By on April 10, 2014

2015-honda-fit_main

There’s really no way to lead into this, so I’ll just come out and say it: the 2015 Honda Fit is a fantastic car. Around town, at speed on Southern California’s twisty canyon roads, on the highway, stuck in traffic- there wasn’t a single situation we put our EX and EX-L testers into that it didn’t handle with aplomb. Even some light off-roading didn’t twist up the Fit’s rigid frame.

Diving into corners at twice the posted advisory speed, the made-in-Mexico 2015 Honda Fit‘s electric steering does exactly what you’d expect it to. The new, 130 HP Earth Dreams engine pulls the car out the corner effectively enough, too- especially for a long-stroke 1.5 liter. The brakes are direct, drama-free, and the ABS kicks in right when you’d want it to.

After a quick lunch, Jeff (my co-driver for the day) and I decided to make some solo runs in the “comparison cars” Honda had on-hand for the event. These included a Chevy Sonic, a Toyota Yaris, and a Nissan Versa Note- all optioned up to about $17,000.

Simply put, the 2015 Honda Fit blew them all away. The Fit was a generation newer than the non-turbo Chevy Sonic, and it showed. The interior of the Nissan Versa was almost laughably cheap in comparison to the other cars, and the car, itself, got frighteningly squirrel-y under braking. The Toyota, alone, had an interior I’d call “comparable” to the Fit- but I certainly wouldn’t call it better and, on the canyon roads surrounding our Don Quixote-looking lunch stop …

windmill_1

… the Yaris was simply no match for the Honda.

It was such a one-sided Honda blowout, in fact, that I started to get a bit snarky about the whole event. “Do you think there’s much of a science to picking the comparison cars for these things?” I asked Jeff.

If you don’t know Jeff Palmer, trust me on this: he’s smart. You can tell. When you ask him a question, for example, he thinks about it for two or three seconds, then answers in complete, well-formed sentences. “I think Honda wants to its present competitor’s cars in a situation where they won’t perform as well as their car.”

Here’s where I (tried) to get snarky. “I dunno- I think all Honda’s really proven today is that they can build a $25,000 car better than other people can build a $17,000 car.”

I’d expected to get a giggle or a laugh out of Jeff, but he just looked confused. “How do you mean?” he asked.

“Well, this Honda- what’s it cost? There’s no sticker on it, so what’s it gonna cost? 22,000? 23?”

“No, this is an EX,” explained Jeff. “It’s replacing the old Fit Sport, which was about 17. It’s not going to be more than 17, $18,000.”

No way. There was no way that the 2015 Honda Fit EX (with an excellent 6-speed manual, I should add) we were driving was the same price as the cars we’d just driven. I refused to believe it, and the exchange that followed saw us pull over, open the trunk, and dig furiously through our notes to see just how far upmarket Honda had dragged its little hatchback.

$17,435.

The 2015 Honda Fit EX with a 6-speed manual transmission will sell for $17,435- and, if you’re shopping new subcompacts under $20K, you’d be a fool to spend your $17K on anything else. Really.

Properly chastened, I flipped and flopped the 2015 Honda Fit’s Magic Seats into Refresh Mode, kicked up my feet, and asked Jeff to drive me back to the hotel bar. When you’re a professional blogger (well- paid, anyway), and you can’t find any way to be snarky or s***ty about something, it’s time to pack it in for the day.

The new for 2015 Honda Fit should be arriving at dealerships soon, with 30+ MPG fuel economy and your choice of 6-speed manual or CVT. If I had to come up with a complaint, it would be that the 6 speed’s top gear is too short for American highways, and the engine buzzed at more than 3500 RPM at a 77 MPH cruise. If you drive 68, the buzz is gone- so, yeah. Small price to pay for the privilege of rowing your own, you know?

You can see how the new 2015 Honda Fit looks in red and yellow, below, and let us know what you think about the new Fit in the comments.

 

2015 Honda Fit in Red


 

2015 Honda Fit in Yellow


 

Originally published on Gas 2.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

159 Comments on “Review: 2015 Honda Fit...”


  • avatar
    TonyJZX

    29 city, 37 hwy

    bit disappointing, expected the magic 40

    • 0 avatar
      bryanska

      I think you’ll best that in real life. I have a 2007, and I get 32 mixed even though I beat that car and hammer the gas in every situation. The engine is amazingly smooth and purpose built.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Honda definitely under-rates rather than over-rates MPG on many (not all) of their cars. My parent’s 07 Fit base model stick shift is only rated at something like 28/35 under re-calibrated guidelines. It never gets below 30 in the dead of winter on snow tires, during my dad’s 2 mile commute when the engine barely warms up. Mixed mpg in the summer with mostly hilly city driving is 34-35 mpg. 70 mph highway is 40-41. When we used to take it camping in the Adirondacks and took scenic 2 lane state highways up north, it would crack 43-45 mpg.

        My current Civic with a stick shift is rated 28/36, the worst I’ve seen is 29 in mixed driving during the polar vortex. Mixed driving in the summer is 37-39 mpg for me in mostly 30-45mph suburban commuting with some 75 mph highway driving mixed in. To be fair I try to drive pretty efficiently in town, anticipating traffic lights and coasting in gear when prudent.

        Norm and his Trifecta tune better watch out ;)

        This Fit sounds great, although the styling is rather busy. If you think 3500rpm at 77 mph sounds bad, the 2007 cranks out 3500 at 70mph!

        This review was missing any particular mention of how well it rode, NVH, seat comfort, cargo space, and many other important factors.

        • 0 avatar
          geozinger

          “Norm and his Trifecta tune better watch out ;)”

          That’s just the issue with fanbois of any marque, they always believe the best about the cars they have.

          My FIL has a 2013 (IIRC) Chevy Equinox with the 2.4 & 6 speed autobox, on long drives he routinely gets better than 33 MPG or whatever the highway rating is/was for that car. Others I know with similar cars get better than sticker mileage.

          I don’t doubt that Norm gets his 40 MPG. I’m frankly amazed that my Pontiac G6 with the 2.4 & 6 speed auto gets 19 MPG average on my 4.5 mile daily commute. To be clear, that’s 2.25 miles each direction. And, yes I drive it like Grandma. The fastest I can go is 40 MPH anyway, suburban streets and all.

          But I know other people with similar cars to mine and their fuel mileage is horrible. So does GM over-rate or under-rate their fuel mileage? Maybe your experience is hitting that sweet spot, like I am with my G6.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          I knew you guys would eventual see the light. Just have to get PCH onboard. :)

          My new commute is down from 58 miles to eight, half city!half highway and almost as many stop lights as miles. So I’ll post up a better than EPA highway that I’m getting late winter/springtime in mixed driving.

        • 0 avatar
          IPFreeley

          Nothing to worry about as far as revs..Hondas, for the most part, like RPM’s, their engines are tuned that way, from most of their motorcycles to many of their cars.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      There really is too much frontal area on this car to hit 40.

      Then again, who really cares? It’s an urban runabout and freakishly capable cargo hauler. The noise and the too-short sixth gear, well, yeah, it was a too-short fifth gear before; I’ll bet I’d still be shifting out of first halfway through intersections, too.

      Side note: this is pretty weak, content-wise, for a review. Coming from a site that used to host Michael Karesh’s work, I’d expect better. This reads like column filler.

      • 0 avatar
        tonycd

        Agree on the content observation, pear. I’m not big on bashing the writing of the reviews here (one reviewer who got whacked for supposedly pretentious prose, and a poster who spent months stalking Alex Dykes for not being mean enough), but it is thin on specifics.

        Always good to see your name pop up here, by the way. There are some really limited intellects taking your place lately. Please post more.

        • 0 avatar
          stuntmonkey

          Also, it would be good to mention that Jeff Palmer is basically TOV, considering its a Honda article

          • 0 avatar
            DeadWeight

            @Tony – It’s not my fault that Alex has yet to give any car less than a B- on the Dykes grade curve.

            He1l, Alex fell in love with BOTH the Lexus IS250, Acura RXL, and I anticipate he’ll fall head over heels for the new Infinity Q50, too.

            He’d be as enthusiastic about this Fit as the above reviewer was, if not more so.

            I hope Alex starts reviewing used cars like the Mitsubishi Galant, Eagle Talon, Hyundai Excel & Suzuki Sidekick.

          • 0 avatar
            brenschluss

            New cars aren’t crap, at least while they’re new, and I’m fine being told that. Alex says why, though, which is why his reviews are useful and this one isn’t.

            If you gave me an IS250, RXL whatever, and a Q50 I bet I’d find them all to be great cars with differences.

            Reviews aren’t just about good or bad, it’s about learning a product. Why do does Alex need to say things are bad if they aren’t? These things don’t need to be graded on a curve.

        • 0 avatar

          >>>Always good to see your name pop up here, by the way. There are some really limited intellects taking your place lately. Please post more.

          I second that.

      • 0 avatar
        DC Bruce

        Agree on all points. Did TTAC dump Alex Dykes? Admittedly, Alex’s reviews are a bit formulaic, but they are quite comprehensive. I see he has his own site, so perhaps, like Karesh, he took his work elsewhere (or was sent).

        This review can be completely summarized in four words, two of which are the name of the vehicle: Honda Accord: cheap thrills!

    • 0 avatar
      thornmark

      That’s for the 6 sp. I believe the CVT gets 41. 33 city.

      btw, my 6 sp Accord Sport is supposed to get 34, and it delivers better than 40 highway most of the time.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        The review didn’t mention that this would be the platform for the Vezel CUV and no competition to the Buick Encore and it’s AWD.

        • 0 avatar
          Dave M.

          Have you sat in an Encore? It screams Daewoo. Flexible radio/cruise controls et al.

          And I bet the Honda will be at a lower price point.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            Fellow Dave:

            I had typed out a comment admonishing Norm because the AWD Encore STARTS at $26,585, compared to the 17k Fit reviewed.

            Then I re-read his comment and I could see that he was saying that a Fit based Honda CUV would compete with the Encore, not that he was comparing the Encore to the Fit.

            But still, come on Norm, you’re reaching.

        • 0 avatar
          VoGo

          The review didn’t mention that it’s is a contraction meaning “it is”, whereas “its” is a pronoun showing ownership.

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            They’re working on a grammar auto-correct module for English, but the language is such a conglomeration that the going is slow. So far, they haven’t been able to keep the app from crashing the computer when somebody quotes Shakespeare.

        • 0 avatar
          Maymar

          So, if the Fit is better than the Sonic, then why couldn’t the Fit-based Vezel be better than the Sonic-based Encore?

    • 0 avatar
      DeeDub

      I was hoping the new 6-speed manual would fix the old 5-speed’s inability to cruise efficiently at highway speeds. But according to Autoblog’s (much more informative) review, the new 6th gear is at the same ratio as the old 5th gear, so no improvement there. You’re still screaming at 4000rpm at 80mph.

      • 0 avatar

        Yes – the 6 in the new car is the same as the 5 on the outgoing model. The buzzy highway ride is definitely still an issue, which I think will sway lots of people to the CVT.

        • 0 avatar
          psarhjinian

          In the Fit, I don’t think the CVT will make that much difference. You still have road and wind noise in _spades_.

          But I don’t quite understand why I could start off in third gear (mind you, with judicious clutch-slipping) in a car with such limited power. The gearing is all messed up:

          * You’re out of first before you’re through an intersection
          * You’re out of second pretty much as soon as you cross the pedestrian lines
          * You can do most 50-60km/h city driving comfortably in fifth.

          I get the “close ratios so you don’t fall out of the power band” argument (well I would, if this was a racecar), but when you need to shift four times before you hit 80km/h something is not right. A sixth gear should have helped, but it looks like Honda muffed that.

          Not like they’re the only offender (Mazda, ahem!)

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            And how. To this day I cannot understand Mazda’s gear ratio choices.

          • 0 avatar

            psar, as usual your comments are right on the mark.

            The gearing ratios infuriated me in my Mazda3. Subaru is guilty, Honda is guilty. Honda’s idiotic gearing kept me from buying a 5-speed CR-V (back when they made them), and put the prospect for a first gen-TSX stick in my rear-view mirror. My family’s old 1.7EL 5-speed was absolutely ridiculous on the highway. And it had so little power (127hp) that you had to shift to do anything anyway, ‘powerband’ or not. Oddly, only the Accord escaped this fate. My father’s 2003 5-speed revs around 2200rpm or so at 100km/h.

            Many a great Japanese stickshift options have become non-options because of this, and it is very sad.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            When I still had my Fit (I don’t any longer) I seriously considered trying to find a different final drive. It was just nuts. There’s no reason it needs to rev that high in every gear.

            My Protege5 was the same way, although I learned (from a fellow TTAC commentator) that the MX-6′s final drive drops right in. I wish I still had my MP5 for that reason alone.

            From what I can tell, Toyota and Nissan don’t do this, so it’s not a Japan thing. The worst offender from their offerings was the departed Celica GT-S, Corolla Xrs & Matrix Xrs, which you could forgive because that engine was peaky as hell.

          • 0 avatar
            davefromcalgary

            My 2004 Mazda 6 V6 5 speed spun 2600 rpm at 100 kph (62mph) in 5th gear. 2600rpm!!! In a big comfy V6 powered car.

            Prior to that, I was used to 3800 powered couches on wheels with 4 speeds turning 1800rpm at 100kph.

            My freaking 4cyl 5 speed Alero spun only 2250rpm at the same road speed. My new Verano spins 1750rpm at that road speed. I could never fathom that final drive ratio on that car. Shame Mazda.

            Insult to injury was that the 5 speed auto in those cars had a much more reasonable 5th gear.

          • 0 avatar
            bumpy ii

            Gear ratios can be found here:
            http://hondanews.com/releases/f43e31e6-89e3-4d96-9edd-0ab6f6fa729c

            Skip past the first chart and go all the way to the bottom of the page. Final drive ratio: 4.62! Ay carumba, that’s ITR territory. Bumping that down to a 3.75 or so would help a LOT.

          • 0 avatar
            Japanese Buick

            My only complaint about my ’12 Miata is the gear ratios in the six speed.

    • 0 avatar
      alsorl

      still not to bad for a very small 4 cylinder pushing a box. At any rate, I’m sure it has better driving dynamics of the previous Fit. I tried to like it. But, the low rent interior and the sound of of almost sitting on the pavement was a no sell. It was almost quieter with the windows rolled down going 50mph then having them rolled up with the ac going. The new Fit and hopefully soon to be hybrid Fit sound be a better auto.

    • 0 avatar

      Agreed, but I think it’s a conservative figure.

    • 0 avatar
      Superdessucke

      29/37? That’s the best they could do? Really? That’s only 12 MPG better than the massive Honda Pilot SUV. Before you laugh at the comparison, the new Fit gets 10 MPG worse than the 1991 CRX HF. So going from the HF to the Fit would be like going from the Fit to a giant SUV in terms of operating costs.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    Sounds like late 80′s-early 90′s Honda has returned, compacts that aren’t a torture to drive!

    Now we just need a Civic engine swap.

  • avatar
    brenschluss

    So there’s nothing wrong with this car, it’s perfect, other than the minor niggle that it will drive you insane above 75MPH? No aspects have changed, or are better or worse in some ways than it’s predecessor?

    This review could have just said, “New cars are nice to drive. I think the Honda is better than the other ones.”

    • 0 avatar
      calgarytek

      Can we get more info on the engine powering this Fit. There’s nothing on Wikipedia, enthousiast forums regarding it. Is it a K series earthdreams (doubt it as K is big block), or a re-worked R or L series that’s been DOHC i-VTEC EarthDreams’ed?

      How come this thing aint putting out 170 HP like the B16A2? Methinks this engine has potential.

      • 0 avatar
        Jellodyne

        I suspect this is the same L series engine as the outgoing GD8 fit only with DI added. The L series is a skinny-piston longer-stroke engine which is good for efficiency but doesn’t have the potential for high output as the B or K series honda motors.

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    how is the power compared to the old model? I drove my sisters on a road trip and found the engine had good low and mid range but ran out of breath as you revved it (very un honda like behavior). Ive driven a lot of “slow” cars on long highway drives and road trips (fiestas, cruzes, focuses, fiat 500s, corollas, priuses), and the fit was the one that actually felt underpowered.

    • 0 avatar
      DevilsRotary86

      It’s actually classic economy Honda behavior. The rev happy engines are a trademark of their sport models, but in the classic days of Hondas in the 80s and early 90s they were different. If you look back, economy models had torque peaks in the 3000′s and HP peaks in the 4000′s to low 5000′s. Spinning an engine fast doesn’t really lead to good fuel economy.

      Now for yours, what year was your sister’s? If it was an 07 or 08 like my wife’s then it had an HP peak around 5800 RPM or 700 to 800 before redline, giving it that “runs out of breath” feeling. I have noticed that too. You should take a look under the hood, the intake runners are LONG. It really looks like they optimized it to turn slowly and efficiently.

      The ’09 Model was revised with a different camshaft. The HP peak occurs at 6600 RPM, or pretty much at redline. Their torque peaks don’t change any, so it should have a broader torque curve. So the old was 109HP at 5800 RPM and the new is 117HP at 6600 RPM.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        @Devils rotary: hers is 2013 bought new. It’s funny because I know by the numbers, it’s quicker than my parents automatic Fiat 500 (the Fit is a stick), but I don’t feel like the 500 is underpowered whereas the Fit does. I think part of it may be the fact that with the Fiat, there’s always more power available if you press the peddle down more and rev the engine more, whereas once you get that initial helping of
        midrange power from the Fit (which is admittedly nicer than the 500), if you find yourself wanting more power, pressing the peddle down further and revving the engine higher doesn’t help you go any faster.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Ever hear of downshifting? That’s what the automatic Fiat is doing. With a manual transmission, it is up to you to select a lower gear when you want more acceleration than is available in your current gear choice.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @CJinSD – Yes I know you have to downshift or be in a lower gear. Whereas I could always downshift the Fiat and run it up to redline if needed to go faster, downshifting the Fit all the way to first or second didn’t seem to help very much because it didn’t have much going on above about 5500 rpms. Also had issues on rolling starts at anywhere from 5-20 mph and needing to acceleration quickly to 60-80 mph, so in either case I’m starting out in first or second gear. Again, taking the fit beyond about 5500 rpm in second doesnt seem to help me go any faster, whereas the Fiat, while pokey at low rpms, will pull harder the higher it revved. I found it more difficult to merge onto highspeed (80 mph) highways or make a right turn onto a faster (55 mph) country road in the Fit than the Fiat (much less a Fiesta or Focus). I know it’s subjective to a certain degree (the Fiat has a slower 0-60 time than the Fit and the Fit does have a stronger low and mid range), possibly because with the Fiat I always could always find more power (by revving the engine more) whereas the Honda gave all it had at the beginning and never had anything in reserve.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            http://media.caranddriver.com/files/ford-fiesta-vs-honda-fit-vs-mazda-2-comparison-test-car-and-driver2011-ford-fiesta-2010-honda-fit-2011-mazda-2-ego.pdf

            The Fit beats the heavy Fiesta in all speed ranges. The automatic Fiat wouldn’t even be a dot in a well-driven Fit’s mirror. Whatever’s going on here, it isn’t a case of the Fit being slower than its competitors.

          • 0 avatar
            michal1980

            how is the ford heavy compared to the fit?

            according to your link:

            ford: 2566lbs
            honda: 2524lbs

            wow that heavy ford is 42lbs heavier then the fit.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @CJinSD – I said I knew that by the numbers, the Fit was the quicker car, and that it was merely a subjective feel that made me say it felt “sluggish” compared to the competition, not that it was actually the slower car. By C/D numbers, the Fit is actually closer to a Focus than the Fiesta, but my on the road impression is very different. I have a lot more seat time in Fiats so I use that as a point of reference more than the Fiesta. The Fit did feel quick in top gear acceleration, but thats the combo of its nice mid range with a stupidly short fifth gear (yeah the high rpms, noise, and highway mpg definitely disappointed).

            for me, the Fit suffered in the fun to drive department because of the engine. Yes the chassis and steering were fantastic and very engaging, but the lack of pep and rev happiness in the powertrain was a buzzkill. I have more fun driving the Fiat.

          • 0 avatar
            CJinSD

            The Fiesta is much smaller than the Fit, but it weighs more. The Fiesta is basically the same car as the Mazda 2, which it weighs 280 lbs more than. That’s what makes it heavy.

    • 0 avatar

      It’s funny how here in the land of underpowered cars, Brazil, a Honda Fit does feel sluggish. It’s like an unwilling dance partner. Besides that, for a lot of people, it’s an uncomfortable car. You have to know how to balance stiffness and comfort and the Fit doesn’t. Funny how the City, a sedan based off of the Fit here, is a little better in this respect.

      And, FWIW, I think tjh8402, you’re getting to know a Fiat characteristic. Many times their cars have the lowest hp ratings, but they do something that makes it feel like its not. It’s interesting and confirms my idea of how much “black magic” goes into making a car.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        The most popular engine in the Brazilian Fit has 80 hp on gas or 83 hp running on alcohol while US fits have grown from 109 hp to the current 130 hp model.

        Cars that are slower but feel faster aren’t black magic. They’re just slower.

        • 0 avatar

          That was a while ago. Nowadays they all have at least 100. There’s also a version with 115. It’s been a while since the 80 hp existed.

          FWIW, the 80hp , in flat areas, always felt more eager than the ones with the larger engines. So there you go, black magic!

          • 0 avatar
            Lorenzo

            Is it really black magic, or just getting the engine revolutions up into the torque band? Running high rpms isn’t the typical American driving experience. We’re more used to slow turning V8s loping along at the speed limit plus 20.

          • 0 avatar

            Hey Lorenzo! There’s still a degree of art in that, it’s just not a question of throwing size, equipment or money into something. Some V8s are better than others, aren’t they?

            Anyway, way down on the thread, there’s an American (I suppose) owner of a Fit who agrees with me that the more undepowered, smaller engined, earlier Fits felt better, peppier. Au contraire to the reviewer, I think Honda has not sweated all the details.

  • avatar
    johnhowington

    how about telling us some actual review basics, like the road noise?

    • 0 avatar
      romanjetfighter

      Yeah. Being told a car is awesome, how much it costs, and the various trim levels/options, doesn’t cut it for a review.

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      Road noise, seat comfort, interior space, interior quality…

      Before you make another review Jo, go read one of Alex’s.

      I don’t expect something as long, but if Hondas going to let you drive one of their freshly made cars and invite you for an event, and if you expect money for this, you should at least provide adiquite detail.

      Don’t say “I’ve driven every hatchback on the market and Hondas possible ringer was the best, they also gave me free snacks”, never-mind that Honda probably chose the most barebones versions of the competitors.

  • avatar
    michal1980

    I thought this was going to be a review…

  • avatar
    robc123

    Agree on the review, its like one of those click bait articles. Should have been called:

    “The shocking number Honda expects consumers to pay” /snarc

    review: 4/10
    advertising plug: 9/10
    keyword content: 6/10

    How does it compare to the fiat 500 or the Mazda offering?
    More specifically, how is the drivers seat for tall (6’1) drivers, as the accord has a known problem with low angled short seats?

    • 0 avatar

      I think those cars were omitted from the comparison specifically because they’d have given the Fit a run for its money on the mountain roads. I have a Dart coming next week, and will definitely be driving it with the Fit in mind.

    • 0 avatar
      afflo

      I too am curious about the seats in the new Fit.

      The previous (2nd Gen) fit had four major problems for me:

      - Seat foam was very soft and thin – I got pressure points from the frame underneath.
      - The seat did not move far enough back for taller drivers (35″ inseam and size 12 feet – I need legroom!). Strangely, there was plenty of space left in the rear seats with the front seat fully back.
      - The seatbottom was low and short, and the seat-bottom angle was not adjustable. Without being able to slide the seat rearward, longer-legged drivers have their knees elevated and put extra pressure on their “sit” bones.
      - The footwells were very crowded for larger feet, especially while wearing boots.

      I had my ’10 Fit for about 17 months before I could no longer stand it. It drove nicely, mileage was good, and the “magic seat” was phenomenal, but the poor ergonomic fit was unfitting for a car with that name.

      • 0 avatar
        psarhjinian

        They second-generation was kind of a let-down. They decontended the first-generation in some troubling ways:

        * You noticed the seats; they weren’t nearly as well-padded as the first-gen. Neither were adjustable, but it didn’t matter as much.
        * The second-gen pulled the lower part of the dash forward. That was the legroom issue; I have a 36″ inseam and, while the first-gen was quite comfortable, the second-gen saw my knees budged up against the console.
        * You lost the magic-seat folding switch on the second-gen front seats. That just sucked.
        * The footwell was narrower on the second-gen, again due to the console’s bulk. At least they did have a dead-pedal.

        I blame the trend among manufacturers towards Space-Fighter consoles. There’s no real need for that, and while I’ll accept it in a toy like, eg, a Mercedes CLK, it’s particularly stupid utiliboxes like minivans and the Fit.

        The most egregious example is the Ford Five Hundred and the (current) Taurus. Both cars have about the same exterior dimensions, but the Five Hundred feels like an auditorium, whereas the Taurus seems like a 5/8th’s scale space-ship ride at Chuck-E-Cheese.

        It’ll take gas prices spiking and another malaise era to disabuse manufacturers of the bunker-windows-and-chin-level-console design trend.

        • 0 avatar

          Very much agreed, those consoles are killing the space in cars. It has got tos stop.

        • 0 avatar
          afflo

          Thanks… I once test drove a 1st-Gen, but it was in 2007, and was just on a whim; I don’t remember much about it except that there was no dead-pedal.

          As I said, I had my Fit for 17 mos, and tried everything I could to make it better. I tried all of the following:

          - Removing the cushions from the frame and adding padding between the spongy foam and the frame.
          - Putting washers under the bolts at the front of the seat to change the angle of the seat bottom.
          - removing sound-insulation from the carpet in the driver’s footwell to gain an extra inch here’n there for my feet.
          - putting shims under the top two bolts holding the DBW throttle to the firewall, giving me an extra half-inch or so between the seat and the accelerator pedal.

          It made it slightly better, but in the end, I was still in an awkward position, and the awful design of the seat bottom was putting pressure on my sciatic nerve and causing back problems (note: I’m a physically fit 32 year old, not an aging boomer). I finally threw in the towel.

          Believe it or not, I traded it for a ’11 Scion tC, and love the car. almost 60,000 miles, paid off, and more comfortable to me in every way. I think I’m just more comfortable in a low-slung, feet forward position where I can stretch my legs. The fact that it’s a two-door and I have window and armrest at my side instead of B-pillar is an added bonus. And, thanks to the fit’s cheap and loud interior, the tC actually felt like a step up.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    I predict that Fiesta sales will take a Siesta once buyers this car is a lot better value and vehicle than the Ford.

    • 0 avatar

      The Fiesta? That’s the back marker in this segment. The Versa, Sonic, and Accent all outsell the Fiesta.

      • 0 avatar

        The Fiesta drives better than all the cars you mention as well as the Fit. It’s a shame it’s so tight inside.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Specs vary from country to country. The US Fiesta was bottom ranked in its comparison test appearance at Car and Driver, primarily because it was lousy to drive.

          • 0 avatar

            Here there are all sorts of cars competing with the Fiesta and I would have to say most of them, if not all, are larger. Usually the Fiesta finishes midpack in comparos in the press here because of the lack of space, relative high price etc. But it usually gets pretty good marks for performance and feeling.

        • 0 avatar

          I had a different experience with them. The Fiesta seemed to be numb in comparison to the Sonic when I compared them. To each his own.

          • 0 avatar

            I like the Sonic, the Versa is ok. The Accent I have no experience with.

            The Sonic here is slightly more expensive than the Fiesta that drops down in price more. I think it feels very solid and very comfortable. The Fiesta felt sportier in suspension tuning and I like the engine better. But it’s definitely very close.

            As to the Versa, here we get the Cobalt (no relation to the American, sits on same platform as Sonic) that is more comfortable and quieter though slower, as well as the Renault Logan and Fiat Grand Siena that IMO ride better than the Versa, mainly for the suspension.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Actually it is the Fit that is “the back marker in this segment”. The Fiesta has consistently outsold it.

  • avatar
    Power6

    Thanks for telling me about the magic seat but providing no pictures. If I click through to the Gas2 link I see a close up of your feet. Great work. I was just thinking how my customers love to see demos with no graphic overview, text and close-ups all the way baby.

    j/k but seriously we have this cool new feature, but no pictures of what it looks like, how it works?

  • avatar

    Any thoughts of how it compares to a Fiesta?

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      Here’s the thing about the fit that is not fully understood. The previous Fit had 100% more storage space than the fiesta. That’s 100%. It’s more of an insanely clever tiny minivan than just a small fun to drive car.

      An example of its magic is when you fold the rear seats down. Most cars are happy if they attain a flat floor, and many don’t do this. With the Fit, when folded, the back of the seats are actually lower than the seat cushion when unfolded. That few extra inches of floor to ceiling height is the difference between fitting stacked boxes and not.

    • 0 avatar

      There was a Ford Fiesta at the event, which I drove, and which I have almost no memory of.

  • avatar
    juicy sushi

    I just wish this had been on market 4 months ago, like it was in certain other countries.

    Looking forward to Alex’s review.

  • avatar
    Rick Astley

    When I was looking at a 1st generation model (brand new on the lot), the only shocking figure was the gross vehicle weight. If memory serves, the owners manual stated that it was designed to only hold/tow 300-400 lbs. Well i’m 200 lbs so that ate up 1/2 the available weight limit.

    We packed it with the (now, thankfully) ex, salesperson, friend and myself. The Fit became the ultimate peoples car, and if I may quote Mr. Baruth:

    “We think an appropriate choice is an air-cooled, rear-engined classic German car. And by that we mean a Volkswagen Beetle with one plug wire missing. It’s the people’s car… assuming those people aren’t in any hurry.”

  • avatar
    mcarr

    Like other’s said, this review has a lot of subjective feelings, not a lot of content.

    My Sonic 1.4T 6MT cruises at 80 mph at 2500 rpm and can get 40+ mpg at that speed with the AC on. Also, it’s as and quiet and stable as a (good) car one class bigger.

    Seriously, Honda didn’t make 6th a deeper OD? That’s just annoying, now instead of looking for a non-existent 6th gear, you’ll be looking for 7th.

    • 0 avatar
      gtrslngr

      As to the review . Pretty lame and uninformative

      As to your Sonic ? Get a clue ! Its a pos rebadged DaeWoo with the pretense of being a Honda/Toyota/Nissan / H/K competitor .

      The Chevy [ not so ] Sonic . The econobox for those short of funds and even shorter on common sense .

      And btw …. evidence has shown no Sonic has never even seen the far side of 35 mpg …. never mind 40 !

      Ahh .. the GM delusional . Always good for a laugh and a bit of entertainment

  • avatar
    captdownshift

    Not a single Ford Fiesta was driven that day

  • avatar
    ZCD2.7T

    That “one complaint” (…top gear too short for American freeways…) was a deal-breaker for me when shopping. I’m literally stunned that Honda didn’t address this with this refresh. Small cars don’t HAVE to be loud buzz-boxes on the freeway – just drive a Sonic or Cruze to hear the proof.

    At least the Fit’s new CVT DOES appear to address this issue with a taller top ratio – perhaps Honda figured that row-your-own types wouldn’t mind the noise?

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      I’m puzzled by this, too. Why add speeds to the tranny if the top gear isn’t an overdrive for freeway cruising? Just because the Fit is ideal for city use doesn’t mean it should be pointlessly crippled for use elsewhere. And the omission is even more glaring given it’s such a generally great car in other respects.

      • 0 avatar
        Russycle

        +1. The short top gear is too common among cars in this segment. On a 6-speed gearbox, inexcusable.

        Also, I’m not too picky when it comes to compacts, but man this thing is extra fugly to my eyes.

        • 0 avatar
          tankinbeans

          It looks like a shrunken Odyssey to me. I wouldn’t want to drive this thing in a million years. A couple years ago I had a chance to drive an 09 for a couple days while my Accord was getting the seat tracks replaced and it was loud, annoying, and squirrely. The flappy paddle automatic was laughable at best and I quit using it in about 3 seconds flat.

          The mileage isn’t that stellar either. My Focus has gotten into the 37s and is a better car in my opinion.

        • 0 avatar
          ZCD2.7T

          FWIW, top (6th) gear in the 2012 Kia Soul 6A we bought instead of the Fit gives something like 2400 rpm @ 70 mph, leading to surprisingly serene highway cruising…

    • 0 avatar
      afflo

      If memory serves, the previous generation Fit with the manual was roughly 20 mph per 1000 RPM. 80 MPH was 4,000 RPM. Unacceptible in a place where 75 MPH speed limits are common. 4th gear in the Auto was roughly the same as 5th in the manual.

      Also – they advertised the manual and auto as having the same fuel economy, but the auto had MUCH taller gearing. I felt like Honda was deliberately short-gearing the manual in order to claim that the efficiency technology had improved in the automatic, and sell more of them.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        @afflo, reminds me of why I don’t care for my wife’s manual trans Vibe. 5th gear 85 mph is 3500 rpm, the fact that a Fit is worse makes me shudder. Living in the Southwest US where there is many highway miles between points of major population means that little high reving cars won’t cut it.

  • avatar
    EX35

    I must have missed the part of the writeup that contained the actual review of the car. This has about as much information as a “review” of the unreleased, undesigned, 2021 Honda Accord.

  • avatar
    psychoboy

    This appears to be a Honda press event, so it’s not at all surprising that potential spoilers were absent. It’s also not at all surprising that this review has the look and feel of a second hand press release.

    So, nitpicks about the setting and the article aside, let’s discuss the car!

    The motor is a chain drive twin cammer. The catalog suggests it doesn’t share major bits with anything else in the US. So, it might be a little civic R18 with a dohc head, it might be a even littler K20, or it might be a new clean sheet motor (honda says it is). Looking at the drawings, it’s hard to tell. I’ll hedge my bets and say it’s a R-ish block with a K-ish head.

    The magic seat appears to be a back seat that’ll fold the back down flat (every hatchback in the world) or pull the bottom up (some X-cab pickups and SUVs). The passenger seat can also lay down flat enough to line up with the cargo area (at least, i think that’s what this is showing: http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/modes.aspx)

    The too short top gear? that’s just what Honda does. Maybe it feels sporty. The gearsets are 2015 fit only, but the 5/6 synchro is a 8th gen civic bit, so there might be a difficult to implement option.

    • 0 avatar
      bryanska

      The magic seat appears to be a back seat that’ll fold the back down flat (every hatchback in the world)

      Actually, most hatchbacks don’t… The Fit gives you a flat, level load floor all the way from the trunk lip to the front seatbacks. Most hatchbacks wind up with the seat backs slightly tilted up. This is because in those cars, the seat bottom is stationary. In some cars, you have to flip the seat bottoms up to achieve a flat load floor.

      In the Fit, the rear seat bottom articulates to move forward and down as the seatback hinges forward. This moves the seat bottoms into the rear footwells where they are 100% out of the load floor plane. I’ve never seen another car do this, although a few probably do.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    For a driving enthusiast interested in this form factor, wouldn’t some sort of VW diesel hatchback be better? Perhaps more expensive, but still…

  • avatar
    FJ60LandCruiser

    You are only allowed to use “aplomb” once a year. This is your last warning.

  • avatar
    troyohchatter

    Complaints about the MPG; let me explain the issue here, which is the same on most small cars.

    MPG is a number that I consider worst case scenario. In the case of my wife’s Mazda5, a “micro-van” with a large 2.5 and 5spd auto, the EPA highway rating is 28MPG. Now with two aboard and not running A/C, you will see a tick over 30MPG. Loaded, running the air, you will get 28, not much of a decrease.

    Now, about my Mazda2, which is rated at 35MPG. At 65MPH, with one person aboard, and the A/C off, windows up, the car will get over 40 with ease. BUT, throw four people in the car, run 70MPH with the A/C on, and you have, as a percentage, increased the load on the powertrain considerably, resulting in a drastic decrease in MPG, somewhere around the EPA rating of 35MPG.

    Now of course, you can get some cars this size that are rated at a higher MPG, but it’s usually the result of an extremely tall top gear that can’t be used in a hard rain or the company is being overly optimistic.

    Referencing the high RPM’s of the Honda, I can cover that as well. My Honda’s, automatic or manual, have always prefered spinning a bit. Meanwhile, our current Mazdas have a relatively flat torque curve from low RPM all the way up. Consequently, my Mazda2 turns quite a bit lower at Interstate speed than my friend’s 2010 Honda Fit manual. My wife’s current Mazda5 also seems to successfully hold a higher gear and provide plenty of pull while her 2003 CR-V was always jumping over 4000RPM just to get out of it’s own way. It’s because even with i-VTEC the Honda’s comparably dont’ have a reserve of torque on the low end, at least that’s been my experience.

    To put it another way, my Mazda2 would win a race with a Honda Fit if we bang our shifts off at 3500RPM. Now if we are spinning to redline, I’d be left in the weeds.

    Forgot one thingl; another reason these engine, both the Fit and the Mazda2, spin harder at interstate speed than they really need to is because overseas the engine’s are smaller but I suspect they are using the same final drive ratio for all engines. Overseas, if you forego the 1.2L petrol for a 1.5, you aren’t going to care about a few MPG being left on the table.

  • avatar

    Oh my, that back! Those non-flush lights! The side profile looks better than before, but that backs ruins it.

    Wondering, how do those backlights light up?

    • 0 avatar
      daiheadjai

      If I’m not mistaken, this is a new measure many cars are now assuming to eek out every last MPG (aero refinements to further lower Cd, etc.)
      That’s how it’s going to be for the foreseeable future!

  • avatar
    GTL

    I like the Fit, but at 6′-2″, 220 lbs, I just don’t…uh…fit.

  • avatar
    daiheadjai

    This seems like a compelling choice for a fun-but-practical daily driver.

    Any word on the quality of the materials?
    I went and checked out a new Civic at the autoshow, and was appalled at the takeout-sushi-stray black plastic that inhabited the lower front grilles – it literally warped and bent at the lightest touch.

  • avatar
    replica

    I didn’t realize this was a review until I looked at the title.

    I still don’t think it was a review.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    Just from the photos and from your article, I quite like it. I’d still have to drive it to make a decision, but it looks like its trying its hardest to keep the subcompact crown away from the competition. And that’s the thing I appreciate most in a vehicle, from any segment…when you can tell the company has put effort and genuine thought into the product.

  • avatar
    Scott_314

    Huh. Don’t want TTAC to be like other sites, but in this case the terms ‘Preview’ or ‘First Drive’ would have set better expectations.

    Other than that it IS a decent article, it gets me interested in looking closer at this car.

  • avatar
    mor2bz

    Is it possible (or advisable) to fit taller tires to get rid of the noise at cruising (and the too short 1st gear)?

    I drove a Mazda 3 recently and was very pleased to note that the seat adjusted up quite high. good thinking, Mazda.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Is it me, or does that yellow appear more lime-y than sunny? Maybe it looks better in person.

  • avatar
    blppt

    Hopefully the throttle response/shift linkage has been improved this time around—my 2012 Base would always make me look like a n00b with the gear grinding and bucking throttle overrun on upshifts (other Hondas like certain MY Civic Si had this problem too). Nearly impossible to drive it smoothly.

    Which was a shame, because that rare time when you did get into a smooth shifting rhythm it was a blast to drive, even with only 117hp.

  • avatar
    DrGastro997

    It’s refreshing to see Honda do what they do best with ergonomics and engineering. Honda needs to do their engineering magic into the US Civic line. Current Civic screams too much bland budget…

  • avatar

    My 2014 was the sportiest of the cross-shopped cars (including Accent and Mazda 2 in addition to what Honda provided Joe), and that’s with the 5sp automatic. Autoblog testers said the new 2015 is a bit of a step down from that. I suppose I’d need to check it out myself, since the car now has CVT and a different engine. Joe’s article was a little soft on the argument and had no comparisons with the outgoing model, which could be useful. On the other hand, nobody ever cross-shops across model years, right?

    • 0 avatar
      bryanska

      With the Fit there’s no need to. The differences are tiny – but that’s the problem. They never really improve the car, only make it worse by degrees each generation.

  • avatar
    sketch447

    Hmmm. Looks like an egg with a bad underbite and highway fuel economy (where most American driving is done) is barely better than a 4cyl Honda Accord. Sign me up!!!……….

    When will American car companies (and the behind-the-scenes Obama-bullies) stop trying to push crummy Third World cars on First World citizens??????

    Face it: subcompacts don’t sell here. Americans don’t want them. For their size, their fuel economy is unacceptable. No one wants these subcoms for their first car, or for their last car. Young people think they’re for dweebs and old people fear for their safety in them.

    So who buys them? Washed up 60s hippies taking their empty Royal Crown soda cans to the recycling facility? Adjunct lefty college professors who move a lot of credenzas? Euro-centric PBS-watchers with big dogs?? Who cares??? The gotta-fold-the-rear-seat crowd is an insular band of self-righteous cheapskates who think a Geo Metro is more than enough car for the average American family…..

    I mean, let’s face it: if you’re folding your rear seat regularly, you’ve either living out of your car or living in it.

    These toys make sense at 12 grand. At 17 grand, they make nonsense…..

    • 0 avatar
      wmba

      Phew! Well, I’m glad you got that off your chest. Keeping it bottled in would not be good for your sanity.

      Now hop right back in that King Ranch and spread out. Yessir! Looxury, the way god intended.

    • 0 avatar
      Maymar

      Who’s trying to force this on anyone? Honda seems perfectly content to just sell all the Civics they can build, but if you go give them money for a Fit, sure, they can probably wrangle one up. And they tend to wrangle up over 50k units a year – that’s not terrible.

      And yes, there are huge swaths of the US where you must drive seven hours to get a gallon of milk, but cities are a thing that exist too. The Fit is an excellent little car for those of us who chose to reside within cities (where a gallon of milk is a five minute walk away). Just, the downfall of city life is less space. My parents had a 3-car driveway in the suburbs, so it made sense to have a minivan (that wasn’t that mini). My wife and I have a condo, which comes with one parking spot. I have little interest in giving up my motorcycle, which means any of my future car buying decisions are dictated by what fits in the space left in a parking spot after the bike is wedged in the end. Something like this Fit makes the most use of the tiny footprint it uses (fun fact – apparently more rear legroom than an Accord), and tends not to be too terrible to drive. Honda had a couple ’15s on display at this year’s auto show – decent interior too, wasn’t excessively cheap and depressing. So yeah, me. I’d buy one.

    • 0 avatar
      Sam P

      “Face it: subcompacts don’t sell here. Americans don’t want them”

      Today I learned that the major cities of the United States (except maybe Atlanta and Houston) are not America. I see plenty of of Fits and other cars in that size class (Yaris/Prius C/Nissan Versa/Mini/Fiat 500) in any west coast city from Seattle to Los Angeles. See also Chicago and Boston.

  • avatar
    ajla

    Was the Yaris they brought the LE or SE?

  • avatar

    I stopped reading after “Yaris interior comparable to Fit.”

  • avatar
    michal1980

    your wrong again. size wise the fiesta is much close to the fit, then the 2.

    So its really not heavier nor small then the fit:

    fiesta:
    160.1 long
    67.8 wide
    58 tall
    98 wheel base

    fit
    101.6 long
    66.7 wide
    60 tall
    98.4 wheel base

    2
    155.5 long
    66.7 wide
    58.1 tall
    98 wheel bass

  • avatar
    dougjp

    A marketing piece thinly disguised as a car review. No specifics, nothing, just how stupid we are if we don’t tow the line and buy his obsession.

    Quite disgusting and demeaning to TTAC.

  • avatar
    Kevin

    So fuel economy is middling at best for the segment, and the 6 speed doesn’t have a tall enough top gear, but other than that, it’s a segment leading car? Sounds like two fairly large faults for an economy car, to me.

    How were ergonomics? How was the feel of the stick? NVH? Your article glosses over all of these.

    I am going to assume the best case scenario and guess that you are a Honda fanboi.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    The Sonic they provided for comparison was a 1.8? I’m sure that wasn’t intentional. The Yaris probably wasn’t an SE either, which garnered several surprisingly positive reviews for its handling. Your friend had it right: “I think Honda wants to its present competitor’s cars in a situation where they won’t perform as well as their car”, but you never brought the matter to its full conclusion.

    BTW, this is the second Jo Borras review I’ve been badly disappointed in. Very thin, and I don’t quite believe the hyperbole. Unless Honda made some HUGE improvements in ride quality and NVH, there is no way the Fit handled the freeway with “aplomb”.

  • avatar
    troyohchatter

    +1 They didn’t even present a Mazda2. With all due respect to the person that stated the Fit was the sportiest car he cross-shopped, the Mazda2 has em all covered from the driver’s seat. I would have liked to see a Sonic with the 1.4T engine for the comparison as well. The Fit is going to have a lot more bells and whistles than the competition, dollar for dollar, but then, my grampa’s Lucerne has a heated steering wheel and remote start so you know, accessories don’t make a great car.

  • avatar
    thornmark

    Bottom line, C & D, like Autoblog, finds the new Fit to be best in class “total package”

    “… We might be disappointed by the car’s slight dynamic drop compared with its predecessor, but it’s hard to complain about a car that is still such a complete package. Some competitors might have better chassis, some have better steering, and some just don’t look dorky. But nobody else has yet matched the Fit’s incredible versatility at this price and placed it atop a chassis that offers a modicum of fun. When it comes to packaging, the Honda Fit is still the master. …”
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-honda-fit-hatchback-first-drive-review-more-but-the-same-page-2

    Now that Honda has the production capacity, the Fit should become the class best seller too.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      Even AB like the ‘azda2 for driving pleasure:

      ” It’s a far more competitive vehicle than its predecessor, and has everything it takes to fight even the toughest of classmates. But just as before, our recommendation doesn’t come without a few caveats… So, is the Fit still our subcompact hero? Yes and no. For us, that wishy-washy answer all comes down to it being less engaging from a driver’s perspective.”

      http://m.autoblog.com/2014/04/09/2015-honda-fit-review-first-drive/?post=3&icid=autoblog_river_article

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      When it comes to Honda, I don’t trust C&D at all. No objectivity, far too cozy a relationship with the brand. I’m not going to accuse them of being bought, but something funny is going on when they award both the Mazda6 and the Accord 10 Best accolades. I didn’t know the midsize sedan market was such a hot driver’s category that they needed two award winners. Probably because it isn’t that hot and doesn’t need two winners but they’ve got real cultural affinity for both brands.

      I wonder just what it would take for them to drop the Accord from that list, or give proper attention to the Fit’s shortcomings.

      • 0 avatar
        rudiger

        While disparaging the 2015 Fit’s driving dynamics (mainly, the electric steering and transmissions), C&D’s affinity for the car is summed up well when they went to great lengths to use the term ‘packaging’. Specifically, the one thing that keeps the Fit at the head of this segment’s pack is that ‘magic’ fold-into-the-floor rear seat, which has to be seen to be believed. I can’t for the life of me understand why no other manufacturer has made the effort into engineer the same feature in their small cars.

        But it’s extremely odd why Honda would go to the trouble to have a six-speed manual when the sixth gear has exactly the same ratio as the outgoing 5-speed’s fifth gear, or a ‘sport’ mode that makes CVT paddle shifters act like a 7-speed. That’s just bizarre.

        Still, couple the Fit’s superb space utilization with small (but important) standard features like cruise control and rear view camera on even the base cars, and it’s a no-brainer why the Fit is still ranked at the front for this market demographic. Now, combined with substantially increased availability due to Mexican production, there’s a very good chance the Fit will move to the front in sales, as well.

        • 0 avatar
          bryanska

          ” no other manufacturer has made the effort to engineer the same feature in their small cars.”

          I learned the seat was extremely heavy, like 300 pounds.

        • 0 avatar
          blppt

          “But it’s extremely odd why Honda would go to the trouble to have a six-speed manual when the sixth gear has exactly the same ratio as the outgoing 5-speed’s fifth gear, or a ‘sport’ mode that makes CVT paddle shifters act like a 7-speed. That’s just bizarre.”

          It cant be the same overall ratio— in this article, they say the engine was spinning at approx. 3500rpm @ 77 in 6th. My 2012 base Fit was at or very near 4K at 75 in fifth. Trust me, I saw that speed (and noise) a lot on NYS thruway driving.

          In Honda’s defense, the little 1.5 in my Fit would have really struggled to maintain speed up Taconic SP grades if they gave the car a tall O/D gear (my current CC for example is somewhere between 1900 and 2000rpm @ 60 in 6th) —the Honda 1.5 doesnt have much torque down low, or at all for that matter.

          And the constant downshifts on the highway would be far more annoying to me than the engine noise due to high revs.

          Only solution to this IMHO would be the added complexity of a small displacement turbo engine like in the Sonic. These little N/A multivalve 4 cylinders dont make enough low-end power to have tall overdrives.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Also, calling a car a “great all-rounder” or a “complete package” is a perfect and slippery way for auto reviewers to gloss over shortcomings and hand the comparison test to the car they want to hand it to.

      Per the quote, It doesn’t have the best chassis. Or the best steering. And it looks dorky. And it is loud and nervous. But it wins anyway because suddenly driving dynamics aren’t tops on C&D’s list. That’s Teflon of the auto review world, you just can’t get anything to stick.

      FWIW, I do like the Fit quite a lot, I just get tired of auto journalists writing like fanboys about cars that may or may not deserve it.

  • avatar
    Macca

    I guess I’ll pile on as well…

    I found the pricing discussion particularly laughable. How could anyone think that a plasticky little subcompact could be priced near $22-23k? I mean, you know what the previous gen cost, you know Honda has the Civic. Heck, the Accord starts at $22k, right?

    I guess that was an attempt at hyperbole to describe how smitten you were with the car, but it felt forced, like a dealer-sponsored “review” from a local newspaper.

    I love the cargo practicality of these little cars, I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the 2nd gen, but I found nothing remotely sporty in the harsh, rough ride, the typical Honda road noise was nearly intolerable and the silly swoopy dash was made out of melted toy swords. Perhaps worse yet was that there wasn’t an ounce of padding on the door armrests (something the competitors offer in this segment) which makes driver and passengers uncomfortable. And as others have mentioned, the 5spd gearing was atrocious. This sounds like a carryover with the new 6spd, which is baffling. The folding rear seats are trick, though.

  • avatar
    bryanska

    I own a 2007, and like the second-gen, the third-gen really isn’t an upgrade. While this sounds admirable, it’s actually a problem.

    Gen3 is less sporty than Gen1. There is more horsepower, but it’s less engaging and probably not appreciably quicker/faster. No sway bar? Really? On a suspension setup like that?

    Gen3 is not much quieter than Gen1, and that’s a huge missed opportunity. There’s no excuse not to fix something that’s been worst-in-class for seven years (thirteen if you count the Jazz nameplate).

    Gen3 is bigger in the backseat, but it was already as big as a Civic back there in Gen1. Why overdeliver, given the other priorities?

    Gen3 has leather, and I don’t recall anybody on Fitfreak.com clamoring for it. Heated seats, sure, but why focus on leather when the carpet is famous for disintegrating in 30k miles?

    Gen3 has infotainment, but it continues to suck Honda-style. Android phones have been outselling iPhones for years; why are we still doubling down on iPhone tech? Honda Fit drivers use Androids; they’re cheaper. Another empty Gen3 upgrade.

    Gen3 STILL doesn’t address the power gap. Even cracking the 140hp ceiling would be fine.

    Gen3 STILL has horrible highway gearing, which is inexcusable for the US market.

    Gen3 has WORSE transmission choices.

    In 2007, the packaging was enough to overcome these concerns. After all, it was a world car before it was a US car. But there’s NO excuse to leave all these opportunities on the table SO many years and two generations later. Gen3 is either the same or worse car in FAR more ways than it’s a better car.

    Honda seems bipolar with their whole lineup besides the Accord: either they screw it all up or they touch nothing. The Japanese used to be experts at incremental improvements while preserving the original spirit.

    They must be looking for conquests, because I see no compelling reason to trade an old Fit for a new one. None… and plenty of reasons to keep driving the Fits we already own.

    Look on Fitfreak.com for another few years of “why upgrade” threads.

  • avatar
    troyohchatter

    Agree 100% about C&D’s objectiveness with Honda. They have voted the Accord in their 10 best in years when it wasn’t deserved. They also go gaga over the CR-V. I testdrove a 2014 and was very disappointed.

    That being said, the Fit is a great car for those that need it as their primary form of transportation. The low load floor and magic seat make all the difference. Thing is, my commuter is used 99% of the time to haul me and only me. If I need the extra room of the Fit, I just grab the wife’s Mazda5 or my Ford Ranger.

  • avatar
    Lemmiwinks

    Boo. Hiss.

    Not the level of writing or content I expect from TTAC.


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
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India