Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks Honda Fit 2009/2010 Honda Fit
284 messages, Last post on Oct 30, 2009 at 10:21 AM
You are in the Honda Fit Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer
|
Replying to: backy (Aug 16, 2008 9:04 am) My question was are there any Hatchbacks that can compete with the FIT's safety, MPG , quality, reliability, price. You keep changing the subject. Methinks you just don't want to acknowledge there aren't any. Oh, and yes, CO2 footprint is VERY important to me! Gee, I would certainly hope it is quite important to everyone by now!
|
|
|
Replying to: skeptical (Aug 16, 2008 10:09 am)  topic for this discussion, then let's do it here.) To get things started... http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.eea4255/729
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Aug 16, 2008 12:59 pm) In any case-- Yes, if you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate you posting your top pics on the "Which hatchback" forum re: what you think is as "fitting" as the FIT (couldn't resist, sorry!), and I'll simply take a peek over there. Thanks in advance! |
|
|
If the Fit goes up in price and the dealers behave like dealers, then I vote with my dolars and get an xD or Yaris. Both the Fit and xD drive terrible compared to my Echo. Electronics feel like they have a lag compared to analog/mechanical throttle and steering mechanisms. So if I comprimise feel, it's two sides of the same darn coin. And $800 buys a lot of gas, at 1 MPG. The Honda does have the magic seat, but I have an old 4-cyl Toyota truck, so I can move on easily. If I want to encourage automakers to stop 'going bigger' I should not buy a car that is bigger and more powerful. Blind loyalty is not my way. The newer Toyota Tacomas are the same size as my (former) 2000 Tundra for example. So I got a used Toyo p-up. Ha! |
|
|
A little preview-post at Business Week just went up that looks to confirm what we suspected about that short-lived review of last week - that it was an accidentally premature post that was quickly removed due to a non-disclosure agreement. "I’ll have a review of the new 2009 Honda Fit later this week when the pesky embargo lifts. But in the meantime, I can’t help but gush on the liklihood…call it a rumor…that real-life driving fuel economy for this runabout is likely pushing 40 mpg. That’s a piece of change greater than the government rating. Sure, most cars get higher than the government rating. A friend of mine suddenly finding himself driving a Mercury Grand Marquis to work everyday says he is getting 27-28 on the highway. But 39-40 in combined fuel economy for the Fit, if it holds up with the reviewers who will be unleashing their reviews later this week, would be very nice indeed for a petrol car." http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2008/08/2009_honda_fit.html
|
|
|
|
|
The following are from Fitfreak website: Model description MSRP 8729ew m/t $14,550.00 8829ew a/t $15,350.00 8749ew sport m/t $16,060.00 8849ew sport a/t $16,910.00 8769gw sport vsa m/t w/nav $17,910.00 8869gw sport vsa a/t w/nav $18,760.00 destination and handling charges are $670. According to the author, it's authentic. |
|
|
|
| TOV first drive of 09 Fit | |
|
|
official Honda specs of 09 Fit
|
|
|
Replying to: kittyworld (Aug 19, 2008 4:27 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: mappo (Aug 19, 2008 12:25 pm) EPA mpg is nothing special, & kinda lousy for the manual. 28 mpg city/35 mpg highway with automatic 27 mpg city/33 mpg highway with manual Last year the auto was 27/34 and the manual was 28/34. It's one thing to have a manual get less mpg than a variable transmission, but not to be worse than a slushbox. Lots of cars are as good as that, and many are bigger. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/FEG2008.pdf A Ford Focus manual is rated 24/35. 2008 Corolla is 28/37, G5 or Cobalt XFE is 25/36, 25/37 for 2009, 2008 Vibe / Matrix is 26/33, dropped to 26/32 for 2009 Mini Clubman is 28/37. 2009 Jetta Diesel Wagon is 30/41 It is a poor design for the manual transmission to be geared so it is revved up on the highway. It's noisier and gets worse mpg. That may have been necessary back in the days of 3 or 4 speed transmissions, but that ended 25 years ago. I've heard one explanation for this trend that it's so idiots can keep the cruise control going in high gear on steep hills. All the people who are too lazy to downshift will pay the extra $900 for the automatic. The manual should be able to get better mpg than the auto, not worse. Very disappointing. I notice the Civic has the same problem, the manual is rated 34 highway while the automatic is 36 highway. http://vtec.net/forums/one-message?message_id=783622&news_item_id=783550
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Honda Fit 2009/2010 Honda Fit
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda Fit
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
