Thanks to its poor performance in the most recent round of Insurance Institute for Highway Safety crash testing, where it received the lowest overall score in the small-overlap test, Consumer Reports has bumped the Honda Fit from its "Recommended" list. When a car gets bumped from the magazine's coveted ranks, it's usually cause for concern. This is not one of those times.

As there is a new Fit barreling towards dealerships for an on-sale date this spring, we wouldn't pay too much credence to the current car's demotion. It's expected that the next-generation Fit should pass the test with flying colors, as CR is quick to point out that newer Hondas have traditionally done very well in the tricky small-overlap crash testing.

Of the subcompact cars tested by the IIHS, only the Kia Rio, which netted a "Marginal" score overall, is a Consumer Reports "Recommended" vehicle.


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
  • 59 Comments
      King of Eldorado
      • 11 Months Ago
      The driver's-side still photo of this test makes it look like the damage extended back to the firewall across the entire width of the car. The video, especially the overhead view, is more informative and reveals that while the left-front wheel was pushed rearward as shown in the still photo, the right-front wheel was not noticeably dislocated at all, and the driver's-side footwell appears pretty much intact. In the same test for the even-smaller Fiat 500, the right-front headlight was not even broken. It would be interesting to hear what type of "injuries" the dummies experienced. Search YouTube or Bing video for "honda fit small overlap crash test".
      SpikedLemon
      • 11 Months Ago
      Yet has a 4-star according to the NHTSA.
        superchan7
        • 11 Months Ago
        @SpikedLemon
        It has 6000 stars according to me, different parties have different rating methdologies.
      kontroll
      • 11 Months Ago
      what a joke...anybody who buys this POS death trap deserves its fate...
        TruthHertz
        • 11 Months Ago
        @kontroll
        We have the highest amount of people not working in this country since 1980 and more people on food stamps then ever. Yeah, screw poor people... Let them just get patched up with their Obamacare right?
          Sorten Borten
          • 11 Months Ago
          @TruthHertz
          Where do you people live? There must be a right wing spammer farm where people just sit around all day and post off topic comments about that scary health care reform. Nevermind the fact that it's intended to make it easier for low and middle income people to get healthcare. Let's spin it into some crazy conspiracy like, oh, Obama is out to get you! LOL. I'm so glad that I'm educated.
          mikoprivat
          • 11 Months Ago
          @TruthHertz
          if you morons don't have work in the USA then why do you idiots buy asian POS you stupid...buy your own american brands...maybe you lowlifes will have work then
      jebibudala
      • 11 Months Ago
      Honda should just go back to the 1984 CRX. At least it's combined crash rating was 4.5 stars, obviously making it waaaaaaay safer than this death machine Fit. In reality when a new crash test standard is implemented, instead of down-rating previous unchanged vehicles, they should just add more stars to the system.
        mapoftazifosho
        • 11 Months Ago
        @jebibudala
        That would eventually end up like the "Now that's what I call music 900"
      rollie
      • 11 Months Ago
      Well, I'm an old man. My first "to work" driver was a '58 BelAir. Good car. Safe? Well, it didn't have air bags or crumple zones. It didn't have seat belts. It didn't have traction control, anti-lock brakes, or stability control. I drove it 26 miles one way to work every day. It didn't kill me. Now, If I was to get into an accident, with a Honda Fit, I would like to be driving that old BelAir. Many would say I would be wrong, but I'll take my chances with two tons of steel out front than some peanut piece of Jap crap anyday. Politically correct? I don't care. I would just get out of my car to see what the hell I just ran over.
        ahuisj
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        You should watch this. Old cars didn't have crumple zones. The whole car was a crumple zone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
        SYMAWD
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        Unless the '58 was safer than the '59, I doubt you'd still take the BelAir. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtxd27jlZ_g
        mapoftazifosho
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        This guy couldn't have tee'd up a better opportunity to be schooled...
        johnnythemoney
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        Seriously, get some physics and structural mechanics classes. 2 tons of steel don't mean much if randomly put in front of view, do they? Or, we can organize a crash test, '58 BelAir VS 2014 Fit and see what happens.
        superchan7
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        You wouldn't survive a 40mph head-on collision with a Honda Fit. A modern high-strength steel frame will tear right through anything from the 1980s back. The Bel Air's own frontal subframe will collapse the passenger compartment. This is due to the passenger cell being the same strength as the surrounding subframes rather than many times stronger as in modern cars.
        john96xlt
        • 11 Months Ago
        @rollie
        Wow, you trying to out-do yourself with stupid comments on this and the F-150 thread? Go ahead and drive your Bel Air, I'd take the Fit if I were to get in an accident.
      Glenn
      • 11 Months Ago
      It's the same car that it was when they recommended it. Nothing has changed. This test did not even exist when the car was designed, but suddenly it's a problem that it didn't pass.
        mapoftazifosho
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Glenn
        I'm really interested in the stats on just how many accidents are this type of crash and the likelihood as well...
          jebibudala
          • 11 Months Ago
          @mapoftazifosho
          Unfortunately most frontal impacts are offset as people try to jerk the wheel at the last second preventing a full head-on collision. It's because of Facebook and mobile phones any crashes even exist.
      Koenigsegg
      • 11 Months Ago
      1.4 million smart cars worldwide, people that dont own them and know nothing about them speak on them like they are not safe in anyway yet there has been no recall or they haven't not passed safety tests and are in production and save lives in accidents because of their safety design.... but none of that is true and their benighted opinion is what the truth is, a motorcycle is also apparently safer than a smart LOL. Mercedes-Benz technology morons, there's a reason the car is a little pricey for what it is. It's safer than most cars people drive. Just cant seem to get this into the below average IQ minds. But you can't fix stupid so... there's that.
        TruthHertz
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Koenigsegg
        You are an idiot. Go to YouTube and look at the video where a Smart Fortwo is decimated in a frontal collision by a C-Class Mercedes. At the time, that was the smallest Mercedes. After the crash it was determined that in spite of the safety cage staying intact, the g-forces sustained by the occupant of the Smart Fortwo would have lead to very serious injury and more than likely DEATH. That was a smallish sedan to collide with. Imagine if it had hit a full size car or a truck. youtube.com/watch?v=sKSPxQjPOm0 Smart's vehicles are usually driven in cities and seldom see higher speeds. Heck the top speed is 90 mph. That doesn't give much leeway for passing at freeway speeds. So if you have a city car, that is usually driven in the city, and not on the highway where a majority of highway fatalities occur, you wouldn't see a higher rate of death. Instead you would see a lower rate of death. But you don't. It falls in line with every other car despite its lower utilization on the most dangerous places to drive. Go troll somewhere else dummy.
          Ducman69
          • 11 Months Ago
          @TruthHertz
          That is merely because of mass differential though, as the vehicle with the greater mass will experience reduced g-forces in any head-on impact for the same reason a tennis ball and basketball thrown at each other will produce massive opposite direction acceleration on impact for the tennis ball while the basketball barely slows down (granted, extreme example). If you get in to that kind of idiotic arms race though, you end up with everyone driving F-350s to work to transport 200lbs of flesh, which is not only stupid but irresponsible, and in the end the impact is just as dangerous while you just end up wasting resources and increasing our foreign oil dependence (not that it isn't fun fighting in the middle east).
          TruthHertz
          • 11 Months Ago
          @TruthHertz
          Nobody needs to drive an F-350, but when you purchase the SMALLEST CAR AVAILABLE, it means there is a mass differential that is not in your favor for EVERY OTHER CAR on the road unless you hit another moron in a smart car. It is not a safe car. Not much more would get you a Civic or an Elantra. Heck, find one that is a year old and pay the same. I've never seen a single person in a Smart Fortwo that looked like they had an IQ above 30. Are the Civic and Elantra gas guzzlers? They actually cost the same to operate fuel wise because the "Dumb Car" made by Smart requires PREMIUM FUEL. If you drive on the highway, the Civic and Elantra actually cost less to operate and have reserve passing power.
      Alfonso T. Alvarez
      • 11 Months Ago
      " ... Of the subcompact cars tested by the IIHS, only the Kia Rio, which netted a "Marginal" score overall, is a Consumer Reports "Recommended" vehicle. ... " Really? Are you sure Mr. Autoblog? Did you not read the post you had on your own site a couple of days ago??? The Chevrolet Spark was the only car out of 11 to net an "Acceptable" rating in the small-overlap test and the only one to be named a 2014 Top Safety Pick. The IIHS has four rating levels - Poor, Marginal, Acceptable and Good. The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and 2014 Ford Fiesta all netted "Marginal" scores on the small-overlap test, while the 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, Toyota Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Fiat 500 and Honda Fit all netted "Poor" ratings. We've posted the full score result sheet to the right.
        Leather Bear
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Alfonso T. Alvarez
        The key here is "Consumer Reports 'Recommended' vehicle." The Spark scored too low in their testing (only the Scion iQ and Smart ForTwo scored lower) to be considered for a "Recommended" designation.
      finzenchrome
      • 11 Months Ago
      Okay, so the Fit is now unfit. That oughta give Fit owners a fit!
      Ducman69
      • 11 Months Ago
      These safety nazis are getting too anal. Small overlap crashes account for only 2/10 fatal car crashes. The overwhelming majority of crashes are not fatal, and of those that are, the majority also involve such high rates of speed that the energy involved in the accident can't reasonably have been expected to be survivable regardless. But who would want to be LESS safe than is humanly possible to achieve, and WHY?!?! Well, I for one would, because safety is a compromise. One of the reasons that vehicles keep getting heavier and more expensive every year is because of ever more unreasonable safety standards (with a plethora of optional equipment soon mandated or already required by law from tire pressure sensors to backup cameras etc). I really wish I could drive a 1500 pound vehicle to work instead of a 4000 pound one, and I think its better for our foreign oil dependence, the environment, my pocket book, and just general waste of resources that I can do so. Meanwhile we have the OPPOSITE extreme where we don't even require helmets to be worn on motorcycles in Texas, yet alone something as basic as a motorcycle jacket. Why? Because we say grown men and women can make up their own minds about the level of risk they want to expose themselves to. Luckily, we have a loop hole for three wheel vehicles like Elio Motors that is opening a dealership right here in Houston, and despite their low production are able to offer a vehicle that while still offering more than reasonable protection (various airbags and the works) gets 85mpg highway and 49mpg city, offers good acceleration, and yet costs only $6800. Why? Three wheels don't have to invest the millions and millions towards these safety nazi programs... fine by me its considered a motorcycle though, free HOV lane access 24x7 baby! Woot!
        mycommentemail
        • 11 Months Ago
        @Ducman69
        2 out of 10 fatal crashes are from small overlap you say? "only" 20% of fatal crashes? "only" 80,000 deaths over the past ten years or so then? Yeah, why even bother. Oh, wait... "grown men and women can make up their own minds about the level of risk they want to expose themselves to" And giving them information via a private entity like the IIHS lets them do just that. I believe, sir, that once again you are confused.
      sstowes
      • 11 Months Ago
      Frankly, this article reeks of sensationalism. By this kind of logic, we're almost all literally driving deathtraps. I know my old 97 HX beater would never pass the offset test. If I'm that worried about my Civic or any of the other hundreds of pre-2014 vehicles I see or pass on the roads during my commutes, I'm probably a hypochondriac.
      • 11 Months Ago
      [blocked]
    • Load More Comments