My first Honda. My first bad car purchase
#1
06-24-2008, 04:25 PM
My first Honda. My first bad car purchase
So I have owned my car for almost a year now, with 16K miles on it, and I regret buying it every time I sit down in it. Honda, you should hear why so as to avoid the same mistake in another design.
I have absolutely no qualms about the dealership salespeople or repair facility. Motorcar Honda of Mayfield Heights is fantastic and I would not hesitate to recommend that dealer for anyone looking at Hondas.
Let’s start with the good bits. The car looks different from most other cars on US roads, and I think it looks great. Very interesting and well done color choices. The handling is certainly better than your average econobox. Surprising cargo space for such a diminutive exterior. That’s about it.
The brakes and suspension are competent enough, if you are the only one in the Fit. 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. It might be roomy, sure, but you can only hold empty boxes with a weight restriction like that. 4 average people fully clothed with purses or laptops and you are maxed out. Fully loaded the brakes are pretty much useless and the suspension tops out very quickly over bumps.
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. 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.
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. 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.
Because the gas tank is underneath the front seats (the trick to getting that much interior space) there is no foot room for rear passengers. Since there is ample knee room, this might not be an issue.
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.
Nice seats, though, nice use of space, nicely sized glovebox.
No armrest/center console, no dead pedal, no sunroof option, no overhead console.
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.
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. Honda basically took the highest end model, gutted the features out of it (but it still has quite a few truth be told), tweaked the suspension for a softer ride (they didn't quite get that right), modify the front and rear to meet crash requirements, and put the For Sale sticker on it. That's not what I would have done with it. I guess for sampling the market that is good enough, though.
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.
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.
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.
Shoehorn the old Insight engine in there for cripes sake. At least then after 20 people have asked me if the Fit is a hybrid I can say yes. And it would get the gas mileage an entry level economy car from Honda should get.
Of course my wishful thinking is for a very small turbo diesel hybrid running biodiesel but has been converted for SVO use in the future and I would have gladly paid $5000 over the purchase price for it.
Part of the issue is the gearing. 70mph is 3500rpm, just at VTEC band. This is just stupid high, making for a tiring drive listening to the spin of the hamster under the hood. And I am worried about longevity of this engine spinning that high because the maintenance minder only has you replace the oil every 6500 or so miles. If this engine is spinning that hard all the time, I don't feel comfortable with the first change of oil being that far into the cycle.
Also the gas tank is quite small. 10.8 gallons does not go very far at all.
The drive-by-wire is ridiculous as well. There is a delay every time you press the petal. Not only that, but the throttle doesn't even open all the way at WOT. Tests have shown on the Fit that pedal position is more or less an approximation. The same pedal placement can open the throttle body differently depending on speed, acceleration rate, and other characteristics depending on how the ECU wants to open it, almost independent of where the pedal is. Even at full on WOT in the best case people are seeing 72% opening of the throttle body intake.
The car is too narrow to have 3 people in the back shoulder to shoulder comfortably.
Liftoff at 75mph. Anything faster than about 70 the car feels like it is ready to take off. Above 75 the car is very squirmy because of aero lift.
The paint is really thin. I mean really thin. Scratching is really easy and rocks thrown up while driving nick all the way through the paint to the metal, which is barely thicker than foil. I have tons of dents everywhere on my doors. It looks like I have hail damage. There are also places near the wheel wells that actually collect dirt and salt and water. This is a bad combination for rust prevention.
Because the car is light and high, crosswinds are brutal. A slight gust on a bridge and you are inadvertently doing a lane change. This is only exacerbated when it is icy or snowy on the road. This car is the pits in the snow, too. It has unusually wide tires for such a small car, and since there is no weight to push through the snow, the car acts like it has snowshoes on, just skimming over the top of snow instead of pushing down into it to get traction from the road.
The AC is anemic. Barely able to cool such a large cabin with lots of glass area on an 80F overcast day. I couldn't imagine a 100F+ day in Arizona.
I have also had one recall and 3 recommended fixes as well as Honda's misrepresentation of mileage on the odometer. Keep in mind, however, that this car has been on the market for 6 years already in other countries so these issues should have gotten fixed prior to it reaching North American shores. I have had the fuel filler light come on as well without any advice from the service department as to what it was from; they just reset it and sent me on my way.
Now keep in mind I am quite a negative person. I am a software tester for a living so I am quite critical. I have similar critiques for any car I drive. It is just that I am beyond frustrated with this car because of what I read and the promises this car gave me. It has not lived up to any of them. My 7 year old Protege was a better car in every way over this Fit. My insurance even went up with this car.
I wanted a car by Honda for reliability, cheap price, high resale value, terribly gas efficient, and a bit of fun every so often on a corner. I don't need the car to handle like it is on rails. I don't care if the car doesn't ride like a Lexus. I couldn't care less if it has AC or power anything. If it does, I will critique it. I was hoping the Fit would at least be reliable (1 recall and 3 recommended fixes + long interims between oil changes + thin paint + spots for water and salt to collect + fuel filler issues != reliable), cheap (the Mazda3 is $1000 more and much more substantial, the civic is the same price), frugal (the Fit is not compared to every other small car), and one part interesting. It has the interesting part right with the size of the interior for the given exterior, but it is unusable. That vast interior can only hold 700lbs of material which isn't much at all. Why have such a big space and limit what it can hold? Make the body lower so it is more aerodynamic for more efficiency and less likely to get blown to the side. I didn't complain that it didn't have GPS. I didn't complain that it didn't have leather option. I am complaining it didn't meet very simple requirements for affordable transportation such as a cheap price and cheap running costs.
A $13K Kia gets similar gas mileage and seat comfort and it doesn't promise anything more than basic transportation. The Fit promises a bit more than that with more equipment and lots of reviews expressing awesome handling and cargo room and such. It is $5K (at least) and isn't worth that price difference over a Rio. The Fit isn't $5K better than a Rio.
I have absolutely no qualms about the dealership salespeople or repair facility. Motorcar Honda of Mayfield Heights is fantastic and I would not hesitate to recommend that dealer for anyone looking at Hondas.
Let’s start with the good bits. The car looks different from most other cars on US roads, and I think it looks great. Very interesting and well done color choices. The handling is certainly better than your average econobox. Surprising cargo space for such a diminutive exterior. That’s about it.
The brakes and suspension are competent enough, if you are the only one in the Fit. 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. It might be roomy, sure, but you can only hold empty boxes with a weight restriction like that. 4 average people fully clothed with purses or laptops and you are maxed out. Fully loaded the brakes are pretty much useless and the suspension tops out very quickly over bumps.
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. 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.
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. 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.
Because the gas tank is underneath the front seats (the trick to getting that much interior space) there is no foot room for rear passengers. Since there is ample knee room, this might not be an issue.
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.
Nice seats, though, nice use of space, nicely sized glovebox.
No armrest/center console, no dead pedal, no sunroof option, no overhead console.
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.
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. Honda basically took the highest end model, gutted the features out of it (but it still has quite a few truth be told), tweaked the suspension for a softer ride (they didn't quite get that right), modify the front and rear to meet crash requirements, and put the For Sale sticker on it. That's not what I would have done with it. I guess for sampling the market that is good enough, though.
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.
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.
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.
Shoehorn the old Insight engine in there for cripes sake. At least then after 20 people have asked me if the Fit is a hybrid I can say yes. And it would get the gas mileage an entry level economy car from Honda should get.
Of course my wishful thinking is for a very small turbo diesel hybrid running biodiesel but has been converted for SVO use in the future and I would have gladly paid $5000 over the purchase price for it.
Part of the issue is the gearing. 70mph is 3500rpm, just at VTEC band. This is just stupid high, making for a tiring drive listening to the spin of the hamster under the hood. And I am worried about longevity of this engine spinning that high because the maintenance minder only has you replace the oil every 6500 or so miles. If this engine is spinning that hard all the time, I don't feel comfortable with the first change of oil being that far into the cycle.
Also the gas tank is quite small. 10.8 gallons does not go very far at all.
The drive-by-wire is ridiculous as well. There is a delay every time you press the petal. Not only that, but the throttle doesn't even open all the way at WOT. Tests have shown on the Fit that pedal position is more or less an approximation. The same pedal placement can open the throttle body differently depending on speed, acceleration rate, and other characteristics depending on how the ECU wants to open it, almost independent of where the pedal is. Even at full on WOT in the best case people are seeing 72% opening of the throttle body intake.
The car is too narrow to have 3 people in the back shoulder to shoulder comfortably.
Liftoff at 75mph. Anything faster than about 70 the car feels like it is ready to take off. Above 75 the car is very squirmy because of aero lift.
The paint is really thin. I mean really thin. Scratching is really easy and rocks thrown up while driving nick all the way through the paint to the metal, which is barely thicker than foil. I have tons of dents everywhere on my doors. It looks like I have hail damage. There are also places near the wheel wells that actually collect dirt and salt and water. This is a bad combination for rust prevention.
Because the car is light and high, crosswinds are brutal. A slight gust on a bridge and you are inadvertently doing a lane change. This is only exacerbated when it is icy or snowy on the road. This car is the pits in the snow, too. It has unusually wide tires for such a small car, and since there is no weight to push through the snow, the car acts like it has snowshoes on, just skimming over the top of snow instead of pushing down into it to get traction from the road.
The AC is anemic. Barely able to cool such a large cabin with lots of glass area on an 80F overcast day. I couldn't imagine a 100F+ day in Arizona.
I have also had one recall and 3 recommended fixes as well as Honda's misrepresentation of mileage on the odometer. Keep in mind, however, that this car has been on the market for 6 years already in other countries so these issues should have gotten fixed prior to it reaching North American shores. I have had the fuel filler light come on as well without any advice from the service department as to what it was from; they just reset it and sent me on my way.
Now keep in mind I am quite a negative person. I am a software tester for a living so I am quite critical. I have similar critiques for any car I drive. It is just that I am beyond frustrated with this car because of what I read and the promises this car gave me. It has not lived up to any of them. My 7 year old Protege was a better car in every way over this Fit. My insurance even went up with this car.
I wanted a car by Honda for reliability, cheap price, high resale value, terribly gas efficient, and a bit of fun every so often on a corner. I don't need the car to handle like it is on rails. I don't care if the car doesn't ride like a Lexus. I couldn't care less if it has AC or power anything. If it does, I will critique it. I was hoping the Fit would at least be reliable (1 recall and 3 recommended fixes + long interims between oil changes + thin paint + spots for water and salt to collect + fuel filler issues != reliable), cheap (the Mazda3 is $1000 more and much more substantial, the civic is the same price), frugal (the Fit is not compared to every other small car), and one part interesting. It has the interesting part right with the size of the interior for the given exterior, but it is unusable. That vast interior can only hold 700lbs of material which isn't much at all. Why have such a big space and limit what it can hold? Make the body lower so it is more aerodynamic for more efficiency and less likely to get blown to the side. I didn't complain that it didn't have GPS. I didn't complain that it didn't have leather option. I am complaining it didn't meet very simple requirements for affordable transportation such as a cheap price and cheap running costs.
A $13K Kia gets similar gas mileage and seat comfort and it doesn't promise anything more than basic transportation. The Fit promises a bit more than that with more equipment and lots of reviews expressing awesome handling and cargo room and such. It is $5K (at least) and isn't worth that price difference over a Rio. The Fit isn't $5K better than a Rio.
#2
06-24-2008, 04:43 PM
Sell It!
Sell it! I love the Fit. I read your "review" word for word and either you got a lemon or you're sporting the worst anti Honda bias I've ever heard of. Why did you buy a Honda? You must have gotten a completely different Fit than I did. Mine, while not being perfect, is well rounded, behaves impeccably, handles superbly, rides well and gets excellent mileage in a variety of circumstances. We apparently have completely different cars.
Last edited by feddup; 06-24-2008 at 04:45 PM. Reason: mistake
#3
06-24-2008, 04:49 PM
Did you even test drive the car before you bought it? And you are comparing a Honda to a Kia.
All Im going to say is you get what you pay for. Go ahead and sell the Fit and get a Kia, that should be an interesting post to say the least.
All Im going to say is you get what you pay for. Go ahead and sell the Fit and get a Kia, that should be an interesting post to say the least.
#4
06-24-2008, 04:59 PM
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Riverview, FL, USA, Terra Firma, Milky Way
Posts: 244
#5
06-24-2008, 05:04 PM
For someone who obviously hates their car, why are you on a Honda enthusiast forum? Seems like your just here to bash on Honda, I personally love my Fit and every Honda I or my family has ever owned.
The easy choice is to sell it and buy something else and give the Fit a home where it will be love and not treated like the red headed step child you say it is.
The easy choice is to sell it and buy something else and give the Fit a home where it will be love and not treated like the red headed step child you say it is.
#6
06-24-2008, 05:30 PM
I agree with most of his rants. The car should ride better, should have come with a center console, should have better paint, should get better mileage for the performance it provides, etc.
But, I knew all that going in and still bought it. Why...because it's fun to drive, roomy, looks good, and is affordable.
It's not perfect, but I still like it. Anything can use improvements.
But, I knew all that going in and still bought it. Why...because it's fun to drive, roomy, looks good, and is affordable.
It's not perfect, but I still like it. Anything can use improvements.
#8
06-24-2008, 10:58 PM
So sorry you regret buying the Fit.
I myself came to the Fit from a Kia. The Rondo was larger, more luxurious, more comfortable on long drives, and more powerful.
But the Fit has twice the mileage, much better resale value, and is much more fun to drive around town.
It is by no means the world's most perfect car. Even after one month, there are things I wish for; things like a dead pedal for the left foot (Easily remedied with an aftermarket), a right armrest (also remedied), and more legroom for the driver (that gas pedal is just too close.. sometimes hard to find a good position for my foot). But even though I have a *GASP!!!* automatic sport, I still am averaging 33-36 mpg consistently, and the engine barely has 2500 miles on it so far.
I am sure Honda is improving on many of these things with the new 09 redesign, though we'll have to wait and see. But my God... you really ARE a negative person! The Fit is clearly not a fit for you, so sell it, and I hope you find a better car for your needs!
I myself came to the Fit from a Kia. The Rondo was larger, more luxurious, more comfortable on long drives, and more powerful.
But the Fit has twice the mileage, much better resale value, and is much more fun to drive around town.
It is by no means the world's most perfect car. Even after one month, there are things I wish for; things like a dead pedal for the left foot (Easily remedied with an aftermarket), a right armrest (also remedied), and more legroom for the driver (that gas pedal is just too close.. sometimes hard to find a good position for my foot). But even though I have a *GASP!!!* automatic sport, I still am averaging 33-36 mpg consistently, and the engine barely has 2500 miles on it so far.
I am sure Honda is improving on many of these things with the new 09 redesign, though we'll have to wait and see. But my God... you really ARE a negative person! The Fit is clearly not a fit for you, so sell it, and I hope you find a better car for your needs!
#10
06-24-2008, 11:25 PM
A lot of the rants are valid, I dislike the front blind spot and I removed my rear headrest. But this car has much better all around visibility than the other cars I looked at in the same class; Kia Spectra, the Yaris, The Nissan Versa. I also agree with the soft paint comment, I am not too impressed with how mine is starting to chip off my front bumper. 3M is highly recommended.
You really put a lot of thought into this, but it seems like you are dwelling on pretty insignificant stuff.
-You can put more weight than 700lbs in the car, don't be afraid;
-You knew ALL the options when you bought it, no sense complaining now.
-The suspension is much more firm that most cars, no idea what you are complaining about.
Ok, and here is my "Come on, give me a break" list
-You are concerned about blocking the tach when you shift?
-Reverse is too hard? How far exactly are you driving in reverse?
-Your old car that has no air bags getter better mileage... uh huh
Give me safety any day.
-32mpg is crappy?
-Your fit is unreliable? Are you kidding me? This car is great, it goes longer between oil changes and I haven't had a single issue with mine yet.
-You car is crappy in the snow? Do you have snow tires? Because if you are driving around on all seasons you have no legs to stand on. My car handles fine and believe me I have dealt with my fair share!
-the entire rant about the dash lights is beyond me how that could actually bother somebody.
I don't think any car you buy will bring you happiness, the Fit is a great comfortable car for most people and mine is a pleasure to drive. Reliable, Good on Fuel, tons of features and options, great suspension.... all the things you rant about seem well above average to me for this class and price range. One final note, a Kia won't have good resale like the Fit.
For the record I am not picking on you, I appreciate you taking the time to put together this report. It is always interesting to see how others think, I disagree but I also do respect you sharing your opinion.
You really put a lot of thought into this, but it seems like you are dwelling on pretty insignificant stuff.
-You can put more weight than 700lbs in the car, don't be afraid;
-You knew ALL the options when you bought it, no sense complaining now.
-The suspension is much more firm that most cars, no idea what you are complaining about.
Ok, and here is my "Come on, give me a break" list
-You are concerned about blocking the tach when you shift?
-Reverse is too hard? How far exactly are you driving in reverse?
-Your old car that has no air bags getter better mileage... uh huh
Give me safety any day.-32mpg is crappy?
-Your fit is unreliable? Are you kidding me? This car is great, it goes longer between oil changes and I haven't had a single issue with mine yet.
-You car is crappy in the snow? Do you have snow tires? Because if you are driving around on all seasons you have no legs to stand on. My car handles fine and believe me I have dealt with my fair share!
-the entire rant about the dash lights is beyond me how that could actually bother somebody.
I don't think any car you buy will bring you happiness, the Fit is a great comfortable car for most people and mine is a pleasure to drive. Reliable, Good on Fuel, tons of features and options, great suspension.... all the things you rant about seem well above average to me for this class and price range. One final note, a Kia won't have good resale like the Fit.
For the record I am not picking on you, I appreciate you taking the time to put together this report. It is always interesting to see how others think, I disagree but I also do respect you sharing your opinion.
#12
06-25-2008, 01:15 AM
HAHA I read this post and guessed what he did for a living. Sure enough towards the bottom I was right. He's a tech guy. Really bright and really intelligent. Problem is most of the folks I know this bright are also a little gullible and light on the common sense.
No offense dbz but comparing the mpg is a new car to one built years back is not a fair comparison. Newer cars are required by the NHTSA to have safety features which add weight and kill mpg. Of course a late 80's CRX will have way better mpg! It's a lot lighter! Last I checked those didn't even have an airbag.
Ok now comparing to later models like an Accord or Civic. Hmmm lets see bigger motors, better ability to move the weight. Sounds normal to me that the mpg of those would be comparable. But NOT the PRICE point. Are you willing to plunk down the extra change for those cars? If so then why didn't you?
MPG overall, simple physics, the more weight you put in, the harder the car has to work. I always tell people that going to a Fit is a learning experience. You need to learn how to drive the car. If I drove this thing like I did my Integra I'd be hosed for MPG. Again chalk this up to research my friend, something that you do good at for work, but need to apply in real life decisions like buying a car.
Regarding the gearing, its a Honda they all for the most part spin at high rpms. You either like it or you don't. I'll give you that if you don't. But you should have done more research before the purchase. (Seeing a pattern here about research yet?)
No room for 3 in the back? Get skinny friends! Seriously if you bought this to constantly truck more people around. Then you bought the wrong car. Chuck that into no research on your part again. On one of my test drives I brought friends with me so they could sit in the back. Hows that for anal and making sure I got all the bases covered? Maybe I should be a software tester too since I'd be really good about looking into details.
Now about your insurance going up, yet another wth are you thinking? Its a new car! Its a popular car! You really expect the insurance company to give you a break on a brand new popular car?? Come on!
Comparing this to a KIA. It's all perspective man. If its not worth the $5K to you, why did you buy it? I drove the Rio, along with the Versa, XA, Yaris. Heck I took 3 different test drives on the Fit before I made a choice. If you'd have done the same then maybe you wouldn't be in this mess. Or maybe you'd be crying on the road side somewhere because the engine of your new Kia Rio fell out? Who knows.
Seriously man. Sorry about the problems you experienced, but you sound like someone who was just too lazy to do any research and bought based on here say and what the salesman at the stealership probably said. If I believed everything I heard about cars and read in magazines I'd be driving a Ford. Ummm no.
Lesson learned I say, next time you buy a car, drive it and drive it again. Ask the guy at the dealership to let you take it on the freeway. Talk to other owners and don't believe everything you read. Heck the folks on this site are happy to give you their feedback. We could have saved you the time and money. We could have told you that the mpg could vary greatly, the gas tank only heal 10.8 gals, the fabric, etc etc etc. Now if you say you are too busy with your life, or its beneath you to get down and dirty and do some work, then that sir is your own problem, not Honda's.
Good luck on your next purchase.
No offense dbz but comparing the mpg is a new car to one built years back is not a fair comparison. Newer cars are required by the NHTSA to have safety features which add weight and kill mpg. Of course a late 80's CRX will have way better mpg! It's a lot lighter! Last I checked those didn't even have an airbag.
Ok now comparing to later models like an Accord or Civic. Hmmm lets see bigger motors, better ability to move the weight. Sounds normal to me that the mpg of those would be comparable. But NOT the PRICE point. Are you willing to plunk down the extra change for those cars? If so then why didn't you?
MPG overall, simple physics, the more weight you put in, the harder the car has to work. I always tell people that going to a Fit is a learning experience. You need to learn how to drive the car. If I drove this thing like I did my Integra I'd be hosed for MPG. Again chalk this up to research my friend, something that you do good at for work, but need to apply in real life decisions like buying a car.
Regarding the gearing, its a Honda they all for the most part spin at high rpms. You either like it or you don't. I'll give you that if you don't. But you should have done more research before the purchase. (Seeing a pattern here about research yet?)
No room for 3 in the back? Get skinny friends! Seriously if you bought this to constantly truck more people around. Then you bought the wrong car. Chuck that into no research on your part again. On one of my test drives I brought friends with me so they could sit in the back. Hows that for anal and making sure I got all the bases covered? Maybe I should be a software tester too since I'd be really good about looking into details.
Now about your insurance going up, yet another wth are you thinking? Its a new car! Its a popular car! You really expect the insurance company to give you a break on a brand new popular car?? Come on!
Comparing this to a KIA. It's all perspective man. If its not worth the $5K to you, why did you buy it? I drove the Rio, along with the Versa, XA, Yaris. Heck I took 3 different test drives on the Fit before I made a choice. If you'd have done the same then maybe you wouldn't be in this mess. Or maybe you'd be crying on the road side somewhere because the engine of your new Kia Rio fell out? Who knows.
Seriously man. Sorry about the problems you experienced, but you sound like someone who was just too lazy to do any research and bought based on here say and what the salesman at the stealership probably said. If I believed everything I heard about cars and read in magazines I'd be driving a Ford. Ummm no.
Lesson learned I say, next time you buy a car, drive it and drive it again. Ask the guy at the dealership to let you take it on the freeway. Talk to other owners and don't believe everything you read. Heck the folks on this site are happy to give you their feedback. We could have saved you the time and money. We could have told you that the mpg could vary greatly, the gas tank only heal 10.8 gals, the fabric, etc etc etc. Now if you say you are too busy with your life, or its beneath you to get down and dirty and do some work, then that sir is your own problem, not Honda's.
Good luck on your next purchase.
Last edited by FITrunner; 06-25-2008 at 01:18 AM.
#14
06-25-2008, 06:23 AM
Just a few thoughts: Why all this repeated carping over the "faults" of a car at the END of a 7 year production run? The design & development phase of a new car is anywhere from 3-6 years, the 2008 model represents the last chance to get one of the current Fits; the 2009 model addresses the majority of complaints voiced about the Fit. Granted the Fit is NOT perfect (WHAT car IS??) BUT, after having researched & test drove, I bought and LOVE my Fit for what it is!! It fits me (all 6'4" 210 lbs)& has provided 45 mpg!! 
'07 VBP Sport 5MT w/ minor appearance & comfort mods!!
'07 VBP Sport 5MT w/ minor appearance & comfort mods!!
#18
06-25-2008, 10:48 AM
How so? The MT's seem to be getting better MPG than the AT's, especially around the city. Oh well.
#19
06-25-2008, 10:59 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 myself came to the Fit from a Kia. The Rondo was larger, more luxurious, more comfortable on long drives, and more powerful.
But the Fit has twice the mileage, much better resale value, and is much more fun to drive around town.
It is by no means the world's most perfect car. Even after one month, there are things I wish for; things like a dead pedal for the left foot (Easily remedied with an aftermarket), a right armrest (also remedied), and more legroom for the driver (that gas pedal is just too close.. sometimes hard to find a good position for my foot). But even though I have a *GASP!!!* automatic sport, I still am averaging 33-36 mpg consistently, and the engine barely has 2500 miles on it so far.
I am sure Honda is improving on many of these things with the new 09 redesign, though we'll have to wait and see. But my God... you really ARE a negative person! The Fit is clearly not a fit for you, so sell it, and I hope you find a better car for your needs!
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.
You really put a lot of thought into this, but it seems like you are dwelling on pretty insignificant stuff.
-You can put more weight than 700lbs in the car, don't be afraid;
-You knew ALL the options when you bought it, no sense complaining now.
-The suspension is much more firm that most cars, no idea what you are complaining about.
Ok, and here is my "Come on, give me a break" list
-You are concerned about blocking the tach when you shift?
-Reverse is too hard? How far exactly are you driving in reverse?
-Your old car that has no air bags getter better mileage... uh huh Give me safety any day.
-32mpg is crappy?
-Your fit is unreliable? Are you kidding me? This car is great, it goes longer between oil changes and I haven't had a single issue with mine yet.
-You car is crappy in the snow? Do you have snow tires? Because if you are driving around on all seasons you have no legs to stand on. My car handles fine and believe me I have dealt with my fair share!
-the entire rant about the dash lights is beyond me how that could actually bother somebody.
I don't think any car you buy will bring you happiness, the Fit is a great comfortable car for most people and mine is a pleasure to drive. Reliable, Good on Fuel, tons of features and options, great suspension.... all the things you rant about seem well above average to me for this class and price range. One final note, a Kia won't have good resale like the Fit.
For the record I am not picking on you, I appreciate you taking the time to put together this report. It is always interesting to see how others think, I disagree but I also do respect you sharing your opinion.
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.
No offense dbz but comparing the mpg is a new car to one built years back is not a fair comparison. Newer cars are required by the NHTSA to have safety features which add weight and kill mpg. Of course a late 80's CRX will have way better mpg! It's a lot lighter! Last I checked those didn't even have an airbag.
Ok now comparing to later models like an Accord or Civic. Hmmm lets see bigger motors, better ability to move the weight. Sounds normal to me that the mpg of those would be comparable. But NOT the PRICE point. Are you willing to plunk down the extra change for those cars? If so then why didn't you?
MPG overall, simple physics, the more weight you put in, the harder the car has to work. I always tell people that going to a Fit is a learning experience. You need to learn how to drive the car. If I drove this thing like I did my Integra I'd be hosed for MPG. Again chalk this up to research my friend, something that you do good at for work, but need to apply in real life decisions like buying a car.
Regarding the gearing, it’s a Honda they all for the most part spin at high rpms. You either like it or you don't. I'll give you that if you don't. But you should have done more research before the purchase. (Seeing a pattern here about research yet?)
No room for 3 in the back? Get skinny friends! Seriously if you bought this to constantly truck more people around. Then you bought the wrong car. Chuck that into no research on your part again. On one of my test drives I brought friends with me so they could sit in the back. Hows that for anal and making sure I got all the bases covered? Maybe I should be a software tester too since I'd be really good about looking into details.
Now about your insurance going up, yet another wth are you thinking? Its a new car! Its a popular car! You really expect the insurance company to give you a break on a brand new popular car?? Come on!
Comparing this to a KIA. It's all perspective man. If its not worth the $5K to you, why did you buy it? I drove the Rio, along with the Versa, XA, Yaris. Heck I took 3 different test drives on the Fit before I made a choice. If you'd have done the same then maybe you wouldn't be in this mess. Or maybe you'd be crying on the road side somewhere because the engine of your new Kia Rio fell out? Who knows.
Seriously man. Sorry about the problems you experienced, but you sound like someone who was just too lazy to do any research and bought based on here say and what the salesman at the stealership probably said. If I believed everything I heard about cars and read in magazines I'd be driving a Ford. Ummm no.
Lesson learned I say, next time you buy a car, drive it and drive it again. Ask the guy at the dealership to let you take it on the freeway. Talk to other owners and don't believe everything you read. Heck the folks on this site are happy to give you their feedback. We could have saved you the time and money. We could have told you that the mpg could vary greatly, the gas tank only heal 10.8 gals, the fabric, etc etc etc. Now if you say you are too busy with your life, or its beneath you to get down and dirty and do some work, then that sir is your own problem, not Honda's.
Good luck on your next purchase.
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.
Sell it! I love the Fit. I read your "review" word for word and either you got a lemon or you're sporting the worst anti Honda bias I've ever heard of. Why did you buy a Honda? You must have gotten a completely different Fit than I did. Mine, while not being perfect, is well rounded, behaves impeccably, handles superbly, rides well and gets excellent mileage in a variety of circumstances. We apparently have completely different cars.
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).
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
First hand experience was what I was looking for, and I found it.
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 myself came to the Fit from a Kia. The Rondo was larger, more luxurious, more comfortable on long drives, and more powerful.
But the Fit has twice the mileage, much better resale value, and is much more fun to drive around town.
It is by no means the world's most perfect car. Even after one month, there are things I wish for; things like a dead pedal for the left foot (Easily remedied with an aftermarket), a right armrest (also remedied), and more legroom for the driver (that gas pedal is just too close.. sometimes hard to find a good position for my foot). But even though I have a *GASP!!!* automatic sport, I still am averaging 33-36 mpg consistently, and the engine barely has 2500 miles on it so far.
I am sure Honda is improving on many of these things with the new 09 redesign, though we'll have to wait and see. But my God... you really ARE a negative person! The Fit is clearly not a fit for you, so sell it, and I hope you find a better car for your needs!
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.
A lot of the rants are valid, I dislike the front blind spot and I removed my rear headrest. But this car has much better all around visibility than the other cars I looked at in the same class; Kia Spectra, the Yaris, The Nissan Versa. I also agree with the soft paint comment, I am not too impressed with how mine is starting to chip off my front bumper. 3M is highly recommended.
You really put a lot of thought into this, but it seems like you are dwelling on pretty insignificant stuff.
-You can put more weight than 700lbs in the car, don't be afraid;
-You knew ALL the options when you bought it, no sense complaining now.
-The suspension is much more firm that most cars, no idea what you are complaining about.
Ok, and here is my "Come on, give me a break" list
-You are concerned about blocking the tach when you shift?
-Reverse is too hard? How far exactly are you driving in reverse?
-Your old car that has no air bags getter better mileage... uh huh Give me safety any day.
-32mpg is crappy?
-Your fit is unreliable? Are you kidding me? This car is great, it goes longer between oil changes and I haven't had a single issue with mine yet.
-You car is crappy in the snow? Do you have snow tires? Because if you are driving around on all seasons you have no legs to stand on. My car handles fine and believe me I have dealt with my fair share!
-the entire rant about the dash lights is beyond me how that could actually bother somebody.
I don't think any car you buy will bring you happiness, the Fit is a great comfortable car for most people and mine is a pleasure to drive. Reliable, Good on Fuel, tons of features and options, great suspension.... all the things you rant about seem well above average to me for this class and price range. One final note, a Kia won't have good resale like the Fit.
For the record I am not picking on you, I appreciate you taking the time to put together this report. It is always interesting to see how others think, I disagree but I also do respect you sharing your opinion.
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.
No offense dbz but comparing the mpg is a new car to one built years back is not a fair comparison. Newer cars are required by the NHTSA to have safety features which add weight and kill mpg. Of course a late 80's CRX will have way better mpg! It's a lot lighter! Last I checked those didn't even have an airbag.
Ok now comparing to later models like an Accord or Civic. Hmmm lets see bigger motors, better ability to move the weight. Sounds normal to me that the mpg of those would be comparable. But NOT the PRICE point. Are you willing to plunk down the extra change for those cars? If so then why didn't you?
MPG overall, simple physics, the more weight you put in, the harder the car has to work. I always tell people that going to a Fit is a learning experience. You need to learn how to drive the car. If I drove this thing like I did my Integra I'd be hosed for MPG. Again chalk this up to research my friend, something that you do good at for work, but need to apply in real life decisions like buying a car.
Regarding the gearing, it’s a Honda they all for the most part spin at high rpms. You either like it or you don't. I'll give you that if you don't. But you should have done more research before the purchase. (Seeing a pattern here about research yet?)
No room for 3 in the back? Get skinny friends! Seriously if you bought this to constantly truck more people around. Then you bought the wrong car. Chuck that into no research on your part again. On one of my test drives I brought friends with me so they could sit in the back. Hows that for anal and making sure I got all the bases covered? Maybe I should be a software tester too since I'd be really good about looking into details.
Now about your insurance going up, yet another wth are you thinking? Its a new car! Its a popular car! You really expect the insurance company to give you a break on a brand new popular car?? Come on!
Comparing this to a KIA. It's all perspective man. If its not worth the $5K to you, why did you buy it? I drove the Rio, along with the Versa, XA, Yaris. Heck I took 3 different test drives on the Fit before I made a choice. If you'd have done the same then maybe you wouldn't be in this mess. Or maybe you'd be crying on the road side somewhere because the engine of your new Kia Rio fell out? Who knows.
Seriously man. Sorry about the problems you experienced, but you sound like someone who was just too lazy to do any research and bought based on here say and what the salesman at the stealership probably said. If I believed everything I heard about cars and read in magazines I'd be driving a Ford. Ummm no.
Lesson learned I say, next time you buy a car, drive it and drive it again. Ask the guy at the dealership to let you take it on the freeway. Talk to other owners and don't believe everything you read. Heck the folks on this site are happy to give you their feedback. We could have saved you the time and money. We could have told you that the mpg could vary greatly, the gas tank only heal 10.8 gals, the fabric, etc etc etc. Now if you say you are too busy with your life, or its beneath you to get down and dirty and do some work, then that sir is your own problem, not Honda's.
Good luck on your next purchase.
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....
Just a few thoughts: Why all this repeated carping over the "faults" of a car at the END of a 7 year production run? The design & development phase of a new car is anywhere from 3-6 years, the 2008 model represents the last chance to get one of the current Fits; the 2009 model addresses the majority of complaints voiced about the Fit. Granted the Fit is NOT perfect (WHAT car IS??) BUT, after having researched & test drove, I bought and LOVE my Fit for what it is!! It fits me (all 6'4" 210 lbs)& has provided 45 mpg!!
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.
#20
06-25-2008, 11:02 AM
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?