Ok... about the Fit's "Slowness"
#41
[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.
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.
#42
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.
Now the VW golf GTi is a different story. It's streets ahead of the Fit sport for engine and suspension.
I owned and still own are an RSX-S, Integra GSR, 06 S2000, and an Evo IX. The Fit will smoke all of them in MPG!
Last edited by Lek; 09-19-2009 at 07:56 AM.
#43
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
all times were for manuals or sport shifting autos....so is the Fit fast? For it's class and price range YES. Is that why I bought one? No
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
all times were for manuals or sport shifting autos....so is the Fit fast? For it's class and price range YES. Is that why I bought one? No
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).
Last edited by Aviator902S; 09-19-2009 at 08:14 AM.
#45
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
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
#46
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.
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.
#47
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
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
#48
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
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
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.
#50
I'm coming from a 4.0L '96 AT Jeep Cherokee. I much prefer the way the Fit drives (it's a very, very long list of how much better the fit is, so I won't go into it). The only way that it suffers for me, is in getting up to highway speed on the ramp. Once I'm at 60, it'll zip right up to 70 or 80 no problem, it's a pleasure (it really is, once it gets there)! But going up those steep on-ramps, even if I floor it, it just doesn't GO. Isn't it supposed to be a go? The Jeep didn't necessarily shine in those areas either, but if I was willing to hit the gas hard enough, it could get up to highway speed very quickly. The fit just... can't. Yet. Maybe as it breaks in more.
I'm still trying to find the right amount of lead in my foot that can get it up to highway speed as quickly as possible, without the engine bogging down. It really doesn't seem like it goes that much faster if you floor it going uphill. Times like these, I wish I'd gone for the manual. But I do mostly city driving, very stop and go, so...
For driving around town, I think it's got a very nice amount of power. I can zip away quickly, but most of the time I'm trying to drive fuel-efficiently, so I don't rev it too hard.
I have an AT, by the way.
I'm still trying to find the right amount of lead in my foot that can get it up to highway speed as quickly as possible, without the engine bogging down. It really doesn't seem like it goes that much faster if you floor it going uphill. Times like these, I wish I'd gone for the manual. But I do mostly city driving, very stop and go, so...
For driving around town, I think it's got a very nice amount of power. I can zip away quickly, but most of the time I'm trying to drive fuel-efficiently, so I don't rev it too hard.
I have an AT, by the way.
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.
#51
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."
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."
#52
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.
#53
...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."
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."
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:
But on test day, Glendora was a minefield. Recent rainstorms had loosened debris from above and caused dirt and softball-size rocks to roll down onto the road. It takes a special kind of bravado (or stupidity) to ride a motorcycle at 10/10ths when every corner hides a mudslide.
Last edited by Selden; 09-19-2009 at 10:27 AM.
#55
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!
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!
#56
But on test day, Glendora was a minefield. Recent rainstorms had loosened debris from above and caused dirt and softball-size rocks to roll down onto the road. It takes a special kind of bravado (or stupidity) to ride a motorcycle at 10/10ths when every corner hides a mudslide.
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.
#57
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.
But then stick a few goodies on the fit and it's as good as the Golf GTi.
#58
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?
#59
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.
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.
Last edited by Lek; 09-19-2009 at 11:30 AM.
#60
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.....
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.....