Sorry, but I couldn't disagree with you more. I have also owned my FIT Sport for 5 months now and after coming from a solid but lumbering SUV I am enjoying the handling and ride of this subcompact immensely. Accept it for what it is in terms of its road manners. It's just plain fun to drive and economical too. If you feel you've made a mistake you can always correct it. If you do, I think though that you will find yourself in the overwhelming minority of recent FIT buyers. Good luck anyway.
What were you expecting from a 2500 pound car? A Town Car it is not. This is not a car you would drive hours upon hours on an 80 mph interstate. It can't be beat for what it is disigned for. I'm in year 4 at 66K miles and every day I still look forward to driving mine to work and back. 36 mpg with hard driving, good handling, responsive, 5 star crash rating (all models), all the goodies I need, great resale value, inexpensive, reliable as a, well, Honda. My last car was a 1993 Acura Vigor GS 5 speed.
I realize that people feel things differently but I am surprised at your poor quality ride experience. I just returned from my first road trip in my 2009 base Fit with AT--1471 miles round trip to south Florida, and 13 hours each way--including a couple nap breaks. I found the Fit to be suprisingly comfortable for such a long trip. I did feel the road more than I used to in my larger softer riding Mitsubishi Expo but not to the level of discomfort. Of course, I-26 and I-95 are generally in pretty good repair with not a lot of road irregularities. Still, I did not feel buffeted by wind of passing trucks as much as I had expected. The ride was quite stable and secure.
Assuming the Sport and Base models aren't THAT different, this must be a perception thing. (Some friends do point out that a guy that rides hundreds of miles a year on a bike seat like I do might not be the best judge of comfort but......)(-:
The Base model supposedly has slightly softer suspensions tuning than the Sport model, plus the Sport model has 16" wheels with lower profile tires than the Base model which has 15" wheels.
Well I liked my first generation, 2008 Fit quite a bit - the base model with a 5 speed. It got incredible gas mileage (I hit 39 mpg a couple of times and routinely got 37 mpg), and easily carried a six foot, 200 pound friend, me, and his girlfriend from Truckee to Reno - with no problem coming back up the hill from Reno at a good clip.
As a "sports car" the original Fit couldn't be beat - and for the average joe, a great handling "economy" car like this is probably the closest we'll get to a "sports" car when Nissan 350z's etc. have astronomical prices, and are hard to get with stick shifts to boot (I grew up in the '60's with Sunbeams and TR7's and the modern generation of small "economy" cars just blows them away in terms of sporty handling AND practicality AND safety).
And I loved the "magic" seats with the flat floor - I could carry 3 small kids in the back seat without crowding them (too much).
BUT the original Fit had 3 issues that I got tired of:
1. The freeway RPM hit 4,000 at 80 mph - not a very relaxed RPM. Due to the RPM and also due to the handling - not twitchy but "sharp" - the Fit was not a relaxing ride on long distance (more than 100 miles) trips.
2. Noisy. Consumer Guide calls it accurately when they rated the first gen Fit as a "3" on a scale of 10 vs. 4's for most of its competitors and 5's for a few of the quieter ones in this class.
3. Interior seemed cheap/gaudy. I think it is actually well made, but is dialed into Japanese/Asian tastes (towards the complicated and gaudy) rather than into more Euro/American tastes (simpler, cleaner). The Nissan Versa that I owned at the same time (I usually own 2 commuter cars and trade them off) had a much simpler, more tasteful, less confusing interior design.
Mind you, I'm hard to please, and there are many, many owners who are thrilled with the Fit.
Anyway when I read the Honda press releases and "buzz" about the second generation Fit it sounded terrific -
- it was supposed to handle "rock solid" even in the 80-100 mph zone; - it was supposed to be "grown up" and more quiet. - stretched out, no longer cramped into "B" car standards, more of a "super B" (nipping at the Civic market) -it would handle better. -and of course the interior was going to be upgraded
So when the second gen ('09) came out I was tempted to test drive it, but the salesman with who I worked at the time said it wasn't really much different from the first gen, still noisy. So I tabled it until I was really in the market to change cars.
Flash forward 9 months and I decide to shop the Cube and Fit. I had a Versa before, the Cube is "based" on it. I had the prior generation Fit and like a lot of things about it.
First I drove the Cube. Handled well, quiet, no engine roar accelerating, very little road noise. But I had misgivings since Nissan is "second tier" in my mind, in terms of engineering and quality control, behind Honda. So I decided to try the new generation Fit.
Whoa, what a disappointment! A GREAT car, if you are coming off a '90's econ car (trade in a lot less frequently than me) but NOT in the hunt compared to the current generation of econo cars. It should EXCEED other small cars, but it lags in terms of ordinary virtues like acceleration, ride, and noise.
First, there isn't any significant power at lower rpm. There is a real midrange and upper range "punch" but that calls for friskier driving than I like to to routinely. The old motor - engineered more for fuel economy and low end power than total power - was more driveable than the current version, which is a true VTEC design with variable valve timing (the old one just kept one valve shut until high rpm).
Second, there is a lot of perceived engine roar or noise when you accelerate, running the motor up to 4,000 rpm (which isn't that high).
Third, it doesn't cruise quietly on the freeway. There is road noise - tire thrum and general road noise - plus wind noise - plus motor noise (the least).
And it still turns over at 4,000 at 80, 3,000 at 60.
The Sport model handles MUCH better than the Base model (I drove both) due to the slightly firmer suspension and performance oriented tires. On the other hand the Sport model "thumped" a couple of places on road irregularities where the Base model road over them with no drama. As a daily driver, imho the Base model is much better, but for the sporty driver, the Sport model is a must have, especially since the difference in price is only $1500, which buys you cruise control, alloy wheels, sport tires, leather steering wheel, sport suspension, body colored mirrors, spoiler, air effects kit under front bumper and along body sides. In other words, about $3k worth of goodies for half price. And nicer seat fabric and slightly dolled up dash board.
The ENORMOUS disservice Honda has done its customers is to chisel by not including stability control. Stability control, on a car already equipped with ABS brakes, typically adds about $230-$300 to the MSRP on a car. Yet despite this small difference in costs on a car that in typical Sport/Auto configuration pushes $18k, Honda ONLY includes stability control on the much more expensive navigation equipped version. It should be included, standard, on the Sport model (since owners are apt to drive more aggressively) and, ideally, even on the Base model (since it is an "entry level" car and attracts younger and newer drivers who are more likely to benefit from the anti-skid protection, in the rain or on the snow or just getting on an on ramp).
So I got the Cube, which has stability control, a 1.8 liter engine which has enough power to run more relaxed (and gets almost the same gas mileage, 30 vs. 33), and a CVT (which works great).
Yes, I still have a fond spot in my heart for the Fit, due its is amazing efficiency and (potentially) greater "real world" mileage with the stick shift - and above all because it is an affordable sports car.
BUT Honda needs to get its act together and add stability control and a smidge more sound proofing, neither of which are difficult to do as a "running change" or model year change. (I can live with the high motor RPM since the motor is actually very smooth and quiet.) Also Honda needs to get rid of the Dunlop SP31's on the Base model and put something decent on - the Conti's that came on the Versa, the Toyo's that came on the Cube, are MUCH better handling tires, and I'm sure they don't cost Nissan any more than the SP31's cost Honda. Honda is a "performance" car company and shouldn't spec a Japanese market tire (where they don't drive sporty like we do) on the Fit.
And if Honda REALLY wants to respect their customer base, they need to shift from 5 speed manual transmissions to 6 speeds like Nissan.
And yes I found such a good deal on an '09 Rabbit while shopping for small cars that I did a rare "double trade in" weekend. The Rabbit isn't as much fun as the Cube, but it IS one heck of a driver's
Wow, micweb. That's a thorough post. Permit me to offer a counterpoint.
I drove both a Fit and a Civic yesterday, in prep for a possible "cash for clunkers" deal involving both my clunker ('94 Dodge truck) and my wife's somewhat tired '99 Civic EX five-speed. I am hoping to find a vehicle that will be as fun to drive and own as the '99 Civic has been, with comparable economy and reliability and the updated safety features that weren't yet offered when we bought that car new. The ultimate goal: a car we will be as happy with for the next ten years as we have been with that one for the previous ten.
First was the new Civic. The dealer had only one in stock with a manual trans, an EX-Navi, so that's the one I drove. Considering the fact that I expected to love it, I was distinctly disappointed. The controls seem to have been mired in tree sap, judging from the unpleasant, jerky/sticky feel of the clutch and shifter action. The throttle seemed to have very little connection to anything happening in the engine compartment. (Yes, I know both the Civic and the Fit are drive-by-wire, but the Civic's implementation of the system was notably poor.) There was sufficient acceleration, but the car felt lifeless. The control layout was attractive at first glance, but I found myself focusing on the speedometer and having to consciously seek out the tach. Bad sign. Overall, the Civic was a less involving car to drive than even a new Accord. Before I even pulled the Civic back onto the lot, I told the salesman it was time to look at the Fit instead.
The dealer had one Fit Sport 5MT on the lot (Milano Red, wouldn't you know it). Before I had driven even one block, I was infatuated with the car's feel. The Fit has the liveliness and joie de vivre of the best older Hondas I've driven (two Integras, a 4ws Prelude, and innumerable CRXs and Civics), but with the solidity of a modern car. The Fit probably isn't as quick 0-60 as the '09 Civic, but it felt much more eager and entertaining. I also like the fact that I can see out of it. Outward visibility used to be a hallmark of Honda design; nowadays only the Fit seems to carry that tradition forward.
Sure, it might be rather fatiguing on an all-day road trip. But so are most cars. I think that's inherent in the concept of the all-day road trip.
I drive briskly, but not recklessly, and I like a car that will communicate with me and provide some entertainment value. Most of my driving is either (a) the daily eleven-mile slog across town to the office, or (b) a couple of hours spent on nearby country roads. For the all-day drive to Houston, St. Louis or DC, we have the Accord.
Am I sold on the Fit? Maybe. I still want to look at a couple of other options--the Soul and the Elantra Touring, among others. But yesterday's test drive vaulted the Fit from "not very likely" to "probable first choice."
A 5 speed Fit Sport in Milano Red was what I came very close to buying.
I think you would be very happy with it...if you didn't find the Civic a lot quieter (it gets a "6" from Consumer Guide in its noise rating) then you aren't as sensitive to the noise issue as I have become.
In all other ways, as you noted, I think the Fit beats the Civic - just plain a lot more fun.
I DO stand by my complaint that Honda should have included stability control (although you sound like you don't need it) and I think they should add about 125 pounds of soundproofing...though I don't think they will.
Let us know which vehicle you select. I still like the Fit a lot, I'm just pretty irked that Honda didn't deliver on all the promises they were making back in '08.
The way the rear seats fold forward and flat is, however, VERY slick.
And if I ever owned one - I'd take out the spare tire (but replace it with a compact inflation kit, maybe just a can of inflator/sealer) and use that to stow my backpack or gym bag, keeping the the top area "open" for Trader Joes and Costco runs (when I used a cargo cover, it reduced the capacity too much and got in the way).
If you buy one, be sure to get the factory floor mats and have the dealer install them - they have to cut the factory felt mat to install hooks to hold the mats in place, it would drive you nuts to do it yourself. Without the minor surgery on the factory floor, the mats slide around. I thought for sure on this generation Honda would ship the car with the hooks to hold the mats preinstalled, like on ALL their other cars.
I felt as though the Fit's noise level was comparable to our old Civic, or maybe slightly lower. I didn't find it objectionable, but the drive wasn't that long. I didn't have a chance to get past about 60 mph, but I did accelerate pretty aggressively, so at least I have a sense of how the engine would sound at high rpm. Wind noise is another matter, and until I can get it out on the freeway I won't know how bad it is.
The new Civic was a bit quieter, yes, but in combination with the other factors it came off not as "refined" but as "isolated"--in a negative way, at least for me. I had hoped that the Civic would combine the fun and economy of the Fit with some of the refinement and comfort of the Accord, but for me it did the opposite, the weakest features of the larger and smaller cars with none of the redeeming qualities. It may well be that the new Civic is more at home with an automatic than with a manual.
If I buy a Honda, it will almost certainly be a Fit Sport 5MT. My favorite color is the Blackberry Pearl, followed closely by Milano Red but my wife will probably insist on Blue Sensation instead. Frankly I'd settle for any color but black, which would be impractical thanks to the combination of the Fit's large windshield, Georgia summers and somewhat unimpressive air conditioning.
I hope you enjoy your new Cube. Most of the reviews I've seen make it seem like the Cube would be a bit too soft for my tastes--then again, I haven't driven either the Cube or the Versa yet. More hunting to do! Versa, Cube, Soul, Elantra Touring, maybe even the Scion xD.
"I felt as though the Fit's noise level was comparable to our old Civic, or maybe slightly lower."
Ha ha. That's kind of what I suspected in my original "tirade." That if you are coming off a 90's econo car, the Fit will seem fine (most likely better, in terms of noise, vibration, harshness) but compared to some other current cars in its niche, it's on the bottom of the scale - based on my test drives and ratings from Consumer Reports & Consumer Guide (Consumer Guide is available online, free).
Yes the Civic is a dull car. Only the hatchback Si broke that mold.
In a lot of ways the Fit is like a mild reincarnation of the Si hatchback - except it has four doors and a much better rear seat.
After all, the Fit now has more horsepower than my 2003 Civic had - it only had 115hp, the Fit has 118 - and the Fit is closer in weight to the mid 2000's Si.
The only thing I would note, is that you probably should take all these cars you are test driving out on the freeway and try them at 65, 70, 80 (if the salesman doesn't object). With the stereo off, the fan turned on low, and no conversation with the salesman. Conversations and stereos are big masks for "ambient noise levels."
I am not saying the Fit is bad. I drove the prior generation to LA. But on that drive I did notice I kept my speed down to 75, whereas on other vehicles I am blipping up to or beyond 80 mph (not good, I know, but actually slower than prevailing traffic). The Fit felt fine at 75, but not as comfortable at 80. The new generation Fit is COMPLETELY redesigned with a longer wheel base, it's wider, has bigger wheels and tires, so I suspect - but can't confirm - that now it's probably an able 80 mph freeway flyer.
I kinda hope you get the Fit so you can talk me into one too....
Right now I'm on the fence. On the one hand, the Fit is really an intoxicating drive. On the other hand, there are a number of quieter, more refined cars in this price range (the Elantra I drove last fall comes to mind) that might serve better as a "primary car." Then again, that role will probably continue to belong to our '02 Accord for another 3 years or so.
I've often said the US market needed an updated version of the wonderfully efficient, eager and entertaining mid-eighties Civic Wagon.
I almost bought that older style Civic Wagon. It was VERY cool for that time period. Unfortunately people weren't as open to odd-ball cars back then.
And yes I think the Fit is the modern incarnation of the Civic Wagon. Better in SO many ways - I would just like to see Honda hit "perfection" with one more gear on the manual transmission, a little more sounproofing, and better tires on the base model. And of course stability control.
BTW I checked Consumer Reports. On their 150 mile simulated road trip (mostly freeway, not stop and go) the manual transmission Fit Sport they drove returned 41 mpg - awesome mileage. So although the Fit this year is rated lower for gas mileage, in reality it is capable of some amazing tricks (their city mileage was 24, highway 37, so don't ask me why the blended long drive did so much better - unless the higher percentage of time spent "warming up" the car on the city and highway tests they run impacts gas mileage that much).
Actually Honda replaced that with the CR-V, it even kept the Real Time 4WD logo. They figured people would pay more for the SUV styling, and the CR-V has been a cash cow for them ever since.
micweb: how's the shifter on that Nissan? On paper I think a 6 speed in this class is a great idea, but I've heard complaints about the clutch and shifter on the Versa. Haven't tried it yet myself.
My Miata has a 6 speed and I'm not 100% convinced that's better than a 5 speed, most of the time it's overkill and I just skip 5th gear anyway.
On the Versa the 6 speed was excellent. I have the CVT on the Cube. The 6 speed requires a little finesse to access 5 and 6, but you quickly get used to it. Only negative is that it is a close ratio 6 speed and hence useless if you are thinking in terms of an "overdrive." The rpm are much higher (900 rpm) than on the CVT on the Cube even in 6th gear.
I don't necessarily agree with the floor mats comment.
I balked at the Honda OEM floormat price and cost of installation. Instead, I bought the top quality heavy carpet choice at Wal-Mart for $20. I then used two 2" by 3" strips of velcro glued to the bottom of the driver floor mat, and to the vinal section behind the pedals. No more problem with slipping and a much heavier quality carpet material. The mats have stayed perfectly in place for several months without problems--although they don't fit perfectly around the "dead pedal" without cutting.
Sounds like you don't agree with the factory mats...but do agree they are overpriced and unreasonably difficult to install.
I took a different route for floor mats on my '08, also resorting to Wal-Mart - except I visited their auto accessories floor mat aisle. I didn't buy any of the pre-packaged "sets", I looked for the heavy duty rubber mats that are usually on the bottom shelf under the hanging sets. They have small rear seat squares - these are the "all season" black ones - and also front seat ones with the protruding "tongues" designed to run up under the pedals.
On the last generation '08 I had, the conventional front seat mats just wouldn't fit in the narrow space between the wheel well and the center stack. But I had seen how Honda positioned their own "all season" mats in their brochure, and took a lesson from them. I just reversed the usual location of the mats, from front to back!
The "little" squares from the truck oriented all season mats fit just fine in front, and didn't slip. While not ideal for a muddy-shoed passenger stretching out their legs, for me the square worked fine.
The "tongued" all season mats then fit REALLY well in the rear - the tongue fit nicely between the seat frame rack on each seat, and took care of the extra long leg room provided in the rear seat of the Fit. Regardless of what YOU decide for the front seat, I highly recommend using the "front" all season Wal Mart floor mats because they fit so well - and due to the flat rear floor, these "wider" front mats fit well (narrow tongue to extend under the seats, wide back portion to cover as much of the rear floor as possible).
Anyway I hope this helps. What you can take from this post and the prior post is that neither of us wanted to use the expensive factory floor mats, or deal with attaching them (the all season rubber mats are heavy and sticky enough not to shift around).
I do think the Honda OEM mats are overpriced, but I also like the factory look that comes with a custom fit mat. I just checked the WeatherTech website, and they don't have the front mats for the Fit, just the rears. So I'll probably bite the bullet and get the Honda mats. But I don't think there's any need for the cargo tray or the net.
All of this assumes I actually buy a Fit. I haven't yet had a chance to check out the non-Honda competition--I'll probably do that this weekend.
Well, I finally got a chance to drive the competition. I just got back from a nice drive in a surprisingly civilized Kia Soul +.
Advantages of the Soul: more front seat space more equipment (bluetooth, satellite radio, seat height adjuster) more torque at low rpm smoother and quieter for the daily slog longer warranty probably more comfortable for extended trips
Advantages of the Fit: somewhat nicer interior materials better handling shifter feels sportier in general, more fun to drive quickly probably less likely to need that warranty slightly better mpg
So I'm on the fence. The real world price probably won't differ by more than $1k. I have some thinking to do.
I've test driven a lot of cars over the past few months and have done a lot of research. I am going to buy a Fit Sport....except for one lingering question I have.
I live in Cleveland OH, lotsa snow. I am used to driving a Toyota Tacoma pickup. I realize that's a tremendous change and I am not expecting the snow performance I got with the Tacoma but can the Fit at least handle well in snow?
I want to go smaller but get a little paranoid when I think about how small cars perform in snow. Am I gonna be skidding all over the place???
We have a 2007 LX automatic. It is pretty horrible in the snow. We get lots of the white stuff and the car is too light and too low. Tires were not an issue. Mind you, I am not the greatest driver, but thank goodness, we also have a 99 Rav4. That vehicle kept us moving last winter. As much as I love the Fit design inside, it is does not work on our poorly cleared rural roads. Vancouver Island, Canada
I have a 2007 base 5 speed. Snow performance was the one unpleasant surprise of ownership. I'm on the NY/CT border, and some small hills near my house keeps me homebound on storm days until the plows come through. This was the first time since the 80s that I did not own a 4WD vehicle, and I missed it. I had traded in my Jeep Grand Cherokee on the Fit. I loved getting 35+ mpg instead of <15 mpg (on premium yet!), and the Fit was great for my cargo needs (I think it may actually hold more than my Jeep did). But I think a year or two from now, I'll be test driving an Element. (Supposedly Honda does or did make a 4WD Fit for some countries, but alas, not in the U.S.)
I have an 07Fit with 38,000 miles and have several road trips of 500+ miles under my belt and I agree that at 80mph the Fit is pretty noisy, but then I've found driving at 65mph it's not bad and the MPG is a lot better too. I've found too that driving the speed limit (okay I do drive 60mph in the 55mph zones!) doesn't add much time to your trip anyway.
For example if you average 75mph, after passing, slowing down, speeding up, etc it will take you .67hours to drive 50 miles, or you could be in the right lane driving 65mph and it would take you .77hours to drive the same 50 miles, or you'd get there 6 minutes faster by driving 75mph. To me that extra 6 minutes isn't worth the more stressful drive, worse MPG, louder noise, etc...let the other guys pass you and be frustrated on the highway.
However, if you really have the need for speed, then I'd agree that the Fit may not be the car for you.
But sometimes the slower drive is the more stressful drive, especially in Atlanta or Houston traffic. Going 80-100 mph on the interstate in these conditions, mad though it is, is nevertheless a matter of self-defense, especially in a small car.
Exaggerating a bit???? I've driven in every state in the country and in many big cities, so I think it's stretching it a bit to say that you need to drive 80-100mph...especially in big cities where most of the time traffic creeps along. I know that some folks like to "brag" about how bad the traffic is in "their" city, but come on. And I'm not sure how driving those speeds can be safer. Yes it's safer to keep with the general flow of traffic, but again I think it's exaggerating a bit to say that the average speed is 90mph!
But in order to keep out of the way of the jerks in Atlanta? I found myself in the left lane on I-75 in Cobb County, GA a few years ago, unable to move to the right because there were no gaps, and with a stream of vehicles on my tail, with my speedometer showing an indicated 103. After midnight, on a weekend, in an old Mercedes with nearly 200k miles on it.
I have a '09 Sport/Auto. I took delivery late Oct 2008 and I'm just ready to turn 24K. MANY long trips including one from IL to Texas in January and noise has not been a problem. After getting my 2nd speeding ticket 2 months ago, I've driven closer to the limit ...... but still appreciate my Fits ability to cruise at speed .... 'keeping up' with the traffic ... and never have regretted buying it. I don't know anyone else with a Fit in my neck of the woods, but from what I've been reading I believe that my Fit with the auto revs much lower than the manual. My memory is that if it's turning 3K rpms then I'm traveling close to 85 mph. 3K rpms is nothing to get excited about when the red limit is more than twice that. While traveling to Texas, I drove a little later into the night than I'd planned. And although I'd been trying to stay in the 70-75 mph range (didn't use cruise much due to annoying downshifting in hills of Missouri) my GPS showed a max speed of 89 mph when I looked at it the next morning before resetting it..... and that happened without me realizing that I almost broke my promise to the wife that I would not exceed 90 mph in the little red race car!
Thanks for the great counterpoint on the automatic's much lower RPM. The stick shift I test drove runs 3,900 at 80 which is a quite different experience. How is the acceleration with the auto on city streets and merging onto highways?
Thanks for the replies, I kinda figured I'd hear that. The 2009 Sport is a wopping 22 pounds heavier than earlier models, I have a cat that weighs more than that. Oh well. I guess I have to weigh that against the positives and see what I come up with. It just gets such good reviews in so many other areas.....
I played close attention to the RPMs and MPH while I drove today. At 55 mph, the tach said just a 1/2 needle under 2000 rpms..... just edging past 2000 rpms at 60 mph. I very much was looking forward to buying a Fit with stick ... but I found some reporting that led me to believe the rpms were lower with the auto ..... and since I spend much of my road time at speed on the highways, I bought one with the auto. I merge w/o worry onto highways ...... and it's quick off the line at the traffic lights from a stop. I live in a rural area with two lane roads featuring curves and hills ..... lots of double yellow lines. Today I found myself behind a big truck hauling scrap and didn't want to wait around to see what would fly or fall off the truck...... the yellow no passing zone ended, down went the pedal, up went the revs (first time I've taken it up to 6K ... sounded good!) and I was around the truck (it was going 50-55) before we got to the next hill ..... and in what I would judge a short, adequate amount of time. I would not hesitate to recommend the auto on the sport. Coming through and out of Texas last January ..... running on real gas (no corn) .... I drove for several hours at 80--85 mph and the mileage meter (I know it reads about 10% high) stayed steady at 42-44 mpg. It was flat level ground and the traffic around me as going about the same speed. I wondered at the time if any drafting effect was aiding my mpg numbers .... but maybe that a topic for another post, another time. I do know that REAL gas makes a difference in performance (seat of the pants) and mpg (calculated real mileage rates) based on that trip from IL to Texas and back.
I regularly got 37 mpg on my 2008 Fit with stickshift. Although the high rpm were a little annoying, sure didn't hurt gas mileage. We use E10 in Cali at least in winter maybe year round.
Good to hear the auto is quick. According to tests it is a little slow 0-60, but I'm not sure how meaningful those tests are when most of are driving much gentler than maximum (pedal to the floor) most of the time. And of course in real life you have to shift four times with a stick to hit freeway speed, the auto throws shifts faster than we do for the most part.
I bought a Fit Sport A/T yesterday for wife and went to WalMart to find a good matching floor mats. I found few nice looking black mats with the right size, picked one up, and found the mat fits the Fit pretty well. I didn't have to worry about the hooks because the mat is heavy enough and wedged tightly enough in the proper spot to prevent it from moving around. This is a good $25 investment! over $130 retail all weather mats. I also bought additional cheapy clear mat ($8) to cover the exposed space in the rear as the "normal" mat did not cover the carpets under the front seats and the center space. Next step is to cut out a thin carpet protector for the cargo area.
I take it the cheapy clear mat will go under the two all weather mats in the rear.
It's good to watch for spills and moisture seeping under the mat, the one problem with any mats is that they will trap moisture and lead to mold growth. But that is a fairly remote affair.
I use a thin yoga mat (sports dept. at Walmart) to give some traction in the rear hatch area (when I had a fit). I am less concerned about spills than about stuff sliding around. Although once with one car a loose cap on a quart of oil wreaked havoc in the trunk....
Does anyone have any experience with Coco mats? They look nice and are supposed to wear well. Expensive though. I thought I would surprise my wife with them, when we get the car which should be in a couple of weeks. I'm just starting to shop for the car.
I don't know how well they would fit in the fit. (Hah)
You just know that once the newness and initial demand dies down, Kia will drop prices on the Soul. That'll hurt resale if you paid more when it was fresh and new.
So get the Honda now, or wait for the inevitable discounts on the Kia in a year or so.
Actually, that's the decision I've made. But it's not turning out to be $1k more.
I went back to the Kia dealer yesterday morning. The Soul+ that I wanted was gone, and the only 5-speed they had was an Soul! model, which is handicapped by the 18-inch wheels. The difference in ride was noticeable, but I was prepared to overlook it. I could even ignore the weird partial-houndstooth upholstery, though I'd prefer to have it on the entire seat. Worse still, the Soul! is actually more expensive than a Fit Sport.
My wife was not as sanguine as I. By the time we finished a 3/4 mile test drive, she was physically ill--and the Soul was no longer on the menu. We narrowly avoided having to do an interior cleanup.
Plan B was to go back to the Honda dealer and bring home a Fit for her to try on. If that didn't work, I was prepared to move up to a midsize sedan of some sort, or at least to an Elantra.
When I sat down in the Fit so soon after driving the Soul, I knew immediately that the Fit was a better choice for me--and for her. When I got to the house, she cooed and wowed over the Fit, asking whether it was considered "above" or "below" the Civic. She immediately sat down in the driver's seat and said "let's go." After a four-mile winding drive she pronounced it "acceptable," which is her way of saying "you can have it, and as soon as you get one I'd like to borrow it."
Now if I can just find the title to my clunker. . . and the dealer can find a Sport with a stick. . . we'll be all set--for about $1k lessthan the Kia Soul.
Thanks. At this point, I think it's mostly a paper chase--and a matter of finding the right car. I don't like the automatic, and I really want the equipment that comes with the Sport (especially cruise control!)
My state offers same-day title service from only one office--about an hour and a half from me--and I think it may be worth making the trip, in order to get the deal done before dealers start to get nervous about C4C$ drying up.
As noted in another note, I also bought my Fit mats at Wal-Mart for $20 and am very satisfied. (I bought 2 X 3 inch velcro stripts to hook down the drivers side mat, even though it didn't shift much, and that really locked it down.) I also bought a 4 X 6 foot rubber/carpeted entry mat at Home Depot for the rear which has been very satisfactory. It covers almost all the space across without cutting and, with the rear seats down, the extra few inches hang into the open space behind the front seats. With the rear seats up--not often--I just roll it back enough to fit. It looks nice--in black--and definitely protects the underlying carpet when I carry things like electric stove, dishwasher, and even a full-size recliner chair. Both items appear to be better quality carpet than the OEM mats available from Honda and were certainly cheaper.
I had a chance to drive wife's Fit Sport Auto for about a week. Likes and dislikes: - fuel mileage: 40 mpg on highway doing 65mph avg (computer showed 46 mpg) and about 33mpg driving around suburbs. - magic seats, great for cargo haul - nimble steering and cornering - paddle shifters - Ipod / USB interface
Dislikes: - Harsh ride on concrete surface highway. - Lack of power when engaged in 5th gear. Must force downshift to get any kind of acceleration - Cruise control downshifts to 4th when going up a hill (lack of power again) - Hard to use paddle shifter when making a turn - so so sound from speakers
FYI - I put a mesh to protect the condenser. See Fit Freak forum for the DIY. I used aluminum gutter guard and zip ties.
@hmowner: Your list of likes and dislikes pretty much sums up my own reaction to the Fit Sport with automatic. That's why I bought the manual version.
As for the harsh ride, I agree--but I'm willing to put up with it because of the handling. I know that it's possible to achieve sporty handling without sacrificing ride quality, but that happens well above this price point (the Mazda3s @ $20k was very nice, but out of my price range).
I haven't really noticed the speakers being particularly weak, but then I'm coming from a ten-year-old Civic EX and a fifteen-year-old Dodge truck, neither of which would be described as audiophile quality. I think it's acceptable given the price point, and I'm pleasantly surprised at the quality of FM radio reception. (The quality of what's on those stations is another matter).
I'll be either installing my own mesh or splurging on a custom lower grille ASAP to protect the condenser.
I did this bit of research back when I was contemplating the Fit:
The wheels off of the Civic Hybrid(first gen) will bolt right on(previous gen Civic might as well). The difference is that they are standard 14 or 15 inch alloys, IIRC. This greatly softens the ride quality. Shoot, my 2 ton Buick from the 80s had 14 inch tires. My 1960s Mercedes which was the size and weight of a Camry almost had 13s.
16s are just silly on a car this light. You get your best ride and handling from taller narrow tires, though grip at the extremes suffers a little, of course. But who races a Fit?
Those first-gen Civic Hybrid wheels are attractive too. I wonder about the lightweight 14" alloys from a Civic HX (1996-2000)--they looked just like the Minilites from the '60s, and I bet they'd look great on a Fit.
I agree. The 16 inch wheels are overkill and make for a rough ride. The rear sway bar doesn't, imho, make the ride rougher, it's those low profile tires.
The overstock of Fits in Nor Cal is a thing of the past as people with clunkers trade in for them.
Closest match: 195/65 14 - Sidewall 5.0 inches - 641 Revs/mile All three are within a few mm of each other in width and exterior dimensions. Massive improvement in highway ride, though compared to the 4 inch low-profile sidewall of the 16s.
The Yokohama AVID H4S are ~$86 each at Discount Tire - 500 AA rated. That's $30 less per tire that the 16s. IMO, the smart buyer takes the Sport's rims with 0 miles on them and sells them. In fact, I've heard of getting them swapped almost straight-up at the dealership. They get 4 replacement slightly more expensive brand new rims in stock and sell 4 new old stock Civic rims. $350 in new rubber and you're good to go.
IIRC, the alloys for the Civic Hybrid had the proper offset. Honda has hardly changed the design of its wheels in the last 20 years, so we're talking a few mm difference in any case. Of course, any dealer would be able to tell you the offset/help you figure out if it will work or not.
The offset may indeed be the same, but I think the concern here is will the 2" smaller diamater wheels fit over the brake calipers, i.e. will they even clear and be able to mount?
Probably, I mean, my mom's Fit (in Brazil) has 13" rims IIRC.
Still, I'd inspect the brake calipers closely before doing a Minus Two on the rims.
14s will easily work. Honda is very reliable in that way - almost anything that they make tends to stay the same for a very long time and gets re-used over and over again.
Comments
Assuming the Sport and Base models aren't THAT different, this must be a perception thing. (Some friends do point out that a guy that rides hundreds of miles a year on a bike seat like I do might not be the best judge of comfort but......)(-:
As a "sports car" the original Fit couldn't be beat - and for the average joe, a great handling "economy" car like this is probably the closest we'll get to a "sports" car when Nissan 350z's etc. have astronomical prices, and are hard to get with stick shifts to boot (I grew up in the '60's with Sunbeams and TR7's and the modern generation of small "economy" cars just blows them away in terms of sporty handling AND practicality AND safety).
And I loved the "magic" seats with the flat floor - I could carry 3 small kids in the back seat without crowding them (too much).
BUT the original Fit had 3 issues that I got tired of:
1. The freeway RPM hit 4,000 at 80 mph - not a very relaxed RPM. Due to the RPM and also due to the handling - not twitchy but "sharp" - the Fit was not a relaxing ride on long distance (more than 100 miles) trips.
2. Noisy. Consumer Guide calls it accurately when they rated the first gen Fit as a "3" on a scale of 10 vs. 4's for most of its competitors and 5's for a few of the quieter ones in this class.
3. Interior seemed cheap/gaudy. I think it is actually well made, but is dialed into Japanese/Asian tastes (towards the complicated and gaudy) rather than into more Euro/American tastes (simpler, cleaner). The Nissan Versa that I owned at the same time (I usually own 2 commuter cars and trade them off) had a much simpler, more tasteful, less confusing interior design.
Mind you, I'm hard to please, and there are many, many owners who are thrilled with the Fit.
Anyway when I read the Honda press releases and "buzz" about the second generation Fit it sounded terrific -
- it was supposed to handle "rock solid" even in the 80-100 mph zone;
- it was supposed to be "grown up" and more quiet.
- stretched out, no longer cramped into "B" car standards, more of a "super B" (nipping at the Civic market)
-it would handle better.
-and of course the interior was going to be upgraded
So when the second gen ('09) came out I was tempted to test drive it, but the salesman with who I worked at the time said it wasn't really much different from the first gen, still noisy. So I tabled it until I was really in the market to change cars.
Flash forward 9 months and I decide to shop the Cube and Fit. I had a Versa before, the Cube is "based" on it. I had the prior generation Fit and like a lot of things about it.
First I drove the Cube. Handled well, quiet, no engine roar accelerating, very little road noise. But I had misgivings since Nissan is "second tier" in my mind, in terms of engineering and quality control, behind Honda. So I decided to try the new generation Fit.
Whoa, what a disappointment! A GREAT car, if you are coming off a '90's econ car (trade in a lot less frequently than me) but NOT in the hunt compared to the current generation of econo cars. It should EXCEED other small cars, but it lags in terms of ordinary virtues like acceleration, ride, and noise.
First, there isn't any significant power at lower rpm. There is a real midrange and upper range "punch" but that calls for friskier driving than I like to to routinely. The old motor - engineered more for fuel economy and low end power than total power - was more driveable than the current version, which is a true VTEC design with variable valve timing (the old one just kept one valve shut until high rpm).
Second, there is a lot of perceived engine roar or noise when you accelerate, running the motor up to 4,000 rpm (which isn't that high).
Third, it doesn't cruise quietly on the freeway. There is road noise - tire thrum and general road noise - plus wind noise - plus motor noise (the least).
And it still turns over at 4,000 at 80, 3,000 at 60.
The Sport model handles MUCH better than the Base model (I drove both) due to the slightly firmer suspension and performance oriented tires. On the other hand the Sport model "thumped" a couple of places on road irregularities where the Base model road over them with no drama. As a daily driver, imho the Base model is much better, but for the sporty driver, the Sport model is a must have, especially since the difference in price is only $1500, which buys you cruise control, alloy wheels, sport tires, leather steering wheel, sport suspension, body colored mirrors, spoiler, air effects kit under front bumper and along body sides. In other words, about $3k worth of goodies for half price. And nicer seat fabric and slightly dolled up dash board.
The ENORMOUS disservice Honda has done its customers is to chisel by not including stability control. Stability control, on a car already equipped with ABS brakes, typically adds about $230-$300 to the MSRP on a car. Yet despite this small difference in costs on a car that in typical Sport/Auto configuration pushes $18k, Honda ONLY includes stability control on the much more expensive navigation equipped version. It should be included, standard, on the Sport model (since owners are apt to drive more aggressively) and, ideally, even on the Base model (since it is an "entry level" car and attracts younger and newer drivers who are more likely to benefit from the anti-skid protection, in the rain or on the snow or just getting on an on ramp).
So I got the Cube, which has stability control, a 1.8 liter engine which has enough power to run more relaxed (and gets almost the same gas mileage, 30 vs. 33), and a CVT (which works great).
Yes, I still have a fond spot in my heart for the Fit, due its is amazing efficiency and (potentially) greater "real world" mileage with the stick shift - and above all because it is an affordable sports car.
BUT Honda needs to get its act together and add stability control and a smidge more sound proofing, neither of which are difficult to do as a "running change" or model year change. (I can live with the high motor RPM since the motor is actually very smooth and quiet.) Also Honda needs to get rid of the Dunlop SP31's on the Base model and put something decent on - the Conti's that came on the Versa, the Toyo's that came on the Cube, are MUCH better handling tires, and I'm sure they don't cost Nissan any more than the SP31's cost Honda. Honda is a "performance" car company and shouldn't spec a Japanese market tire (where they don't drive sporty like we do) on the Fit.
And if Honda REALLY wants to respect their customer base, they need to shift from 5 speed manual transmissions to 6 speeds like Nissan.
And yes I found such a good deal on an '09 Rabbit while shopping for small cars that I did a rare "double trade in" weekend. The Rabbit isn't as much fun as the Cube, but it IS one heck of a driver's
I drove both a Fit and a Civic yesterday, in prep for a possible "cash for clunkers" deal involving both my clunker ('94 Dodge truck) and my wife's somewhat tired '99 Civic EX five-speed. I am hoping to find a vehicle that will be as fun to drive and own as the '99 Civic has been, with comparable economy and reliability and the updated safety features that weren't yet offered when we bought that car new. The ultimate goal: a car we will be as happy with for the next ten years as we have been with that one for the previous ten.
First was the new Civic. The dealer had only one in stock with a manual trans, an EX-Navi, so that's the one I drove. Considering the fact that I expected to love it, I was distinctly disappointed. The controls seem to have been mired in tree sap, judging from the unpleasant, jerky/sticky feel of the clutch and shifter action. The throttle seemed to have very little connection to anything happening in the engine compartment. (Yes, I know both the Civic and the Fit are drive-by-wire, but the Civic's implementation of the system was notably poor.) There was sufficient acceleration, but the car felt lifeless. The control layout was attractive at first glance, but I found myself focusing on the speedometer and having to consciously seek out the tach. Bad sign. Overall, the Civic was a less involving car to drive than even a new Accord. Before I even pulled the Civic back onto the lot, I told the salesman it was time to look at the Fit instead.
The dealer had one Fit Sport 5MT on the lot (Milano Red, wouldn't you know it). Before I had driven even one block, I was infatuated with the car's feel. The Fit has the liveliness and joie de vivre of the best older Hondas I've driven (two Integras, a 4ws Prelude, and innumerable CRXs and Civics), but with the solidity of a modern car. The Fit probably isn't as quick 0-60 as the '09 Civic, but it felt much more eager and entertaining. I also like the fact that I can see out of it. Outward visibility used to be a hallmark of Honda design; nowadays only the Fit seems to carry that tradition forward.
Sure, it might be rather fatiguing on an all-day road trip. But so are most cars. I think that's inherent in the concept of the all-day road trip.
I drive briskly, but not recklessly, and I like a car that will communicate with me and provide some entertainment value. Most of my driving is either (a) the daily eleven-mile slog across town to the office, or (b) a couple of hours spent on nearby country roads. For the all-day drive to Houston, St. Louis or DC, we have the Accord.
Am I sold on the Fit? Maybe. I still want to look at a couple of other options--the Soul and the Elantra Touring, among others. But yesterday's test drive vaulted the Fit from "not very likely" to "probable first choice."
I think you would be very happy with it...if you didn't find the Civic a lot quieter (it gets a "6" from Consumer Guide in its noise rating) then you aren't as sensitive to the noise issue as I have become.
In all other ways, as you noted, I think the Fit beats the Civic - just plain a lot more fun.
I DO stand by my complaint that Honda should have included stability control (although you sound like you don't need it) and I think they should add about 125 pounds of soundproofing...though I don't think they will.
Let us know which vehicle you select. I still like the Fit a lot, I'm just pretty irked that Honda didn't deliver on all the promises they were making back in '08.
The way the rear seats fold forward and flat is, however, VERY slick.
And if I ever owned one - I'd take out the spare tire (but replace it with a compact inflation kit, maybe just a can of inflator/sealer) and use that to stow my backpack or gym bag, keeping the the top area "open" for Trader Joes and Costco runs (when I used a cargo cover, it reduced the capacity too much and got in the way).
If you buy one, be sure to get the factory floor mats and have the dealer install them - they have to cut the factory felt mat to install hooks to hold the mats in place, it would drive you nuts to do it yourself. Without the minor surgery on the factory floor, the mats slide around. I thought for sure on this generation Honda would ship the car with the hooks to hold the mats preinstalled, like on ALL their other cars.
The new Civic was a bit quieter, yes, but in combination with the other factors it came off not as "refined" but as "isolated"--in a negative way, at least for me. I had hoped that the Civic would combine the fun and economy of the Fit with some of the refinement and comfort of the Accord, but for me it did the opposite, the weakest features of the larger and smaller cars with none of the redeeming qualities. It may well be that the new Civic is more at home with an automatic than with a manual.
If I buy a Honda, it will almost certainly be a Fit Sport 5MT. My favorite color is the Blackberry Pearl, followed closely by Milano Red but my wife will probably insist on Blue Sensation instead. Frankly I'd settle for any color but black, which would be impractical thanks to the combination of the Fit's large windshield, Georgia summers and somewhat unimpressive air conditioning.
I hope you enjoy your new Cube. Most of the reviews I've seen make it seem like the Cube would be a bit too soft for my tastes--then again, I haven't driven either the Cube or the Versa yet. More hunting to do! Versa, Cube, Soul, Elantra Touring, maybe even the Scion xD.
Ha ha. That's kind of what I suspected in my original "tirade." That if you are coming off a 90's econo car, the Fit will seem fine (most likely better, in terms of noise, vibration, harshness) but compared to some other current cars in its niche, it's on the bottom of the scale - based on my test drives and ratings from Consumer Reports & Consumer Guide (Consumer Guide is available online, free).
Yes the Civic is a dull car. Only the hatchback Si broke that mold.
In a lot of ways the Fit is like a mild reincarnation of the Si hatchback - except it has four doors and a much better rear seat.
After all, the Fit now has more horsepower than my 2003 Civic had - it only had 115hp, the Fit has 118 - and the Fit is closer in weight to the mid 2000's Si.
The only thing I would note, is that you probably should take all these cars you are test driving out on the freeway and try them at 65, 70, 80 (if the salesman doesn't object). With the stereo off, the fan turned on low, and no conversation with the salesman. Conversations and stereos are big masks for "ambient noise levels."
I am not saying the Fit is bad. I drove the prior generation to LA. But on that drive I did notice I kept my speed down to 75, whereas on other vehicles I am blipping up to or beyond 80 mph (not good, I know, but actually slower than prevailing traffic). The Fit felt fine at 75, but not as comfortable at 80. The new generation Fit is COMPLETELY redesigned with a longer wheel base, it's wider, has bigger wheels and tires, so I suspect - but can't confirm - that now it's probably an able 80 mph freeway flyer.
I kinda hope you get the Fit so you can talk me into one too....
I've often said the US market needed an updated version of the wonderfully efficient, eager and entertaining mid-eighties Civic Wagon.
I think the Fit fits that description well.
And yes I think the Fit is the modern incarnation of the Civic Wagon. Better in SO many ways - I would just like to see Honda hit "perfection" with one more gear on the manual transmission, a little more sounproofing, and better tires on the base model. And of course stability control.
BTW I checked Consumer Reports. On their 150 mile simulated road trip (mostly freeway, not stop and go) the manual transmission Fit Sport they drove returned 41 mpg - awesome mileage. So although the Fit this year is rated lower for gas mileage, in reality it is capable of some amazing tricks (their city mileage was 24, highway 37, so don't ask me why the blended long drive did so much better - unless the higher percentage of time spent "warming up" the car on the city and highway tests they run impacts gas mileage that much).
micweb: how's the shifter on that Nissan? On paper I think a 6 speed in this class is a great idea, but I've heard complaints about the clutch and shifter on the Versa. Haven't tried it yet myself.
My Miata has a 6 speed and I'm not 100% convinced that's better than a 5 speed, most of the time it's overkill and I just skip 5th gear anyway.
I don't necessarily agree with the floor mats comment.
I balked at the Honda OEM floormat price and cost of installation. Instead, I bought the top quality heavy carpet choice at Wal-Mart for $20. I then used two 2" by 3" strips of velcro glued to the bottom of the driver floor mat, and to the vinal section behind the pedals. No more problem with slipping and a much heavier quality carpet material. The mats have stayed perfectly in place for several months without problems--although they don't fit perfectly around the "dead pedal" without cutting.
I took a different route for floor mats on my '08, also resorting to Wal-Mart - except I visited their auto accessories floor mat aisle. I didn't buy any of the pre-packaged "sets", I looked for the heavy duty rubber mats that are usually on the bottom shelf under the hanging sets. They have small rear seat squares - these are the "all season" black ones - and also front seat ones with the protruding "tongues" designed to run up under the pedals.
On the last generation '08 I had, the conventional front seat mats just wouldn't fit in the narrow space between the wheel well and the center stack. But I had seen how Honda positioned their own "all season" mats in their brochure, and took a lesson from them. I just reversed the usual location of the mats, from front to back!
The "little" squares from the truck oriented all season mats fit just fine in front, and didn't slip. While not ideal for a muddy-shoed passenger stretching out their legs, for me the square worked fine.
The "tongued" all season mats then fit REALLY well in the rear - the tongue fit nicely between the seat frame rack on each seat, and took care of the extra long leg room provided in the rear seat of the Fit. Regardless of what YOU decide for the front seat, I highly recommend using the "front" all season Wal Mart floor mats because they fit so well - and due to the flat rear floor, these "wider" front mats fit well (narrow tongue to extend under the seats, wide back portion to cover as much of the rear floor as possible).
Anyway I hope this helps. What you can take from this post and the prior post is that neither of us wanted to use the expensive factory floor mats, or deal with attaching them (the all season rubber mats are heavy and sticky enough not to shift around).
All of this assumes I actually buy a Fit. I haven't yet had a chance to check out the non-Honda competition--I'll probably do that this weekend.
Advantages of the Soul:
more front seat space
more equipment (bluetooth, satellite radio, seat height adjuster)
more torque at low rpm
smoother and quieter for the daily slog
longer warranty
probably more comfortable for extended trips
Advantages of the Fit:
somewhat nicer interior materials
better handling
shifter feels sportier
in general, more fun to drive quickly
probably less likely to need that warranty
slightly better mpg
So I'm on the fence. The real world price probably won't differ by more than $1k. I have some thinking to do.
I live in Cleveland OH, lotsa snow. I am used to driving a Toyota Tacoma pickup. I realize that's a tremendous change and I am not expecting the snow performance I got with the Tacoma but can the Fit at least handle well in snow?
I want to go smaller but get a little paranoid when I think about how small cars perform in snow. Am I gonna be skidding all over the place???
Thanks for any input....
For example if you average 75mph, after passing, slowing down, speeding up, etc it will take you .67hours to drive 50 miles, or you could be in the right lane driving 65mph and it would take you .77hours to drive the same 50 miles, or you'd get there 6 minutes faster by driving 75mph. To me that extra 6 minutes isn't worth the more stressful drive, worse MPG, louder noise, etc...let the other guys pass you and be frustrated on the highway.
However, if you really have the need for speed, then I'd agree that the Fit may not be the car for you.
But in order to keep out of the way of the jerks in Atlanta? I found myself in the left lane on I-75 in Cobb County, GA a few years ago, unable to move to the right because there were no gaps, and with a stream of vehicles on my tail, with my speedometer showing an indicated 103. After midnight, on a weekend, in an old Mercedes with nearly 200k miles on it.
I merge w/o worry onto highways ...... and it's quick off the line at the traffic lights from a stop. I live in a rural area with two lane roads featuring curves and hills ..... lots of double yellow lines. Today I found myself behind a big truck hauling scrap and didn't want to wait around to see what would fly or fall off the truck...... the yellow no passing zone ended, down went the pedal, up went the revs (first time I've taken it up to 6K ... sounded good!) and I was around the truck (it was going 50-55) before we got to the next hill ..... and in what I would judge a short, adequate amount of time. I would not hesitate to recommend the auto on the sport. Coming through and out of Texas last January ..... running on real gas (no corn) .... I drove for several hours at 80--85 mph and the mileage meter (I know it reads about 10% high) stayed steady at 42-44 mpg. It was flat level ground and the traffic around me as going about the same speed. I wondered at the time if any drafting effect was aiding my mpg numbers .... but maybe that a topic for another post, another time. I do know that REAL gas makes a difference in performance (seat of the pants) and mpg (calculated real mileage rates) based on that trip from IL to Texas and back.
I regularly got 37 mpg on my 2008 Fit with stickshift. Although the high rpm were a little annoying, sure didn't hurt gas mileage. We use E10 in Cali at least in winter maybe year round.
Good to hear the auto is quick. According to tests it is a little slow 0-60, but I'm not sure how meaningful those tests are when most of are driving much gentler than maximum (pedal to the floor) most of the time. And of course in real life you have to shift four times with a stick to hit freeway speed, the auto throws shifts faster than we do for the most part.
manual transmission?
I'm familiar with a short shifter on a BMW.
If the Fit has a truly short shifter it should improve
the shifting dramatically.
Anyone have any comments?
Thanks guys
I'll post a review/experience in few weeks.
It's good to watch for spills and moisture seeping under the mat, the one problem with any mats is that they will trap moisture and lead to mold growth. But that is a fairly remote affair.
I use a thin yoga mat (sports dept. at Walmart) to give some traction in the rear hatch area (when I had a fit). I am less concerned about spills than about stuff sliding around. Although once with one car a loose cap on a quart of oil wreaked havoc in the trunk....
They look nice and are supposed to wear well.
Expensive though.
I thought I would surprise my wife with them, when we get the car
which should be in a couple of weeks. I'm just starting to shop for the car.
I don't know how well they would fit in the fit. (Hah)
Any comments?
Thanks
You just know that once the newness and initial demand dies down, Kia will drop prices on the Soul. That'll hurt resale if you paid more when it was fresh and new.
So get the Honda now, or wait for the inevitable discounts on the Kia in a year or so.
I went back to the Kia dealer yesterday morning. The Soul+ that I wanted was gone, and the only 5-speed they had was an Soul! model, which is handicapped by the 18-inch wheels. The difference in ride was noticeable, but I was prepared to overlook it. I could even ignore the weird partial-houndstooth upholstery, though I'd prefer to have it on the entire seat. Worse still, the Soul! is actually more expensive than a Fit Sport.
My wife was not as sanguine as I. By the time we finished a 3/4 mile test drive, she was physically ill--and the Soul was no longer on the menu. We narrowly avoided having to do an interior cleanup.
Plan B was to go back to the Honda dealer and bring home a Fit for her to try on. If that didn't work, I was prepared to move up to a midsize sedan of some sort, or at least to an Elantra.
When I sat down in the Fit so soon after driving the Soul, I knew immediately that the Fit was a better choice for me--and for her. When I got to the house, she cooed and wowed over the Fit, asking whether it was considered "above" or "below" the Civic. She immediately sat down in the driver's seat and said "let's go." After a four-mile winding drive she pronounced it "acceptable," which is her way of saying "you can have it, and as soon as you get one I'd like to borrow it."
Now if I can just find the title to my clunker. . . and the dealer can find a Sport with a stick. . . we'll be all set--for about $1k lessthan the Kia Soul.
My state offers same-day title service from only one office--about an hour and a half from me--and I think it may be worth making the trip, in order to get the deal done before dealers start to get nervous about C4C$ drying up.
- fuel mileage: 40 mpg on highway doing 65mph avg (computer showed 46 mpg) and about 33mpg driving around suburbs.
- magic seats, great for cargo haul
- nimble steering and cornering
- paddle shifters
- Ipod / USB interface
Dislikes:
- Harsh ride on concrete surface highway.
- Lack of power when engaged in 5th gear. Must force downshift to get any kind of acceleration
- Cruise control downshifts to 4th when going up a hill (lack of power again)
- Hard to use paddle shifter when making a turn
- so so sound from speakers
FYI -
I put a mesh to protect the condenser. See Fit Freak forum for the DIY. I used aluminum gutter guard and zip ties.
As for the harsh ride, I agree--but I'm willing to put up with it because of the handling. I know that it's possible to achieve sporty handling without sacrificing ride quality, but that happens well above this price point (the Mazda3s @ $20k was very nice, but out of my price range).
I haven't really noticed the speakers being particularly weak, but then I'm coming from a ten-year-old Civic EX and a fifteen-year-old Dodge truck, neither of which would be described as audiophile quality. I think it's acceptable given the price point, and I'm pleasantly surprised at the quality of FM radio reception. (The quality of what's on those stations is another matter).
I'll be either installing my own mesh or splurging on a custom lower grille ASAP to protect the condenser.
The wheels off of the Civic Hybrid(first gen) will bolt right on(previous gen Civic might as well). The difference is that they are standard 14 or 15 inch alloys, IIRC. This greatly softens the ride quality. Shoot, my 2 ton Buick from the 80s had 14 inch tires. My 1960s Mercedes which was the size and weight of a Camry almost had 13s.
16s are just silly on a car this light. You get your best ride and handling from taller narrow tires, though grip at the extremes suffers a little, of course. But who races a Fit?
The overstock of Fits in Nor Cal is a thing of the past as people with clunkers trade in for them.
You will need to match up the profile/height, though, but that should be simple enough.
Original: 175/65 15 - Sidewall 4.5 inches - 642 Revs/mile
Sport: 185/55 16 - Sidewall 4.0 inches - 641 Revs/mile
Closest match: 195/65 14 - Sidewall 5.0 inches - 641 Revs/mile
All three are within a few mm of each other in width and exterior dimensions. Massive improvement in highway ride, though compared to the 4 inch low-profile sidewall of the 16s.
The Yokohama AVID H4S are ~$86 each at Discount Tire - 500 AA rated. That's $30 less per tire that the 16s. IMO, the smart buyer takes the Sport's rims with 0 miles on them and sells them. In fact, I've heard of getting them swapped almost straight-up at the dealership. They get 4 replacement slightly more expensive brand new rims in stock and sell 4 new old stock Civic rims. $350 in new rubber and you're good to go.
Kind of a silly thing, IMO. I check my tires every couple of weeks anyways.
Probably, I mean, my mom's Fit (in Brazil) has 13" rims IIRC.
Still, I'd inspect the brake calipers closely before doing a Minus Two on the rims.
Stick with 15"s in the stock size.