Link:


After reading/commenting on concerns of individuals that the loss of interior storage space has been a "deal-breaker". Here's a video that physically shows the GK's continuing versatility.

This interview with Hayama-san is comforting to me as it looks like the GK has lost little, if nothing, of the storage flexibility off the previous GD/GEs.


The succeeding post by JapanTragic further illustrates, graphically, the gain in the GK. FActs, quantifiable facts . That's the ingredient that eliminates guesswork.

I: Autoguide Video


II: Autoline Video (Narrator sounds like a cartoon character)


III. http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/f...t_first_drive/

IV: Snipet article by a Journalist who had to justify taking a "junket" to attend the NYC car show
http://azstarnet.com/ap/national/hot...d44edcdad.html

 

ok some quick links to Honda as its some pretty hard proof the GK is larger than GE and opposite to what a lot of people are saying on here.

the back seats are further back then the GE so counting only the rear section with rear seats up it has less rear cargo space. with seats down it has more.

*note interior of the GK is also a few cm wider than the GE.

now there isnt much difference really and shouldnt matter either way I think but here is the info.



From honda Japan website

GE max length 240cm




GK max length 248cm (about 2.5" longer than GE)




height is the same

GE 128cm


GK 128cm



GE is 147.5cm with front seats full back on their sliders





unfortunately doesnt give a measurement for tail gate to front seat but magazines have it listed as 151cm with front seats full back on their sliders (about 1" longer)

 

Ok, this one is great news! That changes it from 1.5" short of 8 feet to 1.5" longer than 8 feet! I have 8" studs in my car right now, diagonally because they don't fit straight on. Loading them diagonally requires the full rear seat to be folded, so only the driver's seat is up.

This is the one I have a problem with. I use that space, I carry people in my seats. All the fancy flexibility and modes are nice, and I love the Fit for this, but if the seats-up cargo is smaller it loses one of its selling points. There are still lots of other selling points, but you can find other competitors with more rear space now (Accent has 20 cu ft).

 

Thank you Rott for the additional Video's....

2015 Fit is a winner for me, in that it has a nicer interior (Not great, but better than the older fits), better mileage, slightly better sound insulation, and those nice back up, and lane watch camera's. Interior space is more than enough for most outside activities. Off set crash is suppose to be passable as well, and that is better than the older Fits, and some of the other economy cars. Win, win

 

AWESOME! Thanks for the video.

 

Over the weekend I looked at a Mazda 3 and compared its cargo space, seats up to that of my 2009 fit. My fit had much more space, particularly with a lower load floor making the cargo area taller. Since the 2015 has the same cargo floor space, I can only conclude that it loses the 4 cubic feet by having a little less height, but that would still make it at least as large as the Mazda 3, seats up. And of course way bigger seats down.

 

GK is exactly same height (to the cm)

pretty sure all the figures on cargo space are seats up which is making the GK look worse, seats down the cargo area should be more which Ive been saying for a while in a few threads and people kept asking for proof.

the GK has a larger interior than GE seats down it has MORE space. The measured area behind the rear seats is down as the rear seats have been moved back for more leg room. *This was actually a real plus for us with a baby seat in the back as its already a little tight there, cant imagine trying to get a kicking 2 year old in the seat with even less space.

 

I was not saying the car was shorter. I was suggesting that either because of seat height or seat back angle, the height of the measured cargo area has been reduced. The cargo area is not less deep or wide at the load floor, as everyone keeps implying. One of the reviewers measured it and it is within a 1/4" of the GE load floor in both depth and width. From what I can see it is no different in useable space back there.

 

the fuel tank location is in the same spot as the GE so I think the seats fold up nearly the same aswell. From the measurements there isnt much of a difference between the two anyway.

So I guess if people are happy with the GE then they will be happy with the GK. The point of my post was to show that there is basically no difference and if anything the GK is larger as there is a lot of talk on here about the GKs reduced cargo space. There are a fair few things to dislike about the new fit, cargo space is not one of them.