General Fit Talk General Discussion on the Honda Fit/Jazz.

My first Honda. My first bad car purchase

  #21  
Old 06-25-2008, 11:55 AM
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 728
Need cliff notes. Posts are too long too read!
 
  #22  
Old 06-25-2008, 01:50 PM
wdb's Avatar
wdb
wdb is offline
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: the Perimeter
Posts: 977
Clif notes: Wordy SoB bought wrong car for their needs, can't accept personal responsibilty for bad choice, blames mfg.

The Fit is a very well designed, very well made, award winning car that sells like mad the world over. It's not the car, it's you.
 
  #23  
Old 06-25-2008, 02:22 PM
gimme's Avatar
Administrator
5 Year Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,253
The brakes and suspension are competent enough, if you are the only one in the Fit

you must be HUGE. Me @ 245lb, wife at 135, kids at 120 combined...and my brakes and suspension are sufficient.

I honestly put my laptop bag (about 15lbs) into the back hatch and you can see it squat a bit. The weight capacity for the car is just over 700lbs total.

i would LOVE to see you weigh the laptop, measure the ground to fender, put the laptop in the car and measure the ground to fender...all on video.

Next are the blind spots. The A pillar holds the curtain airbags (so don't get A pillar gauges unless you disable the bags). Unfortunately that makes the pillar very thick indeed creating a wicked blind spot.



I can appreciate this statement.

Also unusual is the small window just aft of that A pillar. This pushes the side mirrors (which are quite nice and large) back on the door forcing you to take your eyes off the road to use them. If they were at the base of the A pillar like in most cars, this wouldn't be an issue. If you position the seat (only two ways of movement, back and forth and the seat back angle) and you position the rearview mirror properly, you will notice the rearward visibility a bit obstructed. You will have to peer through very large rear headrests, a large secondary tail light, the rear window wiper (which does not feature an intermittent setting), very thick C pillars, high belt line for the rear hatch, and if the middle seat belt is "installed" the belt is right in the middle of site. It is like looking through a porthole


sounds like you sit 8 inches from the wheel.



The gauges are nice and very easy to read, but one fault is they stay lit all the time. Not only does this wear the lights in them faster but when it is dark out and you are expecting to turn on your headlights, you might forget to do so because the gauges are already lit.


your tail light bulbs will burn out faster than those


The only way you know you have your lights on is a small green light in the bottom of the gauges. If it is twilight out and you have been driving for quite a long time (unlikely with the short range this car has) you will forget to turn the lights on. I do that almost every time I leave from work near sunset.
they put that there so you know if they are on.


Since the seats do cool tricks, they have to be quite small and agile. To do that Honda made the padding quite thin and firm. On long trips the car is very tiring. When you do push the front seats up to drop the back seats underneath them, there is no memory to return them back to their original position; more of an annoyance really.
padding is adequate for me and family/friends. Not even the 08 Accord has memory to return it to a particular position....I have one.



No armrest/center console, no dead pedal, no sunroof option, no overhead console.
lack of dead pedal, i miss. Center console should be a must. sunroof and overhead console, not a necessity unless you have that much crap in your car where you need more storage space.



To make it ready for North America, Honda had to put on new bumpers to meet crash requirements. These protrude out a lot and collect lots of dirt as you drive along, particularly the rear bumper. It is a shelf for dirt and grime. They also make it a bit trickier to put things into the rear hatch because of how far out they jut.
as far as the depth of the bumper, you must have short arms to think it is too long

I understand you can't make a car fit all markets, but to bring the car to the states, Honda took out every addon feature like an armrest and roof console and turn signals on the side of the car and transmission options, and engine options, and brake configurations that would have helped some of these issues.


which honda in the states has factory mounted fender sidemarkers?


Tach is on the left side of the gauge cluster, blocked by your left arm as you use your right arm for shifting. Most cars have this issue, but I would still like to see a car maker do it right once, like in my old Mazda Protege.
huh? arm blocks the tach?

I have a manual and shifting into 5th is an "adventure". All of the other gears snick into gear wonderfully. 5th requires me to backhand the shiftknob and do some interesting arm movements. Reverse is geared badly as well, forcing you to floor the gas and taking off much more aggressively than you want to in order to keep from stalling. 1st gear is very quick indeed (up to 25mph maybe) but 2nd gear is so deep, you have to rev in first very high before the shift to not lug. You cannot start from a standstill in 2nd very easily if at all.
i have a 5sp manual and dont have these issues.

Let me spend some time on the biggest gripe I have with this car, the fuel economy.

Gas mileage is quite awful. 109hp and I am barely getting more gas mileage than my 7yo Mazda with 130hp and 131K miles and the Fit is 400lbs lighter. In the Fit, I average 32mpg with 90% highway driving. That's appalling for an economy car from the most frugal and environmental car company on earth., specifically geared for economical driving. From the same manufacturer (Honda) you have a car with 82% more hp and 27% more weight and meets emissions tougher than LEV that gets only 10% less mileage. (Accord I4) Or even 28% more hp and 17% more weight and meets emissions tougher than LEV and gets almost exactly the same mileage? (Civic LX) Could you imagine what that engine in the lighter shell of a Fit would do; what the Fit should have got mileage-wise in the first place.

The engine platform was designed from the ground up to be independent from other cars in Honda's stable. It was to be a platform engine for the world-seller car (the Fit/Jazz) to go into as many countries as possible as an economy car. The design was fresh and new from the ground up which is rare for a platform engine; how many rehashings are there of the beloved LSx block? On the technology/economy front, what I was expecting was the latest gadgetry Honda had in their bag of tricks thrown into this new platform. That being the shutoff at idle and seamless restarts of the engine as seen in their hybrids, regenerative braking to charge the battery, easing the alternator a la hybrids, better gearing for economy (this only redlines at 6500, not very high at all especially for Honda), trick VTEC and fuel management maps.

Yet the engine is weak, thirsty for what little power it provides, and not-so-good with emissions. Were Honda engineers asleep during that platform design? They certainly weren't asleep for the B series or K series. My coworker's 1995 Civic with 422,000 miles on it (yes, that's 422K) with the AC on and 80mph gets 40mpg consistently, every day. That mpg measurement isn't out of ordinary, either, from the CRX or other cars of that vintage. What happened? There was no trickery then. No hybrid, no crazy lean burn, no regenerative braking, no trick valve timing. That Civic is the same weight as the Fit and with almost same hp, it gets MORE mpg, 10 years ago. Even today the Fit gets worse than a current Civic and the Civic weighs more. I don't like the excuse cars are heavier now so they are "allowed" to use more fuel. I don't buy it. A Civic then is the same size as a Fit now. An accord then is the same size as a civic now. Does the new civic get as good or better mileage than an old accord? Yes. Does a fit get better gas mileage than the old civic? No.

That is my issue. Honda should have taken just as much engineering and time that went into that trick interior and spent that money for the drivetrain technology.

When cars that are much bigger (at least a foot longer, 400 lbs heavier), more powerful (140hp vs 109), and better emissions (SULEV vs. LEV) are getting better gas mileage, the engineers of the 1.5L platform need to be replaced.
i get 39mpg regularly. started off lower and decided to drive the speed limit, there my mpg went up.

i am done. i have other things to do than counteract subjective opinions.

sounds like you need a mercedes. sell the fit and get one. Kia? HA! but again, that is an opinion
 
  #24  
Old 06-25-2008, 02:25 PM
cojaro's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 1,535
Originally Posted by HarumaN View Post
I'll admit upfront, my understanding of cars is pretty basic. That being said... a lower RPM at the same cruise (highway) speed would equate to better gas mileage, right?
Yep. I'm pretty sure you AT guys get marginally better highway mileage.
Gas consumption is determined by 2 variables: RPM and throttle position.
 
  #25  
Old 06-25-2008, 02:29 PM
eldaino's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,705
op should remove the e and z from his user name.


about 75 percent of your gripes could have been addressed during a test drive.


not enough room for three people in the back? arent there like, a million cars that this applies to?


this is the single most hilarious rant i have ever read!
 

Last edited by eldaino; 06-25-2008 at 02:43 PM.
  #26  
Old 06-25-2008, 05:26 PM
GAFIT's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cleveland, GA
Posts: 3,811
I think everyone is entitled to his/her opinions and I think that one can acknowledge their car has faults, but they still enjoy it. The Fit is by no means perfect and it appears that Honda is addressing many of it's shortcomings in the '09 model. I've yet to own a perfect car...I don't think there's any such thing. There's just some things that I can live with and some that I can't.

The original poster should test drive a Toyota Matrix. I think that it would be more his style. That isn't a slam by any means. It is roomier, rides better, gets almost the same mileage, and has more power. I happen to like the Fit better, but that's just personal tastes.
 
  #27  
Old 06-25-2008, 06:18 PM
GAFIT's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cleveland, GA
Posts: 3,811
BTW, I have first hand experience with a 1995 Civic lx. Just so happens that's the exact car that we traded in on the Fit. It did indeed have nearly identical power to the Fit and was used for the exact same things in the same manner. It DID get considerably better mileage than the Fit. We have had a low of 32mpg and a high of 37mpg with the Fit. The lowest we had with the Civic was 38mpg and the highest was 42mpg.

That being said, the Fit is much more fun to drive due to the considerably better handling and driver feedback. I do think that after 14 years of advancement Honda should be able to do better. I'm betting that the '09 will.
 
  #28  
Old 06-25-2008, 06:48 PM
FITrunner's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 1,244
Originally Posted by GAFIT View Post
I do think that after 14 years of advancement Honda should be able to do better. I'm betting that the '09 will.
They did do better. But the problem is after 14 years, good old big brother in the NHTSA kept adding rules and laws year after year regarding safety that those same improvements got overshadowed by extra weight. If I am not mistaken, the 1995 Civic LX came in around 2400lbs give or take. The Fit comes in at about 2700lbs! Shed those 300lbs of safety and you will see much better mpg. So again, don't blame Honda, blame the NHTSA.
 
  #29  
Old 06-25-2008, 07:03 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Parma Heights, OH, USA
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by HarumaN View Post
I'll admit upfront, my understanding of cars is pretty basic. That being said... a lower RPM at the same cruise (highway) speed would equate to better gas mileage, right?
I gave up fighting this one long ago. But yes my 5AT BBP runs 700 - 800 RPM lower at 75MPH than a 5MT of any color. You do know that paint color makes a difference in MPG.
 
  #30  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:23 PM
Cat's Avatar
Cat
Cat is offline
Someone that spends HER life on FitFreak.net
5 Year Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St. Albans, WV
Posts: 3,173
Sorry the Fit is not working for you. I have to say after one year in my car - I actually love it more today than the day I bought it. It's just running so great and sure it is not the perfect car but the things I love about the car is a longer list than the items I don't.

You just need to be happy with what you are driving and know that you have to do what is right for you!

We wish you good luck in whatever you end up doing.

Cat
 
  #31  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:36 PM
zRollerskate's Avatar
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Fayetteville, NC
Posts: 1,032
Originally Posted by Cat View Post
Sorry the Fit is not working for you. I have to say after one year in my car - I actually love it more today than the day I bought it. It's just running so great and sure it is not the perfect car but the things I love about the car is a longer list than the items I don't.

You just need to be happy with what you are driving and know that you have to do what is right for you!

We wish you good luck in whatever you end up doing.

Cat
same with me cat... when i first got my fit it was fun... but i had no ambitions... then i found FitFreak =D
 
  #32  
Old 06-25-2008, 10:48 PM
imfinallyfit's Avatar
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 51
too much to handle

Wow that's alot of writing. all i know is last year when i bought my fit (roller skate, cell phone, penny racer) I got made fun of cus everyone was buying diesel trucks suv's and whatnot. now i get to do all the laughing. Don't hate, appreciate! , but enough from my corner, go on with the chloraphil! i'm just gonna sit back and !
 
  #33  
Old 06-26-2008, 12:29 AM
FITDragon's Avatar
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Fremont, CA
Posts: 142
I for one will be interested to hear your thoughts on the new 2009 design. I'm looking forward to trying it out myself.

I Fit is obviously not for everyone, nor should it be. But even given my own observations on comfort, I am very pleased with my Fit, enough so that I was willing to switch over from the Kia.

But still, even though I disagree on many of your points, I am still glad you took the time to post your thoughts!
 
  #34  
Old 06-26-2008, 12:35 AM
Sugarphreak's Avatar
Push My Button
5 Year Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 4,997
holy crap are some of these responses long!

Well it is clear your mind is made up, glad you took the time to explain as well.

I am with FitDragon, I still disagree with many of your points and it sounds like your car seems to be experiencing more problems than it should.

However I am surprised you missed the dash rattle problem
 
  #35  
Old 06-26-2008, 06:59 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by FITrunner View Post
They did do better. But the problem is after 14 years, good old big brother in the NHTSA kept adding rules and laws year after year regarding safety that those same improvements got overshadowed by extra weight. If I am not mistaken, the 1995 Civic LX came in around 2400lbs give or take. The Fit comes in at about 2700lbs! Shed those 300lbs of safety and you will see much better mpg. So again, don't blame Honda, blame the NHTSA.
Except it's not.

A 1995 Honda Civic LX - 2376lbs
A 2007 Honda Fit Sport MT - 2471lbs

The Civic is 100lbs less, not 300. And the man I was mentioning that has 422K miles on his car is 365lbs himself, I am less than 150lbs, more than making up that difference.

Weight can't be an argument, either, because Honda's own Civic weighs more with the same level of safety equipment (it is overall a larger car) and has more horsepower and gets better mileage (with better emissions I might add).

It's not weight. That excuse can work on some cars, but not with the Fit.
 
  #36  
Old 06-26-2008, 07:04 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by Sugarphreak View Post
holy crap are some of these responses long!

Well it is clear your mind is made up, glad you took the time to explain as well.

I am with FitDragon, I still disagree with many of your points and it sounds like your car seems to be experiencing more problems than it should.

However I am surprised you missed the dash rattle problem
I guess because mine doesn't rattle. I didn't even know that was a pervasive issue. Maybe I was too distracted with the fuel sloshing around with a full tank to notice.
 
  #37  
Old 06-26-2008, 07:10 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by wdb View Post
Clif notes: Wordy SoB bought wrong car for their needs, can't accept personal responsibilty for bad choice, blames mfg.

The Fit is a very well designed, very well made, award winning car that sells like mad the world over. It's not the car, it's you.
I will concede the interior is one of the most thought through designs I have seen in a car. The level of engineering and ingenuity that went into packaging the Magic Seat and the rest of the interior is quite genius and I very much respect that. As a matter of fact, I believe that part to be the only thing Honda really hit the nail on the head with in this car.

It's the rest of the car that holds that fabulous interior that let me down.

If half of the engineering budget that went into designing the interior figured out how to make the L15 not suck so badly, it would have been a more balanced car for me.

It sells like mad throughout the world because countries are small and congested and this car is completely in its element in those conditions. That's why Honda did a mini release of the car in NA years after the world release, because they didn't know how our driving styles would coexist with the Fit's abilities. If you live in the most populated cities in the country (well the ones without snow anyway), this car is a champ. If, however, you live in the rest of the 90% of land in the US, this car might not be what you expect (it certainly wasn't what I expected).
 
  #38  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:18 AM
eldaino's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,705
Originally Posted by dbzeag View Post
Except it's not.

A 1995 Honda Civic LX - 2376lbs
A 2007 Honda Fit Sport MT - 2471lbs

The Civic is 100lbs less, not 300. And the man I was mentioning that has 422K miles on his car is 365lbs himself, I am less than 150lbs, more than making up that difference.

Weight can't be an argument, either, because Honda's own Civic weighs more with the same level of safety equipment (it is overall a larger car) and has more horsepower and gets better mileage (with better emissions I might add).

It's not weight. That excuse can work on some cars, but not with the Fit.

the reason the civic gets better mileage is because

A: the engine itself it tuned for fuel economy. the fit is a gas sipper simply because its a tiny engine.

b: the engine in the civic is newer, not a seven year old design

c. the civic's bigger, totally geared differently engine has to work less at any given speed, given its higher torque and horsepower ratings. (even if it does weigh more.)

like i said before, half of your gripes could have been avoided had you totally tested the car properly. did you even bother to research or read reviews on it? some things pertaining to size, power, mpg and interior accomodations could have easily been addressed before you even set foot in the dealer.

and speaking of mpg, did you bother to read what the fit was rated at? have you seen what the adjusted sticker of that civc is/was? it should have been no suprise to you then.

the d series was a very fuel efficient engine, and maybe the l15 simply isn't as fuel efficient. thats not poor engineering, thats just the nature of 2 different things. surely thats not too hard to deduce?

and the b series has never been that fuel efficient, even the non performance versions. (the b18 in the base integras was barely rated at 30mpg highway while offering the same hp as the r18 in the new civics, which as you know, are rated much higher. See? honda is making strides, its just not with this first gen fit. wait till the new one comes out. its borrowing engine tech from the r18 and shares similar design elements and will probably get better mpg to boot.)
 
  #39  
Old 06-26-2008, 09:29 AM
HarumaN's Avatar
Member
5 Year Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posts: 173
Originally Posted by seeremlive View Post
I gave up fighting this one long ago. But yes my 5AT BBP runs 700 - 800 RPM lower at 75MPH than a 5MT of any color. You do know that paint color makes a difference in MPG.
BBP FTMFW!!!!
 
  #40  
Old 06-26-2008, 10:41 AM
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by eldaino View Post
the reason the civic gets better mileage is because

A: the engine itself it tuned for fuel economy. the fit is a gas sipper simply because its a tiny engine.

b: the engine in the civic is newer, not a seven year old design

c. the civic's bigger, totally geared differently engine has to work less at any given speed, given its higher torque and horsepower ratings. (even if it does weigh more.)

like i said before, half of your gripes could have been avoided had you totally tested the car properly. did you even bother to research or read reviews on it? some things pertaining to size, power, mpg and interior accomodations could have easily been addressed before you even set foot in the dealer.

and speaking of mpg, did you bother to read what the fit was rated at? have you seen what the adjusted sticker of that civc is/was? it should have been no suprise to you then.

the d series was a very fuel efficient engine, and maybe the l15 simply isn't as fuel efficient. thats not poor engineering, thats just the nature of 2 different things. surely thats not too hard to deduce?

and the b series has never been that fuel efficient, even the non performance versions. (the b18 in the base integras was barely rated at 30mpg highway while offering the same hp as the r18 in the new civics, which as you know, are rated much higher. See? honda is making strides, its just not with this first gen fit. wait till the new one comes out. its borrowing engine tech from the r18 and shares similar design elements and will probably get better mpg to boot.)
A: The point is why can't the Fit be a small engine AND tuned for efficiency rather that only relying on its size to be efficient? The level of engineering the L platform wasn't nearly as successful as the B series or K series. If the engineers configured the engine to be tuned for economy + the sheer fact it is a sipper by size anyway, it should easily get 45mpg.

B: But D and B series are much much older than 7 year designs and they move a similar weighted, similar hp car with less gas than the L15. Granted the new R series is a fairly new design, but it was K series in the Sis is not new, and that gives better peformance for similar mileage (or extrapolated better economy for similar performance)

C: Because a car is bigger does not mean it is EASIER on a engine. I am pretty sure if you put the L15 engine in a Civic chassis, the engine would work harder, not easier. I propose that the L15 more of a failure of an engine than the current Civic's powerplants in whatever guise, SI or otherwise. Granted it isn't the worst engine out there, but a detuned (or retuned for economy) R series would have been a better choice for the Fit. An R series geared and tuned for 110 hp in the small Fit chassis would easily get 45mpg, and R series not changed at all would get 40mpg in a lighter Fit chassis. Change the engine out (or totally rework the ECU and timing or add tricks like uber lean burn or VTEC trickery or braking regeneration in the L15), change out the gear ratios, or both is what I am saying.

And like I said before, I did lots of research. If you have any other places of research I should be looking up, please inform me. Apparently I am looking at the wrong places and need or advice.

You cannot read about mpg and know how that impacts you and your driving style/location/commute. Again like I said above, that takes actually running your route for an extended amount of time you cannot find in a test drive. I agree the interior comfort and dimensions could have been researched a little more, but how the car drives with a full load and what a full load actually means (having that much space for only 700lbs is hard to wrap your head around) is difficult, even with all of that printed research.

I looked at the sticker of the EPA mpg of the old Civic, the new Civic, the new format of mpg from the EPA of the new Civic, and of the Fit. I take them with a grain of salt because they are approximations using a driving style I am never going to replicate. Like I said, one cannot know the true mileage of a car unless they actually drive it on their routes.

With the new format, a 2008 Civic DX gets 26/34. A 2008 Fit Sport gets 28/34. The Civic has 31 more hp. Civic weighs 115lbs more. Those are the numbers the manufacturers and EPA has published. This means to me the Civic in the real world would get very similar mileage to the Fit but be faster accelerating and hauling "cargo".

Using the old EPA system, my coworker's Civic is stated to have 34/40 and only 7hp and 95lbs less than the Fit. Like I said before, he consistently gets 80mph with AC on with his 365lb frame 38 and 40mpg while I get with 80mph, no AC on my 150lb frame 32 to 34mpg consistently. His numbers and my numbers are not EPA skewed, they are real world.

I would like to think that if a company spends time and money to make a new power plant/drivetrain with the plans to release it worldwide to communities that beg for more fuel efficiency and to shoehorn the powerplant into a city-car for worldwide release, the company would make a concerted effort to throw all of its know how into making those requirements come to fruition. That would also include improving on previous powerplant releases. I don't expect the B and D and K series Civics were built with the idea of being fuel efficient above all else. But I suspect the L series was built with more priority on fuel efficiency than those engines.

That said, the L series isn't as emissions-friendly as a K or R series, it isn't as economical as a K or R series, it isn't as powerful as a K or R series regardless of tune. If the goal was to get a powerplant to be MORE efficient for a smaller platform economy car, that to me is a failure of engineering.

I am looking forward to what comes of the 2009 model. Honda made a very very good first model in a production line. It was a very good first attempt, but it could have been better than it was. What I wished was they borrowed more pieces from their own other cars when they cobbled together the Fit. Get more of it working with tried and true parts that are superior to what they developed for the Fit from scratch, for instance a detuned version of a Civic drivetrain.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: My first Honda. My first bad car purchase


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.