Archives

2007 Honda Fit/Fit Sport

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/508/07_Honda_Fit_Sport_Front.jpg

Pricing:

Honda Fit MT/Auto
$13,850/$14,650
Honda Fit Sport MT/Auto
$15,170/$15,970
Dest. $595

16" Alloy Wheel $836
Car Cover $209
Chrome Exhaust Finisher $30
Full Nose Mask $145
Rear Bumper Appliqué $58
Sport Grille $220
All-Season Floor Mats $109
Carpet Floor Mats $99
Cargo Cover $165
Cargo Net $55
Cargo Organizer $59
Cargo Tray $99
Leather Shift Knob $79
Honda MusicLink (for iPod®) $199

Engineering:

Engine Type: In-Line 4-Cylinder
Engine Block/Cylinder Head: Aluminum-Alloy
Displacement (cc): 1497
Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net, Rev 8/04): 109 @ 5800
Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm): 105 @ 4800
Redline (rpm): 6300
Bore and Stroke (mm): 73.0 x 89.4
Compression Ratio: 10.4:1
Valvetrain: 16-Valve SOHC VTEC (R)
Multi-Point Fuel Injection
Drive-by-Wire Throttle System (TM)
Front-Wheel Drive
CARB Emissions Rating: LEV-2
Direct Ignition System with Immobilizer
100,000-Miles-or-More Tune-Up Interval*

Transmissions:

Gear Ratios

5-Speed Manual Transmission

1st: 3.462 2nd:1.870 3rd: 1.321 4th: 0.970 5th: 0.757 Final Drive: 4.294
Reverse: 3.231

5-Speed Automatic Transmission (available)

1st: 2.995 2nd: 1.678 3rd: 1.066 4th: 0.756 5th: 0.550 Final Drive: 4.562
Reverse: 1.956

Body/Suspension/Chassis:

Unit-Body Construction
MacPherson Strut Front Suspension
Torsion-Beam Rear Suspension
Stabilizer Bar (mm., front): 21.0
Electric Power-Assisted Rack-and-Pinion Steering (EPS)
Steering Wheel Turns, Lock-to-Lock: 2.41
Steering Ratio: 12.8
Turning Diameter, Curb-to-Curb (ft.): 35.6
Power-Assisted Ventilated Front Disc/Rear Drum Brakes (in.): 10.3/7.9
Wheels: 14" with Full Covers//15" Alloy
All-Season Tires: P175/65 R14 81S//P195/55 R15 84H
Compact Spare Tire

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/508/07_Honda_Fit_Sport_Interior.jpg

Interior Measurements:

Headroom (in., front/rear): 40.6/38.6
Legroom (in., front/rear): 41.9/33.7
Shoulder Room (in., front/rear): 52.8/50.6
Hiproom (in., front/rear): 51.2/51.0
Cargo Volume (cu. ft., seat up/down): 21.3/TBD
Passenger Volume (cu. ft.): 90.1
Seating Capacity: 5

Exterior Measurements:

Wheelbase (in.): 96.5
Length (in.): 157.4
Height (in.): 60
Width (in.): 66.2
Track (in., front/rear): 57.3/57.1
Curb Weight (lbs. MT/AT): 2432/2514//2471/2551
Weight Distribution (%, front/rear, MT): 61.8/38.2//61.6/38.4
Weight Distribution (%, front/rear, AT): 63.3/36.7//63.2/36.8

EPA Mileage Estimates*/Capacities:

5-Speed Manual (City/Highway): 33 / 38
5-Speed Automatic (City/Highway): 31 / 38
Crankcase (qt.): 4.4
Coolant System (gal.): 1.4
Fuel (gal.): 10.83
Required Fuel: Regular Unleaded

* Preliminary EPA mileage estimates determined by Honda. Final EPA mileage estimates were not available at the time of printing. Use for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary.

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/508/07_Honda_Fit_Sport_Side_Rear_Stopped.jpg

http://www.auto123.com/en/info/news/roadtest,view,.spy?artid=58754

March 25, 2006
First Impressions: 2007 Honda Fit
by Michel Deslauriers , Auto123.com

first impressions from a canadian perspective.

i'm very curious for the sport package, how much better mpg you can get with the alloy wheels, and the areodyanmic package?

ugh a tester reviewed it and after I've read that crusing at 100 km/h gets the tach hovering over 3000 rpms... rediculous! Mines only 2600 when at that speed and 120 km/h when at 3000.....


Honda you truly boched this car. Not only the mileage licks, the price too.

And yes that was a 5spd manual argh!!

from a member named gallopinggoat on the cartalkcanada forums:


went and test-drove a Fit LX yesterday - manual transmission. I came away impressed, not with the Fits attributes as a drivers' car but rather with the versatility it offers and attention to detail that has gone into it.

The Fit is rather unremarkable from the outside, reminding me most of a Suzuki Aerio with its squarish body and sloping nose. It is short in length, narrow and very tall. Compared to the new Yaris hatchback, for example, the Fit presents much less exotic lines and frankly appears staid in comparison - a stark contast to the futuristic new Civic. Beauty, of course, will be in the eye of the beholder. Everything I expected of the interior was present - plenty of room in the front, large clear gauges, a good driving position. Wouldnt want to spend much time in that back seat, however, as space appeared to be at a premium. Materials used were of good quality, better than most domestics in the economy class and inferior to those of a Volkswagen - in other words, typical Honda. The interior and exterior were bolted together with care, and the vehicle had a feeling of solidity which was very pleasant. Disappointingly, MP3/WMA playback isn't standard on the DX or LX models, only the sport.

The back seat, for all its lack of seating space, is the most impressive attribute of the Fit. The "magic seats" - where the seat cushion folds up, creating a long, tall storage space - is excellent and offers more flexibility than any other subcompact car. I had seen this feature in the european Civic hatch, and am glad to see a vehicle with that same feature here. Room with the back seats folded down is also impressive in its own right, though unexceptional when compared to other cars in its class.

Taking the car out on the road, driving dynamics didn't impress. (For those familiar with the durham region, my test drive route took me up Stevenson road to Winchester, east on Winchester until I hit Tyrone, south on Libery until I hit the 401, then west on the 401 to the thickson exit) The Fit is adequately composed around corners and sharp bends, but its small, slender tires complained loudly when pushed - when available, I'll test a sport version with its 15" wheels for comparison. Harsh sections of road were communicated quite strongly to the cockpit. No rattles were noted, however, speaking to the quality workmanship of the vehicles' construction. The fit is quite tall - 60" - and that translates into a fair bit of body lean when cornering, enough to inspire caution but not fear. The Fit demonstrated relatively precise steering, and tracking was straight and true on the freeway. Gusts of wind were harrowing, however, as was the wake generated by large tractor trailers.

Acceleration can best be described as tepid. The engine works very hard to bring the Fits' 1108 kg up to highway speeds, revving high and thrashing noisily. Comparisons have been made to the acceleration of the new Honda Civic, but my experience shows that to be little more than exaggeration. For comparison, the Honda Civic DX-G, manual transmission weighs 1210 kg, and features a 140 hp engine - a superior weight to horsepower ratio. Cruising at 100 km/h kept the tach on my Fit tester at just over 3000 rpm. The Fit was much better when accelerating up to city speeds - 50 or 60 km/h - and I suspect that the Fit is in its natural habitat in urban environments, rather than the open freeway.

So, where did my experience with the Fit leave me? Overall, I was impressed with the versatility and quality of the little hatchback. One has to shop this class of vehicle with appropriate expectations in mind. If you're looking for a driving experience on par with a Mazda3 or a Ford Focus - or a Honda Civic, for that matter - then you're bound to be disappointed by the Fits' dynamics and acceleration. If, however, you're looking for a fuel efficient, versatile small vehicle from a company with a sterling reputation for reliability, then you've come to the right place. It seems ready to take its place as class leader, at least until the release of the Nissan Versa.

Edit: ooops! Forgot to mention braking performance...... The Fit stopped quick and sure in all circumstances, aided no doubt by the inclusion of ABS with EBD as standard equipment across the line. Honda is so far the only manufacturer to include ABS and six airbags as standard equipment across their product line, even the subcompact class, known for thin margins and historically spartan levels of equipment. Bravo, Honda!


everyone agrees for the same price, mazda 3 is the better car in terms of everything except economy and maybe easier to park. But for the same price you can get a fully loaded mazda 3 and it won't be as expensive as the sport model... go figures.

That pricing must be unique to Canada. Here in the US, a 5-speed Fit Sport is about $15,700 US. A Mazda 3 wagon starts at $17,930. Both prices include destination fee. There's no more options except the automatic transmission on the Fit Sport. For the Mazda 3 wagon, if you start with the touring model and add spoiler kit and upgraded stereo similar to the spoiler and stereo of the Fit sport the price swells to $19,375.

Perhaps there is some reason the prices are radically different for Canada, but here in the USA the Fit Sport is much cheaper than a Mazda 3 wagon, especially with those two options I mentioned that seem to be included in the Sport package for the Fit. To top it off, the 3 wagon gets a lot worse gas mileage, so it costs more out the door, and costs more per mile in fuel. That's not a bargain by my yardstick.

Hi Brandon:

___A 38 mpg highway rated, 2,400 # Japanese B-Class sized sub-compact is not a bargain in my book either :( 3,000 RPM at 60 mph is absolutely, positively, ludicrous!

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I almost bought one on Saturday, but the jerk salesman sold my car to someone else. He then said, he wanted $500 extra to order another one. Yeah, right. And you wonder why I became a Socialist.

In Soviet Russia, car buys YOU!

:D

I test drove a base model automatic Fit yesterday. I really liked it. It's a lively, good handling car with a lot of space. With the rear seats folded down the luggage space is flat and roomy, really very nice if you use your car as a pseudo-truck like I often do. Compared to HCHII and PriusII, it's more fun to drive and is comfortable for me. More headroom in the back seats than the Prius. Crash tests front and side are good. Also tried the Nissan Versa and would class it as not bad for the price, but not as nifty as the fit.
Downsides: Safety in rear end crash is Poor (IIHS).
MPG worse than hybrids.
Hypermiling would be more fun in the hybrids.

I purchased a sport auto. I feel like a kid again. The only downer is the 34 mpg that I got on my first tank. I was driving very mellow. Nevertheless, I'm thrilled.

Hi southerncannuck, It can do better. I have a base model fit auto. Yesterday I got 47 mpg for a 31 mi roundtrip and today 44 mpg for 24 mi on a very hilly route mostly country roads. That was using FAS DWB low speeds and tires at 50 psi. In more normal driving, it will get high 30's low 40's on the highway if you keep it below 70 (65 seems to be a sweet spot for keeping a steady speed).
That's all with no AC. I'd die in Fla without AC going full blast. City driving with traffic and AC, 34 mpg isn't bad and is probably better than I've done when in traffic.
The car is lots of fun and the hatchback luggage capacity is great! Keep enjoying it. For better mpg, read the articles here. Look up terms like FAS in the glossary.
--Walter

mpg is not good enough for such a small car. it needs a six speed or an overdrive unit. it might be better suited with a tiny diesel motor.

Hi Tab:

___Just like the Smart, we would love to have a 1.5L iDTEC or a 1.3L (IMA or not) in it but this is one of the best fuel misers offered in the US currently and there is not much we can do about it :(

___Good Luck

___Wayne

My 2007 Fit Sport five speed manual is averaging around 44.5 m.p.g. thus far. The tires are set at 51 p.s.i. I hypermile perpetually to arrive at those numbers and I do very little city driving-mostly highways and secondary (low traffic) routes. Wayne's right about the r.p.m.s though: Nearly three thousand at sixty m.p.h. is just atrocious. This car would do an easy fifty m.p.g. if it were geared taller. It's my major complaint with the vehicle- I actually seek alternate (off highway) routes whenever possible and ATTEMPT to maintain 54-56 m.p.h when I have to travel highways-That is no small feat with all the asses out there racing from gas station to gas station.

My 2007 Fit Sport five speed manual is averaging around 44.5 m.p.g. thus far. The tires are set at 51 p.s.i. I hypermile perpetually to arrive at those numbers and I do very little city driving-mostly highways and secondary (low traffic) routes. Wayne's right about the r.p.m.s though: Nearly three thousand at sixty m.p.h. is just atrocious. This car would do an easy fifty m.p.g. if it were geared taller. It's my major complaint with the vehicle- I actually seek alternate (off highway) routes whenever possible and ATTEMPT to maintain 54-56 m.p.h when I have to travel highways-That is no small feat with all the asses out there racing from gas station to gas station.

I also have my tires set at 51, and I am running Mobil 1 5-20. I do about 85% commute and 15% in-town driving on the weekends. However, I am getting your numbers if I don't pay close attention to my technique, and 55+ when I do. I would estimate that I only spend 1/5 of my traveling time on the highway with the engine on. I do an 60 - 40 mph NICE-off-P&G for *all* my highway driving, and that consistently holds above 50, even when cold. and yes, its 3000 RPM at the peak of the pules at 60 MPH. I could get 70 mpg in this car with:
The right gearing to get 2000 RPM at 60
No power stearing, and
No power brakes.

They don't design cars like they used to! :-)

Larry

I *seriously* doubt that either the *electric* power steering or the slight amount of energy required to bring the brake booster into vacuum would have any quantifiable effect on FE.

The taller 5th would help for sure, but the Fit also has some fairly serious aerodynamic issues to be addressed before anyone would see 70+ at highway speed...