By on April 11, 2014

2015 Honda Fit - Red

By now, you’ve heard what driving the new 2015 Honda Fit is like. You’ve seen what riding in a new Fit is like, too- and, maybe, you’ve figured out how they got one into a tiny bar (I haven’t). Still, we haven’t spent much time actually talking about the nuts and bolts and whys and hows of the new Honda. Until now, that is.

2015 Honda Fit is SO New, it Has a New Home


Honda factory in Celaya, Mexico

For starters, just about everything on the 2015 Honda Fit is new or modified compared to its 2014 siblings- and that includes where it’s being made. Instead of a mostly Chinese-built product, the new Fit has North American roots, being built in Celaya, Mexico. The new production facility is supposed to separate North American demand from global demand, giving dealers better selection, more freedom in ordering, and (of course) cutting costs for Honda, itself.

The new plant in Celaya will also start building a Honda Fit-based mini-SUV to slot below the CR-V later this year, bringing total North American vehicle production capacity to over 1.9 million units. That bump in capacity from Celaya means that some 98% of Hondas sold in North America will be built in North America.

 

2015 Honda Fit Body + Chassis


fit_bar_4

The new Fit is 1.6″ shorter than the outgoing 2014 model, but thanks to Honda’s “packaging magic” design, the 2015 Honda Fit has more than 3″ of additional rear seat room, and 1.4″ of additional rear seat leg room. That’s a great distinction to make, by the way, for customers who’ll be stuffing baby seats- rather than adults- into the back of the thing. The new Fit also gives the front passengers more slide-adjustment in the front seats.

So, despite the reduced length of the Fit, it’s roomier. That happy mindf*** comes courtesy of a new, contortionist fuel tank that twists and turns around the Fit’s floor frames and contorts itself around the new, shorter, rear trailing arms more closely than the outgoing Fit’s tank. It’s a trick worthy of Gumby- just pray that you’re not the tech who has to replace one, because I imagine it would be a b***h to do without some advanced robotics.

The suspension that the tank wraps around is worth mentioning, as well- it’s all new, a rigid, torsion-beam style rear suspension and conventional-ish struts up front. It feels a lot more advanced than that, however, thanks in large part to the new Honda Fit’s electric power steering and a new VSA stability program that seems to serve to keep the car neutral. Whatever the actual reason is, the new Fit handles far better than anything with a glorified solid rear axle should.

 

2015 Honda Fit Earth Dreams Drivetrain


fit-engine

Back in 1989, Honda introduced the original, 1.6 liter, 160 HP B16A and B16A1 engines in Europe and Japan. 25 (twenty-five) years later, Honda’s newest 1.5 liter, direct-injection i-VTEC engine makes “just” 130 HP. Granted, that’s a huge improvement over the last Honda Fit’s 117 HP engine- but a 29 MPG combined EPA rating for the 6 speed and 31 MPG combined rating for the CVT version doesn’t exactly scream “25 years of progress!”

Still, the 2015 Honda Fit has more power, more torque, offers better fuel economy, and puts out fewer emissions than the 2014 model- so that’s a step in the right direction.

Sadly, Honda took a step in the wrong direction in terms of transmissions. For starters, the new 6 speed manual transmission might seem like an upgrade from the old 5 speed- but the “new” 6th gear is the same as the “old” 5th gear. So, while you might find snappier performance in the more closely-spaced 1-5 ratios, you’ll still have the same high-rpm buzz you had in the old Fit at highway speeds. At the 80-85 MPH cruising speeds common on Illinois’ I-90, the Fit’s 1.5 is revving at a positively raucous 4000-ish RPM. In this tester’s opinion, it’s a horrific experience- and one that makes the CVT option a no-brainer, no matter how much you like to row your own … which brings us to our next dubious transmission choice: the CVT’s “gears”.

Honda spent an awful lot of time and money developing a CVT that was capable of keeping the new Earth Dreams at its peak power and efficiency while infinitely adapting the gearing around it (between 2 hardware-determined limits, of course). That was good- then they lost the plot completely by setting 7 pre-determined “shift points” into the Fit’s S-mode, which can be manually selected via paddles on the steering wheel. If you understand the purpose and function of a CVT at all, you’ll immediately realize how stupid this is.

Left on its own, however, the 2015 Honda Fit’s CVT is more than capable of doing its job. Stay away from the paddles, in other words, and you’ll do just fine. More than fine, in fact, since Honda’s CVT is one of the best in the biz (the best CVT setup I’ve experienced, by the way, was also in a Honda).

 

2015 Honda Fit Earth Dreams Interior + Trim


2015 Honda Fit Interior

For 2015, Honda upgraded the plastics on the Fit- offering leather for the first time, as well. Gone are the old “Base”, “Sport”, and “Navi” trim levels, which are replaced with a more Honda-like LX, EX, EXL (for “leather”), and Navi versions. The infotainment system, too, is a major upgrade from before with a large, easy-to-read screen on all models, and a clever phone/nav integration on the EX that (despite a long boot/load time) works exactly as expected. Mostly (my pre-production tester had no “backspace”, so we had to back ALL THE WAY OUT of the Nav screen and start again if we mis-typed anything).

Still, the real magic of the 2015 Honda Fit interior isn’t in the upscale materials- it’s in the seats. The Honda Fit seats can be configured in a number of ways. There’s the standard “passenger mode”, as well as 4 other modes for carrying people and things. These being “Cargo Mode” (for cargo- spluh), “Long Mode” (for carrying long items with passengers sitting in tandem), “Tall Mode” (for carrying tall items like plants and big-screen TVs), and “Refresh Mode”, which was the highlight of my initial “passenging impressions” article.

Those different modes were part of the old Fit, as well- and looked like this here …

 

Honda Fit seat modes

… but I’d never seen or heard of a Honda Fit having “modes” (refreshing or otherwise), so it’s news to me. Judging by the amount of people currently looking at pictures of my limited-edition slip-on Converse, though, it’s probably news to a lot of people- and really one of the strongest selling points for considering the 2015 Honda Fit as a second car.

 

2015 Honda Fit Pricing


Honda’s product planners explained that the new 2015 Honda Fit would cost a bit more than the outgoing Base and Sport models, with the LX starting at $15,525 and the EX-L Navi topping out at $20,800. That’s not a huge bump from last year’s $15,425-$19,790 range- and that $19,790 didn’t get you 130 HP, leather, or a 7″ screen. So, yeah- the new 2015 Honda Fit is an objectively superior machine than the 2014 it replaces, but what do you think?

Did Honda do enough to place the new Fit in the premium compact class occupied by the Mini Coopers of the world, or is its move upmarket a step in the wrong direction? Let us know what you think, in the comments. Enjoy!

 

Sources | Photos: Honda, FitFreak. Originally published on Gas 2.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

127 Comments on “2015 Honda Fit Deep Dive...”


  • avatar

    It s encouraging to see that you have mastered the use of the asterisk key to mask your inability to write. How about investing in a thesaurus? This was a good review, but you really didn’t need the two expletives in your paragraph regarding the packaging.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      Hey, just be glad he followed up with something informative and listened to the complaints in the last article.

      The writings still better than most of what you get on Kinja.

      • 0 avatar
        dongledangle

        Hey, it’s edgy marketing copy designed to appeal to the millenials who are the target market for this car. Of course it’s got the awkwardly censored profanity and the hashtags that the kids these days identify with. What were you expecting?

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Kinja is a free online news aggregator per Wikipedia, so its not quite “edgy” anything. The sites it links too I briefly perused., I’m not seeing edgy marketing there either. But assuming such copy does exist on one of these sites and its designed to appeal to “millennials” as you suggest then I just have one question: do they believe the target market is developmentally delayed and actual English is unintelligible?

    • 0 avatar

      And you didn’t need to lead into your comment about the use of expletives with passive aggressive snark and feeble insults. It is encouraging, however, to see that you’ve mastered the use of sarcasm. May it serve you well, in the place of the plucky wit you seem to be lacking.

      • 0 avatar

        Good, you see that I worked useless commentary and snark into a worthwhile comment without using profanity. Much the way you didn’t in that paragraph.

        Are we going to start a food fight here? I hope not, I would just prefer to read without having the sailor speak of my youth thrown in for bad measure.

        • 0 avatar
          SomeGuy

          How about just don’t read the next article he writes and move on? You know if Baruth dropped a couple of F-bombs in his article the comment section would be lit up with:

          “Excellent writing as usual Jack.”

          “…a modern Hemmingway you are.”

          And don’t even say otherwise, go look at some of the pieces he has wrote. I think Jack is a brilliant writer, but we need to call a spade a spade instead of choosing which writers should write in a PG format.

          Back on topic:

          Good article OP, I’ve been wanting to drive one of these cars. You should have mentioned how well they hold their value too!

          • 0 avatar

            We don’t know the resale value on these, yet. They’re new. http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/07/top-10-investor-errors-past-performance-vs-future-results/

      • 0 avatar

        I’m sorry, Jo, but the guy is right. Please remember that the first rule when finding oneself in a hole is to stop digging.

        • 0 avatar
          Dingleberrypiez_Returns

          LOL, man the comment strings on TTAC just keep getting more and more heated… not sure if I love it or hate it how often the top comment is massively trolling (whether intentional, accurate, or not).

          • 0 avatar
            Dave M.

            Well as a longtime community member and someone who’s been around the block a few times, I know the cool kids will soon become bored and move on so there’s that to look forward to.

            Good review Jo, I found it highly informative.

        • 0 avatar

          Nah. ;)

      • 0 avatar

        > And you didn’t need to lead into your comment about the use of expletives with passive aggressive snark and feeble insults.

        Let’s be more explicit. This looks like a rewrite of a Honda press pack with a couple review bits packed in.

        Did you do any research other than drive the car for this?

        • 0 avatar
          thornmark

          Press pack? Not really. Would Honda provide worse than issued EPA figures?

          >>Granted, that’s a huge improvement over the last Honda Fit’s 117 HP engine- but a 29 MPG combined EPA rating for the 6 speed and 31 MPG combined rating for the CVT version doesn’t exactly scream “25 years of progress!”<<

          The EPA reports far better figures:

          2015 Honda Fit LX (CVT): 33/41/36 mpg (city/highway/combined)
          2015 Honda Fit EX/EX-L (CVT): 32/38/35 mpg
          2015 Honda Fit (manual): 29/37/32 mpg

          The Fit's CVTs figures are better than all the competitions' automatics.

        • 0 avatar
          GeneralMalaise

          Sweet jaysus, why can’t there be a site that reviews only Prii and Smart cars for these leftwing knobs?

        • 0 avatar
          vbofw

          “This looks like a rewrite of a Honda press pack with a couple of review bits packed in”

          +1

          I guess the editors need to give the new blood a chance at some point. Seems like a good car, but the review doesn’t give any warm & fuzzy this is the Truth About this Car.

    • 0 avatar
      bryanska

      I dunno, the first expletive seemed appropriate and descriptive. The second was unneeded. But “how about investing in a thesaurus” is flamebait and escalatory. (is that a word?)

    • 0 avatar
      Chinese Super Nova

      Agreed. Just be a tiny bit more creative and use words that are okay to fully spell out!!!

  • avatar
    Scott_314

    Damn you Honda. This looks excellent. I’m the type that wants the small commuter car for myself and my wife gets the family car.

    But I want manual, and I can’t live with 4,000 RPM at common highway speeds.

    • 0 avatar
      blackcayman

      EXACTLY….

      The manual gives a rewarding “I’m-involved-in-the-operation-of-the-car” driving experience.

      Although the primary driving I do is freeway commuting, I don’t get stuck in stop-n-go traffic all that often.

      Please give us a version that will lope along at 80 mph at 3000-3200 rpms (we can shift the car to accelerate upon demand – that’s what we DO).

      • 0 avatar
        troyohchatter

        There is a car that will run 80MPH while spinning under 3500RPM. One of the considerations when I got my Mazda2 is the highway cruise with the manual. Also, the Mazda2, while giving up a LOT of top end power is all ate up with torque from off idle to redline.

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      I sometimes wish I lived in a country where the police wouldn’t try to kill you for driving at 80 mph…
      I don’t think the gearing is going to be a big problem in Europe…

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        Move to Texas. That’s the entrance ramp speed on our highways.

        • 0 avatar
          Zykotec

          In Norway there are basically two areas in the Southeast that has 60mph speed limits, and roads where it is safe to do 70(since the left lane mostly does that anyway). The rest of the country is limited to 55…Doing 80 will cost you your license almost everywhere.

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          Um, if I recall the Texas design manual and many-years-ago experience, the entrance ramps are not arcs, per federal standard, but spirals, requiring constant steering correction. I hope you’re referring to retrofitted entrance ramps, where you can steer with one hand and text with the other, like in California.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    This is what you should’ve started with, a nice write-up with some facts and opinions, good work here.

    As far as “progress” goes with the Fits engine, does it at least have more low end torque or mid-range than the older engines? Honda made some peppy NA engines back then but you had to rev the hell out of them to move anywhere.

    As far as “progress” goes though, well I still say that GMs first in car touchscreens are the best. And the new 200 matches my ’92 Volvo in gas mileage despite a 9 speed transmission.

  • avatar
    Nico

    I drive a CVT Honda with manual mode. The seven manual shift points are far from useless. Think downhill.

    • 0 avatar

      In other CVTs, an engine braking/B mode, I found, is just as effective.

      • 0 avatar
        Featherston

        But to clarify, the shift points are in an optional mode, correct? I.e., the transmission can be left in a mode where it seeks out the ideal ratio rather than one of the seven presets? If not, then that *is* stupid.

        • 0 avatar
          Nico

          I don’t see how a B setting is is any less “stupid” than Honda’s manual shift points. Think of it as 7 different “B” settings. All they had to do is add two switches (paddles) and some extra code. It sounds like a no brainer to me.

          And yes. the shift points are optional. Sometimes the computer knows better, sometimes the driver knows better. You have both options.

      • 0 avatar
        Chinese Super Nova

        Does this new fit’s cvt have an engine breaking mode? (For the lx model with the cvt.) correct me if i’m wrong, but I don’t think the lx gets a “sport mode” and paddle shifters, right?

    • 0 avatar
      GeneralMalaise

      My daughter bought a 2014 Corolla S with the CVT… it’s a comfortable cruiser that just lopes along on the interstate.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Nice to see the Magic Seat adjusters on the shoulders of the front seats are back.

    • 0 avatar
      Sals

      I was surprised to see a 2015 Fit (an EX) at our auto show in Albuquerque this weekend. Not on a platform out of reach, but actually out there on the floor where people could crawl around inside it. I don’t have the all-discerning eye as some here do, so I have no complaints about hard plastics etc. I liked the car; a sub-$20K Honda with plenty of useful features–and yes, those “magic seats” are pretty great. Looks like it would be a snap to city-drive, city-park, haul a bit of ordinary household stuff, and give me very few worries.

  • avatar
    mnm4ever

    I don’t understand why they didn’t offer a better cruising 6th gear in the manual, it doesn’t make sense since that was by far the biggest and loudest complaint of the outgoing car. It is almost like Honda purposely hamstrings the Fit to not be a better highway fuel saver than the Civic.

    Luckily the new Fit isn’t very attractive so it wouldn’t be on my list anyway. The outgoing model is better looking IMO.

    • 0 avatar

      I think there was a physical limitation with the first and final gears- and they just found a way to pack more cogs in between, if I understood the interpreter correctly. Bad move, IMO.

    • 0 avatar
      burgersandbeer

      “It is almost like Honda purposely hamstrings the Fit to not be a better highway fuel saver than the Civic.”

      This has to be the reason. If the fit was tolerable on the highway, I would expect it to take a decent bite out of Civic sales. I don’t know auto manufacturing well enough to understand why Honda cares, so long as the combined sales reach the same number. Factory capacity where the cars are made?

      It is pretty amazing that the car had one glaring issue that everyone complained about for however long it was on sale, and they failed to address it in the redesign. Is this the Honda arrogance the company is often accused of?

      • 0 avatar

        > This has to be the reason.

        Hwy losses tended to be dominated by aero. It’s likely a taller car has more front surface area, and possibly worse shape for drag.

        • 0 avatar
          burgersandbeer

          I was actually thinking in terms of overall ability as a highway cruiser, not just fuel economy.

          My bad for quoting something that directly addressed fuel economy. It has been one of those days.

      • 0 avatar
        mnm4ever

        What really adds insult is that the CVT apparently doesn’t have this problem. So it isn’t the aero drag, it isn’t the need for more power at passing, its simply a matter of the choice of 5th gear ratio and/or final drive used.

        • 0 avatar

          > What really adds insult is that the CVT apparently doesn’t have this problem.

          The figures are bit odd. For example, why would the EX trim have much worse hwy mileage? 38 vs 41

          I can imagine they put a close ratio box in the manual since those most likely to buy those are hoons anyway. Not sure how the epa shifts their cars, but at least in theory even with such ratios it really shouldn’t be worse in the city cycle unless the engine only works well at one precise speed.

          • 0 avatar
            shaker

            I wonder if in the real world (HWY with aero drag) that the CVT would still need a lower “gear” to put the tiny motor into its torque range. The CVT mileage may be worse than the EPA test suggests.

          • 0 avatar
            N8iveVA

            Bigger wheels on the EX and EX-L

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    Sad to see that even the Fit is not immune to the disease of d-pillar elephantitis. Those rear windows are damn near useless. It’s funny, when my family bought our 2007 Fit, I was disappointed with how much worse outward visibility had gotten compared to our 1990 Civic Wagon that the Fit replaced. Looking at the 2015, the 2007 model looks a lot better, not to mention less extraneous sheetmetal creases and other nonsense.

    I am likewise disappointed in the short 6th gear, what’s the point Honda? Don’t worry, us stick drivers can drop a gear if we want quicker response and passing power! I know that engines have optimal efficiency near their torque peak, but c’mon! The old HFs had significantly taller gearing, although now that I think about it they also had 8-valve heads with lower-rpm torque peaks.

    • 0 avatar
      Featherston

      Totally agree re: the D-pillar.

    • 0 avatar
      bryanska

      Like I’ve been saying all over the Internet (likely to the consternation of many)… the 3rd gen is no upgrade to the 1st, just like the 2nd gen.

      If you can find a 2007-2008, add a Pioneer AVIC, some sound insulation and heated Clazzio seat covers… and you’ll have a better car for far less.

  • avatar
    alsorl

    The main issue was the high level of sound booming into the cabin at 50 mph and up. The description of the new 6speed sounds like a joke. More shifting for the same final ratio for high revs at 75 to 80 mph. Sadly but the CVT is probably the only option due to those drive ratios.
    The crash test ratings is what to wait for. The last Fit was a death trap.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      Is there some site somewhere which records and publishes sound dB at speed for most cars? I’m always interested in this sort of information, as I love the quiet, but it doesn’t seem very accessible.

      • 0 avatar
        burgersandbeer

        Car and Driver. Alex Dykes did this in his recent reviews, basically due to popular demand here.

        Unfortunately, the results highlighted how many variables can impact road noise, with road surface on the test loop being the big one. I’m sure different test equipment can impact the results as well. As a result, I think dB readings are only useful compared against other readings by the same reviewer/publication, and even that’s borderline. For example, Alex is going to get different readings tooling around Santa Cruz/SF Bay Area than attending a press event somewhere that might have smoother roads.

        It’s a tough thing to measure; we’re probably better off setting expectations for noise based on the subjective opinions of multiple reviewers, rather than a dB reading. Too bad those opinions can vary so much. See ’15 WRX reviews.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          I’ll have to go check out C&D then. As long as they’re using the same test loop and devices, should be reliable enough.

          Motorweek does them on some of their reviews, IIRC.

        • 0 avatar
          alan A

          I wonder, since as you say subjective tests vary “so much” if they are useless, and therefore an objective measure might work better. Equipment is simple to come by. I wonder if a measurement were made on ROUGHLY the same atmospheric conditions along the same stretch of road, if that would provide a more objective result. Or possibly record a select set of roads with the recording equipment in roughly the same location within the vehicle.

          I for one would find that very helpful.

          Oh, I almost forgot. I find Alex’s dB measurements useful; however I have not been able to find one for the Fit.

  • avatar
    DevilsRotary86

    I guess I am the odd man out here. I wouldn’t mind 4k RPM at 80mph. It’s not a totally fair comparison, but that’s what my Acura turns at 80mph and it doesn’t really bother me. Of course, my Acura has an 8k RPM red line and the Fit’s is around 6.5k so it isn’t entirely fair.

    Of course, I also enjoy the sound of bridge ported rotary engines so take anything I say about engine noise with a grain of salt.

    It certainly is a nice car, but I think my wife is happy with her ’07 Fit. We will probably keep it for another 10 or so years.

    • 0 avatar

      I was thinking the same thing about my new Elise, but 8500 redline does make a difference. Also isn’t it wonderful that we can blithely assume a 7 year old car will last another ten years. Amazing!

      • 0 avatar
        DevilsRotary86

        “Also isn’t it wonderful that we can blithely assume a 7 year old car will last another ten years. Amazing!”

        Mind you, it’s not without effort. We keep the maintenance schedules religiously. I do some of the work myself, but others I know a good private Honda mechanic to handle stuff over my head. And about every 2nd or 3rd oil change or so I will take my Acura or my wife’s Honda to him for a simple oil change just so he can also look it over. Every now and then I will pop the hood and check all the fluid containers and peek at belts, including the serpentine indicators.

        Recently, her Fit ran low on coolant. So we took it in to get it topped off and have the coolant system inspected. He said it was troubling, but not surprising after 7 years of service. He said to simply keep an eye on it and bring it back if it keeps losing coolant (it hasn’t yet). In short, I don’t let repairs slide. If there is a problem I tend to fix it promptly. We wish to keep both the Acura and Honda for a very long time and treat them accordingly.

        Cars genuinely do last longer and are more hassle free than ever, but they aren’t sealed systems yet. They are more complex than ever and demand some level of care.

      • 0 avatar
        djsyndrome

        Does the Elise still have the Toyota 2ZZ? Loved that engine in my old Matrix XRS. Sounded like an angry lawnmower once over 6200rpm.

      • 0 avatar
        ...m...

        …we picked up a mazda 2 to supplement our elise last year in cargo/passenger/foul weather applications, and have since come to appreciate that these modern-generation low-revving low-economy small fours are a *lot* more usable in the real world than they look on paper…

        …what they’ve traded for in their tuning is a nice fat torque spread down low where it’s particularly useful in daily driving applications, enough so that if you really grab it by the scruff of the neck and wring it through the gears, you have no problem at all pulling through traffic with conviction despite the 6500 RPM redline, yet you’re also not saddled with the proverbial necessity to hesitate and downshift when that need arises…all the while, real-world fuel economy doesn’t appreciably suffer from what we’d experienced in older subcompact cars, either: essentially, these modern small drivetrains have forsaken superlatives in exchange for tuning better-suited to the way people drive the cars everyday, rather than to perform better in exceptional circumstances…

        • 0 avatar
          mnm4ever

          Kind of funny that your Mazda2 is your “big” car. :)

          We are similar… I got a GTI as our “family car” partner to my wife’s MR2. But then we needed something really big so we got an older CRV. :)

          • 0 avatar
            ...m...

            …my wife’s MX-5 used to be our big car, but our household was outgrowing its utility…

            …the funny thing is that we originally went into the dealership fully intending to buy a mazdaspeed 3, but it felt so bloated, leviathan, and sloppy by comparison to our daily drivers that the mazda 2 came across as a breath of fresh air…honestly, modern subcompacts offer a surfeit of space, utility, and features these days; properly appointed, ours essentially functions as a nimble little micro-van…

            …even though mazda’s handling won us over the fit, i recognise that ours is an outlier case and gaze upon those trick honda magic seats with no small measure of envy…

          • 0 avatar
            mnm4ever

            I understand, compared to the Mazda2 my GTI would feel like a bloated whale to you!

            But since you drive an Elise, it makes sense that you appreciate the small light packaging of those cars.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      My former Scion xB1 was a great car in many ways, but it was geared the same way: 3000 rpm @ 60 mph, 4000 rpm @ 80 mph. (This was for the 5-spd manual; the automatic was geared for lower rpms, but I didn’t have that.)

      This, and the lack of sound deadening made it a very tiresome car after 2 hours at highway speeds, and the seats had little side support.

      I think I agree with the author’s preference for the CVT.

      Your appeal for bridge-ported rotaries explains your high tolerance level. :)

  • avatar
    eggsalad

    “We will build them in Mexico to save us money, then we will charge the customer MORE money!”

    Brilliant, Honda. Brilliant.

    • 0 avatar
      Demetri

      Until now, they were breaking even on every Fit sold here. Building them in Mexico was about turning the Fit into a money making proposition, not about delivering a lower MSRP, although this will allow them more flexibility to offer cash incentives in the future.

  • avatar
    bball40dtw

    I was just jealous that Converse doesn’t make those shoes in my size.

  • avatar
    djsyndrome

    “… but I’d never seen or heard of a Honda Fit having “modes” (refreshing or otherwise), so it’s news to me.”

    Magic Seat has been around (and an integral part of the advertising for) since the first generation Fit.

  • avatar
    klossfam

    I like it but churning along at 4,000 rpm at 85 mph is totally unacceptable. The HP and torque ratings – despite being low — simply don’t require that kind of gearing…It’s like Honda is assuming you’ll have 4 people and a full load of cargo on board at all times…Almost any gearing on a 4 cylinder that requires more than 3,000 rpm to go 65-70 mph is a BAD scenario…

  • avatar
    redav

    If that yellow was a bit bolder, I’d be sorely temped to get one of these as my commuter/utility hauler.

  • avatar

    I am surprised that Jo does not realize how the paddles are supposed to be used in e.g. turns. It’s a little disappointing, because otherwise he could tell us how responsive the CVT programming was made by Honda. That would be very useful information to know, since a number of carmakers screwed it up before (not just on CVTs).

    P.S. Another interesting tidbit to test would be to see what the drivetrain does if hitting the limiter while under paddle: force-shifts or rev-limits. It’s not as important in practical sense, but I’m curious.

  • avatar
    April

    In reading this article/press release I’m not quite sure what the secret words mindf*** or b***h are.

    Is there a prize if someone figures out this word puzzle?

  • avatar
    05lgt

    I’m underwhelmed by the reported MPG on something this small and new. Is it a case of delivering real world vs. being tuned to the test, or is Honda authentically falling behind on this metric?

  • avatar
    handplane

    Wow. Whether here or on FitFreak or in The Car Lounge, all I read is carping about the revs at highway speed. What’s the big deal? It’s not like you’re approaching the threshold of pain or anything. My 2000 Civic Si turned a smidge over 4000 at 70 MPH and that was fine. Too bad it was stolen. Although it’s a bit hazy by now, I seem to recall my ’83 VW GTI having a similarly short box. My ’09 Fit manual is relaxed in comparison. Maybe not all of you feel the same, but I have a lot of respect for Honda’s powertrain engineering. I trust the judgement of their engineers on this one. I can’t wait to test drive a 2015 Fit manual.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Well, a lot of us have driven big block V8s that couldn’t be heard over the road noise at 80 mph. The satisfying roar comes during acceleration, but it would get old on a long freeway trip. The steady engine drone in a Fit could damage your hearing – we have rock concerts for that.

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    Every Mexican made car and truck I’ve driven to date (Silverado, Fiesta, RAM) has been an abysmal failure of fit and finish.

    I could give less of a damn about the engineering behind this car, I’m not paying a premium for something assembled south of the border.

    • 0 avatar
      Zykotec

      Honda has managed to build quality cars in Britain for a couple of decades now. I don’t think Mexico is going to be more problematic, even if there will always be a few hiccups in a new factorys first years.
      I have worked a little on my Hondas (mostly modifying, they need few repairs) and it loos like the way they are assembled/engineered, makes it hard to do it wrong imo.

  • avatar
    wmba

    So much ink spilled on a car whose sales rank barely breaks into the top 50, and which is handily outsold by the Fiesta and especiallythe Sonic. It has less sharp handling and steering than the outgoing model according to tests other than TTAC’s. There are very few of them around here, even in small car loving Canada. An inconsequential car, then.

    In fact, TTAC spends an inordinate amount of attention to ordinary cars with very low market penetration like Lincolns and Gold/Jetta Sportwagens. If they were sporty cars or even marginally interesting technically, then these slow-sellers might be worthy of all the spilled ink.

    Two articles in two days on a car likely to sell perhaps 60,000 cars a year to econo-scrimpers willing to put up with noise but bursting at the seams to show their friends the Magic Seats is a bit much. This is no aspirational vehicle, nor apparently a particularly nice one.

    Now, how about getting the EIC pro tem to scrape up a new WRX somewhere and give us a review of that already. Surely he can manage that – even Greyhound Racing Weekly dot com has flailed one around in inept fashion months ago chasing a fake rabbit.

    • 0 avatar
      burgersandbeer

      Unfortunately, I believe Subaru has TTAC blacklisted. The only way we see a WRX review on these pages is if someone finds a cooperative dealership.

    • 0 avatar
      Kenmore

      “Two articles in two days on a car likely to sell perhaps 60,000 cars a year…”

      Damn skippy! Let’s make this The Truth About Camrys!

      Everything else is merely a niche, ‘specially those “performance” toys.

      (Wow! I’ve never had an ally before!)

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      I’m on Subaru’s bad side right now, unfortunately :)

      • 0 avatar
        burgersandbeer

        Is there a publishable story to why TTAC can’t get Subarus, or would that just increase the odds of getting back on their good side?

        Previous editors had reviews and stories that I’m sure Subaru wasn’t pleased with, but it seems like a long time to hold a grudge.

  • avatar
    V6

    There are many things I do not like about the looks of this car, but the useless red reflectors/trim in the rear hatch is the worst

  • avatar
    Kenmore

    If we were all East Asians I would be in love with this brilliant little storage container on wheels.

    But it’s too small for me and too ridiculously low for my winters. Damn shame… a 25% larger Fit would be a return of the original minivan but with Honda reliability.

  • avatar
    dwight

    It still has uncomfortable seats and lacks decent legroom.
    As much as I would like to get one, I wouldn’t last 20 minutes without leg and back pain. No sale Honda.

    • 0 avatar
      bryanska

      Buick Lacrosse front legroom: 41.7 inches
      Honda Fit (2013) front legroom: 41.3 inches

      Buick Lacrosse rear legroom: 40.5 inches
      Honda Fit (2015) rear legroom: 39.3 inches

      I hear you on the seats, though. Recent Honda seats are hard as rocks.

      • 0 avatar
        Power6

        These leg room numbers don’t seem to mean anything when you take into account the seat moves on tracks. I can stretch out for days in a lacrosse, but in a fit even with the seat all the way back, not enough for my long inseam. How are these numbers measured? Do you know? Seat all the way back, or mid travel? If it is max legroom is the rear legroom max as well?

        • 0 avatar
          Lorenzo

          I think it’s like the EPA numbers – every car maker has its own tricks. Consumer Reports measures max front leg room with the seat all the way back, and measures back seat leg room with the front seat leg room set at 41 inches.

          There’s still the problem of oddly shaped/slanted cushions and seat backs, especially in the back, where headroom is recovered by having the passenger sit in a bucket with knees up and leaning back in a reclining position. As with trunk capacity, maximum and usable are two different things.

          • 0 avatar
            Power6

            Gotcha, I’m a CR suibscriber so I checked it out, they actuallty measure rear “fore-aft” at 40 inches front legroom which they consider enough for the “average” person.

            The numbers they have are different than what the gentleman above posted.

            The current fit (bryanska posted 2 different gens) has:

            40.5 front
            27 rear

            Lacrosse:

            44 front
            31 rear

            Given a standard system it is plain to see why the “average” legroom doesn’t get it done for me, with a 36″ inseam. The Buick has a full 3.5″ more travel for the seat to go, this is a ton, and explains why the Buick has plenty of legroom for me.

            Plus 4 more inches of rear fore-aft room. The review says the 2015 Fit adds 3 inches in back, so sounds like the rear seat has some decent room, but unless the front seat has more travel added, this car will continue to not accommodate a 6’2″ driver like me.

            Thanks for pointing out CR standard measure ments! I have been claiming the TTAC beloved Caravan doesn’t have enough legroom for me, I just checked 41 in the front. To compare my old WRX was rated at 42 inches, and I kept the seat all the way back on its tracks so that is a good comparison for me, 42 is my minimum max legroomn.

            Funny Dodge can’t find another inch or 2 in a gargantuan Caravan for arguable the most important seat, the driver, where Subaru can get it done in a compact. Maybe those stow and go seats limit the tracks.

  • avatar
    Buckshot

    This Honda is very good, but the fuel consumtion is garbage.
    My Civic D makes +50mpg with 150bhp

    • 0 avatar
      Demetri

      How is the fuel economy garbage? The only non-hybrid car sold today that beats it in both highway and city fuel economy rating is the Mitsubishi Mirage, a car with a 1.2L 3-cylinder.

      • 0 avatar
        Demetri

        I see now that you’re talking about the European Civic with the 2.2L diesel, which I think is discontinued now. On an American test cycle, that car would get something like 37mpg combined at best, which is only 1 better than the new Fit.

        As far as the European market goes, I believe Honda is planning on offering the new Fit (or Jazz if you prefer) with a diesel option.

  • avatar
    calgarytek

    I’m trying to justify a 2014 Fit with a 130 HP motor, pushing 2500 lbs, and this being 2014 vis a vis a 1992 Honda Civic hatchback pushing 2300 lbs and making 160 HP.

    I suppose, though, if I were to be involved in an accident, I’d like to be driving the new Fit versus the Civic hatchback.

    But them double wishbones and a multi link… Can’t beat that.

    I suppose Honda can make a Type R version of it. I’m curious as to the direction they will take. Still no word on whether the motor is L or R series (if it’s stamped on the block, why does it trouble you much to find it and take a photo?). It would be interesting to speculate on exactly what Honda is planning to do with it’s engine architecture. Will there be a square or over square version of it for HP.

    • 0 avatar
      mnm4ever

      @calgary – Actually I am surprised the weight difference between those two is that close, especially considering the safety improvements of the newer car. I am betting the interior space is better on the Fit as well.

      But to be fair, there was no Civic in 1992 that made 160hp, unless you created your own. The regular Civics back then had 70hp-102hp, depending on model, and the top dog Si only had 125hp. And the MPG on the Si wasn’t all that great either, though the lower models did get some stellar MPG. And IIRC the new Fit is faster than the 1992 Civic Si as well. But you are right, there is no replacing the double wishbones. I still regret selling my 93 EX coupe.

      • 0 avatar
        Demetri

        He may be referring to the Japanese SiR model which had a B16A putting out around 160hp. I think they had a B16A equipped model in Europe too. I’m pretty sure the weight on those was more like 2400 though.

        The US did get a B16A equipped Si model in the following generation, but it was heavier than this Fit and only available on the coupe body.

  • avatar
    OldWingGuy

    A question for Jo Borras :
    What is the headroom like ? I am a fairly tall fellow, and my head usually rubs on the headliner. If there’s a sunroof I end up tilting my head to the side.
    I was impressed with the one Fit I sat in some time ago.
    If the 2015 is much shorter, I may advance my purchasing decision and by a 2014 instead.
    Thanks.

  • avatar
    Superdessucke

    “A 29 MPG combined EPA rating for the 6 speed and 31 MPG combined rating for the CVT version doesn’t exactly scream “25 years of progress!”

    LOL!! No, it does not. Actually, it’s just plain dreadful. The 1990 CRX HF got a combined 43 MPG. The Beluga whale Honda Pilot SUV gets 21 combined.

    • 0 avatar
      burgersandbeer

      Those complaining about unimproved gas mileage relative to earlier Hondas need to consider the big picture.

      The ’90 CRX HF would be considered dangerously slow in modern traffic. Didn’t it take something like 12 seconds to reach 60? Most people complain about times in the 9s these days. Also, in a crash it offers about the same protection as a PBR can.

      The MPG #s on the new Fit don’t stand out, but there are a lot of improvements that come with it. If Honda could get away with a 65hp engine in a chassis equivalent to the ’90 CRX, I’m sure you would see improvements.

    • 0 avatar
      Demetri

      Those are incorrect figures. 2015 Fit LX CVT is 33/41/36.

      The CRX HF, aside from being a much smaller, less functional, and slower (72hp) car than the Fit, is a car that can’t be legally sold today, and not just from a safety perspective. Those old Honda engines that they used on the high fuel economy trims (HF, VX, HX) were lean-burn engines. Great for fuel economy, but they put out a lot of NOx and won’t pass today’s emissions regulations.

  • avatar

    How is this car ‘premium’ a la the MINI in any way but its pricing?

    Also, does this thing finally come with standard cruise control?

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      German premium and Japanese premium are different. German premium means “you should be happy to pay more to get marvelous German engineering”, while Japanese premium means “we put into an econo-box some of the features available only on optioned out compacts”.

  • avatar
    fishiftstick

    Earth Dreams … are those what you get when you take a dirt nap?

  • avatar
    akatsuki

    Car seat fit? How does a Graco or Chicco fit? What about a Britax? It’d be nice if family oriented cars had this taken into account.

    • 0 avatar
      bball40dtw

      Based on every B-segment car on sale in the US, including the last Fit and the Versa (which is tha largest of the bunch), I say no. Maybe forward facing will work. However, I still don’t like trying to fold all 6’4″ of myself into the back seat of subcompact. I rented a Versa a month or so ago. I was able to fit our Britax Marathon into the Versa while rear facing. This was accomplished by moving the passenger seat to a spot that required the pessenger to be amputated above the knees.

  • avatar
    daviel

    What’s all the bitching about the writing?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India