To me it looks like a show stopper. Okay, not really, but the 2012/2013 worked really, perfectly well for me in terms of travel. I'd leave the seats up, and the cargo space would perfectly hold my musical equipment, or the bags I was taking.

More importantly, it held the weekly groceries perfectly. From what I have seen, the 2015 sacrifices that space for rear seat room -- not really that big a deal to me. So instead of having the perfect fit I will need to mess with the rear seats a good deal more.

Not seeing too much concern about this, and to me that is surprising. I played with the seats a lot to throw a bike in there, haul stuff. But on a daily basis, the front/rear/cargo ratio was perfect.

I'm concerned.

 

It looked like a lot of space to me and I spent a lot of time in it along with another couple dozen cars at the NY auto show. That experience sold me.

 

In one of the reviews someone posted the actual dimensions of the load floor behind the rear seats. The measurements were exactly the same as the load floor of the GE version. So I am not exactly sure where the lost cargo space comes from. It could be the angle of the rear seat, or it could be the angle of the rear glass or a minor combination of both. But from all the pictures I have seen, the area looks to be the same size as my 2009 Fit.

 

unless you are shopping for a family of 10+ and stocking up for a month dont be

 

My rear seats are collapsed 95% of the time with a dog mat in the back so the decreased rear cargo area wouldn't bother me, but I can see where it would be an issue if you have the rear seats up most of the time.

 

Op, I use the rear cargo for exactly the same thing, including for my guitar amplifier. The 2015 looks to be the same in videos and pictures and even looks a little roomier sometimes. As long as I can still manage an occasional 8' piece of lumber, I'm good!

 

This is an important item for me. My rear seats are used almost daily. I'm still waiting to check it out in detail. I plan to park my 2009 beside it and go crazy with a tape measure. I'll post what I find.

Now if Honda would kindly get some cars to dealers maybe someday maybe this year perhaps?

 

The cargo capacity behind the rear seats has dropped to just 16.6 cubic feet from the prior model's 21 cubic feet. That's only 79% of the capacity of the 2009-2013 models. This was quite noticeable when we inspected the new Fit at the New York Auto Show. For us, that was a showstopper, as our weekly grocery trips completely fill up the back and, when we take weekend trips, our bags fit behind the seats perfectly.

It's too bad they're not making and importing a 3rd Gen version of the Fit Shuttle. We would grab that in a heartbeat.



The new BMW 2-Series Active Tourer has rear seats on sliders that can move forward or backward, sacrificing rear set legroom for increased cargo area when necessary or allowing luxurious rear set legroom when you're not carrying stuff around.

 

Eh, what I was afraid of DZ. Thanks. I will lower my expectations.

 

Here's a video of cargo and seating , . Looks like more leg room for the rear .

 

thats correct, they have moved the seats back for more rear passenger leg room. this has meant less rear cargo room with the back seats up. I havent found it to be an issue at all but maybe I dont shop American spec large? LOL

seats down it has a little more cargo than the GE.

so I guess fail for the GK is if you have 4 people in the car and need to carry a lot in the rear as well.

but if you check the measurements we are really only talking an inch or 2 here or there... the move on the rear seats is not a big difference.

I had pics and measurements in another thread, go search for that as doubling up posts/info is likely frowned upon here?

 

Yes. The point is that to increase rear seat leg room had to cut cargo when seats up. Too bad. Week days the seats are up. The interior is cleaner and easier when seats are up.

 

just making sure you do know you are talking about ~2" and a fits seats go from up/down in about 2 seconds?

just seems like a strange thing to be complaining about.

Id be more pissed about lack of touch screen aircon controls, LED headlights, tube LED tails, no Hybrid option and 130hp still only really just being enough.

 

That's not correct. The 2015 Honda Fit has less cargo space than the 2nd Gen Fit with seats up or down. With seats down, the new Fit has 53 cubic feet, while the 2009-2013 (USA) models had 57 cubic feet.

 

Back in 2008 when Honda released the specs for the 2009 fit and stated 57 cubic feet of cargo space, seats down. I never really felt that number could be accurate. I figured that they must have been adding in the space of the front seat foot well or something. The 2015 fit with seats down seems to measure larger in length, the same in width and height, so why would it be less. I think Honda is correcting some creative math they used when computing the GE cargo space. Just my observations and opinions stated here, but I can see no loss of space from the GE to the GK seats down.

 

Speaking of creative math, have any of you compared the cargo volume of your Fit (in person) with the 2014 Ford Focus ST? Ford claims 23.8 cubic feet behind the 2nd row of seats, which would make it significantly better than our 2009 Fit's capacity of 21 cubic feet. But when we parked side-by-side with a Focus ST, it was astonishing how little room was behind the latter's rear seats. The cargo floor was much higher and the seat backs intruded, as did the speakers/subwoofer. I'm guessing they took out the spare tire and audio system before calculating cargo volume.

So, there may be some merit to your argument. A side-by-side comparison is certainly in order, as I've seen first-hand how these numbers can lie.

 

Some of you over reacting about 4 cu feet ? Wow ! Still better than the Fiesta.

PS. Nothing one can do about it now. Live with it or look elsewhere

 

screw it, here is a copy and paste reply I did in another thread as its hard proof otherwise and it did take me a fair bit of time. Apologies to all that have already seen this but it seems other members have missed it.




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)

 

JT, what are the heights when the seats are folded down? Sure, it says you can fit an 82 cm tall bicycle, but that provably isn't the exact height.

If the floor is higher in the GK, that can account for the "loss" of space.

 

Id need to get the measuring tape out, the 'magic' seats look nearly identical in operation to the GE with how they fold down etc. Its possible they sit higher but I dont think so.

from the look of all the measurements so far they are almost the same with the GK being slightly ahead. Cargo space wise I dont think there is enough of a difference either way for the amount of attention this forum seems to be making about it.


will chase it up next time I get to take the fit out.