2015 Fit Finalist for M/T COTY and All-Star in Automobile.
2015 Fit Finalist for M/T COTY and All-Star in Automobile.
Here's the links from this proud daddy:
2015 Motor Trend Car of the Year Contenders, Finalists - Motor Trend
Honda Fit: 2015 AUTOMOBILE All-Star
2015 Motor Trend Car of the Year Contenders, Finalists - Motor Trend
Honda Fit: 2015 AUTOMOBILE All-Star
But the new DI DOHC Earth Dreams growls a bit different, it's not as unpleasant as Subaru's boxer engine growls, but it has a noticeably different engine note than the older, non-DI SOHC Hondas. It doesn't sound as 'sweet' when you rev it past the 4000 RPM. I don't know why (I'm not a mechanic). I miss the engine sound of my old Civic already (as much as I miss the manual trans of it).
EWWW! It got beaten by a Golf?! I don't care what anybody says about German engineering or blah blah blah. I test drove a Golf, Mazda 3, Chevy Sonic, Nissan Versa Note, Prius C and the Fit (which I bought). I drove the Golf first and right then and there, even with nothing to compare to, I thought it left a lot to be desired. The interior is just bland, there is no interior storage AND it wasn't even great to drive. The Mazda was way more fun and like $5k less. Plus, I've had crap experience with VW's in the past two years.
Fit FTW!!
Fit FTW!!
I haven't considered VW since their incident with defective coil packs that failed between 25K and 50K miles. Audi owners with the packs had theirs replaced free of charge as part of a voluntary recall. VW owners with the same packs had to wait until the packs failed, stranding them. Only then would VW replace the packs and only if it was within warranty. If you got a slightly better pack that lasted past the warranty you were out of luck and had to shell out $400.
The only real VWs have the engine in back.
The only real VWs have the engine in back.
[rant]
What really frustrates me about automotive journalism is that most flat out ignore historical reliability/dependability data when analyzing cars. I think it's really unfair to the consumer who may buy a car off of Motor Trend's recommendation.
I understand that being a new car, they can only really make substantiated claims based on test elements of the vehicle which can be measured in short time and can be expected to represent all similar cars, but completely ignoring that VW is consistently ranked in the bottom third of most reliability surveys seems disingenuous and a disservice to their (MT's) customers, their subscribers.
And even worse than ignoring poor reliability, the fact that they seem to ignore the benefits of a mark with historical above-average reliability encourages brands to throw development dollars that could be spent on making a longer lasting product, towards making a more polished, but ultimately worse product.
Seems like the best effect could be had by using JD/CR data as a test for the claims made by automotive journalists. So let them talk all they want about the fabulous new Genesis, but ground that in the knowledge that Hyundai was the 5th worst brand in JD's most recent customer survey.
[/rant]
What really frustrates me about automotive journalism is that most flat out ignore historical reliability/dependability data when analyzing cars. I think it's really unfair to the consumer who may buy a car off of Motor Trend's recommendation.
I understand that being a new car, they can only really make substantiated claims based on test elements of the vehicle which can be measured in short time and can be expected to represent all similar cars, but completely ignoring that VW is consistently ranked in the bottom third of most reliability surveys seems disingenuous and a disservice to their (MT's) customers, their subscribers.
And even worse than ignoring poor reliability, the fact that they seem to ignore the benefits of a mark with historical above-average reliability encourages brands to throw development dollars that could be spent on making a longer lasting product, towards making a more polished, but ultimately worse product.
Seems like the best effect could be had by using JD/CR data as a test for the claims made by automotive journalists. So let them talk all they want about the fabulous new Genesis, but ground that in the knowledge that Hyundai was the 5th worst brand in JD's most recent customer survey.
[/rant]
[rant]
What really frustrates me about automotive journalism is that most flat out ignore historical reliability/dependability data when analyzing cars. I think it's really unfair to the consumer who may buy a car off of Motor Trend's recommendation.
I understand that being a new car, they can only really make substantiated claims based on test elements of the vehicle which can be measured in short time and can be expected to represent all similar cars, but completely ignoring that VW is consistently ranked in the bottom third of most reliability surveys seems disingenuous and a disservice to their (MT's) customers, their subscribers.
And even worse than ignoring poor reliability, the fact that they seem to ignore the benefits of a mark with historical above-average reliability encourages brands to throw development dollars that could be spent on making a longer lasting product, towards making a more polished, but ultimately worse product.
Seems like the best effect could be had by using JD/CR data as a test for the claims made by automotive journalists. So let them talk all they want about the fabulous new Genesis, but ground that in the knowledge that Hyundai was the 5th worst brand in JD's most recent customer survey.
[/rant]
What really frustrates me about automotive journalism is that most flat out ignore historical reliability/dependability data when analyzing cars. I think it's really unfair to the consumer who may buy a car off of Motor Trend's recommendation.
I understand that being a new car, they can only really make substantiated claims based on test elements of the vehicle which can be measured in short time and can be expected to represent all similar cars, but completely ignoring that VW is consistently ranked in the bottom third of most reliability surveys seems disingenuous and a disservice to their (MT's) customers, their subscribers.
And even worse than ignoring poor reliability, the fact that they seem to ignore the benefits of a mark with historical above-average reliability encourages brands to throw development dollars that could be spent on making a longer lasting product, towards making a more polished, but ultimately worse product.
Seems like the best effect could be had by using JD/CR data as a test for the claims made by automotive journalists. So let them talk all they want about the fabulous new Genesis, but ground that in the knowledge that Hyundai was the 5th worst brand in JD's most recent customer survey.
[/rant]
The 2015 Fit is not impressive enough to win the awards, whether it lasts or not is also entirely unknown. This is a new factory, workforce, etc.
If you want a focus on durability, read Consumer Reports.
engine noise
I always dismiss any critique of engine noise until I've had a chance to hear it myself.....one man's noise is another's symphony and I like the sound my 09 makes around 4k...it's a hum and buzz of efficiency!
They must have been spoiled by the Tesla and other cars with active noise cancellation....
They must have been spoiled by the Tesla and other cars with active noise cancellation....
That would be fine if the article was Trendy Car of the Year. But it isn't, it's Car of the Year, full stop. They are recommending a car from a brand with a history of unreliability as the best new car of 2014.
I looked long and hard at the 2015 Golf. It ended up being a little over $3000 more expensive off the lot, which on an economy car, I found excessive. Nice car for sure, but not $3000 nicer. That'll buy my gas until I sell the Fit.
They picked the car that most impressed them. If I were to get out of a 130HP Fit and into a 170HP Golf that I wasn't paying for I'd probably pick the Golf as well.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




