Honda to Begin Sales of Second-generation Fit in Japan
18 October 2007
 |
| The Fit 1.3 G. |
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. will begin selling the second-generation Fit in Japan on 26 October.
The new Fit features a 1.3-liter i-VTEC engine that delivers maximum output of 73kW (98 hp). In addition to the low-rpm torque of its predecessors, the new 1.3-liter i-VTEC brings more power to the high rpm range and improves fuel economy in everyday driving.
The new four-valve configuration with enhanced intake performance and drive-by-wire technology combine to help achieve its power rating of 73 kW. The use of only one of the two intake valves at low rpm increases EGR efficiency, helping the Fit achieve fuel economy of 24 km/l (56.5 mpg US, 4.18 l/100km) on the 10-15 cycle.
The body rigidity and crash safety performance were also enhanced while maintaining weight equivalent to the previous model.
Newly added to the Fit lineup is a sportier Road Sailing (RS) version with a newly developed 1.5-liter i-VTEC engine and a specially designed suspension with enhanced styling and a richer feel.
Intake valve timing and clearance settings switch to match for low- and high-speed driving and optimized valve overlap in the low-, mid-, and high speed ranges enhances intake and exhaust efficiency for power output of 88 kW (118 hp) and fuel economy of 19.6 km/l (46 mpg US, 5.1 l/100km) on the 10-15 cycle.
The Fit’s continuous variable transmission delivers enhanced drive and off-the-line acceleration thanks to the implementation of a new torque converter. Higher gear ratios also help improve fuel economy by keeping rpms low during cruising. The low-friction, high-efficiency oil pump and pulleys as well as a new creep control system provide optimized creep control at low speeds and during idling for improved fuel economy.
Honda Fit was first introduced in Japan in June 2001. It is now being produced in six factories in five countries and sold in approximately 115 countries around the world, with cumulative sales of more than two million units.
Separately, Honda said that it will likely need to cut its domestic sales forecast for this year. Honda currently projects sales of 660,000 vehicles in Japan for this year, which would represent a 1.8% drop from the previous year. Toyota recently cut its domestic target for this year as well.
This is a really super little car! 56mpg US is not to be sneezed at at all.
I just wish they would bring them to Europe asap.
A stop/start system would be a nice addition ...
But what a position to start from.
Well done Honda!
Posted by: | 18 October 2007 at 07:25 AM
The last post was mine!
Posted by: mahonj | 18 October 2007 at 07:26 AM
Cool. Do you know when it will be available in the US?
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | 18 October 2007 at 07:48 AM
56 mpg with CVT transmission and better looking design.
Its great. They should bring this to US. Small car sales are increasing now.
You should visit the website, they have great seat folding features.
Posted by: Max Reid | 18 October 2007 at 08:34 AM
What ever happened to the Civic CRX HF? I owned one many years ago and regularly got 50 to 55MPG.
Posted by: TheGentleman | 18 October 2007 at 09:21 AM
The Honda Fit is already available in US today..in fact it's been available in the US since 2007 model.
Check it out.
http://www.kbb.com/KBB/NewCars/Honda_Fit.aspx?trid=39
I had one when it first came out in Asia back in 2004 -- the very first year -- and LOVE the versatility of it. Amazingly great gas mileage, all the seats can fold down flat so I could carry big bulky items, and the trunk space even when the seats are up are really functional. I also really liked the way it handled - very sturdy car. And parking was never a problem. And it's really roomy and comfortable inside.
The only complaint I have about that car was the glove compartment space -- there were open trays and not enclosed compartments -- but I think they changed it since the 2005 models.
Our family actually liked it so much that my cousin and my aunt each bought one too.
I would still have it but I moved back to the US in 2005 and Honda didn't have it here at the time so I had to buy something else.
Posted by: Gelly | 18 October 2007 at 10:43 AM
RS stands for "Road sailing"? I always thought it was "Rally Sport".
Posted by: domenick | 18 October 2007 at 04:06 PM
What ever happened to the Civic CRX HF? I owned one many years ago and regularly got 50 to 55MPG.
A few are rattling around, most are in the junk heap. Lots of boy racer types have converted them.
A vehicle like that couldn't pass modern emissions or safety standards, not to mention baseline expectations of comfort and power.
Posted by: jack | 18 October 2007 at 08:27 PM
The Honda Fit is already available in US today
I believe Robert wants to know when this new generation of the Fit will be available here. I do as well.
4.2 km/l is quite good - much better than the Corolla and a little better than the Vitz.
Posted by: jack | 18 October 2007 at 08:33 PM
If this car can deliver the mileage on the new EPA driving cycle, I just may open my wallet. That's competitive with a Prius without the complexity of a second drivetrain.
Posted by: Cervus | 18 October 2007 at 09:37 PM
If this car can deliver the mileage on the new EPA driving cycle, I just may open my wallet. That's competitive with a Prius without the complexity of a second drivetrain.
JP10-15 Prius mileage is 78-84 mpg (depending on the version), compared to 46 mpg under EPA testing. The previous generation Fit also had a version which got the same 57 mpg in JP10-15 testing.
Posted by: jack | 18 October 2007 at 09:53 PM
Cervus: One of the advantages of the Prius is that if oil becomes hard to get or outrageously expensive you can always turn it into a PHEV. They also have a very good service record (recent sidebar post). Having said that, I also know some people that bought a fit and they're very happy with it.
Posted by: Neil | 18 October 2007 at 11:25 PM
I first saw the Honda Fit when I was stationed in Japan (2002-2004). There were three vehicles I thought would sell well if they offered them in the US, they were: the Fit, the Japanese-version Accord (Acura TSX), and the Mistubishi Colt. The Mitsubishi has not yet made it, but the Toyota "Scion" Xb did- don't ask me why. The Colt is a much better looking "one-box" design.
Then there was the entire Kei-car class that maximized space and utility in small, lightweight vehicles. When I was there the Kei-cars were the fastest growing segment in Japan- I believe it still is. Cars like these make sense as Japan imports 99% of the oil they consume.
The most notable Kei-car, in my opinion, was the Subaru R2! Perhaps as oil prices increase, Kei-cars will become popular in the US. The Fit is a class above Kei-cars- so that should give you an idea of the scale we're talking about. (max diplacement 660cc, max power: 64bhp, max length 134", max width: 58.2")
For the Japanese Fit, the 1.3 was the engine of choice, it seemed. When Honda was considering offering the Fit for the US market, they deemed the 1.3 too low-powered for our tastes, and hence, made the 1.5 the stand-alone option. Smart choice in the land of V8 SUVs and trucks.
I think Honda will continue this trend- so expect the 1.5 to be the smallest engine they offer Stateside.
Now if all US vehicels were right-sized like this we'd be making progress. CAFE requirements- no problem! Crash requirements- no problem when vehicles are equally-sized. Really, who needs +4,000lbs vehicles to get from point A to B? (unless your job requires it)
Posted by: DieselHybrid | 19 October 2007 at 09:04 AM
Point to all that Jack started but may not have said directly enough for all to catch it- the Japanese fuel economy test cycle is a "best case scenario" test. If you take Japanese fuel economy numbers and just convert them to MPG or L/100 km, the results look fantastic compared to what the same vehicle will get on the Euro or US test cycles. The question is not the units, it's a completely different test (speeds, temperatures, acceleration rates, cold versus warm start, etc.).
Posted by: Wes | 19 October 2007 at 09:23 AM
Well at this time this Fit model is a very compelling alternative for many. I have seen many discussions about a conventional compact vs hybrid. There are pros and cons for each option.
However, hybrid design such as Prius has a considerably more room to improve than a conventional compact like Fit. Consider that they probably squeezed every last bit of efficiency from a conventional engine design. The Smart car with a diesel engine is probably near the limit.
Meanwhile, the next gen Prius will have a 2x large battery and ability to charge from a house outlet. Electric only mode is supposed to provide about 13 miles, I think. Depending on a commute distance that could easily achieve 100 mpg and more. Even in a worse case, say for me:
100 km commute round trip
13 miles = 21 km no gas consumption
remaining 79 km @ conservative 60 mpg
60 mpg = 25.5 km/l
79 / 25.5 = 3.1 l
back to MPG
So total 3.1 l/100 km, or 76 mpg
And that is using a conservative MPG for conventional hybrid mode, worse case scenario. Of course, there is additional electricity cost which is much lower than equivalent gasoline cost, so I ignore it.
The point is that as battery technology improves (Prius is still using older NiMH chemistry) more and more electrictiy is used and much less gasoline. Conventional engines will always rely on gasoline.
Posted by: q | 19 October 2007 at 09:52 AM
I'm confused. If you go to http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/environment.aspx it says the Fit gets a very pedestrian 27 city/34 highway mpg.
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | 19 October 2007 at 11:19 AM
I'm confused. If you go to http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/environment.aspx it says the Fit gets a very pedestrian 27 city/34 highway mpg.
... in the United States. This article is about the Fit in Japan, tested under Japanese fuel eocnomy methods.
Posted by: jack | 19 October 2007 at 11:44 AM
By the way, the platform this new Fit is built upon will also become the basis for a new small hybrid vehicle that Honda is working on. This new vehicle is supposed to be just as roomy as the Fit, but will offer much high fuel economy due to a new hybrid-drive design. It will also be built on its own unique body design, too.
Posted by: Raymond | 19 October 2007 at 08:12 PM
@ Neil
"Oil is outregeously expensive" I don't think so, oil is extraordinary cheap especially when you consider that it is drilled, refined, transported across ocean and that we have to go to war to maintain our access to it...beleive me if oil was paid at the right price you wouldn't see any SUV on the road. I the price of the war in Irak was paid by a taz on gaz, you would be in the 6$/gallon. By the way in europe the price of gaz is in the 1.5Euros a liter (1 US Gallon ~ 4liters)...
American people don't realize how irresponsible their lifestyle is, believe me it won't last for ever especially given the way the dollard is going now, we are close to the point where oil producers don't want to be pay in dollards anymore, means the dollard will keep going down and as a result the oil will keep going up on the long run. Given the level of the american record debt (340% of GDP) we can't expect the dollard going up, because the inflation is the still the only solution when you don't control your debt anymore even if te fed don't like it.
Posted by: Treehugger | 19 October 2007 at 08:32 PM
So, Treehugger, you want oil producers to make even more money and thus have even greater resources (if that's even imaginable at this point) so that they can further corrupt the various political entities throughout the planet?
Oil should be $5/barrel, but gasoline should be about $10/gallon. That would solve a lot of problems right there.
Posted by: jack | 19 October 2007 at 08:44 PM
No Jack, don't play it more stupid than you are, I don't think it is even possible by the way.
that's not what I insinuated, what I meant is that if people were accepting the principle of a gaz tax in this country, then that would mean less money for the oil industry and for oil producer( since they would move away from their gaz guzzler), but more money for the school and for the healtcare for examples. If people like you Jack, would stop only one second to speak faster than they tink, they will accept the idea of a gaz tax, because it has much more advantages than inconvenient, and foster the innovation in energy efficiency etc. Plus more tax on gaz doesn't mean more tax in general, you can reduce tax elswewhere so that the level of total tax stay constant.
Posted by: Treehugger | 19 October 2007 at 09:11 PM
and I forgot :
Is that too difficult for you to understand Jack ?
if yes, then you should try to find another distraction that this website.
Good luck
Posted by: Treehugger | 19 October 2007 at 09:13 PM
You said: "beleive me if oil was paid at the right price." Oil, not gasoline.
If people like you Jack, would stop only one second to speak faster than they tink
Perhaps if you learned how to properly communicate your ideas, then there wouldn't be confusion. Oil isn't too cheap. Gasoline is.
Posted by: jack | 19 October 2007 at 09:40 PM
In other words, I think we agree in principle, so let's leave it at that. Clearly we didn't understand one another.
Posted by: jack | 19 October 2007 at 09:55 PM
Treehugger: please go back and read my post again. I said IF oil becomes hard to get or outrageously expensive. At the moment it's neither IMO.
Posted by: Neil | 20 October 2007 at 07:21 AM