- #4678 of 4728
-
no go in snow
by ramo
-
Jul 12, 2009 (8:45 pm)
-
|
We have a 2007 LX automatic. It is pretty horrible in the snow. We get lots of the white stuff and the car is too light and too low. Tires were not an issue. Mind you, I am not the greatest driver, but thank goodness, we also have a 99 Rav4. That vehicle kept us moving last winter. As much as I love the Fit design inside, it is does not work on our poorly cleared rural roads.  Vancouver Island, Canada
|
- #4679 of 4728
-
Re: no go in snow [ramo]
by anotherscott
-
Jul 13, 2009 (6:06 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: ramo (Jul 12, 2009 8:45 pm)
I have a 2007 base 5 speed. Snow performance was the one unpleasant surprise of ownership. I'm on the NY/CT border, and some small hills near my house keeps me homebound on storm days until the plows come through. This was the first time since the 80s that I did not own a 4WD vehicle, and I missed it. I had traded in my Jeep Grand Cherokee on the Fit. I loved getting 35+ mpg instead of <15 mpg (on premium yet!), and the Fit was great for my cargo needs (I think it may actually hold more than my Jeep did). But I think a year or two from now, I'll be test driving an Element. (Supposedly Honda does or did make a 4WD Fit for some countries, but alas, not in the U.S.)
|
- #4680 of 4728
-
Fit Noise
by bobw3
-
Jul 13, 2009 (9:41 am)
-
|
I have an 07Fit with 38,000 miles and have several road trips of 500+ miles under my belt and I agree that at 80mph the Fit is pretty noisy, but then I've found driving at 65mph it's not bad and the MPG is a lot better too. I've found too that driving the speed limit (okay I do drive 60mph in the 55mph zones!) doesn't add much time to your trip anyway.
For example if you average 75mph, after passing, slowing down, speeding up, etc it will take you .67hours to drive 50 miles, or you could be in the right lane driving 65mph and it would take you .77hours to drive the same 50 miles, or you'd get there 6 minutes faster by driving 75mph. To me that extra 6 minutes isn't worth the more stressful drive, worse MPG, louder noise, etc...let the other guys pass you and be frustrated on the highway.
However, if you really have the need for speed, then I'd agree that the Fit may not be the car for you.
|
- #4681 of 4728
-
Re: Fit Noise [bobw3]
by stephen987
-
Jul 13, 2009 (9:45 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Jul 13, 2009 9:41 am)
But sometimes the slower drive is the more stressful drive, especially in Atlanta or Houston traffic. Going 80-100 mph on the interstate in these conditions, mad though it is, is nevertheless a matter of self-defense, especially in a small car.
|
- #4682 of 4728
-
Re: Fit Noise [stephen987]
by bobw3
-
Jul 14, 2009 (8:33 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: stephen987 (Jul 13, 2009 9:45 am)
Exaggerating a bit???? I've driven in every state in the country and in many big cities, so I think it's stretching it a bit to say that you need to drive 80-100mph...especially in big cities where most of the time traffic creeps along. I know that some folks like to "brag" about how bad the traffic is in "their" city, but come on. And I'm not sure how driving those speeds can be safer. Yes it's safer to keep with the general flow of traffic, but again I think it's exaggerating a bit to say that the average speed is 90mph!
|
- #4683 of 4728
-
Re: Fit Noise [bobw3]
by stephen987
-
Jul 14, 2009 (9:21 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Jul 14, 2009 8:33 am)
Average speed 90? No. 80 is more probable.
But in order to keep out of the way of the jerks in Atlanta? I found myself in the left lane on I-75 in Cobb County, GA a few years ago, unable to move to the right because there were no gaps, and with a stream of vehicles on my tail, with my speedometer showing an indicated 103. After midnight, on a weekend, in an old Mercedes with nearly 200k miles on it.
|
- #4684 of 4728
-
Re: Fit Noise [bobw3]
by baddog2
-
Jul 14, 2009 (4:16 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Jul 13, 2009 9:41 am)
I have a '09 Sport/Auto. I took delivery late Oct 2008 and I'm just ready to turn 24K. MANY long trips including one from IL to Texas in January and noise has not been a problem. After getting my 2nd speeding ticket 2 months ago, I've driven closer to the limit ...... but still appreciate my Fits ability to cruise at speed .... 'keeping up' with the traffic ... and never have regretted buying it. I don't know anyone else with a Fit in my neck of the woods, but from what I've been reading I believe that my Fit with the auto revs much lower than the manual. My memory is that if it's turning 3K rpms then I'm traveling close to 85 mph. 3K rpms is nothing to get excited about when the red limit is more than twice that. While traveling to Texas, I drove a little later into the night than I'd planned. And although I'd been trying to stay in the 70-75 mph range (didn't use cruise much due to annoying downshifting in hills of Missouri) my GPS showed a max speed of 89 mph when I looked at it the next morning before resetting it..... and that happened without me realizing that I almost broke my promise to the wife that I would not exceed 90 mph in the little red race car!
|
- #4685 of 4728
-
Re: Fit Noise [baddog2]
by micweb
-
Jul 15, 2009 (6:24 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: baddog2 (Jul 14, 2009 4:16 pm)
Thanks for the great counterpoint on the automatic's much lower RPM. The stick shift I test drove runs 3,900 at 80 which is a quite different experience. How is the acceleration with the auto on city streets and merging onto highways?
|
- #4686 of 4728
-
Re: no go in snow [anotherscott]
by sgodley
-
Jul 15, 2009 (4:44 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: anotherscott (Jul 13, 2009 6:06 am)
Thanks for the replies, I kinda figured I'd hear that. The 2009 Sport is a wopping 22 pounds heavier than earlier models, I have a cat that weighs more than that. Oh well. I guess I have to weigh that against the positives and see what I come up with. It just gets such good reviews in so many other areas.....
|
- #4687 of 4728
-
Re: Fit Noise [micweb]
by baddog2
-
Jul 15, 2009 (7:30 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: micweb (Jul 15, 2009 6:24 am)
I played close attention to the RPMs and MPH while I drove today. At 55 mph, the tach said just a 1/2 needle under 2000 rpms..... just edging past 2000 rpms at 60 mph. I very much was looking forward to buying a Fit with stick ... but I found some reporting that led me to believe the rpms were lower with the auto ..... and since I spend much of my road time at speed on the highways, I bought one with the auto.
I merge w/o worry onto highways ...... and it's quick off the line at the traffic lights from a stop. I live in a rural area with two lane roads featuring curves and hills ..... lots of double yellow lines. Today I found myself behind a big truck hauling scrap and didn't want to wait around to see what would fly or fall off the truck...... the yellow no passing zone ended, down went the pedal, up went the revs (first time I've taken it up to 6K ... sounded good!) and I was around the truck (it was going 50-55) before we got to the next hill ..... and in what I would judge a short, adequate amount of time. I would not hesitate to recommend the auto on the sport. Coming through and out of Texas last January ..... running on real gas (no corn) .... I drove for several hours at 80--85 mph and the mileage meter (I know it reads about 10% high) stayed steady at 42-44 mpg. It was flat level ground and the traffic around me as going about the same speed. I wondered at the time if any drafting effect was aiding my mpg numbers .... but maybe that a topic for another post, another time. I do know that REAL gas makes a difference in performance (seat of the pants) and mpg (calculated real mileage rates) based on that trip from IL to Texas and back.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks 
