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
Even though my car is a CX, it no longer has the 70 horsepower CX engine in it. I replaced the stock engine at 245,000 miles with a used engine from Japan (suspect it's engine from the DX, 102 horsepower, 98 ft-lbs) and that is the engine that is currently averaging 52 MPG, combined with a 10 second 0 to 60 MPH time.
There are a number of advantages to lightweight 2000 lb cars. They are much faster accelerating, more nimble through curves and lane changes, have shorter braking distances, go over bumps without bottoming out as easily, and are easier to control in skids than an equivalent heavier vehicle.
It may be based on early information because the author wasn't sure if the car was to be called the Fit or the Jazz.
If you want further info on the guide, you can go to www.lemonaidcars.com.
I find it a seductive idea because I think the preference will be to offer an expensive, technically complex hybrid, not a less powerful car with a smaller, conventional engine. It's just not the American Way!
A 2000 lb car would be great on track day, but for everyday commuting, a little extra structure and an airbag or two couldn't hurt. I've never been in an accident, but I'm still paranoid about it
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
$16,800 for a Corolla? You mean the ~ $15K you can pick up the Corolla LE for, not MSRP. Not many pay MSRP except for those that have to have money down on one before release or it’s in such high demand you won’t be able to touch one? In either case, the 06 Civic LX w/ a stick can be picked up for ~ $15,700 w/ the Corolla LE’s another ~ $5 - $600 under that. Do you think the 06 Civic LX and Corolla LE are not better equipped then the ~ $13,500 - Base Fit? Not only does the Fit have a lower EPA rating, someone over at ToV did the calcs that this thing would be running at ~ 2,900 RPM at 65 mph or thereabouts. This would not be a comfortable 55 + mph car in the least let alone the performance issue vs. the Civic and Corolla. About fitting 5 Remember the Fit’s interior volume comes about because of its height, not its width. I wouldn’t want to drive the Corolla or Civic with 5. The Fit is going to be even tighter by the looks
Good Luck
Wayne R. Gerdes
But that's hardly fair. You have a franken-Civic that gets an amazing MPG. For the rest of us, though, we're dealing with 15-25mpg in most of our cars and we've had it. Many people, like me remember the days of the old Honda CVCC Wagon fondly and want a modern version of it.
As for the Corolla, $15,600 plus delivery and even one option "pack", like power windows or side airbags to brgin it up the Fit's level of amenities - or upgrading to an LE - it's $16K. $14K for the Fit or $16K for the Corolla. That's enough of a difference right there. Why pay 2K more for a car that carries the same number of people and cargo? That buys a lot of gas at only a couple of MPG difference.
Let's say the Corolla has a 2K price difference and gets an average 5mpg more. Let's also say that gas is $3 a gallon. That's 1.125 more gallons every 40 miles, or 37.5 cents every 40 miles. That's 5333 gallons to make up the difference in price. *40mpg=a bit over 200,000 miles to make up that $2000 dollar difference. That's not even counting the extra tax, fees, and interest on the more expensive Corolla. That's another $750-$1000 over the life ot fhe car right there.
Do the math. The Fit wins over a Corolla, hands-down, because it gets out the door comparably equipped for so much less money.
This is why the Prius also is such a bad deal - it's so expensive that you never actually get ahead economically. Not even close, in fact.
Here you go
Corolla vs. Civic vs. Fit
Headroom: 39.3/37.1 - 39.4/37.4 - 40.6/38.6
Leg Room: 41.3/35.4 - 42.2/34.6 - 41.9/33.7
Shoulder Room: 53.1/53.5 - 53.7/52.4 - 52.8/50.6
Hip Room: 51.9/46.2 - 51.0/51.0 - 51.2/51.0
Cargo Volume: 13.5 - 12.0 - TBD
Passenger Volume: 90.5 - 90.0 - 90.1
Very comparable actually.
Good Luck
Wayne R. Gerdes
Fit: 40.6 / 38.6
Civic: 39.4 / 37.4
Legroom (front/rear)
Fit: 41.9 / 33.7
Civic: 42.2 / 34.6
Shoulder room (front/rear)
Fit: 52.8 / 50.6
Civic: 53.7 / 52.4
Hiproom (front/rear)
Fit: 51.2 / 51.0
Civic: 51.9 / 51.0
Passenger volume
Fit: 90.1 cu. ft.
Civic: 90.9 cu. ft.
The differences are not that amazing considering the immense difference in exterior size. The only "big" difference is the rear shoulder room with 1.8 inch advantage for the Civic, but then again the hiproom is identical. To be honest, I wouldn't mind sitting with 5 people in a Fit anymore than in a Civic.
The bottom line is that a 4-door sedan doesn't fit
I don't expect to fit 5 people of any size into a Fit, and I wouldn't want to stuff 3 people I like into the rear seat of a Civic or Corolla either.
Open up your favorite large city Sunday paper to see what Corolla LE’s are actually being advertised at. $16K is with an Automatic, not a stick. Not only will it receive better FE with the stick vs. the Fit, it is also more powerful. If the Fit can be found for $1,500 under MSRP after a few months, I would be very surprised as there may not be the same markup that there is with the Civic/Corolla contingent. Larger size, better performance, better FE, and more amenities make the LE/LX far better automobiles then the Base Fit although that is just one mans opinion
Good Luck
Wayne R. Gerdes
I own a Japanese built 1990 Acura Integra. I bought it brand new when I was 18 years old. Has 235 000 kms on it now, everything original including engine love it good on gas runs awesome.
Last month bought a brand new 2006 Mazda 5 built in Hiroshima Japan. Can't believe the quality of the fit and finish inside and out. Looks and feels like a car that could of cost atleast $10K more.
If the right vehicle comes along a few years down the road would consider replacing my beloved Integra. Would like to replace a Honda with a Honda. I like what I've read and seen about the Fit. But not 100% sold on the vehicle would have to test drive one to see how peppy the motor is and worried that it might be a little small but have to get into one before I pass judgement.
I'm going to Japan next month and I'll be there for 3weeks, needless to say I'm going to have a field day checking out all those cars that we all wish we could buy here. :P
Are you interested in replacing your Hyundai for the Fit and/or has parking been a problem?
I am stating the obvious. Larger size, higher FE, more amenities (Cruise and exterior temp to name just 2), and similar costs. A B-Class sized sub running almost 3K RPM at highway speeds would be enough to make someone think they had better not drive one out on the highway? The 6 - 10” shorter wheelbase by comparison to the other 2 is going to be that much more unpleasant as well? I can’t wait to drive one but just looking at its specs has me scratching my head given the Corolla/Civic have so much more to offer and for similar prices. That is real world vs. the Fit’s almost guaranteed MSRP for the first 2 - 3 months and who knows how much markup Honda has allowed the dealerships to play with on this entry level automobile?
Good Luck
Wayne R. Gerdes
We've already been over larger size, and I think most people who are looking for a Fit don't want a larger car. McDonald's offers the regular sized french fries when you purchase a meal. They also have Super Size. Super Size is technically a better value, but I don't want it because I don't need more food than I need to fill me up. Do we need to wonder why the US has the highest average BMI of any industrialized nation? Same principle applies to the Civic. It is BIGGER. Does that make it BETTER?
I know that if I get a Civic, I don't think anybody would care that it cost $x.xx / pound vs. the Fit. However, people would probably be pretty impressed by the interior versatility of the Fit.
Seeing the amazing similarities between the Civic/Corolla and Fit in interior room makes me wonder why I would need all of that extra exterior space. The mere fact that the Fit is able to have such a small exterior size makes me think that maybe it is designed with more thought. Of course, it was originally designed for the Japanese and European markets which makes it appeal to me even more since they really tried to maximize the interior and minimize the exterior without compromising quality, safety, or reliability.
$13k will give me a Fit 5-speed manual with A/C, CD player, power windows/mirrors/locks, ABS, 8 airbags, and 33/38 fuel economy.
Is 33/38 the most efficient? NO
Is 33/38 efficient? YES
It would make the Top 10 easily:
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/list/top10/108467/article.html?tid=edmunds.h..res- earch.topten.3.*
It's also built in Japan. I will gladly take a Japanese built car over a Mexican or US or Brazilian or whatever (!) built car any day. My 18 year old Japanese built Accord lasted 260k miles before I got rid of it. The engine was still flawless, and I mean flawless. Had it been a manual transmission, I still would be driving it.
In terms of build quality and attention to detail, I believe this is unquestionably an Asian mentality trait and characteristic. I've owned Honda's, Toyota's, and now a Hyundai. This 2006 Hyundai's build quality and attention to detail is every bit as good as any Honda or Toyota I've owned, and I say that with all seriousness with over 40 years of buying new cars. Peek, and poke, and scrutinize every nook and cranny of the car, and I defy you to differentiate it from a Honda or Toyota. Will it last 200K+ as my Japanese cars? That remains to be seen, but from my initial experience with the car, I would say yes.
Bring on the Fit, I will be one of the first in line to buy one.
Parking is not a problem for me, but I live in suburbia. When I said that some people would appreciate having a smaller car to fit into tight parking spaces, I wasn't talking about me--but people who live in places like NYC, in-town Chicago, and San Francisco.
If you think a price difference of $3000-3500 is "similar", well, that is up to you. I think it is a big difference. Civics were very hot when they were first introduced, now a few months later you have noted how they are available for less than invoice, even though they should be extremely popular with gas prices so high. So perhaps we'll see less-than-invoice pricing on the Fit also. Although personally I think we will see the prices of small, fuel-efficient cars like the Fit, Civic, and Corolla trending up in the near future if gas prices jump as many predict.
Cruise control is available on the Fit. Not a biggie though if the car will be used mostly in-town, for which I think that car is exceptionally well-suited. As for exterior temperature, that is available on the Fit also: open window, stick hand out of car, raise window.
The Prius is bigger (more interior room), has higher FE, and many more amenities than the Civic or Corolla, yet I don't see you running out and buying one of those. That tells me you do understand that being bigger, having higher FE, and more amenities isn't everything. But you forgot the huge "extra amenity" that the Fit has that no Civic or Corolla has: amazing cargo flexibility. Why is it so hard to understand that not everyone wants a 4-door sedan, especially one as boring as the Corolla?
Amen! :-)
The magic seat the Fit will have will be its trump card, and the reason I think it will outsell the other new entrants in this class of cars.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Honda Fit 5-speed - EPA 33/38
If you are concerned about FE, the Fit is not the right choice imho.
After observing Toyota for last few years, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on EPA ratings. And in case of Fit, the ratings may be more realistic (and potentially easily beatable) more than it could be in Civic or Corolla.
Not a whole lot of difference between Fit and Corolla. Assuming you traveled 250 000 miles at 15k miles per year, that would amount to $23.61 per year difference in fuel at $2.50/gallon and $33.05 per year at $3.50/gallon between the Fit and Corolla.
In real life driving I can almost guarantee that the realistic fuel economy driving will be identical for the Fit and Corolla and a bit higher than the Civic.
Swift comes to US
It is nice to see this category get bigger in the US. The new Swift is regarded pretty highly in Europe; even Tiff on Fifth Gear thought it was a surprisingly good drive.
25 NX 450h+ / 24 Sienna Plat AWD / 23 Civic Type-R / 21 Boxster GTS 4.0
It is not that the fit does poorly, but something as simple as adding a 6th gear to the MT version (or gearing taller) would probably add 3-4 mpg on the highway.
Also some of us that are comparing the Corolla et all, are not saying the Corolla is better, just that Honda should be able to (and can if they really want) easily exceed the economy of a larger car with a larger more powerfull engine.
I think Nissan hit the Fuel economy nail on the head with the Versa - a nice 6 speed manual with a tall cruising gear. Too bad reliability may be questionable and it is a little ugly.
With gas heading towards $3 per gallon, Honda should be able to coax more mpg out of the Fit.
To be honest I might get an Accord over the Fit as the improvement in mpg is barely 10%, and the Accord has much more room.
With the Fit I don't think I could convince the whole family to take it on any trips of note instead of the minivan. While an Accord would use more gas than the fit I would be able to sometimes take it instead of the minivan and save gas that way.
I am in no hurry, so we will see how it plays out. Maybe a 6 speed will be offered next year, maybe the Yaris will be a nice little car, maybe the new Elantra will offer better mpg.
Nice to have options.
BTW if Honda brought over a diesel Accord wagon I would be sold in a hearbeat. Same goes for a Corolla wagon (more room than a Matrix and more eficient).
Plus, you can do it with one side only, making it good for people with only one child in a pinch. The Versa, for instance, well, good luck.
Now, I've not seen the Swift, but it seems to have a problem - we don't want small - we want small AND quality. Another tin-can like the Yaris isn't going to sell and they'll be scratching their heads as Fits and Coopers roll off the lot as fast as they get them. Not a hard idea to wrap your head aruond, actually - take an Accord or Lexus ES or even a Towncar and make it half the size. Same features - just smaller.
For me, though, MPG is moot. My old Mercedes gets about 10-15mpg, so any improvement for my daily commute will be a god-send. Save the fancy car for the weekends and trips.
In my opinion it is truly well built, and not just because all units for the European market are made in Hungary
US models would be made in Japan (if it actually happens).
However, the car is very small in the inside and can only fit a fraction of what the Fit/Jazz can hold. In fact, there was a comparison done (during the summer 2005) by a Hungarian TV show called Totalcar. They compared 5 cars in this category and found the Jazz and the Swift to represent the two ends of versatility. The Jazz could hold everything (including some rather large, akward items: huge beach ball, office chair, mountain bicycle) and it still had room to swallow more. Meanwhile, the Swift was stuffed beyond shutting the hatch and it only fit half of the items of the Jazz...and no bicycle.
The Swift would have to offer something special to compete against the Fit. When it comes to the whole package, the Fit/Jazz really is the class leader.
If you think a price difference of $3000-3500 is "similar", well, that is up to you. I think it is a big difference. Civics were very hot when they were first introduced, now a few months later you have noted how they are available for less than invoice, even though they should be extremely popular with gas prices so high. So perhaps we'll see less-than-invoice pricing on the Fit also. Although personally I think we will see the prices of small, fuel-efficient cars like the Fit, Civic, and Corolla trending up in the near future if gas prices jump as many predict.
The 06 Civic LX’s as well as Corolla LE’s are already in the 15’s and the Base Fit does not compare to the LX or LE. The Corolla CE can be had for $2,000 LESS then the cheapest Base-Fit according to the Edmunds - Toyota Corolla - Prices Paid and Buying Experience forum. The CE is a stripper no doubt but in a similar way the Base Fit is packaged when compared to the LX/LE.
The Prius is bigger (more interior room), has higher FE, and many more amenities than the Civic or Corolla, yet I don't see you running out and buying one of those. That tells me you do understand that being bigger, having higher FE, and more amenities isn't everything. But you forgot the huge "extra amenity" that the Fit has that no Civic or Corolla has: amazing cargo flexibility. Why is it so hard to understand that not everyone wants a 4-door sedan, especially one as boring as the Corolla?
I am not interested in purchasing any of those cars as I already have an Accord that does quite well in the FE department, semi-lux amenities, higher safety, better handling, etc. etc. etc. thank you. What I do see is the third and fourth best selling automobiles in the United States vs. a B-Class 5 year old design that isn’t worthy of a similar $ amount given the FE, performance, size, and amenities of the FAR MORE popular alternatives. As for who wants a sedan, I don’t know who that would be but the following link might help even if it is a bit OT?
http://www.aicautosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsedan.asp
MY 2005 Total Sales
Camry: 431,703
Accord: 369,293
Corolla: 341,290
Civic: 308,415
After observing Toyota for last few years, I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on EPA ratings. And in case of Fit, the ratings may be more realistic (and potentially easily beatable) more than it could be in Civic or Corolla.
RobertsMX, having driven a Toyota Prius to double its EPA city and owning an 03 Corolla that killed the EPA’s City/Highway, I would beg to differ although the Accord has matched the best the Corolla could offer when using all the latest techniques. The Corolla never got the chance to see them is all
http://www.drivingtelevision.com/segmentviewer.php?episode=312
You mention that the Fit would run about 2,900 rpms at 65mph. Keep in mind, the Civic runs 2,600 rpm at 60 mph. My 4-speed auto 96 Accord runs 2,900 rpm at 72mph, not much better. It has plenty of pickup without downshifting, though. 2,900 rpm at 65mph isn't THAT bad.
TheGraduate, you really should test drive the latest Gen Accord’s w/ Auto or Stick, Civic’s w/ Auto, and Corolla’s w/ Auto or Stick. None push anywhere near those RPM’s at highway speeds and thus the higher FE along with being more powerful. Taking a Honda Fit for along distance highway commute at that high a rev sounds painful to me
Good Luck
Wayne R. Gerdes
Why not?
Did you see the video I linked in regards to real world FE of Toyota’s and Honda’s? All I can say is I am at an extreme disadvantage in the 05 Accord EX-L w/ NAVI but still manage to do OK
Why not?
www.toyota.com --> 06 Corolla LE
www.honda.com --> 06 Civic LX
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=473241
Good Luck
Wayne R. Gerdes
Also, I see no point in comparing a stripper Corolla that does not have anywhere near the equipment of a base Fit, including ABS, side bags/curtains, and all the power accessories, to the Fit, price-wise.
We get it: you don't like the Fit. Glad you enjoy your Accord.
No one is doubting the fact that sedans are the most popular cars in the United States. What we are trying to say is that not everyone wants a sedan. Most people do, but most is not the same as everyone. It seems kind of silly to try and bash the Fit against the Corolla or Civic (which incidentally moved upmarket to allow for the Fit) when they are serving different purposes. I see you really don't like the Fit, and while criticism is a good thing, all I'm seeing here is a continuing argument that really is going nowhere.
Also, could you please list the ways "Base Fit does not compare to the LX" ?
Let's use a Fit 5MT vs. a Civic LX 5MT sedan for this comparison.
Thanks!
I find it hard to get past the boring look and feel of the Corolla and the lousy driving position. That is only the first problem. Here in the Southeast I attempted to find a Corolla LE manual transmission with ABS and Airbag Package. The number of LEs in the whole Southeast region with manual transmission and airbag package: 0. The number of LEs with ABS in the Southeast region: 0.
I am looking at the Fit Sport with manual transmission. It will have the airbags and ABS standard. I want the MP3 capability and the auxillary jack; Corolla does not have either. I want the hatchback and seat versatility. Corolla has neither. Hatchback versatility and cargo volume on the Fit with seats up: 21.3 cubic feet; Toyota: 13.2. The Fit Sport also includes alloy wheels and fog lights.
Wayne, if highway fuel economy is all that matters to someone, then the Corolla is better. In about every other category including city mpg, standard features, versatility, the FIT is better.
Are you disappointed in the FIT's highway mileage? Join the club, but the car has many other attributes that leaves the Corolla looking like the old design. Do you detest the Yaris too because of its lower than Corolla highway mileage?
****
One thing to note is the engine displacement. 1.8L versus 1.5L is a 20% difference, so at any simmilar RPM, the Civic is using more gas per revolution. 3000rpm in a 1.5L engine is comparable to 2400 in a 1.8L. The Civic is more efficient, though, so it appears to be a pretty close competition - mostly due to aerodynamics, which the 2006 Civic clearly wins at.(older Civics OTOH, are a whole other story)
I have driven a 2006 Accord EX Auto. It's my own car. At 60 mph it pulls exactly 2,000 rpms. The Civic is at 2,600 rpms, and the Fit around 2,750. My 1996 Accord runs about 2,400 rpms, and I wouldn't want it to run any less. With gearing like it is, the car does not have to downshift in order to accelerate. It also isn't terribly loud, although my 2006 is quieter (mainly due to more sound deadening). At 75 mph it runs 3,000 rpms. My 2006 runs at 2,500 rpms. Not painful in either one, and the 1996 is just as punchy in top gear with the shorter gearing, despite the 40 horsepower difference in the two cars.
I'd test drive the Fit and check out the sound-insulating abilities before completely writing it off, if I were you.
Good luck, and happy motoring! I'm off to NBC 13 (nbc13.com) studios for my mass communication class, so I'm out for the evening.
And if you were, where did you get real life data on Fit to compare?
So - everyone believes that ABS is the way to go? :confuse:
The Fit is a subcompact economy car that doesnt have any where near enough power to make use of that much rubber. In my opinion you'd just be wasting your money.
The 14" and 15" rims that come with the respective models are more then adequate for this type of vehicle.
If you don't like the look of the stock rims you can certainly change them to some other flashier ones but it's not neccesary to upgrade tires and rims to that size.
I agree.
16 or 17 is overdoing it. Anyway, the Fit/Jazz already handles quite well with the stock wheel sizes in both aggressive driving situations and emergency maneauvers.
jetphil,
May I ask which engine is in your Fit/Jazz?
In response to an earlier post regarding Canadian Fits with ABS, I think even the DX model will have it. The "Safety for Everyone" is for both Canada and the US. Anyway, it says on Honda Canada's site for the Fit, "In addition to Anti-Lock Braking System (ABS) and front and side airbags, every Honda Fit comes equipped with side curtain airbags."
All US and Canadian Fits (DX, Base/LX, Sport) should get the same standard safety features.
A whole day with no new posts was just too much.
A note to Edmunds... PLEASE give a little more notice, next time you plan on taking down the boards for a full day!?!
But then, the cars with those wheels are usually slammed to the ground, and booming and thumping with extremely loud stereo systems, as well.
Buy stock in hearing aid companies, while the prices are still cheap!
My wife jokes that the young guys these days must believe everyone else links the size of their wheels to the size of their ... um ...
tires- thus the overcompensation.Couple of problems there. One, larger wheels are likely to add to the unsprung weight (and overall weight of the car), besides the tires are going to be more expensive too.
Personally, I would be very happy with 15-inchers.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Strictly speaking, anything larger than about 14 inches on a car this small starts to affect handling and fuel economy. It also can't possibly utilize larger tires to their potential in turns and traffic, either - it's just wasted. People all the time tell me to put wider tires on my old Mercedes. Um... I've gone this route. What I get is better straight-line high speed handling, but I usually end up with worn out bushings and lots more actual steering problems(oversteer is more common). The stock tires are thin and a bit loose above 80mph or so, but the car turns on a dime in city traffic. Oh - I'm running 185/13s on it and it weighs 3000lbs. *slightly* more than the Fit.
Now, you're going to probably yell something about how can larger tires make for worse handling?
The couple of feet you loose on the turning radius should be your first big clue. You actually want tires on your car to be as small and narrow as possible while providing proper traction - that is, unless you race it. For most smaller cars that only have about 100HP, that's usually something in the 13-14 inch, 175-185 range. Modern tires are worlds better than what we had even twenty years ago as well.
The second clue is the weight. If the car is too light and the tires have too much resistance and traction, the car actually starts to fight itself in turns, much like the effect you get in a large truck or bus. You can carve single turns better and brake a bit better, but the car has worse and worse ability to slalom and to quick transitions. In short, big tires and city traffic are just not made for each other.
Thirdly, is that low-profile tires have a huge problem with city roads. They suck up potholes and vibrations and crud like nails at an alarming rate compared to higher-profile tires that would just ignore such abuse.
For a car this small, 13 inchers would be adequate. 16-17? Don't say I didn't warn you.
P.S.
The Del Sol VTEC, a comparable car in size and weight, came with 195/60VR14 tires. These were the "larger" tires. The Fit, at 60% of the HP - um - even 15s seem a bit silly in this light.
Anyone who tries to "race" an i-DSI Fit/Jazz is in for a particularly rude awakening. Now, the i-DSI is a great little car with a strong mid-range power band, and sufficient acceleration to give a fun ride, but its primary function is fuel economy, not power. As for the L15A, it is designed more for power (109 in this car is beyond adequate, especially if it is equipped with a manual) than fuel economy, but I'm not sure I would really want to race it.
...and no woknwo, the people who want the Fit as a sensible car are not necessarily senior citizens. I'm in my mid-20s and this will be my first new car. I want a safe, well-built, efficient Honda hatchback that will last me years and years, not a race car that I can show off in. Will 17" wheels add style and a "sport" to a $15 000 vehicle? Yes, I suppose. Fun and handling I'm not so sure about. Even though the Fit has a slightly larger turning circle for the US, it will still be quite agile. 17" low profile tires will erase all hopes of a car that "darts around", so to speak.