ABG First Drive: 2009 Honda Fit Sport

Click the 2009 Honda Fit Sport for a high res gallery
When Honda introduced the first generation Fit to the North American market in mid-2006, its timing couldn't have been better. The entry level hatchback appeared just as fuel prices in the U.S. were heading skyward. Ever since then, the Fit has been selling as fast as Honda can bring them in from Japan. The Fit (or Jazz as its known in some markets) debuted in 2001 and the second-generation model went on sale in Japan last fall. Honda showed the new U.S.-spec Fit at the New York Auto Show last spring and we had our first opportunity to drive it on the roads north of Ann Arbor MI last week.
As is typically the case with new models, the updated Fit has grown a bit (about 4 inches in overall length) but it's only about 44 lbs heavier than the outgoing model. Also in the usual fashion, Honda strove to increase the refinement of the Fit while not losing any of the fun-loving qualities of the original. In the process, Honda has had to deal with rising raw material and shipping costs while keeping the price from getting out of hand. Read on to find out if the spiritual descendants of Soichiro Honda have succeeded.
Gallery: First Drive: 2009 Honda Fit Sport
Photos Copyright ©2008 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.
The debut of the modern MINI earlier this decade clearly demonstrated that a small, fuel efficient car didn't have to be a cheap, plasticy, under-performing penalty box from which to suffer your commuting activities. The MINI's BMW origins, however, meant that it was a bit on the pricey side as well as having a minuscule back seat. The arrival of the Fit on our shores took those same driving qualities but added a more reasonable price and vastly more space for occupants. The Fit is taller and longer than the MINI, but smaller than cars like the Nissan Versa and Ford Focus.

The original Fit was designed well before Honda decided to bring the car to North America, so it didn't incorporate much in way of U.S. demands. Nonetheless, in its first two years on the market, American drivers took to the Fit and Honda sold as many as they could bring in from Japan. Besides its capabilities on the road and fuel efficiency, features like the rear Magic Seats and cargo space also contributed to its popularity. For the second generation Honda wanted to build on what made the original a hot seller without diluting any of those properties.
The design philosophy behind the Fit is described as "Man-Maximum, Machine-Minimum," shrinking the car around the biggest possible user space. The new Fit has grown a bit, but not by much. Its limbo capabilities are unchanged at 60 inches, but it's about 0.6 inches wider and 4.3 inches longer. Following its New York Auto Show debut last spring some observers complained about the longer nose compared to the JDM (Japanese Domestic Market) Fit that launched late last year. Honda explained that there were two reasons behind this. One was aesthetic as American consumers in clinics felt the Japanese Fit looked a little too mini-van like with its short nose. The other had to do with crash safety. U.S. standards required a certain level occupant safety, even for those still ignorant enough not to wear seat-belts. Both of those needs led to a slightly longer nose that Honda now claims adds to a sportier looking new Fit.

Personally, I like the snub nose look of the JDM Fit, but the U.S. version looks fine as well. The rest of the car is a clear evolution of the original with the increased length and the larger windows giving the appearance of a lower stance even though it is the same height. That vertical stature is one of the keys to the Fits interior volume. Rear seat passengers sit upright with plenty of head room and knee room. The extra half inch of width allows for the addition of a driver seat center arm-rest and the distinct feeling of more elbow room. In spite of the slightly increased size, the mass for a comparably equipped model only goes up by about 44 lbs. The emphasis on safety in the new Fit plays a big part here. Honda has used a lot of high-strength steels to improve the structural integrity without bulking the car. As with other recent introductions, Honda has also incorporated Advanced Compatibility Engineering (ACE) which is intended to improve occupant protection in collisions between different sized vehicles.
For those unfamiliar with the rear Magic Seats, they provide immense flexibility. Like all hatchbacks, the rear seat backs fold down flat. The retracting rear head rests allow the flat fold even with the front seats all the way back. The front passenger seat back also folds for carrying larger items. The magic part comes in the rear where the lower seat cushions also fold up against the seat back which is ideal for carrying taller items since you have unobstructed space from the floor to the ceiling between the seats.




The drivers environment is well laid out with all controls close at hand. For those with a large thirst and bladder to match, the Fit's interior would be great for road trips. There are now 10 cup holders available. Two are located on the floor ahead of the shifter, one at either end of the dash board, one in each of the four doors and two more in the rear of the center console. A new top trim level has been added to the Sport that includes an in-dash navigation system with a touch screen. Visibility out of the Fit is excellent thanks to thinner A-pillars, larger quarter windows at the base of the more steeply raked pillars and a larger rear window. The steering wheel also adds fore-aft adjustment to its previous angle adjustment making it easier to get the right fit.
We hit the road in a brilliant blue Fit Sport with a 5-speed manual gearbox and a navigation system. Even for those not necessarily looking for a super-efficient car, the first generation Fit, especially in Sport form provided a remarkably nimble and stable platform for tackling twisty roads. In spite of its tall stance the original Fit never felt tippy and neither does this new one. Americans are generally averse to the idea of managing the gear ratio selection in their cars and predominantly opt for automatics. The new Fit carries over the five speed auto-box from the original and the Sport retains the steering wheel mounted paddle shifters for those who like to play pretend.

For those who don't mind manipulating three pedals with two feet, the shift-it-yourself version proved remarkably adept. The shift throws were short and very precise. There was no slop to speak of in the shifter and the engagement of the clutch also made it very easy to drive smoothly and quickly. Also rating high praise was the steering. Unlike the Acura TL and TSX which had inconsistent weighting and poor feedback from their electrically assisted systems, the Fit's system felt great. Honda increased the rigidity of the steering gear and changed the way way it is mounted to the front sub-frame. During hard cornering, the forces going on at the tire/road interface were transmitted back through the reasonably thick rimmed wheel and there were no noticeable dead spots or free play.
The only sore spot was the brakes and since I only had time to drive one example, it's not clear if this was a one-off problem or a common one. While the pedal feel was fine, during light applies typical of around town driving, it seemed to take more effort than expected to achieve the desired deceleration. It's possible that the pads were glazed from some over-enthusiastic use during a previous drive or perhaps they were green and needed braking in. Either way we'll be watching for this when we get a unit for a full review.
Other than that the Fit was very well behaved on curvy rural roads, highways and around town. The structure felt solid and the suspension was well damped while never feeling harsh. Wind and other ambient noise was remarkably low inside for an economy car. Probably the most remarkable aspect with regard to noise was when the car came to a stop. The Fit was so silent at idle that after recently driving other cars with auto start-stop systems, I thought the Honda was equipped with one. I had to glance at the tachometer to realize it was still running. Under hard acceleration the 1.5L four cylinder does make some noise but it remains vibration free throughout the rev range.

The updated engine picks up 9 hp compared to the previous generation and 1 lb-ft of torque. If there is one thing that smooth running Honda four cylinder engines can be criticized for it is relatively weak low end torque. What I'd love to see in the Fit is a 1.6L version of Honda's upcoming clean diesel. A torquey engine like what the MINI Cooper D has blended with this chassis would be a perfect combination. It's not that the Fit is slow, but having the extra torque just feels better and provides better acceleration capability at speed for passing or on-ramp merging. The 2009 Fit picks up one mpg across the board compared to the previous model, scoring 28 city/35 hwy for the automatic transmission base model. All Fits get anti-lock brakes with electronic brake force distribution as standard and the new Sport/navi version also includes stability control. The interior of the Fit clearly isn't a luxury car but the shapes, color combinations and textures of the hard plastics keep it from feeling excessively cheap.
Honda scored big-time with the first generation Fit and expects to do even better this time. They expect capacity limited sales of about 85,000 for 2009. Honda has essentially run out of 2008 Fits over the past couple of months with supplies at most dealers in the single digits. Honda hasn't set a precise on sale date for the '09 model, instead it will allow dealers to start selling cars as they arrive in the next few weeks instead of waiting to fill the pipeline. All North American dealers should be selling them shortly after Labor Day. Prices are up about $600 starting at $14,550 and running up to $18,760 for a loaded Sport/Navi model. Honda explained the price increases as a combination of increased equipment levels, rising raw material prices and increased shipping costs. We're looking forward to a full road test soon.

Gallery: First Drive: 2009 Honda Fit Sport
Photos Copyright ©2008 Sam Abuelsamid / Weblogs, Inc.



Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Randy Harris 6:58PM (8/19/2008)
I agree with the comment about needing a clean diesel version of this car, does anybody have a good estimate at what MPG that might return?
Hey now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure there is a Hybrid FiT coming in a year or two, maybe that will up the mileage significantly with an IMA system, I can only hope. 28/35 isn't bad, but I'm looking for much better.
Reply
tankd0g 10:45PM (8/19/2008)
Fortunately, it does much better.
Joseph 10:07PM (8/19/2008)
I love Honda, and this is probably one of their best cars. It's even better than the previous gen Fit. I think Soichiro would've liked this car, no?
Sam, I have a question. In a review of the 2009 Honda Fit on Edmunds they tested a pre-production JDM car. They said that below 30mph, the steering felt numb, probably because of the electric power steering. Did you notice this?
Reply
AlexNC 11:19PM (8/19/2008)
Is it just me, or does 28 mpg for a car like this seem very low? Didn't the older Civic hatchbacks get 40 mpg? With todays gas prices, wouldn't it be better for Honda to come out with a fit model that can match or better the older Civic mpg? I was very hopeful that some 2009 models would show some high mpg, but I have yet to see a car that gets my interest. I love the form factor of this car, but the mpg rating is a too low.
Reply
BoneHeadOtto 11:43PM (8/19/2008)
Alex you cant compare 2008 EPA mpg ratings to the old ratings. I thought people have learned this already!?!
28/25 is slightly better than the previous fit. Previous fit is rated at 28/34 by 2008 standards but rated at 33/38 by 2007 EPA standards.
Older civic hatches didnt get 40mpg in the city. But then again they were death traps with no acceleration. So a sub 2000lb 1980's civic might do better but who wants to die in a low speed crash to save $50 a year
Noz 3:24AM (8/20/2008)
My 2000 Civic DX got over 37 MPG overall all the time...so there's no excuse for the Fit...sorry.
Snowdog 6:14AM (8/20/2008)
Actually the automatic got better mpg by 1 in 2009, the manual gets worse by 1mpg.
I am really annoyed they don't give manual cars a decent top cruising gear, apparently because some people are too lazy to down shift when they pass or go up hills. So we get buzzy engine RPMs and lower mpg on the manual on highway cruising speed.
:-( Boo Honda.
john riley 8:34AM (8/20/2008)
You don't have to go back to old Civics. The Fit's mileage is no better than the current Civic, except for a couple in town.
BoneHeadOtto 10:58AM (8/20/2008)
>>My 2000 Civic DX got over 37 MPG overall all the time...so there's no excuse for the Fit...sorry.
The fit is not far off at all. Fueleconomy.gov, users report their fits get on everage 35.6 mpg in mixed city and highway. The new fit is supposed to get about 1mpg better. Driving mostly highway you would most certainly meet or exceed 37mpg if you drive reasonably. Plus you are doing so in a more practical and safer package than your old civic DX.
So what is there "no excuse" for??? It seems like anytime a new economy comes out, old civic and corolla owners get their panties all in a wad and complain about how the new cars suck.
Dustin 11:44AM (8/20/2008)
"My 2000 Civic DX got over 37 MPG overall all the time...so there's no excuse for the Fit...sorry."
And what was the equipment level... 2 doors, 2 airbags, manual windows, etc. The Fit is loaded. 4 doors, 6 airbags, power everything, VSA, ABS, 16" alloys, and on and on. Jeff on VTEC.net got 39mpg real-world while testing the '09 Fit.
rob11567 1:03AM (7/27/2009)
Yes, the older models did get better fuel economy as the standards have changed
several times, not to mention as recent at 2006. Any vehicle made after 2006 has
less fuel economy ratings due to the new standards. You can only compare
a 2009 to a 2007 or 2008. But nothing before that.
matt 11:30PM (8/19/2008)
One of the first drive reviews (Temple of VTEC) got 39mpg average over a couple hours of mixed city and 75-80mph highway driving. I'm all for bragging rights, but once you get to this level of efficiency, the law of diminishing returns sets in and an additional 5 or 10 mpg (getting up around 50 mpg combines) isn't a big gas/money saver.
Reply
Joseph 12:36AM (8/20/2008)
AlexNC,
The regular old Honda Civic hatchbacks didn't get 40mpg. What you might be talking about is their HF or VX models. Those cars used a learn-burn system, which did get around 40mpg. I remember reading somewhere that it is very difficult to make a learn-burn system that also has low emmisions, so there is a tradeoff. That is why they make hybrids instead, because they get that same kind of efficiency but they can also clean up emmisions alot too.
Reply
MattNC 10:41AM (8/20/2008)
I had a 1993 4 door Civic LX 5MT that never got below 37mpg and on longer trips would consistantly 42-45mpg. So 15 years later we can't do somethign similar? What's up with that?
bc 12:34PM (8/20/2008)
A 1993 Civic LX 1.5l 16V with 5-speed was rated 34/40 mpg at the time; under the present EPA system the numbers to compare to the Fit are 29/36 (you can look these up going back to 1985 model year). So your numbers are in the right ballpark if you're a careful driver, but your Civic wasn't carrying around and additional couple hundred pounds of stiffer structure and additional equipment like mulitple airbags, ABS, traction control, and 15- or 16-in wheels instead of 13-inchers. It was also down about 15 hp and 8 lb-ft of torque. So a quicker, more comfortable, and much safer car with an automatic transmission gets essentially the same mileage when measured by the same procedures.
shrique 9:23AM (8/22/2008)
Actually my old 89 Civic DX HB got over 40 on long drives. At one point I was able to get 46 on a long roadtrip. The ones your thinking about did even BETTER. Some of the old CRX HF would get like 50mpg on the highway. Of course they only had about 80hp.
(spent time researching)
Oh man. They had 62hp! I thought the 92 in my 89 hb was bad.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1990/honda/civiccrx/3876/specs.html
luna light 3:02PM (10/06/2008)
I have a 21 yr old honda civic hatchback. I still get close to 40 mpg city driving and almost 50 on highway. I've had offers my car and I'm not even selling yet! Recently drove Sport fit which I 'm planning on buying, but am disappointed in acceleration. My friend is happy with her Mazda 3 hatchback. Any thoughts on how to decide between the 2?
JoeP 1:09AM (8/20/2008)
I like so many things about the fit, and am in the market for a new car (Helmut my current car is 22 yrs old, and ready to retire).
Unfortunately, I too won't get this one and will wit for the hybrid. I don't understand the benefit of this over the coming hybrid- I guess except for sportiness, which I depend on my sport bike for.
Bring on the high mpg cars!
Reply
Larry 3:08AM (8/20/2008)
I am very sad that honda will wait another year for the diesel or hybrid on this car. I really feel the time is NOW to stop with the old and START with the new!
I guess now all I can hope for this year is that VW diesels are coming out...gotta keep hoping:)
Calguy 2:26AM (8/20/2008)
The way to get more people into small cars like this is to employ what BMW did with the MINI, and MB did with the smart, with regards to equipment. Both those cars *offer* sunroof (ok, the smarts' is a clear panel.. but cool), heated seats, leather.. there's nothing in the way of Honda, Toyota offering these items. All drivers wouldn't want this stuff, but for sure, as the market shifts towards people moving out of more luxury cars and trucks, it's these little features that will seal the deal.
I'd have bought a Prius 3 years ago if it had the heated seats and some sort of panorama roof. Same goes with the Fit. Plus profits would go up on notoriously slim-margined cheaper models.
Reply