I love driving my manual transmission 2012 Fit, it brings back memories of my first little BMW, except that the Honda has more practical and adaptable space, better power to weight ratio, more advanced engineering, and better build quality than a BMW of the 1960s. And better radio. The BMW didn't even come with a radio. Only downside through the years is plastic interiors replacing simulated leather over metal, and less sporty handling (compensated by electronic stability assist).
My alternatives would have been a Focus (way too expensive and needing more power for the extra weight) or Fiat 500 (what was available at the time had too little interior space and too little power, that's changed).
However, I admit that I really like buzzy little cars with lots of manual gears, winding through hilly country with tight 25 mph to 50 mph curves, and the car that is good for that may not be what you want for long distance cruising on the Interstate highways, or in stop and go traffic surrounded by behemoth SUVs piloted by people too busy on their smart phone to pay attention to their driving. If it were at all practical for anything other than attacking curves on back roads, I might be driving an old Lotus Seven or a kit car replica.
I've not yet dragged the Fit on the ground anywhere, and it has better clearance for front curbs when parking than my late wife's Accord, but if I am headed for back country I tow my high-clearance Ranger rather than the Honda.
If your preference is manual transmission (my case), don't let someone talk you into an automatic. Pretty soon, the EPA may take the choice away from us (there is already a penalty in fuel consumption calculations) and you won't have the option in the U.S.
Tom Test
Itasca Spirit 29B
