#1. Better carpet in the Fit.

#2. At least on North American models, a locking Gas Hatch with release switch.

Honda has worked on noise deadening...and VSC has become standard.

One thing I don't like about Honda in general is they seem to charge you for "extra's" that I think should be standard. I paid for the OEM center console, which is nice, but IMO should just be standard. I also bought a cargo cover, which I also like, but IMO if you are selling a hatchback? That should also be standard.

But besides that? I'm very impressed with the design and layout of The Honda Fit. It's fun to drive, economical, and versatile...one of the best vehicles I've ever owned.

 

Don't automatically buy into claims of 40mpg in the marketing docs unless the vehicle is a hybrid, electric or diesel. Consumer Reports and other mags did tests of vehicles that were touted to achieve 40mpg on the highway and found them to notably underperform. A conclusion from one of these publishers was that manufacturers are finding ways to "game" the EPA MPG estimates. It's best to do your own research of independent reviews before making the EPA estimates a deciding factor.

The Honda MPG estimates of 27 city and 33 hwy are IMHO realistic and do a good job of representing average driving. I was able to achieve 39mpg on a long jaunt from Carmel-by-the-Sea to San Ramon drivng economically on Hwys 1, 156, 101 and 680. That's as varied a drive as you can get (uphill, downhill, flat, curvy, mild traffic here and there). I now average 35-36 mpg on my daily commute of city and highway.

When I go into enthusiastic driving mode, my combined mpg drops to 32-33. I'm sure I could get even more enthusiastic and bring it lower.

If I recall correctly, Consumer Reports achieved 40mpg on their own long test drive.

Others who do lots of in-city driving achieve lower MPGs. That's to be expected if you sit in traffic a lot.

 

I want everything available on this car except for the color matched trim pieces, front bumper, and tail lights. Please

 

Or do deliveries.

 

In regards to the carpet, the carpet serves its purpose. If you had a more plush, more expensive carpet then ultimately it would wear out faster. Most carpets are completely trashed after 2-3 years, but this carpet is designed to last a while. Actually, the Fit carpet is not really a carpet, but more like a heavy duty mat. I dont mind it too much because I use my car for the work I do. If the carpet were more plush then it would wear away much quicker.

As for mpg, I achieve the following:

27-30 mpg- Driving hard with A/C on in an urban setting

30-33 mpg- Regular everyday driving in suburbia, not pushing it hard

37-41 mpg- Cruise control at 55-65mph on a long highway road trip and no traffic or stopping

 

I can't figure out why a company that turbocharges the 600cc city cars they sell in Japan, can't do the same with cars the size of the Fit that they know will be used for longer distance driving over here... Also a close ratio 6 speed gear box with an inline overdrive would work very well with a boosted 1500cc engine.

 

Man you's guy have some Great Ideas! I wish Mr. Honda could see the interest we have for his Lil Fit. In a word "Turbo" @ 15- 20 psi and a 5 sp man that could handle it and then some. And better paint adhesion their paint looks gggreat but in 3 years it needs to be resprayed!

 

^^^ exactly!!! ^^^

 

An example. Ford ads highlight 40 MPG highway for the new Ford Fiesta. But the fine print says that's only with the "SFE package" (special fuel efficiency) which consists of lower rolling resistance tires, some underbody panels, etc. For kicks, I searched local Ford dealers inventories of Fiestas and of dozens of cars, none had that package. Plus, even if you chose to order a Fiesta with the SFE package, it's doubtful your slightly higher MPG would offset the cost of the package. But wait there's more - even if the package were free, those lower rolling resistance tires probably wear faster and cost more than other tires, and they probably degrade other performance aspects like braking. So it's pretty much just a marketing gimmick so they can have ads with that big 40 number prominently displayed.

 

Twin-Turbo. AWD. 6" ground clearance. High-profile tires. What? $33000 you say?

Never mind. Keep it as is.

 

Fit Si/Type-R...

• Turbo
• 6MT
• Better suspension (address bounce and bump steer issues)
• Longer wheelbase (move tires towards corners)
• Trunk mounted, regular sized battery (back is way too light)
• Better tires, regular sized
• Bluetooth/navi/XM option
• Better aerodynamics (mainly more downforce for highway stability)
• Stronger A/C

 

Yeah, what he said! Probably will jack up the price a few $$ more. But let's start with standard/mainstream sized battery and tires.

 

He put his spam on multiple threads...

Put me down also for the regular sized battery...

 

[quote=SevereService;1036771]What changes do you want to see in future Honda Fits?

1. agree better tire
2. use the 2004 HX engine 1700 cc engine for more relaxed driving efforts - that engine got 40 mpg easily without hybridization. Wouldn' hurt to use that engine in the CRZ to get 150 hp plus that 13 hp electric motor. Might be the ticket for a Si version of the Fit.
3. less maintenance, i.e, better coil paks.
4. agree better seats
5. improved CVT and 6 speed transmission.
6. 4 wheel DISC brakes
yes, I know that nav, lots of computer connectivity.sound deadening is nice, but its not on my list. These will keep the product developers busy enough.
cheers.

 

Lemme change dat:

My ideal Fit Si:
-Direct Injected 1.6l I4 that revs to 8-9k and makes 160 bhp. (Should be EASY for Honda..they've done it before w/o DI)
-A trans half as good as the ones they mated to the B-Series
-Suspension similar to the Modulo setup in Japan
-Stock 15x7 wheels with 195/50 or 205/50 tyres
-No satnav/bluetooth/etc
-No aero
-Standard AC
-Seats made for skinnies rather than the obese (even though the majority of Americans are obese pigs)

 

Please keep CVTs away. Darn near useless technology compared to a 6-speed auto. A belt is a belt and definitely will fail at some point... CVTs are trouble in the end.

 

I prefer iVTEC to a turbo. Depending on the weight/power ratio of the city cars, maybe a turbo is necessary.... but it's for acceleration, not long distance driving.

 

Just go buy a sportbike instead!

Besides the possibility of carbon build-up, direct injection high-revving engines may be able to provide the HP, but not the torque. The issue with the Honda small displacement high-rev NA engines... NO torque! That's where the turbo comes into play.

 

Funny, arguing... points and counter points over a wish list shoulda... coulda... woulda...

 

Oh so that the car will have zero top end? If you put a tiny turbo on the car it'll spool up quickly, but it'll be a dog on top end (think VW GTi 1.8T)

Whereas NA Honda engines are KNOWN for having great gearing, VTEC enables some sort of torque at low rpm's and if you're driving the car hard in anyway..guess what you're going to be in the upper part of the rev range.

The loaded ones are already 22k. So with those improvements, gladly. It'd be a great car. As long as it looks like a GD.