When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I started with a 2008 base MT and then a 2010 base AT. So I've now experienced each U.S. generation.
Early takeaways from my 2016 LX CVT compared to the others:
More comfortable
Quieter
More powerful
Better gas mileage
Cruise control and Bluetooth on the base model are great
Still getting used to the backup camera but I guess it's a nice addition
My daughter's driving the 2008 and it has 150,000 miles on it. Had to replace the ignition coils at around 100k but otherwise no significant mechanical issues. It's still the most fun of the three to drive, partly because of the 5 speed and partly ... just because. Smaller, lighter, more fun, in a go-kart kind of way.
I drove the 2010 for 100k miles before I moved on. Had to replace the rear struts around 90k but no other issues. I liked it a lot but I think the 3rd gen is a big upgrade.
For me, the powertrain on this car is a revelation. It's incredibly smooth (which probably takes away some of the fun factor for some drivers) and it's amazing how fuel efficient it is compared with how it steps right up when you need some acceleration. The extra power is really the biggest surprise for me, especially considering it has better gas mileage than the earlier versions.
One of the things I didn't like about the 2010 AT is the harsh downshift that would happen when you needed to juice it, or sometimes just to maintain speed uphill. I recently drove the Mass. Pike out through the Berkshire mountains and was interested to see how the CVT handled the big hills on cruise control. It maintained speed no problem and the tach just floated between 2k and 3k rpm as necessary.
Hopefully the 2016 will hold up as well over time.
Nice review. I can't compare my Fit to other Fits. I've had a Toyota Tacoma for the past 20 years so there's nothing to compare there. I do hope the Fit is as reliable and long lasting as my truck.
I was surprised by how comfortable it is even on long trips. Others here will disagree but we're all built differently so the seats can be a hit or miss. I also think it's fairly quiet for an econobox - certainly quieter than my truck (road noise from the Firestone oem tires notwithstanding). The main reasons I bought the car was the high mpg, the Honda name, and my previous experience, although many years ago, with Hondas. I never forgot how reliable and fun to drive those cars were.
"Hopefully the 2016 will hold up as well over time."
"Hopefully the 2016 will hold up as well over time."
Only time will tell if the Fit will be reliable over the long term. We've had a lot of fun driving out '16 Fit, all without major complaints. The Fit is a small budget car, so I don't have delusions of grandeur about a silky smooth ride, etc. New tires will certainly help. This winter the Fit did very well when shod with -1 winter tires.
There is no other Honda car that will come close to the size of the Fit. The new '17 Civic is very large, closer to the Accord than the Fit. If you like small cars the Fit is the only model offered by Honda.
Kind of like BenQuick I too come directly from driving an older vehicle, in this case a 1981 Toyota Corolla (still have it for special days). Most things I read in reviews as negatives about the Fit (noisy, slower, uncomfortable) really are not an issue when jumping 35 years! I chose the Fit because I wanted something as reliable as my Corolla, something with storage reasonably comparable with my wagon but also something with equivalent or better mpg. The last was a big reason for going with the Fit. The last long trip I took with my Corolla I got 32 mpg. When looking at new cars a lot of them boasted "excellent" mileage -- 35 mpg EPA! I did not want to buy a car three decades younger than mine that got the same mileage new as mine does after 35 years!
My big disappointment with the new car (and this would likely apply to any new car) is I don't see myself driving it 35 years from now. I look at all the plastic and electronics and it just won't last. The big reason the Corolla is no longer our main car is the difficulty in getting parts for it. It's the plastic stuff that's breaking on the Corolla and there really isn't that much plastic compared to the Fit.
Kind of like BenQuick I too come directly from driving an older vehicle, in this case a 1981 Toyota Corolla (still have it for special days). Most things I read in reviews as negatives about the Fit (noisy, slower, uncomfortable) really are not an issue when jumping 35 years! I chose the Fit because I wanted something as reliable as my Corolla, something with storage reasonably comparable with my wagon but also something with equivalent or better mpg. The last was a big reason for going with the Fit. The last long trip I took with my Corolla I got 32 mpg. When looking at new cars a lot of them boasted "excellent" mileage -- 35 mpg EPA! I did not want to buy a car three decades younger than mine that got the same mileage new as mine does after 35 years!
My big disappointment with the new car (and this would likely apply to any new car) is I don't see myself driving it 35 years from now. I look at all the plastic and electronics and it just won't last. The big reason the Corolla is no longer our main car is the difficulty in getting parts for it. It's the plastic stuff that's breaking on the Corolla and there really isn't that much plastic compared to the Fit.
You're probably right about longevity, but I've been in Fits with well over 200k and I'm optimistic about this one too. For me the wildcard is the CVT. Newer cars sure don't rust like the old ones.
Not sure it's fair to compare MPG with something from 1981, but only because you can't really look at fuel economy in a vacuum. MPG might only be 'slightly' better today but tailpipe emissions are way down. Manufacturers are forced to find the right balance between performance, efficiency and environmental impact and I expect MPG could be much better if they didn't have to worry about emissions standards, or dragging around all that safety equipment, etc.
Not sure it's fair to compare MPG with something from 1981
If anything you would expect modern cars to get much better mpg than 35 years ago. My 1981 Corolla's engine compartment is crowded with emissions control stuff, by the way.
I looked at my gas records I have kept since 1987 when I bought my Corolla used and back then I was getting real-world (not EPA estimate) 36 mpg on the freeway in a 6 year old car. My 1981 has a 1.8 L engine and the Fit at 1.5 L is one of the few modern cars with something less than 2 L. What car makers mostly did was improve engine design then trade efficiency away again by making them more powerful.
I haven't updated this graph since 2006 but here's the early records:
1981 Corolla wagon gas records 1987-2006. The time I got 5 mpg I had a bad fuel pump leak. The last 5,000 miles are winter driving only, mostly city since 2002 on. I use my other 1981 Toyota Corolla wagon in summer. I haven't made a graph for that.
If you were to back plot that graph to 0 miles it would suggest the car was getting a 35 mpg city-plus-freeway real world average when it was new. If you look at this site https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymo..._Corolla.shtmlEPA estimates low 30s mixed driving for the 2016 1.8 L Toyota Corolla! This suggests about 5 mpg real-time driving less when new than my car got originally. That's one of the reasons why I bought the Fit instead of another Toyota Corolla (that, and the fact they no longer do a real wagon).
Location: Foothills of the Smokies, east Tennessee
Posts: 943
Don't forget that the way manufacturer stated MPGs are calculated is changed every so often....not to mention, my '15 LX with 6 spd manual exceeds manufacturer fuel economy ratings all around, city/highway/combined. for the record, our '05 Corolla gets around 29-30 mpg around town, and 38 on the highway ...not to shabby
Our '90 Civic hatchback got a hand-calculated 40+ on the highway new, and could still break 40 after 160,000 miles. Probably averaged around 37-38, which is exactly what my hand calculations are for my Fit after 45,000 miles.
08-26-2016, 11:42 AM
I chose the Fit because I wanted something as reliable as my Corolla, something with storage reasonably comparable with my wagon but also something with equivalent or better mpg. The last was a big reason for going with the Fit. The last long trip I took with my Corolla I got 32 mpg. When looking at new cars a lot of them boasted "excellent" mileage -- 35 mpg EPA! I did not want to buy a car three decades younger than mine that got the same mileage new as mine does after 35 years! 
The big reason the Corolla is no longer our main car is the difficulty in getting parts for it. It's the plastic stuff that's breaking on the Corolla and there really isn't that much plastic compared to the Fit.
