2013 Honda Fit – Pricing Remains the Same

Discussion in 'In the News' started by xcel, Jul 16, 2012.

  1. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    [​IMG]The uniquely versatile B-Segment hatch receives one new color choice but that is about it.

    [fimg=left]http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/2012_Honda_Fit_Sport.jpg[/fimg]Wayne Gerdes - CleanMPG - July 16, 2012

    2013 Honda Fit - $15,325 to start and an at best 28/35 mpgUS city/highway rating.

    The Fit returns for 2013 with a new exterior color and no price increase. It is now available with Midnight Plum Pearl replacing the previous Orange Burst Metallic.

    The 1.5L i-VTECI4 mated to either a 5-speed MT or AT is the same 117 HP engine it has been equipped with for years.

    The EPA is Where It’s Going To Hurt

    When equipped with the optional AT, the base Fit is rated at 28/35 mpgUS city/highway. The Sport with the same is rated at what I would deem to be an unacceptable 27/33 mpgUS city/highway rating while the buzz-bomb manual is rated at 27/33 mpgUS city/highway.

    Body, Chassis, Interior and Safety remain unchanged.

    The Fit Sport is available with the 6.5” screen Honda Satellite-Linked Navigation System with Voice Recognition. When equipped with the Honda Satellite-Linked Navigation System, the Fit Sport also includes Bluetooth HandsFreeLink to help make hands-free telephone calls more convenient. The Navigation System also features Bluetooth Audio capability with compatible phones and devices.

    A Fit Sport whose 5-speed MT is spinning at an unacceptable 2,800 + RPM at 60 mph in this day and age? In addition, having to pay over $20 Grand for a B-Segment hatch to receive Bluetooth Handsfree capability, one of the most advanced safety systems in a car today, is way over the top compared to its rivals. Accent or Rio anyone? Honda has not yet entered the second decade of the 21st century but I am sure they are planning to completely revamp their trim lineup beginning with the 13 Civic. That will not be soon enough for the Fit however :(
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 16, 2012
  2. malherbe

    malherbe Well-Known Member

    I bought one before th fiesta was available, thinking it was the best option. Now it seems, it is a bottom feeder. How fast times change. 38mpg city 36 mpg at 83 mph
  3. southerncannuck

    southerncannuck Well-Known Member

    I just returned from fishing with a 12.5 foot Hobie kayak inside the car. I have to keep the tailgate open but it's not a problem. For that matter the kayak fits better in the Fit than it does in my wife's Subaru Outback. At end of the year the difference between 35 or 40 mpg just doesn't add up to a lot, but having a useful vehicle sure comes in handy.
  4. WriConsult

    WriConsult Super Moderator

    To some of us 15% is a pretty big difference. A couple years ago the Fit was near the top of the pack, but with lots of 38-40mpg vehicles to choose from, they're not looking too competitive anymore. Toyota's Matrix is a bigger embarrassment in terms of value in the hatchback segment, so at least Honda has that going for them.

    I wonder when Honda's going to wake up and smell the shrinking market segment. Of course I've been wondering that for quite a few years. Hyundai has been the new Honda for way too long.
  5. herm

    herm Well-Known Member

    The Fit seems to do well at fuelly.com
  6. CRT1

    CRT1 Newbie McNewbster

    This is a very versatile car that has "C-segment" size with "B-segment" price, and that size is very, very usable. It is an odd-ball car that gets unduly criticized because it does not fit in the regular B-segment mold.

    Don't get me wrong, Honda should be doing better than they are in terms of FE technology, but also you need to see the FIT for what it is and stop comparing it to much smaller vehicles. It is apples and oranges.

    Yes, for some people 15% is a big deal. For most people it is not. For me 15% would amount to about $150 per year, which is a reasonable amount to pay to have the extra versatility of the FIT if you need it over the much smaller Rio or Accent. I need the space because I am constantly carting around tons of boxes for my biz and am personally saving a lot of money compared to driving a small SUV or full-size wagon.

    I love this community but it can be a bit of an echo chamber. Most people have a commute that is less than 25 miles round trip and most people consider 30 MPG as fairly fuel efficient.
  7. CRT1

    CRT1 Newbie McNewbster

    When I used to drive very aggressively, I was getting just about 28 to 29 combined, pretty close to EPA as my driving is about 50/50 city/highway.

    I got tired of racing to the next stoplight and filling every week so I decided to drive conservatively and see what I could get. I easily got 34-36 mpg combined for a few springtime tanks, and 42 mpg for an all highway 350 mile road-trip averaging about 65 mph with some light AC usage. This is with no knowledge of hypermiling.

    I am 3/4 through the current tank and its at 46.2 mpg. I have the AT which has reasonable gearing for the highway. There is a fuel efficient car in there wanting to get out . . .
  8. PaleMelanesian

    PaleMelanesian Beat the System Staff Member

    You're driving the automatic. The manual is buzzing at crazy high rpm in top gear, costing fuel the whole time. The thing is, Honda could make this thing more efficient with a simple change - gear ratios. It doesn't take a lot of engineering to change a final drive ratio. That alone would make up at least the 2 mpg deficit between manual and automatic. It might even add a couple points above that, to 36 or 37 highway. For the cost of a little engineering and parts swapping.
  9. CRT1

    CRT1 Newbie McNewbster

    This is a valid criticism. I bet their market research shows that hypermilers are .001% of the population and Honda tuners buy the other 99.9999% of their MTs, so they gear it for the 20 year old kids that are going to put turbos and fart cans on the darn things. Such is the country we live in.

    Still not sure why the AT does so badly on the EPA tests . . .
  10. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi CRT1:

    They do not build them for us or street racers (it has 117 HP on tap and only when revved near its limits), Honda should build them for everyone and they do not. An Autocrosser (which there are few in Fits doing that) will never see beyond second gear. A Drag racer (even fewer in Fits doing that?) will never see fourth. Spreading of the ratios does not impede performance guys since they never reach the top gears anyway.

    When I criticize the Fit by comparison, you need to consider the all-new 2012 Accent in particular. It has all that the Fit provides minus a little length extension but at a far lower price point and Bluetooth is standard in almost every trim. With the 6-speed stick, it runs at a high 2,400 but nothing like the buzz bomb 2,800 of the Fit with the 5-speed MT. Honda needs to fix this but is unwilling to do so and it continues to piss me off as the years continue on by and the fuel being consumed needlessly is absolutely and 100% thrown away. It is not just the owner that cannot afford this; it is all of us that cannot afford this type of design anymore.

  11. EdwinTheMagnificent

    EdwinTheMagnificent Legend In His Mind

    Honda could easily come out with a separate Fit model , call it an "HF", perhaps. Have appropriate gearing with the MANUAL transmission , clean up the aero underneath the car , add tires more suited to 117 HP (175/65R15 ? ) , and charge $1000 more.
    But will they ? Heck , it might cut into Insight sales(snicker,snicker).
  12. RedylC94

    RedylC94 Well-Known Member

    Edwin, you're right. That would put the Fit back on my list of hot prospects. The $1000 would be nearly pure profit, since more sensible tires would likely save them as about much as simple aero mods would cost them.
  13. southerncannuck

    southerncannuck Well-Known Member

    Can I put my 9" surfboard in it with all the doors closed? Will my 12.5 foot kayak fit in without an problems? If not the Accent is a good commuter but it's not my replacement for a truck which is what a Fit is.
  14. twoodcc

    twoodcc Well-Known Member

    i don't see why they can't put a 6-speed in all vehicles. then they can increase that highway mpg number
  15. CRT1

    CRT1 Newbie McNewbster


    From the perspective of "why don't they fix this damn MT" I totally feel you, man. Honda has some of the best engineers on the planet and so clearly it is totally lame they don't do better.

    That said, the Accent and FIT are not interchangeable. The FIT is as big as the Elantra 5-door, much bigger than the Accent, and the squared out interior, low floor, etc makes the space is very versatile. The FIT gives people like me and southerncannuck small suv utility at a much better price and FE. The other b-segment offerings do not do that, you have to go up a segment and probably $4-5k.

    When I had my Civic I commuted in it and we drove my wife's CRV for almost all other purposes because of kid, gear, cargo, work, etc. Once I got the FIT is all but replaced the CRV. The wife just drives the CRV back and forth to the train station now. If you look at that way, the FIT is saving more gas than if I got the Accent and we ended up still relying on the CRV for weekend & hauling duties.


    EDIT: All this said, and I am thinking about trading the FIT for something with a plug. :D
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2012
  16. Gord

    Gord Super Moderator Staff Member

    I took my eldest daughter out for a driving lesson in her '05 1246cc Jazz / Fit MT on Sunday and she managed 56.8mpg over 27 miles. Max speed mostly 50 (briefly hit 60), country roads, stalled it once, a few stops, some reversing, non-hypermiler (for now ;)).
    It seems to get way better FE than the NEDC (never mind the EPA!) without much effort. I guess on the highway it wouldn't do so well with the higher revs but it doesn't rev at high as the US Fit but it has a smaller engine :confused:
  17. southerncannuck

    southerncannuck Well-Known Member

    I wish I could figure out how to post a photo of my Fit with a full load. As they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2012
  18. Die2self

    Die2self Saving more by using less!

    I agree the MT are hammpered by a low gear ratio, but hey if the engine is off, what does it matter :D. I am working on a 200 - 210 % of EPA combined tank right now so with that in mind this car can be and FE junky's car.;)

    Now, it I had to drive on the highway all the time with the engine on, it would be somewhat noisy, but I have never found it to be bothersome (or a buzzbomb). By the time you get to 60-65 the wind noise is just a loud as the engine. Staying around 60-65 MPH should also up the FE to 38 or so, if not 40 on flatish gound.

    But the FIT shines where it likes to live, in the city. Being light and adgile and able to carry a lot of cargo or passangers it is dream when it driven in its element where the speeds are 45 or lower. In this range the Fit is capible of 50-60 MPG with a light throttle touch. it loves this range with excellent gliding returned with pumping up the stock tires to 45 where they should be.

    I love my FIT and would not trade it for another Gasser. Now a plug in, well that is a different story all together ;). (I would love the FIT EV, which every one here somes to like as well, but not the price/fleece option).

    Every car shines brightest in its element, the highway is not the FIT's, but it manages decent numbers if you slow down.
  19. WriConsult

    WriConsult Super Moderator

    Possibly almost as big as the new Elantra 5-door GT? The Fit is nowhere near as big as the outgoing Elantra 5-door Touring, however. I drove both of them back-to-back within 2 hours of each other last year, and they're not even close. The Fit's cargo floor is only 28" long, and the Touring's is 36". The GT's is 30" per Wayne's measurement, BTW -- which is quite disappointing to me, because that's the same as the Accent. FWIW the Touring is probably a bit bigger than we need, but the Fit is certainly not comparable to it.

    The Fit is much more spacious than most of its B-sement competitors, and has a lot of utility. The fact that the front seatback can fold flat for your surfboard (a feature the Matrix also offers, but most hatchbacks don't) is very nice. But amount of utility you get from it depends on what you're carrying: if you're going to haul really big stuff like furniture, appliances or surfboards, then the Fit's great and the cubic measurement of cargo volume is fairly indicative of how much you can haul with it. And as you've pointed out, its squareness helps with hauling large items.

    But for me, cargo capacity is about hauling my family and our gear on a roadtrip. With all 4 seating positions occupied, I need to put a bunch of small bags in the back without blocking too much of the rear window, and without stacking them 3-4 deep so I have to unload half the trunk to get at stuff during a camping trip. So what matters more to me is the size of the cargo floor, period: the Fit's is only 28" long, shorter than our little Golf's, and that's really not very much room. The Fit's cargo area is unusually tall, but this does me no good, nor do the rear Magic Seats, nor does the folding front seatback. From looking in the back of an Accent at the auto show, I don't see how it would provide any less utility for my needs than the Fit.

    What I do like about the Magic Seats is not that they fold out of the way, but that you can store a lot of stuff under them even when they're occupied. That does add a lot of utility in my book, and my son was initially disappointed we didn't buy the Fit for exactly that reason.

    When I was car shopping last year, I drove and strongly considered the 2011 Fit. Ultimately the deal killer for us was the road noise (fixed with the 2012 model, as I understand it), which we found oppressive unless we were lucky enough to be driving on smooth asphalt. On a stretch of concrete where the Insight and Touring were tolerable, we found ourselves yelling at each other to converse in the Fit. But even with that consideration aside, we concluded that if we bought a Honda we'd rather get the Insight anyway. Because although its EPA volume is much smaller, its 5" longer cargo floor made it a lot more useful. Much easier to stuff a bike in the back with one side of the rear seats still up (and the chainring not completely chewing up the edge of that seat) so we can legally have our child in the car. And much easier to manage the cargo on a big family camping trip, such as the one we're taking next week.

    Please don't take this as criticism of your choice of vehicle. The Fit's kind of utility works well for a lot of people, and I'm glad you're happy with it. Looking out just one window in my office to a portion of my building's parking lot, I can see 3 of them. I'm just saying that there's no single yardstick for utility, and the Fit's capabilities don't meet everyone's needs equally.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2012
  20. CRT1

    CRT1 Newbie McNewbster

    Yes, I meant the 5-door GT, which is a pretty sweet ride. Sorry for the lack of specificity.


    These seats are not comfortable for long rides but they are ah-mazing for cargo. I was able to put my kid in her car seat on the 40 side and flip up the 60 side and put her bike on the floor next to her, fill the cargo area with suitcases and not obstruct the view or get chain grease on any of our bags.

    Also the rear passenger area accepts almost impossibly large packages with the seats flipped up which I haul a lot for my business.

Share This Page