2006 Honda Fit Sport from North America - Comments

No issues so far (but I've only driven it for 1000 miles).

I was looking for an economical commuter car. I was pleased to find a car that is practical and is so much fun to drive. With its roomy interior, hatchback design and 'magic' folding seats it will be useful for all the family hauling that will come our way.

The standard safety features (ABS, air bags, side curtain air bags, side impact reinforcement) were an important consideration for me as I do a lot of urban-highway driving and constantly pass wrecks reminding me of the fragility of some of the smaller models out there.

I do have some concerns with the car. The 'Sport' epithet is only applicable to the tight sport suspension. The shift paddles on the steering wheel are useless, unless you only change gear when the car is travelling in a straight line (Hint; sports cars need to change gears in corners). The fuel ecconomy of only 30 miles to the (US) gallon is disappointing for a small car, but still much better than others I've looked at.

Overall I enjoy the car, but Honda can, and should, improve the model. Or Toyota will!

Honda small motors take 7000 miles to fully break in. Your performance and fuel economy will improve as time goes on.

My friend and I took both an automatic Fit Sport and a manual Fit Sport out for back-to-back test drives together yesterday. We ended up spending more time behind the wheel of the automatic version because that's the one each of us thought we were most interested in for ourselves, and it was quite an extensive test drive -- much more so than with any other car I've shopped for previously. Our salesman was busy with other customers, so he let us go out on our own, and we took advantage of the situation to drive the automatic version in a variety of different conditions -- heading up a steep mountain pass, winding through curvy canyon roads, cruising on the highway, and negotiating city traffic.

My initial impression, pulling out into city traffic in the automatic-equipped Fit, was that the car was laughably underpowered -- but then, I was trying to accelerate more aggressively than I typically do in normal driving in order to see what kind of power it had; once I settled into a more relaxed driving style, the Fit seemed to have adequate power (but no more than that).

The next portion of our drive was climbing a mountain pass at highway speeds, going from an altitude of approx. 4,500 ft. to maybe 6,000 or so ft., and this was by far the most disappointing part of my test drive. Granted, this is perhaps the hardest test one might throw at what some would consider primarily a "city car," but the way the automatic (which, significantly, was in "D" mode) kept hunting for the right gear as we climbed in elevation was really off-putting. Honestly, at that point, my disappointment over its hill-climbing abilities felt like a dealbreaker to me -- but more on that in just a moment.

Next, we carved through a winding canyon road, heading in both directions to see how the car handled going either uphill or downhill around the curves, and this is where the Fit really shined. The steering seems quite precise and feels very "tight" (the small turning radius is great, too!), and the car handles like a champ; all the accolades thrown at this car for its agility by the motoring press -- especially in articles like the comparison test in the May issue of Car and Driver magazine, in which the Fit absolutely ran away with the highest fun-to-drive score -- are appropriate. Significantly, my friend drove for most of this section with the automatic in "S" mode, manually selecting the gears and so avoiding the frustrating way the auto would hunt for the right gear in "D" mode when climbing a hill, and the Fit seemed to have plenty of power that way, although the engine was revving like crazy.

Having climbed the mountain pass previously in "D" to see how the Fit would drive up a sizable hill with minimal intervention, we went back to cover the same ground, only this time keeping the car in "S" mode and manually selecting the gears -- and our experience, as you'd expect, was quite different and far more satisfying. This time, we climbed the mountain pass with the car in 4th gear most of the way, and it did so ably; while I wouldn't go so far as to say the Fit did it with power to spare, it certainly had adequate power in 4th gear heading up the hill, no question about it. Excellent!

Finally, we finished our test drive of the automatic-equipped Fit with a relatively flat expressway run and the automatic in "D" mode, and here the car seemed to acquit itself quite well. Cruising at highway speeds is no problem for the Fit, with the caveat that you'll have to drop down to 4th gear on occasion for short periods to maintain your speed on some inclines -- even on some inclines, I should point out, that seem so slight you wouldn't even notice that they were inclines in more powerful cars.

We then drove a 5-speed manual-equipped Fit Sport, but limited our time behind the wheel of this model to mostly city and a little bit of highway driving, since we were both more interested in the automatic version, and because we'd already gotten a very good feel for the Fit from the extensive test drive of the automatic model we'd just completed.

The manual Fit actually seemed slower to us than the automatic, even though the manual version may be quicker in actual practice, probably due largely to the fact that the automatic version is designed in a way to jump off the line with verve; from a stop, the automatic version really springs forward as soon as you begin to press the accelerator, a quality we both really enjoyed. The manual shifts precisely and easily and the clutch pedal feels quite light, as others have reported, but overall we favored the automatic version for two reasons: first, because the automatic is geared in such a way to cruise at lower RPMs than the manual at speed, it strikes us as offering more versatility than the manual -- said differently, the automatic's 5th gear offers the relaxed cruising that the manual doesn't since the manual lacks a true overdrive 6th gear; and second, because of its smoothness, impression of power off the line, and the fun and versatility it offers between "D" and manually-shifted "S" modes, the automatic enables the Fit to give off a more upscale vibe that we didn't get in the manual version, which seemed more "econobox" to us (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I wish we'd had the time and opportunity to go back and head up the same mountain pass that so tested the automatic-equipped Fit in the manual version, because I'd really like to see if the manual required downshifting from 5th to 4th at any point to climb the hill. It may not have, since the manual, as others have observed and I've alluded to, runs at higher RPMs than the automatic. In fact, here's a snapshot of the difference in RPMs we observed between the manual and automatic versions when running at speed...

Manual at 60 mph: 2900 RPM

Manual at 70 mph: 3500 RPM

Manual at 80 mph: 3900 RPM.

Auto at 60 mph: 2300 RPM

Auto at 70 mph: 2600 RPM

Auto at 80 mph: 2900 RPM.

Mind you, these are approximate readings from our drive, and owners who are able to spend more time observing RPMs at various speeds as they live with the car can undoubtedly supply more accurate readings, but I feel confident that these observations from our relatively brief drives are close to within a 100 RPM-range of accuracy.

Overall, we came away with a positive impression of Honda's new Fit, with a few important qualifications. First and foremost, it's a lot of car for the money. It seems solidly built -- it doesn't really feel as lightweight as it is -- and its handling (both in feel and in actual performance) and its superb packaging and functionality are its strong suits (it struck me as quite simply the perfect size inside to comfortably accommodate 4 full-size adults along with a modest complement of cargo). Whether it has adequate power -- and whether the automatic or the manual is the "right" choice for you -- will depend much more on individual preferences and the conditions in which you drive.

I'm not entirely sold on it for myself, but that's largely because I live at a high elevation (approx. 4,300 ft.) and do a lot of driving through the mountains at even higher elevations; where the turbocharged 150-HP 1.8-liter four-cylinder in my 600-pound-heavier Volkswagen charges effortlessly up mountain grades in top gear with power to spare, the normally aspirated 109-HP 1.5-liter four-cylinder in the Fit performs merely adequately in the same conditions, requiring frequent or constant downshifting.

Speaking of downshifting, I'm also very skeptical of how economically the car would consume gas in the mountain driving I do since I'd be resorting to running the engine at such high RPMs to climb high-elevation hills around here; my skepticism is only bolstered by the fact that the car is so new and in so few owners' hands at the moment that real-world anecdotal fuel mileage figures are almost entirely unavailable as I write this. If you live in an area closer to sea-level, however, and if the terrain in your area is also relatively flat, I'd think that the Fit would perform well for you, giving you the power you need and the fuel economy you seek.

(I hope none of you think I'm dumping on your car or ridiculing anyone who chose a manual over an automatic, BTW, because that's not my intention at all! As I said, I think the Fit could be an outstanding choice for a lot of people -- indeed, I'm still considering one for myself -- and your choice of transmission will largely be a matter of personal preference. These are just my own very subjective impressions and are not meant to be taken as anything other than that.)

Anyway, thanks for reading all the way through this; I could've written less -- hell, I could've written a lot more, because there's plenty of other stuff I could comment on that I didn't! -- but I figured some of you would appreciate as much detail as possible, just as I do in the reviews I read.

Went for a test drive in an auto Fit and was very impressed. The car exudes quality on a lot of levels, much more than my (cheaper) Aveo which is considered competition.

Thing that impressed me most about the Fit is that Honda has FINALLY gotten back to putting soul in their cars. Honda used to make great cars that were truly fun to drive. I had an 88 Civic and an 89 Civic Si, the latter being an incredible driving machine given its 108 hp. Then I got a 93 Civic Si and the soul was gone.

Now the Fit is sporty and fun, what Honda used to be, and that's important. And, of course, there is a huge aftermarket for this car. Check out www.fitfreak.net for tons of examples. I think what would make this car perfect would be sportier tires (as an option since the Fit's target market isn't looking for handling), and that's what I may do if I decide to get this car.

The gas mileage is a concern given the heavier and more "upscale" Civic gets essentially the same results. But the Fit is smaller, more versatile, and 33+ mpg on average ain't that bad in any case. My friend's Prius is averaging 46 mpg, but then he paid $30K for it.

Some sort of Fit hybrid or a clean diesel would ensure this car had record sales for years to come. Imagine a fun-to-drive subcompact that got real world 50+ mpg.

Demand is high enough in the United States that Honda will put out over 300,000 Honda Fits in years to come instead of the 50,000 they produced for the first run in the US.

My nephew and brother-in-law, twin car freaks, talked me into the fit. Was going to go for the yaris, but just didn't care for the truncated hatch model and the not quite-corolla 4-door. I sort of made up my mind I was going to stay in the "smooshed station wagon" category. Considered the Scion 4-door hatch, but my car gurus hot on the Fit prevailed. Couldn't find one to even test drive way out in the chicago suburbs (forget the hot demand city) but while driving home from work one evening pulled up next to a Fit, which, coincidently and unbelievably, was being test driven from a dealership around the corner from my home. As it happened, these dealers where crooks, had jacked up the msrp for a basic fit to 22k. They were trying to hard sell me big-time. I escaped, but at least got the chance to drive the fit--which handled so very, very well. Long story short in calling around--no way was I gonna pay more than the msrp, I'm a girl, yes, but hardly a stupid one. Indeed, I would have liked to have paid less, but with demand being satisfied 3 and 4 months out, basic economics told me I would be lucky to pay msrp. So I called around and one dealer had a metallic blue sport model. One thing lead to another and I drove away that night with the fit at the price I expected. So far: a great little car which feels heavy and substantial. It's comfortable inside and looks sharp. I was a little bugged by the lack of visibility. the back seat headrests are intrusive and the 92 civic was wide open in the back, as I like to turn my head when changing lanes (never trust those passenger side mirrors). I'd like better mileage too. I'm a very careful driver and am averaging 27-30 in the city. But, go figure, it seems as if I do better filling the tank all the way up and get better numbers. the lit. say the tank is 10.something, but I found it carries upwards of 12 gallons.Oh, and sometimes it sort of revs at stops, but that may just be a timing issue I need to have checked out. otherwise, a good car which puts a smile on my face just looking and it and knowing it's mine... and paid for.

I am seriously considering buying a Fit, and I very much appreciate all of the valuable information being posted here, it is helping me along with my decision. I have been driving Toyota's for years, and am still very happy with them, but I just can't get this little Honda out of my head. I've always wanted a late 80's/early 90's Honda hatchback.

Now, this is the thing that is holding me back: I understand how good Honda's 4-cylinder motor is, but I make a 1200 mile round trip to visit family several times a year, and if this car runs @ 3900 rpm's at 80 mph, (manual model, as stated above), won't that surely shorten the life of the motor greatly, if I am making this trip often? Or am I just underestimating the Honda motor. I use nothing, but full synthetic Mobil oil, and do maintenance per the manual, if not more often. I truly enjoy driving, which is why I would only ever buy the standard shift. Any thoughts?

To 19:17, are you sure that you are calculating you gas mileage correctly, specifically that you know the tank capacity? From what I have read, almost everyone is getting at least 36 mpg, and many get 40. Twenty seven sounds REALLY low; I can't imagine you could drive a Fit hard enough to make it use that much gas. I only ask because I may buy one, and I am trying to get a good idea of what kind of mileage these cars actually get. EPA estimates can be kind of "iffy".

To 21:00; thanks for posting the most informative comment I have read. I'm TRYING to find a Honda dealer that has an automatic model and a standard also, so that I can drive both, and it seems next to impossible! I drove an auto. a while ago, but need to drive them both in a short time frame to compare. How noisy was the engine in the standard at 3000 rpm's?

To the poster concerned about high rpm.

Honda's history is with motorcycles and it builds its cars the same way. Therefore, they often rev higher and have higher redlines than similar cars from other manufacturers.

So don't worry about high rpms. The car is SUPPOSED to do that!

So rather than examine a car on its inherent qualities, you simply make up your mind based on what others' opinions are?

And how is the Fit overpriced? It comes LOADED in both versions, and a comparable Cobalt is thousands more, and an inferior quality Aveo has fewer options for the same money.

And Honda engines are not "the same" as your basic Chevy engine. Anyone who knew anything about car mechanicals could tell you that.

Or why do you think the Fit extracts more mpg out of the same size engine than the Aveo?

Consumer Reports bases their ratings on what OWNERS tell them.

And I find it hard to believe you actually think all engines are essentially the same, unless you are talking about the fact they are all internal combustion.

The Fit is a very sophisticated engine and I could tell that just from driving the automatic version of it.

"And how is the Fit overpriced? It comes LOADED in both versions, and a comparable Cobalt is thousands more"

Well I suppose by loaded you mean the minimum that any self repecting person would grudgingly accept (leather and power seats aren't even optional nor is a decent stereo). You can't even compare a cobalt to a fit either, the fit is a subcompact b-car (something I wouldn't take for free) and the cobalt is a standard compact (still wouldn't take it for free). Then there the engines 109 for the fit 148 for the cobalt. Then theres the chevrolets larger, more comfortable interior, and the cobalt is actually cheaper (look them up) then once you add in the discount you can get on the cobalt they end up being over 1000$ cheaper. And the final knockout punch... the cobalts 100k mile warranty. But in the end I can't stand either one and think that they are BOTH overpriced tin cans on wheels.

I see 17:14 hasn't done his research. The Cobalt is HEAVIER than the Fit so therefore needs MORE horsepower to do the same thing. The Fit is a class below as far as size, but has MORE room in the interior (I've driven both cars). Cobalt is NOT cheaper in America, and essentially STARTS OUT where the Fit leaves off - in fact the Cobalt I drove had MANUAL windows and door locks, things that aren't even an option in the Fit. Why would one want leather or power seats in a subcompact? Makes no sense. And the stereo, with its iPOD jack and such, is very very good.

The tin can comment is just another person who is not interested in any car this size spouting off for no reason. Drive the Fit, you'll be surprised what it can do.

And the Cobalt needs the long warranty unlike the Fit.

But the marketplace determines these things and dealers are asking upwards of $3,000 over sticker for a Fit while the Cobalt languishes by the thousands on dealer lots.

"I don't want to be the target of a angry car monkey who thinks he is superior to everyone else on this site and he drives a Ford Escort with a better four cylinder than my Honda Civic."

And what does that make you? A car monkey who thinks he is superior to every class A mechanic on this site and drives a Honda civic with the best 4 cylinder in the world? Maybe if you listen to that "car monkey" who's been posting here you'll learn a thing or two.

Yet another thread that's gone to %&#@. Who's uncle was it that has a Dodge Omni with 406,000 flawless miles? Can I play too? My uncle has a Ford Escort with 900,000 miles on it, and it has the original tires on it. I also have seen an assembly plant once, so I definitely know more about automobile engines than a mechanic with two and a half decades of experience.

O.k., back to the Honda Fit. I'm reading here because I want one. First off, how can you go wrong with a Honda 4-cylinder? Not to mention this thing gets around 38-40 m.p.g. once properly broken in.

And, how cool is the configuration of the seats? Many times I've been camping, and been cold or wet, and tried to sleep in the cab of whatever truck I had, or cramped across the seats in a car. With this thing, you can stretch out like you're lying in your bed at home!

I also test drove and can't wait to own one. Some people hate the "go-cart" small car experience, but I can't get enough. I enjoy that feeling when you take a long trip, and it feels like you've stolen a go-cart from some amusement park and you're driving illegally on the road.

Got to have the standard shift, though; there's no other way to go.

I'm anxious to post a review once I have mine for awhile.