Title says it.

The 2010 has all new tires and brakes. Practically no rust based off of 40 photos.

2007 has almost new brakes and new struts, also a second set of summer tires onto of the winter.

both look really nice

both come safety e tested

both standard transmission
​​​​​
whats a better buy.

same price.

​​​​​
I did have a 2010 fit that was wrecked on the highway. Really liked the interior. A lot

any input is appreciated

Alex

 

I honestly wouldn't buy either one. Both cars have high mileage. Most of the usefulness of having a low mileage car, say under 130K miles, is negated at some mileage/ age point to where you start having more maintenance/ repair issues to offset the lower purchase price.

In my humble opinion, I'd look for something as close to a 2012/ 2013, with under 100K miles, and pay a little more.

 

wow, I agree. I would not buy either one unless they were giving it away for free. Miles don't kill cars; age does. Even so, that many miles on a 2010 is pretty tough to achieve, so they must be highway miles which is easy on an engine. Since you did not mention prices on either one, I'd find a second generation Fit that has 150,000 miles or less. There are plenty out there.

 

Are those mileages or kilometerages? I'm guessing kilometers, since you're in Canada, which would mean around 121k miles and 185k miles.

If I had to choose between only these two cars, I'd look at both but probably go with the 2007 if they were in approximately equal condition otherwise. It would be wise to check that the clutches are not showing any signs of slipping; at their age, they could well be nearing or at the end of their life, and it's a good bit of labor to replace them (which of course means it's expensive if you're paying someone to do it).

I do agree with the others that it would probably be better to try to find something a little less used if your budget permits, maybe even a vehicle other than a Fit as they seem to have inordinately high resale values (or, at least, did four and a half years ago when I was car shopping...and mainly for that reason decided it made the best sense for me to buy a brand new one).

 

I'd buy the 2007. I'm in Toronto, bought a 2008 last Summer. Favorite car ever. But you already know you like a 2010, so if it's really cheap (like, not much more than CAN$700 or $800 I might risk the 2010. If its this one 2010 Honda Fit LX+New Tires & Brakes+Cruise Control+Keyless+Alloy - London $3,490 | autoTRADER.ca
that is way way way too much cash for a car with that many miles on it. If the 2007 is this 2008
2008 Honda Fit LX | CERTIFIED | 2 YEAR WARRANTY - Markham $3,495 | autoTRADER.ca
again, I think that's too much money for a car whose history you don't know. I paid 3500 last Summer for my 08 with 135k km on it. I bought from the private seller in Toronto who was the original owner, had all service records. I got a better deal than either of those. So I'd keep looking. When you find a 2010 (which you already know you like) from a private seller who is near you (i.e. local) and if they're the original owner and it has less than about 175k km on it and its about 4 grand all in, I'd jump on it.

 

I believe both of these cars are better than the ones you're looking at. A little more money, and a lot less miles. And still the model you like. 2009 Honda Fit - TORONTO $5,500 | autoTRADER.ca

2009 Honda Fit LX - Gatineau $4,988 | autoTRADER.ca

 

I'd keep looking past those two as well. The first one isn't even a 2009. It clearly is a first gen Fit. The second one is from a dealer and we all know about those dealers don't we......

 

this. theres no reason to buy such a high mileage car.

 

note that these cars are all listed in kilometres, not miles. So we're not talking about high mileage cars, except for that first one the 2010.

 

I'm not going to bother to tell you....
Don't buy either.
Look for a better deal.

I'm just going to answer the question as presented, within those parameters as if they are immutable.

If limited to those two choices I think I'd go with the 2007.
While I also owned a 2010 and really liked it...The 2010 in this incidence has nearly 100,000 miles more on it. Yes, they both have high miles, but that is a significant difference between the 2.

That being said, yes I think best advice would be to save up a little more, and/or look for a better deal. Both those vehicles are well into the high maintenance zone.
So I guess I am going to tell you, Look for a better deal.

 

65k more miles. They're kilometres.

 

here's a much better one than either of the ones you're looking at. 106k km (65k miles). Same price as the ones you're looking at. Jump on it. Check for accident history. 2008 Honda Fit Loaded - Toronto $3,900 | autoTRADER.ca

 

....never mind...buy them both.....

 

i wouldnt do either. but if i had to choose, id take the 07

 

yah, i wouldnt do either. waste of money for getting something THAT used.

 

My father always says "there's used and then there's used up" haha

 

I would chose the 2010 Fit. It's the 2nd generation, has less years and it's clearly a highway driven car to have reached that many km on the odometer.
Hwy driving is a lot less damaging to the vehicle when compared to city driving. The engine and transmission, as well as most other components should be less worn as well. Obviously you want to give it a good test drive of at least 10 min city and 10 min hwy, check all fluids, test all buttons and functions, doors, windows, etc.

The 1st gen Fits (07 and 08) in North America were prone to leaking rainwater, especially around the hatch and the water pooled in the spare tire cavity. I would avoid the 07/08 ones simply for this reason.

Other reasons you may want to avoid the 1st gen:

* They don't have the dash mounted cup holders that get cooled or heated depending on what drink you have.
* They don't have a foot rest for your left foot. You need to buy and install one separately.
* They may not have the folding elbow rest for the driver, which the 2nd gen have.
* They don't have cruse control with the manual transmission - although I could be wrong about this one.
* They have less airbags than the 2nd gen and also a less rigid structure overall.

 

I have a 2008 MT with cruise control.

 

haha!