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 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
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)
|
|
|---|---|
|
"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?
|
|
|
Replying to: mustangxr (Oct 08, 2008 11:32 pm) 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
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mustangxr (Nov 03, 2008 2:08 am) 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. |
|
|
I test drove an automatic about a month ago and wasn't especially impressed with the performance. Yesterday I went back to the dealer to check out a manual (which was what we wanted in the first place, but they are harder to find around here). So I tested a silver MT Sport and it was much peppier. The dealer had about $1800 in additional dealer markup that I laughed at. I asked for an OTD quote and they came down to ~$250 over MSRP ($17k), with a doc fee of ~$300 and 6% tax of ~1,000. Final OTD quote was $18,3xx. That's a lot of dough for a subcompact, but I think most cars are overpriced.  I didn't haggle since it's my wife that has car fever and there was no use working the numbers if she didn't like it. She didn't like test driving the automatic (besides the seeming lack of power, she didn't like not being able to see where the front end ended, and she thought the seat height was a bit low). We've driven a Matrix and Versa and xD and she prefers the xD so far. But she could live with one. We like to go camping and haul gardening stuff a lot, and the flat folding Fit interior has it all over the Versa and is roomier than the xD. As I was leaving the dealer, the salesperson said hold on a sec, and then came back and asked me if I wanted to take it home overnight. Well sure. I managed about 10 miles of curvy suburban roads (plus about 10 miles of Interstate) on my way home. The shifter could be a bit better but was fine. Snickier would be better (the Matrix wins here). I really liked the handling and thought the steering was dialed in nicely. Even though ground clearance is a concern, I took it to a street with a couple of dips that always drag my minivan's front end and it handled those with aplomb. The Fit nestles nicely in my 70's area garage and my paddles and snowboards fit in the back ok crosswise. Skis have to slide up between the seats but they don't come close to interfering with the stickshift. My wife drove it about 30 minutes when she got home and didn't fall in love with it. She could live with the Fit fine if it were a few thousand cheaper. The Sport I tested didn't have steering wheel controls, which I have grown accustomed too. I suppose that could be added. The only other concern I had were the firm seats. My back got uncomfortable after a while and there's no lumbar to play with (usually on marginal seats, I'll stick a rolled-up T-Shirt behind my back but in this case I wanted the seat back to be a bit flatter). All in all, a very nice rig, and we could still take another long look at one in the upcoming months if we don't buy something right away. The dealer experience was good btw. The sales manager called hunting for the car keys after I dropped it back off this morning (I wanted to tell him I had tossed them on the roof, lol) and told me to stay tuned for the Fit Hybrid. Of course, by the time that arrives, the Cube and Soul will be around to test too. Steve, just a visiting host |
|
|
|
|
I just replaced an '04 Prius with an '09 Fit Sport MT and have zero regrets so far. Can't speak to mileage in detail yet as I have only put about 170 miles on the Fit, but the calculated mpg is currently running at 41.7 (35 psi front, 35 psi rear, 10% ethanol blend, all suburbilishis driving - 0 to 60 to 0 to 60 to 0 to 60, ran the idle learn procedure ala Kip et al. immediately after getting it home). Since my lifetime actual mileage on my Prius is 45 mpg for the exact same route and driver, I consider the switch out of the hybrid back into a gas-only model to be a either a minor setback or even a tactical victory. Handling is night and day in favor of the Fit. The ride is vastly more connected to the road, cornering is flatter, and the steering crisp and precise. Steering the Prius was like sailing a yacht - every nub in the road made it wander and wallow around - and there was significant play. Were it not for the fact that my wife drives an '05 Prius that exhibits the exact same attributes, I'd claim that the lack of responsiveness in the Prius was a bug instead of a feature. Reviews have placed the Fit's ride on the bumpy side, but I've been pleasantly surprised as how smooth and even it is - certainly never jarring. On the other hand, secondary roads in SoCal are usually pretty good compared to, say, weather-beaten roads in the Mid-West.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tonyspumoni (Nov 26, 2008 8:24 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: widetrack2000 (Nov 27, 2008 2:10 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: toronado455 (Nov 27, 2008 11:31 am) Having the family in the car has neither noticeably improved or worsened the ride, though to be quite fair, the car has yet to see a pothole or those ridges that arise across Wisconsin roads in the spring after the thaw. I like the ride, which is very similar to, say, a late 80's Civic hatchback when new. My guess would be that over smooth pavement the ride will feel smooth and light and only show its low-end qualities on rough surfaces.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: tonyspumoni (Nov 27, 2008 1:38 pm) It's interesting to compare the 09 Fit to the late 80's Civic, since the new Fit is almost identical to the 1988-91 Civic Wagon in several key dimensions. And perhaps it's a fairer comparison to make than to compare it to a Prius. I really see the Prius as in a class by itself; it's bigger than a compact, but it's not really big enough to be considered a true midsize (except by certain EPA criteria), yet it rides more like a midsize than a compact. I think it would be really novel if one of the major car reviewers, be it Edmunds, Consumer Reports, or whoever, published their findings in such a way that would make it easier to make direct comparisons, not just between cars currently on the market, but between current generations and earlier generations. I'd really love to see a head-to-head comparison of a 2009 Fit and a 1988 Civic Wagon! 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: toronado455 (Nov 28, 2008 12:40 am) 1.5L 16v 92hp 27/33 (under new EPA regs) ~2,200 lbs 2009 Honda Fit Base, 5MT 1.5L 16v iVtec 118hp 27/33 (under same EPA regs as above) ~2,500 lbs
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Hatchbacks Honda Fit Article Comments - 2009 Honda Fit First Drive / Full Test
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Honda Fit
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
