My '07 Sport just turned 95k and has been outstanding. I have a manual and love it and the 35+ combined mpg that I get. The car carries anything that I want to stuff into it and it plenty fun to drive. It's hands down the best new car that I've ever bought and one of the best Hondas that I've every owned. The GRM built supercharged CRX is still the best.
In reply to poopshovel:
Yeah, I actually bought a set around 80kmi and thought "Yep, that's gonna wait until it absolutely has to be done."
HiTempguy wrote:Joe Gearin wrote: Me thinks I got one with a bad alignment, or some other problem.As for 3500rpm at 75mph, that's what my STi did in 5th, so quit yer bitchin!
??????? I'm struggling to find the relevance here.
poopshovel wrote: All in all, I absolutely love this thing, and the savings from not smoking has made the payment every month.
Now THAT'S cool! 
Never have driven a Fit but but I can appreciate a good design and efficiency so I may have to take a look. Had a couple of CRXs back in the 80s and loved those for their simplicity. As I get more sensible (old) and thrifty (cheap) I am not so interested in carving corners and getting to the next stoplight the quickest. I have been thinking of a vehicle like this. The Swiss Army knife of transportation.
poopshovel wrote: Seeing as I do mostly hwy driving, I could be getting way better gas mileage if I was cruising under 3k at 80mph like folks with slushbox civics are. Changing a gear to pass or climb a steep hill doesn't bother me as much as getting 30-34mph when I could be getting closer to 40.
Getting better fuel economy at 80 mph is not usually as simple as just adding another gear. There's so much friction at that speed, you may get the same, or worse with a car like that because it can't pull the extra gear. My GT revs 4000 at 75 mph. At 60 mph, it uses the same amount of fuel in fourth as it does fifth (data logged), so the overdrive equals lower RPM, but no difference in fuel economy.
I have an '09 base fit. Reasonably fun to drive, excellent utility, More of a car than anything else in the entry segment. A friend was so impressed, he bought an '010 S with the auto. It is snail slow, and routinely shows 10 MPG fewer than mine on the econo-meter on the dash.
Zomby woof wrote:poopshovel wrote: Seeing as I do mostly hwy driving, I could be getting way better gas mileage if I was cruising under 3k at 80mph like folks with slushbox civics are. Changing a gear to pass or climb a steep hill doesn't bother me as much as getting 30-34mph when I could be getting closer to 40.Getting better fuel economy at 80 mph is not usually as simple as just adding another gear. There's so much friction at that speed, you may get the same, or worse with a car like that because it can't pull the extra gear. My GT revs 4000 at 75 mph. At 60 mph, it uses the same amount of fuel in fourth as it does fifth (data logged), so the overdrive equals lower RPM, but no difference in fuel economy.
Hadn't really thought about it that way. Those little hamsters would probably be struggling pretty hard at 2700 rpm uphill. Fwiw: 75mph = 3600rpm - 80mph = rhc over 4000rpm.
poopshovel wrote: Fwiw: 75mph = 3600rpm - 80mph = rch over 4000rpm.
FTFP.
Oh I dunno, my Civic VX was bogged down by a ridiculously tall 5th gear (and 2nd 3rd, 4th), but it managed to get 50+ mpg, and I don't think it's as aero as the Fit, but perhaps. It was a lot shorter and lighter. I remember pulling around 2700 rpm at 80 mph. Now THAT was a car you needed to downshift in. Think 3rd, well in advance, to pass on the freeway.
Matt B wrote: This is all music to my ears as the wife is absolutely convinced this should be the next car added to our stable and honestly, I'm not that far behind her. Oh yeah, sport trim FTW. The base model just doesn't have the same panache.
Yeah, just do it. I basically told her it was the next car she was going to get (she has a 2010 Sport). It's an auto, but the paddle shifters are fun to play with. 
I friggin' love it. The amount of room in it is shocking. It's such a utilitarian vehicle.
Seats are excellent on long trips, great stereo and a surprisingly engaging drive as others have stated. Honda knocked it out of the park with this one.
Over the summer, she got as high as 38mpg with the a/c running. The only downside is that it seems to dislike cold weather. Mileage sinks to 30-32mpg when it gets cold (and I switch to her snow tire setup). Otherwise, not a peep out of it in its first 27k miles.
My next car will be a 1st gen Sport, for sure.
BTW, we brought our Christmas tree home in it
gamby wrote:Matt B wrote: This is all music to my ears as the wife is absolutely convinced this should be the next car added to our stable and honestly, I'm not that far behind her. Oh yeah, sport trim FTW. The base model just doesn't have the same panache.Yeah, just do it. I basically told her it was the next car she was going to get (she has a 2010 Sport). It's an auto, but the paddle shifters are fun to play with.
EEwwww. I used the old skank (integra) for xmas tree haulin' duty. I got the hatch closed too Really wish I would've gotten a pic. of how loaded down the fit was on vacation. When I picked up all that beer I was like "okay, there's no way I can possibly fit all this E36 M3 in here on the return trip." Loaded with a little more thought on the return trip and was again shocked at how much we fit in there.
poopshovel wrote: EEwwww. I used the old skank (integra) for xmas tree haulin' duty. I got the hatch closed too
It wasn't a big deal--if you look closely, you can see the blanket over the front seats and there was another along the trunk floor.
It was an 8 foot+ tree, so it hung out a little bit. I bungeed the hatch down.
I need to snap a pic of it in its "winter warrior" mode--15" wheels with 195-60-15 Altimaxes.
bastomatic wrote: Oh I dunno, my Civic VX was bogged down by a ridiculously tall 5th gear (and 2nd 3rd, 4th), but it managed to get 50+ mpg, and I don't think it's as aero as the Fit, but perhaps. It was a lot shorter and lighter. I remember pulling around 2700 rpm at 80 mph. Now THAT was a car you needed to downshift in. Think 3rd, well in advance, to pass on the freeway.
Having owned a '92 CX, about the gearing, I'm pretty sure 3rd through 5th were the same ratio. 
My best tank on the CX was 46mpg. The Fit is a luxo-barge in comparison.
The difference between an EG Civic chassis and a Fit chassis is stunning, though. So much stiffer and more refined. Amazing what 18 years of R&D will do.
That said, both of my EG's were great cars.
gamby wrote:poopshovel wrote: EEwwww. I used the old skank (integra) for xmas tree haulin' duty. I got the hatch closed tooIt wasn't a big deal--if you look closely, you can see the blanket over the front seats and there was another along the trunk floor. It was an 8 foot+ tree, so it hung out a little bit. I bungeed the hatch down. I need to snap a pic of it in its "winter warrior" mode--15" wheels with 195-60-15 Altimaxes.
I'd like to see that! I'm also curious to see what's the longest stick of moulding I can fit in there with it angled down to the front passenger corner. I know I've gotten a 10 footer in the integra and closed the hatch.
And yeah, I've borrowed a VX that limped along at two thousand something RPM on the highway, and got the killer gas mileage to go with it.
Forgot to mention in the first post: Thanks to all that swayed me to buy this thing!!! Started looking last night at 1st gens. There's a few on CL with less than 100k miles for around $8k.
With the huge dash, I'm pretty sure I've gotten 10' sticks in with the hatch closed. definately 8'. (Reply to poop)
poopshovel wrote:Zomby woof wrote:Hadn't really thought about it that way. Those little hamsters would probably be struggling pretty hard at 2700 rpm uphill. Fwiw: 75mph = 3600rpm - 80mph = rhc over 4000rpm.poopshovel wrote: Seeing as I do mostly hwy driving, I could be getting way better gas mileage if I was cruising under 3k at 80mph like folks with slushbox civics are. Changing a gear to pass or climb a steep hill doesn't bother me as much as getting 30-34mph when I could be getting closer to 40.Getting better fuel economy at 80 mph is not usually as simple as just adding another gear. There's so much friction at that speed, you may get the same, or worse with a car like that because it can't pull the extra gear. My GT revs 4000 at 75 mph. At 60 mph, it uses the same amount of fuel in fourth as it does fifth (data logged), so the overdrive equals lower RPM, but no difference in fuel economy.
6th in the Elantra works just fine from 55 mph upward and definitely contributes to my 40 mpg average. You can always downshift if the car starts to struggle uphill, or buy an auto.
HTBU
Tested in car now 2750rpm at 75mph
That would be awesome if it were somehow related to the discussion.
and that right there is why 90% of the time i think ZW is a berkeleying douchebag.
Zomby woof wrote: That would be awesome if it were somehow related to the discussion.
I just showed clearly how flawed your comment was, that was pretty obvious to anyone with a brain
By telling him how a completely different car with a completely different motor, trans and final drive ratios was able to do something. I don't see how it's related in any way. If you can tell me how they're related without insulting me, please do.
Zomby woof wrote:poopshovel wrote: Seeing as I do mostly hwy driving, I could be getting way better gas mileage if I was cruising under 3k at 80mph like folks with slushbox civics are. Changing a gear to pass or climb a steep hill doesn't bother me as much as getting 30-34mph when I could be getting closer to 40.Getting better fuel economy at 80 mph is not usually as simple as just adding another gear. There's so much friction at that speed, you may get the same, or worse with a car like that because it can't pull the extra gear. My GT revs 4000 at 75 mph. At 60 mph, it uses the same amount of fuel in fourth as it does fifth (data logged), so the overdrive equals lower RPM, but no difference in fuel economy.
So you can talk about your GT as quoted here on THIS page, Gamby can discuss a 18 year old Honda but when I compare a current 6 speed with the OP's 5 speed that he stated was left wanting you attack me.
You sir, are a complete berkeleytard.
You are not the OP so why does what I say bother you anyway.
Zomby woof wrote: 3500 RPM at 75 MPH is high? I bet it wouldn't pull a 6th gear very well on the highway.
My comment might actually be relevant to this gem here also, don't you think?
poopshovel wrote: ??????? I'm struggling to find the relevance here.
That it is perfectly acceptable to zing small displacement motors on the highway if it works fine on larger displacement ones? Hur dur.
You'll need to log in to post.
