Other Car Related DiscussionsDiscuss all other cars here.
Welcome to Fit Freak!
Welcome to Fit Freak,
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
The Fit belongs to a class—basic transportation—that we once acknowledged with a patronizing pat on the head but now take more seriously. There are two reasons for this. The first is obvious: Soaring fuel costs and environmental concerns are making small cars increasingly popular. The second is not so obvious: Basic transportation no longer means deprivation. Not only does the Fit deliver what you’d expect—high mpg numbers and low ownership costs—but it also delivers something you might not: high-quality interior appointments, a high level of usefulness, and a high fun-to-drive index.
The Fit scores well in those areas of unexpectedness. There seems to be more room inside this car than the tidy exterior could possibly contain, the seats flop and fold to yield great cargo versatility, and the interior appointments would do justice to an Accord.
But it’s the Fit’s agility and terrier spirit that win our hearts. With 109 horsepower, blazing acceleration isn’t part of the deal, but it’s worth noting that the Fit posted an astonishing speed in our lane-change test (71.4 mph), outhustling pedigreed athletes such as a Ferrari F430 Spider F1, and topped a seven-car comparison [“$15,000 Cheap Skates,” May 2006].
And here is what they said about the Fit in the $15k Cheap Skates test:
Quote:
2007 Honda Fit Sport - Comparison Test
First Place: $15,000 Cheap Skates
The Fit is sold in more than 70 countries and is known in Europe as the Jazz. It debuts at C/D in typical Honda show-off fashion, winning by 25 points — a cakewalk.
Our little red Fit was the quickest to 60 mph (tied with the Reno) and the quickest in the quarter-mile yet offered the least engine NVH and the second-best observed fuel economy. It came equipped with the most supportive seats, the most expensive-looking interior, an Acura-grade gauge cluster, and the ergonomics of an Accord.
What truly set the Fit apart was its handling — not a pretense of handling but the real deal, with springs and struts that allowed one gentle rebound and no more, the only car here that felt happy storming the switchbacks. We later confirmed this when the Fit sailed through our lane-change test 6 mph faster than anything else here — faster, in fact, than a Corvette Z06.
Abetting the handling was linear, direct steering — you could pick out a pebble at an apex and reliably place the Fit's inside-front wheel directly atop it — a shifter that Hyundai and Suzuki would do well to copy, and pedals for real heel-and-toeing.
Despite its midget proportions — the least width and length, riding on the shortest wheelbase — the Fit will swallow an amazing 42 cubic feet of household miscellany when its rear seats are toppled. And they fold quite cleverly, without removing the headrests, into a deep well, making the cargo floor as flat as a trailer park.
We wish the Fit had a true dead pedal and that its rear-three-quarter visibility were better. Otherwise, we elect it president of the economobiles. Unlike Ohio's Presidents, this one is alive. Very alive.
it may be old news but it may be new for all the "Looking to buy a Fit" posters. Plus, it makes me all tingly inside when I read good stuff about the Fit :D
yeah this is pretty old news. I think its in the brochure for the Fit at the Honda dealerships as well. But um, i really do think this thread might belong in the Front page section.
Not only does the Fit deliver what you’d expect—high mpg numbers and low ownership costs—but it also delivers something you might not: high-quality interior appointments, a high level of usefulness, and a high fun-to-drive index.
[...]
...and the interior appointments would do justice to an Accord.
This demonstrates that Car and Driver doesn't know what it's talking about. You could do better than this to find a good review for the Fit.
Although fair on most accounts, the conveniently ignored fact is that spirited driving sucks out mileage potential. While C & D will praise the on-paper mileage ratings on a car that gives them thrills, they'll be the first to denounce a highly-efficient vehicle because their (aggressive) test drive didn't yield the official mileage ratings. C & D is about the sport of driving and should have no business speaking to fuel efficiency.
The comparison with an Accord's interior is ridiculous. The Fit's interior is satisfactory, although the dashboard, instruments, and console are very good. If the latter is all they're looking at, then yes, their opinion of the interior will be skewed. However, interiors only get better the more you're willing to spend on a Honda. C & D should know this, and so should anyone before they make such bold statements as the above. Paddle shifters don't make the car.
:popc:
This demonstrates that Car and Driver doesn't know what it's talking about. You could do better than this to find a good review for the Fit.
Although fair on most accounts, the conveniently ignored fact is that spirited driving sucks out mileage potential. While C & D will praise the on-paper mileage ratings on a car that gives them thrills, they'll be the first to denounce a highly-efficient vehicle because their (aggressive) test drive didn't yield the official mileage ratings. C & D is about the sport of driving and should have no business speaking to fuel efficiency.
The comparison with an Accord's interior is ridiculous. The Fit's interior is satisfactory, although the dashboard, instruments, and console are very good. If the latter is all they're looking at, then yes, their opinion of the interior will be skewed. However, interiors only get better the more you're willing to spend on a Honda. C & D should know this, and so should anyone before they make such bold statements as the above. Paddle shifters don't make the car.
:popc:
whilei do agree that saying the interior appointments would do well for an accord is a bit of a stretch, the entire first portion of your post is nothing but commentary on C/D's testing methods, which has little to do with anything here, as none of these reviews are griping about poor gas mileage.
my co-worker got an accord.. i think it's ugly.. and prefer fit's interior to his (except for seat material).. don't know why.. i sat in the driver's seat.. just didn't like it.. + the recessed navi/ glass glass interfere's with daytime viewing..and layout seemed bulky? guess it's preference.. other coworker said it looked like a saturn..and she doesn't know too much bout japanese cars..
just to clarify.. i am referring to the outside being "ugly".. especially the tail profile and side profile.. why did they make the trunk "bubble"?.. the inside of the accord is not ugly.. and of course it's roomier than the fit.. but on first impressions.. sitting in leather version.. i "liked" the fits layout better, referring to dash primarily.. but guess it's not fair sitting in a car for 2 minutes.. i do like the old accords 4 door 03-06?.. interior well done.. outside sharp.. and in no way is the fit deserving of a higher ranking vs. accord.. they are in different classes.. but i'd rather pay 16500 for the fit sport vs.. 30,000 for the accord all decked out..
Linear Mode
