Impressed with the upcoming Honda Fit

[Bill in Utah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dima:
People, we missed one important point in this forum:
In other places fit sold with different engines:
1.2, 1.4 all I-Dsi totaly different technology = moore miles/g less hp. It means that NA honda PR department thinks it better to get moore powerfull engine here to get it to sell well. Because of this, we don't have a choise of best configuration for our needs. Same is true for other car makers. Even Aerio has smaller engins, which gives very good miles/g. We just don't have a way to get them.
That's a life in North America.

---

Ok, maybe I just don't get it.

The Fit has a smaller motor with less horsepower than a Civic or Corolla..

Correct?

The Fit weighs less than a Civic or Corolla..

Correct ?

The Fit gets less MPG than a Civic or Corolla..

Correct!

Why? (Still waiting...

)

(And 109 horse from a 1.5 SOHC is not a high power motor for NA)

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill in Utah:
The ones I looked at yesterday did not have the fit and finish of typical Honda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Care to share???
I wanna know the details please.

---

I think I've shared quite a bit...

The type of plastic is cheaper looking than it should be. The Silver part of the dash is just not great looking for a $14k++ car.

I think the seats and the cut outs for the insert could have been done nicer.

The fit between the inside panels were uneven. Esp on the rear hatch area.

The hood had more gap on the drivers right than the left.

Not very much room to place my size 14 feet.

Vad you like the Fit and I think you should get one.

But PLEASE wait till the training cars get built and Honda gets their workers trained to produce their Fit better. (at least on the ones I've seen)

For me , I'd have to pass. I really went down to look at one with a open mind. I'm going to be in the market for something to replace the truck if Gas goes crazy (which it's looking like it will) since my wife has a commute of a little less than 50 miles RT and I have over 125 miles RT.

She likes wagons. Right now a HHR(can't find a LS) or a Forester (too much $$ right now) is in the running. (PT Cruiser if the deal was right)

Spending $15-$20 a day just to drive the truck even though it gets 20+ mpg is not good for us on a regular basis..

(It would be better still to just drive the truck as little as possible (we do that) and eat the Gas cost..)

For something for me to buy, it better have something real special (like bigger or AWD) to get worst mileage than my Corolla.

The Fit has neither. IMO..

I'm not a Honda hater. I've owned one and my family has a few. My dads Honda power Vue is impressive!

But I am trying to be Open minded and call it as I see it .

You and I see things differently.

That's cool.

Honda thanks you!

Honda screwed up on the Civic when they geared the Manual to get WORST MPG than the Automatic.

No reason for that. No reason why the Fit should not get better MPG than the Civic.. IMO

Take care, Bill

PS: Vad, HAVE YOU SEEN a FIT in person? What are your thoughts on its build?

 

[Jeepster_nut]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JHZR2:

JMH

---

I wasnt talking to you, so F-off.

At least we haven't resorted to name calling.

The Fit is obviously marketed towards the 18-24 year old segment of the buying public. Look at the preview Honda website for pete's sake. Those little animated characters aren't there to catch the eyes of 40-50 year old people. I wouldn't buy the Fit because it is a young kids car, but I also won't condemn it before it hits the dealers and has a chance to prove itself.

 

[JHZR2]

Well guess what? Im in that buying segment... I have seen the site, and I think its all quite silly.

That doesnt mean that so many parts of the car's design arent top notch. I just take issue with the economy of it.

Proving itself as an excellent small commuter/utility type car will likely be easy. However, most people dont keep track of their vehicles' operation patterns, operating economies and lifecycle costs the way that BITOGers do.. so what may be a smash hit or a big flop in the normal market doesnt mean that in reality its the most economical alternative. This is my point...

As I said earlier, if I was shopping for a Honda product, Id have a hard time justifying one of these over a 4cyl MT accord. I have to doubt that the real world operating economies are all that different. But the fit has its place and people should buy it. I just hope that Honda has the guts to put something diesel or a little bit detuned, the likes of what is sold in europe, so that us real cheapskates like myself can get the economy that we desire in a still decent package... maybe next-gen.

JMH

 

[Tosh]

Isn't the Fit being offered here at this stage a combination of two or three things?
1) Reaction to Scion xA and xB (Honda always reacts to Toyota); 2) Recognition that Civic has become too far upscale, and shouldn't be offered either stripped down or as a hatch; and 2.5) a mindset that hatchbacks in America shouldn't be disguised as sedans, like the Mazda6 variant, Suzuki Reno, or Civic 5 door.

As for MPGs, likely Honda will offer us a decent gas miser (1.4?) after a couple of introductory years.

 

[Bror Jace]

I would never consider buying the Fit the first year here in North America. Dealer mark-up is one issue, bugs associated with a new car is
another. (Yes, I know the design is not brand new but parts of it undoubtedly are).

"[you can get] no cruise without a 'sport' package???"

So, they are trying to pack these little cars with all sorts of features not everyone wants? Hmmm ... sounds like the RSX ... and we see how successful that thing was ... they are dropping it.

And I agree with others that this thing should easily get 45+mpg. My '95 Civic got between 40-45mpg most of its life. What it had going for it was a curb weight of around 2,400lbs. Why can't they make these things lighter?? They can, but removing some of the features would hurt
their profits.

bogatyr and I were talking about cars and the way Honda gears their manual trannies. His theory (and I agree) is that Honda gears
them so they will comfortable pull long hills while in top gear with the cruise control engaged. I hate cruise control ... and this makes me
hate it even more. Automatics can down shift while in cruise so their final drive can be longer ... and they'll be able to get better mileage.

Also, I was watching the industry show Autoline Detroit Sunday morning and the host commented that hybrid sales across the industry have absolutely plummeted. He didn't say which month the sales numbers were from and wasn't sure whether it was a trend or a one-month aberration. Doesn't sound like a one-month thing to me. I know there is an article in Consumer Reports (and others I've seen) that have downplayed hybrid's benefits. I wonder if that had a role in their
sudden drop in consumer popularity?

--- Bror Jace

 

[JHZR2]

A lot of sheepish people just blindly trust CR... this is part ofthe problem...

However, IMO, the market for hybrids got saturated as they all paid their premiums and got them delivered... After that, the more reasonable folks didnt desire to pay the premiums, others got turned off as they have become status symbols instead of geek cars, and instead of offering economy minded versions in cars like the accord and highlander, they tried to 'performance tune' them, with too much powrer and not enough economy... so anyone wanting something better than a civic or prius, but more economy and less extra power got turned off when they saw waht toyota, Honda and their luxury brands ulitmately delivered.

Id rather have a fit with a little diesel getting ~49 MPG!

JMH

 

[mettech_2001]

I just might take a look at the Honda Fit when my 89 Honda Prelude 2.0L wears out.

Those red dots in CR made me buy the Prelude in 1989. lol...

I also hope that fuel hit $4.00/gal this year. Helps keep the roads less congested. Even at $4.00/gal, it's still cheap.

 

[Bill in Utah]

quote:

---

I also hope that fuel hit $4.00/gal this year. Helps keep the roads less congested. Even at $4.00/gal, it's still cheap.

---

Sorry

I hope you don't have to buy ANYTHING at a store then.

I'm sure $4 a gallon for gas and diesel fuel going for more than gas would increase shipping and transport costs for items in a store..

Your right...

I think milk should cost $5 a gallon.

Food should cost more.

Medical supplies should cost more.

People don't need jobs.

All so the roads can be less congested for you.

Sorry, but there are jobs going away at $3 NOW... $4 will be ugly.

 

[Minou]

I too don't really like the way Honda now gears its manual cars. The manual '06 Civic spins 2700 rpm at 100 km/hr (62 mph) and the auto. only 2000 rpm at the same speed. I test drove 2.

Earlier generation Civics were around 2500-2600 rpm for both manual and automatics.

Samething with the Fit; 3000 rpm at 100 km/hr for the manual and only 2400 rpm at 100 for the 5 sp auto.

So i'm not surprised at the relatively ordinary fuel economy numbers the Fit has when I put the numbers in my little formula. I use it when I want to compare cars of similar size, weight and engine technology. Now, lets see why the Fit can not beat the Corolla highway figures;

RPM at 100 #1/RPM at 100 #2 X Engine #1/Engine #2

3000 RPM (Fit)/2500 RPM Corolla X 1.5 liter (Fit)/1.8 liter (Corolla) = 1.0

So with my empirically little formula, the Fit and the Corolla should have very similar highway figures, which they do.

The Honda would benefit, relative to the Corolla or Civic, from a bigger second generation iVTEC 1.6 liter engine that would spin at no more than 2600 rpm at 100 km/hr. That would put it at only 0.92 the fuel consumption of the Corolla, instead of the same.

Honda also probably had to make do with the same short gearing they have available for the european Fits that come with smaller gas engines.

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
I would never consider buying the Fit the first year here in North America. Dealer mark-up is one issue, bugs associated with a new car is
another. (Yes, I know the design is not brand new but parts of it undoubtedly are).

---

Undoubtely???
The parts are exactly the same as in the Japanese or Euro Fit.
Honda doesn't make them in the US. The cars are being shipped from Japan.

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bror Jace:
I know there is an article in Consumer Reports (and others I've seen) that have downplayed hybrid's benefits. I wonder if that had a role in their
sudden drop in consumer popularity?

--- Bror Jace

---

Here is one of the articles.

 

[vad]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill in Utah:
The Fit gets less MPG than a Civic or Corolla..

Correct!

---

Not!
The fit gets better City MPG and similar freeway MPG.
Very few people in this country enjoy light freeway traffic all the time.
The vast majority of the drivers encounter heavy traffic conditions on the regular basis.
The Fit should beat both the Corolla and the Civic under the evereday driving conditions.
Which should be the case untill somebody drives those cars in the same comparison test that shows otherwise.
Your assumptions don't hold water so far.

 

[vad]

Another very comprehensive article.

Pros
You can now buy one in the US
Excellent build quality, interior design and trimming, packaging, safety, utility
Superb road manners
An automatic transmission that's worth having

Cons
With the next generation Fit debuting in Japan shortly, how long will this version be on US showroom floors?
How many takers will there be on a premium subcompact that stickers for more than $16k?
Funky pedal placement and stroke detracts from some of the driving enjoyment, particularly on 5MT models
Rated fuel economy is a bit of a disappointment for a 1.5L car
Gear ratios in 5MT could be better

The Verdict
Even at 6 years old, this is a superb car, for the right buyer.

 

[Bill in Utah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vad:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bill in Utah:
The Fit gets less MPG than a Civic or Corolla..

Correct!

---

Not!
The fit gets better City MPG and similar freeway MPG.
Very few people in this country enjoy light freeway traffic all the time.
The vast majority of the drivers encounter heavy traffic conditions on the regular basis.
The Fit should beat both the Corolla and the Civic under the evereday driving conditions.
Which should be the case untill somebody drives those cars in the same comparison test that shows otherwise.
Your assumptions don't hold water so far.

---

Go buy your manual Fit and go for a MPG run.

My last tank of no name regular unleaded on my 2005 Corolla was 43.11 MPG...

The tanks before that were over THREE miles per gallon over the 38 MPG that the EPA put on the Fit.

In fact, my worst mileage for 1 tank since I've owned the car was 37.2 MPG (had to idle the car for over 2 hours while they cleared off a bad accident to reopen the Freeway in a bad snowstorm)

My OVERALL MPG for 42k miles is over 42 MPG.

Lets see the FIT owners get that.

The EPA for my car is 41 mpg.

Again, go buy your fit and please report back.

Also, I did notice that you did NOT answer my last question...

Have you seen one yet?

Stop reading Mags and the web and see one in person at your local Honda dealer.

I have.

I've reported with much more detail what I saw than quote Web sites and Magazines.

If you have seen one, lets have YOU report what you have seen.

Stop with the Google search and post facts.

Let's go with one of your postings...

quote:

---

Cons
With the next generation Fit debuting in Japan shortly, how long will this version be on US showroom floors?
How many takers will there be on a premium subcompact that stickers for more than $16k?
Funky pedal placement and stroke detracts from some of the driving enjoyment, particularly on 5MT models
Rated fuel economy is a bit of a disappointment for a 1.5L car
Gear ratios in 5MT could be better

---

What do you know??

They listed 3 things that I did. Hmmm.. Not bad for not being able to drive the car.

I think I did well.

Waiting for your report Vad on a actual visit to your Honda dealer . Bring photos!

Take care, Bill

 

[vad]

Bill, just admit it, you're jealous!!!

Sorry, the Corolla is as exciting is a tax audit.

But the Fit gets lots of positive buzz.
Even though it's been on the market for no more than a week!

 

[GROUCHO MARX]

Stop it, Bill. You're killing me!

 

[Bill in Utah]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Stop it, Bill. You're killing me!

---

Bill

 

[JHZR2]

I saw a silver one on the road yesterday... looked pretty good!

JMH

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Minou:
I too don't really like the way Honda now gears its manual cars. The manual '06 Civic spins 2700 rpm at 100 km/hr (62 mph) and the auto. only 2000 rpm at the same speed. I test drove 2.

Earlier generation Civics were around 2500-2600 rpm for both manual and automatics.

Samething with the Fit; 3000 rpm at 100 km/hr for the manual and only 2400 rpm at 100 for the 5 sp auto.

So i'm not surprised at the relatively ordinary fuel economy numbers the Fit has when I put the numbers in my little formula. I use it when I want to compare cars of similar size, weight and engine technology. Now, lets see why the Fit can not beat the Corolla highway figures;

RPM at 100 #1/RPM at 100 #2 X Engine #1/Engine #2

3000 RPM (Fit)/2500 RPM Corolla X 1.5 liter (Fit)/1.8 liter (Corolla) = 1.0

So with my empirically little formula, the Fit and the Corolla should have very similar highway figures, which they do.

The Honda would benefit, relative to the Corolla or Civic, from a bigger second generation iVTEC 1.6 liter engine that would spin at no more than 2600 rpm at 100 km/hr. That would put it at only 0.92 the fuel consumption of the Corolla, instead of the same.

Honda also probably had to make do with the same short gearing they have available for the european Fits that come with smaller gas engines.

---

But 1.0 is not accurate considering that the corolla is rated at 41 MPG hwy, and the fit at 38 MPG hwy. This is a difference that is surely statistically significant and would cause massive error in your calculation. If 38=41=1.0 ratio, then I dont very much trust your calculation.

JMH

 

[brianl703]

I think there can be up to a 5% variation in the EPA fuel economy numbers because the test uses a chassis dyno.

Or maybe I'm just mistaken about how accurate chassis dynos really are.