On Topic (49) | Off Topic (100) | All (149)
Comments: 1-15, 16-30, 31-45, 46-49
17:23; If you have to ask, you'll never know.
"If you have to ask, you'll never know."
I've owned a honda before and found it to be fairly unremarkable so I guess I never will know.
I have owned my FIT for over a month now and am so very pleased. I have filled the tank at least 10 times and have not dropped below 38MPG. One take got 41.2MPG!!! My driving is 50/50 city/hwy and I guess I drive 'normally' - rarely exceeding 75MPH - mostly 55-65MPH. This car has absolutely no problem keeping up in traffic. The car has a good 'feel' to it and is very much fun to drive (SPORT/AT). There are so many 'extras' on the car for the money... I shopped around prior to buying and the Fit, while a bit more expensive than other cars in its class, was still the best of the lot in my opinion.
I would recommend this auto to anyone - highly. I do love this car.
<<Well I briefly had a 2006 Honda Civic LX Coupe and in no way was it fun to drive, nor was it comfortable. It was just your basic economy car i.e. totally unremarkable in all aspects.
And how can the Fit be fun to drive with 109 HP? It could handle better than an F1 car and it still wouldn't be fun to drive with such little power, but it basically handles like any other FWD box class vehicle.>>
Sorry, but you are talking separate vehicles. The Civic is designed for comfort, the Fit is designed for fun.
Horsepower is not the end all/be all definition of fun. I had an 89 Civic Si with 108 hp and that car was a blast. There are legions of CRX fans who would kill for a 108 hp CRX because of its amazing road abilities.
The Fit is an incredible car.
You cannot compare a Ford Explorer to the Fit...The Explorer is a heavy weight truck with unresponsive engines. The Fit while not a slugger is a go kart that is fun to drive. This is my opinion and I do favor my 1994 Accord 5-speed with 255,000 miles
And the commenter needs to stop reading the auto section in the Detroit paper. The Fit has been on the road for five years now and is just as fresh today as it was back in 2002. These cars lead the pack right now when hansomely packaged.
"Thanks, but I'll take the safe, economical, and blast to drive Civic"
Safe... fairly, economical... very, blast to drive... nope even the SI isn't a "blast" to drive. The regular civic is about as humdrum as it gets other than it's good looks and the SI is enjoyable to drive and balances economy and sport fairly well, but it's by no means a blast to drive. To get a blast out of a Honda you need to look towards the s2000 which is not safe or economical, but it is a blast to drive.
13:05 Google searching EPA ratings clearly show the FACTS: an '02 Explorer, when it was BRAND NEW got 15 city/20 highway!
That's WORSE than every import you named, other than the Landcruiser and the Sequoia, which, as you stated ARE V8'S!!
Oh, but YOUR Explorer, after 6 years (over life expectancy for a Ford engine) gets BETTER mileage than all of these. This is too funny.
Oh, and by the way, I guess you left out the Highlander hybrid, that gets 32/27. But in YOUR bizarro world, does that mean that your Exploder gets better mileage than that, too?
You know your Explorer is getting 17/23 on your driving standards... and the Dodge Truck, etc. If you actually drove those Toyota's or Honda's like you did your Explorer you would get even better mileage. My 94 Accord is only supposed to get 32 miles per gallon, but I can really push it to get 41. As for the Civic owner needing to get transported to the hospital I do not believe it. For one, the Explorer would roll over on its right side. If you actually look at crash data on NHTSA you will see that the Civic is tested on the sides and front with a barrier that represents a truck size object and it does just fine. It helps to have the ACE structure system. Guys I know its hard to see Toyota and Honda blowing Ford and GM into the dust, but whining won't do anything about it.
"You obviously have a very very different definition of "blast" than I do. Mine does not include raw speed, but HANDLING, and the Fit certainly qualifies. Just ask Car and Driver."
Yeah car and driver said the fit handles very well for an ECONOMY car, but if you look at the skidpad and handling characteristics You'll see it's a far cry from many sport oriented family sedans never mind sports cars. And if your definition of "blast" doesn't include Speed, handling, and RWD or AWD you need to find a new word because you need a well rounded and capable vehicle to really have fun on your favorite empty road.
Actually sir, I drove my Honda for 600 miles one time and it did not run out of gas. I filled up with fuel and still had a lot of gas to go and could have probably made it to 800 miles on the tank... NOT A DEFECTIVE Gauge, but A DEFECTIVE ENGINE THAT RUNS GREAT AND BURNS LITTLE GAS! Sorry, but you cannot make Ford or GM survive with your gas talk, boy!
I own a manual transmission Fit and find the highway revs to be fine as far a noise is concerned. Had the 5th gear been any taller I'd have to downshift on inclines as there's no acceleration power in those cases anyway.
The concern is fuel economy, I'm guessing I might lose a MPG or two by revving a little higher, but at least I'm not having the drivability affected.
Many newer small cars have auto boxes that eek a little better highway economy from their taller gearing, however most likely downshift on any slight incline so that comes with a price.
I have had the car for over 50,000 miles and I do not appreciate you trying to make me look like a fool. I once owned GM cars and never again. My Honda now has over 250,000 miles of trouble free experiences. Thank you and Good night!
I do not know what to say other than the car has a 17.1 gallon tank and after driving on a vacation trip the car was getting 170 miles per quarter tank. I filled it up at the gas station and it would only take 4.4 gallons for 170 + miles. I have given you guys ball park numbers so you can help me figure this out. 800 miles was a quick number... I was thinking more like 725+ miles to the tank. RPM's throughout the whole trip was under 3 grand going 69mph with the cruise on going with the wind without A/C and on beautiful flat Iowa ground. I do not think it has anything to do with the gauge or odometer because I was traveling from Iowa to northern Minnesota (over 300 miles) and I was going by how many gallons of gas I could fit into the tank, etc. With over 250,000 miles the engine is not really that tight either and it had also just been in for a maintenance interval where they replaced the spark plugs, dist, etc.
Help!
21:29 poster has an agenda. No matter what any car magazine or tester says the Ford Fusion comes out on top no matter what vehicle in his opinion. Seems like he is getting a little too excited in a vehicle that will not save Ford on its own. I agree the Accord is better and yes it is a five year old car by now and Ford has only built a vehicle that just nicks at it. Oh by the way--I heard that horsepower ratings were changed a few years ago with Honda so 240 is the correct horsepower rating. Remember the RL getting pushed down to 268? Well that was years past and now all Honda's are on line. BTW the Accord has 244 horsepower--not much but still more than the Rental car fleet Fusion.