Swapping back to the all seasons provided a reason for the squirrelly handling of the Fit. All four unidirectional tires are for the right side of the vehicle. Not cool. I will be contacting Honda regarding this little hiccup, and recommend any Fit drivers of the 09 model year check if they have also experienced bizarre handling traits.

Suspension is a touch more relaxed now that break in is complete, and I am looking forward to nabbing some gardening supplies before doing a thorough interior detailing. Also tinting is on the menu, as summer will turn that greenhouse into a kiln that the a/c is probably incapable of coping with. Overall, feeling rather good about the purchase.

Richardwinters reported how older Hondas (e.g. Prelude Vtec, Integra GSR) tended to also have high RPMs at highway speeds, suggesting that such gearing has been common in Hondas. However, these Hondas were their sportier models – so one would expect to see higher RPMs and higher performance from these cars! The Fit is an economy car – not a sports car. So it doesn’t make sense that they would give it sports car gearing, particularly in 5th gear!

And since when did small cars become “city” cars?? My 1988 civic was small and was nicely geared for highway cruising in 5th – it was a great highway car. Are the manufacturers deliberately making these small cars less desirable on the highway so people will move up to more expensive (i.e., more profitable) “highway” cars?

Based on what I can glean from the efficiencies of transmissions – all things being equal, a manual transmission has clear efficiency advantages over an automatic. Yet – for some reason Honda has geared the Fit so that highway mileage suffers in their 5-sp manual transmissioned cars compared to their 5sp automatic siblings. Why not allow the 5sp manuals to cruise at an equivalent RPM to their 5sp automatics rather than about 500RPM higher?

O.K. – I am usually the first to be skeptical of conspiracy theories. But I wonder if Honda is doing this for economic reasons. Honda does not want to promote the increased highway mileage potential of a 5sp manual – so they gear them lower. They would rather have their customers spend an extra $1000 and purchase the 5sp automatic versions with slightly better advertised highway mileage. This allows them to market the automatic versions as being more fuel efficient and encourages more people to spring for the more expensive automatic. 5MTs – at least in North America are a dying breed.

Perhaps similar reasoning is behind why in North America the towing rating of the Honda Civic is “not recommended”, while the towing rating of the same Civic in Europe is “3080 lbs” (with trailer brakes). Honda would rather have their North American customers move up to a more expensive vehicle (i.e., SUV). In Europe, people tow with smaller vehicles.

I have no doubt the Fit is a fine city car, but then again I have no problem with a my ZX2 in the city either.

It is when I get on the highway and lock the cruise at 120km/h(75mph) for hours that it drives me bonkers with engine drone. I am not putting up with another car that does this. I understood when my Miata did this, but econo boxes??

Maybe the Ford Fiesta/Mazda 2 will be better suited for highway use, because I don’t see honda fixing this. They has the same issue with the last fit and it even cost them a rebate in Canada, and they bitched about this, but if anything it looks like they went ahead and made the gears shorter, the problem worse and mileage worse.

If you are doing 90/10 hwy to city driving, then perhaps the Fit is not for you. Perhaps gearing on the standard will be modified with the first refresh, but to be honest I find mileage to be just ducky. I finally went looking for the British take on the car, and they are as disappointed with the ride as me,,,it just doesn’t have any sophistication. As far as mileage goes, if the affordability of gas ever becomes that much of an issue, then driving 55mph will boost mileage, plus in town gearing is amazing.

So the Fit delivers awesome mileage if you take your time, and it delivers serious fun in a functional package while you are waiting for the apocalypse. Winter tires are not an option, the car is on borrowed time without them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/new_car_reviews/article4787555.ece

I don’t see how “knowing how to drive” or “being a douchebag” influences EPA numbers (where the 33 MPG highway comes from). The tests are strictly defined to remove the driver,and douchebaggery ;), from the equation, it is exactly for this reason, that we don’t rely on self reported anecdotal information for comparison.

When people self report their biases creep in, their mistakes creep in. Diesels heads report that their Diesels get 10mpg better than a Prius on the highway. EPA doesn’t see it that way and when tested head to head by Popular Science they came out dead even. Where did the diesel lead go? It never existed except as anecdotal folklore from biased self reporting.

but then you would have to have an understanding of history and an open mind to accept this possibility. and this is not even my claim in this case.

anyway, this will be my last post…

simply stating tha evidence shows that the fit is not “bottom in its class” in highway MPG as claimed by bytor. I’m not sure of the methods used by the EPA, but maybe most drivers will get 27-33 MPG highway because most drivers here dont know how to drive, or are arrogant douchebags.

just my two cents

In directly comparable numbers the FIT is behind(bottom of class).

Also do you have a Manual transmission, are you relying on Hondas hopelessly optimistic MPG meter?

Hyper milers get 60MPG in a ZX2 like a currently own. That means squat.

maybe it might be time to evaluate driving style, because the fit is quite capable of achieving exemplary fuel economy (relative to the US Domestic Market anyhow).

Criteria 1,2,3 are the same criteria. If I am only interested in highway mileage, I am obviously not looking at city or combined. I don’t do this disadvantage the Fit. My driving pattern is mostly highway, so that is the important number for me.

Same with manual transmission. I have yet to buy a car with an automatic. I don’t plan on changing that anytime soon.

So manual, highway mileage is what matters to me and it clear Honda disregarded it completely with a worse in class performance. Disappointing to say the least.

If you arrange the criteria such that you are

1.) disregarding “combined” mileage
2.) ignoring city mileage
3.) looking only at highway mileage
4.) and only in manual transmission format

then it would appear you are correct. A cursory search for smaller engines reveals only the Mazda RX8 with a smaller engine (1.3L) and worse highway mileage (22). (!!!!)***

So, point taken. I do wish both the manual & auto versions had a taller top gear, as it seams like a cheap and efficient way to get from a couple to several more MPG’s out of a vehicle on the highway, and it’s quieter as well.

As to whether the the highway MPG of the Fit qualifies as “obscene”, we’ll have to stand by and let the internet hyperbole judges weigh in.

***As discussed, the auto tranny base fit gets 35 mpg highway, and of course that XFE Cobalt you mentioned (as edmunds.com puts it) “is available only in the base LS trim level, creature comforts are scarce. Say good-bye to modern conveniences you’ve become accustomed to, like power-operated anything, cruise control and keyless entry…” and it’s rolling on pizza cutters that “…screech loudly in protest, even under moderate cornering…”

Fit: 33 mpg
Civic: 34 mpg
Corolla: 35 mpg
Focus: 35 mpg
Yaris: 36 mpg
mini: 37 mpg
Cobalt XFE: 37 mpg.

I find it obscene that the Fit gets less MPG than the bigger cars with 1.8L engines/2.2L engines.

The fit should get 36/37mpg on the highway like the Yaris/Mini (other cars with 1.5/1.6L engines), not 33mpg which is still less than corolla/civic with 1.8L engines or the Cobalt XFE with a 2.2L engine.

The fit has the smallest engine and gets the worse fuel economy. Obviously Honda did nothing to try and get decent Highway MPG out of this car. 33mpg from a micro car with 1.5L engine? Heck the malibu with a 2.4L gets that on the highway. That to me is obscene.

So I think I have answered your questions showing lots of car with significantly better mpg with similar or larger engines.

Let me turn the question back on you. Is there anything on the market with an engine that small that gets worse highway mpg? Worse in class competitive?

1.) What larger (non-hybrid) cars are you referring to that get better mileage?

Here’s a link to fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bestworst.shtml) listing the best & worst MPG for cars in the USA, and I’m not seeing anything like what you are talking about.

2.)What car with a similar engine size (again non-hybrid/non-diesel) gets such better mileage to call the Fit “dismal?” I’ve posted above the actual figures..and only a handful of smaller cars get better MPG…I’m assuming you don’t want to drive a SMART car, so we can knock that off the list too…

I’m wondering if maybe you are wishing back for the days of Geo Metro and Festiva’s that got high 30’s highway (old EPA standards, natch) and were also unfortunately made out of paper and had no safety features?

That points to dismal aerodynamic and/or poor gearing. We know the manual it geared too short and the aero is probably suspect as well.

Do a bit more aero tweaks and give it taller manual gears and I am in.

As is it is a fine city car, but not what I need. I walk to work and use my car for longer trips so my usage is more like 10% city/ 90% higway and highway mileage is what I look at. The fit gets dismal highway mileage for its engine size.

Thanks for playing.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
You know, if you take the figures you present here, and then average the city/highway miles together to come up with the “combined” figure,
the fit is certainly competitive within this class, especially when you factor in reliability, fun-to-drive, and *57 cubic feet* of cargo.

Below are the “rankings” with the data you provided. Also note that the non-sport, automatic/paddle shifting version of the fit would come in 3rd in this list with 31.5 combined MPG.

(1)Smart For 2: 33 41 (37)
(2)Mini Cooper: 28 37 (32.5)
(2)Yaris: 29 36 (32.5)
(3)Cobalt/G5XFE:25 37 (31)
(3)Corolla: 27 35 (31)
(4)Aveo/G3: 27 34 (30.5)
(5)Honda Fit S: 27 33 (30)
(5)Accent: 27 33 (30)
(5)Rio: 27 33 (30)
(5)Scion XD: 27 33 (30)
(6)Ford Focus: 24 35 (29.5)

Already noticing a huge difference with the WS-60’s. The Bridgestone outfit locally is in an industrial mall that gets plowed indifferently. On the way in I felt as though I was skiing downhill, but on the way back stopping, traction and tracking were all improved by an incredibly noticeable margin. Still you are absolutely correct about small car dynamics, I had not expected the winter handling to be quite so squirrelly. Reduced speed is essential between coping with grooves and ruts, gusts and crosswinds and snowplaning. Again, to my mind the number one culprit is suspension tuning, and I would bet it evolves over the course of this model run. Still, the snows are going to save me a fortune on underpants.

Thanks for the clarification re:refresh mode. Too bad they got rid of it, instead folks get the super-quick-hide-the-seats lever.

I’ll be paying off my current vehicle for another 2 years, so I can watch & wait and see where all this goes for a bit.

I just slapped my blizzacks/steelies on my car *4 hours* before the 1st snow of the season here (phew!) and this is going to be my 2nd winter with them.

I LOVE them, and will never go back to all-seasons after experiencing the joy of grippy rubber for spring-summer-fall, and kung-fu-grip blizzacks with front-wheel drive & traction & stability control for the wintertime. Right tools for the job.

I love it at green lights when I zoom off, and even SUVs or AWD Audi’s with all-seasons (or worse) are left spinning.

To Tagbert: Yeah, I guess the Fiesta is in the mix somewhere.

Though number one on my list would be an Impreza with Diesel if it were here. Decent mpg, with awesome winter capability. Diesels usually come with tall gearing as well. Fingers crossed on this one.

Refresh mode is with the rear seats up, and the front seats reclined. I was absolutely pissed to find this had been eliminated, for reasons mentioned in my posting further up.

First gear is pretty awesome in bumper to bumper, so low, you rarely need to engage the clutch. Try for yourself. Overall gearing is fine, the car will cruise at 80mph all day. What’s more, when loaded up, you won’t have to work so hard to maintain pace. I find myself constantly setting the cruise now to avoid unconsciously finding my way to about 130kph, a speed roughly 40k over the limit in my area, and big trouble in the Province of Ontario.

Next, it is possible you might still find a first gen Fit if you wish to choose a bit more excitement over the obvious improvements. Perhaps Mr. Lang can set you up.

This car cannot be driven in winter without snows. My Blizzaks go on tomorrow, and not a moment too soon. Sport with stability control is definitely worth the money if you can any way afford it. Not available in Canada, unbelievable.

Finally, with auto prices all over the map, there may be more logical choices than the Fit, depending on your requirements. I am mostly happy with mine, although Honda obviously has some fine tuning to do to match the overall excellence of generation one.

0-60 is roughly nine seconds, and lots of attention from anyone nearby. The auto is useless, although paddle shifters may help. Again, not available in Canada.

Can somebody post the 0-60 times of manual v. automatic with this thing?

Interesting how the auto gets better MPG!?! (Ratios, eh?)

One complaint I’ve not seen registered yet is that it is completely unavailable with a sunroof in the USA market, which is a gigantic bummer; WHY? to differentiate between it and the Civic (but no civic hatch available, so not fair!)

Lack of “refresh mode” is too bad, I hadn’t heard about the loss of that feature. (Edit: wait, isn’t this photo showing “refresh” mode? http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/09_fit_sport_008.jpg Any fit owners able to weigh in on this?)

Will the auto tranny w. paddles downshift effectively when you tell it to? I’m (gulp) being worn down by awful bumper-to-bumper daily commutes, I may have to bail on manual trannys for my next whip.

How hard is an aftermarket taller top gear solution?

FWIW, I think it looks way cooler than the 1st generation, and the increase in safety rating is a serious improvement. Avoiding serious injury may be worth 1 mpg…