Tell them you'll go to another dealer, you don't have to take that crap. Also maybe don't threaten and just go to another dealer anyways.

I don't know about your numbers but on the canadian website it says that the Fit does better on gas NOT the civic, so i would question them on that one.

 

Yeah, it was kinda weird. Soon as I walked in the building after the test drive, the first thing the guy said to me was "we are having really good deals on the Civic right now but there is not much I can do for you with the Fit" I think it might have something to do with the new Civics coming out later in the year, seems like they are practically giving them away.

So I'm thinking I'll try another dealership, I really liked the Fit esp the MPG meter I thought was really cool. I don't know how accurate it is but it really made me watch they way I was driving a little more. Neat little tool to keep you economical.

Fit is rated 33MPG highway on the window sticker and the Civic is rated 36MPG.

 

Our ratings say (highway/city) 7.1/5.4 L/100km for the auto fit (manual is almost the same), and 7.4/5.4 for the manual civic (8.2/5.7 for the auto) keeping in mind that a lower numnber is better when using L/100km. There might be a different way that the EPA gets its numbers...

EDIT: ya looked it up and natural resource canada and the EPA must calculate the highway numbers differently.

 

Just pointing out that worrying about gas while taking a massive hit on depreciation every few years to replace a car is a bit nuts. You have the money to blow on constantly replacing cars, but a little bit of fuel will break the bank?

The difference in fuel economy between a Fit and a Fiesta, after tweaking the calculation to 80% highway, 15,000 miles/year, and $4/gal gasoline, is about $250/year, or roughly $20/month. The difference between a Civic and Fit would be negligible.

 

my mpg is just shy of actual mileage so id would say its pretty close to what you are getting

 

While I agree it would be insane, I think the OP is doing it on leasing terms... Which is more costly than outright buying a car if you keep it, but I don't think he's paying the full amount per car swap.

If I'm not mistaken the leasing term usually goes about as long as some loans. And at the end of it, if you keep it, you then pay the remaining balance of the contracted cost (which is overall more than a loan to buy). And both are definitely more costly than flat out buying a car with cash.

Cheaper than renting a car from Budget!

 

I dont lease or even finance, but for those that want to drive a car three years and never have to worry about a non-warranty repair, cars like Honda and BMW make sense, Fords do not. The Fiesta is an unknown, but cars like the Focus dont make the predicted resale attractive. Depreciation is the key. Your monthly rent is based on capital cost-residual for the period / months x a "lease factor" based on interest rates. IF I were to ever lease it would be a zero down deal with mileage limitation as close as possible to the actual miles I drive, and watch out for hidden fees.

 

For less than a hundred bucks you can buy a gauge that plugs into the OBD2 port and get an instantaneous display of MPG- that'll work on almost all cars.

 

The first few years of a car's life are the most costly in depreciation. You are paying for the depreciation either way. if you lease, you pay the projected cost of depreciation for X number of months. Seems like most of them are 36 months these days. If you take out a loan, unless your car is a total sinker in value, you are going to have positive equity at 36 months of paying. Either way, if you immediately swap for another new car at the end of each lease or 36 mos. of autoloan, you are doing nothing for years except paying for that really steep first two-years depreciation on a car.

In light of that, who cares how much gas costs. I know the allure of new-car-smell. I really should attend car-traders-anonymous meetings to stay strong and avoid getting sucked into a new one (in fact, I'm trying to pay my Fit off as quickly as possible so I can't as easily rationalize adding years of payments for the short-term excitement of a new ride).

But if you're dead set on "having a new car every few years," don't worry about the fuel economy, especially a trifling amount. The difference between even a 20 mpg car and a 30 mpg car is small potatoes compared to a continual cycle of new car smell payments.

 

I disagree on not taking the MPG into account. Comparing my last car and my current one, the MPG cost difference is definitely not negligible. I was paying $50 more per month just in Gas on the Altima.

Also, OP, leasing isn't as bad as many people say. We leased our Ridgeline initially and the monthly payments were lower for the 1st 3years than if we had purchased it outright (which we wouldn't have been able to realistically afford). after the 3 years we decided to buy and were more than comfortable knowing that the "previous owners" were good on the truck. It cost us a bit more in the end but it wasn't more than about $750 after everything was figured out, all said & Done. Not bad on a $27K truck. we even added a Hitch at the transition of the lease/purchase point and rolled that into the monthly payments. As a reminder; Monthly payments on a Lease are always less than monthly payments on a purchase which can make it easier on the owner, especially those that tend to live in the "paycheck to paycheck" world.

~SB

 

I bought my car in december and since have got between 30-32mpg with mixed driving. I wasnt amazed by it but it has also been pretty cold too. It was 60+ the other day and was fairly easily getting 38 mpg at 65-70 on the highway. I cant wait till it stays warm. I know my old civic took a easy 4mpg hit in the winter.