7/22/06 Google Alerts
Fit compared to first Civic:

http://washingtontimes.com/autoweeke...5032-9379r.htm

Idiot compares Bentley & Yaris (and prefers the Yaris to the Fit):
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...GSUJF4UC53.DTL

Civic Si user review:
http://www.auto123.com/en/new/carinf...ew,4339.spy?rp

7/20/06 Google Alert
Honda Fit "holds its own" (road test, comparison with competitors)
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnis...ess-columnists

 

Thanks FondaFit. The comparison to the original civic is really interesting.

 

nice comparisons

 

Another thank you, Fondafit, for the article about the original Civic. I am glad to see that others notice the same thing I have--that the Fit recaptures some of the good design qualities of the small cars made in the '70-80's.

In 1987 my husband and I bought our first new car, a Toyota Tercel Wagon, which I still drive today, with nearly 248K on the original engine. At the time it was a tough choice betw the Toyota or the Honda Civic wagon, which was nearly the same price and had very similar features and styling. The Tercel was a bit longer and I believe a touch narrower, and friends of ours with similar vehicle needs bought the Civic because they were both tall people, and it had better head room. We got the Tercel because it was long enough for us to sleep in (emergency only! it's quite tight but better than huddling in a wind-shredded tent). The Tercel has more cargo capacity than the Civic, and that was important too, as my husband and I were on the road at the time as field archeologists.

The trusty old Tercel has served us like a faithful mule for nearly 20 years, rarely breaking down, and never doing so in dangerous or inconvenient locations. It has been driven on rough roads and in the city, and excels at both. Despite the fact that it devours CV joints on a regular basis and its original AC is nearly exhausted, I hate to have to part with this little car because it has so many features that simply do not exist in any vehicle manufactured today. I have literally been searching for the past few years for a car to replace my old friend, because I knew it would not live forever, and the Fit comes closer than any other on the market in this country, so I have one on order. With a couple more weeks before the arrival of my new Fit, it seems a good time for patience and a bit of reflection.

What I will miss most about my Tercel Wagon (are you listening Honda? How about bringing some of this stuff back, pretty please!)

High Clearance. Almost like an SUV. Even with 13 inch wheels (yeah!) my Tercel sits up high enough to make it over many back country roads and pastures w/o touching a thing. The Tercel has a very stout skid panel shielding the front from scraping bottom. The Fit has nowhere near the protection for its tummy. The Tercel Wagon had a 4wd option (which I don't have) but there are other owners of 20 yr old 4wd wagons who still drive them thru snow drifts and have used them to pull SUVs out of the ditch etc. I am bracing for the lessons I will learn, about the location of my new Fit's tender underbelly.

Excellent Visibility. I will put my Toyota Tercel Wagon up against ANY other car for the driver's ability to see everything (s)he needs to.

Cavernous Cargo Capacity. The Tercel Wagon has a lot more capacity than the Fit even. No magic seats though, so I have removed the back seat (seat part) from the car and I can fold down the seatbacks to make a flat floor. My 6 ft tall husband and I have managed to squeeze in there to sleep when we got washed out of our tent by unexpected storm. Can't do that in the Fit, it is too short.

Cruise control as an option on the base model. We got this as an add-on for the old Toyota and it only lasted about 2 years before pooping out on us, so I'm not talking about some dealer-added option. I mean, the base model should have factory-installed cruise as an option. This is the one option that might have convinced me to get the Sport model except for those darn underbody skirt things that are gonna get scraped up on every road I drive -- remember how much I like the Toyota's nice High Clearance.

Full Size Spare as an option. Not everyone is always on pavement when they get a flat. I'm guessing the Fit's spare wheel well isn't big enough for a full size spare, even if I wanted to go find my own. BOO!

Gutters. What is wrong with gutters anyway? I guess they have gone the way of non-integral bumpers. They are the best way to attach a roof rack period. I have 2 canoes and 2 roofracks that won't work with the new Fit. Harrumph!

Non-scarring bumpers. OK, so the shiny new kinda bumpers are really pretty. But honestly, I would rather have a black rubber/plastic (whatever they are) one that will forgive you for touching the curb. The Fit won't. In fact the underbody kit includes projections that are perfectly at curb height. What is the deal with those? They seem to be all about aesthetics, not function!

Manual roll-up windows and manual remote mirror. Yes manual. In my Tercel the outside rearview mirror angle is controlled by a lever. Childishly simple design, it still works as good as the day I bought it. (But in the Fit this control is powered, not manual.) My new Fit will be the first vehicle I've ever owned with power windows. I've never liked them, never will. I like to be able to roll my windows up or down w/o having to turn on the darn car! The more electronics, the more to go wrong with the car, the more frequent and costly repair bills. And come on people, manual windows provide good upper body exercise!

Nice big, plain vanilla hole in the dash for the radio etc. Our Toyota came w/o radio and we did the Crutchfield thing and had superior sound for many years. I brace for the day my Fit's sound system fizzles and I have to go to Honda for major surgery.

Fabulous gas mileage. Yes, the Fit has good gas mileage. But it does not, in my opinion, reflect the advances that COULD have been made (PROBABLY have been made) in this department. My old Tercel Wagon did get 39 mph on the hwy when it was brand new, packed to the gills with AC (very chill!) on full blast. I would expect after 20 yrs of R&D that the Fit should be able to get 50 at least! But perhaps the answer lies in the comparisons below. Too much HP???

One more and then I'll quit--I understand in my new Fit I won't be able to wait for my ride under the shade tree sitting in my car listening to NPR unless I leave the car running to power the radio. Come ON!

I will surely find more things I miss about the Toyota once I begin driving my new Fit, (and, to be fair, lots of things I just LOVE about the new car), but while I'm stewing in this disappointing direction that vehicle evolution has taken, here are some comparisons of the two vehicles which I find revealing. (I'll try to format this in columns)

'87 Toyota Tercel Wagon '07 Honda Fit (base)
wheelbase 94 96.5
length 170 157.4
width 64 66.2
height 56 60
cargo room 64 cu ft 41.9
HP 62 109
gas tank capacity 13 10.8
weight 2207 lb 2432
tires 155 SR 13 P175/65 R14 81S
MPG 39hwy(new)28+hwy(now) ??????
purchase cost about 9k total about 15.5k

 

One more thing the '87 Toyota Tercel Wagon has as standard equipment is a locking gas flap (door to the gas tank cap). One key opens everything. Nice and simple.

This one should have been a no-brainer for Honda.

 

Funny I wrote Tom the author of the article to question HIS question of reliability. I contended that the Fit was mostly an exsisting model that had proven its' worthyness and had been throughly debugged since intoduction in 2002.
He says that the NA Fit is so new in all areas that it is not a proven vehicle in his eyes.
Not a very in depth reviewer in my view....:rolleyes:

 

I miss the *stereo AM* support of the factory radio from my 1987 Tercel. I am not being sarcastic. It was a flash in the pan feature that I enjoyed while it was supported. Hopefully HD radio will be more substantial.