From the logbook: Honda Fit

We’ve had two redesigned Fits in our test fleet for several months now and have accrued many miles driving them. (Read our detailed First Drive report.) We bought a manual-transmission Sport model ($16,730) and an automatic Base ($16,020). The Fits were in high demand, requiring us to go out of state to buy them.

While this blog is about the Honda Fit, I can’t help mentioning the Smart ForTwo. You see, when I’m asked about the Smart, the Fit constantly comes up since it’s a natural alternative. Our Smart set us back $15,355. For just a little more money than the attention-grabbing Smart, Honda’s small, four-door hatchback seats three more people, has loads more cargo room, a smoother ride and a better transmission. So far, we’ve regularly seen 40 mpg or more on the highway, regardless of which transmission you choose. Plus – and this is a deal breaker for some – the Smart requires premium fuel; the Fit gladly drinks regular.

Here are candid logbook comments from our Auto Test Center team. And, no, these Hondas are not giving us “fits”…

“Brilliant little car: comfy, efficient, cheap and fun.”

“[Automatic model] drives well – adequate power (better than before at climbing hills) but merging takes planning.”

“[Manual transmission] needs to be shifted often to get the most power from the engine.”

“Enjoyable handling but the ride is somewhat choppy.”

“[Sport model] has crisper handling than the Base, but ride is stiffer.”

“Good steering; handling remains excellent – especially for an entry-level model.”

“Driving position is MUCH better than before – enough foot room and telescoping steering wheel helps, despite its minimal range.”

“Comfortable seat over the long haul.”

“Pretty noisy on the highway.”

“Surprisingly high amounts of squeaks and rattles in the cargo area and around the front dash.”

“Lots of room inside; flexible interior with innovative seat-folding technology is being applied in this generation.”

“Controls are excellent.”

“Not a lot of content [with the Base model]: no remote locks or cruise control.”

“Fit and finish is good for a budget car.”

“Give the Fit ESC and a 6th gear and it would be all the car I need.”

“[Sport model] is almost as much fun as driving a Mini. Awesome car.”

“This Honda blows the Smart into the weeds.”

As you can tell, we like both Fits a lot. They’re good at many things, from cargo/people carrying and zippy performance to good fuel economy. One comment seems to sum up the strength of the Fit: “Hard to believe it’s so roomy inside…makes all those small SUVs look silly.” No, the Fit won’t tow a boat, but it can do just about anything else.

--Mike Quincy

Comments

[Dick]

Let them drive a Lexus SUV and have the transmission die half way there. The reports are everywhere of transmission failures anywhere after 60k miles and a $4000 outlay. I can't believe that Lexus/Toyota will not respond to the hundreds of transmission failures by consumers who have purchased their vehicles. So much for quality and standing behind their product.

[John]

Why oh why is this thing so goofy looking! The original Fit had the same idea but didn't look so awful. I really suspect the looks are going to drive away potential buyers, even more so now that gas is approaching "cheap" levels.

[James Russ]

This reminds me so much of the best car I have ever owned. I bought a 1984 Honda Civic wagon for college in 1990. It had 48,000 miles on it. I drove it for years and it finally died at 248,000 miles. The sprocket on the camshaft came loose and fell off and the valves hit the pistons. I drove that car hard (flat out at 93mph from Cincinnati to Cleveland on a regular basis) and the only trouble was one set of broken front torsion bars, and a broken rear anti-roll bar (from crazy driving in the Kentucky mountains every weekend)and, every 70K, a new carburetor base plate. I did all the maintenance on the car myself. The car delivered a full size refrigerator from Cleveland to Cincinnati, albeit, with the front seats all the way forward. It also had reclining seats front and rear. It regularly achieved over 36mpg, and it was an automatic (3 speed with lock up torque converter). The curb weight was less than 2300#. If I got stuck in snow, I would get out of the car with it in drive, and just push it out. The whole thing makes me wonder why some country with less restrictions just doesn't buy the plans from Honda and make a new one. The development is done, so it should be cheap. The Fit is the Civic wagon spiritual successor with modern safety features. Nothing new under the sun. . . .

[melville248]

Who would choose the Smart car over the Fit. If I want a two seater it's going to be a sports car, not a car with no power.

[tjl]

The Smart car only makes sense for a city dweller with limited parking options (like where the row house driveways are close enough together to make curbs that only a Smart car fits on without blocking the driveways). The Fit fits everyone else's needs a lot better.

[Elizabeth Owen]

I've had my 09 Fit (Sport Trim) a grand total of two days now.

I like Fit but wish it had a 6th gear for highway speeds. I shift into 5th around 45 mph. At 70+ on the highway, I feel like the gerbil is about to come crashing off his little wheel.

Also, at 5'2", I'm noticing that the head rest is hitting the back of my head just enough "wrong" that I'm aware of it. I haven't found a solution yet to the head rest issue. I didn't notice this while I was test driving the car. I'm not sure I would have bought it had I noticed so perhaps it's a good thing that I didn't notice.

It's a breeze to park. It's cute. The monitor says I'm getting 38 mph on the highway. I just have to find a solution to that head rest issue and I'm a go.

Also, I bought the navigation system thinking it was blue tooth enabled because the sales person said it was. Turns out -- no blue tooth. I'm bummed about that. Who needs a navigation system for a city they're already familiar with?

[Matt]

I bought a Fit Sport Navi in Oct of 08. I made the mistake of taking only a short test drive. Totally in love with the concept of the car, i.e. small, efficient, hatch, etc. I upgraded to the Sport only to get stability control. This turned out to be a big mistake. The ride quality of the car is so harsh that it is a constant annoyance. Choppy is an understatement. If you drive over a dime, you can tell if heads or tails is up. I have an aftermarket sport suspension on my other car ( Koni ) because I like a firm ride. The Fit suspension is not firm. The Fit suspension is abrasive, harsh. A trip in the Fit is a constant jittering experience. The steering is excellent in town and on calm days. If you live in a windy area and do much highway driving, be prepared to constantly be on edge as the car is blown around and the sensitive steering exacerbates corrections. I drove my Fit on a 2 hour drive into Kansas on a straight, flat highway and was exhausted by the time I got home from bouncing around ( never realized that road was that rough the other 100 times I drove it ) and constantly correcting for wind. Not to mention the transmission continually shifting up and down at the slightest grade to maintain 70 mph. Maybe I'm not using the car for its optimal purpose, an urban runabout outside the freeze-thaw zone ( smooth as glass roads )...

On the positive side, the interior is wonderfully versatile and roomy. Amazing. The VSA system works really well in inclement weather conditions. At lower speeds the steering is great. Visibility is outstanding, night and day from the Pontiac Vibe I also considered ( horrible ). The dash layout is nice and the vents put out lots of air.

Don't buy one of these until you have driving it for at least 30 minutes on roads that are imperfect. If you can stand the suspension, go for it. You will love how tiny the car looks on the outside, and how much you can haul inside. 4 adults fit fine. The magic seat is genius.

I'll also mention here that the MPG has been sub-par for such a small, light car with a 5-speed automatic. I drive on eggshells trying to optimize my MPG and still only get a real world 30-32. This is 50/50 highway/city. The computer is ridiculously optimistic by about 15-20% versus filling up and calculating yourself. If you believe the trip computer MPG rating you are fooling yourself. Considering that my parents have a 2006 Civic that gets better MPG, has more power, and rides a whole lot better, I question how smart I was buying a Fit. The Honda salespeople will quietly tell you that they would buy a Civic over a Fit, and now I see why.

[Norma]

I'm surprised from reading your Mar 2009 auto test that various previously reported fuel economy champs (Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris) reported lower m.p.g.
Not only the redesigned Honda Fit, though with lower weight and narrower tires, but also Toyota Yaris, with similar drivetrain as the 2007 version tested in late 2006, reported a drop in fuel economy (from ~32.8 mpg to ~30.4mpg for Yaris).
The most noticeable drop is in highway mileage (from 44 mpg to 38 mpg for Yaris and 43 mpg to 39 mpg for Fit).

The change from AWD to FWD for Suzuki SX4 and a change from CVT to 4-speed automatic transmission for Nissan Versa make it inappropriate to compare their results with previous one.

I looked in vain to find much for explanation other than possible difference in external environmental factors. It is understandable that swings in environmental elements (say from fall to winter) can have an impact on gas mileage. Does CU adjust for factors such as ambient temperature when reporting fuel economy in test reports?

[CR_Expert_Gabriel_Shenhar]

Norma,
CU applies a correction factor for environmental differences.
The Fit is completely redesigned and many factors such as different gear ratios could account for the different fuel economy findings.
The last Yaris hatch we tested was a manual version, with 2-door and less equipment, so by definition, it had better fuel economy.