Looks like per their drive so far @15000mi, they miss the 2013 they drove last year. What are your comments about this test.


2015 Honda Fit EX 1.5 Long-Term Test Update ? Review ? Car and Driver

 

Seems fair enough, but it also seems like C&D wants it both ways with the manual tranny; they like the close ratios and the 7.7 0 to 60 times but complain about 4000 rpm at 80mph.

 

The American people , for better or worse, has overwhelmingly chosen automatics vs manuals. So good thing they chose the manual. Shame too...everyone seems to sing the praises of the CVT and there are numerous complaints about the noise on the manual as well as something about the 5th gear being too short or something. I will never understand why professional reviews tend to go with the manual options for their reviews pretty much whenever it is available.

As for the review as a whole... It really doesn't seem to say a lot about their experience with the car itself. But what they did say doesn't seem unreasonable from my limited experience with the car (1 week today).

 

I'm actually pretty surprised about all the noise complaints. I guess it depends on what you're coming from - before the Fit we used to share a 2004 Volvo S60 with my husband, and that thing was so loud I kept checking if all the windows were up as soon as I got on the highway... Made me swear to never own a car with a sunroof again! The LX (so even noisier than the EX) to me seems like such a quiet little car in comparison. And I've yet to figure out what the "CVT drone noise" is that everyone keeps talking about - even tried searching for videos, but a bunch of screechy Nissans came up.

 

You don't need all 6 gears on a 0-60 mph run (probably just 1-3), so you can have both in the same car. They just needed a taller 6th gear.

 

The only thing I really agree with about the review is to get the EX over the LX--no question.

As George L once astutely pointed out, if these auto journalists have to downshift from top gear while climbing a grade or passing, they say the car is gutless. So instead of putting a sixth gear above the GE's fifth, where it was actually needed, Honda put it between the GE's 4th and 5th, which was already about perfectly spaced, and where it just gets in the way. And it still screams along at almost 4,000 rpm at 75 mph compared to the CVT's relaxed 2,500 rpm.

The Fit's manual ratios are probably the most poorly chosen ones I've ever seen. First gear is almost a granny gear and there's a huge drop between it and second gear. You can run 1st to almost 7,000 rpm and when you hit second, you're still about 1,000 rpm below the torque peak. It's way too widely spaced down low and way to closely spaced up top.

So Honda produces a six-speed for the car reviewers and a damned sporty CVT for the rest of us.

 

I like their review, my highlights based of their review.

One thing I truly agree: the gas tank is a little too small and I do have to make several trips more than I'd like to.

One thing I truly disagree: them wondering why get leather. I'm glad I have my EX-L w/Navi. Very comfortable and I love them.

 

Cold in winter, hot in summer. Even with the silly pattern, I'm still glad that there's no forced leather on the EX.

Seems pretty on point to me and about the same as every other review I've read. It's C&D, though - there's no way they'd pick the CVT if you know their point of view well enough.

 

Yes because it's Car and DRIVER and not Consumer Reports.



RELAX

 

Consumer Reports just did a comparison between the Fit EX, Rio EX and Versa Note SV and the Fit came out on top.

 

Having owned a 2010 and now a 2015, the 2015 is superior on paper in every conceivable way. That said, I miss my 2010 and am not sure I made the right decision. I loved my 2010. My 2015 is a mode of transportation.

 

Yet, those Car & DRIVER guys would give their right nut to drive a F1 car, which has the same shifting and clutch controls as a Fit EX CVT!

Frankly, I wouldn't expect C&D to get terribly excited about an econobox unless it has about double the horsepower of a Fit.

 

If you drive at 80 mph, most cars would not go more than 350 miles on a tank. At a more reasonable pace with 40 mpg, they could squeeze close to 400 or more per tank.

Leather comment is weird. Leather is cleaner and more appealing.
The bigger concern for me would be the direct injection time bomb.

 

Well, there might be a few differences that might be swaying them a bit towards driving the F1 car.

I guess leather is a personal taste thing, but I just am not a fan of it on seats. As always though, it would be good to have the option (just like the sunroof).

C&D are almost always very postive about the GTI, for example. And I think they were pretty positive on the driving experience with the Fiesta ST and Abarth, though like everyone else, negative about other aspects of both cars, IIRC.

 

I've been expecting you.

They liked the GE... they said it was down on power but still complimented the motor as eager and fun.

CVT Honda Fit =/= F1 car. If I had a Ferrari, I'd want one with paddles. If I had a Lambo, i'd want one with paddles. There is a difference between a Honda Fit and a ultra high performance car.

There are aspects to driving that can't be put in numbers. If you can't have a FAST car, it should be fun. There is nothing fun to me and most people in that mindset about a CVT. An old carb'd roadster is undoubtedly slower than even the most basic rental Yaris the world has today, but to a lot of people, is a hell of a lot more fun to drive. I'm not an old man by any means and definitely not stuck in my ways.

I believe most people at C&D share that opinion, hence why I said what I said. Consumer Reports is all about the cool gadgets and new tech, good crash ratings and fuel economy. C&D likes that stuff, but if a car's lost that driving feel, they will be quick to point it out. There's nothing wrong with either camp, you like what you like, and that's ok.

Fun does not always equate to sheer performance. I understand your opinion about the advancement of tech and respect that.

 

Six-speed Honda Fit ≈ truck with granny gear

 

Yes 1st is annoying, but still more fun to me than a CVT or automatic. I know you keep saying how poorly spaced first and second are, but if I shift at redline it usually lands around 5k, which is pretty good. This is in the GE though, I have no idea about the GK.

Maybe the GK's gears are poorly spaced... that'd just be reason 192 why I don't want one, but I just won't buy one, not pick up a CVT in it's place. That's just not an option to me.

 

In your dreams. 1.870/3.308 x redline rpm = ???? rpm

 

*shrug*

Maybe the tach is wrong, but it's just a little shy of 5k, which is fine. It probably is a little inaccurate because if I read it literally it shows I can go to 7k, when I know that's not true. Anyway, I don't feel any hesitation. If you shift any earlier than the limiter it hesitates though, you're right about that.

 

Lemme help you with the arithmetic. At the 6,800 rpm redline, it's 3,844 rpm, or about 1,000 rpm below the GE 4,800 rpm torque peak. Not a lot better than the GK which has a lower torque peak. Even if you bang it off the rev limiter at 7,000, you're at 3,957 in second at best--1,000 rpm below your 5,000 dream. [edit] If you're really seeing 5,000, your clutch is slipping pretty badly when you hit second.