You can pick one or two items in each category and the Civic Wagon might be on top but over all items in each category it will lose the majority.

I'm not talking bad about the Wagon, it just doesn't compare with the Fit. I owned my Wagon for 10 years and 150K miles. I think my rebuttal holds more weight.

Roominess? how about cargo capacity, how about having to remove the rear head restraints just to fold the rear seats? how about the rear doors opening at such a slight angle limiting anything you can load? how about the rear cargo floor height? how about head room? etc. etc.

Comfort? I think the Fit seats are great and better, maybe subjective there so a draw, how about handling? how about suspension? how about greater adjustability of steering wheel? how about drivers armrest? how about road noise? better controls, power mirrors, real audio system, etc. etc.

Gas Mileage? my stock A/T Wagon always in perfect running condition never ever not even once got over 30 mpg on the highway. Typical around town mileage was 22-23 mpg. Partly due to the sucky A/T not being a good match for the low hp engine. You can't make a fair mileage comparison with your newer non stock engine.

CV axles? first starting making noise at 52K miles, replaced OEM at 60k miles, then replaced again at 110K miles, at 150K miles when I sold the car they were clicking loudly again. I knew numerous other people with Civics of this time period and all were very hard on CVs. Knew many that had replaced them twice before 100k miles. Again could be in part due to sucky A/T, that tranny sure did upshift and downshift very hard and jerky. All that extra stress transferred straight to the CV joint.

So the Fit 5-speed is still a TURD. Here is the time posted above which I have seen matched by other magazines also so real world.
5MT: 8.3 sec 0-60; 1/4 mi in 16.5 @ 83mph

Guess what other Turds come close to those numbers? Hasn't been that long ago that 8.3 sec 0-60 was a respectable time even for a sporty car. And now it is a TURD number for a fuel efficient economy car? haha

1986 Acura Integra RS 9.3 17.0
1986 Acura Integra LS 8.8 16.5
1989 Acura Integra LS 9.3 17.1
1990 Acura Integra 3-Dr GS 9.2 16.8
1990 Acura Integra GS 8.9 16.6
1990 BMW 318is 8.8 16.5
1991 BMW 318is 10.0 17.3
1992 BMW 318i 9.7 17.2
1994 BMW 318is 10.1 17.5
1995 BMW 318i 8.8 16.6
1995 BMW 318i Conv. 9.7 17.4
1995 BMW 318ti 8.9 16.6
1996 BMW 318ti 8.4 16.4
1977 BMW 320i 12.3 18.2
1980 BMW 320i 12.1 18.7
1984 BMW 325e 8.4 16.3
1985 BMW 325e 9.2 16.6
1986 BMW 325es 8.6 16.4
1987 BMW 325es 9.0 16.7
1993 BMW 325i 8.4 16.5
1990 BMW 525i 8.0 16.1
1990 BMW 535i 8.6 16.5
1991 BMW 525i 8.4 16.2
1992 BMW 525i 9.6 17.5
1993 BMW 525i Touring 10.0 17.8
1993 BMW 535i 8.2 16.3
2003 BMW 525i wagon-8.9, n/a
1994 BMW 530i Touring 8.9 16.7
1994 BMW 540i 7.9 16.0
1996 BMW 525i Touring 8.8 16.8
1987 BMW M3 8.1 16.1
1983 Honda Prelude 9.7 17.2
1984 Honda Prelude 9.7 17.2
1988 Honda Prelude 2.0 Si 4ws 9.3 16.8
1988 Honda Prelude Si 4WS 9.1 17.1
1992 Honda Prelude Si 4WS 7.8 15.9
1979 Mazda RX-7 GS 9.2 17.0
1982 Mazda RX-7 GSL 9.7 N/A
1983 Mazda RX-7 GS 9.5 17.0
1984 Mazda RX-7 GSL-SE 7.8 15.9
1985 Mazda RX-7 GSL 9.9 17.4
1986 Mazda RX-7 GXL 8.5 16.5
1988 Mazda RX-7 Conv. 9.7 17.5
1989 Mazda RX-7 GTU 8.5 16.5
1990 Mazda RX-7 GTU 8.6 16.7
1991 Mazda RX-7 Conv. 8.8 16.7
1982 Porsche 944 8.3 N/A
1984 Porsche 944 9.0 16.4
1986 Porsche 944 8.9 16.6
1988 Porsche 944 8.7 16.6
1988 Porsche 944 S 8.0 16.2

Plenty more but I think you get the picture.


_

 

Not to mention you're still missing a HUGE factor, which is the added weight of all the safety features in the Fit. This has already been mentioned, and you have not acknowledged it.

 

I don't know about the 88+ wagon but on my 87, it's much easier to load the trunk since there no "lid", the trunk opening is at the floor level and as wide as the car, it's not the case with the fit. And the height between the floor and the roof (at the trunk level) is the exact same for both cars. And the 84-87 4wd wagon probably has less trunk than 88+ 2wd wagon. And the wagon has almost a full foot long of extra room inside (from the dash to the trunk), I measured both car in every way when I wanted to fit in a motorcycle. It fited just fine in the wagon (I just removed the front passenger seat), it was not even close in the fit.

 

No he did acknowledge it. Look at the end of his post, he said when riding with his son the Fit was his #1 car. That was all for safety reasons I'm sure.

_

 

Give it a lil boost in mid range power and lighten it up a hundred pounds and see how it feels

 

But the fit isn't that much heavier. The civic wagon was heavy. It must be 150-200lb less than a fit.

 

Well the more I drive my 1992 Civic and 1990 Civic wagon, the more my wife drives the Fit, and the more she likes driving the Fit. It may come to us selling our beloved 2005 Element that my wife so dearly loves. If that were to happen then she'd get the Fit, and I'd be back to my 1990 wagon for DD usage again.

The only way that will go down is if we NEED money bad enough to hock something. Our element is amazingly reliable, clean, and relatively low miles (83K) with impeccible service history (bought it brand new) so it'd be a tough loss too...

Yes I did acknowledge the Fit's great safety features, and it is the #1 (well really #2 since the Element is a tank by comparison) car for my son to ride in in terms of the cars I have the choice of driving on a daily basis. It's just a turd compared to what I'm used to driving - B-swapped Civics.

My calling the Fit a "turd" is in no way meant to offend any other Fit owners. I'm just calling it how I see it based on my own ownership of said Fit. I do appreciate it for what it is:

It's a fun to drive, razor-sharp steering, safe, quiet(ish) car that also has great features in terms of stereo, cargo capacity, etc. I still love the car, but it pales in comparison in "fun factor" when compared to my B-swapped 1990 Civic wagon. It's a logical somparison for me because I can drive either car on any given day. the comparisons are bound to happen. It's hard for anyone else to "argue" a point since he/she hasn't driven my wagon, which IMO is one of the tightest, best riding, best handling, and overall nicest I've ever driven. I know that looks braggart-ly for me to say, but it's just true. It's not a leaking-like-hell rattle trap with lots of needs - it's every bit as reliable, if not more so than, any new Honda out there.

 

I too hate my fit, just waiting to test drive the veloster, new focus ST, sonic or even a mini cooper once i get a little more cash. The fit is just sooooo slow and some of the new direct injected models coming out make more power with better fuel economy

 

That sir is one fine sexy 4th gen! I was always partial to the 5th gen hatches myself but to each his own. Properly cared for those cars will last a very long time and will remain reliable, contrary to the belief of those who don't or won't do a minor re-freshening from the ground up every few years.

I can fully agree that when there are people in the Fit, it is a turd. Two extra people is like cutting a cylinder off.

However, when by myself, it hardly feels underpowered, and I drive a 380 hp 'yota every few days and am not afraid to use it. Example I recorded to compare your 5AT to.

YouTube video - GD3 5MT Fit

 

5th gen hatches? Like this one? (The pose was a joke)






I need to take a video of my wagon sprinting through the gears, but for now here's one of my B18C5 92 Civic pictured above:

YouTube - ‪B18C5 EH2‬‏



The three hatches have been known to share the same garage:

 

hey fancy meeting you here...

 

Yo Bill what are YOU doing here?

Did you buy a Fit, or are you looking to buy a Fit? Have you had a Fit and I just didn't know about it?

 

That B18C5 hatch looks like a LOT of fun to drive!!

Looking at a Legend hahaha

 

Can we all agree Honda cars are built to last?

 

Well, fits are not built for performance unlike their civics brothers... it's a different story with the fits... and you can't possibly compare its engine to b18c.... it's like comparing a cat to a dog (or possibly wolf?)... each has its own dis/advantage

 

I was trying to find the cargo volume of an '89 civic wagon and stumbled onto this thread. Hey! I have a gray '89 wagon (bought NEW, but nowhere as pretty as yours) AND a white 2010 Fit! (base model). I like my '89 so much more than the Fit but it is feeling its age - no AC, should replace the thermostat, etc. My 28 year old car has under 150,000 miles and I've spent as much maintaining and repairing things as it cost to buy.

Anyway, if you have any idea what the cargo volume is on the '89, that would be great. Otherwise, I'll just get out my tape measure and do some estimates. The Fit has 57.3 ft³ with seat area. I have always felt the Civic wagon had more space (I gauge cargo space by the ability to haul multiple 2X4s and the ability to throw in a short major appliance (stove, dish washer, etc.).

I am eyeing a Bolt.

 

wtf..........

 

...lol....

 

LOOOL!!! THIS is a blast from the past!

My current car situation is definitely different from my last posts in here. I sold the Fit in early 2012. Was forced to sell the silver EG in 2012. Kept the wagon until this year.

Current fleet is versatile with:

1993 Miata
1994 Civic Si (supercharged K, ac, ps, power everything)
1998 RA3 Odyssey
2017 Civic Sport hatch










One day I may own another Fit, but it will be K24A2 powered. 😁

 

That Si is gorgeous.

Haha, love the "Spoon" sticker on the Odyssey. Nice photography too.