Review: 2009 Honda Fit Sport
11-07-08, 04:47 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2009 Honda Fit Sport
By CL member request, a review of the 2009 Honda Fit Sport.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/
In a Nutshell: Space-efficient, thrifty, versatile, well-built, but rather dull to drive.
I received a CL member request for a review of the 2009 Honda Fit, and, until gas prices went down a few months ago, there was a lot of interest in it, so I decided to check out the latest model today, especially as it is all-new and redesigned this year. The Fit was originally introduced to the American market 3 years ago, after being marketed overseas several years as the Honda Jazz. It competed, as one would expect, against the Toyota Yaris, Scion Xa/xB, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, Chevy Aveo, and, indirectly, against the Nissan Versa. Two versions were offered; a base Fit and Fit Sport. The Fit was extremely hard to get for awhile, and big dealer mark-ups were common, making the car not a particularly good value out the door. It did develop a reputation for space efficiency, though (an asset shared by the new Fit as well), and, of course, the usual Honda build quality and reliability....though I got a nasty surprise on my last Fit review, which I describe below in the UNDERHOOD section.
The reason the Fit is marketed here in the first place is that, over the years, the Civic grew ever-larger with each redesign. It is now virtually the same size now that Accords were not too long ago), so Honda decided to move it upmarket and bring in a new, smaller car to take the Civic's former place as the entry-level vehicle....hence the Fit. Rather than design an all-new car, the obvious (and cheaper) solution was to convert the existing Honda Jazz to American safety/emission specs and bring it over here, so that is what they did.
But the whole car is redesigned this year, and we have an all-new Jazz/Fit. As before, two basic trim levels of the Fit are offered, a Fit and Fit Sport. Both versions have the same 117 HP 1.5L in-line four-cylinder engine, although there are some notable changes to it this year, such as a metal timing chain. Both come with a choice of a conventional 5-speed manual transmission or a 5-speed automatic Sport-shift transmission with paddle-shifts. A NAV package with traction control/stability system is available on the Fit Sport.
This time, new Fits, with the redesign for 2009, seem to be somewhat more available at dealerships than 3 years ago, when I waited for a whole month just to be able to drive an unsold one. However, the car still has somewhat more demand than supply. You generally won't find dozens of them parked on the lot like Civics, Accords, and Odysseys. The one I reviewed today was a silver, automatic Fit Sport...it was available for sale with no one having spoken for it (yet). The dealership said they would probably let it go, at list, without the second-sticker markup, but that real discounts are probably out of the question. Of course, like most small cars, the Fit has a pretty small mark-up over wholesale to start with, so dealerships don't normally have a lot of bargaining room to start with. Add to that the fact that the Washington D.C. region, where I am, is a
big-money area that is almost recession-proof, and Honda dealers here just don't have much incentive to discount. Nor does the factory, traditionally, offer many incentives either, besides the annual closeout move at the end of each model year. Of course, The D.C. area is not representative of the country as a whole...economic conditions may be far different if you live in West Virginia or Arkansas, and dealers there may be more appreciative of getting buisness, where in big-dollar places like here and Southern California, auto sales are taken for granted.
OK....so much for market economics. Back to the car itself. What's it like this time, with the new redesign? Read on.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Honda Fit Sport Automatic
Base Price: $16,910
Major Options: None
Destination/Freight: $670
List price as reviewed: $17,580
Drivetrain: FWD, Transversely-mounted 1.5L SOHC VTEC in-line 4, 117 HP @ 6600 RPM, Torque 106 ft-lbs. @ 4800, 5-speed automatic Sport-shift transmission with shift paddles.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 27 City, 33 Highway, 30 Combined
Exterior Color: Storm Silver Metallic
Interior: Black Cloth
PLUSSES:
Honda reliability.
Good interior space efficiency/versatility.
Engine timing chain replaces belt.
5-speed Sport-shift automatic adds an extra gear over much of the competition.
Automatic-transmission EPA mileage figures (in the Fit Sport) as good or better than manual-transmission version.
Transmission shifter has traditional fore-aft motion; no annoying zig-zag.
Reasonably smooth ride for a small car.
Good underhood layout.
Safety-Active headrests.
Tilt/telescope steering column unusual in this class of car.
Solid interior and exterior hardware.
Slick-swiveling side mirrors.
Clear, easy-to-read gauges.
Simple, easy-to-use controls, with one exception.
Road noise improved over previous model.
Soft, plush seat fabric.
Solid, dual glove boxes.
Numerous interior cubbyholes and storage slots.
Convienent rear hatch pull-down handle for short people.
Typically excellent Honda paint job.
Some great paint colors.
MINUSES:
Too much dull, hard plastic interior trim.
Dull interior finish.
Awkward view out the windshield.
Sluggish acceleration from lack of torque.
Brake pedal poorly designed for big legs and feet.
High center of gravity/narrow width causes some body roll.
Stereo-adjustment **** more complex than necessary.
No automatic fresh-air coupling with defrost mode.
Ugly (IMO) body styling.
Low ground clearance with body-side flares and air dam (Fit Sport).
Body sheet metal and doors not as solid as on other Honda products.
No cargo-area cover for security.
Hard to bargain on at purchase time.
EXTERIOR:
The new Fit's exterior, when walking up to it, is a little different from that of the old Fit, mostly in more windshield rake and more upsweep for the triangular-shaped headlights. But it is still not what I would call good looking...far from it. Styling, of course, is a subjective opinion, but I never liked the looks of the old Fit, and I don't like the looks of the new one either....perhaps even less so. The huge triangular headlights sweep far back up the sides of he hood almost to the base of the windshield. The plastic spoiler-brow above the rear hatch just sits there, does nothing at legal speeds, and makes the rear end more difficult to hand-wash (I'm a firm believer in hand-washing). The lower-body skirts and lower front air dam on the Sport reduce ground clearance, make it difficult to get a hose underneath for cleaning off winter salt, and make it more difficult to go over speed bumps without body damage.
While clearly not the worst I've seen, I'm also not as impressed with the solidness of the sheet metal in the doors, fenders, and other body parts as I am on other Honda products. Doors, hood, and hatch, while not necessarily El Cheapo, don't close with as solid a "Thunk" as on the Fit's big brothers....even brother Civic. The hood was especially lightweight, being small in size because of the sharp rake-down in front styling and (apparantly) aluminum construction.
But there are good things outside, too. The paint job, like all Hondas, is first-rate, even for a small inexpensive car. The paint color choice has some superb shades....bright Milano Red, Orange Revolution Metallic (a superb, slightly sunset-orange hue), Blue Sensation Pearl (more or less an Electric Blue), and a beautiful purple-red Blackberry Pearl (Acura, Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, Infiniti, Mercedes, are you listening?.....dump those funeral-shades and start giving us some of this). The side mirrors and their housings are even better and slicker-constructed than those on many other Hondas, which already have some of the best ones to start with. On the Fit, they swivel/slide and snap into place like they were on roller-bearing tracks. This is the car that the designers of many domestic-nameplate vehicles, with their ultra-cheap outside mirror housings, should look at. The wipers and wiper arms look and feel substantial and well-made. And the general body styling, while not much, IMO, to look at, does a lot for interior space efficiency, even with the sharply-raked front windshield.....more on that below.
UNDERHOOD:
I was very careful opening the hood this time, as the last Fit review I did a couple of years ago cost me a nasty cut on my fingertip from a very sharp piece of exposed metal on the radiator frame while undoing the latch (some of you might remember that). I had to wash the cut throughly in the men's room at the dealership, and they put a butterfly bandage on it, which helped stop the bleeding in about 20 or 30 minutes so I could do the test-drive....no further problems and it healed OK. I don't know if all the early Fits were like that or if it was just a random goof on my sample car.
Fortunately, no such problems this time (the hood and latch mechanism, of course, is all-new with the redesign). Pop the very small, very light hood, and a prop-rod (OK for a car of this class) mounted on the left side sticks into a hole and holds the hood. A small insulation pad covers the left half of the underhood....the right half is taken up with a big plastic engine-induction tube attached to it, though there is no hood scoop.
Layout underhood, despite the small size of the engine bay, is quite good. The transverse-mounted 1.5L four fits in with room to spare in front, although the overhanging top of the firewall prevents some access to the rear side of the engine. There are some small cover-pieces on top of the engine, but they don't block very much. There is adequate room in front to work on the engine and reach things, even low on the block. And less service will be required than in the past because a timing chain now comes with engine, vs. the old timing belt. Chains, of course, usually last the life of the engine if you keep the oil changed...they ride in an oil bath. The rather small battery is uncovered and sits just to the right of the engine, easily accessable. All reservoirs, dipsticks, and filler caps are easily accessable.
INTERIOR:
While there's no question the interior is space-efficient for a car of this size, and the hardware is well-done, I wasn't impressed with its general overall looks or the quality of the trim. All four door panels are hard, black, plastic mouldings, though they do have some storage compartments and hard, paper-thin fabric on the upper part. Nothing is finished in chrome, brushed-metal, or woodtone, except for the chrome Honda logo on the steering wheel. Most things are painted dull silver, gray, or black, with a lot of black plastic.
While the trim is rather cheap and unimpressive, the rest of the interior is not bad.....and, as stated before, roomy for a car this size. The seats have nice, soft, plush-feeling black fabric, and cushions that aren't rock-hard like many other cars today. There's not a whole lot of support built into the seats, but, of course, this is not a sports car. The rear seats have a multi-folding feature for various cargo configurations, and even the two front seats fold down flat as well, which reflects the car's right-hand/left-hand drive versions for various countries. Headroom, thanks to the high roofline and lack of a sunroof, is fine both front and rear. Legroom is fine up front, and, thanks to the scalloped-out front seatbacks, at least marginally fine for six-footers.....unusual in a small car. All of the interior hardware,especially the locks for the rear seats, is Honda-solid and well-made. There are two glove compartments, a smaller one above and a larger one below.......both feel solid and have a durable latch (too many cars today neglect that). All of the buttons, switches, stalks, and levers are simple, well-designed, solid, and easy to operate....with two exceptions. One, the windshield defrost-mode is not automatically hooked in with the fresh-air
intake feature like it is on many of today's cars. You must, and I mean MUST, remember to make sure to manually check that the slide-lever is set to fresh-air, not recirculate. Running windshield defrost on the recirculate setting just recirculates the same moisture inside and from from your breath around the interior over and over again, and will fog up the windows for sure. Using fresh-air with the defrost will prevent that problem. Ford was one of the first manufactuers to automatically hook up the fresh-air intake to the defrost because so many people didn't know how to use the system properly and were screwing up their visibility......others followed, and even Honda uses the automatic hook-up on their other vehicles, but not on the Fit. Don't know why.....perhaps a cost-cutting measure.Two, the stereo **** in the center of the dash has some difficult functions, even in non-NAV versions, and I couldn't figure out how to turn the whole audio system off, once I got it on, without consulting the Owners' Manual (Hey, even I get tired of Judas Priest and AC/DC after a while, and have to save my ears). The stereo sound itself, however, was A-One for an entry-level car.....maybe because Honda figures that a lot of younger people will buy this car, and are into music.
The gauges are well-done and set in circular tunnels, to keep out the filtering effects of bright sunlight. The basic design is typical Honda/Acura, except that the traditional blue ring/band around the outer part of the gauges has been replaced by bright blue, backlit hash marks above the numbers on the gauges. The steering column has both manual tilt and telescope controls, unusual in this class of car. The headrests at the top of the seats are of the active-safety type, found in much more expensive Volvos, Saabs, and Mercedes, that swing forward in a rear impact to help prevent whiplash injuries. There are separate dome/reading lights for front and rear seats, also unusual in this price class. A number of electronic music hook-ups and hi-tech features are built-in, again perhaps because of the youth-oriented marketing of the car. The steering wheel is comfortable to hold and use, and, even with its leather covering, doesn't have the uncomfortable stitching that you find in some Acuras.
Vision out to the sides and back, with the high roofline and reasonably thin D-pillar, is excellent, but somewhat quirky when looking out the front of the car. The big A-pillars, with their triangular peep-windows out ahead of the drivers' seat, the steeply-raked windshield, and the abrupt drop-off of the very short hood and front end means that not only can nothing on the car be seen forward of the dash for parking, but you have somewhat of a tunnel-effect as well between the big, windowed A-pillars. The effect is something like the old "Dust-Buster" GM minivans of the late 80's/early 90s, and, to a lesser extent, on VW's current Beetle.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Lift the rear hatch, and you will find a nice built-in handle for shorter people to reach up and pull it down again. There is a moderate amount of cargo room behind the rear seats when they are up, but much more when they are down. They can fold two different ways, and have a built-in storage compartment underneath them. Seat fold-down from the rear is simple if you just want to lower the backs....hit a release tab and down they go...the tabs are easily reachable from the back of the car, even without remote linkages. The bottom cushions also tilt back and up, for a different configuration...that has to be done from the sides with release-bars. The Fit's designers apparantly spent a lot of time on the drawing board getting the most efficiciency they could from this small body shell.....the high roofline and relatively squared-off rear, of course, help a lot. In fact, some care must be taken while loading, for with this much cargo room available in a vehicle this small, it may not be difficult to overload the car's drivetrain and chassis.
Like the interior in general, the cargo area is not very well-trimmed, though the hardware is solid. Hard, black plastic panels line the walls on both sides, and on the floor, a thin piece of fiber-board covered with an even thinner piece of black fabric pulls up to reveal a temporary spare tire. I won't complain about the temporary spare because it is fitting for a car of this class, but it is irritating not to have a cargo-compartment pull-cover for security to keep prying eyes out of the back.....Honda could have added one for just a couple of dollars on each car,
but chose not to.
ON THE ROAD:
On the road, the Fit Sport was adequate and competent for daily commuting, shopping, running around town, and maybe an occasional not-too-long trip out of town, but, otherwise, I found it rather dull and boring to drive, with some quirks.
Start the 1.5L four-cylinder with a conventional key and column-mounted ignition switch, and the engine purrs to life with the typical Honda smooth, silky idle...even in four-bangers. Once under way, however, the engine's low torque max and the peaky torque curve typical of small Honda fours, combined with the conventional torque-converter automatic transmission, results in some rather wimpy acceleration (keep that in mind when you load up that space-efficient interior). While the car is not dangerously slow, it's best to keep out of the fast lanes with this puppy...it's much happier over there in the slow lane with Grandma and Grandpa. Sure, you can go fast enough, if you want to, to place your license in jeopardy, but it will just take you a lot longer to get up to that speed than the hot-shot right next to you in that Camaro SS. This engine, of course, is primarily designed for economy, rather than performance. Consider getting the manual transmission if you find the automatic too slow, and if traffic conditions in your area won't wear out your left knee and right shoulder with a manual. Getting the manual, however, won't necessarily save you gas.....its EPA mileage figures are virtually the same as the automatic's in the Fit Sport (a little better in the base-model Fit). But Hondas are known to have some of the best front-drive manual transmissions and clutches on the planet............they are unsurpassed in their silky operation.
The 5-speed Sport-shift automatic transmission, despite blunting some of the engine's already meager performance, is one of the car's better features.....and consider that also, before getting the manual. The 5-speed one-ups the 4-speed automatics in some of the Fit's competitors, and offer a wider gear range and closer ratios. The shifter is well-designed, solid, easy to use, and has the traditional fore-aft motion rather than the zig-zag patterns I find annoying. There is no manual-shifting with the lever itself; pull it back into "S" for Sport and use the (+) and (-) shift paddles on the steering column. The paddles are not large, but they rotate with the wheel, so are instantly reachable with your fingertips anytime. Shifts, both in manual and full-automatic modes, are smooth and quiet.
So, in a nutshell, the choice between manual and automatic transmissions, in this car, is going to be a tough one.....both are excellent and are worth considering.
I found the chassis and suspension on this car less than inspiring. The 185/55-16 all-season tires give a reasonably smooth ride for a small car (the 175/65-15 tires on the base Fit probably ride even smoother). Tire/road noise seemed a little improved on the new Fit from the rather loud levels it was on the old car. Wind noise was well-damped, especially for a small car with little insulation. But the car's general chassis/suspension design, short wheelbase, tall stance, high roofline, narrow width, and non-aggressive tires all combine to give a little porposing despite the smooth ride, mediocre but not necessarily slow steering response, and noticeable body lean on turns. The Fit is small enough to be agile, handles reasonably well, and won't flip over at the first twist of the steering wheel like some old Suzukis and Jeeps, but you know you're not in a sports car. So, like the engine, consider the chassis on this car basic transportation and little else. If you drive it sensibly, it won't get you in trouble, but don't push it too much, at least with the factory tires and suspension.
Brakes themselves were OK, with little sponginess and more-or-less effective response despite the small wheels. Honda uses drums in the rear, even on the Fit Sport model. The brake pedal was quite poorly placed for people like me with big legs and feet. It was too high off the floor, requiring a conscious lift of the knee off the gas pedal to reach it, which sometimes made the knee hit the lower dash, and then my big size-15 shoe would hang up on the bottom of the brake pedal. It was OK once you got used to it and knew what to do, but was disconcerting for a while.
THE VERDICT:
The Fit and Fit Sport, as I see them, are fine all-around small-car commuters and shoppers if you are not into hard or aggressive driving. They share Honda's consistantly good reliability/build quality (despite some Accord transmisson problems some years ago), good gas mileage, well-done hardware quality, good safety features, good and versatile interior space efficiency, well-done manual and automatic transmissions, nice paint jobs, soft comfortable seat cushions, and generally well-done interior controls. But the dull, cheap interior trim, wimpy acceleration with the automatic, so-so brakes, so-so chassis, quirky front-vision, and lack of a defroster-fresh-air hookup, IMO, are wanting. New Fits also have a reputation for being difficult to bargain on. But, if you like the car, are willing to (maybe) hassle a little at the Honda dealership to get one, and want something inexpensive that should run reliably for years and cost little to own......well, friends, go for it.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fit/
In a Nutshell: Space-efficient, thrifty, versatile, well-built, but rather dull to drive.
I received a CL member request for a review of the 2009 Honda Fit, and, until gas prices went down a few months ago, there was a lot of interest in it, so I decided to check out the latest model today, especially as it is all-new and redesigned this year. The Fit was originally introduced to the American market 3 years ago, after being marketed overseas several years as the Honda Jazz. It competed, as one would expect, against the Toyota Yaris, Scion Xa/xB, Hyundai Accent, Kia Rio, Chevy Aveo, and, indirectly, against the Nissan Versa. Two versions were offered; a base Fit and Fit Sport. The Fit was extremely hard to get for awhile, and big dealer mark-ups were common, making the car not a particularly good value out the door. It did develop a reputation for space efficiency, though (an asset shared by the new Fit as well), and, of course, the usual Honda build quality and reliability....though I got a nasty surprise on my last Fit review, which I describe below in the UNDERHOOD section.
The reason the Fit is marketed here in the first place is that, over the years, the Civic grew ever-larger with each redesign. It is now virtually the same size now that Accords were not too long ago), so Honda decided to move it upmarket and bring in a new, smaller car to take the Civic's former place as the entry-level vehicle....hence the Fit. Rather than design an all-new car, the obvious (and cheaper) solution was to convert the existing Honda Jazz to American safety/emission specs and bring it over here, so that is what they did.
But the whole car is redesigned this year, and we have an all-new Jazz/Fit. As before, two basic trim levels of the Fit are offered, a Fit and Fit Sport. Both versions have the same 117 HP 1.5L in-line four-cylinder engine, although there are some notable changes to it this year, such as a metal timing chain. Both come with a choice of a conventional 5-speed manual transmission or a 5-speed automatic Sport-shift transmission with paddle-shifts. A NAV package with traction control/stability system is available on the Fit Sport.
This time, new Fits, with the redesign for 2009, seem to be somewhat more available at dealerships than 3 years ago, when I waited for a whole month just to be able to drive an unsold one. However, the car still has somewhat more demand than supply. You generally won't find dozens of them parked on the lot like Civics, Accords, and Odysseys. The one I reviewed today was a silver, automatic Fit Sport...it was available for sale with no one having spoken for it (yet). The dealership said they would probably let it go, at list, without the second-sticker markup, but that real discounts are probably out of the question. Of course, like most small cars, the Fit has a pretty small mark-up over wholesale to start with, so dealerships don't normally have a lot of bargaining room to start with. Add to that the fact that the Washington D.C. region, where I am, is a
big-money area that is almost recession-proof, and Honda dealers here just don't have much incentive to discount. Nor does the factory, traditionally, offer many incentives either, besides the annual closeout move at the end of each model year. Of course, The D.C. area is not representative of the country as a whole...economic conditions may be far different if you live in West Virginia or Arkansas, and dealers there may be more appreciative of getting buisness, where in big-dollar places like here and Southern California, auto sales are taken for granted.
OK....so much for market economics. Back to the car itself. What's it like this time, with the new redesign? Read on.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Honda Fit Sport Automatic
Base Price: $16,910
Major Options: None
Destination/Freight: $670
List price as reviewed: $17,580
Drivetrain: FWD, Transversely-mounted 1.5L SOHC VTEC in-line 4, 117 HP @ 6600 RPM, Torque 106 ft-lbs. @ 4800, 5-speed automatic Sport-shift transmission with shift paddles.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 27 City, 33 Highway, 30 Combined
Exterior Color: Storm Silver Metallic
Interior: Black Cloth
PLUSSES:
Honda reliability.
Good interior space efficiency/versatility.
Engine timing chain replaces belt.
5-speed Sport-shift automatic adds an extra gear over much of the competition.
Automatic-transmission EPA mileage figures (in the Fit Sport) as good or better than manual-transmission version.
Transmission shifter has traditional fore-aft motion; no annoying zig-zag.
Reasonably smooth ride for a small car.
Good underhood layout.
Safety-Active headrests.
Tilt/telescope steering column unusual in this class of car.
Solid interior and exterior hardware.
Slick-swiveling side mirrors.
Clear, easy-to-read gauges.
Simple, easy-to-use controls, with one exception.
Road noise improved over previous model.
Soft, plush seat fabric.
Solid, dual glove boxes.
Numerous interior cubbyholes and storage slots.
Convienent rear hatch pull-down handle for short people.
Typically excellent Honda paint job.
Some great paint colors.
MINUSES:
Too much dull, hard plastic interior trim.
Dull interior finish.
Awkward view out the windshield.
Sluggish acceleration from lack of torque.
Brake pedal poorly designed for big legs and feet.
High center of gravity/narrow width causes some body roll.
Stereo-adjustment **** more complex than necessary.
No automatic fresh-air coupling with defrost mode.
Ugly (IMO) body styling.
Low ground clearance with body-side flares and air dam (Fit Sport).
Body sheet metal and doors not as solid as on other Honda products.
No cargo-area cover for security.
Hard to bargain on at purchase time.
EXTERIOR:
The new Fit's exterior, when walking up to it, is a little different from that of the old Fit, mostly in more windshield rake and more upsweep for the triangular-shaped headlights. But it is still not what I would call good looking...far from it. Styling, of course, is a subjective opinion, but I never liked the looks of the old Fit, and I don't like the looks of the new one either....perhaps even less so. The huge triangular headlights sweep far back up the sides of he hood almost to the base of the windshield. The plastic spoiler-brow above the rear hatch just sits there, does nothing at legal speeds, and makes the rear end more difficult to hand-wash (I'm a firm believer in hand-washing). The lower-body skirts and lower front air dam on the Sport reduce ground clearance, make it difficult to get a hose underneath for cleaning off winter salt, and make it more difficult to go over speed bumps without body damage.
While clearly not the worst I've seen, I'm also not as impressed with the solidness of the sheet metal in the doors, fenders, and other body parts as I am on other Honda products. Doors, hood, and hatch, while not necessarily El Cheapo, don't close with as solid a "Thunk" as on the Fit's big brothers....even brother Civic. The hood was especially lightweight, being small in size because of the sharp rake-down in front styling and (apparantly) aluminum construction.
But there are good things outside, too. The paint job, like all Hondas, is first-rate, even for a small inexpensive car. The paint color choice has some superb shades....bright Milano Red, Orange Revolution Metallic (a superb, slightly sunset-orange hue), Blue Sensation Pearl (more or less an Electric Blue), and a beautiful purple-red Blackberry Pearl (Acura, Lexus, Cadillac, Lincoln, Infiniti, Mercedes, are you listening?.....dump those funeral-shades and start giving us some of this). The side mirrors and their housings are even better and slicker-constructed than those on many other Hondas, which already have some of the best ones to start with. On the Fit, they swivel/slide and snap into place like they were on roller-bearing tracks. This is the car that the designers of many domestic-nameplate vehicles, with their ultra-cheap outside mirror housings, should look at. The wipers and wiper arms look and feel substantial and well-made. And the general body styling, while not much, IMO, to look at, does a lot for interior space efficiency, even with the sharply-raked front windshield.....more on that below.
UNDERHOOD:
I was very careful opening the hood this time, as the last Fit review I did a couple of years ago cost me a nasty cut on my fingertip from a very sharp piece of exposed metal on the radiator frame while undoing the latch (some of you might remember that). I had to wash the cut throughly in the men's room at the dealership, and they put a butterfly bandage on it, which helped stop the bleeding in about 20 or 30 minutes so I could do the test-drive....no further problems and it healed OK. I don't know if all the early Fits were like that or if it was just a random goof on my sample car.
Fortunately, no such problems this time (the hood and latch mechanism, of course, is all-new with the redesign). Pop the very small, very light hood, and a prop-rod (OK for a car of this class) mounted on the left side sticks into a hole and holds the hood. A small insulation pad covers the left half of the underhood....the right half is taken up with a big plastic engine-induction tube attached to it, though there is no hood scoop.
Layout underhood, despite the small size of the engine bay, is quite good. The transverse-mounted 1.5L four fits in with room to spare in front, although the overhanging top of the firewall prevents some access to the rear side of the engine. There are some small cover-pieces on top of the engine, but they don't block very much. There is adequate room in front to work on the engine and reach things, even low on the block. And less service will be required than in the past because a timing chain now comes with engine, vs. the old timing belt. Chains, of course, usually last the life of the engine if you keep the oil changed...they ride in an oil bath. The rather small battery is uncovered and sits just to the right of the engine, easily accessable. All reservoirs, dipsticks, and filler caps are easily accessable.
INTERIOR:
While there's no question the interior is space-efficient for a car of this size, and the hardware is well-done, I wasn't impressed with its general overall looks or the quality of the trim. All four door panels are hard, black, plastic mouldings, though they do have some storage compartments and hard, paper-thin fabric on the upper part. Nothing is finished in chrome, brushed-metal, or woodtone, except for the chrome Honda logo on the steering wheel. Most things are painted dull silver, gray, or black, with a lot of black plastic.
While the trim is rather cheap and unimpressive, the rest of the interior is not bad.....and, as stated before, roomy for a car this size. The seats have nice, soft, plush-feeling black fabric, and cushions that aren't rock-hard like many other cars today. There's not a whole lot of support built into the seats, but, of course, this is not a sports car. The rear seats have a multi-folding feature for various cargo configurations, and even the two front seats fold down flat as well, which reflects the car's right-hand/left-hand drive versions for various countries. Headroom, thanks to the high roofline and lack of a sunroof, is fine both front and rear. Legroom is fine up front, and, thanks to the scalloped-out front seatbacks, at least marginally fine for six-footers.....unusual in a small car. All of the interior hardware,especially the locks for the rear seats, is Honda-solid and well-made. There are two glove compartments, a smaller one above and a larger one below.......both feel solid and have a durable latch (too many cars today neglect that). All of the buttons, switches, stalks, and levers are simple, well-designed, solid, and easy to operate....with two exceptions. One, the windshield defrost-mode is not automatically hooked in with the fresh-air
intake feature like it is on many of today's cars. You must, and I mean MUST, remember to make sure to manually check that the slide-lever is set to fresh-air, not recirculate. Running windshield defrost on the recirculate setting just recirculates the same moisture inside and from from your breath around the interior over and over again, and will fog up the windows for sure. Using fresh-air with the defrost will prevent that problem. Ford was one of the first manufactuers to automatically hook up the fresh-air intake to the defrost because so many people didn't know how to use the system properly and were screwing up their visibility......others followed, and even Honda uses the automatic hook-up on their other vehicles, but not on the Fit. Don't know why.....perhaps a cost-cutting measure.Two, the stereo **** in the center of the dash has some difficult functions, even in non-NAV versions, and I couldn't figure out how to turn the whole audio system off, once I got it on, without consulting the Owners' Manual (Hey, even I get tired of Judas Priest and AC/DC after a while, and have to save my ears). The stereo sound itself, however, was A-One for an entry-level car.....maybe because Honda figures that a lot of younger people will buy this car, and are into music.
The gauges are well-done and set in circular tunnels, to keep out the filtering effects of bright sunlight. The basic design is typical Honda/Acura, except that the traditional blue ring/band around the outer part of the gauges has been replaced by bright blue, backlit hash marks above the numbers on the gauges. The steering column has both manual tilt and telescope controls, unusual in this class of car. The headrests at the top of the seats are of the active-safety type, found in much more expensive Volvos, Saabs, and Mercedes, that swing forward in a rear impact to help prevent whiplash injuries. There are separate dome/reading lights for front and rear seats, also unusual in this price class. A number of electronic music hook-ups and hi-tech features are built-in, again perhaps because of the youth-oriented marketing of the car. The steering wheel is comfortable to hold and use, and, even with its leather covering, doesn't have the uncomfortable stitching that you find in some Acuras.
Vision out to the sides and back, with the high roofline and reasonably thin D-pillar, is excellent, but somewhat quirky when looking out the front of the car. The big A-pillars, with their triangular peep-windows out ahead of the drivers' seat, the steeply-raked windshield, and the abrupt drop-off of the very short hood and front end means that not only can nothing on the car be seen forward of the dash for parking, but you have somewhat of a tunnel-effect as well between the big, windowed A-pillars. The effect is something like the old "Dust-Buster" GM minivans of the late 80's/early 90s, and, to a lesser extent, on VW's current Beetle.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Lift the rear hatch, and you will find a nice built-in handle for shorter people to reach up and pull it down again. There is a moderate amount of cargo room behind the rear seats when they are up, but much more when they are down. They can fold two different ways, and have a built-in storage compartment underneath them. Seat fold-down from the rear is simple if you just want to lower the backs....hit a release tab and down they go...the tabs are easily reachable from the back of the car, even without remote linkages. The bottom cushions also tilt back and up, for a different configuration...that has to be done from the sides with release-bars. The Fit's designers apparantly spent a lot of time on the drawing board getting the most efficiciency they could from this small body shell.....the high roofline and relatively squared-off rear, of course, help a lot. In fact, some care must be taken while loading, for with this much cargo room available in a vehicle this small, it may not be difficult to overload the car's drivetrain and chassis.
Like the interior in general, the cargo area is not very well-trimmed, though the hardware is solid. Hard, black plastic panels line the walls on both sides, and on the floor, a thin piece of fiber-board covered with an even thinner piece of black fabric pulls up to reveal a temporary spare tire. I won't complain about the temporary spare because it is fitting for a car of this class, but it is irritating not to have a cargo-compartment pull-cover for security to keep prying eyes out of the back.....Honda could have added one for just a couple of dollars on each car,
but chose not to.
ON THE ROAD:
On the road, the Fit Sport was adequate and competent for daily commuting, shopping, running around town, and maybe an occasional not-too-long trip out of town, but, otherwise, I found it rather dull and boring to drive, with some quirks.
Start the 1.5L four-cylinder with a conventional key and column-mounted ignition switch, and the engine purrs to life with the typical Honda smooth, silky idle...even in four-bangers. Once under way, however, the engine's low torque max and the peaky torque curve typical of small Honda fours, combined with the conventional torque-converter automatic transmission, results in some rather wimpy acceleration (keep that in mind when you load up that space-efficient interior). While the car is not dangerously slow, it's best to keep out of the fast lanes with this puppy...it's much happier over there in the slow lane with Grandma and Grandpa. Sure, you can go fast enough, if you want to, to place your license in jeopardy, but it will just take you a lot longer to get up to that speed than the hot-shot right next to you in that Camaro SS. This engine, of course, is primarily designed for economy, rather than performance. Consider getting the manual transmission if you find the automatic too slow, and if traffic conditions in your area won't wear out your left knee and right shoulder with a manual. Getting the manual, however, won't necessarily save you gas.....its EPA mileage figures are virtually the same as the automatic's in the Fit Sport (a little better in the base-model Fit). But Hondas are known to have some of the best front-drive manual transmissions and clutches on the planet............they are unsurpassed in their silky operation.
The 5-speed Sport-shift automatic transmission, despite blunting some of the engine's already meager performance, is one of the car's better features.....and consider that also, before getting the manual. The 5-speed one-ups the 4-speed automatics in some of the Fit's competitors, and offer a wider gear range and closer ratios. The shifter is well-designed, solid, easy to use, and has the traditional fore-aft motion rather than the zig-zag patterns I find annoying. There is no manual-shifting with the lever itself; pull it back into "S" for Sport and use the (+) and (-) shift paddles on the steering column. The paddles are not large, but they rotate with the wheel, so are instantly reachable with your fingertips anytime. Shifts, both in manual and full-automatic modes, are smooth and quiet.
So, in a nutshell, the choice between manual and automatic transmissions, in this car, is going to be a tough one.....both are excellent and are worth considering.
I found the chassis and suspension on this car less than inspiring. The 185/55-16 all-season tires give a reasonably smooth ride for a small car (the 175/65-15 tires on the base Fit probably ride even smoother). Tire/road noise seemed a little improved on the new Fit from the rather loud levels it was on the old car. Wind noise was well-damped, especially for a small car with little insulation. But the car's general chassis/suspension design, short wheelbase, tall stance, high roofline, narrow width, and non-aggressive tires all combine to give a little porposing despite the smooth ride, mediocre but not necessarily slow steering response, and noticeable body lean on turns. The Fit is small enough to be agile, handles reasonably well, and won't flip over at the first twist of the steering wheel like some old Suzukis and Jeeps, but you know you're not in a sports car. So, like the engine, consider the chassis on this car basic transportation and little else. If you drive it sensibly, it won't get you in trouble, but don't push it too much, at least with the factory tires and suspension.
Brakes themselves were OK, with little sponginess and more-or-less effective response despite the small wheels. Honda uses drums in the rear, even on the Fit Sport model. The brake pedal was quite poorly placed for people like me with big legs and feet. It was too high off the floor, requiring a conscious lift of the knee off the gas pedal to reach it, which sometimes made the knee hit the lower dash, and then my big size-15 shoe would hang up on the bottom of the brake pedal. It was OK once you got used to it and knew what to do, but was disconcerting for a while.
THE VERDICT:
The Fit and Fit Sport, as I see them, are fine all-around small-car commuters and shoppers if you are not into hard or aggressive driving. They share Honda's consistantly good reliability/build quality (despite some Accord transmisson problems some years ago), good gas mileage, well-done hardware quality, good safety features, good and versatile interior space efficiency, well-done manual and automatic transmissions, nice paint jobs, soft comfortable seat cushions, and generally well-done interior controls. But the dull, cheap interior trim, wimpy acceleration with the automatic, so-so brakes, so-so chassis, quirky front-vision, and lack of a defroster-fresh-air hookup, IMO, are wanting. New Fits also have a reputation for being difficult to bargain on. But, if you like the car, are willing to (maybe) hassle a little at the Honda dealership to get one, and want something inexpensive that should run reliably for years and cost little to own......well, friends, go for it.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-07-08 at 05:01 PM.
11-07-08, 06:39 PM
#2
Enjoyed this review, thank you MMarshall 
This is the type of car Honda was originally know for (think 80s) IMHO. Small, fuel efficient and reliable as they come cars. There are 2 of these where I park in the city and I know one of the owners. He bought it to drive 90 miles a day back and forth to work (mostly highway). Based on your review I'd say he made a fine choice.
Good pick up on the fresh air w/ defrost. Have to ask: "Did the car have A/C?" With NAV as an option I'm sure it does, but being an entry level vehicle it could be an option, maybe
:
This is the type of car Honda was originally know for (think 80s) IMHO. Small, fuel efficient and reliable as they come cars. There are 2 of these where I park in the city and I know one of the owners. He bought it to drive 90 miles a day back and forth to work (mostly highway). Based on your review I'd say he made a fine choice.
Good pick up on the fresh air w/ defrost. Have to ask: "Did the car have A/C?" With NAV as an option I'm sure it does, but being an entry level vehicle it could be an option, maybe
:
11-07-08, 06:54 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure. Anytime.
The cars that Honda built in the 1980s and early 90s, though, had better sheet metal. When you shut the doors on them 20 years ago, you could really tell the difference from today's Fit. The only Honda/Acura product today that even comes close to what sheet metal and door solidness used to be like is the RL.
I picked up on it because few cars today still have that manual slide-lever for the fresh-air intake valve.....most cars have automated it with the defrost.
Yes, it had A/C.....virtually everything does today, even most entry-level Kias and Hyundais. Once in a while, you will see a Rio, Accent, Yaris, etc..... without A/C (or power windows)......usually a special-order car or for a cool-climate area that doesn't need it.
But, A/C or not, the principle is the same......don't run the windshield defrost with the recirculate feature. It's just asking for trouble.
This is the type of car Honda was originally know for (think 80s) IMHO. Small, fuel efficient and reliable as they come cars. There are 2 of these where I park in the city and I know one of the owners. He bought it to drive 90 miles a day back and forth to work (mostly highway). Based on your review I'd say he made a fine choice.
Good pick up on the fresh air w/ defrost. Have to ask: "Did the car have A/C?" With NAV as an option I'm sure it does, but being an entry level vehicle it could be an option, maybe
:
:
Yes, it had A/C.....virtually everything does today, even most entry-level Kias and Hyundais. Once in a while, you will see a Rio, Accent, Yaris, etc..... without A/C (or power windows)......usually a special-order car or for a cool-climate area that doesn't need it.
But, A/C or not, the principle is the same......don't run the windshield defrost with the recirculate feature. It's just asking for trouble.
11-07-08, 09:30 PM
#4
Lexus Champion
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow.. nice review... I can't believe you are not getting paid for doing this.
About the Fit, I am not a fan of this new style. I prefer the looks of the older one. The interior space design is pretty amazing. Not that impressive with the mileage though. Actually, it's pretty crappy comparing to competition. Oh, and for $17,580 price tag, there are so many better choices.
About the Fit, I am not a fan of this new style. I prefer the looks of the older one. The interior space design is pretty amazing. Not that impressive with the mileage though. Actually, it's pretty crappy comparing to competition. Oh, and for $17,580 price tag, there are so many better choices.
11-08-08, 05:44 AM
#7
Pole Position
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Carson, California currently in Makati City, PI
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, thanks for the review on the Fit, I appreciate your time and effort .
One thing I love about the Fit over the Yaris is it's interior set-up, I'm sorry I just can't get over the center mounted dash, I hate it with a passion.
. One thing I love about the Fit over the Yaris is it's interior set-up, I'm sorry I just can't get over the center mounted dash, I hate it with a passion.
Trending Topics
11-08-08, 07:06 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
And thanks.
I don't need to get paid for it. I'm doing fine financially, even though retired. I have more than I need.
I have the good fortune to live in an area that has all kinds of car dealerships and auto shows galore nearby, the time to do it, and a number of CL requests. So, why not?
Of course, I can't spend 24 hours a day doing this.....like anyone else, I also have other things I need to get done.
About the Fit, I am not a fan of this new style. I prefer the looks of the older one.
The interior space design is pretty amazing. Not that impressive with the mileage though. Actually, it's pretty crappy comparing to competition.
Oh, and for $17,580 price tag, there are so many better choices.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-08-08 at 07:14 AM.
11-08-08, 07:17 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Thanks.
What did you like better on the first-gen Fit?
Styling? The new one has some mechanical improvements, but the styling is too much of a squared-off egg for my tastes. Honda also seems to have done some cost-cutting on the interior trim.
What did you like better on the first-gen Fit?
Styling? The new one has some mechanical improvements, but the styling is too much of a squared-off egg for my tastes. Honda also seems to have done some cost-cutting on the interior trim.
11-08-08, 07:30 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
One thing I love about the Fit over the Yaris is it's interior set-up, I'm sorry I just can't get over the center mounted dash, I hate it with a passion.
Here's my recent review....and take a look at the interior shots:
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...chevrolet+aveo
The center-mounted dash you mention, found on the Yaris, Scion xA/xB/xD, Echo, Saturn Ion, and older Nissan Quests, is chiefly a cost-cutting measure, despite the claims of automakers to the contrary. They claim it makes it easier for drivers by making them glance to the side for gauge info, rather than down. The truth is that it makes the cars easier, simpler, and yes, cheaper to produce for both left and right-hand-drive markets.
Abaham Lincoln once said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-08-08 at 07:39 AM.
11-08-08, 10:30 AM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
11-08-08, 12:24 PM
#14
Pole Position
I contemplated buying a 09' Fit as a commuter due to it's larger interior space for a subcompact car (that rear fold flat seat is so versatile!). And while I agree overall with your assessment, one thing that did nag me was the EPA gas mileage estimates. For such a small car with a frugal (read: gutless) engine, the ratings were a little on the low side compared to say its brotheren, the Civic (25 city/36 highway rating). Strange Honda would do this and its too bad Toyco morphed the old xB to its present state, as it would of been good competition between it and the Fit.
11-08-08, 01:40 PM
#15
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for another great review mmarshall.
I love both generations of the Fit. It's such a practical and sensible car for today's world.
But I bought a Yaris S sedan instead because:
- The Yaris was more affordable (about $14K was my limit and you can't touch a Fit Sport for anywhere near that)
- I bought my Yaris in July when the '09 wasn't available and the '08's were all but impossible to find (although the Yaris was nearly as impossible too).
- The Yaris get's better gas mileage (by a decent margin) and gas was $4.
- The Yaris sedan S styling is subjectively better and "normal".
- The Yaris is also faster even with the better MPG's
These big reasons were more imporatant to me than the Fit's plusses:
- better interior (materials, styling, rear seat versatilty)
- better driving dynamics
I feel those are the only two areas that the Fit really shines against the Yaris.
I love both generations of the Fit. It's such a practical and sensible car for today's world.
But I bought a Yaris S sedan instead because:
- The Yaris was more affordable (about $14K was my limit and you can't touch a Fit Sport for anywhere near that)
- I bought my Yaris in July when the '09 wasn't available and the '08's were all but impossible to find (although the Yaris was nearly as impossible too).
- The Yaris get's better gas mileage (by a decent margin) and gas was $4.
- The Yaris sedan S styling is subjectively better and "normal".
- The Yaris is also faster even with the better MPG's
These big reasons were more imporatant to me than the Fit's plusses:
- better interior (materials, styling, rear seat versatilty)
- better driving dynamics
I feel those are the only two areas that the Fit really shines against the Yaris.