The new CR has new Budget cars/Fuel Savers test with the Fit,Versa,Yaris,Kia Rio,Hyundai Accent . The Fit was rated as the "Best all around and for fuel economy". 34 mpg as tested for the manual and 32 with the auto.
The Fit Sport was rated highest with the manual and the Fit base came in second to Versa in the automatics .
Acceleration with automatic was rated as a low!
Overall the article states " The Fit leads a new generation of thrifty cars".

 

You have a scan of the article?

 

Odd. Most people find it to be the best performing with the worst mileage in real life.

 

Copied from Edmunds:

Consumer Reports gives three mileage numbers for each vehicle tested: City, Highway, and Overall. Their city mode is true city. Their current issue has the Fit, among others, tested. The Fit Automatic got 22 MPG in their city mode, with the manual getting 26 MPG. The highways numbers are 43 and 39 MPG, respectively.

http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0c139c

 

Just glanced at the article at my dad's place. The numbers given were interesting ; the MT was closer in line to the EPA and the AT numbers were REALLY wide - 22 city, 43 highway! Maybe that explains the wide range in the reported gas milage of the AT cars......

Also, CR got worse numbers on acceleration than any other article I've read ; can't remember exactly what they were, but it was just under 10 seconds for the MT, and 12.x seconds for the AT. They didn't say anything about how they launched, etc, but I'm assuming that they at least tested these 2 cars the same way, since they were done by the same mag for the same article.......

BTW, the Yaris fared really poorly in their final results.......

 

They use a fairly brutal city test, it's not meant to replicate the EPA numbers. So the city numbers are low for all cars.

My site, TrueDelta, is collecting real-world fuel economy info.

Honda Fit Real-World Fuel Economy

Not many responses yet for the Fit, but those I've received look pretty good.

 

I'd like to know just what their scoring methods/weighting are.

If you look at the individual items in the test, some of the competition, e.g. Yaris, fared pretty close to the Fit in most categories (Reliability, acceleration, build quality, handling, etc) The only real big difference noted in their test results was the braking performance (on a Yaris w/o ABS).

However, the final rolled up score for the Yaris was not even remotely close to the Fit in their tests. The Versa finished next to the Fit, followed by the Hundai, Kia, Ford Focus (can't remember exact order...) The Yaris was at the bottom of the pack, eeking out next to last just above the Aveo.....

They didn't reccomend the Versa because they didn't have enough reliability data on it (ok)..., But they said they couldn't reccomend the Yaris even though they expected it to be extremely reliable because it scored too low on their other tests (?). But the line items on the test for the Yaris actually looked pretty good except for the braking performance.......

I find CR to be pretty reliable, and I agree with the findings, I'm just trying to figure out how they added up their numbers to arrive at their final scores....

 

They use a secret formula Whenever a car magazine conducts a comparison test, they show the math. CR does not.

In their defense, their largest problem was with the Yaris' emergency handling, followed by seat comfort and driving position. They tested one Yaris with ABS, and had no problem with its braking performance.

 

CR does show the math for all of their calculations (fuel economy acceleration etc.). They reason they don't have a fixed scale for rating cars is because there are too many variables with changing importance depending on their values.

For example - if you have a fixed scale (like the auto mags) and you have 100 points. Braking may account for 5 points, so a car with terrible brakes could still get 95 points and win a comparison test. If a car brakes poorly enough (and the Yaris is on the verge of being unacceptable by todays standards) CR will punish a car much more severly as it is a safety issue. Same goes for handling etc.

Of course in either case the reader is free to come up with their own rating based on their evaluation of the individual rating items. ie CR rated the VW bus unacceptable because it was too slow - if you lived in an area with no hills maybe that would not have been an issue for you.

 

Every car receives a score from 1 to 100. Whether or not a fixed formula is used to calculate these scores, to my knowledge they have never clearly stated how these scores are calculated. This is only one of many ways they keep their various methods and calculations hidden. I think their stated reason for doing so is not to overburden anyone's brain with the details. But the web should enable them to offer more to members who want more.

I agree that readers intersted in doing the work can gather enough info from the results they post to come to his or her own conclusions.

 

Just read the artical- Congrats to all of you smart people who were smart enough to buy one before CR published- typically after a car receives a number one rating like the Fit did- from CR the demand sores!

 

Like the demand is low now . I've been waiting since the end of May........

 

How often do dealers try to upsell a Civic to people who come in looking for the out-of-stock Fit?

Seems like a good strategy to me.

 

I thought the 1/4 mile times for the Fit auto trans were really slow. Consumer Reports had it at 19.0 seconds at 75 MPH. I have seen other tests where the same car did 18.1 seconds and 17.7 seconds, which makes me wonder how they do the test. Of course, weather and altitude and all that play a factor. By the way, I have been comparing the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla to the Fit, cuz those 3 cars are what I've narrowed it down to when it comes time to buy a new car. What I thought was interesting was that the Corolla with auto trans weighs 2595 lbs and the A/T Fit weighs 2535 lbs. I thought the Corolla weighed more. The Civic weighs 2810 lbs with A/T. Consumer Reports says the Corolla runs the 1/4 mile in 17.5 at 82 MPH, while the Civic runs 17.7 at 80 MPH. The Civic has 140 HP to the Corolla's 126 HP and both have 1800 cc motors. Overall mileage for the Fit was 32 MPG; Corolla at 29 MPG; Civic at 28 MPG. What struck me after reading all the stats on these 3 cars was that the Corolla weighs the same as the Fit; gets almost the same mileage and is quicker & faster. So, WHY doesn't Honda put a bigger engine in the Fit? From what I'm seeing, the Fit would get better mileage & be quicker, just cuz it would have a better power to weight ratio. One thing that I'm really looking at is that the Fit's lack of power means that it won't be able to run the A/C very well in hot weather. That is a big point to me here in hot Phoenix. My heart is with the Fit, but I'm seriously thinking of the Corolla or Civic just because of that.

 

Yes, the Toyota is a relatively light car. Magazine reviewers are often suprised by how quick it is. You might look for a used XRS (discontinued 170-horse model) if you like driving. Even quicker, though gas mileage no doubt suffers.

Different tests yield different results. Remember that the Fit was not engineered for the U.S., but for Europe and Japan, where they have different fuel economy tests. On these the Fit might do much better. Even on the test you cite it's doing 10 percent better. Also, in those parts of the world most Fits sold probably have manual transmission.

I test drove the automatic. After reading others' reviews, it's clear that the manual performs much better than the automatic.

I'm sure you guys hate to hear this, but CR also liked the Focus. It scored almost as high as the Fit, and they tested the el cheapo trim. You can actually buy the top-line Focus ST, with a 151-horsepower 2.3-liter, for about the same price as a Fit Sport after rebates and the dealer discount. Tacky interior, but very good driver's car. Manual only. For an automatic, the SES trim is quite a bit less than the Fit. People like to dis the Focus, but I suspect many of them haven't actually driven one.

 

Yeah, I saw that Consumer reports liked the Focus. I had a chance to sit in one at a car show and I really liked it. Felt comfortable, altho I thought the back window was kinda high (4 door sedan). The Focus I really loved was that SVT 2 door hatchback from a few years ago. That thing flew! If Ford was smart, they'd bring that motor back and put it in a 4 door sedan, like the Civic Si for 2007. I also liked the older version of the Focus interior, which had that dash that was out of the ordinary. The 2006 Focus is like the Corolla, ie: everything in it's place and a bit boring. I think the Focus would be a good little car (altho it lags in MPG behind the Corolla & Civic). What I'd be most interested in is what shape the Focus would be in after 5 years, compared to the Corolla & Civic & Fit. That is where I think Ford is falling down right now. People now tend to keep their cars longer than 5 years and who wants a car that will be junk after 5 years?

 

Here's a summary of the CR article. They didn't have enough info on Versa and Yaris to give either a recommendation, even though they liked the comfort of the Versa and the braking system on the Yaris sedan (but not the hatch). So they recommend the Fit and the Focus, which means they may have helped sell the Focus, since it's too difficult to get a Fit!

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=76103

 

One correction: they have enough reliability data on the Yaris. They didn't recommend it because it scored too low in their road test. One weak area was emergency handling.

 

I recently drove the Focus and felt it handled as well as the Fit and was peppier. There is a huge difference in fit and finish though.

 

I've previously described the 2005 redesign of the interior as "almost criminal." Unattractive, illogical design and cheap materials. I suspect this is what you mean by "fit and finish."

Did you drive the ST, or the regular Focus? The regular Focus handles well, but the ST is still significantly better. It has more than a little of the suspension tuning from the SVT.