[quote=bmxman;749160]ok after a quick search of Motor Trend and Car and Drivers websites:

0-60 sec.
Yaris- 10.8
Versa- 9.3
Accent- 11.2
Aveo- 10.8
Rio- 9.6
XB- 9.8
XA- 9.4
SX4- 9.1
Fit- 8.7

The Fit. FTW. All the rest suck donkey balls.

 

You can't just slap a turbo in a GE fit and drive like that. GE Fits are too light. They also needs beefed up suspension.

Now the VW golf GTi is a different story. It's streets ahead of the Fit sport for engine and suspension.

I'd rather drive the Evo and if you own all of these cars you don't worry about MPG.

 

Good post. To put things into perspective (considering the Fit's 0-60 time of a mere 8.7 seconds) let's compare this to some of the 0-60 times of some early '80s versions of some favourite redneck "high-performance" cars and to some classic foreign sports cars of the day:

1982 Pontiac Trans Am 4-speed: 11.6 secs. (for shame)

1982 Corvette L-82: 8.2 secs. (no joke)

1982 Mustang (V8): 8.7 secs.

1981 Truimph TR-8 (V8): 9.5 secs.

1981 Mazda RX-7: 9.1 secs.

1981 Datsun 280-ZX: 9.4 secs.

and finally, one econo-box entry:

1982 Nissan Stanza: 11.1 secs. (You read that correctly--- one-half second FASTER than the ballsiest Trans Am that GM could slap together).

The scary thing is that the "BUY AMERUCUN" buffoons thought these Corvettes, Trans Ams and Mustangs were "fast." Yet at the same time shitboxes that took 2.5 seconds longer to accelerate than a Corvette (and got almost 40 mpg) were "slow."

This is not to say the domestic manufacturers can't produce good quality, fast, efficient and fun cars like the Japanese do--- the CAN.

But they choose not to, instead favouring cars long on flash but short on durability, efficiency and over-all quality, hoping to sell gobs of parts after the sale that were designed to not last very long after warranty expiration, and hoping that "buy Amerucun" patriotism would trump customers' sourness over the belated realization that the bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price.

And now the fruits of this long-term policy of greed and deceit has come home to roost. I sure wanna spend my hard-earned tax dollars to bail these folks out.....

I think the guy who complained about the Fit being his wife's car and too slow for him is likely a very biased-against-imports type, has three teeth in his head and a family tree with no limbs.

The Fit is plenty quick enough for me, and quicker than some of the behemoth domestic SUVs I've had the displeasure of driving. And no, those statusmobiles were not mine.

One more observation: The wrecking yards are full of six-year-old Cavaliers, Saturns, Focuses and Dodge 2.0's (Neons). But go to a wrecker and just try to find parts for a ten-year-old Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla.

(steps down from soap box).

 

The fit is pretty slow compare to my Evo but pretty quick compare to my AE86. It all depends on what you are comparing it to. Fit is decent around the bend compare to some cars with more hp however.

 

I think the Fit is slow. With that note I bought the Fit for all the other benefits it offers. I dont see the Fit as a "performance" car. I enjoy the fuel economy and versitility it offers. Yes the Fit can be fun to drive as well. I've done some canyon driving with it and it does well, underpowered but it handles well enough to make up for it and still allowing fun.
My history: Former Police Officer, Former BMW Rep, Former Toyota Rep. Amateur racer/autoXer. I have driven pretty much everything on the road. I have owned numberous "performance" cars including Saleen Mustang, BMW Z4, Time attack MINI Cooper. The MINI was by far the fastest thing i've ever driven. Scared the S*** out of me. It would easily outrun a Z06 in the straights and the corners.
With all of that being said. The Fit is my daily driver. Sure it can benefit from power improvements and some tweaking of the suspension. It's not a racecar by any means but it is a nice "tuneable" street car IMO

 

It's only slow when you push it...especially on a hot day.

For day to day it's plenty quick. If you want quicker get the MT and run smaller profile tires. AT takes a while longer for the car to respond due to the torque converter. Shift up/down itself is fast and consistent, but there is some disconnect between the throttle input and output. This gray area makes the car respond slower. With the clutch, when its engaged it's engaged. None of the slushy feel.

I have both FitS MT/AT 08/09....so I talk from experience.

 

Seeing aviator's (great) post reminded me; my daughter and I test hopped an Aveo as a replacement for her Cherokee. With us plus a beefy salesman and the A/C on, the thing couldn't get out of its own way. Seat of the pants, a Fit would eat it alive.
Moon
BTW, that now-departed Cherokee would climb McNally Hill at 95 with some throttle left, even with 100k on the clock. Never thought XJ's lacked power.
M

 

Agreed. Every car design is a compromise, and no one vehicle can be best in all parameters. High-performance sports cars give up utility and fuel economy. Small econo-boxes trade a degree of low-end acceleration and carrying capacity for fuel economy and a modest amount of utility. And SUVs give up just about everything else for status, utility and towing capacity.

But it's always nice to find a vehicle that's not the very best at any one thing, yet excels at most things. It's simply a matter of finding the car that best fits the individual's requirements. The Fit provides decent handling, utility and economy, and returns excellent durability, reliability, quality and resale value, while giving up a rather modest degree of acceleration. Which is precisely why I bought one.

 

0-60 in 3 weeks.

 

There is no substitute for displacement, which produces torque. Horsepower, on the other hand, requires revs. I'm making an assumption, based on your report, but if you're driving the Fit like the Jeep, where pushing the accelerator at any speed generates thrust because of the big engine torque, you will be disappointed. Honda has decades of experience in building reliable high RPM engines, and if you let the Fit's engine sing, it's going to be a lot more satisfying when the RPMs get above 5000 RPMs.

Here are some examples from Honda motorcycle engines. First example, I bought a 125cc CB92 (vertical twin) in 1965. During break-in, I kept the revs low, and thought I had made a big mistake, as it bogged down on the slightest hill. Finally, I decided to take it on the autobahn, and nearly rear-ended a Volkswagen because I wasn't prepared for the power hit that started at 6000 RPMs. Second, a 1988 Honda Hawk, which is a 650cc V-twin, and doesn't (by motorcycle standards) rev very high. The engine is sluggish below 3000 RPMs, begins to come alive at 4000, and is entertaining between 5000 and 8000 RPMs (redline is 8500). Third example, a 1989 Honda VTR250, another V-Twin, but this time only 250ccs. It's drivable below 6000 RPMs, but pretty gutless. The engine starts to wake up at 8000 RPMs, and is (for a 250) a lot of fun between 10,000 and 13,000 RPMs (redline is 13,500).

If you let the engine rev, a Fit can be fairly sprightly, although a stock engine will never make it a rocket.

 

When I test drove the Fit, I was hoping it'd be similar to the '85 VW GTI I drove for 10 years. From what I remembered, it didn't feel quite as if it had as much torque from a standing start, but really similar otherwise.

A quick google found a zero to 60 time of 9.0 for the '85 GTI.

Also had a '98 Contour SVT for a couple years, until my ex totaled it. It would have probably run circles around the Fit, but the MPG rarely got over 23 or 24, and you couldn't haul much in it.

So I'm really happy with the Fit, I'd say it's got the zip to get up and go when I need it, and it gets better MPG than anything I've owned previously, a nice combo.

As an aside, Popular Mechanics ran a comparison test between the Fit and a Ducati

Motorcycle vs Car MPG Test Drive - Ducati Hypermotard S vs. Honda Fit Sport Test Drive - Popular Mechanics

Gotta love this paragraph towards the end

"One might have thought the Italian Stallion would have walked away from the lowly Fit on this road. But at almost every turn heading up the mountain, the Fit filled the bike’s rearview mirror. The handling balance and grip from this Honda is extraordinary for a car in its class. You can fling the Fit hard into the tightest corner, ride the brakes slightly to take the edge off the understeer and then power out to the next turn. It was surprisingly quick, especially on the downhill, where momentum makes up for the lack of engine power. The Fit actually arrived at the bottom of Glendora ahead of the Ducati—its front brakes nearly smoking. Fun? Oh yeah."

 

I remember the "good old days' with my Chargers, Barracudas and GTO's. 10,000 miles MAX on a set of tires, Tune-up every 4-5,000 miles, Starters and water pumps going out, ball joints done at 30,000 miles, shocks done at 10,000 miles, 13 mpg, and 8-9 sec 0-60 times. We thought we driving the hootest stuff around..and we were. Even a Road Runner Hemi only did 0-60 in a little under 7 sec. A turbo Solstice will clean it's clock at 5.5 now. The Fit is not "slow", just average for today's faster cars. And it is light years ahead in reliablility, comfort and mpg. (Remember when A/C and P/S were luxuries? Disc brakes..only a dream.) Stop gripping about the Fit. It is a fine car. Hot rod? No, just a damn good car.

 

I bike is only as fast as its rider. Under any conditions other than rain or snow, a well-ridden Duc, especially the hypermotard, should be able to run away from a Fit.

However, having done my share of riding like a squid, consider the relative cost of a judgement error on a public road. A car can be driven much closer to the limit because the penalty for error is smaller. If you lose traction, you more than likely scrub off speed by sliding. On a bike, there is far less room for error, so you dial it back. In a car, a mistake in judgement may cause you to lose some paint; on a bike, you lose skin or worse. The ride conditions described in the PM article reinforce this:

In conditions like that, of course the Fit won.

 

When you let the engine spin north of 5,000 RPM it's actually a pretty nice engine. It has good pull in the first few gears and it's hard to convince myself to shift when it's spinning 5700 or higher.

 

I'm coming from an RX-8. I only miss it when I drive solo in the mountains, but that doesn't happen very often. I'm usually commuting to work or driving with my wife. If you've ever commuted to work in a sports car you might understand that it can make you crazy. Forced to go slow in bumper to bumper traffic? bleh, the RX-8 is one of the softer riding sports cars, but it's designed to go fast and sacrifices some comfort so it's still a terrible commuter car.

My ideal would be to have 2 cars, but frankly that's expensive and rather greedy. So I bought the Fit because it's an awesome commuter car and does lots of things very well. Plus it's backed by Honda reliability.

The best I can do now is wait for a manufacturer to come out with a better small, inexpensive, sport compact. I would prefer RWD but it feels like those days are over unless you don't mind driving a convertible, which I do. None of the sport compacts on the market today excite me, not the GTI or the Civic Si... they're all becoming overgrown and watered down. Here's hoping for a well designed CR-Z. Or even better... Toyota: give us another small RWD car like the old Corolla!

 

Yeah, I left that quote out 'cause it makes it less fun!

They still gave the Ducati the overall win, I just thought it was interesting that they'd even bother doing a test comparison on two vehicles so radically different.

 

Come on, Fit for looks and Golf GTi to do the job, but the fit is enough to take your grandmother shopping in and going to work. Maybe she'd love the Golf GTi, too.

But then stick a few goodies on the fit and it's as good as the Golf GTi.

 

I see where you're coming from, but it's important to state that horsepower requires revs and torque.

HP = RPM/5252 * torque
If torque is zero, HP will be zero regardless of RPM.

A high rev'ing engine will produce more horsepower than one that will fly apart at high revs, but it must also be able to breath (inhale enough fuel) to make those revs pay off. An engine designed this way is inefficient at low revs.

As I understand it, VTEC varies the volume of fuel/air that can inhaled at different engine speeds by changing the valve mechanics so you get greater efficiency at lower RPMs and greater power at high. Best of both worlds. Is that right?

 

This is the base model not just dressed up in a suit and new shoes.

The money I saved from not buying the Sport paid for nearly everthing. Read about ECU re-flashing.

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/2nd-...coilovers.html

It's the next best thing to a Golf GTi.

 

I bought my Fit because I like it. Is it underpowered compared to many of my previous vehicles? Without a doubt. But I typically drive alone (IE: without my family) and don't see a need to have a 300HP / 5,000lb vehicle to haul my 175lbs around.

And secondly. I've always been a punctual person and like to leave for my destination early so I don't have to rush, so with that being said, the Fit performs perfectly and is everything I expected and more.....