Well, i'm not all that concerned either... Just inputting a thought.

45-50, 53 is still more useful than many competitors (and their non-flat folding rear seat)

 

You guys need to get the tape measure out. They may have changed how they measured. Ford did that recently on some vehicles. Same vehicle but numbers shrunk.

 

https://www.fitfreak.net/forums/3rd-...t-go-sale.html
Maybe some day.

 

It's a fit freak forum. I got a right to be obsessive.

 

I think 1 thing that people are forgetting is that the GK has a significantly more slanted hatch than the GE. The GE is almost completely flat, while the GK has some significant slant to it. I think this is what accounts for the difference in cargo.

 

Personally I do not like the slant that is all the rage it seems.

 

might be a bit there!! doesnt look that dramatic. also need to consider how often you have items stacked up and over the rear window line too I suppose.
maybe this is where the difference in cubic measurement is? if so good news I guess, as its in an area which is pretty much unusable.


side profile of GK



side profile of GE

 

The posts above and the reviews just explained that there is less room, and looking at the posted picks, the lesser room is going to be in the area below the top of the rear seats. It's clear that there is less usable space when the seats are up.

I have no issue with others saying that the extra leg room in the back is more important than the lesser usable room in the cargo space. But it's basic math.

 

not quite, when the basic math has the GK both longer and wider internally than the GE

 

I was bored at work today and made this out of the two images above.

I used the front wheel center as matching reference. Assuming the older one has 16" wheels? I was surprised by the difference!



I'm not sure if lenses come into play but the front end seems to match up perfectly, while the wheel base and the backend seemed to grow significantly.

EDIT: if anyone has better picture to match up post them and i will make a new one. One that will have 16" wheel on both cars.

 

The problem I see with that (really nice) animation is that the 2015 is actually slightly shorter than the 2013. The animation makes it seem longer and therefore larger in all dimensions. Scale the 2015 properly and it will be a fairer comparision.

The difference in cargo volume is slight and the vehicle still has far and away more space than any competitor. The gain in rear seat legroom is welcome for those of us who regularly put adults in the back seat. That is what prompted me to buy a first generation xB.

I'm more interested in how many one-foot cubes will fit than in the automaker's "fill it with ping-pong balls" approach to volume measurement. By that measure the Fit does quite well.

 

My fiance said the same thing, which really confused me. I was going to find better pictures but its hard to tell with so many factors such as aspect ratio, lenses, 3D model, measurement standard changes, or what.

It's mostly for speculation. When I get mine, I can compare it to my 2007 with the same camera for better comparison.

 

The picture is fine, just scale it down a bit to be slightly shorter than the '13

 

I made a new one using american version, and I took stock picture of the 2013 with the Detroit auto show sideview of the 2015.

I leveled off the wheelbase of both cars, circled the center and outer rims (16") and lined them up. I think this one came out better, but I can see where the shorter length comes from now.

 

Well, Honda did hang a big snout on the earlier Fit for the US market. Perhaps they engineered it to be more compact for the new "world market" version.

 

That's pretty cool.

 

Well done!
I am mesmerized staring at it

 

2015's got a big butt.

 

I found this interesting:

Why Cargo Specs Can Stretch the Truth - KickingTires

 

so my take-home message from that article, is it's probably best to just see how many blocks you can fit (no pun intended )