Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Honda Fit

1252628303180

Comments

  • fdannafdanna Member Posts: 263
    It's also worth noting a loaded Versa is over 19,000! There are some nice gadgets that you can add though, like the bluetooth radio and, *cough*, a CVT transmission. The manual is also 6speed on both base and SL.

    They only have combined mileage figures now... 38mpg with the CVT. However, it's 120 horses at 1.8 liters instead of 109 at 1.5. Hmm... something is amiss...
  • fdannafdanna Member Posts: 263
    "talking to friends in Japan, the Sport version is the "real car". Goes from okay handling to decent - drives much better.(also where i got their impressions on the automatic)"

    Umm, doesn't honda generally keep the same suspension on ALL their model levels (DX, LX, EX)? With the exception of Si models, I didn't think they offered different suspensions.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    The Sport version is essentially a Fit Si, with a couple of upgrades - enough to firm it up to where it's a clone of the base Mini.(except with tighter turning radius, of course) That is, if we are getting the Sport from Japan, that is. I hope it's not just some cladding and a few extra features, as a stiffer suspension is a big plus from what I hear.
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Member Posts: 678
    "Umm, doesn't honda generally keep the same suspension on ALL their model levels (DX, LX, EX)? With the exception of Si models, I didn't think they offered different suspensions."

    In the past, they would often throw in a stabilizer bar for the EX or leave it off of the DX. I have driven DX and EX Civic coupes from the same year and noticed a difference in handling. They might have changed that now, since I noticed the new Civics all have stabilizer bars.

    The US-market Fit gets a front stabilizer bar on both the base and Sport versions. I may be mistaken, but I don't think a stabilizer bar is needed on the back if it has a torsion bar suspension. The difference between the US-market base and Sport Fits is all looks. Mechanically they are the exact same and in fact I would have to think the 5-speed MT base would drive better because of the decreased weight.

    My three biggest "YEAH"s for the Fit are:
    -They loaded the base model up with everything you need. The only thing I have to buy extra is the security/keyless entry.
    -The safety features are excellent. I am very happy to see the side-curtains on the list.
    -They didn't Americanize it too much. I was worried that they might do some odd things, but the good news is almost everything is the same as the JDM version, especially the manual transmission version :shades: .

    The Sport version is not essentially a Fit Si. The difference between the Civic Si and the Civic LX is quite significant mechanically and cosmetically. For the Fit, it's just cosmetic...except for the sport paddles on the 5AT, but then again you wouldn't really want an automatic in an Si. ;)
    The Sport gets drum brakes. That says enough.
  • jonpnjjonpnj Member Posts: 52
    This looks to be quite a smart commuter car at a very fair asking price. Anyone know when we can touch and feel?
  • bostonjazzbostonjazz Member Posts: 51

    http://www.adweek.com/aw/national/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001808100

    "Larry Postaer, director of creative services at independent RPA in Santa Monica, Calif., said he expects the agency's first work for Honda's Fit to debut in the first quarter, well in advance of an April release. He would not disclose details."

    [So the advertising is coming soon, and that makes sense. I saw a reference to the car being available in Canada in *early* April - does that mean we're looking at the first part of April in the U.S.?]

    "Rated at 38 highway mpg, the 109-horsepower, 1.5-liter, four-cylinder VTEC engine is expected to achieve the highest gas mileage in company category."

    [The "highest in company category" reference would mean that the Fit outperforms the Civic on MPG. I also wonder if it's fuel for the argument that 33/38 is Honda's "real world" estimate, which means its EPA equivalent could be higher?

    As Honda sees it this MPG (for a non-hybrid) is best for them, and competitive with the 38 mpg competitors like the xA, etc.]
  • vcarrerasvcarreras Member Posts: 247
    I thought both the base and sport would have 4 wheel disk brakes standard. I did notice in one photo that had drums in back but thought it may be the base model. So no 4 wheel disk brakes? :cry:
  • vcarrerasvcarreras Member Posts: 247
    ABS standard. Disk brakes front drums rear..
  • thevelourfogthevelourfog Member Posts: 4
    "The Sport version is essentially a Fit Si, with a couple of upgrades - enough to firm it up to where it's a clone of the base Mini.(except with tighter turning radius, of course) That is, if we are getting the Sport from Japan, that is. I hope it's not just some cladding and a few extra features, as a stiffer suspension is a big plus from what I hear."

    According to the US specs, the steering ratio is 12.8:1 while the (older) Fit 1.5 was 17. 7: 1. The turning radius on the US car is also worse than a base cooper. 35.6ft vs 34.8.
  • shneorshneor Member Posts: 66
    Still, highway gas mileage at 80 looks to be lower than the advertised 38mpg due to the gearing. I did expect better fuel economy.
  • jonniedeejonniedee Member Posts: 111
    If you want the paddle shift automatic OR cruise control it appears that you HAVE to buy the sport model...
  • jmiller1984jmiller1984 Member Posts: 19
    While the Fit apparently isn't all that so many of us had hoped for, it seems to represent a reasonable collection of thoughtful features combined with a number of compromises. I don't think the guys who run the company are idiots, so they must of somehow determined this particular mix best meets the needs/wants of the majority of potential U.S. buyers. Why else would they be offering us the proposed package? Yeah, I would have been happy with a smaller, more fuel-efficient engine, but have you noticed the size of the average American [non-permissible content removed] lately? It takes power to haul those extra pounds around. And what about merging into traffic when every other vehicle is an SUV that has you beat by, what...3000 lbs? Honestly, how many Americans would even consider purchasing a vehicle with less that 100hp? The formulas that work so well in certain overseas markets simply don't add up over here. Not yet, anyway. Maybe what we all longed-for simply cannot happen as fast as we want. It's gonna take a while to purge our roads of the glut of bloated SUVs. Then, maybe, enough drivers will be willing to accept the economies necessary to justify a whole range of smaller, lighter, and less powerful but much more efficient cars. And let's not forget we've still got to convince the American public that today's diesel is a great way to go. Even with all that, we will always live in a country many times larger and more dispersed than the countries that seem to get all those great little cars. There may never be enough of us who are willing to accept 90hp for a 2000 mile road trip around the Western U.S.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    Thanks for posting the specs on the 1992 Civic VX. I had the 1993 Civic CX, which was the "poor mans" version of the VX. It used a low rev'ing engine to get a rated 42/46 mpg. It only had 70 hp out of a 1.5 engine, and 90 lb-ft of torque.

    So, here is MY reality: I never got over 30 mpg on it, including trips between LA and San Francisco. My 1999 132 hp Dodge Neon stick shift, on the other hand, got 35 mpg on the same route, going much faster and certainly accelerating a lot better.

    Be careful what you wish for in small displacement, "high efficiency" motors. I'd rather have the proven 1.5.

    I am glad Honda is putting the VTEC version in the Fit. Could have been a non-VTEC motor. I am glad it has a chain and not a belt for the camshaft.

    Another way to put the gas mileage in perspective: Honda claimed, when it came out, that the new engine in the new Civic would have the power of a 2.0 and the gas mileage of a 1.5. Well, looks like they were accurate - at least if you stay in the Honda family.

    I am sure if Honda spent the $$$ they could get 1.7 performance and 1.3 liter performance out of the 1.5 in the Fit - but only by using the same technical upgrades used in the Civic motor. That would, however, undermine Honda's goal of keeping the price on the Fit down.

    Personally, I think it is great that:

    1. The wheelbase is longer than on the choppy Scion xA I had;

    2. The gas mileage is better;

    3. It includes side curtain airbags;

    4. It has a LOT more cargo space, and the "magic seat" is especially intriguing; it opens up the space behind the front seats for camping gear, without having to fold down the top of the rear seat (keep the rear seat up with a tonneau cover for cargo privacy).

    Gosh guys, lighten up on the mileage issue, the cost per mile, taking into account both mpg and purchase price and depreciations, is SO much lower than a hybrid!
  • jonniedeejonniedee Member Posts: 111
    Astute observations - Honda can't please all of the people all of the time but they do a pretty good job keeping most happy ;)
  • smlcarguysmlcarguy Member Posts: 25
    I’d appreciate all your comments on the following.

    I'm trying to determine the approximate Canadian dollar starting price of a “base” FIT from info. on both Honda USA and Honda Canada websites.

    The current 2006 civic sedan for example starts at $14,560 US and $16,800 CDN, which equates to a premium for Canada of 15.38 %

    The current 2006 civic coupe starts at $14,360 US and $17,000 CDN, which equates to a premium for Canada of 18.38 %. For whatever reason the coupe is cheaper than sedan in US vs. Canada.

    Doing the exact same thing for the Honda Accord, e.g. higher priced car and higher profit margins is an extra Sedan premium of 36.08% and coupe premium of 29.08%.

    What I'm trying to get at though is a projected Honda “exchange rate” that will be applicable to the FIT. As the FIT is hopefully a lower margin car, my guess is Honda will price the Canadian version closer to typical lower Civic spread rather than higher Accord spread.

    $13,000 US for base version would translate to a range of between $15,000 CDN (@ 15.38%) and $15,390 CDN (@ 18.38%) if Honda used those same Civic exchange rates. This makes some sense as at least the BASE version FIT MUST come in cheaper than the current 2006 Civics, right???

    Because I’ve been so disappointed in FIT’s “speculated” mpg I just found out I can still get the latest 2005 Toyota Echo 4-door sedan, “B” package with air conditioning, as there still is a few coming out of Japan brand NEW. I believe this is the exact same Echo sedan version that has been available in the US also until last year.

    B package consists only of larger wheels/tires, power locks but NOT windows, and color keyed bumpers/door handles, NO ABS brakes and 2 airbags. Also comes with factory air conditioning option.

    Will the new FIT “Base version” definitely have ABS brakes and better air bags etc. than this 2005 Echo sedan? What else?

    The CDN MSRP for above Echo would be $15,930 CDN undiscounted, before freight & taxes etc., and straight over a phone call one dealer was offering about $1,200 CDN off that, so discounted price would be $14,730 CDN at the highest and maybe cheaper if I can still deal them down but probably not more than a few hundred tops I’d guess, if that.

    Translating those above CDN figures into US would work out to most of you guys paying the equivalent of between $12,440 US (@ 18.38 %) and $12,765 US (@ 15.38 %) or even as high as $13,125 US, if “Toyotas” exchange rate was used (same methodology as above using 2006 Corolla (.com vs. .ca) exchange rate of 12.21%).

    Bottom line, would any of you consider doing this, considering all the above prices for the equipment differences we so far know about between a 2005 Echo sedan and a 2007 Honda FIT ???

    I wish Honda had simply given FIT better mpg so I wouldn’t even have to consider this, but I admit after reading a few more comments about 2007 EPA and real world mileage etc. we just don’t know for sure yet on US or CDN mpg. I value all your feedback so please give me your thoughts.

    2005 Echo PROS:
    Way better gas mileage than FIT. Guessing 10 to 15 % better mpg than FIT. 2005 Echo gets 42 mpg city and 54 mpg hwy CDN. ratings.
    Marginally less expensive than FIT.
    Still is a fairly roomy car with a big trunk.
    Might have better overall reliability than first year FIT, though questionable as FIT has been around other countries for some time now.
    Other pros?

    CONS:
    Effectively taking a 2 year depreciation hit right off the bat.
    Decreased re-sale market for car, higher potential future depreciation, now that model is discontinued, though I personally usually drive my cars into the ground and don’t resell.
    No ABS compared to base FIT (?)
    Less airbags than the base FIT (?)
    Definitely less versatile than FIT.
    Other cons?

    I guess main thing for me, and still sore point, is such poor FIT mpg, though I do love the rest of the car far more than Echo.

    My dilemma is do the few pros of the 2005 Echo over ride the lousier mpg of the FIT???

    Comments from all please.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Those were some very good points on the fuel economy, I must admit. Either way it is much cheaper to buy and run than a hybrid, with high enough mpg that it works out in your favor.

    I was actually surprised at the amount of standard equipment on the $13K model - in fact, it begs the question of how Honda can justify selling a 2006 Civic DX for $14,6 or whatever with no A/C or radio, when the base Fit will sell for less money and have both (and some other stuff too).

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

  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    The Civic is a much larger and more refined car. Still, I see a lot of people who will jump at the chance to buy a Fit instead of a Civic DX or LX.

    Can you say, "Waiting lists" and "ADM"? :cry:
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    Remember the old adage "your mileage may vary." I wouldn't use the stats between the very old and long in the tooth Echo and the yet to be delivered Fit for comparison.

    I think a fairer comparison would be among the Fit, new Yaris, new Accent, and new Rio. Of these, the Yaris has the least amount of standard safety gear, but probably has a stronger body structure since the makers pay a lot of attention to the Insurance Institute crash test procedures and probably won't want to introduce any new models that do terribly in the new side impact crash test the Institute has. Along those lines, neither the Accent nor Rio have done well in the past; but Honda has done very well. My guess is that Honda probably tweaked the Fit body structure here and there with gusseting, donuts, or whatever to give it good crash test resistance. Safety has certainly been Honda's recent calling card, much more than at Toyota.

    The Echo hasn't done badly in Canada, but it has been a terrible seller and embarrassment for Toyota in the States.

    It's your decision. But I wouldn't go with an Echo. And that's coming from someone who owned and drove one for 10,000 miles or so.
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Member Posts: 678
    Hi smlcarguy,

    I honestly don't see where the dilemma is.

    First, the Fit's fuel economy is not "poor". It's not great, but it is not poor either.
    The Echo ratings you gave are in Imperial gallons. 42 city and 54 highway are 35 city and 45 highway in US gallons. Better, but not mind-numbingly exciting...especially the city ratings. So you can compare the two in US gallons (33/38 vs. 35/45), or compare them in Imperial gallons (40/46 vs. 42/54).
    If the only real difference between the two was the mileage I listed above and we were talking about the Yaris, I might see your point, but the Fit and the Echo are like chalk and cheese. Also, the Echo in the US had 35/42, so that might throw a few more points up for the Fit when it arrives in Canada.

    The US Fit (base model) would probably be comparable to the Canadian Fit LX. However, the US base model will have the following items standard:

    Safety-
    ABS
    Driver and passenger front airbags
    Driver and front passenger side airbags
    Side curtain airbags

    Convenience-
    Air conditioning
    CD player with 4 speakers
    Power windows
    Power door locks
    Power mirrors
    ...the list goes on. These are all standard on the cheapest US model. Here is a complete list of features:
    http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2150?mid=2006010736064&mime=asc

    Not to mention the overall refinement, better utility/versatility, better looks, and most likely better handling and engine performance.

    I would take the Fit over the Echo any day.
    If I were you, I would wait to compare it to a Yaris. Even then I would still pick the Fit, but the 5-door Yaris is available in Canada, which actually makes this question worth asking.

    I also like Honda's current ideas. They are putting a real focus on safety. Toyota clearly isn't, being that anything more than 2 airbags is an option in the US Yaris. I have found Toyota to be quite contradictory of late. They spit out some high mileage cars, and declare their dedication to the environment, but at the same time are planning to introduce a full-size pickup around 2009.
  • txptctxptc Member Posts: 30
    2. People forget that great fuel mileage reported from European Jazz models are based on the smaller L12A and L13A i-DSI engines sold there. While quite fuel-efficient, the i-DSI engines would have not been acceptable here due to the low performance of these engines (Honda UK quotes a 0-60 time of around 12 seconds for the Jazz powered by the L13A). Also, because the MPG numbers from the UK are based on the British Imperial gallon (about 20% bigger than the US gallon), that also inflates the mpg figure 20%.

    Raychuang00, why do you keep insisting that there is no market for the smaller engines? Just look at all the disappointed people in this forum who would have gladly sacrificed some engine power for better fuel economy. Just look at the sales of the overpriced hybrids here in the US to see that there is interest in a vehicle that has great fuel economy and sacrifices power. Also, if any manufacturer had the guts to come out with something that had a non-hybrid engine for $10,000-$13,000 base that had combined mileage of 45-50 mpg with at least average quality, they couldn't keep them in stock. By the way, Raychuang00, do you work for Honda? You protest a little too much on the disappointments that many of us have...and please stop stating your opinions as facts!
  • oldone1oldone1 Member Posts: 9
    I guess I am not a race car driver. As for merging into traffic sometimes it doesn't matter how fast you have accelerated because the a-hole in the slow lane still won't let you in. So if they came out with the smaller engines I would be there with my money to buy it. Sooner or later the smaller more efficient engines are going to be a way of life. Although I am intrigued by the fact that Honda is starting the second generation of fuel cell cars with potentially longer range that matches the average car. But don't think I can wait that long to get a new car. The fit was our hope or dream car that would see us driving by the gas pumps with a big smile while others sat there doling out big money just so they could go fast. Honda blew it, they have left open a window for someone else to come in with a commuter car that can get the mpg. Kind of funny that Honda has forgotten their roots and is more into making a SUV or a "truck". Oh, I do have a truck but it takes diesel and can pull 13,000 pounds but it isn't used for commuting.
  • coldstorage5coldstorage5 Member Posts: 76
    A loaded Fit for 15K. Air bags, ac, abs, magic seats, rims, stereo, cruise, the list keeps going. Honda had to go with a 1.5. Our highways dictate that. Commuters need a little power to drive. Plus what about passengers and other items you take, let say on vacation.
    The fuel mileage is very good. If really want a 90 hp car, then maybe the fit isn't for you.
    Plus a TIMING CHAIN, Yes no more of those 50k major tune ups .
    Please who knock this car are nuts. I cant wait to buy this vehicle. 15K people loaded!!
    Oh they dont have the 1.2 SO WHATIf you want such tiny 0-60 car, you might as well ride a bike. :):) :P
  • raychuang00raychuang00 Member Posts: 541
    Raychuang00, why do you keep insisting that there is no market for the smaller engines? Just look at all the disappointed people in this forum who would have gladly sacrificed some engine power for better fuel economy.

    The big issue here is with all that safety equipment installed, the "base" US-market Fit is already at 2,432 pounds, around 175 pounds over the weight of the L13A-powered Fit/Jazz models sold elsewhere in the world. All that weight will really tax the L13A i-DSI engine, and given American driving styles the L13A engine will be running a lot of high revs trying to keep up with American traffic.

    I do see that when the Fit has its full model change, they'll probably switch to a new I-4 engine of 1.5 to 1.6 liters displacement, an engine derived from the R18 I-4 engine (e.g., SOHC i-VTEC valvetrain and low-friction internals). That new engine will likely offer around 115 bhp (SAE 08/04 net) and 2-3 mpg better fuel efficiency than the L15A VTEC engine.
  • marikamarika Member Posts: 39
    "Raychuang00, why do you keep insisting that there is no market for the smaller engines? Just look at all the disappointed people in this forum who would have gladly sacrificed some engine power for better fuel economy. Just look at the sales of the overpriced hybrids here in the US to see that there is interest in a vehicle that has great fuel economy and sacrifices power".

    Add me to the list. I am deeply disappointed. 33 mpg in the city is a cruel joke, after all this waiting and anticipation. It seems that Honda thinks we are stupid. Or have nonexistent memories. Or something like that.

    I guess I'll have to wait until the next iteration, or hope that some other manufacturer comes up with something significantly more efficient without additional expense.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I am not thrilled with the fuel economy, but look at the Rio5, the Aveo 5-door. Neither is great, both have a combined rating of around 30, so for Fit to pull 35 at about the same price with "Honda goodness" isn't too bad.

    Sometimes when the market is lagging, manufacturers get a little lazy in what they choose to improve...

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

  • bamacarbamacar Member Posts: 749
    Rio is 33.5 combined with either auto or manual. Fit is 35.5 with manual and 34.5 with auto. Not much difference there.
  • dchri2dchri2 Member Posts: 7
    What a disappointment. I bought a 1997 Honda Civic DX 4 door 1997 new, now with 169,800 miles. 29/38 mpg, only slightly less in reality. Dealership is great and loaners during servicing have moved from the beatup accord to the new crv then the ridgeline. This is my 2nd one more winter for my civic. I can definitely afford any egomobile in the Honda lineup, but choose not to waste money while treating myself decently. 33/38 mpg. You gotta be kidding. Sounds like marketing before engineering. It might be the best subcompact in the US available for 2006, but not the best that can be built. If it's a 1.5 l engine where's the dsi or can't Honda build a decent overdrive in the manual transmission. No Fit this year unless I pickup one of the leftovers at year end. Now it makes sense to buy snowtires. There's going to be another winter for the Civic. Next year I bet some manufacturer will introduce a reliable, high quality, high mpg diesel and the Fit will fade from my list. Honda you lost an almost assured sale at mrsp. No need for ha ri kari(Ridgeline timing might justify it), just try harder next time.
  • txptctxptc Member Posts: 30
    The problem in the US is that the only choice for an affordable "high mileage" (i.e. 45-50 mpg combined) vehicle is...well, come to think of it there is NO choice like that here. That is the point that most of the disappointed people here are trying to make. All of the great choices in Europe and Asia are not even considered to be marketed in the US because the auto makers are forcing us to buy their overpriced hybrids instead. The sad thing is that 10-20 years ago there WERE affordable high mileage vehicles for sale here...seems like we're going backwards in that respect.
  • allfiredupallfiredup Member Posts: 736
    If Honda can make a 1.8L with 140hp that gets 40mpg highway, certainly they could do better than that in a 109hp 1.5L. I'm certain a 45mpg automatic Fit would be a runaway success. Hopefully the Honda engineers are working on it. Unless they DON'T want to beat the Civic's fuel economy.

    Perhaps they want the Civic to remain the fuel economy champ and the Fit will just be the cheapest, if not most efficient, Honda model?
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    Unless they DON'T want to beat the Civic's fuel economy

    That's an interesting point...

    "Hi, I'd like an economical small car, good safety features, power toys, and A/C. What do you have?"

    "Well, I have the Civic LX here, 30/40 mpg with the automatic, just under $18k."

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

    "I have this Fit here, similar features to the Civic LX, this one has a stick, and it gets 45 mpg highway. Costs about $13,500 with destination."

    "Let's see... there's the Civic at nearly $18,000, or the Fit with similar safety and convenience features, a much more flexible interior, and better fuel economy... and it's over $4000 less? I'll take one of those!"

    "Sure. Let me get your name for the wait list, it's about six months long now..."
  • 204meca204meca Member Posts: 369
    It was possible to get 55 mpg in the real world with the 92 VX -- I did on several occasions. I have been able to beat the EPA figures for every Civic I owned (85 wagon,88 AWD wagon, 92 VX, 92 Si, 97 HX, 97 Del Sol Si. Actually the engine that was easiest to get good mileage out of was the 125 HP Si engine -- it was very easy to get 33-35 in town & 40-45 on the highway with both Sis that I owned.

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

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

    Sigh. Why does Honda cripple the car instead of giving us the SAME DARN THING THE REST OF THE WORLD GETS? Why do we have to suffer with second-rate everything and some guy in India, South Africa, or even Iceland can get the newest versions when they come out? It just makes no sense.
  • dewaltdakotadewaltdakota Member Posts: 364
    WARNING: Stupid question about turning radius ahead...

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

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

    What I don't get is why don't they let you move the driver seat all the way back, even if it leaves no room for the passenger behind you -- on many cars with the driver all the way back there's already no place for a passenger, just 10 inches of perfectly good space.
  • PF_FlyerPF_Flyer Member Posts: 9,372
    The Forums' members at Edmunds have been going crazy this past year waiting for more information on the 2007 Honda Fit. This sweet, little ride has quite a bit of zip!

    http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee8e567
  • dewaltdakotadewaltdakota Member Posts: 364
    From the Fit Specs Chart:
    Interior Measurements (Fit | Fit Sport)
    Headroom (in., front/rear) 40.6 / 38.6 | 40.6 / 38.6
    Legroom (in., front/rear) 41.9 / 33.7 | 41.9 / 33.7
    Shoulder Room (in., front/rear) 52.8 / 50.6 | 52.8 / 50.6
    Hiproom (in., front/rear) 51.2 / 51.0 | 51.2 / 51.0
    Cargo Volume (cu. ft., seat up/down) 21.3 / TBD | 21.3 / TBD
    Passenger Volume (cu. ft.) 90.1 | 90.1
    Seating Capacity 5 | 5
  • rlh2rlh2 Member Posts: 11
    Any plans for offering Honda's navigation system as an option on the 2007 Fit?
  • SylviaSylvia Member Posts: 1,636
    http://blogs.edmunds.com/.ee8e567

    Photo slideshow, links to show coverage (options listed there I believe).
  • raychuang00raychuang00 Member Posts: 541
    The closest direct competitors to the Fit are the Kia Rio5 and the Chevrolet Aveo 5-door hatchback. The Fit is WAY better than both the Rio5 and Aveo, mostly because of 1) better quality interior, 2) definitely a better engine and 3) definitely way better automatic transmission.

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

    http://www.din.or.jp/~ymko/sab050115-013/info170115.html

    Possibly not a planned option for US version?
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Hehe...and by the same token:

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

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

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

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

    buyer: Aw heck, sign me UP!

    Can't impinge on those wonderful hybrids...

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

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

  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    So then, as a potential buyer, to get the better fuel economy you either have to go uglier (the new Versa, 38 combined is being reported?) or go to a sedan or drop 2 doors (Yaris).

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

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

  • brudusbrudus Member Posts: 3
    I missed this info somewhere, all I could find was general length/width data... Is there a website with this (and possibly additional) info? Thanks
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I have driven the '06 Rio (Rio5 has an even nicer interior) and it has a very nice interior for a low-priced car, and that fact is mentioned in every review I have seen on the Rio/Rio5. Since the U.S. fit isn't yet available to drive (or for me even see up close) I can't compare the two yet. How did you reach the conclusion that the Fit has a better quality interior than the Rio5?

    I know one thing... based on the interior numbers just posted, the Fit may be out of the picture for me because of its limited rear leg room. I sometimes need to haul long-legged teenagers and even adults in the back seat, and 33+ inches isn't going to cut it unless there is some "magic" in how legs and knees actually fit (ha ha) into the back seat.
  • thevelourfogthevelourfog Member Posts: 4
    That Gathers navi unit is an dealer option in Japan (I think it's owned by Honda), though Honda does have their own hard drive navi unit available that can have a backup camera hooked up to it. I'm doubting it'll be offered as an option though.

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

    http://www.din.or.jp/~ymko/sab050115-013/info170115.html

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

    BTW the versa fuel numbers everyone is talking about are with CVT. With manual they'll be basically identical to the Fit numbers (based on a rough .9*38 = 34.5 calculation).
Sign In or Register to comment.