My first Honda. My first bad car purchase
#62
07-03-2008, 10:13 AM
OP: Many of the dislikes you have are easily noticed during the research of any vehical. The armrest, deadpedal and sunroof. These 3 dislikes can be fixed by the aftermarket support or by getting the JDM parts.
You said that the for mustang gets 30MPG's on the highway and it doesn't. I currently have a 1999 3.8L 5Spd. and barley get 24mpg on the highway, driving like a granny. I would do anything to get a daily mpg of 32-34mpg. Which is why im looking at the fit.
There are many dislikes of every car from bmw's (many owners hate the I-drive.) To the cheap interior feel in Mazda's and Toyota's. It sounds like you thought the car was more than what it is but for the price its probibly the best car under $17K.
You said that the for mustang gets 30MPG's on the highway and it doesn't. I currently have a 1999 3.8L 5Spd. and barley get 24mpg on the highway, driving like a granny. I would do anything to get a daily mpg of 32-34mpg. Which is why im looking at the fit.
There are many dislikes of every car from bmw's (many owners hate the I-drive.) To the cheap interior feel in Mazda's and Toyota's. It sounds like you thought the car was more than what it is but for the price its probibly the best car under $17K.
#63
07-03-2008, 01:55 PM
very possible!
If that's true he certainly got his money's worth and unfortunately I was the first to fall for it.
#66
07-05-2008, 12:34 AM
LOL I agree. You sound like the guy who bought a Civic Value Package and called me three weeks later to complain because the speedometer went up to 140 and only had every 20 MPH posted on it, when it was obviously that way when he bought it!
"You know as well as I do that that car won't hit 140 without a JATO unit attached." WTF dude, STFU and sell your car. You deserve a Kia.
P.S. If you are getting crappy mileage, it's obviously because you are too stupid to drive.
"You know as well as I do that that car won't hit 140 without a JATO unit attached." WTF dude, STFU and sell your car. You deserve a Kia.
P.S. If you are getting crappy mileage, it's obviously because you are too stupid to drive.
#68
07-06-2008, 03:10 AM
You know, I want to post a reply to this really bad, but I know it's just a waste of time. Sell the car. Most of your complaints are failures to see your own shortcomings or due to errant pre-conceptions about what you were buying.
#69
07-06-2008, 05:04 AM
Hi dbzeag...The Hyundai Accent, Honda Fit & presumably the Rio gearing are set up the same, even down to the automatic & manual transmissions. The Honda Fit folk here seem to like the gearing as Honda set it. The Hyundai Accent folk would have liked the Accent with taller 5th gear or a 6th speed available.
Sorry you are not pleased with your Honda's 32 MPG. My wife's Hyundai was averaging 32+MPG with a mix of stop & go highway, city, country, & speed limit highway. I think a 6th gear could have given her better MPG from the highway portion of her drive. But saying that, I got to drive her Accent on some trips over 1400, 3000, 4000, & 5500 foot mountain passes, to 101 degree Eastern Washington & to Mt. Rainier. My three tanks got 41.5, 42.6 & 45.1 MPG. So different terrains & different drivers(or driving methods), will give much different results with the same car. Of course, long & short trips make considerable differences too.
As for your treatment on this website, its the general flack 'outsiders' get here. They treated me the same way, except they made jokes & bad-mouthed my wife which I quashed quickly. So they drug me around in their dirt for a while. And then like you, they told me to get over it.
I find the Honda Fit & Hyundai Accent to be sweet cars. The Honda folk here are not sweet & they are not original in their unsweetness.
Sorry you are not pleased with your Honda's 32 MPG. My wife's Hyundai was averaging 32+MPG with a mix of stop & go highway, city, country, & speed limit highway. I think a 6th gear could have given her better MPG from the highway portion of her drive. But saying that, I got to drive her Accent on some trips over 1400, 3000, 4000, & 5500 foot mountain passes, to 101 degree Eastern Washington & to Mt. Rainier. My three tanks got 41.5, 42.6 & 45.1 MPG. So different terrains & different drivers(or driving methods), will give much different results with the same car. Of course, long & short trips make considerable differences too.
As for your treatment on this website, its the general flack 'outsiders' get here. They treated me the same way, except they made jokes & bad-mouthed my wife which I quashed quickly. So they drug me around in their dirt for a while. And then like you, they told me to get over it.
I find the Honda Fit & Hyundai Accent to be sweet cars. The Honda folk here are not sweet & they are not original in their unsweetness.
Last edited by litesong; 07-06-2008 at 04:56 PM.
#70
07-06-2008, 05:59 AM
sell it and get something new...i was close to trading it in, b/c fits were way too slow for my taste...but then gas prices kicked in, and im not bitching about it anymore...if i want speed i ride my Ninja zx12r on the weekends
#71
07-07-2008, 10:52 AM
Hi dbzeag...The Hyundai Accent, Honda Fit & presumably the Rio gearing are set up the same, even down to the automatic & manual transmissions. The Honda Fit folk here seem to like the gearing as Honda set it. The Hyundai Accent folk would have liked the Accent with taller 5th gear or a 6th speed available.
Sorry you are not pleased with your Honda's 32 MPG. My wife's Hyundai was averaging 32+MPG with a mix of stop & go highway, city, country, & speed limit highway. I think a 6th gear could have given her better MPG from the highway portion of her drive. But saying that, I got to drive her Accent on some trips over 1400, 3000, 4000, & 5500 foot mountain passes, to 101 degree Eastern Washington & to Mt. Rainier. My three tanks got 41.5, 42.6 & 45.1 MPG. So different terrains & different drivers(or driving methods), will give much different results with the same car. Of course, long & short trips make considerable differences too.
As for your treatment on this website, its the general flack 'outsiders' get here. They treated me the same way, except they made jokes & bad-mouthed my wife which I quashed quickly. So they drug me around in their dirt for a while. And then like you, they told me to get over it.
I find the Honda Fit & Hyundai Accent to be sweet cars. The Honda folk here are not sweet & they are not original in their unsweetness.
Sorry you are not pleased with your Honda's 32 MPG. My wife's Hyundai was averaging 32+MPG with a mix of stop & go highway, city, country, & speed limit highway. I think a 6th gear could have given her better MPG from the highway portion of her drive. But saying that, I got to drive her Accent on some trips over 1400, 3000, 4000, & 5500 foot mountain passes, to 101 degree Eastern Washington & to Mt. Rainier. My three tanks got 41.5, 42.6 & 45.1 MPG. So different terrains & different drivers(or driving methods), will give much different results with the same car. Of course, long & short trips make considerable differences too.
As for your treatment on this website, its the general flack 'outsiders' get here. They treated me the same way, except they made jokes & bad-mouthed my wife which I quashed quickly. So they drug me around in their dirt for a while. And then like you, they told me to get over it.
I find the Honda Fit & Hyundai Accent to be sweet cars. The Honda folk here are not sweet & they are not original in their unsweetness.
To be honest the Fit is out of the Accents leauge. The Accent is what you buy your 16 year old kid so they don't hurt themselves while they learn to drive, kind of like the next stage after power wheels. The Fit is more competitive with the Rio for features if you want to compare apples to apples.
The OP should have taken more time before buying with such strict guidelines. Most of his complaints should have been shaken out in the test drive; stuff like the dash lights that might burn out early is the dumbest stuff I have ever heard of. Like I said before, he should have bought a high end Mercedes or a 7 series BMW instead of an economy car. This looks like somebody who went to McDonalds expecting a meal similar to the Olive Garden.
#73
07-08-2008, 10:44 PM
can everybody just leave this moron alone you all are just feeding him shyt he dont want to here. we know it a great car if he doesent know a good car when he drives one then thats his problem.
and dbzeag why are you even here telling us your problems. this is like going to burger king, eating and and walking back up to the counter and explaining why your whoper was bad, they dont care and neither do we imo...
and dbzeag why are you even here telling us your problems. this is like going to burger king, eating and and walking back up to the counter and explaining why your whoper was bad, they dont care and neither do we imo...
#74
07-12-2008, 03:24 AM
Haahaaa....
Wow I have a laundry list of complaints and concerns that would make this OP Blush
by far! haahaa! And most (if not all) of you welcomed me with open arms, (just one of the many endearing things about FF and its members) I still love the Fit and would highly recommend it. (ya know... that love hate thing
)
No car is perfect, and excuses can be made all day for anything, but that does not often make for a productive dynamic.
I can understand most of what you are saying, and I agree with some of it. (and I should, its not like some of that is unheard of) I am just debating how much it would be helpful to indulge.
Ranting or venting may at times help the individual, but awareness and observation can be used a bit more universally.
I will say this though it's nice to see that the OP did not get nasty in the replies, considering they knew they were casting off into severe opposition.
I will contemplate further
Don't forget people that the title/description of this particular forum is-
"Tell Honda Got something to say to Honda? Good or bad? Say it here"
Wow I have a laundry list of complaints and concerns that would make this OP Blush
by far! haahaa! And most (if not all) of you welcomed me with open arms, (just one of the many endearing things about FF and its members) I still love the Fit and would highly recommend it. (ya know... that love hate thing)No car is perfect, and excuses can be made all day for anything, but that does not often make for a productive dynamic.
I can understand most of what you are saying, and I agree with some of it. (and I should, its not like some of that is unheard of) I am just debating how much it would be helpful to indulge.
Ranting or venting may at times help the individual, but awareness and observation can be used a bit more universally.
I will say this though it's nice to see that the OP did not get nasty in the replies, considering they knew they were casting off into severe opposition.
I will contemplate further
Don't forget people that the title/description of this particular forum is-
"Tell Honda Got something to say to Honda? Good or bad? Say it here"
#75
07-12-2008, 03:44 AM
LOL I agree. You sound like the guy who bought a Civic Value Package and called me three weeks later to complain because the speedometer went up to 140 and only had every 20 MPH posted on it, when it was obviously that way when he bought it!
"You know as well as I do that that car won't hit 140 without a JATO unit attached." WTF dude, STFU and sell your car. You deserve a Kia.
P.S. If you are getting crappy mileage, it's obviously because you are too stupid to drive.
"You know as well as I do that that car won't hit 140 without a JATO unit attached." WTF dude, STFU and sell your car. You deserve a Kia.
P.S. If you are getting crappy mileage, it's obviously because you are too stupid to drive.
. hmm. we all drive the same exact car, its not the car, its you
#76
07-12-2008, 03:47 AM
I knew going into this I was either going to get flamed, insulted, just flat out ignored, or ridiculed. Let me try and explain my reasoning behind what I said.
This is my first Honda. It's not that they have never been in the running before when I have been looking for a car, they just haven't checked as many of my boxes before.
It is well-rounded to a degree. I wished for more mileage given the power and emissions compromise. I wished for more weight capacity (and support for it with better brakes and less floppy suspension) given the interior dimensions. I wished it didn't ride like a pogo stick but still take a corner as fast as my Protege did (and Mazda3 do).
I did test drive the car beforehand. I didn't know how fuel efficient (or not) the car was because I wasn't allowed to drive it on my daily route for a week in my test drive. I didn't know how it rode on my roads because the dealership wasn't even close. I knew about the blind spots and I thought I could live with them if I had spent more time adjusting the seats and mirrors and such instead of the quick test drive time I had. I couldn't take the car around a corner quickly. I couldn't accelerate, or at least try to, quickly. I couldn't pack the car with what I consider average cargo (4 people and a couple of suitcases) to see how it does with added weight in the test drive.
For the quick test drive I was allowed, I reasoned that I could live with the poor acceleration if it meant I was going to be rewarded high mileage, so I let that slide. I reasoned that I could find a better seating position if I kept fiddling with the seats and mirrors to avoid some of the rear blindspots. I reasoned the car should be able to handle the weight expected of it if it is good enough to supply the space for it. I reasoned because of its diminutive size, the handling should be nippy almost by default (which it is) but the ride should not have been compromised because it is "easy" to make a small car handle in a nippy fashion without having too much effort into it (see Mazda3, see Sentra, see Versa, see SX4, see VW Golf).
Like I said before, with the Kia I know what I am going into. A cheap car that gets from point A to point B (now) reliably and cheaply, cheap to insure, cheap and economical to run, warrantied so cheap to maintain. That makes up for the unsophisitication of the steering or clunkiness of the transmission.
I can't/couldn't make that argument with the Fit.
Glad I could be of service
I joined the forum or at least lurked for months before I bought the car, doing research. Of course going to an enthusiast forum will bias the information or at least the decision process, but I was interested in seeing what people were doing with their cars. What modifications they were making to correct things or just improve them. I joined to see what kind of an aftermarket is available; to see what issues people were facing and how easy it is to maintain with daily upkeep.
First hand experience was what I was looking for, and I found it.
I didn't know about the paint/body thinness. I didn't know about the mileage and/or performance for my type of driving on my roads. I didn't know about the handling/ride for my driving on my roads. No information I could research would have told me that.
And affordability it was not, either. Like I said, a Mazda3 hatch was $1000 less than the Fit OTD for me. I couldn't realize until I lived with it that the Fit wasn't worth $1000 more than the Mazda3 (until resale value kicks in, which again I can't know until I actually sell it).
If my opinions are a bit too harsh for these forums, I totally understand and please go right ahead and ban me. No need in letting someone on an enthusiast site spoil the fun for those that are indeed enthusiasts.
I won't argue with the resale value of a Fit of the Kia (any Kia for that matter). But the mileage, I am not convinced; my coworker's rented Rondo got almost the same mileage as my Fit. More fun to drive around town, I will agree the Fit trumps a Rondo. But then again these are two fairly different cars for different markets.
I am interested in seeing the new 09 Fit. I am sure they have fixed things that at least annoyed me. Honda said they have improved the ride and reduced some of the blind spot areas while improving seat comfort and gear ratios, mitigating some of my arguments.
This thought has crossed my mind a couple of times.
I agree without the A pillar and rear blind spots, the visibility offered by the low dash and low belt line is superior to most other cars on the market.
I am not going to exceed what Honda has told me it recommends for fear of warranty cancelation (yes I know they would never find out and the car could probably get away with hauling heavier weight, but that's not the point). I never complained about the options on the car. Well, I complained I wish it didn't have them because it would be one less thing to break and overall make the car cheaper, but not that the equipment list was lacking. The suspension is not so much firm as jumpy, but still soft enough to top out with only 500lbs in the back.
The tach was a minor inconvenience and is stated as such.
Reverse issue is when starting from standstill in a small parking garage where very slight movements in controlled fashion are preferred to revving the piss out of it and abruptly letting the clutch out so as not to stall the car.
My "old" car has side air bags and front airbags just like the Fit. The only air bags it didn't have were the A pillar head bags. Still 4 - 5 star crash test ratings on the "old" car. Similar mileage.
32mpg is crappy given a whole new design platform from the world's most economical car maker for an entry level world platform economy car, yes. When a rehashed old design engine from a poor R&D firm of GM comes out with an engine more powerful, more emissions efficient, AND more fuel efficient for the Cobalt platform, that's startling.
A recall, three recommended dealer fixes, check engine lights before 10K miles, thin paint/bodywork with dirt/salt traps, long oil changes on a stressed engine with terribly small (but hopefully effective) oil filter is not my idea of reliable for a car that has been on the market for 6 years prior to my purchase.
I have not had as much trouble with my 85 Ford Thunderbird RWD V8 car with all seasons than I have with my Fit. I have never needed anything but all seasons on any of my cars I have ever driven (well with the exception of the Fit).
The dashlights annoy me because that is just another light that will have to be replaced quicker that needed because it is always on. Replacing dash lights aren't that easy, either. If it was never on, it would last longer.
I have been coming to the realization the car's proper home, the one that it is most suited for, is the downtown city traffic. Great 0-30 acceleration, great visibility, small size and turning radius for superior parking, lots of interior room for messenger work or work lunches with coworkers. I don't do these things enough to warrant the compromises the car has for an environment like that. I thought I could live with them, though.
My speed averages 75mph for 18 miles, then 40mph for 1 mile. 3 traffic lights. That is my daily commute. My Protege auto did that with 30mpg. My coworker's Civic from 1995 does it with 40mpg. Another coworker's Mazda3 sedan does it in 33mpg. Another coworker's 1997 Saturn does it in 35mpg. 32mpg for a light car with little power should do better than those heavyweights. It doesn't. A lot of it has to do with gearing. It just isn't catered to my style/need of driving.
Of course adding features to a car of similar size will add weight, all things being equal. But read again carefully what I wrote. The cars weighed the same, the hp was the same, the older car got MORE mileage. Safety features or not, the weight is the weight.
Bigger motors + more weight should not mean better mileage. If that was the case SUVs should be owned by everyone in the world.
I am willing to plunk down another $5000 on top of a Fit to get a turbo diesel hybrid configured to accept biodiesel. I have no qualms about that. Then it should actually get 70mpg consistently (if a VW Polo can get 70mpg with a simple and conventional diesel today, I would think a tweaked Honda should get the same).
I shift at 2500rpm every shift. I am never in VTEC until I get to 70mph because that's from the gearing. I shift into neutral and "coast" to stops and while I am stopped. I am not a hypermiler, but I am not a jackrabbit starter either. I still get unexpectedly bad mileage for that style of driving. Hell a V6 Mustang will get average 30mpg with that style of driving.
Hondas usually have high rpms, except for the Fit and Accord and CR-V and Element, set up for more low end torque. The redline is only 6500, which isn't that high, nor is it as high as other cars in their stable. The goal of the L15 is to have low end torque (at least a lot for such a small motor) and to that they do a good job. 0-30mph acceleration is acceptable. Cruising at 70mph at 3400rpm in VTEC activation isn't good top gearing, no matter how to slice it. WV and GA speed limits are 70, so asking a car to be able to cruise comfortably at 70mph in the US should not be unusual. No research I have found in the past year prior to buying the car told me the engine speed at 70mph for a manual version of the car. I have no issues if the car revs high to get power, but it should settle down to allow it to cruise.
I didn't buy the car to exclusively haul people. If I didn't care about people at all, though I would have bought a coupe or something even smaller on the inside. I do occasionally haul people around. When 2 people in the back with a weight of 175lbs each are almost touching shoulders with each other and on the glass, I don't know how 3 normal sized people can be comfortable back there (besides the plank that is the seat cushion). The research numbers I saw accounted for the head room being more than adequate, but the way the seats are positioned and how the doors are constructed did not paint the picture that the rear seat is that small. Now for how small the car is in general, the seat is quite roomy. However, the seats in many other cars of this price class are more comfortable for 3.
I can expect the insurance company to give a break on price when the car is supposed to be safer (your argument from before) with more safety features and more economy-based. A car that coddles the driver and passengers more with safety and that is slow and meant for city driving is cheaper for insurers to insure than something a bit more sporty (a Mazda3 for instance).
I bought it thinking it was worth the $5000 more. And it will be when I sell it again because of the resale value. I am just disappointed with it until the time I can sell it.
I don't think I could have done any more research on this car than I did. I have read every US review of the car I could find (Car and Driver, Road and Track, Edmunds, Inside Line, Consumer Reports, local newspapers), I looked at international reviews (Top Gear, Fifth Gear, What Car?). I subscribed and lurked on this site for information. I wikied the car for weeks. I took two test drives (one was very short indeed, just around a block). I previewed the owner's manual before I even purchased the car. I read eopinons about the car. Honestly, I can't think of any more outlets to find information. Please tell me what I missed because the next time I spent 9 months researching a car, I will add that to my suite of informational sites to use.
A lot of my complaints could not ever be found in a third party reviewer because that person does not have my commute, does not drive in the city I do, does not drive with the same equipment I have. All the research and reading can only get you so far. Test driving can get you a bit more data on top of that. But you can't make a judgement on a car unless you "work" with it for an extended amount of time in your environment. This is where the Fit let me down. I thought it was such an adaptive car that it would fit a wide range of environments; city commutes, long distance travels, cargo hauling with easy-to-park abilities. Some of these things it does sublimely for some people. For what I was asking of it, it fell short. I wouldn't have known that until I used it for a while.
I am not happy with my car for the above reasons....
I know it's a bit late for my complaints and it is unlikely someone at Honda would even care to open up this thread let alone take notes on the next model. I just wanted a place to vent and to see if I am just really out in the weeds with my observations. Maybe I was asking too much out of the car to be as reliable than a Mazda entry level car, to be as gas efficient as a modern Civic, to be a similar price as an entry Mazda, to be as comfortable riding as a Hyundai Accent, to have as usable a room (because of size AND weight constraints) as a Suzuki SX4. From what I have seen and experienced, it fell short.
I am looking forward to seeing what the 2009 model fixes. I am sure my arguments will be drastically reduced after that model is released. The car will be more wisely geared to American driving styles.
This is my first Honda. It's not that they have never been in the running before when I have been looking for a car, they just haven't checked as many of my boxes before.
It is well-rounded to a degree. I wished for more mileage given the power and emissions compromise. I wished for more weight capacity (and support for it with better brakes and less floppy suspension) given the interior dimensions. I wished it didn't ride like a pogo stick but still take a corner as fast as my Protege did (and Mazda3 do).
I did test drive the car beforehand. I didn't know how fuel efficient (or not) the car was because I wasn't allowed to drive it on my daily route for a week in my test drive. I didn't know how it rode on my roads because the dealership wasn't even close. I knew about the blind spots and I thought I could live with them if I had spent more time adjusting the seats and mirrors and such instead of the quick test drive time I had. I couldn't take the car around a corner quickly. I couldn't accelerate, or at least try to, quickly. I couldn't pack the car with what I consider average cargo (4 people and a couple of suitcases) to see how it does with added weight in the test drive.
For the quick test drive I was allowed, I reasoned that I could live with the poor acceleration if it meant I was going to be rewarded high mileage, so I let that slide. I reasoned that I could find a better seating position if I kept fiddling with the seats and mirrors to avoid some of the rear blindspots. I reasoned the car should be able to handle the weight expected of it if it is good enough to supply the space for it. I reasoned because of its diminutive size, the handling should be nippy almost by default (which it is) but the ride should not have been compromised because it is "easy" to make a small car handle in a nippy fashion without having too much effort into it (see Mazda3, see Sentra, see Versa, see SX4, see VW Golf).
Like I said before, with the Kia I know what I am going into. A cheap car that gets from point A to point B (now) reliably and cheaply, cheap to insure, cheap and economical to run, warrantied so cheap to maintain. That makes up for the unsophisitication of the steering or clunkiness of the transmission.
I can't/couldn't make that argument with the Fit.
Glad I could be of service
I joined the forum or at least lurked for months before I bought the car, doing research. Of course going to an enthusiast forum will bias the information or at least the decision process, but I was interested in seeing what people were doing with their cars. What modifications they were making to correct things or just improve them. I joined to see what kind of an aftermarket is available; to see what issues people were facing and how easy it is to maintain with daily upkeep.
First hand experience was what I was looking for, and I found it.
I didn't know about the paint/body thinness. I didn't know about the mileage and/or performance for my type of driving on my roads. I didn't know about the handling/ride for my driving on my roads. No information I could research would have told me that.
And affordability it was not, either. Like I said, a Mazda3 hatch was $1000 less than the Fit OTD for me. I couldn't realize until I lived with it that the Fit wasn't worth $1000 more than the Mazda3 (until resale value kicks in, which again I can't know until I actually sell it).
If my opinions are a bit too harsh for these forums, I totally understand and please go right ahead and ban me. No need in letting someone on an enthusiast site spoil the fun for those that are indeed enthusiasts.
I won't argue with the resale value of a Fit of the Kia (any Kia for that matter). But the mileage, I am not convinced; my coworker's rented Rondo got almost the same mileage as my Fit. More fun to drive around town, I will agree the Fit trumps a Rondo. But then again these are two fairly different cars for different markets.
I am interested in seeing the new 09 Fit. I am sure they have fixed things that at least annoyed me. Honda said they have improved the ride and reduced some of the blind spot areas while improving seat comfort and gear ratios, mitigating some of my arguments.
This thought has crossed my mind a couple of times.
I agree without the A pillar and rear blind spots, the visibility offered by the low dash and low belt line is superior to most other cars on the market.
I am not going to exceed what Honda has told me it recommends for fear of warranty cancelation (yes I know they would never find out and the car could probably get away with hauling heavier weight, but that's not the point). I never complained about the options on the car. Well, I complained I wish it didn't have them because it would be one less thing to break and overall make the car cheaper, but not that the equipment list was lacking. The suspension is not so much firm as jumpy, but still soft enough to top out with only 500lbs in the back.
The tach was a minor inconvenience and is stated as such.
Reverse issue is when starting from standstill in a small parking garage where very slight movements in controlled fashion are preferred to revving the piss out of it and abruptly letting the clutch out so as not to stall the car.
My "old" car has side air bags and front airbags just like the Fit. The only air bags it didn't have were the A pillar head bags. Still 4 - 5 star crash test ratings on the "old" car. Similar mileage.
32mpg is crappy given a whole new design platform from the world's most economical car maker for an entry level world platform economy car, yes. When a rehashed old design engine from a poor R&D firm of GM comes out with an engine more powerful, more emissions efficient, AND more fuel efficient for the Cobalt platform, that's startling.
A recall, three recommended dealer fixes, check engine lights before 10K miles, thin paint/bodywork with dirt/salt traps, long oil changes on a stressed engine with terribly small (but hopefully effective) oil filter is not my idea of reliable for a car that has been on the market for 6 years prior to my purchase.
I have not had as much trouble with my 85 Ford Thunderbird RWD V8 car with all seasons than I have with my Fit. I have never needed anything but all seasons on any of my cars I have ever driven (well with the exception of the Fit).
The dashlights annoy me because that is just another light that will have to be replaced quicker that needed because it is always on. Replacing dash lights aren't that easy, either. If it was never on, it would last longer.
I have been coming to the realization the car's proper home, the one that it is most suited for, is the downtown city traffic. Great 0-30 acceleration, great visibility, small size and turning radius for superior parking, lots of interior room for messenger work or work lunches with coworkers. I don't do these things enough to warrant the compromises the car has for an environment like that. I thought I could live with them, though.
My speed averages 75mph for 18 miles, then 40mph for 1 mile. 3 traffic lights. That is my daily commute. My Protege auto did that with 30mpg. My coworker's Civic from 1995 does it with 40mpg. Another coworker's Mazda3 sedan does it in 33mpg. Another coworker's 1997 Saturn does it in 35mpg. 32mpg for a light car with little power should do better than those heavyweights. It doesn't. A lot of it has to do with gearing. It just isn't catered to my style/need of driving.
Of course adding features to a car of similar size will add weight, all things being equal. But read again carefully what I wrote. The cars weighed the same, the hp was the same, the older car got MORE mileage. Safety features or not, the weight is the weight.
Bigger motors + more weight should not mean better mileage. If that was the case SUVs should be owned by everyone in the world.
I am willing to plunk down another $5000 on top of a Fit to get a turbo diesel hybrid configured to accept biodiesel. I have no qualms about that. Then it should actually get 70mpg consistently (if a VW Polo can get 70mpg with a simple and conventional diesel today, I would think a tweaked Honda should get the same).
I shift at 2500rpm every shift. I am never in VTEC until I get to 70mph because that's from the gearing. I shift into neutral and "coast" to stops and while I am stopped. I am not a hypermiler, but I am not a jackrabbit starter either. I still get unexpectedly bad mileage for that style of driving. Hell a V6 Mustang will get average 30mpg with that style of driving.
Hondas usually have high rpms, except for the Fit and Accord and CR-V and Element, set up for more low end torque. The redline is only 6500, which isn't that high, nor is it as high as other cars in their stable. The goal of the L15 is to have low end torque (at least a lot for such a small motor) and to that they do a good job. 0-30mph acceleration is acceptable. Cruising at 70mph at 3400rpm in VTEC activation isn't good top gearing, no matter how to slice it. WV and GA speed limits are 70, so asking a car to be able to cruise comfortably at 70mph in the US should not be unusual. No research I have found in the past year prior to buying the car told me the engine speed at 70mph for a manual version of the car. I have no issues if the car revs high to get power, but it should settle down to allow it to cruise.
I didn't buy the car to exclusively haul people. If I didn't care about people at all, though I would have bought a coupe or something even smaller on the inside. I do occasionally haul people around. When 2 people in the back with a weight of 175lbs each are almost touching shoulders with each other and on the glass, I don't know how 3 normal sized people can be comfortable back there (besides the plank that is the seat cushion). The research numbers I saw accounted for the head room being more than adequate, but the way the seats are positioned and how the doors are constructed did not paint the picture that the rear seat is that small. Now for how small the car is in general, the seat is quite roomy. However, the seats in many other cars of this price class are more comfortable for 3.
I can expect the insurance company to give a break on price when the car is supposed to be safer (your argument from before) with more safety features and more economy-based. A car that coddles the driver and passengers more with safety and that is slow and meant for city driving is cheaper for insurers to insure than something a bit more sporty (a Mazda3 for instance).
I bought it thinking it was worth the $5000 more. And it will be when I sell it again because of the resale value. I am just disappointed with it until the time I can sell it.
I don't think I could have done any more research on this car than I did. I have read every US review of the car I could find (Car and Driver, Road and Track, Edmunds, Inside Line, Consumer Reports, local newspapers), I looked at international reviews (Top Gear, Fifth Gear, What Car?). I subscribed and lurked on this site for information. I wikied the car for weeks. I took two test drives (one was very short indeed, just around a block). I previewed the owner's manual before I even purchased the car. I read eopinons about the car. Honestly, I can't think of any more outlets to find information. Please tell me what I missed because the next time I spent 9 months researching a car, I will add that to my suite of informational sites to use.
A lot of my complaints could not ever be found in a third party reviewer because that person does not have my commute, does not drive in the city I do, does not drive with the same equipment I have. All the research and reading can only get you so far. Test driving can get you a bit more data on top of that. But you can't make a judgement on a car unless you "work" with it for an extended amount of time in your environment. This is where the Fit let me down. I thought it was such an adaptive car that it would fit a wide range of environments; city commutes, long distance travels, cargo hauling with easy-to-park abilities. Some of these things it does sublimely for some people. For what I was asking of it, it fell short. I wouldn't have known that until I used it for a while.
I am not happy with my car for the above reasons....
I know it's a bit late for my complaints and it is unlikely someone at Honda would even care to open up this thread let alone take notes on the next model. I just wanted a place to vent and to see if I am just really out in the weeds with my observations. Maybe I was asking too much out of the car to be as reliable than a Mazda entry level car, to be as gas efficient as a modern Civic, to be a similar price as an entry Mazda, to be as comfortable riding as a Hyundai Accent, to have as usable a room (because of size AND weight constraints) as a Suzuki SX4. From what I have seen and experienced, it fell short.
I am looking forward to seeing what the 2009 model fixes. I am sure my arguments will be drastically reduced after that model is released. The car will be more wisely geared to American driving styles.
I'm still confused why you bought it and yes I'm a techy to.
Its an ECONOBOX what did you expect?
Last edited by jtsimaras; 07-12-2008 at 03:50 AM.
#77
07-12-2008, 05:56 PM
The OP is a giant troll which has become more evident with his sharp and pointless replies. I have to say he even had me fooled at first with his giant summary. Clearly he is only trying to piss people off with this thread.
Litesong is either the dumbest person alive or (more likely) a giant troll, check some of this other threads "May children live and all gas cars be crushed...." like, shut up you windbag Now is he is bragging about his bottom of the line Hyundai and bottom of the line Caliber on a Honda forum? Give me a break. He is just trying to get a rise out of people; nobody is actually stupid enough to buy both of those cars 
I say we ban both of their ass's for trolling at this point.
Litesong is either the dumbest person alive or (more likely) a giant troll, check some of this other threads "May children live and all gas cars be crushed...." like, shut up you windbag
Now is he is bragging about his bottom of the line Hyundai and bottom of the line Caliber on a Honda forum? Give me a break. He is just trying to get a rise out of people; nobody is actually stupid enough to buy both of those cars I say we ban both of their ass's for trolling at this point.
#78
07-14-2008, 01:29 AM
There, now they can both enjoy bright red rep dots. I have been saving up like crazy for the double whammy on those two. The First neg-rep only took them down to grey.
lol, it is like they are on team red..... go team green!
I have been saving up like crazy for the double whammy on those two. The First neg-rep only took them down to grey. lol, it is like they are on team red..... go team green!
#79
07-14-2008, 09:32 PM
Sorry, but I could not read the whole post not because it was too lengthy but it just got really obnoxious. I view the author as a "wanna be car editor". I mean come on! Even the Edmunds long term test does not nit pick this car the way it was done. Or shall I say OVERDONE. I think the author just does not appreciate this car for what it is... a budget minded car that happens to have all the persoality and driving pleasure of a 57 Porsche Speedster.There is not a car in this class in N America at this price point that delivers the verstility, driving dynamics, reliability and quality as the Honda Fit. The press recognizes this not mention the legions of owners worldwide.
PS - I get 38 mpg driving aggressively and an occasional 40 if i really take it easy.
PS - I get 38 mpg driving aggressively and an occasional 40 if i really take it easy.
#80
07-15-2008, 04:26 PM
i think its time to just ignore this thread and anything else from the op, plus everyone replying, myself included, is just using up more of the blood pressure med supply