Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Honda Fit



  • 204meca204meca Posts: 370
    It was possible to get 55 mpg in the real world with the 92 VX -- I did on several occasions. I have been able to beat the EPA figures for every Civic I owned (85 wagon,88 AWD wagon, 92 VX, 92 Si, 97 HX, 97 Del Sol Si. Actually the engine that was easiest to get good mileage out of was the 125 HP Si engine -- it was very easy to get 33-35 in town & 40-45 on the highway with both Sis that I owned.

    It can be done under the right conditions if you drive as though you have an egg under your foot. I will be surprised if the the Fit can't be beat the EPAs when driven carefully. Problem is the average driver is too heavy footed & does not intentionally drive to get the best mileage.

    Sure the smaller engine would do better, but sometimes you need the extra oomph, especially if you have several passengers or a heavy load. The 1.5 is the right engine for the US. That said, I agree that it is disappointing that the Fits MPG can match the original VX.
  • mebmanmebman Posts: 100
    You are correct. I paid 26,000 dollars for a Toyota Prius for the mpg, (only to be disappointed that it doesn’t get the 60mpg they claim). I average about 48-50 combined mpg. The expensive hybrids are about the only choice for that kind of mileage. Honda really had a phenomenal chance here and blew it. This car could have been a milestone, not an auto show footnote. All they had to do was leave the CVT7 in it that they already had on the 1.5ltr sport in Australia (39/45 mpg). It has plenty of power and much better mpg's. You really didn’t have to go to the 1.3 engine to get over the 40mpg hump, just leave the stinking tranny alone! Honda intentionally sabotaged this car, knocking it down several pegs for some unknown reason. It cost them money to make this car with a different tranny than everywhere else in the world. The only thing I can conclude is that they didn’t want to steal thunder from their hybrid projects.
    So when some of you say to quit whining about the low mpg's, you do not understand that this is what is important to us. If you can’t get stellar fuel economy from Honda or Toyota (without buying an expensive hybrid) you've got no place else to go in the USA. What a rip-off that EVERYONE in America has to pay the price for the average Americans apathy about fuel efficiency.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    It boggles my mind that they apparently changed the steering so drastically. That's about 3 ft larger turning radius if that's correct, which is a HUGE negative. That's exactly the same poor handling that the Mini has(should be closer to 30ft, since a venerable and much larger Volvo 240 could turn tighter than a Mini can)

    Sigh. Why does Honda cripple the car instead of giving us the SAME DARN THING THE REST OF THE WORLD GETS? Why do we have to suffer with second-rate everything and some guy in India, South Africa, or even Iceland can get the newest versions when they come out? It just makes no sense.
  • WARNING: Stupid question about turning radius ahead...

    When they measure turning radius, do they measure simply the wheel track, or the entire length of the car? I guess what I'm saying is: Could the difference in turning radius measurement be simply because the bumpers stick out further, or did they really change something in the steering to adjust how tight a radius it can turn?
  • tomsr1tomsr1 Posts: 130
    While researching the Fit at Honda UK I saw the Accord
    Tourer. WOW,why can't we have cool cars like that here?
    Anyhow if it is any indicator then the Fit will sell
    like $1 gas because the Scion Xb is a hot item and it is ugly.A roomy econobox that goes over 30 miles on a gallon
    is needed and does not need to be ugly.The biggest problem
    is in Southern California people drive too fast and merging
    onto the freeway could be a :cry: terror rush with only 1.5 litres.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    It's a terrifying experience even with a 200hp+ car. Ther are a couple of 20-30 ft onramps in places as well, and one that has a stoplight/traffic control system with 0ft runup - it's a light, a line, and the freeway.

    Crazy out here. Lol.
  • brudusbrudus Posts: 3
    I am looking at the Fit & Versa as my potential future cars. One thing I am really impressed by in the Versa is the interior space -- both front and rear seat leg room, if one believes the specs (41.4/38.0), are spectacular. I couldn't find similar numbers for the Fit, and although I am 5'10 (178cm-ish) I am cramped in a corolla and push the seat all the way back even in Accords. I read somewhere that the Fit has poor driver leg room, can anyone confirm/deny this? I understand the fit will be 10in shorter than the versa.

    What I don't get is why don't they let you move the driver seat all the way back, even if it leaves no room for the passenger behind you -- on many cars with the driver all the way back there's already no place for a passenger, just 10 inches of perfectly good space.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Pennsylvania Furnace, PAPosts: 7,770
    The Forums' members at Edmunds have been going crazy this past year waiting for more information on the 2007 Honda Fit. This sweet, little ride has quite a bit of zip!

    Edmunds Moderator

    Need some roadside assistance? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

    Share your vehicle reviews

    PF_Flyer's 2014 Versa Note Long Term Blog
    How To Start Your Own Long Term Blog

  • From the Fit Specs Chart:
    Interior Measurements (Fit | Fit Sport)
    Headroom (in., front/rear) 40.6 / 38.6 | 40.6 / 38.6
    Legroom (in., front/rear) 41.9 / 33.7 | 41.9 / 33.7
    Shoulder Room (in., front/rear) 52.8 / 50.6 | 52.8 / 50.6
    Hiproom (in., front/rear) 51.2 / 51.0 | 51.2 / 51.0
    Cargo Volume (cu. ft., seat up/down) 21.3 / TBD | 21.3 / TBD
    Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 90.1 | 90.1
    Seating Capacity 5 | 5
  • rlh2rlh2 Posts: 11
    Any plans for offering Honda's navigation system as an option on the 2007 Fit?
  • SylviaSylvia Posts: 1,636

    Photo slideshow, links to show coverage (options listed there I believe).
  • The closest direct competitors to the Fit are the Kia Rio5 and the Chevrolet Aveo 5-door hatchback. The Fit is WAY better than both the Rio5 and Aveo, mostly because of 1) better quality interior, 2) definitely a better engine and 3) definitely way better automatic transmission.

    Because the Fit's 5AT is based on the same unit used on the 2006 Civic models, that means in terms of "real world" driving the Fit will likely sport better fuel efficiency than both the Rio5 and Aveo, since having that fifth gear means smoother shifts during acceleration and more relaxed engine cruising at freeway speeds.
  • rlh2rlh2 Posts: 11
    Thanks! Didn't see a nav option after quick look. Am interested since nav appears to be an option from this photo link.

    Possibly not a planned option for US version?
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    Hehe...and by the same token:

    buyer: I'd like something with really high fuel economy please.

    salesperson: well, I have this Civic Hybrid here, will get you almost FIFTY mpg! Costs about $22,000.

    buyer: Hmmm, kind of pricey. What else do you have?

    salesperson: Wellll, I have this Fit over here, will get you about 45 mpg, costs a little over half the price.

    buyer: Aw heck, sign me UP!

    Can't impinge on those wonderful hybrids...

    For the poster above, I am pretty sure turning radius is measured at the wheels, and it is probably wider here relative to other-market Fits because Honda has put wider tires on the Fit here. I will bet, but I haven't checked.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,726
    So then, as a potential buyer, to get the better fuel economy you either have to go uglier (the new Versa, 38 combined is being reported?) or go to a sedan or drop 2 doors (Yaris).

    I still think the Fit will have the driver's edge over those models, but both of them should start lower in price than the Fit and provide better fuel economy.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • brudusbrudus Posts: 3
    I missed this info somewhere, all I could find was general length/width data... Is there a website with this (and possibly additional) info? Thanks
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,907
    I have driven the '06 Rio (Rio5 has an even nicer interior) and it has a very nice interior for a low-priced car, and that fact is mentioned in every review I have seen on the Rio/Rio5. Since the U.S. fit isn't yet available to drive (or for me even see up close) I can't compare the two yet. How did you reach the conclusion that the Fit has a better quality interior than the Rio5?

    I know one thing... based on the interior numbers just posted, the Fit may be out of the picture for me because of its limited rear leg room. I sometimes need to haul long-legged teenagers and even adults in the back seat, and 33+ inches isn't going to cut it unless there is some "magic" in how legs and knees actually fit (ha ha) into the back seat.
  • That Gathers navi unit is an dealer option in Japan (I think it's owned by Honda), though Honda does have their own hard drive navi unit available that can have a backup camera hooked up to it. I'm doubting it'll be offered as an option though.

    "Thanks! Didn't see a nav option after quick look. Am interested since nav appears to be an option from this photo link.

    Possibly not a planned option for US version?"
  • brudusbrudus Posts: 3
    Yeah, 33 is on the small side from my perspective too. The legs will fit if you chop them off and put them in the spacious trunk, and put the trunk in the body... Never mind. :)

    BTW the versa fuel numbers everyone is talking about are with CVT. With manual they'll be basically identical to the Fit numbers (based on a rough .9*38 = 34.5 calculation).
  • 1) Discovered this video of the Fit's introduction, which shows some shots of the car rotating (a good 2.5 minutes) and the remarks that were highlighted in the press release/transcript.

    Look at "Honda Fit" under that link.

    2) Random question: Does anyone know how easy it will be to get racks (e.g., Thule, Yakima) for the top of the Fit? We have a Thule rack system (the bars) for our kayaks and I know we needed to find a "foot" or some other term for the plastic/metal thing that clips onto the door, specific to our car model.
  • What are these paddle shifters??
  • I've already started looking into the roof rack situation myself, using information, based upon availability for the UK Jazz. Here's what I've found so far:

    For your HONDA Jazz (Fit) 02-04 / 05- you will need either the Thule Rapid System or the Thule Traditional System. Rapid parts and numbers are: Gutterless Foot Pack (part #750), Bars - 120cm (part #761 for square, #861 for aero), Rapid Fitting Kit (part #1312).

    I haven't checked to see if the part numbers are the same between the UK and the US, but when looking up the 5-door Fit (JPN), I come up with the same part numbers.

    This also assumes there's been no change to the roofline for the US version since the 2005 Fit was racked by Thule.

    Here's a link to the installation guide, which clearly states it's for both the Fit and the Jazz, years '02 and up.
  • Dewaltdakota - thanks much! I too wonder if the roofline changed. I imagine both Honda and Thule might be able to direct us to the right info once the car is on sale in the U.S.

    Coldstorage - Re: Paddle Shifters
    Until the Fit announcement, I had never in my life heard of "paddle shifters" either. I did a quick search and it seems they are a way to shift gears at the push-of-a-button - but in a car with an automatic transmission? That didn't make much sense to me. It also seemed like they're something for racing. Silly, if you ask me. Seems like a vanity feature for the types who'll get the sport with the spoiler and special "underbody" (?).
    Can anyone clarify what paddle shifters are and why Honda would include them?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    "What are these paddle shifters??"

    Paddle shifters work similarly to how a "SportShift" manumatic transmission would. Instead of having a seperate gate next to Drive on the transmission lever, where you would tip the lever forward to upshift and back to downshift (as seen in almost all Acuras) you would pull on the left paddle to downshift and the right one to upshift. Perhaps it would be easier to understand by looking on Acura's home website and looking at the $50,000 Acura RL sedan, that uses an Automatic, with Paddle Shifting "SportShift". The paddle shifters helped lead this Acura to be rated higher than comparable sedans from BMW, Mercedes Benz, Audi, and Jaguar (Car and Driver Comparison of $50,000 sedans; the paddle shifters were highly praised in this sporting sedan).This is handy, because unlike a manual, you can leave both hands on the wheel when you want to carve corners yet select your own gear. Most people that I know that have such a feature (the sportshift, not necessarily the paddle shifters) don't use it often, and one is my age, 19, and has a 2001 Acura 3.2 CL.
  • bamacarbamacar Posts: 749
    Sometimes numbers don't tell the whole story. The Rio5 has less legroom in the rear than I expected from its rear legroom numbers. Felt like 31-32 to me. I always just set the seat in the front as I would use it, and then get in the back to compare useable space. On the other hand, the Sonata seems to have greater space than its numbers indicate and significantly more than the Accord. The 2006 Civic sedan had better rear legroom than its numbers indicated also.

    With the Fits upright seating, I will be surprised if it does not feel roomier (rear legroom wise) than the Rio5.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    The RX-8 and IS300/350 use simmmilar systems, though the RX-8 is identical to a steering wheel in an arcade - actual two way forward/back levers on each side.

    Click Click Click - you just blew by 40 mph and are heading for 4th gear in another 2 seconds. All without your hands leaving the wheel. :)

    Honestly, the Civic ransmission is probably a good thing. The CVT Honda uses is one of those silly expensive to replace models with a torque converter and all the other nonsense(read $3000 to replace!!!) instead of a true CVT transmission like the Prius has.(read - easily serviceable, no torque converter to replace, and maybe $500 to fix when it goes bad)

    So it's a good thing as far as reliability goes. My guess is that they feared the combination of American drivers, paddle shifters and a CVT. Can you say "Why did it only last 45K miles?" ;)

    My two gripes:
    No 1.3L engine. If Honda can make 120HP out of a 600cc engine in their motorcycles, surely they can give us a "sporty" 90HP version of the 1.3L engine with another 5mpg? 38/43 would be the magic ticket for most of us.

    Also, if they crippled the steering it's going to kill its chances of being a Mini competitor. That 2.5ft smaller turning radius and quick steering ratio makes it a superb handler. If that's gone... Sigh.

    *** 14

    The reality is the EPA figures are nonsense. 25mph city, 45mph highway? You drive like that in most cities and you get run over. Twice. By the same car on its way back from the grocery store.
    The awful truth is real-world driving for most cars can be as low as 50-60% of the EPA rating for city driving and is often 5-10% better for highway cruising(since the engine runs 20% faster at 70mph than it does at 45mph(35% increase in velocity))

    So real-world figures for a Buick LaCrosse/Lesabre/Camry V6/etc aren't the 21/29 they state on the sticker, but 14/32 or close it it, with about 22 mpg being the norm.

    Now, small cars, if they are properly geared, can win at this game. Their engines burn less at idle, so for the Fit, the 33/38 probably translates into 30/40, with 35mpg being about the average - or right in the middle.

    With a 6 speed manual or a 1.3L enigone, though 40mpg onsistently shuold be achieveable. That's the car I want.
  • "All they had to do was leave the CVT7 in it that they already had on the 1.5ltr sport in Australia (39/45 mpg)."

    No, that's not quite true.

    I went on Honda Australia's website and found the following figures for the Australian Jazz:
    Jazz GLi (L13A i-DSI) : 5,7L/100km (MT) and 5.8L/100km (CVT)
    Jazz VTi (L15A VTEC): 6,0L/100km (MT) and 6,1L/100km (CVT)
    Jazz VTi-S figures are the same as the VTi.
    These figures are combined based on the ADR81/01.

    The direct translation into miles per US gallon would be:
    Jazz GLi (iDSI) : 41,3 (MT) and 40,6 (CVT)
    Jazz VTi (VTEC) : 39,2 (MT) and 38,6 (CVT)

    I assume the person writing the above comment was referring to the VTi-S as the "1.5ltr sport"

    Meanwhile for the US, the combined figures are:
    Fit (VTEC) : 35,5 (MT) and 34,5 (AT)

    I have never been to Australia, so I cannot really say what the road or traffic conditions are like. I also cannot say what the ADR (Australian Design Rule) testing standards are for fuel economy.

    However, I have come to three conclusions:
    1. Yes, you really would have to go to the 1.3 engine to get over the 40mpg hump
    2. Australia is not a whole lot better off with the 1,3i i-DSI. They receive 2,1 and 2,0 mpg (combined) respectively better than the 1,5i VTEC. Those 2 mpg do add up, but assuming that you got these combined figures in real world driving, that difference would add up to about US$325 after 100 000 miles of driving. That's a good sum of money, but nothing special after several years of driving.
    3. Australia gets 3,7 combined mpg better than the US for the manual transmission version. That's good.
    They get 4,1 combined mpg with the CVT. That's better, but considering how much more efficient the CVT is, I would have thought the difference to be greater. Also, we are not considering the differences between the fuel consumption tests used in Australia and the United States.

    Here is an interesting example of comparing FE between countries. Finding the exact same car sold in both Europe and the US is challenging. The only one I know of is the Acura TSX (US) and the Honda Accord (Europe)
    The Acura TSX 5-speed automatic with Navigation weighs 3329 has a 2,4L I4 DOHC and gets 22/31.
    The Honda Accord 2,4i Executive 5-speed automatic with Navigation weighs 3236 has a 2,4L I4 DOHC and gets 17/34.
    Yet this is the exact same car, apart from the 93lb. fatter TSX. Same aerodynamics, same engine, same everything.
    The point is that each country tests their cars a different way. We all look at the European gas mileage figures and cry about them. Who knows, if the US Fit was tested using the European standards, it would probably hit 40 mpg on the highway. My point is that we all need to look at things on a level field. No point getting worked up on numbers that really can't be compared.

    So basically, no, Honda is not doing some conspiracy to screw American drivers. Are the Australian 3,7 and 4,1 mpg better. Sure, they are much better, but I just don't know if I would call them "stellar", also since we have NO idea how the Australians test their cars. While Honda could have given the US the i-DSI and set the gear ratios for better fuel economy, the differences are not so drastic that we need to act like the sky is falling and the world is ending.

    When the Fit arrives in the US, we can see what the real world fuel economy ratings are. I know that in some conservative (normal, not hypermileing BS), real-world driving I have received 37 mpg combined in a 24/29 car that had 220 000 miles on it.

    ...and no, before some person makes another completely lame comment about anyone on this forum working for Honda, I don't.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    This past weekend I took my 2006 Accord Ex 4-cyl 5-speed Auto to the beach. I set the cruise control on 75 mph and made an average of 36.4 mpg. If I can do this in my Accord (166 horsepower, 2.4L, listed 24/34 EPA), then surely some people will be capable of getting 40mpg in the Fit!

    Let's hope so, for sales' sake.
  • mebmanmebman Posts: 100
    According to the website: "The Jazz is one of the most fuel-efficient petrol-engine cars on the road and consumption on city cycle is 6.0 liters per 100km and just 5.2 l/100km highway cycle (CVT-7 transmission)". This is for the same for the 1.5l vti or vtis. I have read other postings from Australia that say this is a good real world figure.
    The direct conversion from ltrs/100km to mpg = 39.2city and 45.23 highway.
    39 and 45 would have made me a LOT happier and I would have still had a 1.5 ltr engine.
    So yes all they would have had to do was leave the CVT7 in the car mated to the 1.5ltr to have both economy and performance, and YES I do feel that this was a purposeful marketing decision to limit the fuel economy of this car so that it would not outshine the hybrids. Having said all that this car is still a good value that I will probably buy, and I feel that the mpg figures are mediocre enough that there probably won’t be the kind of waiting list that I had to buy my Prius. I furthermore will make the prediction that the forthcoming full redesign of this car will produce a CVT with much better mileage. The fact is that most of the SUV driving morons that read a press announcement about this car look at 31/38 mpg as being exceptionally HIGH. We in the USA have been conditioned that way. So this car will still sell well, but sell even better in 1-2 years with a redesign to what it should have been now.
Sign In or Register to comment.