Every car board on earth has a "what did you drive before" thread.

This is a bit different... we all bring a certain 'baseline,' so to speak, of what we are used to when we buy a new car. How did your previous car shape your appreciation or impressions of the Fit?

My previous car: 2006 Honda Element EX-P 4WD 5MT.

- ease of parking/visibility: Mostly the same. The Element is about 9 inches longer, but relative to most cars on the road, it's still a short-wheelbase vehicle. The view to the rear was horrid in it, as well as the over-the-shoulder blind-spot view.

- carpet/materials - The Element is pretty spartan inside. The seats are a mix of vinyl and a water resistant fabric, and are pretty wide and flat. The Fit's seats feel very supportive and the fabric almost luxurious by comparison. It also had no carpeting, so I'm not too picky about the carpet material in the Fit.

- comfort - Fit is more comfortable, hands down. The Element is spacious, but in strange ways. I could never get the driving position quite right, and actually had to have the seat-height adjuster replaced under warranty, no doubt from constantly cranking it up and down trying to get it right. Get the seat high enough and it moves forward at the same time: legs are pinched, knee in the console. Get it to the bottom, and I feel like I'm peering over the window sills, legs comfortable, but elbows locked holding the wheel. (I'm 6'1 with long legs). No dead pedal. The clutch pedal had a long throw, and with no dead pedal, my left knee was constantly aching. It was enough to drive me away from another manual for a while.

- power - The Element had a nice and responsive engine, especially with the manual. No, it wasn't fast, but a 2.4L, 160 HP engine with a nice fat torque curve feels pretty damn punchy when it's short geared (similar gearing to the Fit - 5th was roughly 20 MPH for each 1000 RPM).

- Noise - The Element was loud. VERY loud. No carpeting, large, echoing interior, loud engine with high revs, and constant wind-noise. Road noise was perhaps a bit less, but the wind noise more than made up for it!

- Presence on the road. This is one of three areas where the Fit falls short. When you're driving a toaster, people see you. You don't disappear in the rear view mirrors of pickups, though Miatas and S2000's often disappeared in mine. If I turned around and looked behind me, I couldn't see a low car behind me, period.

- Cargo hauling. The Fit is impressive for a little hatch, but doesn't compare to what is more or less a panel van with a vinyl floor. With the seats flipped up against the sides, I could stand up (hunched over) and walk to the back. It was basically like a pickup truck with a camper shell back there, and I could usually climb in the back with a broom and a mop if I got it especially dirty.


- Rear legroom. Again, no comparison. I could sit behind the driver's seat, adjusted for me (all the way back, seat reclined) and still sit with my legs crossed. It was unreal! Basically, the rear seats were pushed back so that they were behind the rear doors when flipped up.

- Fuel economy. Are you freakin' kidding? I got 18-19 around town, 21-22 on the highway, if I was lucky. My best ever was about 25.4, and that was driving on a rural two-lane around 45-50. Fuel. Economy. Sucked.

So, that's where I'm "coming from." As a funny side note, my ex-wife had a Sentra. When I had the Element, the Sentra felt like a BMW. I drove a Sentra after buying the Element, and it was like being in a Buick, with a sloppy, spongy ride and numb controls. An Element would probably make me seasick now!

Oh, and the Emergency handling. Luckily, I haven't had any issues requiring any emergency swerves in the Fit (7500 miles, knock on wood!). The Element... whoa. An emergency swerve in that was worse than a Wrangler. It was top-heavy in ways that would make an Explorer or Sprinter blush!

So what are your stories? What did you bring to the table as far as previous tastes and experiences, and how did they affect your appreciation of the Fit?

 

I like the idea behind this thread.

Anyhow...my previous car was a 1999 SX8 Honda City 1.5EXi. It looked like this (thanks Wikipedia):

Honda City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically it's a 1988-1991 EF Civic, resurrected for Southeast Asia with modified suspension (struts all around instead of double wishbones) and sold from 1996-2003.

Its successor was the GD6/GD8 City - sold as the Fit Aria in Japan.

Visibility
The SX8 still has the best visibility of any car I've driven - there are almost zero blind spots. Ridiculously low hood, thin pillars, and lots of glass. By comparison, the GD1 is slightly worse because of the thick A-pillars and the awkward implementation of the front quarter windows. Both cars are perfect to learn how to park in.

Interior, Ergonomics, Comfort
Hard plastics abound in both cars but the SX8 has late-1980s ergonomics. It all works well, but there was no pretension of being stylish. Oddly enough, the stock SX8 seats, while smaller, are much more comfortable for long drives than the GD1 stock seats because the basic seating position is better, lower and gives more knee and thigh support. Actual leg room is contentious though because of the low dash.

The SX8 was actually pretty good for hauling 4 passengers in comfort, the long-travel struts doing a good job of isolating road acne. I could "sit behind myself" at the rear bench and be perfectly comfy.

By comparison, the Fit/Jazz, with its dimpled interior plastics and big round HVAC dials, pays an obvious homage to post-2000 VW Golfs and Polos in a bid to ape the premium feel. Legroom all around is slightly better than the City's, but there are much fewer places to bash a knee or shin against up front (unless you count shifting into your shotgun passenger's leg as you try 5th gear).

Power
No contest - the older car wins this. SX8 Cities are propelled by old-school Honda engine philosophy: the D15B7 engine on mine thrives on revs and screams deliciously as it makes its peak 105 HP. Accessing max torque requires a downshift to the 4500 RPM band.

Against that, the GD1's L13A3 mill may as well be a diesel. Unlike many Honda engines, this twin-spark fuel sipper makes peak torque at a very low 2800 RPM. Still, 82 HP isn't a patch on the old City, and admittedly it doesn't enjoy the high reaches of the rev range as it gets asthmatic before redline.

Fuel economy
Both cars have similar fuel capacities (GD1 - 42L, SX8 - 45L), and both use light weight as a proven weapon in saving gas. In my "wasteful" hands, city driving with the 975kg City netted me 9-11 km/L - pretty good for such an "old" car.

The GD Jazz, only slightly heavier at 1030 kg, goes one better using more fuel-efficient engine tech. Puttering around town in the hamster is good for 11-14 km/L. On a highway cruise, my personal best was 28 km/L (66 mpg), and even with 16" wheels I still return 16 km/L with enthusiastic driving. Even better, I could drive at a racetrack like a bat out of hell and still return 9 km/L.

Noise, vibration, harshness
Both cars are equally noisy, but the SX8 does a better job of isolating your bum. The GD is noticeably firmer riding, even on its stock 14" wheel/tire package. My dad and sister have complained about the harsh ride at the back on the stretches of broken, ripply and potholed tarmac Manila calls roads. I have yet to test this as I haven't ridden at the back yet.

Cargo hauling
The SX8 has a nice big trunk and a usefully square load aperture, but its lack of split-fold rear seats as well as the sedan body shell mean it has to lose to the kid hamster. Valiant effort though. If you've got unusual, bulky load items, the GD1's seats will happily do a song-and-dance number and contort to swallow them in its yawning rear maw. But you already knew that.

Handling and driving impressions
There is an off-ramp I take every day and I remember tackling its sweeping left in the SX8 at 60 km/h - at which point the car sends warning signals via gentle understeer.

I take it in the GD1 at 75 km/h before I have to back off for the sake of sensibility.

The Jazz has the weedier engine, but it turns more willingly and changes your driving style to maintain as much momentum as possible. Sadly I never took the SX8 to the track. While I'm sure it would have returned slightly faster lap times due to its 18 HP advantage, I've got a feeling it would carry less corner speed.

A couple of things I do not miss about the SX8: its rubbery shifter and its unforgiving, hair-trigger clutch pedal. Very easy to stall, this car. The actual spread of ratios is roughly the same in both, but the GD makes swapping cogs less of a chore and more of a delight - even though its shifter isn't immune to the odd moment of baulking.

Summary
I loved the SX8 City to bits and it was hard parting with it. I first saw the GD1 Jazz in a magazine back in 2002, and while I was instantly interested in it (those jack-knifing seats are still design genius), I did not imagine I would fall in love with it as much as I did.

The Jazz simply feels like a more complete car with a broader range of talents, and I fully understand Honda's decision to replace the aging SX8 City with the GD6/GD8 City/Fit Aria. The SX8 delivered a good blend of traits and the GDs are a logical evolution.

*** EDIT: My post seems to have gotten truncated ***

 

My last car was an 07 Mazda5 Sport 5sp manual which i bought new. It was at the time the absolute best car i had ever owned, and i still miss it to this day. I was for me and my family the perfect car at the time, roomy, efficient, fun to drive. I loved just about everything about it, my only gripes were the missing drivers armrest, no telescoping wheel, and seriously under-performing A/C which needed to be on high constantly to stay ahead on hot days. It fit me perfectly as the driver, and allowed my wife and daughter to stretch out in the second row captains chairs on long trips. We installed a rear seat DVD system and could have driven that thing to the MOON without a whimper from the little one. I got 30 MPG out of it in heavy use, it was destroyed in an accident I was lucky to survive after 10 months and 33,000 miles. The Fit by comparison is not as well suited to hauling the family cross-country (not the Fits fault) The Fit fits me better than the Mazda which i didn't think was possible at the time. The Fit feels every bit as special to drive, i look forward to every trip. Mods for the Fit are cheaper, and easier to get from reputable sources (ever tried modding a mini-van?) One thing I will never get over about that Mazda was the sheer genius of the sliding rear doors, if there were a way to get those on a Fit I would die to get it done.

 

My last car was a Suzuki Escudo (Sidekick) '93. It was alright, a functional car/SUV for the most part. (Though we had a lot of stuff drop out of the bottom because the winters were pretty harsh and caused rust.)

The interior space seems to be about the same. The Escudo might have been bigger, but not by very much. What really sets the two apart is that Honda's interior design is a million times better than Suzuki's. The Fit doesn't feel small, and there's lots of useful places to put things. The Escudo never had that.

They both had 40/60 split seats BUT the Fit folds flat. Plus you can fold up, which is nice. This makes the space even more usable.

As for driving, I found the Escudo to have a terrible turning radius (I drove full size vans that were easier to steer!) and a weak engine. Going up hills was a pain. The Fit is nimble, easy to park, and it doesn't struggle up hills as much.

This is our first car with a decent sound system. The difference is amazing. Both vehicles suffer from road/engine noise, but at least in the Fit when you turn up your music you can actually drown that out.

Probably the only place that the Escudo excels is that it had 4 wheel drive. And you can switch between 4-wheel and 2-wheel drive. This was very hand, since where we lived at the time got lots of snow and the roads could ice really easily. (However, we're not in an area like that now so it's not a feature that matters as much any more.)

We have the Honda Fit with Navi 2009. This car is a major step up for us. All our cars have been 10+ years old. Getting a new car is GREAT.

 

The fit belongs to my mom, so I will compare to her old car (focus zx3), and my actual one (even if it's rubbish)
It was a ford focus zx3 2001, standard.

The fit feels a bit cheaper in terms of ride quality, comfort, shape of the seats (And adjustments), noise level, and the focus pulls strong at low rpm (decent from 1500rpm), so it's great for daily drive and it allows to have longer gears so mpg aren't that bad. In absolute, accelerations are about the same still.

Room for passengers is about the same (and trunk a bit better on the fit), but the magic seats are much better than the focus ones, which are far from folding flat.
I'd consider the fit and finish and design equals (considering the difference in age).
Handling on both are good, thus the focus steering and gear box are a bit heavy and sluggish, the fit is all "soft and easy".
Also, the fit has about the same turning radius than the focus (even a bit worst maybe), so considering it's smaller size, it's a bit disapointing.

Visibility and ergonomy of the commands is better in the fit.

Also, the fit DX only has front speakers, while the focus has rear ones too, but the quality of the speakers is about the same, and a fit sport would be better to compare a focus zx3.

To end, the focus holds well by the time, the plastics aren't scratched, the cloth is not teared up, and I dunno if the fit will be the same in 235 000km, some materials doesn't feel really strong. Quite reliable too, 235 000km without any major issue.



Compared with my car (much older, but ancestor of the fit in some way):
Honda Civic wagon 4wd 1987. Of course it's too old to compare well with the fit, however I think that a civic wagon 1988+ (more power, better in almost every way than mine) would not be that far from a fit, except in terms on safety essentially.

Room is a bit better in the civic. Leg room in the front is much more generous. Seats doesn't support much but are softer than in the fit and have less lower lumbar support (which I prefere). Seats in the back aren't magic but you can adjust the angle of the back like in the fit, and fold them flat by pulling up the lower part of the seats, and you can "flip them" flat if the front seats aren't reclined too much, or just remove them and throw them away. Trunk has about the same lenght/width but is less high, due to old engeneering, full spare underneath, 4wd, and the glass going much lower.

Talking of the glasses, visibility is much better than in the fit.

Some plastic trims are more vynile than anything (especially the doors) but the dash has soft touch trim, which is appreciated, and feels better than in the fit.

The civic is slow (75hp), and suspension are soft (while not being really more confortable than the stiffer fit), but driving pleasure is there, at least as much than in the fit. You get much more feeling from anything than in the fit, thanks to the non power steering, throttle my cable and carburetor. The engine likes to rev (like the fit pretty much, redline at 6500) and has more low end torque than the fit considering it's low power.

In the bad, the engine is undersized for the car (good in a h/b 3 door or crx but not in a wagon 4wd), and gets enough poor mpg.
Also, it's fun to hear the engine scream during spirited driving, but on the highway it's anoying. Also there is no electric stuff, except for the trunk latch release.

So the best advantages of the civic are a decent driving pleasure (and fair handling with the 4wd) despite the soft suspensions and lack of power, the 4wd itself and the roominess and practicality for it's time. The bad is all the rest (equipement, noise level, safety, power, handling).

And during the winter, it's a blast to drive, during ice lapping sessions I surprised a couple of sti and audi s4 by appearing in their mirrors.

You got it, I'm biased about my car, but anyways.

 

Nice thread we got here man. BTW, fit is my first owned car so I have nothing to say. lol

 

I just traded my 2001 CRV with 135000 mi. on a new Fit Sport Auto. I liked my CRV (bought new) but I couldn't justify an additional $8-10k and 10 mpg less, being retired. The Fit is more responsive especially around town but ultimate acceleration is about the same. Of course cornering is WAY better in the Fit. Noise is actually less in the Fit. I didn't even try the new CRV, they're so ugly.

 

Hmm well my last car was a S2k but before that i had a Fit. I would say the Fit is the most versatile car i have owned. Great cheap sexy looking car

 

i have several cars at a time but the GD replaced a 06 CivicEX AT. there was nothing wrong with the civic other than that it was on a lease (which i will never do again) and that it was AT. although considering my GE's paddle AT is pretty challenged, the civic's lever AT was more direct feel as far as drivability in manual mode.

the GE replaced a 06 legacy wagon. the legacy was nice and butter smooth to drive, but it kept going back for warranty repairs and just too much hassle. it was also a parking lot door ding/keyed magnet.

both fits have been great and fulfilling the requirements so far as dd.

 

My previous car: 1999 Camry LE V-6 4AT.

- ease of parking/visibility: Much better.

- carpet/materials - Fit "carpet" is rather coarse. The rest of the materials are comparable. Seat and door fabric in the Fit actually feels nicer than Toyota's LE trim level material.

- comfort - Fit is less comfortable, but not by a wide margin. The Camry driver's seat had full power adjustments. Tire sidewall section is comparable (65 series 15's on both) but the Camry multilink rear suspension was softer. Still, the Fit actually rides better on very rough roads.

- power - A 200hp V-6 with automatic is more powerful, but less fun. The only place it was useful at all is high speed passing. With a manual trans you can instantly grab a lower gear instead of waiting for the computer to command an automatic transmission downshift. i-VTEC and aggressive gearing make the little four feel almost as powerful off the line.

- Noise - The Camry is more tomb-like. Not a Lexus, but surprisingly close. Only rear tire/suspension noise was at all noticeable. Any hatch is noisier than a sedan, but, with the stock Dunlop SP-31's and Honda's smooth and quiet engine, the Fit isnt all that bad.

- Presence on the road. A gold Camry is downright invisible.

- Cargo hauling. Camry trunk is big, and the split seats folded flat, but total space was still half that of the Fit.

- Rear legroom. About the same. Seat width is the big difference, three vs two. Center seatbelt for the Fit is a joke.

- Fuel economy. 22-24 vs. 32-34, same exact driving conditions.

- Handling. Still getting used to the Fit and adjusting tire pressures. Straight line stability is poor, cornering is great. I had Michelin Pilots on the Camry and tuned the tire pressures so it handled well, but still didnt "feel" that confident. It was a much better freeway cruiser, but I normally have the Tundra when traveling long distance anyway.

I test drove a Civic, and it felt surprisingly like the Camry, too "soft" for my taste. Before the Camry, which I had less than two years, it was a 1992 BMW 325i 5MT for over 100,000 miles. The Fit is no Japanese BMW, but is closer in "character" even if the Camry is closer on the spec sheet. maybe I should have written this comparison vs the BMW, but that was not my last car.

This is a bit OT, but If I was shopping for more of a BMW 3-series replacement, maybe I would have driven the Civic SI. Im sure thats not what American Honda had in mind, but Acura branding is such a mess right now that I dont even know which model they consider to be in that class.

 

My father has a camry CE 1999 manual 5sp.

I took it a few days ago for delivery (for a restaurant, in town) and actually, despite it's big size, I found it prett easy to park. Enough visibility, easy to estimate the physical limits of the car and good turning radius for it's size.

And maybe that some materials in the camry makes a bit "vynil", but still the dash is in soft touch plastic and the texture is a bit better than in the fit. And the seats have cloth that is soft to touch (even the back, where it's cheap harsh fabric on the seat) and really strong (430 000km on our camry, not teared up). I know that some early mk4 camry had vynile instead of cloth on the back of the seats though.

And the seats them selves are batter, there surprinsingly a bit narrower and they offer more lateral support for my tight body, while having a good position (angle, lumbar) even without adjustements. They go further back, so my long legs get accomodate better.

The 4 cylinders 2.2l gives probably slightly slower accelerations, but they are decent, and the power curves is similar, with a bit more low end on the camry (still not very peppy at low revs, especially that the gear box isn't short like on the fit).

Noise level and comfort are much much better on the camry.

Feeling of the car and handling are better on the fit.
Also the clutch on the camry is stiff and has a long course, which hurt the leg in city driving/traffic jam.

Fuel economy: Better on the fit. Around 26mpg in the camry, probably in the low 30's for the fit (or maybe a bit better).

Trunk: Similar size, but the camry doesn't have fold flat seats, the access between trunk and habitacle is small, and the surface of the trunk isn't really easy to fully load (not squared shape, not much height).

 

This looks almost like my Ford Ranger XLT except it was not an extended cab. I have the same rims and the cover on the back. Purchased in 1996 sold with 130,000 miles on it and never a minutes problem. It was in an F1 tornado and had hail damage and was hit and ran on by some stupid person but it was a great truck. Hauled hay, grain and saddles when we owned our horse. I kick myself every day that I put it in on the trade for the Fit - I only got $1000.00 out of it and it was paid in full. I could have driven it to work and saved my Fit for the weekend and car shows



As for any comparisons - there are none. The truck was a work horse and the Fit is my tuner dream. I love my Fit and the truck was just transportation - it was a Ford but it will be the last dosmetic vehicle I will ever own. Imports only from this point on.

Cat :x

 

Wow Cat, you really can say that the Fit changed your life! Thats pretty cool!

 

I decided yo keep my 1995 Subaru Legacy Wagon--would not trade it in for the low dealer value of $1500 for a car worth twice that.
I bought it used @ 44K miles. Now has 151 K.
Subie has been a Great car--only had to replace the starter last year, plus routine stuff like, cv axles, brakes, tires. The antenna broke off in a car wash, but it still gets good FM reception. It has a tape deck that works, cd player stopped working.
It is the luxury model with all leather seats and sunroof (things I wish I could have gotten on the Fit). I reduced my insurance to liability only, so it's really cheap to keep.
I can use it for hauling messy stuff, like mulch and soil.

Thinking the AWD may come in handy if we get a lot of snow this winter. It can be the work horse and Miss Fit can stay in the garage & look purty.

 

My last car was a PT Cruiser.

The interior of that car was nearly as convenient as the Fit, but not as refined. (Removable seats instead of fold / flip seats.) The materials were nearly the same, but the PT had better 'cloth' on the doors and a more comfortable, rubberized arm rest on the door. Interior noise is the same between both cars. The seats were not as comfortable as the Fit.

Visibility is much better as the PT had tinted windows in the rear. Due to that, I've decided not to tint the Fit windows.

The PT had far better torque on the highway, but its economy was much worse at 19 MPG. The Fit is getting 36 MPG with my driving. (42 MPG on the highway recently.) The ride was also smoother and not as bouncy as the Fit.

I'm definitely glad I bought the Fit. It's much more efficient and much sexier.

 

I’m going to compare our two USDM base GE8s with their two ancestors:

1. 1993 Suzuki Swift GA 1.3 3dr
2. 1987 Honda Civic 3dr (California 1.3: this is the functional equivalent of a "4-seat CRX HF" of the same era – high-efficiency 1.3 engine, wide-ratio 4-speed gearbox)

Outward Visibility
Thanks to thin A- and C- pillars, a low beltline, and slope-away hood, both the Swift & especially the Civic win this contest hands-down. The GE8 is not bad in this regard – I’ve driven worse – but there have definitely been instances where I’ve “lost” an oncoming left-turning car behind the A-pillar, and IMO the large outside mirrors are essential for seeing things behind you.


Interior, Ergonomics, Comfort, Cargo hauling
Hard plastics abound in all cars but the Swift & Civic both suffer from ergonomics of their period. Being the “base” models in both manufacturers’ lineups at the time, standard equipment in the Swift & Civic was also at a minimum. GE8 wins this comparison easily; one gets accustomed to all the power & sound equipment, as well as the A/C quite quickly!


The GE8 also wins for comfort. I find the front seats quite comfortable even on long trips, and at 5’10” I can easily “sit behind myself” in the back without having my knees touch anything. Compared to the Swift & Civic, the GE8 also has a cavern behind the 2nd row of seats for cargo, and the difference becomes even more ridiculous when the rear seats are dropped to the floor.


Power
No contest – the GE8 wins this. While the Swift was faster than it looked (the Geo Metro’s “evil twin”), especially in the lower gears, the Civic REQUIRED one to practice the art of carrying as much speed as possible through corners in order to not be totally bogged down on the exit. The 4-speed gearbox did not help matters: going uphill on a twisty road, the engine was either screaming close to redline in 2nd gear, or bogged down off the power curve in 3rd. The Civic was just barely faster in a stoplight Grand Prix than a Geo Metro.


With essentially twice the power of the Civic, and substantially more than the Swift, the GE8 has no problem winning a drag race against either.


Fuel economy
Despite a larger, more powerful engine, substantially more weight, and a larger body to push through the air, the GE8 achieves well over 35MPG US in mostly freeway driving. The Swift & Civic were no better.


Noise, vibration, harshness
This is a bit of a mixed bag. In terms of overall sound levels the Civic, Swift & GE8 seem to be about the same. The GE8 wins out in terms of the “sound quality”, especially over the Swift which has a noticeably rough & crude engine note. The GE8 also has a much stiffer body shell, which makes a big difference when hitting expansion joints or rough pavement on the freeway. The Swift & Civic “crash” through such things, the GE8 absorbs this punishment much better.


The GE8 also has an advantage over the Civic in terms of suspension travel: when heeled over in a turn, it was an all-too-common occurrence for a mid-turn bump to push the outside front suspension into the bump stops. I haven’t had this happen at all with the GE8.


Handling and driving impressions
Back-to-back comparisons of all three vehicles over the same road ain’t gonna happen, but I can deliver general impressions:


Civic: a gutless engine and a go-cart chassis. As I said above, the Civic required a momentum-maintaining driving style; fortunately the chassis was more than up to the task. I used to commute with the Civic between Watsonville and San Jose, California, usually using Highway 152 over to Gilroy or Morgan Hill. This is a challenging road, full of hairpins, esses, sweepers; and I got a lot of practice driving back & forth every weekday. Going uphill was a challenge due to the lack of power & gearbox ratios (see above), but it would absolutely fly once you got over the summit and started downhill. During that time, the only car I ran up against which took me to the limits of what I was willing to do on that road was – another 1984-1987 Civic.


Swift: would probably be slightly faster on a closed circuit compared to the Civic, but only because of its extra power. Handling is definitely the sloppiest of the three, the biggest limitation being the huge front sway bar that unweights the inside front tire in a corner and keeps you from putting down any real power until it gets straightened out. Despite this, the Swift’s strut-type IRS is also the most susceptible to kicking the back end out under trailing throttle or left-foot braking.


Fit GE8: what can I say? With the most power and a Honda-tuned chassis, even the base Fit will easily wipe the floor with either the Civic or Swift over any road or circuit you care to name. I really enjoy the way the Fit carves into a curve, it does strongly remind me of the Civic in this way. The Fit carries that true Honda DNA: there may not be much to give compared to some other cars, but it’s always willing and eager to give its all, any time, anywhere.


Summary
Both the Civic and Swift were enjoyable cars to drive; despite their innocuous appearance each one was capable of delivering a surprise to other allegedly superior cars on the right road. The GE8 Fit is a viable member of this same group: fun to drive, and faster than most people expect it to be. Add in the vastly superior level of equipment and creature comforts, with comparable efficiency, and the result are two very pleased owner/drivers.

 

My previous ride was an 85 chevy Scottsdale c10 with a 7.4 454 liked that I could pass anything and everything but the gas station. I could pull any trailer up any hill haul my dirtbikes. Dislike 6 mpg

 

So I start my comparison with 3 cars I've previously owned.
I've actually owned 6 cars and 1 truck in my 9 year driving history but I will focus on 3 that really stood out.
My second car, the 1984 Peugeot 505 sti 2.0(gas).
looked something like this:


Now the peugot when it came to power it was very slow even by 1980 standards. It was a very heavy RWD car. The peugot was literally built like a tank with the body panels being roughly 3/16" steel plate.

As for the interior of the 505 it was the most luxurious car i've ever driven. all leather interior and perfectly supportive heated seats you could sit in all day.
Ride quality was excellent and supremely comfortable, not wallowy but soaked up bumps so well it made any road feel like it was freshly paved.

The cars odd engine mechanicals, expensive parts, and poor fuel economy eventually caused me to sell it. Despite this it will forever be one of the fondest remembered cars i've ever owned if nothing else because of its rarity.

Now on to 4th car.
The Geo Metro 1.3 sedan.
i noticed immediatly it felt more "sporty". It felt so powerful moving from the peugot. The word go-kart came to mind after my first few drives.
My metro didn't have a tach but i did install one some time later and noticed going past 3000rpm made conversations with the passenger or listening to the radio next to impossible.
As another poster mentioned with his suzuki 1.3 the metro was also sloppy in handling but if driven right could outhandle other "more expensive" cars on the twisty roads.
fuel economy was about the same as i get in my fit and the fuel tanks roughly the same size i believe.
Interior of the metro was cheap and the window winder mechanicals were made of cheese making the window randomly pop out of its track if wound up to quickly.
The manual steering and cable clutch made the geo have a pretty good feel to it and easy to drive.
Mechanical Reliability was great. there were some random electrical glitches which finally caused me to sell it to a friend 3 years ago who is still driving it today with around 300,000km on it.

Then there was the 1986 Honda accord, the car that convinced me to buy a new Honda.
it had around 400,000km on it and it just worked. Wasn't bad to drive either depsite its age and having spruce 2x4s bolted into the rocker panels and painted grey to replace the rusted out metal. I found it could easily be thrown around the corners as it was a very low riding car yet was a little soft in the suspension, or maybe that was the rusty frame.
The interior was very comfortable despite its age and all the controls and switches worked.
The engine worked though using copious amounts of oil. I finally sold it when the transmission gave out to a guy for $200.

So when I got my new 2008 Honda fit sport it was quite a step up.
Power I noticed right away was quite good. The engine likes to rev and is extremely quiet even at 6000rpm.

The manual transmission did take some getting used to. I learned on older cars with cable clutches so my first hydraulic clutch felt odd. I still find to this day I will occaisonally grind gears when trying to shift too fast because of the slight delay when engaging or releasing the clutch.

The steering is nice and responsive and the overall handling is leaps and bounds above my old cars, the ride being firm but not harsh. It brought that go-kart feeling back again I previously felt with the geo but even better without the excissive body roll.

Fuel economy is the same as my old geo as well which I'm quite happy with considering the heavier weight and more power of the fit.

There is some road noise on the highway and on gravel roads but not enough to kill the driving enjoyment for me.

Interior space is excellent. I was actually very suprised at first how far away the windshield is compared to old cars where the windshield is right in your face and you can see the hood of the car. I still find this difficult sometimes trying to judge the dimensions of the car when driving. It does feel bigger on the outside than it really is. Especially the rearward visibility I find poor as I've only ever driven sedans in the past.

So coming from my backround of small and low power cars I've never owned or driven a high power sports car or sports sedan. Every car I've owned has had a 2.0 or less 4 cylinder engine. So to me the fit is like a race car with room to fit my mountain bike and some friends inside the cabin.

 

i had a 06 civic EX sedan i got new before the GD (you can read about it in my blog in the sig). i wanted to get a MT car with boxy utility to accomondate my kids stuff so it worked out great for me. the Fit can also handle quite a bit of cargo for my stuff so it's been great.... and although this thing is slow and under powered especially in the summer heat, it's quite fun to drive in the winter time.

 

My previous car?...
Pictures are worth thousands of words!
\