I wish there was a good way to correlate average real-world numbers to EPA stuff.
Seems like different vehicles are affected to different degrees by the differences between the EPA test cycle and the average daily grind.
OTOH, fuelly.com seems to suggest that most people's "real-world" with the Fit is very close to the EPA's 33...
For comparison the 2012 Impreza appears to get about 28, and the just-mentioned Juke gets 27-30 (the two years listed are surprisingly different).
In reply to ransom:
Realistically, a lot of it depends on how close the car is to some kind of component protection during the agressive test. If it does anything to keep things cool, it will heavily adjust the mileage. So for these low power to weight cars can have a pretty wide range based on driving style- more than other cars.
Woody wrote: My father has a Fit Sport that he tows behind his RV. I absolutely love that little car. I'll probably buy it from him when he sells the RV.
Well I'd bet that Fit gets better than 33mpg...while being towed.
All but 6th gear are addressed in the 2nd gen, and yeah, I TOTALLY agree. Seems like it would go from "great" to "stellar" fuel efficiency with another gear. Of course, people are now going to line up screaming that 3500rpm at 75mph is right where it should be.
I think the reason they didn't add a 6th gear was the cars' lack of power. If you had the engine spinning at 2000rpm in a tall 6th gear, the engine would struggle to keep speed, let alone accelerate.
I've never seen below 35mpg in our Fit, and we track every tank. Our driving is largely country road. One possible reason for the low 30's numbers on fuelly.com may be owner demographics. The Fit is a darn good city car, so a lot of it's owners may live in congested areas. If you're sitting in heavy traffic a lot, then having to floor it from a red light to fit in a hole in traffic, any gas only powered car will have poor fuel economy numbers. For where we live, I'd have to whip the snot out of it to get that low mileage results.
Only other thing I don't like about our Fit is the seatbelt. I like my seatbelt a bit snug, but this one takes it to the extreme. I find myself pulling at it every minute or two, as it likes to squeeze my stomach.
poopshovel wrote:I have nothing but good things to say about this car. Only things I could ask for is a dead pedal, arm rest, and 6th gear.All but 6th gear are addressed in the 2nd gen, and yeah, I TOTALLY agree. Seems like it would go from "great" to "stellar" fuel efficiency with another gear. Of course, people are now going to line up screaming that 3500rpm at 75mph is right where it should be.
One of my friends here at work (resident Honda humper from hell) bought a '12 Fit Sport. We took it up to Anderson this summer to look at a pistol he ended up buying. Umm... if that was the "improved" sound deadening I would hate to have ridden in it before. Holy crap.... 4k rpms to cruise at 80mph, the vibrations and noise of that little 1.7 would drive me fricking NUTS on a daily basis. I wanted out of that thing ASAP.
After driving it, then the Accent SE 6-spd, and then later the Elantra GT, there's no way in hell it's "the best in the class". Cute? sure. Roomy? Absolutely. "Sporty".... well all of them are to some degree. Best? Not even close.
Bobzilla wrote: After driving it, then the Accent SE 6-spd, and then later the Elantra GT, there's no way in hell it's "the best in the class". Cute? sure. Roomy? Absolutely. "Sporty".... well all of them are to some degree. Best? Not even close.
I'd have never guessed that you'd advocate a Hyundai/Kia product. 
But yeah, the Fit is far and away the best in class. And I'm saying that as a very happy Kia owner. You can't compare the Elantra GT, it's not the same class of car, that's more Civic sized. We test drove a Rio recently, sister to the Accent. It's definitely a better long distance highway cruiser, but that's about the only advantage I'd give it over the Fit. As a whole, the Fit is a much better car.
Id love to put a similarly optioned Fit and Sonic side by side in a performance test. I went to each cars build your own site, and the Sonic LT, 138 hp 1.4t manual, with 16" wheels upgrade, came out to $18,725. Fit sport with 117 hp 1.5 n/a manual, stock 16" wheels came out to $17850 - so, $875 difference.
Both have a Macpherson strut front, torsion beam rear setup. Both are front disc, rear drum brake setup. Sonic: 2690 lbs curb weight, Fit: 2540 lbs curb weight.
Sonic: 19.5 lbs/hp
Fit: 21.7 lbs/hp
I think it would be a killer comparo....I like em both, but am in the market for neither, so I have no dog in the fight...I just think it would be a cool article.
Edit:
Note: Fit has some optional 16s that look like they may be lighter...toss some lighter rotating mass at that thing, and it could might maybe negate that power/weight ratio disadvantage. Theyre a grand+ though, so who knows if the performance utility/$ ratio works out favorably??
First time we had a Fit, I happened to visit a mechanic-friend of ours for something. He wanted to take a look under the hood. Basically, he was floored by the layout--it looked super-easy to work on, he said. I had never seen him so excited about a car before, come to think about it.
Klayfish wrote:Bobzilla wrote: After driving it, then the Accent SE 6-spd, and then later the Elantra GT, there's no way in hell it's "the best in the class". Cute? sure. Roomy? Absolutely. "Sporty".... well all of them are to some degree. Best? Not even close.I'd have never guessed that you'd advocate a Hyundai/Kia product.
Until we bought the Forte SX, I spent several weeks driving all of them out there, even ones that I didn't think would fit well for us. Just to give them a fair shake. If the SX wasn't such a friggin steal, it would have been either the Accent SE with 16's/manual/sunroof or the EGT base, no sunroof.
The Fit just can't compare to those two for comfort, economy and features. I guess we just have to agree to disagree!
does anyone else wish this thing would come with sliding rear doors?
Bobzilla wrote:Klayfish wrote:Until we bought the Forte SX, I spent several weeks driving all of them out there, even ones that I didn't think would fit well for us. Just to give them a fair shake. If the SX wasn't such a friggin steal, it would have been either the Accent SE with 16's/manual/sunroof or the EGT base, no sunroof. The Fit just can't compare to those two for comfort, economy and features. I guess we just have to agree to disagree!Bobzilla wrote: After driving it, then the Accent SE 6-spd, and then later the Elantra GT, there's no way in hell it's "the best in the class". Cute? sure. Roomy? Absolutely. "Sporty".... well all of them are to some degree. Best? Not even close.I'd have never guessed that you'd advocate a Hyundai/Kia product.
The difference being that in a couple years, the Fit will be worth well north of $10k, and the Kia will probably be right around half that. These things factor into a car purchase for me. YMMV.
When I was shopping for a car for my MIL last year the Fit was one of the options but the prices were nothing close to $16,500.
We paid $16,900 for an '11 sport with manual. Sticker was $17,610. A 2012 base starts at $15,325, per Honda's website. Slushbox is $16,100. Destination is $790. Hell, nevermind, I built one for you. If you can't knock $415 off the price, ur not doin it right.
http://automobiles.honda.com/tools/build-price/summary.aspx?ModelName=Fit&ModelYear=2013&ModelID=GE8H3DEXW&EColor=R-81&IColor=GR
I couldn't find a one under $19k no matter where I shopped. I don't know if they ordered them all that way or what, but that was 3 different dealers in the Metroplex.
I like Hondas, but not that much for that.
FWIW,
as I understand it, the 1st gen. NON-Sport Fits do not have cruise control (I keep telling myself a MUST on my next car) but the 2nd gen. Fits have cruise as standard...NON Sport as well as Sport.
In my area, trying to find a new Fit with a manual transmission is EXCEEDINGLY difficult. That's about the only way I can see a Fit getting close to an Impreza in price.
my local dealers stock a lot of them around 18k, a couple above 20k, a couple at 16,800. no manuals, though that's hardly a new problem.
bravenrace wrote:Woody wrote: My father has a Fit Sport that he tows behind his RV. I absolutely love that little car. I'll probably buy it from him when he sells the RV.Well I'd bet that Fit gets better than 33mpg...while being towed.
Actually, he only gets 28, but he's pushing the RV.
In reply to carguy123:
Frank kent, vandergriff, and Huggins are bad about the dealer add-ins arent they. I actually went all the way to Rusty Wallis for our last Honda because they didn't tack on the $2000 in extra junk.
Manual base Fits are fairly hard to find. The local dealer we had, which is a relatively larger one, only had one on their lot a few months back. But they were only asking $15,900 for it.
poopshovel wrote:Bobzilla wrote:The difference being that in a couple years, the Fit will be worth well north of $10k, and the Kia will probably be right around half that. These things factor into a car purchase for me. YMMV.Klayfish wrote:Until we bought the Forte SX, I spent several weeks driving all of them out there, even ones that I didn't think would fit well for us. Just to give them a fair shake. If the SX wasn't such a friggin steal, it would have been either the Accent SE with 16's/manual/sunroof or the EGT base, no sunroof. The Fit just can't compare to those two for comfort, economy and features. I guess we just have to agree to disagree!Bobzilla wrote: After driving it, then the Accent SE 6-spd, and then later the Elantra GT, there's no way in hell it's "the best in the class". Cute? sure. Roomy? Absolutely. "Sporty".... well all of them are to some degree. Best? Not even close.I'd have never guessed that you'd advocate a Hyundai/Kia product.
Not for me because we buythem and run them into the ground.... or right before the rust drops the radiator out of the car. Either or. In 10 years and 150+k miles, I really don't care what it's worth. It has paid it's debt to me.
That and try and find a CHEAP used Hyundai. They are gone. The days of picking up a good 4-5 year old Hyundai for a couple grand are gone.
4cylndrfury wrote: Id love to put a similarly optioned Fit and Sonic side by side in a performance test. I went to each cars build your own site, and the Sonic LT, 138 hp 1.4t manual, with 16" wheels upgrade, came out to $18,725. Fit sport with 117 hp 1.5 n/a manual, stock 16" wheels came out to $17850 - so, $875 difference. Both have a Macpherson strut front, torsion beam rear setup. Both are front disc, rear drum brake setup. Sonic: 2690 lbs curb weight, Fit: 2540 lbs curb weight. Sonic: 19.5 lbs/hp Fit: 21.7 lbs/hp
What about the torque (in lb/ft)?
Sonic 148
Fit sport 106
I can't believe you guys are talking about this ugly little 4 door econo box like it's something exciting.
mmm...If I were doing the daily grind in a city, a teensy commuter fuel sipper would be the right answer. I live in the burbs, and see as many big rigs at highway speeds as I do passenger cars, so a little box is not for me.
Econoboxes may not be "true sports cars", but I see the allure in them. Remember, besides the answer, this forum is mostly in love with European soapbox cars from the 70s, and japanese soapboxes from the 80s (Im looking at you Mini/Triumph/SE-R/CRX/510 etc etc).
Arguing about which slow car is most fun to drive fast is practically mandatory in order to activate a username here.
Zomby Woof wrote:4cylndrfury wrote: Sonic: 2690 lbs curb weight, Fit: 2540 lbs curb weight. Sonic: 19.5 lbs/hp Fit: 21.7 lbs/hpWhat about the torque (in lb/ft)? Sonic 148 Fit sport 106
You also get a 6th gear and the torque comes in and holds to redline super low down. I'm not sure how they'd compare straight up, but as far as "spirited driving" the torque in the 1.4 is a lot of fun from the punch. Plus I realllllly love the dash on the Sonic.
It's a great time to be looking for a small car----lots of great choices out there.
For me the Fit wins if you need the extra space, as it has a much more versatile cargo area than it's competitors. It also is fun to zip around in. I wouldn't pick the Fit if regular highway driving was in the cards, as it's pretty darty and noisy.
I'm VERY curious about the Sonic 1.4 t
138/148 with 3 pedals would make a great donor for a mid engine locost...
Zomby Woof wrote: What about the torque (in lb/ft)? Sonic 148 Fit sport 106 I can't believe you guys are talking about this ugly little 4 door econo box like it's something exciting.
It is exciting. If you've spent considerable time behind the wheel of one, it sinks in pretty quick. For the money and the practicality you get, it's a fun economy car. HP and TQ aren't everything. The NA Miata had roughly similar power numbers, and it's "the answer". I haven't driven the Sonic, though I'd be very interested to do it. Even if it has more power, I'm still more interested in the overall driving dynamic. The Fit just has the right feel to it for a twisty road.
You'll need to log in to post.
