The Fit Freak home page lists the acceleration as 8.3 sec for 0-60 mph. I was looking at Motor Trend new car buyers guide and I believe that they have the acceleration listed as 11.9 sec. I also looked at Car and Driver and they had the acceleration somewhere in between Fit Freak and Motor Trend. I know that this isn't really important, BUT I'm really curious WHY the numbers are so significantly different.

At first I thought it might have been A/T vs M/T but the A/T is faster according to the reviews that I have read.

If I'm on a level strech of road my Fit seems to be able to stay with all the Big Boys so I would say that its surprisingly quick. Now when I find a steep hill that is an other story....

TIA

 

I think most of the mags measure cargo capacity with cases of various things. I think MT had a bunch of beer in the back, which slowed things down!!

 

MT's numbers were way off. Don't know why. Manual is faster than the AT though.

 

Magazine numbers are always different. There are many variables to performance tests.

This includes drivers, driving styles (aggressive launch, normal launch), temperature, humidity, car (new car vs broken in car), and AT v MT.

Regardless, take a test drive to see if the passing power (or lack thereof) is sufficient for your needs.

 

The numbers can vary... based on transmission type, elevation, ambient temperature, track conditions, driver weight... etc. etc. etc....

 

I informally timed my a/t sport at 11.9 seconds too. 1st and 2nd gear are okay, but 3rd takes forever. They probably didn't smoke the tires out of the hole, which is more realistic for most drivers...

 

__________________
I understand that they may vary but 11.9 sec is 43% slower than 8.3 sec.....That is a significant difference that can NOT be explained by the variables you list. Most other cars have similar results from different sources. Just a few hundreds of a second difference, not 2.6 seconds difference.

I hope I got one of the 8.3 sec 0-60 mph Fits rather than one of the 11.9 sec ones. LOL

 

8.3 would be faster than my VR6 Jetta, and there's no flippin' way in hell a manual or auto Fit would ever hang with my Jetta, which I informally timed at about 8.5 seconds (and that's just run-of-the-mill these days for cars!). However the throttle response of my Fit is superior off the line, but that's probably only an advantage for all of about half a second and 10 feet.

 

I watched the test vid of MotorWeek with the Fit in auto doing a track run. Believe it or not the car spun off the line. I didnt think a 109hp car would do that. It wasnt going very fast but it sure looks cool going down the track.

Thats a slow ass Jetta. My moms stock Scion tC in automatic ran a 16.3@85mph. (around 8sec to 60mph)
Its faster than some of the 5speeds. Its all driver. Is your Jetta automatic?

 

yeah that's the slushbox VR6 Jetta, and heavy. Like I said, 8.5 is boring these days. It was pretty decent 7 and 1/2 years ago! But the Fit either way isn't going to touch it. I know, I have both... When I drive the Jetta once a month, it's like whoa, torque! Speed! But my point is that I doubt the Fit is turning in usable or consistent 8.3 seconds.

Maybe I'm timing wrong. I press the stopwatch start button and stomp on the gas at the same time.

Or we could talk 0-140mph numbers instead... ;-)

 

The 5 speed Fit is suppose to hit 16's with 80-85mph traps. Im sure it takes one hell of a driver but its do-able.

It doesnt have much power but theres no weight.

 

I can dig up this antique thread:
https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/general-fit-talk/6834-fit-sport-acceleration-test-results.html

 

i have both issues. motor trend reviewed the automatic, while car and driver reviewed the manual.

 

Motorweek said the Fit automatic went 18.1 in the 1/4 mile, which I thought was pretty slow. I would have thought 17 something seconds, not 18. I have also seen reports that have put the Fit 5 speed in the very high 16's, which isn't too shabby for 109 HP.

 

HOW ARE YOU SMOKING THE TIRES ON AN A\T FIT!?
Fit abuse..