Harsh Honda Fit review

[MNdudeswitz]

From Epinions:



Calling it like it is

Product Rating: 3.0

Pros
Versatile interior, fuel economy, won't find a cheaper automatic with paddles, quiet on highway

Cons
Ugly, somewhat soggy handling, drum brakes, susceptible to crosswinds, pricey

The Bottom Line
Despite the versatile interior, I'm not seeing good value for money here.

Full Review
Back in high school I delivered prescriptions for a pharmacy in an early 1980s Honda Civic. That car's 1.3-liter engine kicked out only 62 horsepower, but owing to its small size and 1800-pound curb weight it was a blast to zip around town in.

Over the years the Civic has grown, to the point that it's now large and heavier than the Accord was back then. Sensing that this opened up a hole at the bottom of the line-up, Honda this year is introducing a new small car, the oddly-named Fit. I suspect that the success of the Scion xB and Nissan and Toyota's introductions of similarly small cars also played a role in this decision.

Of these new small cars, the Fit has easily generated the most buzz. I suspect that, like me, many are wondering if it will mark a return of the sort of car the Civic used to be. I took one for a test drive to find out.

The Fit is available in base and Sport versions. Seeking the sportiest possible experience, I drove the latter. The one on the lot was fitted with an automatic transmission. Normally I'd much prefer a manual, but since the Fit Sport offers the lowest-priced automatic that can be shifted via paddles on the market, the slushbox is probably the best one to sample anyway.

Styling

From what I've seen, no one else is going to tell you to truth, so I guess it's up to me: the Fit is an ugly car. And I don't mean so ugly it's cute like the xB. No, just plain old ugly. The look resembles nothing so much as an ultra-short minivan. Lots of glass, round droopy nose, side windows that stand nearly upright. The proportions are all funky, and there's not an artful line to be found. The headlights are huge bugeyes; at least they should perform well at night. Compared to this mess, a Chevrolet Aveo is downright chic.

The Sport's standard body kit and slightly larger wheels help somewhat--without them the Fit is both plain and ugly. But even the Sport's wheels are only 15-inchers. On a car that's 60 inches tall, they look puny.

Why aren't people turning away from the car in horror? The only reason I can think of is that's it's a Honda, and people's cut Hondas more slack in this department than anything else, even Toyotas. Let's slap an American or Korean badge on this puppy and see what happens. Or even another Japanese badge. Case in point: the Suzuki Aero.

Inside the styling is less objectionable. You're clearly in an economy car, but various details that stop short of sci fi (unlike those in the new Civic) make the Fit's cabin an interesting place to be. We've got some faux metal trim on a steering wheel wrapped in perforated leather, small shift paddles sticking up above the spokes of that wheel, blue instrument lighting, textured two-tone cloth on the seats, and audio controls that form a circle around the main knob. Said knob is large and well-placed, but twice I turned the 200-watt stereo off when merely attempted to adjust the volume.

Accommodations

The Fit is 3.5 inches taller than the current Civic, and seven inches taller than the one I drove two decades ago. So it should come as no surprise that, like many recent small cars, it fits a generous amount of room into a 157-inch-long package (nearly two feet shorter than a Civic sedan) by positioning the seats well off the floor. The first car I ever drove that used this trick was the 1980s Ford Festiva. And like then, it works well. Not only is there room for adults front and rear, but everyone gets better thigh support than in the average midsize car, and the view out through the large windows is outstanding. You know, like in a minivan. Just much less lengthy.

The front seats are nicely shaped and reasonably comfortable. They provide a moderate amount of lateral support. The rear seat is almost pretty good, but isn't as cavernous as that in the xB. Because the front seats are mounted well off the floor, the rear passengers' feet slide easily beneath them. The rear seatback has two positions, so it can be slightly reclined. By fully reclining the front passenger seat, the right rear passenger can even stretch all the way out Maybach style.

But wait, there's more. When it comes time to haul some cargo, the rear seat can be folded flat in one motion to form a low, flat floor. Or the cushion can be pulled up against the rear seatback as in an extended cab pickup, enabling objects four feet tall to be carried where it normally sits. You can do something similar in the Chrysler PT Cruiser, but only if you remove the rear seat from the car. Honda's method doesn't free up as much space, but it's much more handy.

On the Road

I might even be able to overlook how the car looks if it was an absolute blast to drive. But I'll save you the suspense here--it isn't. The handling isn't bad, but it could be better, and most other aspects of the driving experience are marginal.

The 1.5-liter four kicks out 109 horsepower, but it's got to lug 2,500 pounds. Especially hitched to an automatic this is a recipe for underwhelming acceleration at any speed. To extract anything approaching thrust you've got to rev the poor thing, but it gets annoyingly boomy over 4,000 rpm. I'm not averse to engine noise if it's good engine noise; this isn't the good stuff.

Paddle shifting the transmission helps a bit, at least when setting the car up to sail through a curve. With five ratios, more than you'll typically find at this price, you can usually find one that's appropriate. It reacts much like other transmissions of this sort--it's no VW DSG in immediacy or smoothness. Worse, using the paddles could be much easier. Since they're attached to the steering wheel rather than the steering column, it's necessary to hunt for them in turns. And often when the wheel is turned the gear indicator is blocked by one of its spokes. The manual should be both quicker and more satisfying.

Fuel economy should be a bright spot, with the EPA predicting a number in the thirties.

The rear brakes are drums, even on the Sport. But they don't have to deal with much weight, so braking distances are reasonably brief. Pedal feel could be firmer, though.

Owing to its weight, size, and firmer-than-Toyota suspension tuning the Fit feels fairly agile. But I expected the handling to be even more nimble, and sharper. Suspension tuning appears to be the same for the Sport; it should be firmer to provide a more immediate, more precise reaction to steering inputs. The steering itself, though quick and nicely weighted, provides very little feedback and feels dull on center. I blame the electric assist. Given the car's height, body lean isn't bad, but a firmer suspension would bring it closer to hot hatch levels. And with 63 percent of the car's weight on the front wheels, of course it understeers as you approach its limits. Sure, other cars in this class handle worse, but the Fit could still be better. Especially in Sport trim.

I didn't mind the minivan-like view through the windshield much--I've hated a similar driving position in other vehicles. But I miss the days when Honda combined a low driving position with great forward visibility by making the cowl and instrument panel as low as possible. Not as good for rear seat room, but much better for driving enjoyment.

Given the somewhat soggier than expected handling, it should come as no surprise that ride quality is good for a small car. The tires clomp a bit over tar strips and minor potholes, but unless you hit something truly nasty the ride doesn't jolt. Noise levels are lower than expected, even on the highway. However, crosswinds find a nice, juicy target in the small Honda's tall, flat bodysides. So keeping the Fit pointed straight ahead can require a fair amount of attention. If you like a car that feels planted on the highway, this ain't it. I've been on sailboats that get blown about less.

Honda Fit Pricing

The Fit starts only about $700 below the cheapest Civic, making it considerably pricier than I personally expected. However, Honda has given even the base car a raft of standard features; adjusting for these widens the gap to about $2,000. Even so, I'd personally dig up the extra cash for the larger, sleeker, more powerful car. Shame the five-door Civic isn't available here, though. If versatility is high on the list of priorities, the Fit has any Civic sold in the U.S. beat by a wide margin.

The Mazda3 is another matter. There you can get a five door with much better handling, again for about two grand more. Easy choice for me. Don't have the extra cash? Then I'd probably opt for a Focus ZX-5.

At $16,500, the car I test drove simply costs too much for what you get.

Last Words

Unlike the Echo, the Fit isn't a total joke of a car. It handles fairly well, offers a good if not great amount of room inside, and has a very versatile, moderately stylish interior. But it's also ugly (though not as ugly as the Echo), could handle better still, and is hardly cheap. I don't see anything to get worked up about.

As Sport trims go, this one is only slightly less underwhelming than a Corolla S. The wheels are a bit larger, the automatic has those nifty paddles, and the body kit does its best to redeem the car's styling, but where are the firmer suspension, bump in power, and rear discs?

If the Fit succeeds, it will be because of the sort of offbeat marketing that has worked so well for Scion. The tagline: "The Fit is Go." I suppose this is a variation on "All your base are belong to us." Bad English isn't so catchy when it's thoroughly intentional.

Honda cut its sales projections for the car a few weeks ago; so it seems even they aren't too optimistic about the car's chances.

Recommended: No

[Ming]

Styling

From what I've seen, no one else is going to tell you to truth, so I guess it's up to me: the Fit is an ugly car. And I don't mean so ugly it's cute like the xB. No, just plain old ugly. The look resembles nothing so much as an ultra-short minivan. Lots of glass, round droopy nose, side windows that stand nearly upright. The proportions are all funky, and there's not an artful line to be found. The headlights are huge bugeyes; at least they should perform well at night. Compared to this mess, a Chevrolet Aveo is downright chic.

FINALLY someone with a brain to look past the Honda fanboy-ism.

I think the Odyssey is actually a great looking car, as is the TSX and RL. But the fit is styled like a little bug-turd, and I'm glad to see someone finally come out and say it. It would be much better if not for those oversized, clown-car headlights.

[BigAls87Z28]

The Fit is ugly...but the xB is not even remotly cute..its butt fugly.

[tuxmelvin]

Thunderbirds Are Go! I assumed "The Fit is Go" was a variation of this. $16500 is WAY too much for this thing, and I agree that it's a shame that automakers stopped producing lightweight, fun little cars like the Civic. Maybe it's safety related. I don't know.

[SonicAerio]

I like how this article states what I always thought...people buy Hondas because their Hondas.

Te best example of this is comparison of Fit or even new Civic to Suzuki Aerio...

The Aerio Sx overall has alot of the same styling as the fit(or vise versa) yet you will see 10x as many of this because of the big "H" badge... as for the civic I read some reviews about how people said the new interior digital gauges shows how Honda is revolutionary or futuristic, yet the Aerio had them on 2002-2004 models and were slammed on it's odd, stating it was downright ugly old or cheap looking....

With only a 1.5 4 cylinder and weighing 2500lbs the Fit has to be a slug, my 03 Aerio weighs close to that and has a 2.0 with 145.... not to mention price as an AWD Aerio fully loaded can be had for about the same price as a fully loaded Fit

Things like this is why I will never be blinded by the Toyohonda companies.....just rediculous

[Bravada]

I don't agree. The Aerio and Aveo have this "narrow gauge railway car" look, but somehow Honda managed to avoid it. I see quite many Jazz's (that's the proper name for the vehicle Honda misnamed for US) here in Warsaw, and they come accross as nice-looking. Nothing special, but at least they don't hurt your eyes like some other cars.

[Quickening]

This guy nailed it on the freakin head!

[Johnny P]

How many of you have driven a Fit? If you haven't you have no reason to post whether he is right or not. If it were a GM product you people would be all over it.

I have driven 5 of these so far, some manual, some auto, some Sport, some not. First of all, looks are subjective. To me he looses all credibility when he states that as a con. Who is he to tell someone what is good looking? The car is VERY fun to drive. Drives like a much bigger car, and without the 'bad buzzing' he speaks of. Honda engines speak a pretty sweet song. Not much power, but suprisingly peppy for what it is. The handling is awesome. This car shows how good Honda is at chassis'. It ran the freakin' slalom faster than a C6Z! I guess the car may be too close to the Civic in price, but for the content it is priced quite well.

[Ridge1]

Originally Posted by Johnny P

How many of you have driven a Fit? If you haven't you have no reason to post whether he is right or not. .

We own a Fit, and not only is he absolutely wrong, I don't believe he has even driven a Fit. I just dont see how anyone can apply the word "soggy" to the handling of this car. No one that has driven a Fit would say that. It is also peppy and just plain addicting to drive. The paddle shifters are a blast. I can't wait till it's broken in so I can redline it.


......Sorry, but this guy is only projecting his great expectations of what he thinks the fit drives like. I really don't find it credible that he has driven one.

My Fit thread. I was just not going to say anything, but then I saw this thread and got inspired.
Got my Fit.

[Carver]

I agree with the writer, 16,5K for this? I'd rather have the (larger) Caliber, even if it is slightly thirstier.

[SSrevolution]

Originally Posted by Ridge1

......Sorry, but this guy is only projecting his great expectations of what he thinks the fit drives like. I really don't find it credible that he has driven one.

Uhhhh, I think he drove the car he was payed to reviewed.

[Ridge1]

Originally Posted by SSrevolution

Uhhhh, I think he drove the car he was payed to reviewed.

I was trying to cut him some slack. If he actually drove the Fit, he is the worst reviewer ever.

[Ridge1]

double post.

[01cavalier]

I thought the Fit was supposed to be a good deal cheaper than the Civic. Not such a great deal, and at that price, no way. I'd sooner just get an Aveo, at least it is more reasonably priced. I'd expect since Honda is using a smaller engine than the Civic that the mileage would at least be slightly better. The Cobalt I've been wanting to get will only cost me about a grand more!

[Ridge1]

Originally Posted by 01cavalier

I thought the Fit was supposed to be a good deal cheaper than the Civic. Not such a great deal, and at that price, no way. I'd sooner just get an Aveo, at least it is more reasonably priced. I'd expect since Honda is using a smaller engine than the Civic that the mileage would at least be slightly better. The Cobalt I've been wanting to get will only cost me about a grand more!

I would just suggest you drive the aveo & Fit side by side and then make your decision if the Fit is worth the price difference.

...also the Fit does so much more than a Civic and is cheaper.