I don't know who pays for this site but I certainly hope Honda and/or other car makers are reading it, if it makes it more likely they'll end up selling what I want. I am replacing a car this year and intend to buy a subcompact hatchback for practicality and economy, and I came to this site as part of researching the purchase. At present Honda and Toyota are at the top of the list; Honda gets a point for interior flexibility and Toyota gets one for fuel efficiency. I'm still waiting to see how the bottom line compares for cars equipped the way I want them (which may include options for comfort, convenience, and safety, but not cosmetics or performance alone).

 

If Honda cared about the enthusiast they would have never ditched the double wishbone for mac struts..I don't care what the pencil pushers have to say, it was a sin to drop the double wishbone..Honda you suck

 

After seeing on line reports of 24Km / liter (over 50 mpg) from Honda's own website (in Japan), I am very disappointed by 38 mpg. I'll pass. At this point it's time to put a little TLC in my 1987 Accord.

 

I have a feeling it is going to be 15k+ because if you go compare features and load a Civic up to what the Fit Sport will come with it will be about 17k. All I know is if its much over 15 I will be buying a non-sport and adding my own aftermarket stuff.

 

Not really. I expect that there will be some crossover between the Fit Sport and the base Civic. Will this take away sales from the Fit Sport? Maybe but I doubt it will be substantial. I think most would whether have a fully loaded Fit Sport than a stripped down base Civic.

I expect that the base Fit 5MT will be priced at $12,995, while the Fit Sport 5MT will be around $14,500. Probably $800 for an AT version.

 

I'm disappointed in the fuel consumption figures for the US Honda Fit. This year's Civic with an automatic transmission gets 40 mpg highway, the manual transmission Civic gets 38 mpg highway. Shouldn't a smaller, less expensive car get better mileage?

My '95 Civic CX is rated at 40 mpg city, 46 mpg highway. I get 40+ mpg on a regular basis, and have measured 50 mpg on more than one occasion. Looks like I'll be keeping that car a lot longer, since it shows no sign of wearing out anytime soon.

 

I hope you're right, and I hope they will allow cruise control as an option on the base Fit. If I buy a Fit, I want to put a body kit on it, so I wouldn't need the ground effects that come with the Sport Fit. I know I can have aftermarket cruise installed, but I like the steering wheel mounted cruise controls that are visible on the Sport Fit steering wheel.

 

I am hoping the same thing papawhiskey!

Kevin

 

Not sure what "stripped" down Civic you are talking about? The ones that are selling for 14,500 is the LX sedan with more power than the fit, better gas mileage and power everything..so what's left? I don't care about abstracts..

 

I'm referring to MSRP pricing from Honda, not what your local dealer is advertising on your local newspaper.

 

Jenshome is right about gas......The political situation with Chaves or with Iran means BIG trouble......If any one of these countries cut supply............Forget it Bubba!!! I recall the 70's gas lines and supply cut-offs.....OH NO!!!!! I just gave away my age...

 

Yes, world oil supply is politically vulnerable. But in the 70's, only U.S. oil production had peaked. Today, world oil production is approaching (some say has already passed) it's a geophysical limit: http://www.peakoil.net/

 

Based on my calculation my Jazz has been doing only 33miles per us gallon which is really at the very low end of what honda claims. So mpg-wise its a bit disappointing...but it's manouverabilty in crowded streets and tight corners more than makes up for the low mpg.

 

That's if you apply current oil production techniques with the easy-to-pump-out crude oil. If you use the technology found on California oil fields with steam injection and mechanical pumps you could probably double the world's known reserves. And possibly quadruple that when Royal Dutch Shell's development of oil shale/oil tar sands heating and steam injection to pump out crude oil is done on an industrial scale.

Besides, there is huge promise of growing oil-laden algae in special vertical liquid tanks that could essentially provide the world with an unlimited supply of diesel fuel, heating oil, kerosene and possibly gasoline. And the waste product of such production can be used to make animal feed and ethanol, another useful motor fuel.

 

Yes they have the answers right now.....But the oil boys have'nt milked us enough yet....

 

MtViewGuy and I have debated this in another thread ("2007 Toyota Yaris") which has since been archived. To summarize what I posted there:

I hope he's right about the new technologies, but I suspect they will cost a lot more per gallon than we now spend. "In the 1940s we got about 100 barrels of oil back for every barrel of oil we spent getting it. Today each barrel invested in the process returns only ten, a calculation that no doubt fails to include the fuel burned by the Hummers and Blackhawks we use to maintain access to the oil in Iraq" (Richard Manning, "The Oil We Eat," http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html).

There's a big debate underway between scientists sponsored by U.S. agri-businesses and some other scientists about the cost of turning biomass into fuel. The Bush administration and most farm-belt congressmen have accepted the premise that gasohol and biodiesel produce more energy than they require to grow, distill, and deliver (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8). Cornell's David Pimentel and others estimate a net energy loss (http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...hanol.hrs.html). I haven't seen research on the net energy balance of making fuel from algae.

The debate is similar on the subject of steam injection and other technologies for extracting oil from tar sands and the like. The question is not whether the world will run out of fossil fuels, but how long it can afford to harvest them.

We need to remember also that U.S. agriculture and that of countries following our example require increasing inputs of fossil fuels for every calorie of food produced. This includes the fuel to run farm equipment, to make petrochemical fertilizers and petrochemical insecticides, and the fuel to transport food over greater distances to the point of final sale (in the U.S., we eat food that is grown, on average, 1500 miles from our kitchen tables). As the cost of fuel rises, so will the cost of our food. "In 1940 the average farm in the United States produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil energy it used. By 1974 (the last year in which anyone looked closely at this issue), that ratio was 1:1" (David Manning, "The Oil We Eat"). I've seen estimates that in 2005 we used 10 calories of fossil fuel for each calorie of food. That's unsustainable.

Anyway, I do hope MtViewGuy's predictions prove true, but I'm not putting my money on it.

 

You could be SAVING your life in the Fit! (6 airbags, ABS, side-impact door beams, etc.)

 

Hell, the old Civic has already saved my life for fifteen years, and not just around town. Besides, I have an '01 Saturn as well, so my odds are even better.

The NA FIT looks like a good car and I've owned three Hondas already, so I don't don't need convincing about their reliability and safety. However, I expect major fuel price increases in the not-too-distant future; I expect that to happen during the next 10 years or so, when I'll be driving my next new car. So I'm holding out for something a lot more fuel efficient than the '06 NA FIT and making some big home energy improvements that are now within reach. On the other hand, for someone needing to replace a broken-down vehicle or a real gas-guzzler, I would recommend the FIT.

 

jenshome,

Actually, one of the nice things about growing oil-laden algae is that you don't need fresh water to grow them--they could be grown with seawater, which means no need to be near a precious fresh water supply such as wells or rivers and/or needing exorbitantly expensive desalination plants.

By the way, it will be very interesting to see what the next-generation Fit will be like when that comes out in (likely) 2007 calendar year. I see a car about the same size at the current model, but will be designed specifically for modern safety features and will likely be a bit more aerodynamic. Also, the engine could likely be a smaller-displacement variant of the R18 engine now on the 2006 Civic, especially since the R-series engine block is quite compact in design and the new Fit's engine bay could accommodate the engine.

 

That would be nice. I'd even be willing to forego some of the cargo space in exchange for a hybrid battery pack, so long as it lies flat and doesn't freeze up the rear seat backs, as happened in the Civic hybrids.