still on my list of cars to get. trying to find a sport manual to test drive.

has more room then the matrix/vibe.

my list is always in flux due to waf approval.

I just saw one. The mileage on the Fit isnt that great considering it's hp and weight. The cobalt gets 37mpg on the highway with a stick and the civic gets 36 with an auto. The Malibu gets 33 on the highway and weighs about 500lbs more than the Fit. The Sentra gets nearly the same mielegae with more power.

This is definitely not stepping into Mini territory. The base Cooper starts at $19K, and the Clubman (which I think is a better comparison) starts at $21K. Good luck finding a stripped Mini without $5,000 or more worth of options. $19K gets you a Fit Sport Automatic with Nav. Fit Sport manual, no nav, is only $16K. I'm not saying it's as cool or fun as a Mini, but it is far cheaper.

Also, the Fit is far more practical than even a Clubman because it has four doors and five seatbelts. Maybe a lot of people don't need the extra doors, but as you mentioned the configurations in the interior of the Fit are pretty cool. I'd probably prefer it to the Mini even if I was single.

I'd probably give up eating for a while and get a base Mini. Sure, the interior space isn't quite up there with the Fit, but there are more available options to fill that space with. Plus, as Karl mentioned, the Mini is way more fun. I actually test drove a normal Cooper this weekend and was surprised at how spunky it felt. My previous drives had been exclusively in S models, so I wasn't expecting much from the base car.

I'm surprised more cars don't "pick up" on the "pickup-like" rear folding seats.

http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/0/K/H/1/09_fit_backseat2.jpg

The Fit's rear seat that folds up (and down) is a real boon to dog owners—especially those like me—who have a large old dog that has trouble getting into a vehicle.

If I were in the market for a small economy car the Fit would be my first choice for that very reason.

Only the base fit autos get 35hwy. The sport and up autos get 33mpg hwy. This new gen has shorter gearing which gives it better feel, but those [comparatively] bad hwy mpg ratings.

Still a great car, but as pointed out getting very expensive and not great mileage.

At 18, I'd swing for a Civic, or more likely a Mazda3... maybe wait for an Insight... maybe buy a Vibe/Matrix. Even at 14, I'd probably look elsewhere.

"the seats can do more tricks than Flipper" - LOL

I like it - would really like to see it with a high tech small turbo diesel (not to beat a dead horse).

1487 makes some good points - funny what happens when you take a few minutes and compare numbers, suddenly this car doesn't look as practical. I still like it, just interesting to see how it stacks up numbers wise.

"funny what happens when you take a few minutes and compare numbers"

Also funny what happens when you selectively pick numbers. HWY numbers like 1487 picked are rarely found in the real world. I know several Fit owners that average in the mid 30's where as I doubt you'll find a Colbalt or Malibu owner that does much better then mid 20's day to day.

I just can't get past the styling. That sub-A pillar is digusting as is the huge windshield. As 1487 pointed out, you aren't really getting the mileage you'd expect out of such a light and small vehicle. I'm guessing the highway mileage is subpar due to the short gearing (as bepperb illustrated) and a large frontal area. This car is just too frumpy to me.

Most people that buy the Fit probably aren't looking for the rather inflexible cargo options found in a Cobalt, Malibu or Sentra. The fit's MPGs may not be as high but it has a few things those cars lack - a amount of space is the top element, followed by a really low price, Honda quality and a distinctive style that's very urban chic.

sabastian - a stick sport fit is about 16.5k, and a auto about 17.2

a mini starts at 19200 (for 2009) and a clumbman starts at 20850. the auto tranny adds 1250 to the car.

so your looking at a difference of 2700 dollars vs the cooper and 4350 for the clubman. 4 grand? thats not chump change any more.

and while the mpgs aren't 'great' the clumbman gets 28/37 (but requires preimum) its 27/33 is good, its almost 30 in the city, and doesn't require priemum like the mini (and saves you 4000 dollars, or about 1000 gallons of gas, or about 30,000 miles of 'free' driving)

No the mpg doesn't match its 'size' but their not far off, and its a fairly unique car.

I like the overall styling and I'm sure it has the usual Honda fit and finish, inside and out. I will say that I too think the car looks a tad odd/funny in this photo. The front end and oversized headlights......like a Muppet or something, if it was the right shade of green.....

Good points above about the MPGs vs others that offer less funtionality.

Right on, op. 10% more expensive premium fuel negates the 10% better combined fuel economy (combined, not city only).

Nothing wrong with preferring the Mini and willing to pay more for it, but these simply do not compete on price.

The Mini's a great car, but it's not particularly useful. It's more like buying a Miata with a pair of emergency seats that are usually folded down to give you a reasonable trunk. Alright, not that bad, but I feel like I could move house and do IKEA runs with a Fit - if you can only have one car, the Fit is a good one to have. For just commuting, a Mini or a Civic would be better. All the other choices in that price range sound like less fun to drive.

The Hyundai Accent SE (coupe) is a nearer competitor to the Fit. It's about the same price, and it is a blast to drive. The suspension is properly tuned and the engine is refined with a decent exhaust note.

While the Fit appears much more flexible for people and cargo, does it offer enough driving fun to challenge the Accent SE?

opfreak - Yeah, like I said, I'd have to give up eating for a while (or find some other way to make the higher payments). For me it would be worth it. For others, I'm sure it wouldn't make sense to spend more money on a car that is less practical.

An important thing to keep in mind is that the small car market has changed a lot in the past few years. A lot of folks who could still afford a much more expensive car are now looking to sub-compacts as a way to ease pain at the pump/save the planet/get out of an SUV/whatever. To these folks, there probably isn't as much difference between a $17k car and a $20k car. That's not to say that the price difference is immaterial, because $3-4k is a lot of money to a lot of people. To some though, it may not be as big of a deal.

My director (who's the tightest person I know) is getting a base Mini with only a few options. Sje, makes close to six figures and has been driving Corollas all her life. So I agree with Sabastian, there are people who simple won't spend a lot of money on a car regardless of their spending limit. She hates "big" cars and doesn't see the point of expensive vehicles as she sees cars as forms of transportation and nothing else. She even drives a stick at the age of 63.

sabastian - my point was that the fit and mini aren't really in direct competition.

Outside of both being small, and FWD hatchs, thats about all the share.

the mini is in the small luxury market. the fit in the small mid- economic market

"Also funny what happens when you selectively pick numbers. HWY numbers like 1487 picked are rarely found in the real world. I know several Fit owners that average in the mid 30's where as I doubt you'll find a Colbalt or Malibu owner that does much better then mid 20's day to day."

Lets not get into "real world" claims. The EPA numbers can be compared. The Fit's highway mileage could best be described as underwhelming considering it's engine size and hp. It should be able to whip a midsize car in mileage. The Sonata gets 22/32 with 175hp and far more weight than the Fit. BTW, I'm not sure how I "selectively picked numbers" when I just compared highway figures. The Fit's city mileage is decent for a subcompact but it's highway mileage is not. Even the Aveo gets 27/34 with a stick. I beleive the accent gets 26 or 27 in the city.

"The fit's MPGs may not be as high but it has a few things those cars lack - a amount of space is the top element, followed by a really low price, Honda quality and a distinctive style that's very urban chic."

The fit is hardly the only compact wagon on the market. Also I think all these tiny wagons look relatively similar. I don't see anything unique or attractive about the Fit's styling at all. There isn't much you can do with a high roof wagon on a short wheelbase.

I'm biased on the compact car discussions, because I own a MINI. I'll be the first to discuss its smaller cargo area, passenger capacity, etc. That being said, its amazing to drive and I love the MINI culture. I can't imagine any other car in this price range that would have random people coming up to me on the street and telling me how they like my car, etc. Its a relatively base MINI and its usually not even that clean, but people love asking about it.

If I wasn't in the market for a MINI, the Fit would probably be my second choice. I like the styling update on the exterior, though I think the interior is questionable at best. Its cargo capacity is impressive.

dougtheeng - maybe the real world people are different, over at the nam forums ( I always look to see what kind of 'support' group is their for a car)

the people seem very rabid. Any time someone reviews a mini and has something bad to say about it... it gets filed under 'they dont get IT', and just dismiss the claim.

I get supporting what you bought, I dont get being over top for it.

"I know several Fit owners that average in the mid 30's where as I doubt you'll find a Colbalt or Malibu owner that does much better then mid 20's day to day."

1487 beat me to it, but...

I drive a V6 sedan with a 4 speed auto and I average in the high 20's with mixed driving. It doesn't prove anything other than that I have a light foot.

As much as you would like to believe otherwise, the EPA numbers are currently the single best source for comparative data.

Depending on how you, or people you know, drive YMMV.

"dougtheeng - maybe the real world people are different, over at the nam forums ( I always look to see what kind of 'support' group is their for a car)

the people seem very rabid. Any time someone reviews a mini and has something bad to say about it... it gets filed under 'they dont get IT', and just dismiss the claim.

I get supporting what you bought, I dont get being over top for it."

Oh I definitely that some people at NAM are over the top, theres no doubt about it. I'm all for supporting a car, but its good to recognize some faults too.

I think all cars have hardcore supporters, but there are few car models that can use the "just don't get it" response - this is because few cars have the culture of the mini/MINI.

In forums like NAM, or right here on the Edmunds blogs, we see mostly car enthusiasts with strong opinions. The average MINI driver doesn't argue things on NAM, so I think its easy to get the wrong idea by reading that forum (or a forum for any car).

I find that people who drive fuel efficient cars (Fit, hybrids, etc.) are often the first to claim they are handily beating EPA estimates with little to no effot. I don't buy that for a minute. Anyone can beat EPA projections with enough effort and enough highway driving but that doesn't mean the EPA is wrong. The Fit should get 40mpg on the highway if the cobalt can manage 37 with a 2.2L engine with 155hp. As usual Honda's rep for best in class fuel efficiency doesnt seem to stand when you you check out the facts.

1487 - Your data on the Cobalt is incorrect. The 2008 Cobalt XFE with the 2.2L engine has 148hp and is rated at 36mpg highway with a manual. Also, it should be noted that the XFE model is the only Cobalt model with that rating. The other 2.2L models are rated at 24/33 for the manual and 22/31 for the auto.

http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/

sabastian - your also kind of wrong.

there is no 'xfe' model, technically there is, but in reality there isn't.

any 2008 - mid year coblat, that comes with a manual transmission. And is model trim ls,or 1lt, then you get the higher fuel economy.

if you get a 2lt, or sport model (2.4l engine), then you get worse fuel economy.

chevy makes it way to confusing to figure this out.

Sabastian, good catch. 22/31 with an automatic is pretty bad for such a small car. As 1487 mentioned, a Sonata gets 22/32, and an Accord gets 22/31..

sabastian,

According to KBB (for what that's worth), the 2009 Cobalt XFE matches 1487's claims. FuelEconomy.gov agrees with the 2009 MPG ratings, but doesn't give HP ratings. Edmunds (who?) doesn't list the XFE model.

Your link is for the 2008 model. If the above is true, why Chevy isn't bragging about the 2009 model is beyond me.

That's all the research I feel like doing right now. :)

opfreak - I agree that the Chevy website is extremely confusing. The 2LT model has the same 2.2L and manual but gets 24/33? Why is that? Is the XFE more of a category that the LS and 1LT fall into?

I recently sold a fairly large bookcase on Craigslist. The buyer showed up in a Honda Fit. And this is the point: despite all it's drawbacks, the Fit is a legitimate family car that is a) extremely roomy for a family and b) has excellent cargo capacity and flexibility. It is a competent package worth every penny.

Cobalt?!!! You must be joking! It is TINY inside. The rear seat is terrible. The trunk will hold some shopping bags, that's it. Try to fit a large stroller in it -- good luck. It is far less useful as a family vehicle.

The 2009 Cobalt 2.2-liter, 5-speed manua XFE is 25/37/30 combined mpg.
The 2009 Honda Fit is 28/35/31 combined mpg.

The city mpg quickly dominates, especially in rush hour traffic. The highway mpg is a dream only rural populations achieve.

sabastian, any 2.2-liter, 5-speed manual transmission Cobalt is the XFE.

24/33 mpg is the 2.2-liter, 4-speed automatic.

"sabastian, any 2.2-liter, 5-speed manual transmission Cobalt is the XFE."

From what I can gather from the Cobalt's website, the 2LT has the 2.2 and a 5-speed but is not an XFE. Here are the specs from Chevy's site:

"148-hp 2.2L engine with EPA estimated MPG 24 city and 33 hwy. (manual transmission) and 22 city and 31 hwy. (automatic transmission)"

billt9, the 2lt model, since its more 'upclass' still comes with the 'old' gearing, old engine tune, and normal touring tires (not low restiances like on the xfe).

whats really screwed up, is if a dealer has 'old' stock 2008 models, then there could be 2 cobalt ls's on the lot with different mpg ratings.

I hope that for 2009 it gets standarized

Hondas of all shapes and sizes always seem to garner a lot of comments here.

Oh. I see. Chevrolets suck. Let's go over to the Honda dealership.
The 1.4-liter Chevrolet Cruze will be on sale in 2010 as a 2011 model. That's 2 more years before there's a Chevrolet dealership worth going to.

There are a few TOV (Temple of Vtec) members with the 09 Fit Sport 5MT that have expressed their average or combined milage. All of them have averaged in the low/mid 30's and over 40MPG on the highway. Some of them had the previous Fit and also stated that the new car is more efficient.

Regarding the Civic 5AT, an old co-worker of mine owns a 2006 Civic LX coupe 5AT and she said she consistently got 42mpg on the highway on a recent trip from KY to FL.

In some cases the EPA estimates are only numbers that supposedly represent the vehicles F/E. Of course some get more than the EPA estimates and some get less depending on vehicle. I personally dont go by EPA estimates as every driver has a different driving style.

Dudes, the Fit is the practical choice, the Mini the stylish choice, and Chevys achieve surprising fule economy, but you all forgot the most rebellious and revolutionary choice: The Hyundai Accent SE. A sleeper, style wise, it's inexpensive and a pure driving experience. Yet, most kids wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole because their friends wouldn't respect it. So, ditch the "Che" shirt and the Mini Club's tea-of-the-month subscription, and truly express your individuality with the Sport Edition Hyundai Accent. Ha!

billt9, you're right about the combined mpg. That would have been a better counter argument. Basically, both vehicles get about the same mpg. The Cobalt is still impressive in that it's larger (not necessarily roomier) and has more power.

wk, it's stories like that which make me wonder why vehicles like the Focus wagon failed. Ford makes a quality car with good cargo room (73 cu ft) and good mpg (26/33), yet doesn't sell. Honda makes a car based on the same principals (42 cu ft, 28/34) and it's a hit. Keep in mind that the non-wagon Focus also sells very well. I don't get it.

jederino, the last time I used a variant of the word "dude" here, one of the editors lambasted me. I hope it goes better for you. It wasn't Karl, so you're probably safe.

hondacura4, "some get more than the EPA estimates and some get less depending on vehicle". No, it depends on driving. My overall figures beat what the EPA says I should get on the highway and I don't even drive a Honda. At the risk of repeating myself, the EPA is the best measure we have for comparative testing. YMMV depending on driving style.

jederino - I hope Hyundai is paying you well. The Accent is a fine little car, but there is more to a Mini than hipster looks and British cliches.

Sabastian, I am sure there is more to the Mini, and my apologies for poking fun. The revelation to me is how great the options are becoming among interesting, small cars. I mean, if Hyundai can do it with little fanfare, I am absolutely foaming at the mouth for the Ford Fiesta and Fiat Punto Abarth!

jederino - Now you're speaking my language. I read Top Gear Magazine's articles about Fiat's Abarth models with envy, and I'm crossing my fingers that Alfa decides to bring the MiTo with them when they return to the states.

"make me wonder why vehicles like the Focus wagon failed"

Failed? The wagon was the top selling Focus model in Canada for the last several years. The hatch was second and the sedan third. That's one reason Focus sales suck here now that they killed the two most popular versions.

For those of you who strangely believe the Colbalt can match the Fit in mileage, how about Edmunds does a comparsion test? My bet is the Honda Fit wins by 8-10 mpg in the real world.

Sabastian writes: "there is more to a Mini than hipster looks and British cliches."

You mean like the PlaySkool interior? The car may have a lot going for it, but the interior is just awful. Until they resolve that, I can't believe people pay a premium for Mini.

Firstwagon on the Focus: that's interesting. The sedan is selling quite well in the US. The wagon failed. Strange.

Firstwagon on Fit vs Cobalt mpg: "Fit wins by 8-10 mpg in the real world" I've yet to see a "real world" mpg test that comes close in scientific accuracy to the what the EPA does. If you think the EPA tests are flawed, we need to start a new thread.

"You mean like the PlaySkool interior? The car may have a lot going for it, but the interior is just awful. Until they resolve that, I can't believe people pay a premium for Mini."

You say potato, I say potato. You say PlaySkool, I say fun.

"I've yet to see a "real world" mpg test that comes close in scientific accuracy to the what the EPA does"

Real world is real world. You take a bunch of cars, drive them around in the same conditions and see what mileage you get.

(here's a good one or two ...
http://wwwhttp://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/126370/article.

html.canadiandriver.com/50litre/gps.htm )

EPA... you calculate numbers in a lab and on a dyno. It may be more scientific but I don't drive in a lab so while it's interesting it may not be reflective of the real world.

Sorry, second link didn't work and still no edit feature..

http://www.canadiandriver.com/50litre/gps.htm

firstwagon: "http://www.canadiandriver.com/50litre/gps.htm"

This is exactly the problem I'm talking about. Read their 2005 test. THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH GAS IS IN THE CAR. They neglected to put that part of their testing methodology in the 2008 article. The fact that these people don't get sued into oblivion for publishing absolute garbage, amazes me. I'll take the EPA over these hunyucks any day.

sabastian: "You say potato, I say potato. You say PlaySkool, I say fun."

PlaySkool -> Fun. I like it. :)

cant we agree with both sides?

I've read the EPA fuel economy document... or most of it, to know that in general all cars should be able to beat what they are rated for after the 2008 ratings. The new EPA MPG standard was designed to do that. Why? because before it was almost impossible to hit the rated MPG. So EPA went back to the drawing board, and applied new correction factors, and a new standard test for all cars.

That being said, the ONLY way to compare two different cars MPG is to use the EPA numbers. Why? because every car is tested the same way, in similar conditions with similar gas, without the need to fudge.

People online tend to report 2 things:

Wow my car gets GREAT MPG
or
Wow my car gets TERRIBLE MPG.

Who wants to be average?

My problem is, that its nearly impossible to find a manual fit. honda itself stated that roughly 1 in 10 fits will be a manual

I sadly have to agree about the PlaySkool interior. At least in the 1st gen I've driven/ridden in. I can dig the retro exterior and the raving about the FTD factor, but the interior is a complete turnoff. But I guess I'm the minority because I love sober interiors from the likes of Audi and BMW.

sabastian,

The 2009 Cobalt was rated as I stated. The 2008 XFE got 36mpg. The regular cobalt has been bumped to 24/33 as others stated. The 2009s are on sale now and thus that's the model that I was comparing to the fit. The Cobalt got VVT for 2009 and hp increased to 155hp which is best in class.

"Cobalt?!!! You must be joking! It is TINY inside. The rear seat is terrible. The trunk will hold some shopping bags, that's it. Try to fit a large stroller in it -- good luck. It is far less useful as a family vehicle."

A wagon has more versatility. My point was when you consider the power of the cobalt vs the Fit the Fit's mileage isnt that impressive. The cobalt is no smaller than any other compact sedan. The trunk is as large as some German cars costing three times as much. If I really wanted a wagon I would just wait for the 2010 3. Sure it will be more expensive than the Fit but it will be much more powerful and look better.

"EPA... you calculate numbers in a lab and on a dyno. It may be more scientific but I don't drive in a lab so while it's interesting it may not be reflective of the real world."

so you would suggest we compare anecdotal accounts of mileage in order to gauge efficiency? The EPA uses a STANDARD and that's why its effective as a basis for comparison. If you consistently beat the EPA's numbers than I am happy for you but that doesnt mean we can use EPA numbers to compare cars. Folks who dont like hearing that car A is close to car B in rated mileage are always looking for an out. Since Honda's are supposed to be more fuel efficient by nature we are supposed to ignore the Fit's EPA numbers and assume it will get 20% better mileage in the "real world".

"The cobalt is no smaller than any other compact sedan. The trunk is as large as some German cars costing three times as much."

Agreed. I actually thought the trunk was a decent size, given the overall small size of the vehicle. I was pleasantly surprised.

opfreakx: I'm with you. Maybe my mouth was full of marshmallows. :)

"For those of you who strangely believe the Colbalt can match the Fit in mileage, how about Edmunds does a comparsion test? My bet is the Honda Fit wins by 8-10 mpg in the real world."

That will not happen. The EPA's new standards are pretty accurate. The only way the Fit would beat the cobalt handily in mileage is if you did 100% city driving. I am curious as why only Hondas would be cheated by the EPA's system. Why not say the Cobalt may beat its ratings by 10% or more?

LOL you just don't give up 1487

Wish I could type out a long rant for you about how GM 's get great mileage on the hwy whereas Hondas get great mileage everywhere but I'm heading out tonight so I'll catch you later.

"wk, it's stories like that which make me wonder why vehicles like the Focus wagon failed. Ford makes a quality car with good cargo room (73 cu ft) and good mpg (26/33), yet doesn't sell. Honda makes a car based on the same principals (42 cu ft, 28/34) and it's a hit. Keep in mind that the non-wagon Focus also sells very well. I don't get it."

BRN, I wouldnt call the Focus a fine example of quality, just look at the Edmunds LT vehicle. The door handles and interior materials/execution scream penny pincher. Maybe you and I have different levels of expectations when it comes to overall build quality and materials (segment to segment) as no Focus to date has been impressive in that area from my perspective. I did L O V E the Focus SVT, Ford bring back the Focus SVT!

The Fit and the Focus arent in the same segment as the Focus obviously competes with the Civic. The Fit has much better percieved quality vs the Focus and Honda has a great reputation when it comes to small cars, Ford on the other hand.... does not.

Why does everyone get so wrapped up in numbers alone? The Focus wagon had more room because it was a larger car, although Im willing to bet the Fits interior was far more flexible and usable. People have to realize that (in terms of cargo room) numbers arent always indicative of how much of that space can actually be used. The previous Fit proved to have a highly flexible cargo area and the new one is just that much better.

Since you are more interested in numbers (09 Fit):

Cargo Volume (cu ft, seat up/down) 20.6 / 57.3

More NUMBERS:

-Base Fit 5MT: 27/33/29
-Base Fit 5AT: 28/35/31
-Fit Sport 5AT: 27/33/30

For some reason Honda hasnt listed the ratings for the Fit Sport 5MT.

"Wish I could type out a long rant for you about how GM 's get great mileage on the hwy whereas Hondas get great mileage everywhere but I'm heading out tonight so I'll catch you later."

You cant because you have no proof. Then again people who always claim one automaker does things better than every other automaker are usually short on proof. Would the new Accord that has been averaging 22-24mpg with the I-4 and 20-21mpg with the V6 be an example of a Honda that gets "great mileage everywhere"? How about the Pilot?

Give me a break.

"BRN, I wouldnt call the Focus a fine example of quality, just look at the Edmunds LT vehicle."

I'd rather not rehash Edmunds nitpicking the #$@% out of the Focus, while ignoring issues with other cars. The key is that the Focus sells well and is reliable.

"The Fit and the Focus arent in the same segment"

Correct. However from a functionality and principal standpoint, the Focus wagon is a larger version of the Fit. They serve similar needs.

"The Focus wagon had more room because it was a larger car, although Im willing to bet the Fits interior was far more flexible and usable"

I don't understand how you draw that conclusion (the second part of your statement).

"You cant because you have no proof"

Define proof. I could give you lots of personal examples from over the 29 years I've been driving (and from people I know) but I doubt you would accept them. Your mind is made up.

I suggested Edmunds do a comparsion (and made my own prediction of the results), would that be proof?

According to the Canadian Government Fuel economy ratings, the 2008 Fit gets 6.4 L/100 km combined city/hwy or 36.75 mpg (US gallons). I can't find a combined rating number on the Cobalt but 26.75 to 28.75 sounds realistic thus my prediction.

As for the Accord and the Pilot, who cares? Both are signs that even Honda can make bad choices and only the Civic and Fit really count anymore. The Civic outsells the Accord by a wide margin where I live and even the Smart car outsells the Pilot.

"Define proof. I could give you lots of personal examples from over the 29 years I've been driving (and from people I know) but I doubt you would accept them. Your mind is made up."

Personal stories arent proof. If you believe that GM cars always get poor city mileage and Hondas typically exceed their EPA ratings handily there should be a rational explanation. There isnt one. The EPA uses the same procedures to rate all vehicles and generally speaking real world mileage is within a certain margin of error relative to the EPA numbers. No one brand always beats the averages just as no one brand is always far below the averages.

"As for the Accord and the Pilot, who cares? Both are signs that even Honda can make bad choices and only the Civic and Fit really count anymore. The Civic outsells the Accord by a wide margin where I live and even the Smart car outsells the Pilot."

that's nice but in the US the Pilot outsells the Fit and the Accord outsells the civic. you say "who cares?" and I respond that Honda cares since they sell a lot of those less than frugal vehicles here in their largest market. I love how you dismiss vehicles you dont like as if they arent real hondas. The Pilot is just as much a Honda as the Fit.