Ask the Car People.SM


Honda Fit vs Honda Civic - READ ONLY

237 messages,  Last post on Oct 29, 2008 at 3:15 PM

You are in the Honda Civic Forum.

What is this discussion about? Honda Fit, Honda Civic, Hatchback, Sedan

Messages Page 22 of 25

#205 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [kipk] by backy

Dec 24, 2007 (8:38 am)

Replying to: kipk (Dec 24, 2007 5:00 am)
The Fit is getting more power for the 2009 MY, about a 10% bump for the 1.5L engine.
 
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.

#206 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [backy] by kipk

Dec 25, 2007 (6:02 am)

Replying to: backy (Dec 24, 2007 8:38 am)
backy,
 
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

#207 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [kipk] by backy

Dec 25, 2007 (9:39 am)

Replying to: kipk (Dec 25, 2007 6:02 am)
Even if the 1.5L receives a 10% boost, it still falls short of the 1.8L in standard output.
 
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!

#208 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [backy] by thegraduate

Dec 25, 2007 (2:21 pm)

Replying to: backy (Dec 25, 2007 9:39 am)
Even if the 1.5L receives a 10% boost, it still falls short of the 1.8L in standard output.
  
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.

#209 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [thegraduate] by jacksan1

Dec 25, 2007 (3:54 pm)

Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 25, 2007 2:21 pm)
1.5 is a small engine in North America. But one should not forget that Honda designed the Fit as primarily a 1.3 L car for the rest of the world. In Japan, 80% of the Fit sold comes with 1.3. The larger engine is already offered. It's 1.5 L that we get in the U.S.

#210 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [thegraduate] by kipk

Dec 26, 2007 (4:02 am)

Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 25, 2007 2:21 pm)
"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."
 
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

#211 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [kipk] by thegraduate

Dec 26, 2007 (8:59 am)

Replying to: kipk (Dec 26, 2007 4:02 am)
If we could just get the 177hp version and have it not be too heavy on the front end you'd have a neat competitor to the Mini Cooper S. Unfortunately, you'd also invade on Civic Si territory, so Honda wouldn't do it in all likelihood.

#212 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [thegraduate] by kipk

Dec 27, 2007 (4:10 am)

Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 26, 2007 8:59 am)
"Honda wouldn't do it in all likelihood."
 
You are probably right. They likely would not even consider it.!
 
Kip

#213 of 237 Re: More power for Fit ? [kipk] by thegraduate

Dec 27, 2007 (12:10 pm)

Replying to: kipk (Dec 27, 2007 4:10 am)
It's fun to think about things like that - and it doesn't hurt anybody to do so!

#214 of 237 Re: 08 Fit Sport or 08Civic LX [zombietom3] by fitman548

Dec 31, 2007 (1:42 pm)

Replying to: zombietom3 (Dec 21, 2007 6:15 pm)
Thanks for your report, but it indicates that you are pumping only 8.7 gallons when you fill (330/38=8.7). Is that correct? Are you really stopping for gas with 2.1 gallons left in the tank? Is it indicating empty or are you just very conservative with extending the range?
 
The 330 figure was for normal driving at about 35-36 mpg, which is a fill up at about 9.2 to 9.4 gallons, just after the light comes on.

Messages Page 22 of 25

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement