Sequels are tricky. With few exceptions they are worse than the originals. Empire Strikes Back and Godfather II are the only examples I can think of where the follow up exceeds the original. Rumor has it that Weekend at Bernie’s II is better than the first film, but I couldn’t tell you. And sometimes you have a part deux that misses the point. Like Terminator II. You know the one where the 12-year-old boy tells the ruthless cyborg from the future not to kill anyone. Hey look, as movie T2 is perfectly pleasant (though it does feature George Thorogood’s “Bad to the Bone”), but it’s nowhere as lean, mean, terrifying or fascinating as the original. I think you know where this is going.
From the outside the new for 2009 Honda Fit looks, erm, bigger. In fairness, the nose is a bit more pinched (a la Civic). So it looks more sporty when coming at you. But from the side? Just bigger. Yeah sure, there’s an extra crease here and a kinked sill there. But the Fit still looks like a cute, shrunken minivan. And that’s OK.
I’m not a fan of what’s inside. Unlike the first Fit– which featured both Acura-grade instrumentation and an earnest, honest feel– this guy is a mess. Some buttons are straight out of the HUMMER catalog: huge, over-sized twisty knobs put in place via a drunken round of pin the tail on the donkey. In other words, me no like. I did enjoy the seemingly endless number of cubby holes found essentially everywhere– like cup holders directly in front of the vents. Smart. Unless you have a cold drink and it’s cold out… At least the “magic seat” still folds flatter than Kansas macadam. Moving on…
When I drove the first Fit back in April of 2006 I was impressed by its power to weight ratio. That Fit only had 109 hp, meaning it didn’t weigh anything. This new Fit weighs exactly 10 kilograms more than the old Fit. That’s 22 pounds to us Yanks, and some of us ate nearly that much on Thanksgiving. Seeing as how the 2009 Fit’s 1.5-liter now makes 118 hp (and two additional pound-foots of torque for a total of 107 lb-ft) I should be even more smitten with the new version. But I’m not. Why? The new Fit drives like a Hummingbird.
As soon as your left foot releases some clutch it’s “BZZZZZZZZ!!!” and torque steer. If there were four or five more torques you’d be smoking the tires at every take off. Try as I might– and I tried– I just couldn’t launch the thing smoothly. How about once you’re up to speed? Well, define speed. Because at 80 mph you’re buzzing along over 4,000 rpm. There’s just never a dull moment, which isn’t what you want in a high-mileage grocery hauler.
Some of you might be thinking that 27/33 doesn’t sound that bad. And you’d be right. I’ve also heard that the paddle-shifted automatic versions of the new Fit aren’t quite so herky-jerky. So here’s the part where I’m supposed to actually recommend a slushbox over a row your own. But a funny thing happened on the way to see my mother.
Mom lives in the nation’s first “master planned community:” Thousand Oaks, CA. This means lots of wide four-lane roads with 55 mph limits and not many stop signs. On one particular stretch I found myself not exactly racing but definitely going at it with a Range Rover. I could bore you to death with details of my heroic exploits, but the moral isn’t that I outran the Landy (of course I did), but rather how impressively the Fit behaved when push came to shove. To reiterate, I was shoving. And that’s what I liked most about the old Fit: mid level performance at an entry level price.
Let’s recap. For a thousand bucks more than the previous car, Honda will sell you a bigger Fit Sport with more power and a negligible weight penalty. It’s raw butt pain around town as smooth launches are impossible. Due to wind resistance and lack (still) of a sixth gear, it’s no picnic on the freeway either. However, get the 2009 Fit alone on a twisty road and you’re reminded why driving is such rewarding fun.
107 Comments on “Review: 2009 Honda Fit Sport...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
“Who stole the mpgs?”
The EPA, that’s who. Those 33/38 numbers are for the pre-2008 estimates. Go take a look at a 2008 Fit and you’ll see it achieves 27-28 in the city and 33-34 on the highway. Fact-checking for the win.
Glad you mentioned the mpg.
09 worse than 08.
Not as good as a Cobalt.
The Dark Knight?
Anywhoo, I was seriously considering picking up one of these second hand, but I really wanted a car that could not get out of its own way but also extricate itself from the pack easily. I would really love to see the Si’s motor in this thing. Would that even fit? (Ugh, I didn’t even mean to make that pun.)
@indi500fan:
I’ve driven a Pontiac G5. If the Cobalt is the same affair (it probably is) I would gladly take the 3-4mpg hit of a Fit.
Orangutan is right. I own an 07 Fit Sport automatic (I’m married). The 07 numbers were 31 city and 37 highway, if memory serves. 08 figures (identical car) were down considerably. But in truth, the new numbers are what I am seeing in the real world.
I don’t like the looks of the 09 as well. Every line on the car, both inside and out is more aggressive. Did Honda hire the designers who were doing the GM cars around 2000-02? The original was clean and straightforward, both inside and out. I saw my first 09 a couple of months ago. I liked mine better then, and I still do.
And you are right, Jonny. The car begs for a 6th gear.
I’m gonna call BS on using Terminator 2 as an example of an inferior sequel. It’s a classic; the first one isn’t nearly as cool imo.
I tested a 09 Sport. The automatic was fairly nice, and it had armrests which was nice. 3 stars is probably a little harsh. It’s still a very nice, fuel efficient, peppy car. It loses some gas mileage to be more like regular cars which may not be the auto nuts favorite way to go, but is probably a smart business move.
I like the new Fit, especially the Euro-Civic style front clip. Thanks for the review Jonny, I think I’ll put this new one with the GEN-II Scion xB, even if that’s a little harsh. The old Fit seemed to push the buttons harder than this one.
2008 Fit EPA: 28/34 Manual; 27/34 Auto
2009 Fit EPA: 27/33 Manual; 28/35 Auto
Result: A wash. Jonny, a re-write?
Still missing a top gear is my main gripe. My highways speed is typically 120kmh(75mph).
I want more relaxed RPMs.
Orangutan:
“Who stole the mpgs?”
The EPA, that’s who.
Exactly the same reason my Ford Ranger went from an EPA sticker of 29 mpg highway in 2006 to 26 mpg highway today. Funny thing is, my truck seemed to notice. I used to routinely get 29 or even (shock!) 30+ mpg on the highway. But lately, she seems to be getting what she’s “supposed” to get– around 26-27 mpg. Tires are full, new air filter, regular maintenance. It’s got me baffled.
Almost as baffled, I should say, as why Honda would bloat this car, too. But I guess as Toyota and Honda have proven, there’s no good idea that couldn’t be made “better,” and I use the term in some sick, backwards way, by making it fatter, and out of cheaper materials.
I’ve yet to see an ‘09 because my dealer, unlike most I hear about via TTAC, still has a few ’08s on-hand. Rest assured, once they get their first ‘09, they’ll be parking it right up along the street so everybody can look at it. Or not, with gas prices at $1.50 or less lately. Whatev.
toxicroach:
I’m gonna call BS on using Terminator 2 as an example of an inferior sequel. It’s a classic; the first one isn’t nearly as cool imo.
Terminator 3, on the other hand…
Banger:
By chance, has the ethanol formulation changed in your gasoline supply during the time? If you went from real gas to E10 I would not be surprised that is where the mileage went. Otherwise it’s just a symptom of higher mileage (there is a plateau once things break in where efficiency and power peaks, then it goes down from there and you lose power and efficiency very gradually. Not overnight change, but over thousands of miles.)
If that pup is doing 4,000 rpm at 80, that works out to a top gear that gives 20 mph per 1000 rpm. A car isn’t considered “overdriven” until the ratio is 27mph or higher (some cars actually come close to 40 mph per 1000) so that’s the mpg problem right there. Even with 1.5 litres.
It seems like the torque steer and high revs at highway speed could be fixed with some gear ratio teaks.
I wonder if the turning aftermarket will offer a manual 6th gear or different ratios?
4,000 RPM at 80???
Give that car another gear. At 4K, you’re probably in the fat part of a thin powerband, but that’s gotta start droning on you after a few miles.
Perhaps it’s a good thing Honda is leaving F1. Those crack engineers who couldn’t get either Jensen or Rubens past the first qualifying round can now start working diligently on the Fit. Pity the Honda F1 cars are as ugly as a Ridgeline, so there’s no hope on the styling front.
First a disclaimer: I own a 2009 Fit Sport (manual transmission).
Over all I really like this car. I haul quite a bit of stuff on a regular basis, and the interior packaging is tremendous, much better than anything else in the class.
On the MPG front, I’m getting around 38 MPG in normal driving, mostly the 16 miles to work and back, country roads and freeway — 70 mph tops.
(MPG computed using the miles/gallons used calculation, not the onboard computer.)
The one complaint I have is the gearing. It doesn’t so much as need a 6th gear as it just needs a taller final drive. First barely gets you through an intersection, and at 75 mph on a trip down to Las Vegas the engine is pulling 3700 RPM or so. I’m sure it’s just fine there and not hurting anything, but unnecessary and fuel robbing. I got 36 MPG on that trip.
I test drove one with the auto, and it had much more realistic gearing. A bit more sluggish off the line, but the top end wasn’t quite so nutty. My friend’s Suzuki SX4 has this same problem — I did read once that the engineers did this because Americans don’t like to shift; can’t prove that but it is annoying on the long haul. If I didn’t want to shift, I’d buy the auto. A stupid decision on their part.
Back road handling is quite nice, the mountain pass roads around my house are very entertaining in the Fit. It’s not a high end sports car, but is still plenty fun.
I highly recommend it, for what it is. Yes you can get more, but you pay more. Yes you can pay less, but you get less as well.
Those mpg numbers are dismal for a sub compact. Johnny, did you happen to do any actual mpg calculations while driving the fit?
As a completely nonsensical future car comparison (Green Edition) I submit you compare the Honda Fit Sport to a Lotus Elise and find out which one returns better real world MPG in city and highway driving and what ever else green people care about.
Did Honda lose the plot when it remodeled this car?
Uhh, no. The only two gasoline powered non-hybrid cars to get better fuel economy than the 2009 Fit are the Toyota Yaris and the Mini. They both manage a whopping 1mpg better city, 2mpg better highway.
In re: bigger wheels: Even though the Fit Sport has bigger wheels (16 vs 15), they’re actually narrower than before — 185/55 versus 195/55. So, they have more load capacity, but less grip, which seems like kind of a retrograde step.
I feel like Honda’s in danger of losing the plot with this one. The original Fit/Jazz was cunning, but it was successful enough that Honda didn’t know what to do with it other than the consumer-clinic approach (“a little more room…a little more power”). A shame.
What passes for a subcompact these days would have been a mid sized sedan 20 years ago.
Old school subcompacts look tiny compared to the Fit.
cgroppi: The smart fortwo and diesel Jetta also get better mileage. But the point still stands.
Alien vs Aliens? Inquiring minds want to know.
I sometimes wonder if it would be possible for a company to say ‘Hey, this car is going to have 100hp, period. And it should be practical and fun to drive (maybe set some minimum parameters). Now engineers, have at it.’
I have to say it…Star Trek II – Wrath of Khan is the sequel that was so superior to the first one, it is like the first one did not exist.
And what is with the small Japanese cars being “Americanized?”
The fist generation Scion xB was a wonderful little car, with great mileage, zippy handling, and very roomy for it’s size and price. The 1st gen Honda fit was a wonderful little car, with great mileage, zippy handling, and very roomy for it’s size and price.
Now the 2nd gen versions are heavier, bloated, have lower quality interiors, lower mileage, and not so zippy (the xB drives like a Camry).
I would then ask, is that what Americans really want with their cars? Or is it what the Japanese manufacturers think we want?
In a friendly, non-flaming sort of way, I’ll opine that if the RS4 review was Lieberman’s best, this may be his…not-best.
Which is why I said “gasoline,” at least for the jetta.
For whatever reason, the smart does not come up when you search for “small cars” in the fueleconomy.gov database. It is classified as a “two seater.”
Oh, and +1 for Wrath of Khan. The only Trek worth watching for non-Trekkies, I’ll add.
Give that car another gear. At 4K, you’re probably in the fat part of a thin powerband, but that’s gotta start droning on you after a few miles
It needs a lower final drive. The car is impossible to launch smoothly because first gear is just ridiculously short. So is second. And third. And fourth and fifth, come to think of it.
I own a 2008, and I can pull away–with much clutch slipping–in third gear. That’s evidence of stupid final drive gearing. It’s all done to make the car seem quick from the line, quick to sixty and to coddle drivers who don’t feel like downshifting to pass. Did you know the Fit can do 0-60 in about nine seconds? Again with the stupid; a nine-second econocar makes about as much sense as a six-second family sedan.
It would be nice if Honda offered one or more of the following:
* A sixth gear. It wouldn’t fix the problems with city mileage, but it would help the 4000rpm highway cruises
* A less agressive final drive, which would fix the city mileage issue at the expense of burnouts and torque steer, which no one cares about in a hundred-horse compact.
* A smaller engine, at least as an option. Europeans make do with 1.2L and 1.4L engines that are quick enough. And really, we love this car for it’s handling and packaging, not it’s power.
I tested one of these two weeks ago. I was impressed by the amount of space inside (you could fit a drum kit + 2 half stacks and more), but the ride wasn’t so great. Buzzy, loud engine and weaker handling than what I’ve heard. I’ve since crossed it off my list.
What passes for a subcompact these days would have been a mid sized sedan 20 years ago.
Old school subcompacts look tiny compared to the Fit.
Not true. The Fit is about the size of Civic Wagovan or Tercel Wagon. Ditto the Yaris, which is actually much shorter.
What these cars are is “taller”. There’s an advantage to that: no one likes the ass-on-the-floor seating of an old Civic. Raising the roof without raising the floor pays off big time in comfort and space.
Didn’t the “Magic Seat” lose some of its magic in the redesign, as in one of the modes?
TrueDelta will have a reliability score for the 2009 Fit in February, thanks to active participation by Fit owners. More always better, of course.
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
Gotta say that in Houston, the drink holder in front of the AC vent is pure heaven.
Sounds to me like the local Honda shops will be busy on clutch repairs.
I have a 2009 Fit Auto and I’ve been quite happy with it.
Here are some good points:
The revs on the highway are super low compared to my old Protege5.
The interior is flexible as all getout
The highway gas mileage at a stead 75mph was about 43mpg (3 hour roadtrip)
The auto5 shifts really quickly
Here are some bad points:
It’s “darty” on the highway, wind etc blows it around.
Small gas tank
Seat bottoms a little short
Somewhat “tinny”, you can really hear the rocks hit the wheel wells
Doesn’t stand up well to Oldsmobiles in parking lots
I’ve been very happy. I drive 6 miles to work and during the summer was getting 35mpg. Now that it’s getting cold and snowy it seems to be dropping to 33mpg. It’s just as fast as my Protege5 (which wasn’t fast anyway) but doesn’t seem to be quite as flat in the corners.
If most notice the Fit is has to push much more air due to its shape and boxier dimension versus the lower and more streamlined Civic. That is a major reason why the Fit’s HWY MPG isn’t all that great. But you could always wind up in an Aveo or the G3 – which are penalty boxes (thanks GM!). But if you choose a lower to ground sedan you lose the beauty of what the Fit can offer – minivan like storage space in a 30+ mpg package.
A friend of mine is switching his entire fleet of Colorado trucks to Honda Fit. It seems the Fit can carry the max load they thought they needed the Colorado for. They now spend much less to purchase (as they bought crew cabs!) and can haul equipment for a much cheaper price.
@cgroppi :
“‘Those mpg numbers are dismal for a sub compact.’
Uhh, no. The only two gasoline powered non-hybrid cars to get better fuel economy than the 2009 Fit are the Toyota Yaris and the Mini. They both manage a whopping 1mpg better city, 2mpg better highway.”
Uhhhhhhhh, no.
I submit the following in descending order of Highway MPG for 2009, non diesal or hybrid cars:
Smart For 2: 33-41
Mini Cooper: 28-37
Cobalt/G5 XFE: 25-37
Yaris: 29-36
Corolla: 27-35
Ford Focus: 24-35
Aveo/G3: 27-34
————————-
Honda Fit S: 27-33
Accent: 27-33
Rio: 27-33
Scion XD: 27-33
And the Fit also got beat by almost every diesal VW non SUV.
Here is my source: http://www.fueleconomy.gov
Thanks for playing.
Not true. The Fit is about the size of Civic Wagovan or Tercel Wagon.
That pretty much confirms his point. You are comparing a current subcompact against small wagons from the past.
Compare to the civic and Tercel hatchbacks of the time. The Fit is Hondas smallest car, it is not a wagon.
As far as MPG, highway is lackluster. Probably from not so hot aerodynamics and the previously mentioned poor gearing. The Civic with a bigger engine gets better highway mileage than the fit. The manual Civic gets 34mpg highway and the auto gets 36mpg. No doubt too short gearing again, but these can be added to the list proving the Fit gets very unimpressive highway mpg.
I tend to agree that these abysmally short top gears are aimed at those too lazy too shift. It doesn’t help that car mags push their “top gear passing tests”. When they do this test in automatics they gear down, but they don’t gear down when they repeat the test with manuals. This reinforces the “need” for short top gears. If you don’t gear down to pass, you shouldn’t get a a manual.
JEC:
Re: Ethanol formulation vs. mpgs
Very possible that this has changed. My preferred fuel outlet went from proudly displaying a big, used car lot-style arrow sign that said “OUR GAS DOES [NOT] CONTAIN ETHANOL!” with the NOT in red letters to displaying “enriched with up to 10% ethanol” signs on the pumps in late summer this year.
That said, there are now practically no stations making the “no ethanol” claim, so I can’t fully test your hypothesis. Admittedly, it’s something I had been thinking of lately.
re: The Fit’s gearing.
My pickup truck only turns 2,500 rpm at 70 mph. In fact, in top gear, it’s 15 mph per 500 rpm, giving my powertrain a theoretical top speed around 200 mph! Not that the truck would be physically capable– I’m sure it’d be airborne and subsequently blown to smithereens before that lofty plateau would be reached. I have absolutely no trouble launching from intersections, though I admit it is not easy to induce tire chirp from a dead stop. In fact, the revving and clutch-popping action required makes me fairly uncomfortable, for fear of what I might be doing to the poor girl. Probably for the best, anyhow.
Sounds like Honda needs to reconfigure the final drive. And perhaps like American drivers who drive stick shifts should learn how to use the silly things.
I love my ‘07 Fit, and was disappointed to see how many of the little things I wished my car had get included a year after I bought mine. I never did go for the exterior refresh, and thanks to Jonny, I think I’ll forget my idea of trading up.
By the way, even with an automatic, I can get 40 mpg consistently on the highway, and that’s with no hypermiling tricks, just slowing down a bit and keeping the revs below 3k (very difficult sometimes with the zippy little thing). In moderate traffic, it’s mid-30’s every week. My biggest gripe is that even with that mileage, I can’t quite make it a week without filling up, due to the tiny gas tank and the length of my commute. One more gallon…
+1 for the hefty OD in a 6th cog. Anyone who has driven a 6MT Corvette knows just how great life is with a highway-only cog for maximum cruising potential.
Not that the Fit needs the 0.50:1 overdrive of the Vette, but something similar…on a smaller scale. And if they’re putting 6-speeds in the 2010 Fusion four bangers, Honda really has no excuse.
The revs on the highway are super low compared to my old Protege5.
That’s like saying murder is better than genocide. I owned a P5 and that thing was a chore on the highway. I think I drove 90km/h out of self-defense.
That pretty much confirms his point. You are comparing a current subcompact against small wagons from the past.
True, but that’s because, aside from the Yaris, Mini and Smart, no one makes a car in North America with as stunted a cargo area as the Tercel hatchback. The Fit has an easy 21 cubic feet before folding the seats; nearly double that of the current Civic and a good bit more than the Accord. Hell, it approaches the old Saab 900’s 28cu.ft, which as good as it gets before you’re into wagon territory.
The Fit is a small wagon, and should be compared to small wagons of the past. The Yaris is more than a half-foot shorter, and compares nicely with the non-wagonoid Tercel.
Scott:
You remind me of the Honda Fit fuel mileage mystery. Before I bought my 07 (Sport, auto) I read a lot of posts from an owners forum. There were 2 groups of people. One was like you, that gets 30+ in town and 38+ on highway. The other was like I turned out to be, who sees 24-25 in town and 32-33 on the road.
The gas mileage on my car (and the small fuel tank) are the only significant gripes that I have had with the car. There are some other variables that hurt me, such as frequent use with four (and occasionally 5) full sized people in the car and the fact that my wife (the primary driver) is a bit of a hot foot. However, I can be pretty economical (I can get 26 mpg out of a 93 Crown Victoria at 70+mph) but only once got my Fit to the (then) EPA stated 37, and that only by driving about 60 mph and drafting semis.
The ethanol issue had occurred to me, but this is difficult to test when I cannot find stations in my area that will either say yes we use it or no we don’t.
BTW, I calculate my mileage the old school way, write my mileage each tank and calculate it at each fillup. I have kept a booklet in the glove box on every car I have ever owned, and track every tank. This is the first car since my 63 Fleetwood (and I have owned over 25) that performed way under expectation. (That one was 7.5 mpg on premium back in the late 70s. I still wince thinking about it.) Anyhow, it can only be the driver, the driving or the car. Maybe this car is just ultra sensitive as to how it is driven. Any thoughts?
I am now on week three of my 2009 Honda Fit Sport (automatic). I’m making weekly commutes between Atlanta and Nashville in it, and all things considered, it’s not my ideal road trip car. Indeed 80mph is not in its comfort zone. It definitely has to push to stay there, and at least with the auto tranny, turning over about 3400 rpm. The Fit’s steering at highway speed is very sensitive and combined with its lightweightness, well its going to take some convincing the state patrol that one is not drunk – it’s the car! The car loves 70mph though, and will cruise there indefinitely, saving money for gas and tickets.
There is no question; the engine is a buzz factory. Buzzing here and buzzing there – but after a day or two, I’ve come to the conclusion that the sound fits the car. Make no mistake, this is a city car, and it zips zips zips everywhere. Park it anywhere, open its hatch, and it will devour a new dishwasher. And lumber. And people.
I opted for the full boat navi version. I’ve had a navigation system in my car since the first TomTom. This was my first factory installed unit. Though I love have a clean look (no power cables running here and there), it was a sheer waste of money -no Bluetooth?!
The Fit replaced my 2005 Passat Wagon (1.8T). It has been a change of lifestyle, but I think that is something many of us are doing these days – simplifying life. Spending less. Being more frugal. The Fit is part of this process, and really, it ain’t a downgrade.
Huh.. I’ve been waiting for this review. I agree with most of it. I ended up getting a Suzuki SX4 Crossover instead, after driving both back to back twice. Got a lot more features (heated seats, nav, AWD, stab. control, etc) for a LOT less than the lowest price on a fit Sport. SX4 felt more solid, braked much better, and only spins at about 3500 on the highway at 80 mph. It sounds better too. WTF Honda?? I admit the Fit will have better resale and gets like 3 mpg more, but I just couldn’t do it.
The old Fit was a Miata with a backpack. The new Fit is a nerd with a backpack. That’s the difference.
Some really good comments. I have been waiting for this review for a long time and will add my own ambivalence to the new Fit. There are many issues to address, but by and large Fit number two will prove to be a major success.
1. For gods sake spring for snow tires, or a different brand of all seasons. The standard rubber will give you a nasty shock in a variety of snow/low traction conditions. I am still on oems, and have been driving on tippy-toe after a few close calls.
2. The Ride. It’s not jittery, but it is jiggly. Honda should hire some European tuners to sort this out. The wheelbase is sufficient to dial in some compliance without further blunting the handling. The ride is absolutely stupid, unless you are caning the vehicle, which means passengers are never particularly relaxed.
3. Ya, the new interior is a step back, but it is functional, and fades to inoffensive after a few weeks.
4. From a flexibility standpoint, Honda really screwed me eight ways. I need about two more inches of trunk length for mom’s oxygen tanks to store lengthwise–they fit in the old Fit. Awesome workaround, in that 12 canisters will fit behind the front passenger seat, but the old one would do that as well. Also, the elimination of refresh mode means her legs cant be elevated for longer trips to provide significant relief from arthritis pain in the foot.
5. The new windshield has amazing, amazing visibility. On the other hand, thawing caked on ice and snow is an effort. 10-15 mins with defrost + a/c. There is a spray you can coat the shield with, but Honda should have a winter package with heated glass,,,and it should be standard in Canada.
6. There are some fit and finish issues, which I had not expected in a car that had been on sale in Japan for a year. Rear door fascias seem particularly flimsy, and the sheet metal is reminiscent of aluminum foil in some areas.
7. Rear windshield wiper is set up for rhd, not particularly useful for visibility in Norf America…a small thing, but it leads to another bit of an issue. Honda should make the split folding magic seat 50/50, and admit it is a 4+1 seater. My kayak is pissed, and I will prolly require a roof rack. Anyone got a recommendation for a good one???
8. In Canada, we get treated badly by Honda. No nav option……..AND NO STABILITY CONTROL. Suck it up Honda,,,standard, it should be standard. Especially with those pathetic tires you bolt on.
9. Trip computer could have a few more modes…
10. It cruises like an Airbus on a trans-Atlantic trip at 80mph, droning, humming and thrumming like it was dealing with minor turbulence. I still managed to get a hefty ticket on my second day of ownership.
11. It’s almost as darty as generation one, without the scalpel like precision.
Honda could address many of these issues by next year, and the 2010 may well be referred to as the FIX.
Now for some positives:
1. Shifter and clutch are better, but throttle tip in can produce driveline lash if you are careless or tired.
2. The gearing is tolerable, enjoy the fun, but make use of the visibility to keep an eye peeled for the police.
3. It’s much safer than gen one. ACE and additional steel were a major consideration.
4. Cargo and people hauling capabilities are impressive.
5. Still obvious quality and fun to drive. Perhaps too much fun….I have a date in traffic court.
In retrospect, I probably would have purchased one of the last last gen TSXes instead…but, the Fit is more practical, more efficient, flexible and I am pretty damn happy. Fewer speeding tickets will be issued. And unlike the 09 TSX, the 09 Fit will never have a lower resale than it’s 08 predecessor.
fin
I strongly suspect the Sport version will be a tiny percentage of Fits sold. In fact, if one looks at the gearing, it seems Honda is betting on the automatic as the practical and economical solution. It would be interesting to hear about driving impressions at ~85mph with the taller-geared auto in a regular Fit with a couple of people and a good load of luggage in the back to neutralize its light weight.
27/33 ?? These thing have to do better than that with normal driving (not hypermiling)… If not, why even bother with a 4cyl.? I have a GM 3.8 V6 and a GM 3.1 V6. The 3.8 gets 30MPG highway setting cruise at 73 MPH on Pennsylvania Turnpike (Yes, lots of hills). With fairly aggressive city driving, I might get 20 MPG. 1999 Buick Regal LS. 200HP and 225TQ. 3400 pounds. The 3.1 get an HONEST 33 highway and around 23 city. Driven the same way, cruise at 73 MPH PA turnpike. 1998 Chevy Lumina LS. 160HP 185TQ. 3300 pounds. No hypermiling crap, just clean filters/fuel injectors/correct tire PSI. Both cars have nearly 100,000 miles, and have been trouble free since I’ve owned. I consider them my beaters, but in reality take really good care of them. Not here to defend the entire car, just the engines and MPG. Much more exciting cars on the road – LOL. But I never could pass up a great deal on a used car.
Now that you are thoroughly bored, I’ll make my point. Oh, maybe I already did. Which is 4 cylinders give up soooooooooooo much, and seem to return very little in MPG. Toss on a turbo and they get worse mileage that a nice 6 cyl. The driving experience IMHO is sooooooooo much better with a 6 cylinder. Immediate torque, reduced downshifting, smoother operation, etc… Especially with an automatic – *(I will acknowledge 4-cyl. aren’t as bad in a stick shift).
** Oh yeah. One other story. I had the great idea to rent a car for my annual Detroit car show trip. About 600 miles round trip. I rented a Chevy Aveo (5-door) from enterprise for a massive $25 out the door. Unlimited miles. My theory was why put miles on my cars, when it will only cost me 25 bucks (did entire trip in 1 day that year). So I picked the most fuel effiecent car they had. My results? About 28 MPG all highway cruise at 75MPG. I was shocked!!! My 6 cylinders do better. I don’t know… The car did have to struggle a bit to attain 75 MPH, but who drives 55 MPH on the highway? I think with some of these 4 cylinders, that’s the only way they even beat a 6 cyl. on highway MPG. BTW – That car was the biggest POS EVER!!!
The Honda Fit’s only problem in terms of fuel economy is the blasted short gearing.
I don’t know what people are complaining about… every time I drive a Fit 1.5, I get somewhere between 35-40 mpg on the highway.
If you keep up with American highway traffic, yeah, your mileage will suck, but if you keep it below the speed limit (about 50 or thereabouts), it’s amazingly frugal.
I’m still looking for a first-generation Fit secondhand… our market area doesn’t get the 1.5 MT. Pity.
RE: Magic Seats… they’re actually better this time around… used to be you had to flip the squab up and remove the headrest before folding them flat to the floor. Now all you do is pull up a lever on the shoulder and the whole thing scissors into place, the squab sliding forward under the seat and tucking into the footwell and the headrest tucking behind the front seat neatly.
Its interesting to read these views – fun car, zippy, nippy etc. In Europe these tend to be driven by, shall we say, retired folk who regard nippy as meaning “a little bit cold”.
Still some people like the new one. We get the 1.2 and 1.4 only but we do get a 6-speed auto in Europe and longer gearing for the manuals.
My bet is in early 2010 one will be sitting in our driveway. If you are in the market for a vehicle this size, test drive a Fit. It may not be the best at everything but it does better than all in its class. You be the judge.
http://www.sniffpetrol.com/AdHondafeels.jpg