Honda Car Forum

Anyone have an opinion on the new Honda Fit that's on sale in Japan?
I was considering on getting one as a commuter car but when I read
about the redesign from Autoblog, I'm now wondering if it's worth the
wait for car that's 9hp more than the current one in the U.S.

On Nov 25, 7:24 pm, "dat...@gmail.com" <dat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone have an opinion on the new Honda Fit that's on sale in Japan?
> I was considering on getting one as a commuter car but when I read
> about the redesign from Autoblog, I'm now wondering if it's worth the
> wait for car that's 9hp more than the current one in the U.S.

I am in the same boat. The new FIT is much more car with a much better
fuel consumption than the current FIT. The current FIT has the same
consumption as the CIVIC. It also costs almost the same as CIVIC. In
fact here in Ontario some car salesmen are claiming that it is a bad
buy. Also, it would appear that HONDA screwed up the gearing for the
current FIT as some articles indicate. I have also read that the 2nd
gen FIT has a 1.3L and a 1.5L engine. The 1.3L engine will not be
destined for US or Canada, just the 1.5L. The consumption (Honda
claims) for 1.3 is 1L of gas for 25Km, while the 1.5L FIT is 20Km per
1 liter of gas. This is still much better than the current generation
FIT. It is worth waiting for as gas in 1 year's time will be $1.5 per
liter.

highkm wrote:
> On Nov 25, 7:24 pm, "dat...@gmail.com" <dat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Anyone have an opinion on the new Honda Fit that's on sale in Japan?
>>I was considering on getting one as a commuter car but when I read
>>about the redesign from Autoblog, I'm now wondering if it's worth the
>>wait for car that's 9hp more than the current one in the U.S.
>
>
> I am in the same boat. The new FIT is much more car with a much better
> fuel consumption than the current FIT. The current FIT has the same
> consumption as the CIVIC. It also costs almost the same as CIVIC. In
> fact here in Ontario some car salesmen are claiming that it is a bad
> buy. Also, it would appear that HONDA screwed up the gearing for the
> current FIT as some articles indicate. I have also read that the 2nd
> gen FIT has a 1.3L and a 1.5L engine. The 1.3L engine will not be
> destined for US or Canada, just the 1.5L. The consumption (Honda
> claims) for 1.3 is 1L of gas for 25Km, while the 1.5L FIT is 20Km per
> 1 liter of gas. This is still much better than the current generation
> FIT. It is worth waiting for as gas in 1 year's time will be $1.5 per
> liter.
>



<giggle>

So, the venerable 1300 is being produced once again. I would guess that
my 2nd gen Civics are pretty close to a FIT comparatively...

JT

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:24:49 -0800 (PST), "datumj@gmail.com"
<datumj@gmail.com> wrote:

>Anyone have an opinion on the new Honda Fit that's on sale in Japan?
>I was considering on getting one as a commuter car but when I read
>about the redesign from Autoblog, I'm now wondering if it's worth the
>wait for car that's 9hp more than the current one in the U.S.

As an owner of the current Fit ('07 US Spec), I think the other
posters here are on to something. The Fit is really what the Civic
was 2 generations ago. The current Civic has been upsized to be what
an Accord was a few years ago and the Accord is quite the mid-size now
bordering on to what full size was a few years ago. I don't know if
this trend is because consumers demanded more for their money or if US
consumers have gotten too fat to fit in the cars. Only half kidding
there....:-)

Anyway, either model isn't bad (the 08 or the 07) and if you go
towards the Civic, you won't be disapointed either, really. I think
it comes down to what you like, can afford, and feel comfortable in.
Have fun!

santos wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:24:49 -0800 (PST), "datumj@gmail.com"
> <datumj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone have an opinion on the new Honda Fit that's on sale in Japan?
>>I was considering on getting one as a commuter car but when I read
>>about the redesign from Autoblog, I'm now wondering if it's worth the
>>wait for car that's 9hp more than the current one in the U.S.
>
>
> As an owner of the current Fit ('07 US Spec), I think the other
> posters here are on to something. The Fit is really what the Civic
> was 2 generations ago. The current Civic has been upsized to be what
> an Accord was a few years ago and the Accord is quite the mid-size now
> bordering on to what full size was a few years ago. I don't know if
> this trend is because consumers demanded more for their money or if US
> consumers have gotten too fat to fit in the cars. Only half kidding
> there....:-)


You got it! Honda, like most auto manufacturers is a "growth" company.
That is, their models grow in size, weight and features.

BTW, what is the weight of your FIT?

JT

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:LDX2j.55717
$if6.47552@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> santos wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:24:49 -0800 (PST), "datumj@gmail.com"
>> <datumj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone have an opinion on the new Honda Fit that's on sale in Japan?
>>>I was considering on getting one as a commuter car but when I read
>>>about the redesign from Autoblog, I'm now wondering if it's worth the
>>>wait for car that's 9hp more than the current one in the U.S.
>>
>>
>> As an owner of the current Fit ('07 US Spec), I think the other
>> posters here are on to something. The Fit is really what the Civic
>> was 2 generations ago. The current Civic has been upsized to be what
>> an Accord was a few years ago and the Accord is quite the mid-size now
>> bordering on to what full size was a few years ago. I don't know if
>> this trend is because consumers demanded more for their money or if US
>> consumers have gotten too fat to fit in the cars. Only half kidding
>> there....:-)
>
>
> You got it! Honda, like most auto manufacturers is a "growth" company.
> That is, their models grow in size, weight and features.




That's because models tend to move upmarket and be replaced by new ones as
the years go by.

Toyota does this too. The last Tercel of 1999 was -- almost to the inch --
the same size as the 1975 Corolla. The Corolla has grown substantially
since 1975.

I haven't checked, but I'd bet the new Civic is about the same size as the
'76 Accord.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Tegger wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in news:LDX2j.55717
> $if6.47552@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>santos wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 16:24:49 -0800 (PST), "datumj@gmail.com"
>>><datumj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone have an opinion on the new Honda Fit that's on sale in Japan?
>>>>I was considering on getting one as a commuter car but when I read
>>>>about the redesign from Autoblog, I'm now wondering if it's worth the
>>>>wait for car that's 9hp more than the current one in the U.S.
>>>
>>>
>>>As an owner of the current Fit ('07 US Spec), I think the other
>>>posters here are on to something. The Fit is really what the Civic
>>>was 2 generations ago. The current Civic has been upsized to be what
>>>an Accord was a few years ago and the Accord is quite the mid-size now
>>>bordering on to what full size was a few years ago. I don't know if
>>>this trend is because consumers demanded more for their money or if US
>>>consumers have gotten too fat to fit in the cars. Only half kidding
>>>there....:-)
>>
>>
>>You got it! Honda, like most auto manufacturers is a "growth" company.
>>That is, their models grow in size, weight and features.
>
>
>
>
>
> That's because models tend to move upmarket and be replaced by new ones as
> the years go by.
>
> Toyota does this too. The last Tercel of 1999 was -- almost to the inch --
> the same size as the 1975 Corolla. The Corolla has grown substantially
> since 1975.
>
> I haven't checked, but I'd bet the new Civic is about the same size as the
> '76 Accord.
>


I'll betcha it's bigger.

Anyway, my yardstick as to "growth," was the '55 Thunderbird. A nimble
(sort of) two seater that later bacame a four seater and eventually a
full sized goliath. Remember the Falcon? It grew and grew eventually
reing replaced by a smaller car with a "horse" name. No, not the Mustang!

Some of us just strive for a simple car to get us to where we need to go
without breaking the bank. Others must have the latest 'n greatest which
evidently is not always the best...

JT

Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
news:eB13j.56573$if6.37245@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:

>
>
> Tegger wrote:

>>
>> I haven't checked, but I'd bet the new Civic is about the same size
>> as the '76 Accord.
>>
>
>
> I'll betcha it's bigger.



Probably.



>
> Anyway, my yardstick as to "growth," was the '55 Thunderbird. A
> nimble (sort of) two seater that later bacame a four seater and
> eventually a full sized goliath.



That was very much on purpose. McNamara figured he had more sales in a
4-seater. He was right, actually.

Interesting that the Thunderbird eventually came to share the same
chassis as those gargantuan Lincoln Mark cars. Like the one Detective
Frank Cannon drove...



> Remember the Falcon? It grew and
> grew eventually reing replaced by a smaller car with a "horse" name.
> No, not the Mustang!



The Maverick! I saw one of those the other week. It was sitting by the
road with a For Sale sign in the window. I always liked their styling.
They were a bit small on the inside for their outside size, but you
could get them with a 6 or a V8, which wasn't true for any of the Jap
cars back then...


>
> Some of us just strive for a simple car to get us to where we need to
> go without breaking the bank. Others must have the latest 'n greatest
> which evidently is not always the best...
>


Mine is seventeen years old, has no options and power nothing but the
steering. Just fine by me. I didn't even want the power steering, but
the Integra came with one regardless.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

In article <1btmk3l2h6i81ae13v9kucm4r00t765gs0@4ax.com>,
wrx_zx6r@hotmail.com says...

> As an owner of the current Fit ('07 US Spec), I think the other
> posters here are on to something. The Fit is really what the Civic
> was 2 generations ago. The current Civic has been upsized to be what
> an Accord was a few years ago and the Accord is quite the mid-size now
> bordering on to what full size was a few years ago. I don't know if
> this trend is because consumers demanded more for their money or if US
> consumers have gotten too fat to fit in the cars. Only half kidding
> there....:-)

I'm temporarily driving an 07 Accord sedan - it's a rental car being
(mostly) paid for by insurance while my CRX is at the body shop after an
SUV failed to pay attention while backing up. The Accord's a nice enough
car, and it's quiet and comfortable, but it's bigger than I'd prefer.
Our 99 Accord sedan doesn't feel nearly as large, and the blind spots in
it aren't nearly as pronounced as in the 07 (I find the A-pillars in
particular way too wide for optimum visibility, but I guess that's
partially the result of having to house side-curtain airbags, which I'd
just as soon not have).

Other nits to pick: I've always hated the radio/climate control console
in the 03-07 Accords. I can't understand why Honda did away with the
nice-looking, intuitive climate control in the 98-02 Accords, which had
automatic temperature control, and replaced it with the current
monstrosity.

I really like what I've seen of the Fit (I have yet to drive one).
Perhaps it has to do with your observation that it's the latter-day
version of an earlier-generation Civic - I'm one of those people who
tends to prefer older Hondas over the newer ones.

Dave

Tegger wrote:
> Grumpy AuContraire <Grumpy@ExtraGrumpyville.com> wrote in
> news:eB13j.56573$if6.37245@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net:
>
>
>>
>>Tegger wrote:
>
>
>>>I haven't checked, but I'd bet the new Civic is about the same size
>>>as the '76 Accord.
>>>
>>
>>
>>I'll betcha it's bigger.
>
>
>
>
> Probably.
>
>
>
>
>>Anyway, my yardstick as to "growth," was the '55 Thunderbird. A
>>nimble (sort of) two seater that later bacame a four seater and
>>eventually a full sized goliath.
>
>
>
>
> That was very much on purpose. McNamara figured he had more sales in a
> 4-seater. He was right, actually.
>
> Interesting that the Thunderbird eventually came to share the same
> chassis as those gargantuan Lincoln Mark cars. Like the one Detective
> Frank Cannon drove...
>

Yep...



>>Remember the Falcon? It grew and
>>grew eventually reing replaced by a smaller car with a "horse" name.
>>No, not the Mustang!
>
>
>
>
> The Maverick! I saw one of those the other week. It was sitting by the
> road with a For Sale sign in the window. I always liked their styling.
> They were a bit small on the inside for their outside size, but you
> could get them with a 6 or a V8, which wasn't true for any of the Jap
> cars back then...
>

Yes, I think GM's contender was the Vega which could have been a pretty
good vehicle had they sleeved the engines instead of having simple
aluminum bores. I know several people that sleeved 'em and after they
were real good cars.

Then, there was the Chevette that got great mileage but rode like a
lumber wagon and was a nightmare to work on...



>>Some of us just strive for a simple car to get us to where we need to
>>go without breaking the bank. Others must have the latest 'n greatest
>>which evidently is not always the best...
>>
>
>
>
> Mine is seventeen years old, has no options and power nothing but the
> steering. Just fine by me. I didn't even want the power steering, but
> the Integra came with one regardless.
>

Yep, and you can chuckle all the way to the bank regarding the money you
got to spend on other things. And you have to be commended for keeping
it up in the rust/snow belt. I would never dream of it.

Maybe if your body finally rusts beyond repair, you can import a Texas
beater and revitalize it for another seventeen years...

<G>

JT