Consumer Guide, Edmunds review Honda Fit
Both Consumer Guide and Edmunds have published new reviews of the Honda Fit, which went on sale this weekend.
The Consumer Guide report found the tested Sport’s version to be comfortable for the vehicle’s class. Steering was surprisingly agile, though there was some body lean. The 109 horsepower engine definitely required planning on the driver’s part when making a lane change. Driver seating, interestingly enough, is actually higher than the bigger Civic model.
The Edmund review found a surprising amount of room inside despite the exterior’s diminutive dimensions. Part of this is due to the vehicle's fuel tank placement. Their staffers really liked the reclining rear-seat headrests. As for driving, testers liked the manual shifter, though the automatic version seemed to have more ‘zip’ than its self-shift sibling. Testers also found the Fit to be balanced and stable on the road and track (similar to the Consumer Guide report). Their biggest complaint was the 10.8 gallon fuel tank, though the Fit did average 32 miles per gallon.
Full details can be found here (Consumer Guide) and here (Edmunds). Additional Autoblog coverage can also be found here and here.
[Sources: Consumer Guide and Edmunds]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 3 of 4)
mike 8:36AM (4/04/2006)
Hey SaveGas, you upset because the Tahoe you bought last year dropped in value by 80% or something? How about being less on the attack and joining the conversation with something constructive to say instead of more ignorant political comments?
I'll say this about the fit: It looks decent and has respectable capacity to haul stuff, people...whatever. I'm disappointed that it doesn't get closer to 40mpg though. I'd opt for a used Jetta TDI wagon or something. Better mileage, better power, and more room.
M
Reply
Gale 8:43AM (4/04/2006)
If the Nissan Versa had a Toyota badge on it everyone would declare a winner and end the discussion. It is a superior car in every way and has build quality equal to or better than the Honda. Throw in more space, and 120 hp and 30+ mpg and it's a slam dunk.
Once the vehicle comes out people will see that it's in a class by itself.
Reply
ANR 9:11AM (4/04/2006)
@savegas
Question. If the Honda Fit is so innovative in it's fuel saving technology, then why is it that my 1987 Nissan Sentra with the carburated E16 gets about the same gas millage?
Reply
SaveGas 9:15AM (4/04/2006)
Mike...
I got on the defensive because certain half- breeds starting making off color comments about economy cars on the first page. As an American I defend what I believe in, and for me its conservation of natural resources through sensible vehicle choices.
In regards to your Tahoe comment, I wouldn't dare sit in a Tahoe, no less purchase or drive one. BTW, I drive a 06' Scion XB that gets around 35 MPG.
Reply
Jason Boston 9:39AM (4/04/2006)
Blech to the Fit. It's just a boring, econo mini car. I'd only drive it to save gas. Companies have been making them for years. I don't know what "savegas" is bitching about, no one seems to think SUV's are exciting either. The point isn't that SUV's are great, like "savegas" wants to make people argue. BOTH SUV's and the Fit are boring to car enthusiasts. You only drive them because you have to for some reason or the other...ie, to get high commuter mileage, or to lug 5 toddlers to soccer safely in the snow. Now, a nice Mustang convertible, or a sharp Bimmer 3 series, or the Honda Civic Si, are excitement cars to real drivers. And, that was the "much ado about nothing" comment that we're reading...the Datsun B210, the VW Beetle, the Ford Maverick, the Opel based Chevy Chevette, were all a response to the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. It's a boring story. Americans are relatively rich, and don't care about their money, a car is a pleasure, emotional purchase. The people who like the Fit are responding to their wallet and social conscience, but not to driving exciting vehicles. Many of the alternative fuel vehicles actually put more stress on the environment to produce and recycle than the Hummer H3. Think about that while you're putting at 50mpg in your Prius...that boring car, while saving you bucks, will cost more energy to produce and finally recycle than a Hummer.
Reply
MikeW 10:05AM (4/04/2006)
The mini is an overweight gas guzzler, especially compared with the fit. The mini with CVT weighs the same as the fit with significantly less interior volume, and one less seat, and worse aerodynamics.
The mini does have a good (not great) rear suspension, thanks BMW e46.
The fit sport with auto is 2550 lbs.
The fit is expensive, but it is the cheapest car in the USA with a 5 speed automatic.
The nissan versa has a sucky 1.8 liter engine, 120hp@6000 and 125 ft-lbs@4800.
2750 lbs with the 6 speed manual, although the 6th gear allows for far better highway travel than the Fit manual.
Reply
S1500 10:16AM (4/04/2006)
I saw this at the auto show. The feature I fell in love with was the fold flat rear seats(on a 4dr model). I can't recall seeing another car that does it so nicely. Hello cargo room. If I didn't own a MINI I would seriously consider one of these.
Reply
SaveGas 10:19AM (4/04/2006)
"Question. If the Honda Fit is so innovative in it's (sic) fuel saving technology, then why is it that my 1987 Nissan Sentra with the carbureted E16 gets about the same gas mileage?"
Most likely because of your Sentra's low curb weight, 30% less horsepower (I believe 70 HP for the 1.6 no- FI), lack of mpg robbing power accessories (power steering/air conditioner), and general runabout nature.
I'm not arguing that the Fit is the most efficient vehicle of all time, heck a few years ago I had a Civic HX hatch that would get consistently get 45 MPG. Although technology has certainly improved in the last decade, vehicle size and power have only increased, thus increasingly the complexity of extracting optimal mileage. In comparison to other 2007 models in its class (Namely the Kio Rio and Chevy Aveo), the Fit is certainly one of the most frugal. Too bad Honda won't import the 1.2 and 1.5 i-Dsi Fits they sell in Europe. Utilizing two spark plugs per cylinder along with a high 10.5:1 compression ratio these two beuts casually sip petrol to the tune of 48 and 52 MPG, respectively.
http://media.honda.co.uk
Reply
djSyndrome 11:17AM (4/04/2006)
"It [the Versa] is a superior car in every way and has build quality equal to or better than the Honda. " -Gale
Unless you live in Japan and drive a Tiida or a Note - and even then those are a bit different than our Versa will be - how would you know this? Oh wait, you're a Nissan Fanboi.
"Question. If the Honda Fit is so innovative in it's fuel saving technology, then why is it that my 1987 Nissan Sentra with the carburated E16 gets about the same gas millage?" - ANR
Because your 1987 Sentra doesn't have to deal with modern emissions regulations.
Reply
djSyndrome 11:22AM (4/04/2006)
"I'm not arguing that the Fit is the most efficient vehicle of all time, heck a few years ago I had a Civic HX hatch that would get consistently get 45 MPG."
Too bad there was no such thing - the HX was a coupe only.
If you're thinking of the 5th generation VX hatch (1992-1995), I owned one myself, and it was a wonderful car. Topped 50mpg on freeway trips consistently, got low-40s around town. No torque, to be sure, but how much torque do you really need to pull a 2150 lb. car carrying nothing more than a single college student?
Reply
Todd 11:39AM (4/04/2006)
I'm strangely attracted to the Fit on paper, it remains to be seen if I'll like it in person.
Palombasso, since you are in Brasil, is that 23-25 mpg figure using fuel with a high ethanol content? Doesn't Ethanol decrease fuel mileage when added to gasoline?
I don't have my C&D in front of me, but I think that the Fit was still faster than the Versa in their testing wasn't it?
Reply
Brian 11:52AM (4/04/2006)
mikeW, many of the same reasons you're supporting the Fit, can be said of the versa, which is why a lot of us are looking at the versa too.
The fit is expensive, but it is the cheapest car in the USA with a 5 speed automatic.
-the versa is the cheapest car in the us with a 6 speed manual or cvt.
The nissan versa has a sucky 1.8 liter engine, 120hp@6000 and 125 ft-lbs@4800.
- with the same displacement and less hp, it still beats the dodge's 0-30 and 0-60 times and misses the 1-100 by 0.1 second. ( http://img114.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cd29ce.gif ) it's not the greatest engine, but I wouldn't call it sucky. it's engineered for efficiency, low end torque and plus it's quieter than the fit's engine. If I'm buying in this class I'm not really going for hp numbers or engine superiority anyhow. Here's a link to a press release about the engine:
http://nissannews.com/nissan/news/products/20040908021724.shtml
2750 lbs with the 6 speed manual, although the 6th gear allows for far better highway travel than the Fit manual.
-it heavier sure, and bigger too. that rear seat is 38 inches deep, making it as big as a maxima's.
all in all, it's a newly highly competitive segment, and there are a lot of really good things going on in it. It'll be interesting to see who ends up the market winner.
Reply
Equit 12:04PM (4/04/2006)
"Car and Driver likes the Honda Fit too. In this month's issue they have a 7 way comparo that works out like this"
Mike where did you get this info?
Reply
Repo 1:20PM (4/04/2006)
That May issue Car & Driver 7-car comparo summarized this way:
Versa Highs: Superb ride-and-handling trade off, a back seat for three adults, commanding view ahead.
Versa Lows: Throttle overrun, narrow front seats, awkward recline levers.
Versa Verdict: If youre chiefly interested in commuting and errand hopping, this is the one.
Fit Highs: Overtly sporty handling, classy interior, quick-witted in all its moves.
Fit Lows: Mediocre rear-three-quarter visability, no dead pedal.
Fit Verdict: The go-kart of economobiles.
Hmmm, do I want a toy or a real world car? The Versa was a pre-production model against a production Fit. I like the Nissan's chances with 90% of the market - you know... people who actually run errands and commute to work! LOL
Reply
Steve 1:39PM (4/04/2006)
Just to add some more real world experience, we've had a Jazz/Fit in the family for the last three years and have just traded it in for a new one. Now the UK Jazz doesn't have the 1.5 litre engine, instead we get a 1.4 which is fine for the sort of car it is, but we were consistently getting 50mpg+ out of it (UK Gallons of course). And that's not on motorway cruising, that's doing three mile trips up big hills to work. Reliability was superb, didn't put a wheel wrong. They're fun cars to drive with nippy engines and good handling (though the first version had a hard ride, adjusted with a revision to the suspension about a year after launch). Inside they're huge and have serious load lugging capacity, not to mention being able to take five adults and a fair bit of luggage in comfort which a LOT of small cars can't do.
I've driven a lot of small cars over the years and to be honest the Jazz/Fit is not only one of the best small cars, it's one of the best cars I've ever driven, period. No, it's not a performance car, but for something to use every day in the real world of traffic jams, speed cameras and fuel bills I really am struggling to think of much that beats it.
With regards to the Versa, looking at the Nissan USA web site I can see one major problem with this car. The rear seats do not appear to fold flat, instead the seat back just flops onto the seat cushion effectively creating a two tier boot which completley misses the point of a small hatchback. Hope I'm wrong and there's some clever trick to get those seats out of the way...
Reply
T. 2:04PM (4/04/2006)
Ted, not to jump on you or anything, but have you checked out the specs/prices of the xA and compared them to the Fit?
xA - $12,780 (plus $550 delivery)
Fit - $13,850 (plus $550 delivery)
the SAB on the xA are a $600 option, so that's still almost $500 less.
the xA has a better radio 6 speakers, 160w and steering wheel audio controls.
other than that, they're almost identical spec-wise and size-wise. not saying that the Fit is bad, just that I'd rather it have been $1000 less for it to make a bigger impact. I do prefer the shape/look of this better than the xA, but then again I was able to get away with the 2-door hatchback coupe for not much more, so guess I'm lucky. :) (no kids)
Reply
T. 2:17PM (4/04/2006)
holy crap steve, you're right about those seats. that's unconscionable, that you'd make rear folding seats that don't actually fold flat. that immediately cuts down on the usefullness of a hatchback.
Reply
Steve B. 11:09PM (4/04/2006)
Wow... for such a "boring" car, this one sure is generating some heated discussion.
The funniest part in the magazine review was the description of the C&D accident avoidance test. The Fit outperformed the rest, AS WELL AS the Corvette.
They described it as more of an offbrand base-model Mini-Cooper, rather than simply another subcompact econobox.
Reply
Mike 3:52PM (4/05/2006)
Well, I figured that the Car and Driver test results would shut off some of the more negative comments and it appears to have worked. The Versa looks interesting as well, but the Fit looks like it may even be more practical than the larger cars in this group.
As for the styling, cost and fuel economy issue: it's a Honda, people. They usually are conservatively styled (except the Element, which really broke step with tradition) and cost a bit more than some of the competition. The mileage may not be as impressive as some would expect, but Car and Driver's usual leadfoot testers got right between the city and highway numbers, which didn't happen with most of the others in that test. It's taller than a Civic and likely has a higher coefficient of drag. I wonder why Honda chose not to use a CVT. Was it so they could lure customers with the paddle-shifters on the wheel?
To me, this looks like an interesting and versatile alternative to a more expensive Prius or Civic Hybrid, even if it costs more than the other cars in that test. I do wish that a Scion was included in the test, even though the Yaris is likely pretty close in driving dynamics.
Reply
Howard Leigh 8:13PM (4/05/2006)
Well this car has just arrived in Canada too.
I only looked it over ... as the base cars were on the floor and the "Sport" has not yet arrived. I kind of wondered why they did not upsize it say 15-20% for the North American after all they have already sold a million copies of the Jazz. Even so I think that it a beauty butprices for the Sport will rise (before taxes) to about Can $20K after you add dealer admin. Tis a lot of money for a small compact.
Anyway, it reminds me of our 1989 Civic hatchback & its 4-speed manual (I think that that it was fitted with about 99 hp. We put 340,000 kms (about 200,000 miles before its retirement! and retired it). And that, it seems to me, is the what you are buying into -- outstanding reliability .. Oh.. and great gas mileage.
In fact, only yesterday I had our auto mechanic check out our 1996 Civic with similar mileage. Not it apparently needs $3000 in general repairs to brakes .. clutch timing belt .. etc. If my wife likes the Fit we will get one. If not well upgrade to a Subie or CST using the saving that we have accumulated after 15 years driving Civics!
PS:
The only thing that I missed in the Fit was a footrest.
Reply