2009 Honda Fit

nippononly

Well, after some casual searching around the Web, I am unable to find much more than bare-bones information on the next-gen Honda Fit, so I thought I would throw it open to you dedicated Edmunds posters in the hopes someone else had more info! :-)

I do know that it grows a little bit for the next gen, and some unconfirmed "spy pics" at Autospies give it a more microvan-ish look. And I also know that it will be released in Japan in about two months, right around the time of the Tokyo Auto Show, so I am sure the States will be getting it next year as an all-new '09 model.

Here's one little article I found:

http://carscoop.blogspot.com/2007/08/2008-honda-fit-jazz-official-images.html

Here's a different pic which I like more:

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/06/03/honda-fit-accord-and-cr-v-spotted-on-chinese-- - site/

And here's a third article, but again a lot of it just seems to be rumor. Honda seems to be very tight-lipped about the new model, unless I have just missed what I am looking for:

http://youngwoo2007.blogspot.com/search/label/TOKYO%20MOTOR%20SHOW

What would you Hondaphiles like to see in the new Fit? I would like to see fuel economy improvements for sure. And a height-adjustable driver's seat and just a general improvement in interior materials. An optional moonroof might be nice, but that is not Honda's style (a stand-alone moonroof option, I mean). I like that the car is nice and basic with a price to match.

Anybody want to see a 3-door model?

rv65

">Well can a host merge this with 2009/2010 honda fit. There is already a thread on this.

ifit

What would I like to see in the new fit?

More legroom in the back. Lots of American kids get tall fast. It's not unusual for them to be 6 feet before they become teenagers. I'd like to see an extra three inches of legroom in the back seat. They could move the seat back permanently or make it adjustable. If that's too hard, maybe they could make the front seats a little thinner to provide more legroom in the back.

bobw3

4" longer overall with 4" legroom...it would still be only 161"

mwqa

Hi Nippononly!

You haven't checked out vtec.net directly for info?

They're pretty good.

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=704003

It's amazing how Honda has been able to keep a lid on this new version. They must be building them by now (for the Japanese market).

I can only hope for a better driving position.

nippononly

Yeah, I checked out Temple of VTEC, but they didn't seem to have any more than stuff I had already found.

And then there's this rumor that there would be "official" pics on the 26th because of the car's release in Japan, and yet here it is a week later and all we have is these couple of shots from magazine ads. I do like what I have seen so far though - the lines are better even if it is does look a little microvan-ish.

Mainly what I am looking for is a huge technology update under the hood - I expect i-VTEC in the next model, with a substantial improvement in low-end torque and emissions, and hopefully better fuel economy to boot.

Considering they plan to have the new hybrid 2-door model in a couple of years, it would be cool to see them develop that model off the Fit platform and eventually offer that hybrid powertrain in the Fit too. But that's a couple of years away at least...

kreuzer

Does anyone know if this will happen with the next generation? It would be a good opportunity for this to happen!

nippononly

I think the only Honda diesels in the next two or three years will be the 2.2L and the 3L. The smaller one is for the Accord and then the CRV, the larger is for the Ridgeline (and perhaps someday the Odyssey?). So you will have to wait until the next-next generation for a Fit diesel, I think!

eldaino

i'd like to see something new under the hood! the l15 is great, but its an older engine...i've heard of an r15 that should put out slightly more power and better fuel economy.

Personally...

i'd like to see a 1.6 litre sohc ivtec making about 120hp with about 112 lbs of torque. that would be a great zippy engine! and its hp would be low enough to still slot it below the civic.

....and how about an si version? with a 1.8 litre k series with 170 hp?

rv65

no r15 engine. Just another l15 variant with some civic hybrid features without the hybrid system.

robertsmx

I will be surprised if it isn't a new engine (R-series). The R-series may have been designed to cater 1.5-2.0 liter displacement class, and we have already seen 1.8 (Civic) and 2.0 (JDM Stream). The K-series was designed for 2.0-2.4 liter class.

nippononly

I think 170 hp might be going a bit overboard, as long as they hold the weight increase in check for the '09. I think if they use the engine already in the Civic, maybe tuned up just a tad to 145, 150 hp, that would be more than enough for a Fit SI, and I personally would love to see it. Could that one have a factory moonroof and go for around $19K in a stick? Please?! ;-)

If so, that would be my next car. Give it the 16s of the Civic EX. I think that would have a lot going for it vs the Mini, and nothing else would compete really.

robertsmx

I like the idea of Honda Fit DX/LX with ~120 HP and an Si with 1.8/140 HP from Civic.

As for weight issue, it is an impossibility to avoid it these days. 50-75 lb gain is virtually guaranteed. I just hope it does come with 16 and 17 inch rims now, adding another 30-40 lb.

nippononly

Maybe they could throw in a little aluminum for us in place of steel on the SI model, to reduce weight. Subaru does this on their $18K Impreza, why not Honda on its $19K Fit SI?

I like the idea of an '09 Fit DX roughly similar to the current base Fit in equipment levels and power, tuned for maximum fuel efficiency. Then a Fit LX, tuned up (or with a slightly larger engine) as you say to around 120 hp, and an SI. Basically, I want the old days of an HF trim back! But me, I would still probably go for the SI. Maybe I could get two, an HF and an SI, one to commute in and the other for the rest of the time! :-)

robertsmx

Price sensitivity can be different for a car topping out at $19K (if it gets that high) compared to a car starting at $18K. Besides, there isn't a whole lot of gain to be had from a little aluminum. To put that in perspective, using aluminum rear subframe in RL costs money, but it saves only 17 lb over steel hydroformed rear subframe in TL. That saving can quickly dissipate with just couple of additional features (NAV itself is said to add about 15-16 lb), much less the new found love for larger and larger rims (which can quickly add weight).

As much as I would like to see a reduction in curb weight, won't be surprised if it gains some. Sad, but thats the reality.

hpmctorque

Maybe a 1.3 displacement would make sense for the HF, since the small Hondas sold in Asia and Europe displace <1.5.

robertsmx

Yeah, there are two smaller engines in Fit. A 1.2-liter i-DSI in Europe, and a 1.3-liter i-DSI (in Europe it is labeled 1.4, and also available in Japan, probably the rest of the world as well, except North America).

The new 1.3 is rumored to boast 100 HP (up from 86 HP). But then, with ever increasing weight, increased torque becomes a necessity to help keep taller ratios (or else gearing tends to be shorter which affects fuel economy anyway)

eldaino

I think 170 hp might be going a bit overboard, as long as they hold the weight increase in check for the '09. I think if they use the engine already in the Civic, maybe tuned up just a tad to 145,

you think so? the b16 engine in the old civic si hatchback (early 90's) weighed about the same, and had 160hp, i don't think that is pushing it at all!

the size and power of the r-series in the civic sounds good, i'd like at least 150. But i wouldn't want an r series engine in the si, maybe just in the 'lx' trim you speak of.

Reason why? There is no real tunability in the r series engines. thats why i feel a small displacement k series, or even a souped up l series engine would fit the bill.

nippononly

Per Edmunds, the '95 SI (last year of the old hatch) had 125 hp and weighed 2390 pounds, which also rings true with what I recall. ;-)

So if they can get the '09 Fit SI to 145 hp (using the 1.8 from the Civic) and hold the weight to 2500 pounds or less, it will be faster than the old Civic SI. In fact, that will be the same power-to-weight ratio as the MOST RECENT SI hatch (the '02-'06), pretty good for the next model down methinks.

And I figure a Fit HF making around 100 hp and geared to make 40+ mpg would sell well, maybe using that foreign-market 1.3, or maybe just using the 1.5 it already has, detuned a bit and employing a little bit of Honda magic like the VTEC-e from the last Civic HX to improve fuel economy and low-end torque.

eldaino

the '95 SI (last year of the old hatch) had 125 hp and weighed 2390 pounds, which also rings true with what I recall.

wooo nippon you got your stuff down pat! i think i got confused with the 99 si, or at least the type r version in japan, which DID have 160 in that hatch body style and actually weighed even less than 2390.

I think making it as fast as the old si would be great, but the power to weight ration of the newest si hatch was horrible...i don't think honda would attempt that again, as it was a general failure when compared to the newest, and older si models. (it still has a following, and i do like the way it LOOKS.)

so maybe a small 1.8, or even a 1.6 pushing around 145-160 would be good? i'd buy it!

bobw3

If they could make the Fit with 35/45 mpg city/hwy I think it would sell great regardless of the HP figures.

robertsmx

Yep. I think that should be the approach, although for marketing purpose and to appeal to performance enthusiasts, they could still have a higher performance model. One of my disappointments with Fit was that it didn't even meet the 1997+ Civic HX in fuel economy ratings much less beat it.

ever12

I usually don't like to cite Wikipedia, but it seems the 2009 Fit is destined to make its debut in Tokyo in October.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Fit#Second-generation

bobw3

I don't think it's fair to compare the Fit mpg to the Civic, because the Fit is more upright and less aerodynamic which really hurts the highway mpg, which is the real difference between the mpg of the Fit and Civic. City mpg is pretty much the same.

eldaino

true.

but even more so than aerodynamics, we gotta realize that the fits engine is older than the r18 in the civic, even if its new to us, and its less technologically advanced.

its more akin to the d series engines that found themselves in the previous generation civics.

and like older civic engines, it gets good fuel economy because of its size, not so much because its been engineered to do so like the r18 has.

bobw3

It's hard to compare the older engines to new ones. My old '91 Escort gave me mid-30s MPG, but maybe newer engines can do so with lower emissions? Or with more power? It really doesn't seem like MPG has improved much over the past 20 years for any car.

nippononly

"One of my disappointments with Fit was that it didn't even meet the 1997+ Civic HX in fuel economy ratings much less beat it."

GAWD, you can sure say that again! I know this is an upright model with a hatchback, both of which increase aerodynamic drag and reduce fuel economy, but it is also lighter and lower-powered than the old HX, and produces more smog-forming emissions to boot! Talk about a step backwards. And the original '01 Fit was introduced in Japan after the last-gen Civic HX too.

This is their smallest model for sale in the U.S. IMO the next model should really stand out in emissions and fuel economy. If they want to have a performance trim, I would applaud that and there the line could slip a little bit on FE and emissions, but the bulk of the sales should be trims with top-of-their-class fuel economy.

Speaking of emissions, I was interested to note that the new Accord will be PZEV here in California for 4-cylinders AND V-6s. If they can do that for the Accord, they should be able to do it for the Fit also.

ifit

I want a left foot rest. Scratch that, I need a left foot rest.

eldaino

to echo what bob said, we can't really gripe about newer, older engines but then go on to say what cars the fit pales in comparison to.

sure the fit is 'dirtier' and less fuel eficient than the hx, but it handles much better, has a more upscale interior, and is far more versatile.

nippononly

Yes, but this is Honda, the ENGINE company. Every successive generation of vehicles should exceed the last in engineering, IMO. More hp per liter, lower emissions, better fuel economy.

Besides, all we are talking about really is a wish list for the next gen. While the current Fit is a little disappointing to me, it still excels in its price class, and it IS six years old after all.

robertsmx

Six years and three months (in two days) in fact.

But it is still a design that holds its own, especially inside and in driving dynamics.

While getting more HP/liter has been one of Honda's strengths, that is not why Honda is considered an ENGINE company. For that matter, the D16 in Civic HX wasn't as refined and was rated at "only" 117 HP.

Fit appears to be one of those cars that don't do well in EPA rating system, but deliver better mileage in reality. It might help Honda market the car even better (if there is enough production capacity) if they addressed EPA-rating-happy crowd too.

I think CVT makes more sense in the Fit than a 5AT (all other markets get CVT-7 or 5MT). But I won't be surprised to see 6-speed iShift transmission in the new version (currently offered only in European Civic).

vcarreras

Official PR images..

http://vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=710132

robertsmx

Edmunds has it. (Link)

ifit, based on pictures, you do get foot rest in the Fit.

tiff_c

I'm sorry but I think it's essential for a car to have a spare. just look at all the problems they have in the BMW forum with runflats. A fix it kit doesn't always work. I hope for the US market they include the spare tire even as an option. Too much construction going on and lots of flats nevermind unseen potholes etc...
I think this would prevent me from buying the car. I wanted to consider the 1 series BMW but it has runflats and no spare so I will buy another AWD car with a spare tire for myself. You need a spare tire in many areas and trying to find an open station that can sell you a tire late at night isn't always easy. My wife clearly wants a a spare tire as do I. I see in pics that the Fit now has an armrest so that is good and I thought I saw a dead pedal also good but no spare??? Bad!

bayoujay

Saw the new pictures/story about the upcoming 2009 Fit, and it seems that they haven't tinkered much with the basic philosophy or design of the car. Added rigidity, improved A-pillar design, softer ride, and more rear seat room are a plus. The modest increase in horsepower is welcomed, especially since it should be coming with improved efficiency.

I guess my main grip is the dashboard. Looks too haphazard...the same gripe can be said about the new Scion xD. Too many undulations. Instead of looking like a unified piece, the shapes and switch placements create a disharmonious interior IMHO.

drfill

Might be a great car, but it looks pretty rank. :lemon:

DrFill

nippononly

more like a microvan, that's for sure. But I still think it's an improvement, and if it DRIVES less like a van than the current model, which already has decent handling, that's a winner.

I like the interior improvements, and I hope it now has maplights too, at least on the Sport model.

You never know about the spare - some models without a spare still offer a place for you to stow one if you really want one. And they may choose to put the spare back in the for the U.S. market anyway.

What is really cheering is that it will finally have i-VTEC, which brings with it an extra 10 horses and much better low-end torque without having to increase displacement. Hopefully that will mean it does a little better for gas mileage than its predecessor too.

This is definitely on my short list for next new car in a couple years' time. :-)

fitman548

that new dash is Ug-LY!

eldaino

its really not that different looking....

eldaino

....and the yaris is no looker either. it will be a great car.

andy_uranium

I think this is a great looking little car. My wife and I just checked out the current model as a second car. I really liked the car it is very functional but seemed a bit awkward looking. This new 2009 model is light years ahead in exterior styling IMO. This car is at the top of our list for sure. You just can't find anything near as practical for the price. This car will do well for Honda, especially in Canada where we don't seem to have the american adversion to hatchbacks.

nippononly

they have put in maplights and a seat height adjuster for '09 (and a telescoping wheel).

Plus it has this glorious looking panorama glass roof. Too bad part doesn;t open, but I would still want one.

And power goes up a bit, the magazines say ride and handling both improve, the looks improve a lot IMO, and emissions improve. The only unknown is fuel economy, which I am hoping won't DROP. Hopefully it will go up a couple of points. The weight will be virtually identical after all, and the addition of i-VTEC is probably responsible for part of the power gain.

I will DEFINITELY be testing out an '09. Too bad it is still 8 months away. :-(

bobw3

Is the sunroof going to be an option? I really don't want a huge heavy piece of glass cooking my head!

nippononly

It's unclear if it is an option - it is not usual practice for Honda to have factory options like that. I would bet it will be standard in the top trim and unavailable in lower trim(s).

719b

i read in various places that stability control will be mandatory in the united states in a few years. will the fit have it for 2009? does anyone know?

rv65

Honda has announced that the 09 Fit will debut at the NY auto show. There has been some changes but will stay close to the Japanese model. Hope this helps.

mcmanus

I drove a friend's automatic with paddle shifters. I drive like a grandmother, but can you say slow? It'd be dangerous on older big city freeways that have no acceleration lanes. There was no fun, barely knew if it had shifted as the engine was constantly struggling under very easy conditions.

Otherwise I like the current car. The new one looks very generic, which is much better than most recent Honda cars. Too bad the local dealer is so lackluster (I'm being kind).

Those of us living in the great white north don't need a sunroof, we need insulation on top.

plekto

How high did you rev it?

1500-200rpm for the Fit's engine is like lugging a V8 at 500-1000rpm. You have to wind it up like a S2000 to get any power. But once you do, it moves fairly quickly.

P.S. it's not designed to be a 0-60 drag racer, either. Once it gets going, it'll easily do a 20-40mph transition quick enough to keep up with traffic.

fitman548

On a standard length on-ramp I get from a rolling turn to 75 mph, going uphill.

mebman

I think the acceleration of the fit is great. Unfortunately Honda has in the past listened more to those craving power than those wanting fuel economy. This is why we didn&#146;t get the CVT and the 1.3 liter the rest of the world has with phenomenal MPG's. I really had hoped that at 3-4 dollars per gallon Honda would offer us a Fit that got 40-50 mpg. Honda why don&#146;t you reconsider how you package the Fit and offer 2 models; gas champion and throttle jockey!

tiff_c

I think the acceleration of the fit is great. Unfortunately Honda has in the past listened more to those craving power than those wanting fuel economy. This is why we didn't&#146; get the CVT and the 1.3 liter the rest of the world has with phenomenal MPG's.

I have driven the 1.3L Fit and no way would you be able to use it on US Highways. It's a city car and a friend of mine overseas owned one. I drove it quite a bit when I visited him. It's ok in the city but they had NO highways at all where he lived. The 1.3L is just not powerful enough. But if you lived in say Guam, it would be fine. But US Mainland, forget it. Also you economy won't be as good as you think it will be. It makes the engine work much harder under load to climb small hills and carrying people.
It would not get 40-50mpg here since his got about half that driving in the city. It's called a Jazz in Asia.
I'm all for great fuel economy but the 1.3L isn't that great in real life usage.