Dry weight quoted by Honda brochure lists 2489 to 2575 lb. (1128 to 1168 kg) and thats not running weight with fluids etc. I weighed mine at the track and got 2630 lb without driver. US Fits have to carry a biy more government required 'stuff' than Japan I suspect.

 

US spec cars also have more standard equipment. In most markets power window lifts, especially for rear doors are optional or not available at all, same for power door locks, mirrors, air conditioning and the list goes on. These things add real weight, especially if a bigger, heavier alternator is needed, pounds of more wiring, etc. A CVT instead of conventional automatic is also lighter. I hope that things like double side door beams and high strength body structure would be universal. I also dont know if the 1.5L 16 valve engine is heavier than the 1.3L eight valve used in many markets.

 

I would have tought that was weight with all the stuff to make it work (fluid, gas, maybe a driver). And mine the paper says 1128kg, it's a DX with AC canadian model. I guess that a dx withut ac would weight a bit less.

Some more standard equipements yes and no. I think that some other places have vsc available even on entry models, or sunroof, automatic climate control, more adjustements on the driver seat etc.

And the 1.5 is available in Japan.

 

Nope, it's a Corvette. 3160 lbs and 400 HP.

 

no torque...this car has no dam torque...with the AC on (80% of the time for me) it is gutless.

 

You just have to keep it in the revs.

 

I have to disagree with the theory that torque is where it's at. With that logic, a Sentra SE-R spec V with it's 2.5L 180ft LBS of torque should own an Integra Type R with it's 1.8L 4cyl and 135 ft LBS. There's little weight difference between the two cars (2002 Spec V VS 2000 Type R.) although the type R is lighter yet the type R is more than 1 second faster to 60 My GS-R with 25hp less than the type r and the same torque was still on par performance wise with a Spec V. The GTI 2.0T (although a bit beefier had even more torque at 200 ftlbs and still hung just under the 7.0 mark.

Another example is the S2000 and it's F20 2.0L 4cyl. granted it's rear wheel drive but it's 2780lbs but it puts down a 0-60 of 5.5s while a porsche boxster with it's 3.2L 6 and 225ftLbs of torque and 75lbs more weight overall still is .4 seconds slower.

torque gets you to where HP can take over. it's a nice mesh of torque and HP that gets you to the finsih line first, not just torque. HP does matter.

~SB

 

Unless you want to race your car, it really doesn't matter. The question is, do you find the Fit lacking for power when you reasonably need it? I don't. Out of curiosity I did a comparison with my other vehicles:

2010 Honda Fit w/Auto:............................. 2600 lb / 117 hp = 22 lb/hp 31 mpg
1964 Valiant w/225 (3.7) Slant 6 auto:..... 2600 lb / 145 hp = 18 lb/hp 20 mpg
1983 Honda CX650 Turbo (bike): ................573 lb / 97 hp = 5.9 lb/hp 50 mpg

All with standard gas except for the bike, which requires high octane fuel and is a powerful beast, and goes from 60 to 130mph VERY quickly. But do you really expect that from a basic car? I have no problems with coaxing adequate power from the Fit and Valiant, and my previous car, a 2004 Jetta with the stock 2.0 gas engine and 5 speed manual, felt no faster.
2004 Jetta 2.0 manual : ..........................2945 lbc / 115 hp = 25.6 lb/hp

 

The fit doesn't lack power, but a low rpm is a bit slow. They put the short gear ratio to hide this. It's where a turbo car like the gti is better, even if the peak HP is not better than some vtec honda, most of the power and torque are available from 2000 rpm area to 6000rpm, so no need to downshift all the time, and logner gears will give better fuel economy. We would need the 1.4 tsi 122 to compare with the fit.

And I think that power is more important than torque still, but we have to see the curve too. I test drove a honda beat recently, super fun engine, 64hp at 8100rpm and around 45lb of torque at 7000, but the power is only between 6500 and 8500, so you have to shift all the time for some power, and it makes the car significantly slower than a suzuki capuccino by example (more torque at lower rpm, same 64hp peark power but at 6500 rpm).

 

Lots of other cars have far better power-to-weight ratios than the Fit does--- but at the expense of fuel economy. In spite of the Fit's power to weight ratio, the compromise between acceleration, top end and fuel efficiency is pretty damn good, at least with the manual transmission. With the automatic the zero to 60mph time is over 11 seconds. But with the manual you get:

zero-to-sixty: 8.6 seconds.
top end: over 110 mph.
fuel economy at a steady 70 mph: 40 miles per imperial gallon, which is around 33-34 miles per US gallon.

The only catch is the higher engine rpm at highway speed and the associated noise. It also means that fuel economy could be even better if only Honda had seen fit to add a sixth gear. But had they done this everyone would have started bitching about the need to down-shift into 5th for hills.

You want gutless? Things used to be really bad. Check out these numbers:

1981 Porsche(!) 924: zero-60 in 11.0 seconds. (Power-to-wt around 23 lbs per hp).
1981 Mazda RX7: Zero-60 in 9.2 seconds.
1981 Datsun 280ZX: Zero-60 in 9.1 seconds.
1982 Nissan Stanza: Zero-60 in 11.1 seconds.
1982 Pontiac Trans AM (4-spd manual, ballsiest one available): zero-60 in 11.6 seconds. (whipped by a lowly Stanza. Pathetic).
1982 Corvette L-82 4-spd: Zero to 60 in 8.2 seconds. A little better than our Fit, but from a CORVETTE?? Come on...

But realistically we should only be comparing the Fit to its modern econo-box contemporaries, a category in which its acceleration and fuel economy is as good as most and better than some. Only difference is it has better utility, handling, fun-to-drive quotient and resale value. I'd buy one all over again.

 

Im sure that 145hp claimed for the slant six is SAE gross, not net like modern ratings, probably closer to 112hp.
My 1969 Dodge had a 318 (5.2) rated at 230hp gross, 177hp net.

Slowest car I ever owned, the Fit is a hybrid race car by comparison.

1973 VW 7-Pass Bus 1.7 manual...................3141 lb / 63 hp = 49.9 lb/hp 18 mpg

Brochure claimed performance.
SAE net hp 63@4800rpm
SAE net torque 81@3200rpm
0-60mph 31.5 sec
78mph top speed
18mpg per DIN (roughly equivalent to EPA HWY)

 

You are probably right- they switched computation methods not too many years later. I had a '75 Dart with the same engine and it was much slower, but by then the 70s body bloat had settled in and the car was much heavier and the newly mandated EGR and catalytic converter didn't help the engine performance either. Fit and Valiant both hum along nicely. Ever notice how cars get fatter and heavier as the generations evolve?

Man, that VW bus must have been slow!