What do you guys think?

Just my opinion though.

S-Pods FOR SALE!

I'd have to disagree that the car is underpowered. I certainly wouldn't call it powerful but it's more than adequate. I don't find myself having to floor the gas pedal just to get up to speed or keep up with traffic, so I don't think a larger engine would help fuel economy in most cases. Just my two days worth of experience though. (Loving it so far!)

I think that's the main reason right there. The Fit is suppose to be a fuel efficient car that is spacious and overall cheaper than most other cars. If you were to take out the motor and drop something else in it's place to make it faster, you aren't going to be getting the mpg that you want.

If you want a faster car or a car that you can motor swap, as suggested, get a civic.

Interested if this is true.

Quote, originally posted by djs »

I don't think a larger engine would help fuel economy in most cases.

Quote, originally posted by retroFIT »

I think that's the main reason right there. The Fit is suppose to be a fuel efficient car that is spacious and overall cheaper than most other cars. If you were to take out the motor and drop something else in it's place to make it faster, you aren't going to be getting the mpg that you want. If you want a faster car or a car that you can motor swap, as suggested, get a civic.

I do not want a faster car or something I can do a swap in. I want a fuel efficient car that has practical storage options. A larger engine WOULD be more fuel efficient. Take a look at this. Just going by the numbers off of Honda's website...

2008 Honda Fit Sport with manual transmission
Horsepower @ rpm 109 @ 5800
Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 105 @ 4800
Curb Weight (lbs.) 2471
Epa Mileage Estimates/Capacities
Fit Sport 5-Speed Manual (City/Highway/Combined) 27 / 33 / 29

Compared to a 2008 Honda Civic DX with manual transmission
Horsepower @ rpm 140 @ 6300
Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 128 @ 4300
Curb Weight (lbs. MT) 2586.
Epa Mileage Estimates/Capacities
Civic DX 5-Speed Manual (City/Highway/Combined) 26/34/29

The civic has 31hp more, 23 lb.-ft. of torque more and weighs 115lbs more yet gets a better combined fuel mileage. If you put that same engine in the Fit you WOULD get better gas mileage then both the current Fit and Civic since the Fit is lighter then the Civic. As an added bonus you would have much better performance.

The only reason I don't see Honda doing this is because it would bump up the price. I think they should keep the Fit base and for the Sport model offer this engine.

Maybe it will happen, maybe it won't, but I think it would be a nice addition.

Modified by TurboEM1 at 11:42 AM 5/1/2008

Japan got to chose between
1.3L 8 valve 8 sparkplug (2 per cylinder)
1.4L 8 valve 8 plug
1.5L 16 valve VTEC (high perf ver in Japan, standard in US)

Also, we didn't get either the RT-4WD version, nor the CVT.

It would be great if we got the CVT transmission or the i-DSI engines as they would each boost fuel mileage considerably but we don't.

horsepower sells cars, torque wins races

Yeah, it is true. Also, it is claimed to be 10mpg better (same engine size though).

I think the problem with the Fit not getting amazing mpg is the gearing of the transmission. I have never been in a car that wanted a 6th gear more. In my civic, I would be crusing a 80-85 mph and be below 3500 rpms. I got better mpg in a full built turbo civic driven pretty hard, then I do in my babied fit.

With my Fit on the other hand, at 80-85 that is 3900-4200 rpms (around there). Throttle percentage and rpms are what use gas. If the Fit had a 6th gear, or a better final I think we would see better mpg. I think this is pretty evident that this is one contributing factor to its mpg, since when people drive at 60-65 on the freeway, keeping the rpms in the low 3000s the mpg goes up to high 30s low 40s. People are unhappy with their mpg because they are used to driving 75-85 mph, which is not what the Fit is geared to be driven constantly at (which is evident by how close that put the car to redline). I think the Fit gets damn good gas milage if it is driven at 60-65 mph, but doing so is killing me.

I want to see the gear ratios of the new Fit, I am willing to bet the 09's better mpg is due to a better intake and a different gear ratio.

R.I.P. 300 WHP Single Cam

Good info. Where did u get it for the new hp number and mpg number?

I got it on here, though I found it other places as well; this was the only one I saved.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2...-york/

It does state that the mpg was calculated in Japan and it is still subject to testing in America, but I highly doubt the figures will be too off. If the Japanese can engineer the cars, I am sure they can calculate mpg.

R.I.P. 300 WHP Single Cam

1976 Yamaha XS 500
2-1 exhaust, UNI air filter, larger rear sprocket,
XS 650 rear shocks

werd. teh base should have the 1.3 the sport the 1.5

i wonder if it'd be possible to swap in a 1.3 in a USDM fit

Coefficient of drag comes to mind
tires, gearing, weight of rotating mass, etc..

btw, the new fit shouldn't get any better gas mileage, as Car and Driver states in there newest issue.

i can tell you right now with my ford pickup with a 300 cube inline six that if i dropped in a 460 cube V8, it would NOT get better gas mileage....

awaiting B16a.

LOL made me chuckle, but, good analogy.

S-Pods FOR SALE!

He said this on 13Jan08, FYI:

Quote, originally posted by Tokyosmash! »

will have a garage, and you might have to wait 2 or 3 months but there will be a thread made after I get the car[CaymanS].

Never driven a 99-00 Si eh?

----------------------------
00' EBP EM1 Turbo
02' MBP WRX Wagon
08' SSM Fit Sport

Oh, I have...The Fit needs one more.

R.I.P. 300 WHP Single Cam

why are you talking about either in the fit forum?

LMAO!

hehehe