I'm wondering why the car weighs so much. I'm wondering this in response to the post about "New Insight....Fit" where they wanna reduce the weight of the car to boost gas mileage (if i read correctly). This car weighs, I think, a lil too much for its size...

any thoughts?

 

Crash test ratings. Safety is important. Safety sells too.

 

^^^ What Corey said. ^^^

My personal feelings: I for one will gladly swap a couple of MPG for a better chance of survival in the event someone who drives like my ex-brother-in-law runs into me.
Plus, I try to pass my old cars on to my kids when I'm ready for a new car, so it will feel extra-good-karma then.

The little car is actually pretty rigid, another good thing. And it's not heavy enough to make it drive like a pig. I have had mine for nearly 3 months and 7,000 miles, and I am liking it more and more instead of less and less like my old Mazda.

Oops. Got off the subject. Umm, yes, it's heavier than some, but safer and zippier than most in its price range. And DAMN it's cool to look at.

Joe

 

While in "the reading room" I was looking at an older road test. I found it interesting that the Fit weighs more than a 1959 Studebaker Lark VI.....

 

Hmmm, let's see if you take out all the modern conveniences like A/C, Airbags, the complete safety system, ABS, catalytic converter, all the emissions system components, a couple speakers, yank the radio and drop in an AM only one.

A lot of the electronic components including the ECU and TB, slap on a carburetor and connect it with a cable. Are we getting close yet?

I'm sure there's more we would have to remove from the Fit to make it comparable.

Now take the just under $2000 price of the Lark in 1959 and adjust that to the value of a dollar today.

After all that I'll keep my Fit.

 

Wow, that ad mentions a "hatful" of gas! How cool is that? My hat size is
7 3/4. So a Bear Bryant houndstooth hatful of gas would probably be oh, about three quarts, maybe? So probably twenty-something miles per hatful in the Fit. But it would get confusing when we started abbreviating this as MPH. Still, it's nice to know!

Disclaimer: I do not personally recommend that any of you start carrying a hat full of gas in your Fit.

 

Cars are big now. At a rough estimate, the Fit weighs around 155kg/m³ and the 1st-gen Civic CVCC around 145kg/m³; not that much different.

(1100kg/(4.0m×1.5m×1.7m×70%)) vs (680kg/(3.7m×1.5m×1.3m×65%))

 

The Fit has tons of airbags in the ceiling and seats. It's a pretty amazing vehicle all things considered.

 

its pretty dang light considering all of the saftey things it has

 

wow i just checked the weight off the US website - says the weight is 2551 lbs (Fit Sport Auto).

That is equal to aprox 1157 kgs.

Just checked the specs of the local H. Jazz - top model, auto trans is
1060 kgs (A 100kgs lighter than US Spec!)

 

^^ yeah Claymore,
we dont get the side curtain airbags (which i wish we did) and we also dont get EBD or paddle shifters.

i was looking at the specs again, and a base option Jazz weighs in at just 1035 kgs. (even lighter ...)

 

Doesn't the Jazz have a 1.3L vs the US version 1.5L also?

 

You are spot on. The Lark was the small entry car in the US of its time, and 1959 was a hot year for the car.

Everyone screams that "they don't build them like the used to", but they forget that even tho there is a lot of metal (not counting the cast iron flathead 6 lump under the hood of 1939 origins) that these cars have no crash/crumple technology. You are hoping all that metal stopped you. Mercedes was starting to go this way with the W111 of the time.

What is interesting? The price of the base Lark (and that is BASE, no radio, no power brakes, no power steering, no AC, 3speed with no OD, no back up lights, 2 door sedan, not the hardtop in the photo, etc.) when $2000 is plugged into an inflation calculator for 2006, the number is within a couple bucks of a Base Fit sticker price.

 

nope. Im not sure about other parts of the world, but here in UAE we've had the 1.5L for 2 years. the 1.3L was before that, in 2002-2004...

This year (2007) the Jazz actually came with a 121hp, 119 lb. ft trq as well! (this will probably hit the US next year).... such an amazing drive

 

Ten gallon actually!

Anyhow, these cars did get highway MPGs in the low 30s. Did well in Mobilgas Economy runs in the day too (maybe a comeback of these with gas prices now?)

But zero to sixty (14-20+ second range depending on gearbox and final drive) and top speeds around typical interstate cruising speed of to-day?

No thanks!