The safety options on the fit were few and didn't increase weight by that much at all. They are throwing in a 1.5 L engine and auto tranny to lower the mpg to 33 city and 38 highway miles per gallon. Which is a far cry to what the rest of the world is getting. A 1.3 L with a CVT7 tranny would be much better and would increase the mpg significantly. I can't believe I waited so long for this, I WISH THE SPECS WERE REVEALED MUCH EARLIER SO THAT I COULD HAVE BOUGHT A SCION AND WOULDN'T HAVE WAITED SO LONG!!!! The original Fit over seas is way better. Honda just lost 5 car sales, as my friends and I are going else where like SCION! I'm sure some will still buy the Fit, while others will be disappointed by Honda and will switch to a different car brand like TOYOTA! Honda's idea of attracting young buyers to become loyal Honda customer is actually back firing as many people that I know are pissed off about the way Honda has configured the Fit. Honda might gain more customers than they lose, but they are also increasing the sales of Toyota & Scion where most of the disappointed Honda Loyalists are now turning to. No more Hondas for me!

UNLESS, YOU COME OUT WITH A FIT MODEL THATS MORE COMPARABLE TO THE ONE OVER SEAS, THAT GETS CLOSER TO 39 - 45 MPG CITY / 45 - 50 MPG HIGHWAY!!!!

IS THERE GOING TO BE A MORE ECONOMICAL MODEL ARRIVING HERE IN THE UNITED STATES? OR DO THE DISAPPOINTED HONDA LOYALS HAVE TO DEFECT AND BECOME LOYAL TO A DIFFERENT CAR BRAND?

 

I"m more disappointed by that long nose that complies with crash standards.

I like the snub nose look of those cars in Japan and the UK.
Definitely a cooler look.

 

I, too, was disappointed with the mileage figures, as released, but I also presumed that most of the more impressive figures bandied about used Imperial Gallons, which as I recall are about 20% bigger than US gallons. Disappointed, but not surprised.

Back seat looks pretty tight. Tall people might be happier with a Scion. Sure like the handiness of the cargo capacity with the seats folded. Yahoo!

The prices are a bit firmer than I'd hoped for. Most of the cars with lower prices need spendy option packages to gain parity with the well-equipped Fits.
Still, I hope that the dealers won't take too much advantage by gouging....

Disappointed? Sure. I'm still looking forward to seeing the car in person, sitting in it, and test driving it. It just won't be a slam-dunk sale. I'll be looking closely at the Scions, Yaris, and Versa, too. (Already crossed Hyundai and Kia off the list...!)

Regards, everybody.

 

Yes, the mileage figures are a big disappointment for me. I'm going to spend the money I've been saving on some upgrades to my home heating and air conditioning, for which tax credits are available (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?...pr_tax_credits), and wait another year or two for automobile manufacturers to wake up.

 

What's so dissappointing about the 38 mpg for an auto? To be quite candid with you, as much as many of you would like to have the 1.3L engine, I believe Honda did the right thing by having the 1.5L instead. Scions aren't exactly going to break that number. I have one employee with an auto xB and he gets a combined 31 mpg. My 2000 VW Golf 5sp can beat that number with a combined 33 mpg, and that's driving an average of 25 miles each way at 80 - 90. Chances are, the mileage for the Fit 5sp will be much better than qouted.

 

Other Countries Are Getting At Least 39 Us Mpg City /45 Us Mpg Highway And Sometimes Even More. They Dropped The Mpg Down Here In The Us To 33/38 So It Wont Ruin The Sales Of The Civic And Hybrid Models.

The Safety Options And Accessories Were Minor Upgrades That Should Not Have Lowered The Mpg That Much. If We Had The 1.3l Option With The Cvt 7 It Would Get Much Better Mpg Like 39/45 At Least Especially With The New Engine Technology!!

We Are Getting Ripped Off Again. Even The 1996 Honda Civic Hx Got Better Mpg:

Cvt Auto 35/40
5 Speed 36/44

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and That Was 10 Years Ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The Honda Jazz 1.2 (1.3 liter IDSI engine, 5 speed) is rated in the standard ECC fuel economy test:
Extra urban cycle 4.7 L/100km = 50 US mpg highway
Urban cycle 6.8 L/100km = 34.5 US mpg city
Mixed cycle 5.5 L/100km = 42.7 US mpg combined city and highway.

The 33/38 mpg US market Fit is down right shameful.

 

tjts1,

One thing though: many have complained the ECC fuel economy tests are actually even less realistic than the EPA tests! Small wonder why the EU is supposed to release new fuel efficiency measuring criteria some time in 2006.

Ive read that while the L13A i-DSI engines are quite fuel efficient they're also not very powerful; Honda UK quotes a 0-60 time of 12 seconds, slow by 2006 standards. I don't think American drivers would want to drive the Fit with such a weak engine, especially on our freeways.

 

The Honda Insight, Civic Hybrid, Toyota Prius all have 0-60 times between 10-12 seconds. Nobody is complaining.

Do you have any evidence for that? Under the ECC combined cycle, the new civic hybrid is rated at 4.6 L/100km or 51mpg combined vs the US 50 mpg. It doesn't seem that different at all.