I'm in the market to purchase a Fit and I'm wondering if it's worth it to purchase new. So there's a few things I'm having trouble getting a straight answer on and that's the proper MPG difference between the two generations and for shits and giggles, the drag coefficient.

While, yes, I've gone to gov fuel eco site. I feel EPA estimates can be rather unreliable and the Fits' have very low amounts of user data. So, from people who have real world experience with both cars. What can you tell me about the difference in MPG?

Also, from anyone, what are the features that you liked or disliked the most from generation to generation?

 

Is this an unsolvable mystery? The best I've got so far was an offhand comment in an article that the gas mileage was roughly 10% better. Does anyone have any real world experience? I also read the handling in the 3rd generation isn't as good as the 2nd generation?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

goto fuelly.com and look up individual statistics for the GE and the GK. GK will have much better MPG with little effort, while GE u have to be very mindful of how to drive efficiently and the results still dont come close to GK mpg.

as far as handling. never drove a GK, so i cant speak for them. i have a bunch of suspension stuff on and my car hasnt flipped over yet going 50 on an off ramp.

 

MPG: For the manual transmission, the 3rd gen is rated for higher than the second gen for highway and city fuel economy, but I don't think that's been well-reflected with real world numbers.

Car and Driver averaged 33 mpg in this test of the 2nd gen:
2010 Honda Fit Sport

And only 30 mpg in this test of the 3rd gen:
Honda Fit Reviews - Honda Fit Price, Photos, and Specs - Car and Driver

3rd gen has an edge on acceleration, but if you use it, you pay for it at the pump. That's probably why Car and Driver only averaged 30 mpg in the new car.

I have a 2nd gen Sport (manual) and I track my fuel economy very closely, always comparing the computer readout to measured numbers. Overall average is 36.2 for the computer and 35.5 actual. I do a lot of hard driving in the canyons, but I've never gotten below 31 mpg for a tank.

Handling: The 2nd gen sport models had a rear anti-roll bar that made the car under-steer a little less. It's not available on the third gen, but I don't think the difference is that huge. Skidpad numbers are basically identical, but most agree that the second gen has slightly sharper turn-in and better brake feel.

 

The after market parts for current fit will be difficult and will come late.but for GE they are plenty.still not much as GD.so make your decision wisely.If you want to keep stock than go ahead and buy new one. If you want to add things later than GE would be better.My 2 psi :P

 

Thanks for the info guys. If anyone has any hands on experience with both the 2nd and 3rd generation feel free to add more. I've been to fuelly and I can only estimate, on average, the 3rd generation gets roughly 3-4mpg more depending on transmission. Which falls somewhat in line with an article I read stated. It said they had tested both 2nd-3rd gen with the 3rd getting roughly 10% better gas mileage.

I think I'm leaning towards 2nd gen because the value from the gas mileage won't exceed the reduced price and apparently they're better to drive. Thanks again for your wisdom guys!

 

the GE fam more than welcomes you!

 

I should emphasize that my knowledge of real-world MPG's is limited to the manuals. I think the better MPG #'s your're seeing on fuelly are driven more by the automatics, which represent the majority of sales for these cars. The 3rd gen auto is a CVT, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's better than the 2nd gen auto for MPG's. That said, both are still very efficient.

I really don't think you can go wrong with either model, but I chose to stay with the 2nd gen for the reasons you described. The GE has already been proven as one of the most reliable vehicles you can buy, so it's a great choice for a used car. The only problem is they've held their value so well that it's hard to get a screaming deal.

 

I'm wondering what Car & Driver did to get the fuel economy down to 30 MPG overall. I've been averaging about 39 MPG with my GK EX manual. I'd get more if I tried, I'm sure, but the darn car is too much fun to drive, and my work commute is too short to get the car really warmed up.

This is why I don't really trust either EPA numbers or magazine road testers.

For the record, I've owned both 2nd and 3rd Gen. Fits. Overall average fuel economy for my GE Sport manual was 36.28 MPG over 85,000 miles of driving. Love both cars.

 

"I'm wondering what Car & Driver did to get the fuel economy down to 30 MPG overall."

It's easy if you are in an area with lots of traffic and many stop lights and ac on in 90+temps. I live in central Florida and often get around 26-28 if I stay in town.

I can get 36-38/9 on expressway driving or in rural areas. I may have averaged 35 mpg on the first 35k miles while living in North Carolina. 2011 Sport/automatic.

Clifton

 

Car & Driver does what most car magazines do: drive cars like they stole them. EPA numbers tell you what you get in a very controlled environment, while Car magazine numbers usually tell you what you get if you drive the piss out of it. The GK has 130 horsepower vs the GE's 117. When the GK is using that extra power, it will require more fuel. I'm guessing that Car and Driver spent a lot more time at full throttle in their GK than you typically do (unless you really hate your car). If you can resist tapping into the extra power too frequently, it wouldn't surprise me if the GK is more efficient - it has direct injection vs port for the GE.

I do find it interesting that most GE and GK owners with manual transmissions do better than the EPA suggests they should. My car is only rated at 33 highway, but I average 35.5 overall (about 50/50 city/highway). 39 overall for your GK is also better than the EPA numbers. Seems like all I ever hear about is how no cars ever achieve the EPA numbers, but maybe Fit owners are just superior drivers.

 

That about sums it up. While I like to use the power that car has, I, of course, don't drive like that all the time. Generally, I drive like "I'm the guy who owns it and will have to fix/pay to fix it if I break it." I guess there's the difference. Then too, I was taught to drive by my Dad, who could ring maximum fuel economy out of any car he drove (he was a bit of a tightwad, and a meticulous keeper of expense records).

The fact that I live in a fairly rural area helps. The downside, is that I'm centrally located in the "middle of nowhere". Every big city is a 1-2 hour drive distant (in different directions).

 

I have seen some confusing or contradictory things regarding transition from 2nd gen to 3rd gen. Like a 2013 as 3rd gen while 2014 as 2nd gen all the while I have been assuming 3rd gen only began in 2015. Every year Honda does make changes, but there may be a question in some minds whether the changes warrant a gen shift. Confused in Puerto Vallarta. I am 78 years old and do not expect to put more than 10K on the car in the next 10 years, so getting a new car not that important. In my used car I want good handling and decent acceleration (in a manual transmission) decent gas mileage and most important RELIABILITY. (I had a 1999 Jeep GC for eight years here and I swear half the mileage was going to mechanics and shops, and I am too old to do this again!) For reliability it is looking like 2014 and 2017 and 2018 (2015 according to Carcomplaints.com was the worst year of all for the Fit.) . I like the styling of the newer cars, but all reports tell me that the older Fits really have better handling. For 2018 I read that the body was stiffened, the suspension and steering improved, and sound proofing added, but I wonder if the handling is yet the equal of the older fit. . I am leaning now toward the 2014 but A VERY STRANGE THING I CANNOT FIND ANY 2014 MT5s in Guadalajra, only one car with auto. Loads of other years, but virtually no 2014s!!!! PS before my Jeep romantic nightmare I had a 1988 Honda Prelude 2.0 si 5 spd with four wheel steering, and I had that car for 30 years. Loved it. Marvelous five speed and the four wheel steering added wonderful stability and lane changing ability at high speeds, not that the car was not already very smooth and stable with its very low drag coefficient and CG. (Hey did you know this Prelude out slalomed ALL the great sports cars of that year. Ferrari, Lambo, Corvette ...) . So this Honda Fit is going to be my last car it looks like. Will mostly be driving around town, gone pretty much my dreams of off roading in the jungles around here. Nah, I don't really need a 4X4 off roader -- if I ever did. Any comments on the generation shift points I was talking about?

 

I own both but I prefer my 2018 all day. Quieter, faster, more comfortable all around.

 

Thanks for opinion. Any comment on the improvements for 2018 that I mentioned? Like it might be worth an extra 30,000 pesos for the 2018 over the 2017. Interesting that overall cars are more expensive in Mexico, but for the Fit it is the other way around. looking like a thousand or so dollars cheaper here then in US. I assume this is because GK cars here are made in Mexico. And yeah the 3rd gen looks a lot more 21st century,.