Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

2009/2010 Honda Fit



  • I think we can put it to rest here--a few names was all I was looking for, and it didn't seem so far off topic given the recent disappointment expressed by posters at the new pricing...and naturally, the forums tend to overlap some...

    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!
  • mappomappo Posts: 12
    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."
  • 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.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992 it's 4" longer but only 1" more 2nd row legroom? And the cargo space behind the 2nd row is less? Maybe I'm reading something wrong.
  • tdiver8tdiver8 Posts: 3
    Edmunds review today of the 2009 Fit -*
    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.
    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.
  • bryan_05bryan_05 Posts: 16
    Thanks for posting the review, I was sad to see there is no XM radio.

    "The one feature that didn't quite make the cut was an integrated XM radio receiver."

    Maybe they will change it for the XM/Sirius radios?
  • And no seat height adjuster.
  • upstatedocupstatedoc Posts: 710
    None of the cars you list above provide the combination of low cost, interior room and mileage as the Fit.

    Try getting a VW Sportwagon TDI for $14,500.

    The Mini's reliability is atrocious.
  • mappomappo Posts: 12
    I guess I'll be aiming for the Base AT version due to the poor choice of gearing ratios on the MT. WTF was Honda thinking on that? The Fit's excellent fuel economy is one of its strongest attributes, and they sacrificed that for better acceleration? :confuse:
  • I think Honda has a history of this, stemming from high-revving motorcycles? 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.
  • mappomappo Posts: 12

    [Honda] "hasn't set a precise on sale date for the '09 model, but instead will allow dealers to start selling cars as they arrive in the next few weeks rather than waiting to fill the pipeline. All North American dealers should be selling them shortly after Labor Day, though."
  • According to Honda's official press release, the "official" on sale day is 8/26:
    Honda 09 Fit press release

    I know dealers have been taken pre-orders for awhile so maybe that's what the autoblog article means. Most of these review articles were written at least a week ago and were allowed for publishing on the day Honda officially released specs and pricing for the Fit. So these authors might not know the offical on-sale day until the day their articles were published (yesterday).

    From Honda's spec sheet, compact spare tire is indeed included. Does anybody know if VSA will be standard on at least the Sport model next year?
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    We have just been told, a few days before the cars are available for sale, that VSA is officially available on the Sport + nav trim only for 2009... and you want to know if VSA will be standard on the Sport for 2010? :surprise: Good luck getting any info on that anytime soon.
  • I figured that if VSA becomes standard w/o the nav next year then I will wait for the 2010 model. Otherwise I may have to settle for a non-nav sports model instead. I really hate to compromise on safety though.
  • mappomappo Posts: 12
    You might consider the '09 Pontiac Vibe, now that GM has just enacted their Desperation Employee Pricing Program. It's got the full suite of airbags, 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS & EBD, and stability control standard. You have to lard it up with options to make it comparably equipped with the Fit, but with "employee pricing" it will probably still cost less.
  • corey415corey415 Posts: 49
    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.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    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.
  • mappomappo Posts: 12
    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.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,906
    You're right, Pontiac has made ESC standard on the Vibe, even though it's not standard on the Matrix. Good for Pontiac!!
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    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.
  • 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.
  • And the owner's manual states that space saver spare tires are included in all US models:

    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
  • 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.
  • 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!
  • ivan_99ivan_99 Posts: 1,681
    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.
  • orbit9090orbit9090 Posts: 116
    Came across this... Looks like a cell phone camera shot of some 2010 Honda Fit Sedan. The front nose (hood), rear measurements, and roof height are identical to the 2009 Fit, but the hatch is now a trunk and the swoopy windshield is replaced with a traditional windshield angle. Funky. It really shows how those Fit's have a really long front end.


  • I'm a safety girl so I fell in love with the 2008 Fit Sport but decided to wait for the 2009 model based on reports that it would have VSA. I've since read about it only being available on the Sport trim bundled with NAV. I live in Massachusetts and had put a $500 deposit down on a Sport 2 months ago and made a point with the sales rep that I wanted VSA on the new Fit I would be getting in. Despite the articles swimming on the Internet that all say VSA is bundled with NAV, he was trying to tell me today that "we still don't know." However, I got the sense he wasn't being completely honest with me (surprise!) so I inquired at another dealership I had also been speaking to about the new Fit. This is what the sales rep told me (hope you can follow the email stream - most recent response is first and I changed names):

    [start email stream]
    Honda Sales rep:
    That is correct.

    ---------- Original Message ----------
    Thanks, Honda Sales you are saying that you can only get Nav with VSA on Sports models in certain states in the US for 2009?


    ----- Original Message ----
    From: M at Honda Sales
    Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 3:09:55 PM

    Hi FitHopeful

    Yes, the information you have is correct about having to get the Sport model with Navigation in order to get the VSA. I did run a locate of the exact vehicle that you
    are looking for, and I don't see that vehicle being available in New England.
    [end email stream]

    I don't know if I have missed an old post on this but has anyone else gotten a sense that VSA/NAV won't even necessarily be available on Sports trims for the Fit in all states when the 2009s go on sale this coming week? This is a major bad news scenario for me...I'm even thinking of switching to a (gulp!) 2009 Toyota Corolla now.
This discussion has been closed.