2009 Honda Fit is a go for New York
Click above for more high-res shots of the JDM Honda Fit
The 2009 Honda Fit is ready to make its big American debut, so it's packing its bags and heading to New York in search of fame and fortune (read: customers). The new car, which made its world debut last October at the Tokyo Motor Show, gets a pod-like, Priusy makeover that gives it interior space equal to that of a midsizer. While the Japanese version is available with 1.3L and 1.5L engines, we'd assume that the 1.5 i-VTEC will be the sole engine in the US. In Japanese trim, it's good for 118 horsepower (120 PS) -- a 9-horse bump over what the engine in the current car delivers. Even with that extra juice, the Japan-spec 1.5L Fit can achieve fuel economy of 46 mpg (19.6 km/l). Not shabby. We'll be on hand in NYC to bring you all the official details on the US-market car after the new Fit is driven onstage.
Gallery: 2008 Honda Fit (JDM)
[Source: Honda]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
I want it 10:41AM (2/22/2008)
I want one, in the gold color.
Reply
youngcrv 10:52AM (2/22/2008)
The previous model was a great car ... can't wait to see the specs on this version. Hope they expanded the gas tank from the previous versions' puny 10 gallons.
Reply
Brent 11:08AM (2/22/2008)
Puny 10 gallon tank? My Dodge Neon has a tank around 11 gallons and gets 14MPG less. The only thing a bigger tank will get you is more weight and less mileage. (I don't know what the Jap-spec determines.)
MemphisNET 11:13AM (2/22/2008)
@Brent
14MPG less?!? You either have it ''tuned'' or drive really hard (or maybe 500lbs of stereo equipment??)
I can get 38-40mpg hwy out of my 01' 5speed no problem. Granted thats at 62mph.
The fit however, would probably trump it in the city.
icu812ru469 12:36PM (2/22/2008)
Mephis you're full of crap man... '01 Neon was rated no more than 34 highway, and with new rating, you'd be lucky to get 30 highway at 62 mph.
dan 1:15PM (2/22/2008)
The Fit is rated 28/34 (2008). The 2005 Neon was 29/36 (old rules) and the estimated but not actually tested 2008 score would be 25/32. 14 mpg difference? I see two and a half.
Small gas tanks are a failure of too many vehicles. My theory is that this is catering to idiot consumers who don't know math and would be put off by seeing $80.00 on the pump - so instead they are given $40.00 twice.
Bungle 1:36PM (2/22/2008)
"Small gas tanks are a failure of too many vehicles. My theory is that this is catering to idiot consumers who don't know math and would be put off by seeing $80.00 on the pump - so instead they are given $40.00 twice." -dan
When light weight is a chief goal in raising fuel economy, doubling the size of the fuel tank as you suggest could easily add 60-70 lbs. in a car like the Fit. That's approaching 3% of the weight of the vehicle, not to mention it could upset handling (albeit not as much in the Fit's case, due to the centrally-mounted tank).
While I don't put much past auto manufacturers, I have to think that a small tank is less an underhanded marketing ploy, and more about keeping weight and manufacturing costs down, and fuel economy up; and is it really such an inconvenience to refill your tank every 300-350 miles?
Dan 3:29PM (2/22/2008)
You're right there are space, weight, and cost constraints acting as well. But looking at the massive size, weight, and feature gain nearly across the board in recent redesigns while tank sizes haven't changed suggests that range is intentionally not a selling point.
The Fit isn't the worst offender as it doesn't pretend to be a highway car. In city driving where trips are slow and short and gas stations are plentiful, 250 miles to E is reasonable.
On the highway I keep at least a 100 mile emergency reserve and would prefer 150. In many vehicles that means a pit stop in just 3 or 4 hours which is enough to be removed from my shopping list.
GM is one of the worst offenders, with a whole range of two ton sedans with 16-17 gallon tanks. CUVs are even worse.
Bungle 6:46PM (2/22/2008)
I don't know if that's the case; though I haven't watched it closely, every indication that I have is that car manufacturers tend to target a pretty standard range (e.g. 300-350 miles) and stick with it. If a new generation vehicle increases in size, weight, and horsepower, it seems to balance that with increased relative fuel efficiency (due to new technology) and/or a slightly larger tank.
Keep in mind that the Fit only holds 10 gallons, but at 34 MPG highway (2008 EPA rating), that's 340 highway miles, which is well above average as far as I know. That should give you about 5 solid hours of highway driving between stops. I recently drove cross-country in my Nissan Versa, and was reminded that you're almost never more than 50 miles from a gas station (if that) if you stick to at least reasonably trafficked highways.
Everyone has their own opinion of the trade-off of range vs. the downsides of a larger tank (the small tank is also how the Fit is able to have a fold-flat rear seat, which is very handy), but I guess I just disagree that it's anything intentional on the part of car companies to keep range low. I do agree that "range is intentionally not a selling point," but likely only because that's very low on the list of most consumers. The ubiquity of gas stations and the relatively short daily commute (relative to the range of a full tank) just makes it a non-issue in most cases.
Jerk Face 10:59AM (2/22/2008)
I really, really like that car. I'm thinking it'll be my next purchase.
Reply
naggs 12:46PM (2/22/2008)
i hope honda puts the 1.8 in and gives us the fit si
remy 11:06AM (2/22/2008)
I wish they could offer these little car here with the smaller engine option. It WOULD sell no questions asked, specially if the price would be lower. Alot of these little car end up in in the city and rarely gets their high (higway) MPG advertised.
I'd rock that 1.3!
Reply
Aaron 11:06AM (2/22/2008)
That front view of the yellow car looks so much like the 2002-2005 Civic Si. I should know, since I drive one.
Reply
C'Est Raoul 11:18AM (2/22/2008)
You are so right! 2002-2005 Civic Si!
I liked that car, rare too. I wonder which one is the roomiest. I guess the fit. Excellent mpg as well.
But the SI performance... (26/30mpg, quite decent), but almost double of the fit...
tekdemon 3:21AM (2/25/2008)
Speaking of the old Si (I owned one!), it actually had a 9 gallon gas tank (well, I think with reserve it was really 10 gallons, but usually filling up only meant putting in an extra 9 gallons), so it doesn't suprise me that the Fit has a 10 gallon gas tank.
I loved that little Si, lots of smart ideas-for one thing there wasn't a central tunnel in the car so the middle rear seat wasn't nearly as uncomfortable as in most cars. More or less a much more practical RSX.
Aaron 5:49AM (2/25/2008)
The Civic Si has a 13-gallon gas tank, not 9.
RockStoneSteel 11:15AM (2/22/2008)
Honda is finally getting back to it's roots with this vehicle. I'd love this in a 2 door hatch, but with a better/independent rear suspension. Or simply make the Civic in a 2 door lift/hatchback. Just improve the space in the Civic's driver's footwell (side to side) and around that center radio stack so the driver's knees aren't pushed together, and I'll take one.
The 2 door Civic and BMW Mini are about the only small premium cars in this class that are so richly appointed and have such a good drive train and fully independent suspension (no lame torsion beams here). There are other cars in this size range, but simply don't have the amenities or good pricing. The VW Rabbit comes close, but their insistence on that ugly vertical "Euro" rear glass is a turnoff from the more streamlined looks of other vehicles. Also with the Rabbit, buyers can't even get the moonroof, center console armrest, or other minimal niceties in the 2 door variant. It's as if VW considers it an after thought and just threw a stripper on the market.
My first new car was an '89 Civic DX 2 door hatchback with 5 speed manual transmission. It was a fantastic vehicle with very high quality, and tremendous fuel economy. I would average 37-38 mpg and got as high as 48 mpg. It looked great, drove great, and was inexpensive to maintain.
Reply
icu812ru469 12:41PM (2/22/2008)
Come on, I'm not mathematic's scientist... but if you average 38, but get as much as 48, that would mean your low is like 28. 28 city / 48 highway, that's a big spread...
Dan 1:21PM (2/22/2008)
Even assuming a 50/50 split for driving types, 28 and 48 don't average 38.
Driving 1000 miles at 28 mpg is 35.7 gallons. Driving another 1000 miles at 48 is 20.8 gallons.
2000 miles / 56.5 gallons is 35 mpg.
ChrisL 11:14AM (2/22/2008)
Please Honda I beg you, INCLUDE THE GLASS ROOF OPTION. Sorry for yelling.
There is no excuse, the Smart has one, '09 Corolla has a huge sunroof, please let in the light. Us Canuks get less sunlight in the winter and we love getting every bit of it when we can.
Reply