2009 Honda Fit Sport: Track Tested!

I just cannot fathom how someone could design such an ugly vehicle.

the Fit really isnt Go I see. 9.8secs is slow, even for a car with this little hp. What is up with the brakes on Hondas? This is like the 3rd or 4th new Honda product with subpar braking. This car weighs 2700lbs and should be able to stop on a dime.

Nice to see a comprehesive set of numbers on this car. Not a really huge surprise in any respect. The Fit is no drag racer, but 8.9 to 60 is about where I would have expected it to be. It certainly FEELS quick and responsive on the street, which matters more than absolute numbers. I've certainly driven vehicles that were in fact faster, but didn't really feel that way behind the wheel. Slalom speed looks decent as well.

Braking is an area most reviews have pointed to as needing improvement - hopefully that is something Honda will address going forward. I'd be curious to know your impression of braking performance in day-to-day driving.

I agree with firstwagon - it would be interesting to see how the competition stacks up in terms of measured performance.

The Fit is capable of 8.9 seconds, and I've seen times anywhere from 8.5 seconds (C&D) to 8.3 seconds (MT). 8.3 seconds is quick for a car with 117hp and so little torque. The Fit runs neck and neck with most 4 cylinder family sedans that all have 50 or so more horsepower.

Oh, and Honda brakes do suck. Drums should be illegal.

The acceleration numbers seem reasonable for a car of this size. No one really needs a family car that posts 5-7 second acceleration times.

1487 - 8.9 seconds 0-60 is slow for a car with this HP? That beats edmunds own comparison of the Malibu 4-cyl, Accord 4-cyl, and Camry 4-cyl....granted, different testing days, but it seems to be inline with economical transportation of the day. What exactly were you expecting out of a 1.5 cylinder?

1487 and Jaeger - It's not the brakes, it's the tires. On all of these cars. Honda uses crappy stock tires with low rolling resistance, which are terrible at creating friction and maintaining grip. The stock brakes can easily overwhelm the tires...so you know it's not the braking system.

Edmunds' Fit can has K20A swap? Hehehe

0-60 time is what I expected from the Fit. But the braking from 60-0 is pitiful. 137ft for a car weighing 2,516 lbs. It'll be considerably worse during the rainy season here in Seattle. Oh wait...that lasts anywhere from 6-9 months. Yeah...the Fit is definately not on my radar as a commuter car.

With a full car load braking distances just get longer. The comment on the braking is mild really, I recall a few cars getting similar numbers they got a hammering.

Honda's also have poor braking systems. The Civic SI's pads are easily overwhelmed.

Dan Edmunds' excellent suspension walk through post clearly shows how flimsy those rear brake drums are. It is no wonder that the car's braking numbers are so dismal. I would gladly pay a little more for disc brakes all around. The 0-60 times, on the other hand, is what I would expect from an econobox meant to be a city car

8.9 is pretty decent, I'm still expecting 10 to be more typical of these little subcompacts and 9s for the next class up (Civics, Rabbit, etc.). Maybe I'm stuck in the past.

Honda...needs to work on their brakes. I know it's not a sports car and it's got relatively skinny tires, but I would expect most any passenger vehicle shouldn't have too much difficulty beating the 130 foot mark for 60-0 testing, with enough fade resistance to get you down a mountain road.

Pop some 205-50-16s on the stock rims and try the tests again. Diameters within 1/10 inch.
Clear the rear arms by 3/8 inch.

General Altimax Hp Grand Touring All-Season take
the edge off of harsh ride in the Sport too.

chavis10, i guess you havent seen the new Prius. now THAT is an ugly car. maybe you guys could do a comparo of a bright yellow Prius. that way you'll have all of the recently-microwaved vehicles in your area.

even the Yaris stops faster than the Fit...and friends dont let friends drive Yarises

137 ft is long for braking on a modern car but it ties the Versa and SX4 ..

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=118799/pageId=116418

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=115699/pageId=98222

and it's better then some others....

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=117152/pageId=103365

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=134506/pageId=151504

firstwagon, how dare you bring GM into this! 1487 is going to be mad at you! (; And regarding the Fit, 8.9 seconds is a very reasonable 0-60 time, and as joefrompa said, it's faster than many 4-cylinder mid-size sedans. Besides the brakes, Honda did a good job with the car. I think they should have just spent the extra money and put in disc brakes, though.

Yeah but the Versa and SX4 are all much heavier. The GM's are excused because they're GM's so I expect nothing more. :):):):):):):):)

137 ft braking under ideal conditions is unacceptable. especially for such a light car.

What was the 60-0 distance for the first generation Fit? I owned one and the brakes never felt that bad. Certainly better than the 6th gen Civic that replaced it...(GAWD that car felt HEAVY!)

I have to say that I see all sorts of people over-reacting about OMG read drum brakes. On a 2600 lb, front heavy, front wheel drive car, discs in the back would be a waste.

Really, how much work do you think those rear brakes are doing?

This thing can't even outperform, or even match, my old 87 Integra! And my mileage was nearly as good.

"1487 - 8.9 seconds 0-60 is slow for a car with this HP? That beats edmunds own comparison of the Malibu 4-cyl, Accord 4-cyl, and Camry 4-cyl....granted, different testing days, but it seems to be inline with economical transportation of the day. What exactly were you expecting out of a 1.5 cylinder?"

If you read the chart you would see 0-60 was 9.8 with traction contral activated. Most people do not drive with TC off so real world 0-60 is 9.8 secs. Also, most family sedans are sold with autos (and most Fits too I suspect). The average auto equipped four cylinder midsize sedan needs 8-8.5 secs to get to 60. The Accord is good for about 8.2secs, Mazda 6- 8 secs, Malibu- 8.6 secs. You can likely add a second to the Fit's 0-60 with the auto.

firstwagon:

How long did it take you to find those two examples? The cobalt's braking is poor but the XFE has low resistance tires and increased braking distances come with the territory. Auto models and the SS dont have those tires. AS for the Aura XE, that is by far the worst braking performance I have seen in any magazine for the Aura. They tested an XR as well and got better results. I'm sure you know the Aura weighs about 600lbs more than the Fit as well.

Also, .75g on the skidpad is mediocre for a sporty car. With IL tests cars they dont like they criticize any skidpad grip that registers under .8gs. I guess the Fit is different though.

firstwagon - good point, and good examples - even if they make 1487 mad. ;-)

jaeger,

No one is mad. You dont justify poor braking by saying there are cars that have even worse braking distances. This is how you think Honda should operate? When they designed the Fit you think they sat around saying "hey, as long as we beat the Cobalt XFE we are in great shape so dont try any harder". As much as the Cobalt is bashed I find it interesting that when convenient its being used as an example of a benchmark for compacts. Low rolling resistance tires are a compromise and braking suffers if you use them. This is one reason why the Prius and Insight dont have great braking distances.

"the Cobalt is bashed I find it interesting that when convenient its being used as an example of a benchmark for compacts. "

....just like when people quote the fuel economy of the Cobalt and neglect to remind that its just for the XFE? This happens regularly.

"How long did it take you to find those two examples?"

No time. People were making such a big deal about the Fit's braking and I remembered a couple of worse cars right away.

I then started looking up cars that compete with the Fit and the 1st 2 I checked stopped in the same distance as the Fit (SX4 and Versa).

Someone else already mentioned the Yaris stopped faster (about 10%) and BTW so does the Accent.

I agree the Honda should have stop faster but like you mentioned, low rolling resistence tires don't have much grip. The current numbers are in the normal range and if it's really a concern, there's lots of aftermarket tires that will make the Fit stop much shorter.

BTW... for those who mentioned weight as a help or hinderance, it should have no effect on stopping distance. A heavier car should larger brakes and larger tires included in the design to match the weight.

I thought the Fit had sporty tires. I have never heard that it has low resistance tires.

I agree the Fit's performance is indeed average for a cheap car, but my point is this car is so heavily praised I expect better. There is no question that its performance is acceptable for a $20k car.

Weight does matter, this is why the best stopping full trucks/SUVs stop longer than midsize sedans or sports car. Yes larger vehicles have larger brakes but there are practical constraints on how large brakes are going to be in a non specialty vehicle. One reason small cars are limited (esp. older ones) is wheel size but the Fit Sport has 16" wheels which are plenty large to accomodate decent sized brakes. I guess it is all about the tires Honda uses.

The Fit's acceleration, braking and skidpad numbers are all ho hum. Clutch dropping a 117hp car will rarely happen in the real world and nobody goes through the trouble of disabling traction control in an economy car. On top of that, most cars are sold with automatic transmissions so your average Fit will do 60 in 10 seconds or more. Most recent Hondas have had supbar braking across the board and this is evidenced in most publications' results. Honda doesn't believe in high unsprung weight so you get whimpy brake hardware.

"....just like when people quote the fuel economy of the Cobalt and neglect to remind that its just for the XFE? This happens regularly."

does it? Never noticed. You get the XFE with the stick. If you want the best mileage you get the manual, same as on many small cars.

How come you defend the XFE for using mileage numbers with a manual but critize the Fit for using performance numbers with a manual... ;)

"Also, most family sedans are sold with autos (and most Fits too I suspect)......You can likely add a second to the Fit's 0-60 with the auto. "

I know it was done years ago but looking at the performance tests edmunds did with the 07 fit reveals some interesting things. Here is the link:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=109810/pageId=69465

The most obvious thing to me was that 60-0 braking was 14 feet shorter at 123. Add that to .79 vs .78 and 67.5 slalom instead of 65.8 and you can see the last gen fit was a better handler. Though acceleration is slightly quicker at 8.9 vs 9.3.

I think it must have to do with the new (smaller) low resistance tires. I just think it's a shame that Honda had to go to those tires to keep the fuel economy with the increased power and slightly higher weight.

"How come you defend the XFE for using mileage numbers with a manual but critize the Fit for using performance numbers with a manual... ;)"

I mentioned the Fit having an auto because someone said the Fit is faster than many midsize family sedans. Its not. With traction control off 0-60 is almost 10 secs which is slower than your average Camry or Malibu automatic. If you throw in the stick, its definitely slower than a midsize sedan. I wasnt talking about fuel economy at all. My comments about teh XFE were in response to someone saying people think that all cobalts get 37mpg on the highway. I never heard that before but any cobalt with a stick (except SS) gets 37mpg on the highwway.

"If you throw in the stick, its definitely slower than a midsize sedan."

meant to say "auto", not stick.

As far as 0-60 times, check out the MT's test of the new Toyota IQ. 0-60: 14.7-15.5. Awesome! And it's $20k!

Where did you hear $20K? I heard it would be priced between the Yaris and the Corolla which would be more like $15K.

Granted, it's the price for Europe, but I can't see them changing it too much.

From C&D:
The iQ will likely be priced near $20,000 when it goes on sale in Europe in January 2009. Its success depends less on its practicality, clever accommodation, and ease of parking and more on whether it will appeal to the fashionistas that have embraced Mini and the Smart. Will they continue to pay more for less?

And of course this article is dated, so you can just take it for what it's worth. Haven't seen anything recently.

"I think it must have to do with the new (smaller) low resistance tires. I just think it's a shame that Honda had to go to those tires to keep the fuel economy with the increased power and slightly higher weight."

First gen Fit had horrible horrible Dunlop tires.

"Edmunds' Fit can has K20A swap? Hehehe"

Suby, were we seperated at birth? We seem to have similar thinking patterns and ideas. Ill go further and add the Kraftwerks supercharger kit to the K20 Fit...YIKES!

"Honda doesn't believe in high unsprung weight so you get whimpy brake hardware."

Chavis, its true that Honda doesnt like massive unsprung weight but the braking system isnt the culprit as a simple pad change will help braking performance as well as a more aggressive tire. That could be said for all Hondas. Not an excuse but a compromise on Hondas behalf.

"The Fit's acceleration, braking and skidpad numbers are all ho hum."

Chavis, I dont think Honda intended for this car to be tops in paper performance as thats not what the Fit is about. For the money and its segment however it does well.

As for why the Fit is praised so much, I guess if you dont get it you dont get it. When most people think about a car in this segment they tend to think its a car you HAVE to own not WANT to own. The Fit is the car in this segment you WANT to own as it feels greater than the sum of its parts, its refined (for its segment), its affordable, great storage/utility, above average build quality (for its segment), has a decent option list and most of all its fun to drive. Its the combination of those attributes (and others) that put the Fit at the front of its segment.

This car is definetly not the one I WANT to own. Not even in this segment. And if I HAD to own one of the cars in this segment, this car just ain't it. Sorry if I ruffle your feathers but hondas are just so....meh!

ANd that's just my opinion. Take it as you will.

"And if I HAD to own one of the cars in this segment, this car just ain't it"

Fair enough.

Just curious, in this segment, which would you choose?