Last year I had the same dilemma. My wife would tell you that I agonized and analyzed for two months which car to buy. Well I bought the 2010 fit sport MT, and can tell you from my experience there is way more room in the 2010 fit and the fuel economy is better. I have consistently achieved mpg of 44-46. I drive 45 miles a day in the Appalachian foothill of southern Ohio up and down hills. My car payment and monthly fuel cost equal what I was previously spending in fuel (f150 pick-up though). The only thing I don't like are the factory Dunlop tires. They wear terrible. Also availability of tires sizes matching factory specification are nearly impossible to find. But I really am amazed at the car. I can haul a stand-up bass fiddle in the fit, not many cars can do that!

 

I had a 2006 Civic EX Coup that I replaced with a 2009 Fit Sport because I needed to haul a lot of cargo. However, if I did not need so much cargo space, I would be happier in the Civic.

The Civic has more power, is lower, handles better, gets better gas mileage, and in my opinion has nicer gauges and dash layout. I really liked the digital speed display that is placed high. Also, the Civic is quieter, probably in large part due to its lower profile. For me, it was an overall better driving experience.

However, as others have noted, if you want the ability to haul stuff, the Fit is a great choice. It gives you a very Civic-like experience while making some small sacrifices noted above.

One thing to note is that the difference between manual transmissions may be worth considering. I recall that for a 2006 Civic, the 4th gear on the 5-speed automatic was just a touch HIGHER than the 5th gear on the manual, which made the 5th gear on the automatic 100% gravy. For the Fit, the disparity is not quite so pronounced. In any case, you should get both of them up to highway speed similar to your commute and note how noisy they are and what the RPM reads. I would be interested to know what your findings are.

 

The hatch was not nearly as upscale a model as the sedan/coupe, or the Fit today *2000 was the last year for the hatch, aside from the lower production SI from '02-'05

The upper trim level was the DX, lower was the CX. Splurging on the upper trim got you things like a radio, power steering, and hubcaps. The Civic hatch was less expensive than ALL of the sedan/coupe models. At that time, a Civix LX sedan started at 14930 and a DX coupe started at 12680. The Cx and DX were 10750 and 12200 respectively. Today, a DX coupe starts at 15455 and an LX Sedan at 17605. *

The Fit is a far better car, fitting into a more upscale slot than the dominoes pizza-mobile of the late 90's (then again, Hyundai has developed as a real force and contender in the bargain car arena.)

As a side note, *the Fit, even in base form, is far better appointed than a Civic cx or dx hatch of 10 years ago, offers the same or better fuel economy, more cargo space (21 vs 13 cubic feet) *and more interior volume (91 vs 90 cubic feet) despite its shorter length and narrower width. The Civic is a nicer car as well, but the Fit's features and price have significant overlap with the Civic line (15455-24,455 for the Civic including the SI and leather models, 14,900 to 19,110 for the Fit)*

 

My sister has had a civic for a year, and I just got a Fit like a week ago. The civic has a little more power when driving, but the fit definitely handles better and is more fun to drive. Ive gotten 30mpg with city driving for the first two tanks. My sister is getting a little more than me, but she does city and highway driving. Overall, I'd say that my fit would get better mileage if we both did highway driving.

The Fit is a really comfortable car to drive. My fit sport has an armrest which helps. The only difference for me is that the civic can have leather, which for me is a plus.
The fit dash and instrument panel is way cooler than the civics in my opinion.

 

I have to agree. Civics are great especially when you are thinking about future resell value and what not but there is also nothing special about them and personally i dont like the look of them. The fit looks so much nicer

 

I don't think you'd see better mileage if comparing highway. Aerodynamic efficiency is a larger factor the faster your rate of travel, and the Civic posesses a more sleek shape. It should do better... there's a reason that the 3400 lbs+, full-size Accord is only rated 2 mpg lower on the highway than our superminis.

The comfort is subjective - my '01 Civic was far more comfortable than the Fit, but I don't have a lot of time with the current model.

 

Yeah, but "rated" is kind of misleading here. I drive ~90 highway every day (in Los Angeles traffic) and average 37-38 mpg. In the city I get around 31 to 33. Both those are markedly higher than what the Fit's "rated."

Now, if the Civic is similarly (under)rated, that's another story...

 

I would bet the civic is similarly underrated and the stats will have more to do with the driver (so someone who does over the EPA Specs on a fit will be similarly over on a Civic). My Prelude, Both Integras, My wife's Civic, and the FIT have all been underrated on economy and by about the same amount. the ridgeline is the only one that 's on par in our lineup. Our altima was underrated but not by much.

If I had a civic, I'd guess my lifetime MPG would be over 40mpg calculated.
The fit is over 38 for me at this point.

~SB

 

I got a Fit last weekend. I love it, but for my first tank of gas, I only got 28 MPG. Do you think that is something that will change over time and as the car gets worn in? My average speed is probably about 45 with an occasional stoplight. sometimes half and half driving

 

Comparing a Civic with a Fit is an apples-and-oranges comparison. I think if you drive both, it will be pretty obvious to you which one you prefer. My wife has a 2010 Civic EX, I have a 2010 Fit Sport, and for me there's no contest--I prefer the Fit (which is why I bought it instead of a Civic).

The Civic is a great car--well-built, comfortable, and reliable--but I'm a hatchback lover (score one for the Fit) and I hate the two-level instrument panel in the Civic. I prefer the conventional gauges in the Fit. Also, you sit lower in the Civic, and I like the seat height in the Fit better. Finally, there's no contest when it comes to outward visibility. I always feel like I'm sitting down in a hole in the Civic, whereas the Fit's large windshield and front side windows give me excellent visibility.

Fuel economy will depend on your driving style. I make no effort to drive economically; I like to drive fast when I can (75-80 mph), I go up steep highway grades at speed in lower gears, and spend a lot of time in stop-and-go freeway traffic on my daily commute, so the mileage difference between my Fit and my wife's Civic is negligible.

It all depends on what you want. You really can't go wrong either way.

 

I thing the perfect car would be a civic from the B pillar forward (with the better engine, greater legroom, and more comfortable seats) and a Fit for the back half (roomy cargo area, and space saving if inferior riding twist beam). And some more interesting styling. Maybe a 5 door with the rear doors hidden in the lines to give it a coupe/3-door appearance.

Yes, I've just described the Euro Civic. ;-)

 

I didn't really know the specs of the old Civic hatch, but I do think if Honda made a Civic hatch with the Civic's engine, and nicer interior with say the Fit's cargo versatility and maybe make it a little bit bigger than the Fit. Honda would have it's premium Hatch, priced above the Fit.

 

Mine is the same, but it's mostly due to having to go stoplight to stoplight in traffic. I expected better mpg, however I have got up into the 40s when doing pure highway cruises. Problem is, better that 90% of my driving is city. I do try and look at the positive side however with the thought that if I have bought something with more power, bigger engine, or just something to satisfy my ego, I'd be getting much worse results. 28-29 mpg city really still isn't bad.

 

FYI the resale on a manual is better than an automatic, at least for a 2009. I picked up a Fit Sport M/T ~December 2009. Totaled it in February 2010. Offer was less than full price, but you would expect that with depreciation... Then I looked at what they used to determine the price... two automatics (one Sport A/T, one A/T)... they actually had to adjust the offer price down because theoretically a Sport A/T is worth more than a Sport M/T...

Did some research, noticed M/T sells for much more than A/T used... Ended up making my case and getting more back than I had paid for the new car.

Soo... A/T worth more on paper? sure. In the real world, used? No.

 

I was in the same shoes as you two years ago. I traded my 2007 Fit Sport in for a 2008 Civic LX. After 6 months of owning the Civic, I was regretting buying the Civic. Two Years later I traded the Civic back in and got a 2010 Fit Sport. I absolutely missed driving one.

 

Even assuming the automatic is worth more on resale, don't forget that you paid almost $1000 more to buy the automatic when you bought the car new. This makes any higher resale a wash.

 

[quote=mhrivnak;921514]I had a 2006 Civic EX Coup that I replaced with a 2009 Fit Sport because I needed to haul a lot of cargo. However, if I did not need so much cargo space, I would be happier in the Civic.

+1

I've driven a bunch of cars depending on where I have been in life: a Ford Ranger, a Mercedes E-Class, etc. The Fit is the best car I have ever owned. You will immediately appreciate the versatility of the car and how much it stores. A Civic is a good car, but I think a Fit is a great car. Unless you are an ultra-minimalist and never cart stuff around the Fit would be my vote.

 

Go for FIT 4sure....!! cus i have one..

 

check out www.hondajazzlover.com ....! Thailand funs of GE*

 

It's been a month now- have you decided which one Bummbull?