Last post on Mar 16, 2011 at 2:11 PM
You are in the Hatchbacks - Archived Discussions
This discussion is ARCHIVED. To reactivate the discussion, post a request in the Lost? Ask the Hatchbacks Host for directions! discussion.
What is this discussion about?
Honda Fit, Automotive News, Future Vehicle, Hatchback
#235 of 294 Re: availability [kittyworld]
Aug 20, 2008 (10:16 am)
VSA is required for all models by model year 2012, or calender year Sep 2011. Considering Honda is playing the same games with the Civic, I have a feeling VSA won't be standard across the board on all Fits until the MMC refresh, which would be model year 2012.
I am in the same boat as you. I really want VSA, but on principal I refuse to pay for NAV when I don't really need it. I already have portable GPS and my cell phone can even do GPS maps.
#236 of 294 Re: availability [mappo]
Aug 20, 2008 (10:18 am)
I am pretty sure ESC (and 4-wheel discs?) is optional on the Vibe, just as it is on its cousin the Matrix. But at least its more widely available on the Vibe than on the Fit.
There are a few small hatches/wagons with ESC standard. For 2009, Impreza, Rabbit, and Elantra Touring are three. Also some versions of the Mazda3s.
#237 of 294 Re: availability [backy]
Aug 20, 2008 (10:33 am)
The Edmunds spec sheet lists all those features as standard on the Vibe, though I haven't checked any other sources to confirm it. AC and power controls are options rather than standard though. I really wouldn't have considered the new Vibe as a viable competitor to the new Fit due to its higher price, but the GM employee pricing promo changes the equation.
#238 of 294 Re: availability [mappo]
Aug 20, 2008 (10:39 am)
You're right, Pontiac has made ESC standard on the Vibe, even though it's not standard on the Matrix. Good for Pontiac!!
#239 of 294 Re: disappointing [mainemanx]
Aug 20, 2008 (2:27 pm)
Part of our decision to go with an AT 2003 CR-V was because of the high-rev cruising of the MT. We're generally happy with the AT, but I would like to be able to lock-it-in on cruise-control so that it doesn't down-shift on the slightest of hills.
That's why with my Fit Sport Auto with paddle shifters on the highway I put it in Sport mode and leave it in 5th gear "manually."
I also don't like the new front door pockets. With my current ones I can put notebook inside because the door pockets are straight across, but the new ones have a big angle on them. I'm also surprised they couldn't get any better MPG out of it.
I do like the additional cup holders and telescoping wheel.
#240 of 294 Re: availability [kittyworld]
Aug 20, 2008 (6:08 pm)
FYI - the 2009 Fit Owner's Manuals and Navigation User Manual are posted for free download on Honda's site now: link title
Pretty cool stuff. I've been reading all afternoon.
#241 of 294 Re: availability [blackberry09]
Aug 20, 2008 (6:13 pm)
And the owner's manual states that space saver spare tires are included in all US models:
ꭧ3: On models without VSA system and all Canadian models with
ꭧ4: On models with VSA system
Aug 20, 2008 (7:41 pm)
The FE for 2009 is disappointing. Does anyone know how EPA estimates translate into real world numbers? From some of the reviews out there, it sounds like you can get better mileage than the EPA estimates. Would the AT still have the advantage? I ask because I regularly get 32-34mpg combined with my '92 Civic Si, which I'm sure wouldn't be rated so high by current EPA standards. So if in reality, I can get similar or better with the Fit, than I'd be happy with that.
Does anyone know why the Sport AT would get a worse MPG estimate than the Base AT? According to Honda's specs, the Base AT is 28/35/31. But the Sport AT is basically the same as the MT at 27/33/29.
Also, how important is VSC as a safety feature? The dealers I've been talked to all dismiss it as unimportant on such a small car. But they're obviously biased. Any links to an article? Thanks.
#243 of 294 slightly smaller fuel tank on the 09
Aug 20, 2008 (8:39 pm)
Interesting... the 09 has 10.6 gallon vs. 08's 10.8. I remember hearing a lot of people complaint about small fuel tank and hoping the 09 will be somewhat bigger, but in reality it's the opposite. Not sure why the slight increasing of the car leads to decreasing of gas tank size. The not-so-bad news is that 0.2 gallon isn't such a big deal. FYI The 09 figure comes from Honda's press release, and the 08 figure comes from current website.
I also compared the EPA numbers. The 08 sport auto is exactly the same as the 09 sport auto, so fuel economy is not worse (in real life maybe better - who knows). 09 base auto numbers go up, and I didn't compare the manual ones.
Here's what I wish for the 2010 or beyond from most important to least important: (1) VSA standard on at least the sport. (2) variable intermittent windshield wipers and at least 2 speeds for the rear window. (3) 8 way driver's seat adjustment, preferrably powered, (4) darker tint that blocks/absorbs heat, (5) mp3 track info can be displayed in foreign languages such as Chinese. (6) locking gas cap, and (7) make the navi system as good as the Garmin Nuvi 880 (3-D map, speak street names, traffic re-routing, add bluetooth connection), then I will buy the navi model. Of course, the higher the mileage the better as always!
#244 of 294 Re: real world MPG [tacostand]
Aug 21, 2008 (4:10 am)
Your 92 Civic Si (1.6 MT) is rated at 25/33; 28 average under the new EPA standards.
Does anyone know why the Sport AT would get a worse MPG estimate than the Base AT?
The recent Edmunds review:
The manual gearbox has shorter overall gearing for quicker acceleration, but it costs 1 mpg on both EPA cycles, as Honda is predicting 27 mpg city/33 mpg highway.
When the Fit Sport is equipped with an automatic, its fuel economy remains the same with 27 mpg city and 33 mpg highway. The only winner here is the automatic-equipped base Fit, which uses a more conservative shift program to get a rating of 28 mpg city/35 mpg highway.
Also, how important is VSC as a safety feature?
I agree that VSC is better suited for RWD vehicles instead of a small Fit type car. When it's wet and you have a lot of power on the rear wheels they can break loose pretty quick...VSC is nice then.
That situation is more of an anti-slip than VSC...VSC also comes into play at high speeds. My theory is if it only costs a couple hundred $'s then i'll go for it...but I won't break the bank for the feature.