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: kittyworld (Aug 20, 2008 9:46 am) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: mappo (Aug 20, 2008 10:02 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: backy (Aug 20, 2008 10:18 am) http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/pontiac/vibe/100971040/standard.html
|
|
|
Replying to: mappo (Aug 20, 2008 10:33 am) |
|
|
Replying to: mainemanx (Aug 20, 2008 7:25 am) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kittyworld (Aug 20, 2008 9:46 am) Pretty cool stuff. I've been reading all afternoon.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: blackberry09 (Aug 20, 2008 6:08 pm) T125/70D15 95Mꭧ3 T135/80D15 99Mꭧ4 ꭧ3: On models without VSA system and all Canadian models with manual transmission ꭧ4: On models with VSA system |
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Aug 20, 2008 2:27 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
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! |
|
|
Replying to: tacostand (Aug 20, 2008 7:41 pm) 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. |
|
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
