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
Ever tried buying a battery for the MINI?
BTW, perhaps we should cut joesmith some slack until proven otherwise.
for the 07, this site shows the OEM battery is $92 list, $65 online from this dealer / parts location (minus shipping and handling of course):
http://www.hondaautomotiveparts.com/auto/jsp/mws/prddisplay.jsp?inputstate=5&cat- cgry1=FIT&catcgry2=2007&catcgry3=5DR+BASE&catcgry4=KA5AT&catcgry5=BATTERY
$200 - no way.
I wonder if the car's computer loses its data when a battery is replaced?
Also, I'm be concerned about is how fast these batteries can charge. If one was to run the battery down, I wonder if it would put a strain on the alternator.
I keep my dash light low though. I thought the radio display was linked to the dash light adjustment knob, but you're saying that's not the case.
I exchanged the battery with another one of the same brand and form factor but with a few extra amps.
I can't believe it either, but everyone hearing the battery was 2 years old told me it was due for replacement, arguably or not. Surprisingly too, finding a battery charger is very difficult. DIY Car repair and maintenance is almost non existant.
User's manual is in Chinese and my wife won't consider spending any time with something she is through with. What I am pretty sure is that the battery is warranted either one year or six months. There is no minimum warranty in China and it is not rare to find products with a 3-month warranty.
As a side note, most cars here come with a 2-year warranty. Honda is striking hard against the competition by releasing the new Accord with a 3-year warranty against 2-year one of Toyota. This is a good thing as service quality is picking up
Are the 175/65-14 tires and wheels adequate? Yes, they definitely get the job done. The car is small and light and doesn't seem to need wider tires - so I am tabling my initial thoughts about putting 195/60's on it.
Only irritant so far: I don't have keyless entry, but I do have power door locks. I like to get out of the car and walk around to the passenger side, open the rear door, and pull out my gym bag. Due to the power door locks, I have to walk back to the driver's door to relock the car - I can't just reach over and unlock the right rear door, because the moment I lock the driver's door it locks all the other door locks.
Biggest pro: this car is a sports car with small wagon passenger and cargo capability. Even after the Scion xD "grew up" from the xA, the trunk room in the "smaller" Fit is so much better. Minor pros: Good stereo in base model, with simple controls. "Headlamps on" indicator in dash - which is important since the instrument panel is ALWAYS illuminated and you can't judge whether your headlamps are on by whether the panel is illuminated.
Cons: (1) Honda advertises the price of the car without including the required "delivery" charge. Come on, most manufacturers built the "delivery charge" into the base price a long time ago. (2) Ride will be firmer than most Americans like. It is plush compared to a BMW M3, but harder than most small cars. I like it, it's part of the sporty ride. (3) "Race car" driving position with arms pretty straight in front of you (at least with a stick shift). I am pretty sure the pedal/steering wheel ratios are set up this way deliberately. Most Americans are used to having the steering wheel closer to them to they can bend their arms more. Honda is addressing this with the 2009 Fit which reportedly has a telescoping steering wheel. (4) Car tracks straight, but it has so much "feedback" via the suspension and steering to the driver that this could easily be a tiring car on longer drives - good handling, in this instance (razor reflexes) could be too much of a good thing when you aren't engaged in the cut and chase of urban commuting or a freeway commute, and just want to mentally disengage and relax.
Overall, I recommend this car to four categories of purchasers:
1. To mileage conscious commuters, with up to 50 mile commutes (my commute is about 40 miles). The payback on this car given current gas prices is terrific, compared to a more expensive, 24 mpg car.
2. To urban dwellers who need to fit in tight parking spaces.
3. To people (like me) who worry about hitting things in larger vehicles. This one is small enough so you'll always know where every corner is, and lines of sight are terrific.
4. To people who might need to haul stuff. I chose this over an Element - not only because of the gas mileage and extra seating position (5 positions vs. 4 in the Element) - but also because when you fold the seats FLAT and LOW you have more storage room than I've seen in much larger vehicles.
And most of all, the Fit is a lot of fun to drive!
Now the most interesting question of all has been answered by Honda - when? - and it appears that the revised Fit will come out as part of Honda's normal 2009 lineup - neither early nor late.
Of course with Honda some models are released a little late in the fall (the Element comes to mind) but hopefully the new Fit will be out in September.
This link should take you to the Edmunds article:
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=122688
This link should take you to the Autoblog New York Auto Show reveal of the 2009 Fit with the official Honda press release:
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/19/new-york-2008-2009-honda-fit/
My take on the original Fit vs. the new Fit, is that the original Fit was designed for the Asian and European "B" class cars segment, with a small displacement (1.2 or 1.3 liter) engine in mind and typical top speeds under 70. (When it got "Americanized" for us in 2007, it got the beefier 1.5 engine and can easily cruise at 80 mph - albeit at an rpm and with a razor steering response that most Americans just don't "get.") Also with young Asian male drivers in mind - in Asia a car this size is well within size requirements for typical males, while it is a little small for "super size me" Americans. (Europeans almost match us in height, if not bulk, but pure economics force the European middle class out of SUV's and into B and C - mini and subcompact - cars.)
The original Fit had to be built "on the cheap" to compete in the extremely competitive "B" class market. When it was brought to America, it got a longer nose so it could get the coveted 5 start driver and passenger government crash test results, and the "Good" offset rating (the highest rating) from the Insurance Institute.
The new Fit is bigger and better, based on the early reports. I especially like what Edmunds has to say about it: "The new suspension calibration also improves straight-line stability. On Honda's high-speed proving ground, the Fit felt as stable at 110 mph as it did at 50 mph." Let's hope Edmund's Asian corresondent got it right, because I'd love for a little more stability at 80 mph on my Fit (it's not prone to wandering or crosswinds, but does have sensitive steering that calls for more attention than a blander car).
I suspect Honda has had such a sales success with the first generation, that they aren't afraid of "cannibalizing" Civic sales anymore - the Fit will probably be a "super super premium" B car, compared with the Yaris which is nice but no Fit. (The Americanized Yaris I almost bought instead of my Fit had no safety gear - side air bags or side curtain or ABS - compared with the Euro version, and the interior was one full tier below the Fit.) In other words, imho, the Fit is going to become the de facto Civic hatchback, although obviously the underlying platform dimensions remain different. But if there WERE an American Civic hatchback, I'm not sure that it would excel over the next generation Fit in any category other than engine displacement and possibly, thought not assuredly, NVH (noise vibration harshness). I suspect the next gen Fit is going to be in Civic territory in terms of quietness at least in Coupe territory - the current Fit suffers only from minor wind roar, so if they can quiet down the tire noise they'll have a winner.
Supposedly the new Fit will be softer riding. I applaud that IF they retain the precise, great handling.
Finally, with horsepower bumped to 118 - MINI territory - who needs a MINI anymore from a pure functionality standpoint? With the "magic seats" and gas mileage and hopefully improved acceleration with the automatic* the next generation Fit WILL be the rightful successor to Issigioni's original vision for the MINI.
*My Fit manual transmission is incredibly responsive on the street and on the freeway. Very peppy. I know the road test numbers make it look slower than the Yaris or Caliber 5 speed, but I've owned both those cars and the Fit is a MUCH better real world performer. If I could get 85% of that performance with an automatic - and cruise at lower rpm - I will be really tempted to make the switch to automatic when I get the 2009 (or 2010 if I can wait that long!) so my wife can have fun with it too!
(Honda, shame on you for not including pre-installed "clips" to hold down the floor mats! Make sure you include them in the next generation! I see you included a "dead pedal" so surely you listen! :P )
FYI there is a dedicated discussion for the 2009 Fit (why it's called 2009/2010 Fit I don't know) in Town Hall:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/WebX/.f1517a8/78
After all, VW ships us the latest Euro Golf (Rabbit now) 2-3 years late, and its not uncommon for Honda and Toyota to unveil their new cars a year ahead of US release.
This time we are lucky!
So what do you think about VSA? Optional on the Base, standard on the Sport? It will be available in some form.
And pricing?
My guess is (setting aside currency issues) there will be about a $600 model year bump, and a $600-$1000 content bump - it depends on whether Scion can sustain their aggressive pricing on the xD and xB (their sales were down 29% last month, I believe). I think if Honda can keep a $1500 to $2500 spread between the Fit and the Civic the pricing tiers will make sense.
Right now the Fit is a bargain. It is cheaper than the Yaris, if you allow for content differences, and just plain cheaper than the xD.
BTW from what I understand the current Fit has a slightly off-ball implementation of VVT - they actually run it on a single intake valve at low rpm, and at high rpm (it is a bump, not variable, system) they open up the other intake valve. So it really behaves like an engine optimized for low end torque and fuel economy, unless you drive it hard in which case it behaves like a classic 4 valves per cylinder higher performance engine.
The new VVT will probably be continuously variable and not have such a jekyll/hyde personality.
But squeezing 118 hp out of the 1.5 is terrific. Only a few years ago, 115 hp was the "standard" Civic power. It was on my 2003 Coupe!
Since they didn't say anything about VSA being a standard feature, and since that would be a huge plus worth talking about, I suspect it will be an option. I am crossing my fingers it will be a widely-available option on the base Fit, since that's the trim I'd buy.
Price may go up a little, but Honda held the line pretty well on the 2008 Accord when you add in the equipment that was made standard, so we'll have to see. If they raise the price too much then it starts getting into the next class up, e.g. Matrix and Elantra Touring.
- Dead pedal
- Move clutch pedal at least 3-4 inches farther from the brake pedal.
- Adjustable seat height
- Sunroof
- Fix the left/right issues like the rear seats.(longer one is currently behind the driver, which is the passenger side in Japan. Also fix the visors and other things. Ever notice how the driver has the mirror and the passenger doesn't? That's because it's a left hand drive vehicle that was just brought over without switching stuff properly.
- Automatic/locking fuel latch release.
- Rear disc brakes on Sport model at least.
- Leather. If it is going to compete with a base Mini, it needs leather.
- Wider rear opening. Nothing sucks more than having a cavernous rear end and no way to actually FIT(heh) a box in it that's as wide as the floor because someone artistically rounded the edges of the inner rear opening to be 3-4 inches on both sides smaller. It's especially troubling since the rear hatch covers it all anyways, so it's not like it would LOOK any different outside.
A good example of this is the Matrix. I can fit a wider box in a *Yaris* than I can in a Matrix because of this sort of nonsense.
- Possibly figure out how to put a full size spare in.
Here's a short list(feel free to ad to it) of things that Honda needs to address with the new Fit:
- Dead pedal DONE
- Move clutch pedal at least 3-4 inches farther from the brake pedal. No word yet.
- Adjustable seat height I agree.
- Sunroof I disagree, raises price.
- Fix the left/right issues like the rear seats.(longer one is currently behind the driver, which is the passenger side in Japan. Good point, I hadn't noticed this.Also fix the visors and other things. Ever notice how the driver has the mirror and the passenger doesn't? That's because it's a left hand drive vehicle that was just brought over without switching stuff properly. My Base doesn't have ANY visor mirror.
- Automatic/locking fuel latch release. I agree.
- Rear disc brakes on Sport model at least. I disagree - cost.
- Leather. If it is going to compete with a base Mini, it needs leather. Disagree - available aftermarket as a dealer add-on.
- Wider rear opening. Nothing sucks more than having a cavernous rear end and no way to actually FIT(heh) a box in it that's as wide as the floor because someone artistically rounded the edges of the inner rear opening to be 3-4 inches on both sides smaller. It's especially troubling since the rear hatch covers it all anyways, so it's not like it would LOOK any different outside. I think it's fine, I don't see how they could change it. Too late anyway.
A good example of this is the Matrix. I can fit a wider box in a *Yaris* than I can in a Matrix because of this sort of nonsense.
- Possibly figure out how to put a full size spare in. They are actually going in the opposite direction, they apparently eliminated the spare tire to allow the floor to be lower to improve storage space. There may be storage space under the rear floor. Don't know how they are going to deal with flat tires, since injectable sealants (flat repair in a can) mess up the tire pressure monitors and tire shops hate cleaning up all the goo later.
One bit of car trivia: if the 2009 Fit doesn't have leather available, it may be the only car offered in the U.S. with factory nav but not leather. I haven't confirmed that, but I can't think of another car with a nav option but no leather, now that the Civic offers leather.
It's the first thing I check when I test drive a Honda. CR-V and Odyssey have lacked it and I just could not find a good place for my left foot.
I agree that leather would raise the price too much, but how much could rear disc brakes really add? Plus, if the Fit is going to be perceived as sporty (they do offer a "Sport" model), it really should get this.
not sure if the scion xd nav is factory or dealer added, but they have a nav system and doesn't offer leather seats..
Second tank, I deliberately drove more on the surface streets (to help break in the engine) and also accelerate hard a few times, and still got 36.05 mpg.
The tires seem to have gotten quieter. Odd. (When I first test drove the car, the tires felt slightly out of round - possibly from sitting on the dealers lot - the manufacture date was 10-07 according to the door jamb placard. Even when I initially drove it after parking it without driving a couple of days, the tires felt "flattened." Now they don't, so I might have been feeling stiffness that has now "worked it's way out" as part of the break-in.)
The engine is very smooth and there are no obvious "resonance points." RPM are high at 80, but engine is subdued, if that makes sense. Lot of freeway "zip" thanks to the high RPM.
Ride seems a little softer. I've heard that shocks/struts will "break-in" slightly but only noticed this one time - on shocks that were very stiff to begin with. I think with looser suspension set-ups, it is harder to notice. Here, the ride now feels taut, but supple.
I am at 693 miles and the most critical break-in period is over, although the parts will continue to smooth and seat (on prior cars, break-in usually takes 8-15,000 miles, based on my easy freeway commute with fewer acceleration cycles to work things in.)
I am debating when to change to Mobil 1. I may do this at 2,500 miles. My engine oil life indicator went to 90% at 600 miles which projects an approximately 6,000 mile oil change interval - which is quite interesting. I have one of the easiest driving cycles ever (long freeway commute, few short side trips), and take it easy on revs. 6,000 miles is much less than the 10k factory oil change intervals the manual used to recommend (now it's all keyed to the maintenance calculator, both oil changes and other maintenance). If the computer is going to indicate 6,000 mile cycles, I will just use M1 and follow the computer recommendation - nothing to remember or calculate. Using M1 will substitute for more frequent oil changes. I will of course change the filter every oil change despite the Honda recommended "every other oil change" cycle.
don't believe all you hear. i know the vehicle stability control is an factory added option. maybe the nav system is also?
So, back to the Fit?
I am interested in current Fit owners impression of highway driving experience. All the professional reviews I have read is that the engine is buzzy at highway speed and the cruise control doesn't work well on hilly stretches. I currently have a one mile commute to work in the morning but may soon be travelling 30+ miles (all highway) to work one way. Speeds probably between 75 and 80 mph. Anyone have a similar experience? Is this more of a "city car"?
YMMV. A lot. It depends on whether your last car was a small car or a big car or a truck. The Fit is a SIZE BELOW most small cars (even though it is gargantuan inside). You have to love small cars in general (I do) before you can love the Fit in particular. Anyone who tells you otherwise is setting you up for disappointment.
It's smaller than, say, a Focus or Cobalt or Caliber. Have you rented those? Do you feel ok in them, or small and vulnerable? To me, they feel big (my wife's minivan feels like the Titanic to me).
When you see a Fit on the road do you think "what moron is in that dangerously small car" or do you think "that kind of looks like a Prius?" and try to pull alongside to figure out what it is?
The Fit is going to make any Focus Hatchback owner happy (I know it does me, and I owned FIVE ZX3's when they were still being made). You can fit everything in the trunk that would fit in the back of the much larger Dodge Caliber.
The Fit is NOT sedate - by that I mean, if you research the reviews here and on Car and Driver, you will find that the reviewers treat it like a mini sports car with razor handling. It rides firm. It doesn't wallow.
Actually Edmunds is a great place to read some reviews. There is a review on the Fit when first introduced. They loved it. There is a long term review (they got tired of it on interstate drives). There is a comparo with the new Scion xD (the xD is more sedate, they prefer IT now). There is a review of the 2009 heavily revised Fit (all problems will be solved! Nimble AND sedate!). No kidding.
I went into my 2008 purchase three weeks ago with my eyes open to the kinds of questions you should be asking, instead of just leaping into the first high gas mileage micro car that caught my eye.
I bought the Fit for its high gas mileage, yes, but also because it is firm riding, nimble, and very MINI-like in its handling - and very miniVAN like in its hauling.
But I also indulge myself in the luxury of having a second micro-car, a Nissan Versa, as my back up for long (over 100 mile) drives. Not as good on the gas mileage or nimbleness as the Fit, but more "sedate" for the longer hauls.
This is certainly a "city car" above all - it fits in almost any available parking space left over not only by SUV's but also by Corollas - but at the same time you don't have to fear a 30 mile freeway drive at freeway speeds.
But you'd better not be a "sedated" driver if you expect to be happy on the freeway!
The first fill up (full tank of gas from the dealer) is usually the big variable in my mileage records, since the some dealers don't make an effort to get a "good" fill (it's their money) while others cram every last drop in (so you think you get good mileage on the first tank and then never check again).
Anyway the receipts so far, all re-filled at the same pump at the same station using the "top it off carefully by first jamming the nozzle as deep as it will go so there's no spill" tecnhique:
3-13-08 8.038 gallons 297.0 miles 36.95 mpg
3-21-08 8.961 gallons 323.0 miles 36.045 mpg
3-27-08 7.692 gallons 294.9 miles 38.34
I am guessing when traffic gets a little heavier and I start going back to the gym, my mileage will be in the 36-37 mpg range, about 1 mpg less that the Yaris Liftback 5 speed I had last year. Quite good for a car that's a lot more fun and doesn't sound like an "angry sewing machine" (that's the Yaris) if you accelerate hard (in fairness, when I test drove the 2008, Toyota seems to have quietly upgraded the soundproofing this year, it was much quieter than before).
But seriously I grew up on Popular Mechanic's articles on how to drive smoothly and save gas, I've been careful about gas mileage since the '60's. You need a light foot on the gas, get off the gas to slow down rather than hitting the brake pedal, and a little luck ( a long mild freeway commute).
Still I went back and used fueleconomy.gov to compare my actual fuel economy to their predictions on some of my past economy cars, and if I "personalize" the freeway/city mix, I find in most cases their predictions do match my actual mileage. The two notable exceptions are the Dodge Caliber 1.8 5 speed I used to have (I routinely got 32 mpg instead of the 29 predicted based on my higher percentage of highway driving) and the Fit - I am exceeding the predictions for the Fit.
The Yaris was pretty much spot on.
So my conclusions are:
Most people still aren't getting the EPA predicted mileage; and
There are either "sample" variations between actual cars rolling off the assembly line (bell curve distribution of actual mpg delivered) OR the EPA testing formula doesn't treat all cars fairly (that would explain why the Fit 5 speed actually delivers much better gas mileage for most drivers than predicted).
I do know that the first glaring example of this was my two millenium model VW Golfs. Even under old EPA standards I should have been getting only 26-28 mpg but 30 was easy, unless I was "freeway flying" down the interstate at sustained high speeds (80) in which case it dropped to 26.
So "YMMV" is pretty accurate. The only spin I have on the mileage issue is that the city mileage will give a better guide to actual freeway mileage than the freeway mileage number - if you see a big spread between the two numbers, expect the actual result to be much closer to the city number EVEN WITH a lot of freeway driving. On the other hand if the city number is closer to the highway number, you are more likely to hit the highway number, assuming you have a freeway commute that is free of major gridlock.
It's funny that I don't understand March Madness brackets, but have detailed gas receipt records for all of my cars for the past 8 years, which cover about 250,000 miles of driving.
I am now trying to remember how many standard deviations were tolerated during the dynamo testing of the fully assembled vehicles at my company when I was in that industry in the 80's. We didn't measure the fuel efficiency, but performance deviations would certainly contribute in some ways. And there WERE devitations - I saw them with my own eyes looking at the computer spitting out data. We had a tight tolerance for performance, but I am not even sure we had it as tight as 2 standard deviations. I think it was looser than that.
Is this a good deal? To me it sounds great! I have been reading the forums and haven t seen many people talking about the base at fit model.....very few indeed yet no one has been quoted this low of a price :shades:
let me know what everyone thinks....it is appreciated!!
Did you talk to any other dealerships, by the way? If I were you, I'd use this quote as a baseline for a reverse auction among different dealers.
But the bottom line is that you have a pretty good deal already.
I thought it was pretty good.
The guy just e-mailed me back....said he does have to charge me a $22.00 lien fee becuase of some bank thing...I am not financing with them and he doesnt even know who I am dealing with! What is the lien fee for?---or is it a sign of things to come? I think it's BS but its only $22.00.....
what do u think??
I still remember when these were commanding MSRP.
Cathy
Cathy
http://corporate.honda.com/press/article.aspx?id=4444
And this is not an official press release by Honda, but an article on the Vancouver Intertional Auto Show:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/08vancouver.htm (see the beginning of the third full paragraph)
I'm going to call Honda Canada tomorrow and see what I'm told about the 2009.
Cathy
Cathy
I am doubting, though, that the seat height adjuster will be in the new package because the show models did not have it. That's where you show your best, and if it is not included in the pre-release show models (vs. experimental/concept models), it will probably not be part of the production model, either.