http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...Car+and+Driver)

For the number crunchers and performance junkies, Car and Driver has just tested the 2015 Fit EX 6MT for its July issue (on news stands soon) and here are the performance numbers that will forever be quoted for the 2015 Fit with select 2011 Fit number for comparison:

2015 Fit.......................2011 Fit
0-30. 2.5 sec.....................2.6 sec
0-40. 4.2 sec
0-50. 5.8 sec
0-60. 8.0 sec..................... 8.4 sec
0-70. 10.6 sec
0-80. 13.5 sec
0-90. 18.0 sec
0-100 23.2 sec......................27.3 sec
0-110 31.6 sec......................44.0 sec
5-60. 8.4 sec........................9.0 sec
Top Gear
30-50. 10.3 sec......................11.7 sec
50-70. 10.9 sec......................12.6 sec
Top speed. 118 MPH...............116 MPH
1/4 mile 16.2 @ 86MPH...........16.5 @ 83 MPH
Braking
70-0. 178 feet"..........................184 feet

These numbers were fairly predictable improvements based on the 13 additional HP and slightly shorter 1rst gear of the new Fit. And they should ensure that the Fit will win any Comparison tests with its other natural 5 door econobox hatchback rivals, save the performance oriented ones like the Fiesta ST or Mini Cooper S. And I believe that is why Honda chose the ratios it did for 1rst thru 4 gears. I do not wish to start up the debate about why they chose the ratios they did for 5th and 6th

The most significant numbers to me are the improvements in 5-60 time of 0.6 seconds and in 30-50 of 1.4 seconds and in 50-70 of 1.7 seconds. These improvements indicates that the practical torque of the new Fit is noticeably better than the old. While most of us do not make drop the clutch redline blasts through the gears, we all benefit from more torque at all rpms. 8.4 seconds from 5-60 still squarely puts the Fit in econocar torque range, but it indicates a significant improvement over the old car that should be felt.

There is one more number from the car and driver testing that I think deserves some attention. And that is the number of cases of beer that will fit in the cargo areas. Because what is more important in life than how much beer you can buy in one trip? The old Fit was class leading with 11 cases, seats up and 35 cases seats down. The new Fit is 10 cases seats up and the same 35 cases seats down. So the practical space reduction for the cargo area behind second row seat is 9%. Hopefully not a deal breaker for anyone.

In other practical space considerations
The 2011 fit could accommodate a flat panel seats down of 56.0"x 38.8"
The 2015 fit can accommodate a flat panel seats down of 59.3" x 39.8"

 

Good info. Guess I'll have to be really shifting well if I wanna beat a new Fit to 60 - and hope he can't drive.

Yeah, that 6th gear ratio is still disappointing - as well as still lacking rear discs and Android compatibility...

 

Another info. thread with real-world comparative results. TCroly has done it again, with timely specs for all to learn from!!! Goes faster and brakes sooner. Am loving them numbers.

As for the beer capacity, with my lifestyle, 35 cases - definitely my DEAL-MAKER!!!

 

Very good information. Was waiting for some 0-60 and 1/4 mile time info. Actually, am waiting for the auto CVT 0-60 and 1/4 mile info but this will do for now.

Thanks for posting!

 

Any skidpad or slalom numbers? The current model is already "fast" enough for me.

 

Me too. Actually I want to see the CVT LX figures, to see if the slightly lighter weight and added aero bits make any real difference.

It won't really sway my decision because I need headroom and don't particularly like holes in the roof, but I am curious about how badly the CVT affects 0-60. Done correctly, a CVT should do better even though the constant high RPMs would sound odd to people like me used to a stick.

 

The same 0.79 skid pad result they got from a 2009 rolling on the same Bridgestone EL450 tires. The Dunlop SP7000 tires generated 0.80 on a 2011. I would expect the same result on the 2015.

No slalom results reported.

 

Thanks for reporting.

 

Here is a post I made in another thread that predicts the performance of the CVT:
The current Car and Driver has a comparison test that includes the Honda Civic EX CVT. The Civic uses the same CVT as the Fit. It weighs 10% more and has 10% more HP and Torque.
So the acceleration results should be very similar to the CVT Fit.
Here is what they got when they tested the Civic CVT
0-30 3.6 seconds
0-60. 8.8 seconds
0-100. 24.5 seconds
1/4 mile 17.0 @ 86 MPH

The extra 13 HP and lower drag of the Civic will benefit it at higher speeds. So I would expect the CVT Fit to match the Civic's 0-60 times, be a tenth or two slower and 1 MPH slower in the 1/4 mile and be maybe 2 seconds slower to 100

I expect the shorter gearing of the 6MT to produce an 8.0 second 0-60 and maybe a 16.2 second 1/4 mile at the same 86 MPH

 

I think that your analysis is probably correct.

For ordinary driving (as opposed to maximum effort 0-60 runs) the CVT will probably be a pretty close match to the stick. Those quicker times with the stick come with a sacrifice of smoothness which might be annoying to non-gearhead passengers in the car. If the driver's concentration isn't perfect he could easily lose that second the stick gained. With the CVT he can just keep his foot planted and the car accelerates smoothly.

Of course, we're quibbling over 8 or 9 second 0-60 times which would have been spectacularly fast on sporty cars of a couple of decades ago!

 

you mean the new fit has MORE floor space?? OMG I never would have thought.

 

For day to day driving, the CVT is likely to provide adequate acceleration for most peoples needs. The main difference, I suspect, is just what our first GK owner has noted in the first 40 miles that he has driven his new Fit. The CVT will roar the engine up to a rolling boil with deep throttle application and immediately cool down as soon as you lift. It is quite a different feeling than most people are used to from a conventional automatic or even a manual transmission. For me, I have never adapted to this characteristic of the CVTs, and as a result, I will only consider a manual transmission Fit. But the softer you are on the throttle, the less this will be an issue.

The comment about 8 to 9 second 0-60s being considered fast, just a couple of decades ago, is so true. I was just comparing the C&D performance numbers of the new Fit to that of the Ford Focus SVT that I purchased back in 2002. The new Fit is just a tenth or two behind to each speed measurement and the Focus SVT was considered the hot hatch to have, just 12 years ago. My lifetime fuel economy from the Focus SVT was just 21.5MPG, the new Fit should get me even better than the 35MPG my 2009 has averaged since new. And the list price of the new Fit 6MT EX is identical to that of the 2002 SVT, even while including such niceties as back up and blind spot cameras, Bluetooth phone and audio streaming. Impressive improvements over the past decade indeed!

 

How does Car & Driver do the acceleration tests? Do they use a drag strip for 1/4 mile runs or do they just time it with a "stop watch" or electronic device like that? Every time I have read 1/4 mile times for my 2013 Fit with 5 MT, have always thought the times were optimistic at best. I've seen times for my car at 16.7 or quicker. My car doesn't feel that fast; I'd think it would run 16.9 or 16.8 in real world conditions. That's why I'd question 16.2 seconds for the 1/4 mile in the new Fit.

Just curious.

 

TCroly, good points! Don't forget to take into consideration (You may have actually) that the LX model has some 'aero-tweeks' to it to help it get better fuel mileage than the EX version. Perhaps this will help bring it up to par with the Civic's coefficient of drag (or perhaps better). Maybe?
"On the ultra-efficient Fit LX, a front lip spoiler, engine under-cover, center floor cover and shrouds around the rear suspension have all been added."
http://www.autoguide.com/manufacture...ideo-3850.html

 

It will be interesting to see if there are any real world benefits from the LX underbody aero tweaks. It helped in getting a 3 MPG better EPA Hwy rating, but I would be surprised to see it result in any measurable performance gain. But who knows? We would need a back to back test of an LX CVT vs EX CVT.

The bigger higher torque engine of the Civic will prove more of a factor in pushing the car through the air at higher speeds than would a few underbody aero bits. So I don't think the CVT Fit will match the CVT Civic in 1/4 mile speed or time to speeds greater than 80 MPH. But it should not be too far behind. And I expect it will be significantly faster than the 2013 auto.

 

How Does C/D Test Cars? - Automotive News and Information from Car and Driver

I tend to trust C&D more than other magazines.

 

Do they still do the lane change test? Be interested in seeing if the current Fit beats any current Ferraris like previous models.

 

Thanks T. Interesting read. I'm a long time drag racing fan, so tend to think of 1/4 mile times as those recorded on a drag strip. Still, 16 seconds in the 1/4 mile with a 1500 CC engine is pretty good.

 

Car and Driver has just published their 2015 Honda fit Review referenced in this thread online:

2015 Honda Fit EX Test – Review – Car and Driver)