Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks Honda Fit Honda Fit vs Honda Civic
237 messages, Last post on Oct 29, 2008 at 2:15 PM
You are in the Honda Fit Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Wonder if the Fit will/would possibly share the 1.8L engine with the Civic. Possibly as an option in the Sport, if nothing else. Since it is not unusual to see "Real World" mpg numbers for the Fit and Civic so close, it would seem that moving up to the 1.8L would be a win-win for the Fit. EPA average numbers are 25/36 Civic and 27/33 for the Fit. Comparing the Civic and Fit automatics show the Civic being 220+/- # heavier than the Fit. Fit has a bit more frontal area, which could be the reason for the Fit dropping off a bit of MPG at highway speeds , compared to the Civic. Or it could be that the 1.5L simply is working hard and would also drop some MPG if in the Civic at highway speeds. Has anyone seen/heard anything solid on the possibility of more power/mpg for the Fit model change next year? Kip
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Dec 24, 2007 4:00 am) However, I don't know why a larger, more powerful engine would help the Fit when cruising on the highway. Highway cruising takes very little horsepower. Maybe better aerodynamics would help the Fit there. The new Fit does look a little sleeker than the current model, but I don't know the respective drag coefficients. Also, the Fit's EPA fuel economy is actually better than that of the Civic. The Fit averaged 31 mpg for the MT and 30 mpg for the AT, according to the EPA. The Civic averages 29 mpg for both the MT and AT.
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 24, 2007 7:38 am) Certainly not disputing any of your post. Just exploring some possibilities.  According to https://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do With the automatics, which are more interest to me than the manual shifts: Fit..... Real world 32.8--21--43....EPA 30--27--35 Civic...Real world 30.9--22--42....EPA 29--25--36 Notice that Real world FIT drivers are averaging 1.9 better. However, Their lowest (city) is actually lower than the heavier Civic and the highway is 1 better. What we don't know is "HOW" they are driven. ie, does the driver of the Civic tend to drive faster on the road do to better handling, at speed, and less road noise? Does the Fit run a little harder in the "burbs" do to it's quickness and fun to drive status? My point is, that with the extra 250+pounds of the Civic and the larger engine, it still gets extremely close to the Fit in mileage. Makes me wonder if that 1.8L engine, as is, in a lighter car could get even better mileage than it is getting in the Civic. Also there would be the benefit of better performance. Even if the 1.5L receives a 10% boost, it still falls short of the 1.8L in standard output. Increasing HP of a proven engine, often times results in poorer mileage. Often times that HP boost comes with an increase in RPM to achieve the results. It performs better, but gets poorer mileage. The Civic Si would be an example of that. Certainly would like to think that Honda wishes to hang on to it's "Best Fuel Mileage" status, but will they? Just some ramblings!  Thanks, Kip
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Dec 25, 2007 5:02 am) But the Fit is lighter than the Civic, correct? Hey, the Accord's I4 gets pretty good fuel economy for a car its size and weight too. Maybe Honda should drop that puppy into the Fit and see what kind of performance and fuel economy would result!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Dec 25, 2007 8:39 am) But the Fit is lighter than the Civic, correct? Hey, the Accord's I4 gets pretty good fuel economy for a car its size and weight too. Maybe Honda should drop that puppy into the Fit and see what kind of performance and fuel economy would result! Well, let's see - with gearing and horsepower as it is in my 2006 Accord - you'd have a 166 horsepower Fit which runs 2,500RPM at 75 MPH. It'd be fast, but in-town fuel economy would be pretty low relative to the Fit. As a "Fit Si" I could see it being a hoot to drive - that's a lot of torque with very little weight. The added weight on the front wheels wouldn't help handling though.
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 25, 2007 1:21 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 25, 2007 1:21 pm) You just might be on to something here. Torquey 4 cylinder just might be the ticket! Maybe add a 6th gear as the Fit is much lighter than the Accord, and could run at a lower RPM. Maybe 2000 at 75. If we gonna go with the 2.4L, we could use the 190 hp version, for the "Fit Sport Si" That has a nice ring! Turbo Charge it for the 250HP "Shelby Fit Sport AWD SI" ! Kip
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Dec 26, 2007 3:02 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 26, 2007 7:59 am) You are probably right. They likely would not even consider it.!  Kip
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Dec 27, 2007 3:10 am) |
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Honda Fit Honda Fit vs Honda Civic
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda Fit
2011 Honda Civic
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
