Article Comments - 2009 Honda Fit First Drive / Full Test

556 messages, Last post on Feb 05, 2009 at 1:45 PM

You are in the Honda Fit Forum. Your Host is pf_flyer

What is this discussion about? Honda Fit, Hatchback

First Drive: 2009 Honda Fit - Inside the Fit's cabin, it's apparent that quality levels are up, with improved plastics, more supportive seats and a tilt-and-telescoping steering wheel. Meanwhile, a new dashboard layout looks softer, reflecting a special effort by stylists to appeal to women. (more)

2009 Honda Fit Sport Full Test - Bottom Line: If only every sequel were so good. It's as if Honda used our long-term test blog about the 2007 Fit as a road map for the 2009 model's improvements. (more)

Outline

Messages Page 54 of 56: 1; ...; 50; 51; 52; 53; 54; 55; 56; Prev; Next; Last

#527 of 556 Easy by pf_flyer HOST Oct 27, 2008 (3:08 am)
Let's get back to discussing the vehicle and move away from commenting on each other please.
#528 of 556 Re: Dive a Honda Fit? I don't want to DIE! [dvsutton] by widetrack2000 Oct 27, 2008 (8:07 pm)
Replying to: dvsutton (Oct 24, 2008 6:28 pm) All of us need to do exactly what the host recommends and keep this about people who either own an '09 Fit or plan to buy one so if you (dvsutton) don't fall into either of these two catagories, then sell your Minivan and move onto another manufactuer and forum or start a "I hate Odyssey's" thread but do it somewhere else please. Thank you!
#529 of 556 well said widetrack2000 by dweiser Oct 28, 2008 (2:15 am)
I'm in 100% agreement with you!
#530 of 556 Car and Driver says too long braking distance by tonyspumoni Oct 28, 2008 (7:09 pm)
The December '08 online issue of Car and Driver magazine has a generally positive review of the '09 Fit Sport (see the link below), with the proviso that the 70-to-0 braking distance of 198 feet is "unacceptably poor". Would anyone who owns an '09 Fit Sport and who has had to brake hard care to share their views on this? http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/honda_acura_centr- al/2009_honda_fit_sport_road_test
#531 of 556 That's why Honda says the Fit is GO, not STOP? by dweiser Oct 29, 2008 (6:21 am)
I found two other reviews that tested the stopping distance of the 2009 Fit. Not terribly reassuring; maybe (hopefully) the Car & Driver Fit had a unique (to it) braking problem, sure hope so. "Our best stop of 134 feet is longer than average for such a small, light car, and we suspect the 10 feet of additional stopping distance compared to our 2007 Fit is largely due to the tire swap." http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=132028 "Brakes still exhibit some sponginess, but their 0-60 stopping distance of 94 feet represents a small increase over last year." http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/Overview-c21314-2009-Fit.html Replies to this message: tonyspumoni (Oct 29, 2008 7:54 am) prufrock1 (Oct 29, 2008 3:55 pm)
#532 of 556 Re: That's why Honda says the Fit is GO, not STOP? [dweiser] by tonyspumoni Oct 29, 2008 (7:54 am)
Replying to: dweiser (Oct 29, 2008 6:21 am) Wow. I didn't see a starting speed to 0 in the Edmunds review, but the numbers seem awfully far apart. The C and D test was the average of, I think, six attempts, so hopefully it was just a funky car. On the other hand I recall seeing somewhere that repeated hard braking can really dull the brake response and the C and D car had 1400 miles on it when they tested it - who knows who had it before they got it and what they might have done to it. Replies to this message: prufrock1 (Oct 29, 2008 3:55 pm)
#533 of 556 Re: That's why Honda says the Fit is GO, not STOP? [tonyspumoni] by prufrock1 Oct 29, 2008 (3:55 pm)
Replying to: tonyspumoni (Oct 29, 2008 7:54 am) Hey, thanks for the support about focusing on the Fit. I've driven the '09 Sport for about 6 weeks in various road conditions, including panic stops. My verdict is this: no problem. The car is so light that it renders this debate nearly a moot point. If the real stats show this as a possible flaw in the car, it is not one that I've found to be a problem in real driving conditions.
#534 of 556 0-60 stopping distance by toronado455 Oct 29, 2008 (6:47 pm)
"Brakes still exhibit some sponginess, but their 0-60 stopping distance of 94 feet represents a small increase over last year." http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/Overview-c21314-2009-Fit.html You gotta wonder about a website that publishes a 0-60 stopping distance. What universe are they in exactly? Maybe they tested the Fit inside a wormhole? Replies to this message: dgs4 (Jan 22, 2009 9:00 pm) thegraduate (Jan 22, 2009 9:19 pm) toronado455 (Jan 24, 2009 2:00 pm) rlctnt (Jan 25, 2009 7:08 am) and 3 more...
#535 of 556 Re: 2007 vs 2009 FIT [mustangxr] by mustangxr Nov 03, 2008 (2:08 am)
Replying to: mustangxr (Oct 08, 2008 11:32 pm) Here is an addendum to my test drive report on the 2009 Fit. On the old Fit, the windows seemed to fog up all the time while driving in the rain. Even with freshly cleaned windows on the inside, it would fog up. This made it necessary to have the ventilation system in defrost mode to keep the windows clear! Which meant that the air conditioning HAD to be running any time it was raining!?!? The new, improved Fit however does not do this. So now I can drive around in the Pacific Northwest rainfall and not have to be in an air conditioning mode of ventilation. Which hopefully will make for better fuel consumption numbers. Speaking of fuel consumption figures, I have noticed that on my first tank of gas, the average fuel consumption readout stabilized at 5.7liters per 100 km. I converted this figure to gallons and found I was getting 41.5 MPG!?!?! ...... NOT! I ran the first tank to dead empty and got 750 km out of the first tank. (466 miles) This distance burned 48 liters of fuel or 12.7 US Gallons which works out to a very respectable 36.6 mpg. (City highway mix) This is a long way from 41.5 mpg actual mileage however. Therefore, I consider the average fuel mileage minder gauge to be relative information only and not accurate. I am halfway through the second tank of fuel today and the trip meter reads 425 km. or 264 miles. The average fuel consumption readout has steadied down on 5.3 liters per 100 km which is an improvement on the first tank. I continue to discover little things that are an improvement to the older Fit. Somehow the rear window does not get so much rain and mud on it during the wet weather. I also like that the rear window wiper actuates when going into reverse gear with the front wipers "on". Another little thing is the rake of the front windscreen. The angle of the windshield has been increased considerably. I have coated the windscreen with "RAIN-X" and now when the car is traveling at 45 mph or more, it is not necessary to operate the wipers. The rain just rolls up the glass and over the roof. This is very cool. OK, that is my latest info. Cheers to all. Pete Replies to this message: thegraduate (Nov 05, 2008 9:25 am) gatortom1 (Feb 05, 2009 1:45 pm)
#536 of 556 Re: 2007 vs 2009 FIT [mustangxr] by thegraduate Nov 05, 2008 (9:25 am)
Replying to: mustangxr (Nov 03, 2008 2:08 am) I ran the first tank to dead empty and got 750 km out of the first tank. (466 miles) This distance burned 48 liters of fuel or 12.7 US Gallons which works out to a very respectable 36.6 mpg. (City highway mix) Hmm.. Even though you say you ran the tank out of gas, you STILL have 8 extra liters listed there. The Fit's capacity is 40 liters of fuel. Odd.