• Feb 22, 2008
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.


[Source: Honda]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 54 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      I only hope they put real carpeting in it. Current models have a non-woven imitation mangy mouse fur floor coverings. They not only look bad but fall a part from vigorous vacuuming! Don't worry, the optional Honda premium floor mats which thankfully cover a lot of the passenger area look great but they too disintegrate from normal use.

      My 2007 Fit replaced a 2000 Mercedes ML320 whose carpet and mats still look presentable at 136,000 miles, so it is not "pilot error". I wouldn't be so bitter but there is no aftermarket replacement for the carpet.
      • 6 Years Ago
      This has to be the best small car for the money on the planet. Having driven Pilots for 200,000 miles with not one problem, I am assuming the Fit would be as good. Hard to be a Honda.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Meh - the fits fine for suburban driving but the one i test drove was miserable on the highway. hard to get up to speed, impossible to pass, and the cheap plasticy interior didn't help. i guess like most hondas its more of an appliance than a vehicle.

        Unless you just need a cart to put you around the neighborhood, i'd say test drive a Scion sD, Mini and VW Rabbit. Nicer exteriors, interiors and more Pep©!.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Newsflash: Japan rates their mpg based on the imperial system. Therefore 46 mpg highway japan = 38 mpg highway U.S.

      These are under the old 2007 fuel economy estimates, when the old honda fit got 33 city 38 highway. Therefore the mileage of the new fit will be exactly the same as the old fit. Don't be fooled!
        • 6 Years Ago
        And the base fit in Japan is 1.3L (100HP) and gets 56mpg!

        I don't see why a car this small shouldn't be offered in a 100HP option here in the US. I don't really expect it to hit 56mpg, but if it gets a 15-20% boost it'll be very popular. The 1990ish Civic Si was only a little smaller than this and made 100HP as the "sport" model, so I don't think 100HP is an unreasonably small amount of power.
      • 6 Years Ago
      I'm surprised that that guy who posts on every single thread about the Fit and replies to every single post about the Fit complaining about the Fit's torque and blatantly astroturfing the Scion xD hasn't posted here yet.
        • 6 Years Ago
        The Fit doesn't have any torque. And yes, the xD is a much nicer car...
      • 6 Years Ago
      I really, really like that car. I'm thinking it'll be my next purchase.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Wow, that's a big improvement in mileage. I wonder how different the Japanese-spec mileage calculation is from the new EPA mileage. I think the previous Fit got 30/40, so if they somehow got it up to ??/46 while adding power.... then wow! This is gonna be a hit! Either way, a very good improvement on an already excellent car.
        • 6 Years Ago
        The current Fit gets 28/34. It would take nothing less than a miracle to get this car up to 46mpg. So don't get your hopes up.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Actually, I like the old fit better than the new one. The headlights just had more "soul".
      • 6 Years Ago
      Triple Newsflash: I assume that autoblog or someone made a mistake and just took false mpg and converted it to km/L.

      Trust me there is no way you can add 20 lbs to a car, add 9 hp to a car, keep the same engine displacement and the same transmission and get a 8 mpg improvement in fuel economy. It is impossible! Don't be fooled!
        • 6 Years Ago
        Even with that extra juice, the Japan-spec 1.5L Fit can achieve fuel economy of 46 mpg (19.6 km/l).


        read again chad. They could of reconfigured ecu fuel maps. electronic tuning goes a long way
        • 6 Years Ago
        Foto:
        You're in a dream world. Honda wouldn't screw up their ECU mapping so badly in the first place is to be able to improve it 15% later.

        This is the car that Honda bitched and moaned about for months about not being eligible for a tax rebate in Canada because it got 1 too few mpg. And you think that getting 10 more mpg was just an ECU tune away all that time? Honda would have to be pretty stupid to make that mistake.
      • 6 Years Ago
      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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        "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?
        • 6 Years Ago
        @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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.


        • 6 Years Ago
        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.)
        • 6 Years Ago
        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.


      • 6 Years Ago
      The current Fit gets worse mileage than the Civic (non-hybrid!). Hopefully this new one will address that. Until then, color me unimpressed.
        • 6 Years Ago
        It's not about how much I can afford. I can afford to drive a HUMMER.

        I don't want to waste gas. And this car is seemingly guilty of this.
        • 6 Years Ago
        If you want a short car for easy parking in the city and you want a reasonable amount of space inside, that necessitates an upright, stubby shape with increased air friction and decreased highway mileage.

        That is neither impressive or unimpressive, it's the necessary tradeoff for that type of car.

        Gas ain't wasted if the car is moving.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Tall, stubby cars are not the most aerodynamic. As long as the Fit is shaped the way it is, it will need more gas on the highway than a Civic shaped sedan. The only way this will be changed is designing the sedan glaringly badly.

        In stop and go driving where aerodynamics don't matter much, the Fit does slightly better which is no surprise because it is lighter.

        The difference in either case is too slight to rationally matter. If you can afford a new car, you can afford another $5 a month on gas.
      • 6 Years Ago
      Hard to beat...ooooops
      • 6 Years Ago
      just purchased a 2008 fit sport.......love it.....
    • Load More Comments