVERY Honda Fit or Jazz on earth comes with the Magic Seats. From the 1,2i S in Europe to the 1,5i S-Type in Japan, they all have the same back seat.
Third, they said they would have the Magic Seats standard in the base model, just like the A/C, CD, PW, PM, PL, etc.

I think it is safe to say that you count on Honda to keep their promise. After all, quite a while ago, before the plans to introduce the Fit to the US were finalized, they made a pledge that every US car except for the Insight and S2000 would have front and side airbags, side-curtain airbags, and ABS standard on every model (regardless of price) by the end of CY2006. No Fit or Jazz ever had side-curtain airbags even available, let alone standard. Yet, Honda introduced the Fit to the US with side curtain airbags.

Yes, they will keep the magic seats.

plekto,
85hp and 50mpg?
No, it's 78 hp and 50 mpg highway for the L12A which is only available in 5-speed.
The L13A with 85 hp (sold in Japan as 1,3i and in Europe as 1,4i) gets about 36 city and 44 highway.
You have to remember to convert the Imperial gallons into US gallons.

mebman

If you really want a CVT they sell them just across the border in Mexico mated to the same 109 hp 1.5ltr engine, But with better gas mileage.
http://www.hondafit.com.mx/content.html
http://www.honda.com.mx/honda2006/index.html
It does look like they left out some of the things we will get however. My Spanish is marginal so it's difficult to tell for sure beyond the side & side-curtain airbags. I wonder if it would be easier to import one now when the Fit is also sold in they US. It’s a short trip from Texas.

One thing I did notice however, the interior length of the rest of the worlds old fit is 240cm with the seats in long mode. 240cm = 7.87 feet. Honda says "Nine-foot surfboards love Long Mode"
(http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/index.aspx# ) That's more than a foot longer than the old fit. I didn’t realize that they had stretched it that much.

plekto

The U.S. version is counting the space gained by folding the passenger seat into "refresh mode".

Also, the 50mpg highway is closer to reality in the U.K., compared to artificial U.S. MPG testing. In any case, 38mpg is just too low for a car that's so much lighter than the Civic.

As for the weight - in 1992-1996(?) they did sell a couple of versions of the VX and HX. They were safe, passed the proper tests, and weighed about 2300lbs. If you drove them hard like most Americans did, you got bad mileage. If you drove them carefully and properly, they gave a consistent 45mpg or so combined. Out of a bigger, older, and more powerful engine than is in the current 1.3L Fit sold in Japan. Fourteen years ago they made a better MPG car.

So what gives? Such a geat car and yet such a dreadful from the looks of it, gearing/transmission combination.

hungarian83

There are two major problems with trying to import a Mexican-market Fit into the US.

1. Emissions. The Mexican Fit is built in Brazil, and the Brazil plant sells the Fit in Central and South America only. I would highly doubt any of the countries in that market have emissions laws as strict as the US.

2. Safety. No side-curtain airbags at all, and I believe ABS and side airbags are optional.

Also, minor things like far less standard features, a warranty that Honda USA won't recognize, having a choice of what appears to be 5 colors, 4 of them shades of silver. The transmission the US is getting is not as fuel-efficient as the CVT, but the 5-speed AT is probably a great transmission. You are probably also going to end up paying just as much on the Mexican Fit for far fewer features, and it will be a hassle to own.

They didn't stretch the Fit. It's the exact same car as the one sold in the rest of the world. That being said, it is 7 inches longer, but that is because of the slightly longer nose and the somewhat larger rear bumpers. The car itself is the exact same.

About the 9 foot surfboard. The 240cm = 7.87 feet given on the Japanese site is from the hatch to the dashboard. Conceivably, the surfboard could be rested upon the dashboard, which would give it the other 1 foot of space it needs. However, the car was not stretched at all.

mebman

Possibly, but the Mexican fit shows less cargo space on the stats, and the photo show a bicycle that has the front wheel removed to fit inside, while the US photo shows a similar bike with the front wheel still on. Having said all that you are probably right about the hassle factor of importing a Mexican fit.
BTW I have a 9'3" kayak that I was hoping to squeeze into the car with the hatch closed. That is if I can manage to betray my minimum 40 mpg conscience and by this car anyway! :confuse:

plekto

The "refresh" seats are different - note how the Mexico model seats fold back and on top of the rear ones. Now look at the Japan model - they fold flater. My guess is that those seats are a couple of inches lower and that allows the surfboard to fit under the dash by an inch or two.

agalas

@007 Hyndai Accent Hybrid is expected to get combined 44.5 mpg, compared to 35.5 mpg for the Fit.

However, the Fit, at $13,000 + $550 destination 1.07(sales tax) = $14,500, now subtract $500 from haggling and add $150 or so for liscence and registration and you could drive out the door in a super reliable, good looking, utilitarian car, loaded with saftey features and pocessing AC and a decent sound system, for a mear $14,150.

Compare that to the exorbitant price of the Yaris, which charges for AC, SAB, SCAB and power features, and you see that the Fit beats the Yaris hands down. Its interior also looks better, in my opinion, but the Yaris will get 2 mpg better. Based on the price, I deem Fit the winner over Yaris.

Now the Hyndai. 9 mpg difference is huge, but Honda Civic Reliability according to CR is 45% above average while Hyndai Accent is 5% above average.

Assuming the Fit is as reliable as the Civic, the Fit has an edge in quality. Also consider the Accent Hybrid will cost some $15,000 base price, which means, (assuming no other options needed) that means a Accent Hybrid will drive out the door for $16,800, (assume no discounts because of popularity). So the price difference of $2500 for 9 mpg, and lower reliability and overall quality,(the fit interior looks much nicer than the 2006 accent, in my opinion). Overall, I think 35 mpg is acceptable as long as gas dosn't go over $3.5/gallon, so my nod is to the Honda.

I can attest to the fact that reliability is king. My Wife has a 1996 Pontiac Transport with 90,000 miles that has broken down 9 times, I drive a 1994 Corolla with 140,000 miles that has been in the shop 3 times, and still feels rock solid.

When I buy a car, I always choose the most reliable and drive it into the ground. I expect the new fit can go 300,000 miles total, or at least 20 years. Anything less would be disapointing.

Now the Versa, and its 38 mpg combined claim. Impressive if true, considering higher weight and a larger engine.

However, considering the crappiness of Nissan cars lately, and the terrible styling,(the current Versa styling is based on an old Peugot that makes the Versa styling old even when its new), mean I will probably stay away.

If MPG is what you crave above all else, I think you should be able to get the Hyndai Accent Hybrid for the same price, and the Accent is more reliable than the Sentra according to CR, and has a better warrenty regardless.

So in the end I feel that the Fit stacks up as such:

Pros:

5 door wagons: wagons are by defenition always bettern than sedans, which are always better than coupes, in terms of comfort and practicality and typically, styling. Also consider the 5 modes availabe for interior configuration. My personal favorite is refresh mode, reclining the front seats all the way back and creating a decent sized bed for sleeping nights away on road trips. Save on motels, and believe me, as a man who has slept on bathroom floors and on airport floors, flat car seats are a luxury.

High quality interior: The interior looks better than my 1994 Corolla, and the 2006 Hyndai Accent, and its radio is superb. The Steering wheel is a thing of beauty and the Dash illimination is superb, with its blue over tones.

Comfortable: Should have good leg and head room, being tall and having 90 cubic feet of space.

Safe: 6 airbags, ABS, enough said, most Echos and Corollas can't be found with these necessities,(and necessities they are, without at least 6 airbags you are playing Russian Rulette, get hit and your dead as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow).

Well equipped: AC, Power everything, standard and a decent sound system and some short of magical seat. Compare it to Toyota and Honda treats you like royalty. A base Fit is all you need.

Cons: Fuel economy may not last 20 years. By 2010 fuel will probably reach $4/gallon and any car with less than 40 mpg will need to be recycled.

In these terms the Fit's MPG is an abomination and the engineers deserve to be executed for crimes against humanity. But then again, my current car gets 31 mpg combined so I guess its not that bad.

Conclusion: For the money the Fit is the best there is. I will buy one unless something better comes around by the time my 94 Corolla dies, around 2010, 2011.

I do expect the 2012 model year cars to offer dazzling tech and better mileage, considering the price of oil is sure to be $110 by then.

Any thoughts?

mtnguy1

What first attracted me to the Fit were mpg figures in some mag. that were in excess of 50 mpg. I have been following this forum for a while but this is my first post. Before I bought my Acura TSX 2 years ago I followed a TSX forum for almost a year.(I get 32-34 mpg on trips with this car and it is by far the best car I have owned though in a different class). I find these forums very informative and appreciate all the info everyone has passed along. I commute 150 miles per day and was looking to replace my Dodge Neon commuter.

I get about 36-37 mpg with the Dodge and it still has some life in it so I will hold off on replacing it in hopes something better comes along in the next 2 years. I watched the info coming across on the Detroit Auto Show and I am very upset about the Fit MPG. If I was going to buy right now I would get a Civic but that's just me.(More bang for the buck) I think Honda missed out on a great opportunity with the Fit. Good luck all with whatever you decide to drive!

coldstorage5

Fuel in NYC Metro is back to over $2.55 a Gallon.

backy

A couple of things:

* CR's reliability data on the Accent and Civic are based on previous-generation models. Since that Accent was designed in the late '90s, before Hyundai's quality push, it is possible (I think likely) that the new Accent will be more reliable than the old one. OTOH, the '06 Accent is a new design (as is the '06 Civic of course) while the Fit has been around a few years. So just based on that, the Fit could wind up being more reliable than both of them.

* Where did you see an announced price of $15k on the Accent hybrid? It could actually be more than that, since the base Accent starts at $13k with no A/C, no power package, no automatic.

Personally I like the looks of the Accent's interior much better than the Fit's, but the Fit's is much more versatile.

* The Versa is based on a Renault design, not Peugeot. I don't think it's bad looking at all, especially the 5-door, and it does seem to have an advantage in interior room and also fuel economy. The Fit will be less expensive with comparabel equipment, but I think the Versa is worth looking at. It has received a lot of praise in Europe.

raychuang00

Keep in mind that the 1992 Civic did not have to meet the IIHS crash tests. The Fit does, and is much heavier than that old Civic. Civics of the mid-'80s weighed under 2000 pounds. They too could get better fuel economy than the Fit. But I'd rather have the Fit in a crash.

Because of the IIHS and EuroNCAP third party crash test certification, that does explain why the US-market Honda Fit Sport weighs 2,550 pounds. But that's still nearly 500 pounds lighter than the Honda Civic sedans.

A couple of comments about fuel mileage:

1. The 2006 Civic does well for two reasons: 1) lower overall aerodynamic drag (note the very smooth overall body design and small frontal area) and 2) it uses the R18 SOHC i-VTEC engine, a far more modern engine than the L15A VTEC used on the Fit.

2. People forget that great fuel mileage reported from European Jazz models are based on the smaller L12A and L13A i-DSI engines sold there. While quite fuel-efficient, the i-DSI engines would have not been acceptable here due to the low performance of these engines (Honda UK quotes a 0-60 time of around 12 seconds for the Jazz powered by the L13A). Also, because the MPG numbers from the UK are based on the British Imperial gallon (about 20% bigger than the US gallon), that also inflates the mpg figure 20%.

I'd still take the Fit over the Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio and Toyota Yaris. The Fit has it all over these three competitors when it comes to interior fit (pun intended!) and finish, and because the Fit uses the excellent 5AT design from the 2006 Civic, acceleration performance will definitely be better than the Accent, Rio and Yaris with their 4AT units!

When the Fit finally gets its full-model change (probably in 2007 calendar year), I expect the car to weigh around 2,400 pounds (since the car will be designed from the ground up to accommodate all the safety hardware so Honda will have a better idea of where to do weight saving) and will likely use a new 1.5-1.6 liter I-4 based on the R-series engine block with its SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain. And unlike the current Fit, Honda will probably incorporate a much-improved Multimatic CVT that can be sold worldwide; I expect the next-generation Fit to get 36 mpg city, 42 mpg highway using 2006 EPA testing criteria.

nippononly

not being mentioned is that you have to compare apples to apples. The Yaris may be whatever it is (A/C, BTW, is standard on the Yaris, contrary to what was reported above), but it is still only a 3-door or a sedan.

The Fit is a five-door. As I see it, the only real competition is the Rio5 and the Aveo 5-door. I have taken a look at both of those models, and I would take the Fit over either without another thought - I am sure it will be a much better driver, and about the same price at equal equipment levels.

But I am reminded that the only non-hybrid, non-diesel car on this year's list of top ten in fuel economy was the Toyota Corolla, and it appears that for 2006 this standing will remain unchallenged, despite the existence of a number of cars in the market with less weight and less power. :confuse:

plekto

If it's just a matter of gearing and engine tweaking, perhaps a chip mod to tune the engine for efficiency rather than speed would solve enough of the problem to puch it to 40-42mpg highway. Honda did this for a couple of years with the Civic, afterall. They had a couple of models that they de-tuned by 5-10hp and gained a decent amount of mileage as a result.

vcarreras

I'm wondering if Honda has quoted the mpg numbers as real world mpg. There has been a backlash on the hybrids by people saying they are not getting 50-60mpg instead getting 45mpg as what I have heard for the Prius. Do the auto companies give their estimates to the EPA or does the EPA do their own??

gwido

... but I think the Versa is worth looking at. It has received a lot of praise in Europe.

I didn't know the Nissan Versa/Tiida was sold in Europe... Are you sure about that? I could not see any mention of it on Nissan UK and France websites. I am interested by the specs of an Euro-market Versa.

719b

unless i'm mistaken, the mpg numbers are from honda and not from government testing.
if i'm correct, there's a lot of moaning and groaning without having all the facts. for months there's been nothing but speculation and guessing on this board... and it still continues.
wouldn't you all feel foolish if honda under estimated their mpg figures like they've done in the past?
hard to criticize a car before anyone has driven it. wait till the government mpg numbers come out or until this spring when you can get REAL input from REAL drivers

hungarian83

No, this car is EXACTLY the same structurally as any other Fit or Jazz. Nothing has been stretched, or lowered, or raised, or anything.
The only differences are the somewhat longer nose thanks to the larger front bumper, and a somewhat larger rear bumper. The US also gets its own plastic wheel covers for the normal version. In the interior, the US gets a blue-backlit instrument panel, although it is exactly the same otherwise (except for mph, not km/h). The interior of the US version also is missing the tray underneath the dashboard and the dual-level glove compartment for safety reasons. Oh, and the US also gets side curtains. That's it. Everything else is the same.

Mexico doesn't get "refresh" mode. In fact, only Japan got "refresh" mode before yesterday. The seats folding back and on top of the rear ones is the "long" mode. Refresh mode is where the front seats move all the way forward, the headrest is removed , and the seat back goes down to form kind of like a lounge-bed. Of course, with refresh mode you can't store long things like surfboards, so "long" mode puts the rear seats down, and then puts the front seats back on top of them.

giantkiller

The Versa is the new Renault Clio; 2006 European Car of the Year.

plekto

If those are Honda's figures, then that's very different. In Japan, they rate the cars based upon an average fuel consumption in a real-world test session(s). IIRC, they do something simmilar in Europe as well, while here in the U.S. - the EPA figures are something like 25mph for city and 45mph for highway, which is where the concern comes in. The Prius' cutoff for the engine is just over 25mph, so the city portion is pure electric and idling other than the startup. Toyota of course engineered the computers in the U.S. version to behave like this to ace the EPA test, which is why in normal driving, you get closer to Corolla economy in everything other than a traffic jam. This is why 40-45mpg is about as good as the car gets, which is still quite decent, considering.

If the Fit got an EPA rating of 31/38 that would translate to about 30-32 mpg average in real driving, due to the inflated EPA figures. Real world 35mpg, OTOH, wouldn't be too bad. Still, 40mpg average would be preferable, which is why I want one with the smaller engine in it.

Comments:
- Yay on the refresh mode!
- Boo on the tray removal. Though, I know where i can get one quite easily and install it myself(same with the glove compartment divider).
- Boo on the plastic wheel covers/steel wheels on the base model. Steel wheels add a LOT of deadweight to such a small car - easily 50 lbs+ unsprung weight.
- Boo on the automatic instead of the stepped CVT, like the Mini has. The paddle shifters and stepped CVT work extremely well together - just drive a Mini with automatic - it's virtually a clone of the automatic experience in a Japanese Fit.
- Yay on offering the sport model, which is a Base Mini competitor. Talking to friends in Japan, the Sport version is the "real car". Goes from okay handling to decent - drives much better.(also where i got their impressions on the automatic)