2009 Honda Fit Sport: Little Rascal

mikeolan: I'm not sure that's fair. Compared to the rest of the vehicles in it's class it performs well in crash tests. It's compared to larger vehicles where it's not the best choice. With that said I'd rather be in a Fit that a Smart.

"There's something to be said for having to engage with your vehicle." So true. Floaty, isolated sedans are nice for long trip, but leave a lot to be desired when it comes to the human/machine bond. There is something about adding a manual transmission to even the most bring car that makes it that much more enjoyable.

"And as the IIHS has taught us... an unsafe one, too!"

Ugh, I'm SOOO glad they finally did something like this. I've been saying it for the longest. Now I have pictures. The Accord isn't even that heavy for a sedan (there are heavier is what I'm saying) and it still crushed the fit. But it got a good score omg!!

I love how things like shifter feel and engine sound are so incredibly subjective (yet I for one wouldn't normally think of them so).

Also, I'm also very glad IIHS finally did a car vs. car crash test. I got sick and tired of explaining to people that, just by conservation of momentum and energy calculations, a heavy suv is far safer than most of the things on the road (for me driving, not for you all).

The Fit got a good score vs. a barrier. It got a poor score vs. a larger vehicle such as the Accord. The jist of the IIHS's test was that smaller cars are not worth the minor fuel economy benefit vs. their incompatibility in crashes with larger vehicles.

In sure if you rammed an Accord into a Tahoe everyone would think the Accord was unsafe. However, the other demerits the Tahoe has, lower MPG, higher center of gravity, longer stopping distances, less responsive handling does not mean the Tahoe is inherently safer than an Accord. However an Accord does all those things almost as well as a Fit so it's worth the small trade off in fuel economy.

I should not say that lower miles per gallon makes the Accord safer relative to the Tahoe... sorry.

What I'm trying to say is that eventually when you equate size with safety you get to the point of diminishing returns.

So next week we will see the Accord crushed by a Tahoe... and the following week the Tahoe will be destroyed by a dump truck... then the dump truck will ripped apart by a freight train and finally the train will come off the tracks and roll into a giant ball of twisted wreckage.

You can't win safety with size. Drive what you what and cut down on the stress.

The IIHS only does tests like this so they can justify raising premiums on small cars. Nothing to do with safety.

"The Accord isn't even that heavy for a sedan"

Are you kidding? The Accord outmasses the Fit by between 750-1100 lb, or as much as 44%. If the Accord collided with a vehicle that similarly outmassed it, such as a Buick Enclave or BMW X5, it wouldn't look as unscathed as it does hitting the Fit.

I maintain, the probability of being in a serious collision is so minuscule that the difference in survivability between vehicles is almost irrelevent. Across the economy, we spend billions a year to decrease collision deaths by a few thousand--more than is spent trying to alleviate some medical conditions that kill considerably more people annually.

People would add more to their life expectancy by losing weight and reducing their cholesterol and blood sugar than buying a large vehicle just because it's "safer."

The Dodge Charger/Chrys 300C is heavier, The G8 is heavier, the G35 Sedan is heavier, the Acura RL is heavier. The Acura TL is heavier, Ford Taurus is heavier, Genesis Sedan is heavier BMW 3 Series is heaiver. Do I need to keep going? I was talking about the LX tested specifically. 3289lbs. Fit base in the test was 2575lbs

The Dodge Charger/Chrys 300C is heavier, The G8 is heavier, the G35 Sedan is heavier, the Acura RL is heavier, the Acura TL is heavier, Ford Taurus is heavier, Genesis Sedan is heavier, BMW 3 Series is heavier. Do I need to keep going? I was talking about the LX tested specifically. 3289lbs. Fit base in the test was 2575lbs

you fit defenders are also missing a huge point of the IIHS test.

mass is only part of the equation.

The size of the crumple zone at the front of the car matters nearly just as much.

If your front crumple zone is twice as big, the amount of force the passangers take, is 1/2 as much.

IE if your front end is 2ft vs 1ft, you get .5 the force of the accident.

Small cars like the Fit/smart/yaris, have very short front ends, which make for very short crumple zones.

That isn't depedant on the size of car you are hitting. Along with the stupid 55mph speed limit recomendation they made, they also said you could extend the front of these cars and make them safer.

Aww... when I saw the post title, I was hoping for another pug picture like the one Cee-Dub put up in the Evo post.

And on the topic of safety, in single car accidents the Fit is much safer than a Tahoe or pretty much any body on frame SUV. I've see a rolled over Ford Explorer with my own eyes and its a chilling sight.

"You can't win safety with size."

That IIHS report/statement is an unfortunate blow against small cars - very frustrating indeed for those of us who want more small car options.

@Firstwagon: It'd not just weight, it's also vehicle size and design. The Fit's crumple zone is inadequate when stacked up against that of a regular mid-size sedan. Honda also uses a lower-grade steel in the Fit, and it has a far less sturdy body shell. It's even more pronounced in the Yaris, which crumpled like a Chinese car.

@Sealcubb3r: The Tahoe is no more likely to roll over than a Honda Fit. I've seen a Yaris roll over- THAT was a chilling sight. In almost all cases, inertia is on your side- the lighter the vehicle you're in, the greater your 'bounce.'

@bc190: Lowering stress reduces cholesterol AND fat. If I drove a Honda Fit, I'd be worried, as I've personally witnessed MANY accidents involving two vehicles that have had outcomes similar to the IIHS statistic. If you see the video, the Fit doesn't do as bad as the Yaris or Smart, but 'horrible' would be an understatement.

What's insane is that these 'larger' cars are nearly as efficient as the Honda Fit. (The IIHS said it directly.) AND they aren't underpowered like the Fit, AND they have more usable passenger room. The Accord itself is a fat ugly pig, but not all cars in the class are.

I also wonder how Subarus would have fared, given their ring-shaped reinforcement structure.

Wow, so what the IIHS is telling us is: when a teeny little car smashes head-on into a great big car, the teeny little car doesn't fare so well? Holy smokes, who knew?

Anyone who has ever heard of Isaac Newton, that's who. And these clowns spent how much money for this statement of the obvious?

To plagiarize from another forum where this subject was discussed - stay tuned for the follow-up expose:

mid size car vs large car
car vs truck
pick up vs semi
semi vs train
airplane vs ground

Jaeger

You would be surprised at the number of small car owners that are ignorant to the fact that they're NOT as safe as much larger cars.

@dougtheeng: While it is clear that you can't win safety with size alone, it clearly does play a significant role during a collision. I don't know that the IIHS report is necessarily as unfortunate as you seem to think it is. It is important for consumers to be informed as to what compromises are being made in any purchasing choice. For me, the tradeoffs associated with very small cars such as the Fit, Yaris, Smart, etc. are just not worth the small gains in efficiency. I am not saying that nobody should buy small cars, that is a personal decision. I am just saying that the more informed a consumer can be overall the better decisions they can make. I think that tests like the one that IIHS performed provide a worthwhile piece of information for consumers to consider.

In the interest of full disclosure on my position here, it should be noted that I was hit head on in the same type of collision that the IIHS tested here by a driver that fell asleep at the wheel. Unfortunately I had no means of avoiding the oncoming vehicle because the street was lined on both sides by parked cars. I walked away from the crash with nothing more than a bloody nose and after looking at the crumpled remains of my 1974 pickup, I have been a firm believer in having space and high strength materials between the occupants and other vehicles.

Just my $0.02

If all the people who don't think small cars aren't safe are really worried about safety then the last two paragraphs of the IIHS report should be the most important part....

"Another way to conserve fuel, and serve safety at the same time, is to set lower speed limits. Going slower uses less fuel to cover the same distance. The national maximum 55 mph speed limit, enacted in 1974, saved thousands of barrels of fuel per day. It also saved thousands of lives"

Speed has a much greater effort on the severity of an accident then vehicle size does. An accident at 75 is dramatically worse then one at 55. It also takes much longer to stop from 75 and is much more difficult (and dangerous) to do a high speed avoidance maneuver at 75. A Fit (or a Smart) at 55 mph is safer then an Accord at 75mph.

Would support a return to 55? How about governors on all cars to enforce it?

If safety is really the concern here.

The more small cars there are on the road, the greater the likelihood that the cars involved in a collision will be small...in which case, the safety ratings go back up.

I realize that we're far from that point in the USA & Canada, but I'm sure it already applies in a lot of European and Asian countries.

As for 55: I'm pretty much a lefty commie tree-hugger, but honestly -- 55 SUCKS. Maybe speed is my vice, but I already lived through one "55" era, and it nearly drove me insane.

firstwagon - I get it, but it's never gonna happen. Governors to lock your car at 55? Well, you've just signed the death warrant for about 35 vehicles.

As much as it may be illegal to do, you don't buy a Porsche to do 55.

And you could just keep lowering the limit. A crash at 5mph will do much less damage than one at 55. I know that's really stretching it, but the point is the same: speed kills, but so does an unsafe car.

A car has to be safe, regardless of the speed limit.

I just go by the IIHS death rate reports. By their count, Tahoes aren't that great, minivans, luxury cars and nearly all Toyotas are incredibly safe, and the variability within each size class is greater than the variability between size class averages.

Among '00-'02 models, the Echo and the Tahoe had the same number (75) of driver deaths per million registered car-years (they don't have an accurate way of counting miles driven). Large domestic sedans were mostly in the 80-100 range (so were the Corolla and Focus; the Civic was a little below that range). Kia, Chevy, and Dodge compacts were in the 150-200 range. Toyota's crossovers were all under 20, as was the Passat (most midsized sedans were around 60). Full sized pickups ranged from 60 to 150. The 2-door Trailblazer was the worst with just over 300.

It was really quite fascinating. They broke it down per single-vehicle/multi-vehicle/rollover. Small cars had fewer single vehicle deaths but more multi-vehicle. Other way around for large vehicles. They normalized the numbers to a limited age group of female drivers to try to reduce the demographic effects, though it's still somewhat noticeable.

"A car has to be safe, regardless of the speed limit."

There is no such thing as an unsafe car anymore. Even the worst examples can take an incredible impact without serious harm to the occupants.

The only meanful gains left are in driver behavior (and skill).

I realize it's easier to try to pass off the responsibilty of your safety to someone like the automakers or the government but they can only do so much.

I'd rather drive a mid-size sedan than go 55.

"There is no such thing as an unsafe car anymore." Untrue, but it is all relative.- if you watch the IIHS videos, the Yaris is clearly inferior safety wise to the Camry. Any occupant inside the car would have likely been killed.

But in reality, there are other factors overlooked when they propose a 55 limit. It leads to distracted drivers- the type that cause these accidents. And the simple truth of the matter is that these accidents happened with low speed limits, so the IIHS (an organization that profits from the scams that are our traffic enforcement system) is biased in that recommendation.

Still, the results speak for themselves: small cars are death traps.

In the interest of full disclosure, the IIHS is fully funded by the American Insurance Industry. Check out their brochure at http://www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/vrc_brochure.pdf

IIHS has a vested financial interest in lowering injuries... which includes a strategy of lowering the speed limit. They don't care about fuel efficiency; they only care about paying less for vehicle accident claims.

... and why did the IIHS only test foreign small cars versus foreign medium cars? How about the Chevy Aveo vs a Chevy Malibu (even though the Aveo is foreign made...)

This test, while accurate, smacks of American car industry & insurance industry protectionism.

Look at any of the Consumer Reports tests or more of the IIHS tests.

If you're saying there's no such thing as an unsafe car by comparing them to the cars of the 60's and 70's, that's one thing. But look at the results...there ARE unsafe cars.

It's more useful to test cars by companies that'll be around next year, maybe?

carlisimo, that made me chuckle.

"Still, the results speak for themselves: small cars are death traps."

It's been mentioned before but if the video showed the Accord being destroyed by the Tahoe, would you say that mid size cars are death traps?

The results are the same and I'll bet there are more Tahoes on the road then there are Fits.

"... and why did the IIHS only test foreign small cars versus foreign medium cars? How about the Chevy Aveo vs a Chevy Malibu (even though the Aveo is foreign made...)"

I was wondering the same thing Siarizona.

Id still like to think the Fit and Smart are 2 of the more safer cars in their classes.

@Firstwagon

The Accord still has sufficient crumple zones, which these econotraps don't.

@Slarizona

They also are encouraging the 55mph limit because they know nobody wishes to actually obey it. This means more speeding ticket premiums.

Some overboard chicken-little mentality here. The auto fatality rate in the US is somewhere around 1.5 deaths per MILLION miles traveled. About 1/3 of those are alcohol related. Of the rest, a portion occurs because the victim wasn't wearing a seat belt, not because the vehicle didn't do its job. And in some accidents, it's not going to matter much what vehicle you're in.

Any claim that SUV's don't have a higher rollover potential than traditional passenger cars is absurd. Stability control on the latest models reduced the risk but you still have the high center of gravity. Funny how small car fear-mongers like to invoke physics when it suits their argument but want to ignore it when it doesn't.

Likewise the "underpowered" argument is applied as a negative for a small car (nevermind that the key is power-weight ratio and not just power). But a more "powerful" car affords more acceleration and thus possibly higher speed when the accident occurs. Not to mention the temptation to use the extra power and drive more aggressively if you have it.

Eventually you just have to make your choice, not live in fear, and be responsible with the things you have control over (don't drink and drive, wear your seat belt, drive defensively, even chose when you're out driving, etc). Those choices will go much farther in keeping your safe than fretting over whether you should buy a subcompact or compact or midsize car.

"Still, the results speak for themselves: small cars are death traps."

I've seen a lot of undiluted BS here, but this is really primo grade stuff. And where are your statistcs to back up universally higher death rates in smaller cars?

@Jaeger1: http://iihs.org Watch the video. The difference between the Yaris and Camry speaks for itself.

I've seen numerous multi-vehicle collisions, including two that involved the Honda Fit, including one with a Fit occupant leaving in a body bag. If He'd been in a real car, he would have likely survived.

An Accord + Fit collision is exponentially worse and less safe than an Accord + Tahoe collision.

The Yaris folded like a Brilliance BS6.

@mikeolan - If I showed you a video of a Tahoe demolishing a Camry in a head-on collision, would you draw as a universal conclusion that "Midsize cars are death traps!"? Puhleeeeze.

Let's see an H1 vs. the Smart. That...would...be...AWESOME!!

Maybe an H1 vs. a Semi. Then Mike could tell us that H1's are death traps!

The editor mentioned "wobbly shifter"...again, this is the only car mag that has complained about the shifter and shift action. I'm really believing that they received a defective unit. The shifter on mine and every single other owner's is tight, precise, flawless and full of feel.