Car and Driver: 2009 Honda Fit Sport Automatic - Short Take Road Test

Kind of a backhanded complimented article, but a good read none the less....

2009 Honda Fit Sport Automatic - Short Take Road Test

The best cheap automatic, period.
BY DAVID GLUCKMAN, PHOTOGRAPHY BY PATRICK M. HOEY September 2009

When people ask us for car-buying advice, we invariably throw our most recent January issue at them and point to the 10Best Cars list. There may be an annoyed grunt thrown in there somewhere. This reaction comes not because we don’t like talking to people about cars, but instead because they likely won’t listen to us anyway, and the one week we spend each year selecting these cars is enough work without later having to explain the results to friends and family who have inexplicably failed to subscribe to our magazine or read our interweb bleating.

We mention this as we’re preparing to once again head back to the back roads to reselect our qualified top-10 roster. For three years running, the cheapest vehicle on our list has been the Honda Fit, and so it follows that it is the best cheap car. But does it still satisfy when made slower and slightly more expensive by way of an automatic transmission?

How Much Slower, You Ask?
When we got the acceleration test results, they were all positive. That’s positive in a bad way, as in “We’re sorry, Mr. Gluckman, but the test came back positive.” With the Sport automatic, the sprint to 60 took an extra 1.4 seconds (9.9 vs. 8.5) and the quarter-mile was accomplished 1.0 second slower (17.6 vs. 16.6) at a lower speed (79 mph vs. 83). Skidpad grip and braking performance from 70 mph were basically unchanged.

Quantifiables aside, the Fit Sport’s auto is as good a unit as anyone could expect from a car of such economical purpose, with crisp shifts when the lever is in D as well as S (for Sport) mode.

The Sport’s wheel-mounted paddles allow full manual operation and the ability to hold a cog right up to the 6800-rpm redline; D and S will shift at 6500 rpm, just shy of the power peak.

Unlike some other manufacturers’ sporty shift modes, this transmission’s will stay way down in third when fifth would be Drive’s choice. It will also accept multiple shift requests in succession, while even some of Mercedes’ AMG transmissions require a beat between paddle thwaps. The auto’s loss of gusto isn’t unnoticeable, but the engaging qualities of this slushbox manage to retain most of the funky Fit’s fun nature.

Two Kinds of Economy
Interestingly, the Fit Sport auto is rated at the same 27 mpg city/33 highway as are manual Fits, while the plain, non-Sport auto is rated at 28/35, so there’s a small sacrifice for the fun and control of the Sport’s shift mapping. We managed 28 mpg with this example, and have previously milked 31 mpg out of a manual model.

As for the reduction in cheapness, the basic auto tacks $850 onto the bill, but to get the S mode and manual paddles you have to opt for the Sport trim, itself an additional $1560 expenditure. (Sport also adds such necessities as keyless entry, cruise control, two more speakers for the stereo, and a USB audio interface, plus aesthetic niceties like a hatch spoiler, body kit, and chrome exhaust tip; the chef recommends.) Our top-spec model also bundled navigation with stability and traction control—the only way to get that safety tech is to get nav—for an additional $1850. Even once it’s all summed up, you still can’t order a Fit from the factory for more than $20K, although dealer accessories like floor mats (all models come bereft of them) and wheels can take you past that mark.

We’d certainly recommend the manual Fit first, for the obvious enthusiast reasons. But as far as cheap cars go, the Fit Sport automatic offers the best manual substitute for commuters or the clutch-averse. So if you’re one of our friends and want new-car advice, there it is—just try not to be offended if we throw a magazine at you.

Source;
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/09q3/2009_honda_fit_sport_automatic-short_take_road_test

National Post Comparison: Honda Fit vs. Toyota Prius

Here's an odd comparison, but I guess it is fitting, considering the FIT VS the Civic Hybrid has been done....
Fun, fuel-efficient foes
Patricia Cancilla, National Post
Published: Friday, February 06, 2009

I must admit I was amazed by the fuel efficiency of the Toyota Prius: After nearly 600 kilometres of mostly city driving, I averaged an incredible 4.1 litres per 100 km, just less fuel efficient than the 4.0 L/100 km city fuel economy Transport Canada lists for the hybrid

It's not that I doubted the numbers; I just didn't think I could manage such a feat based on my conversations with my colleagues -- and my inability to drive very, ahem, fuel efficiently. One colleague warned me that I would have to stay at a speed limit of around 50 kilometres an hour, necessary, he said, to keep the engine from switching from electric to gas. Another bet I couldn't do it --and he was right for the most part.

My hypermiling ways lasted all of one day. I hate being the slowest person on the road (although, believe me, in Toronto, I wasn't the slowest --but that's another story). It's just not in my nature to drive conservatively. So, I was quite surprised that, after more than 100 km of lead-footing it around the city, I still managed to keep all the little white squares on the fuel gauge intact. Same thing at 200. It wasn't until I was well past the 300-km mark that the squares started disappearing. Still, after driving the Prius for close to 600 km at my normal speed (translation: just fast enough not to get caught), I managed to use only half a tank of gas

I thought I could get decent fuel economy with the Honda Fit, since it, too, has a 1.5-litre, four-cylinder gas engine, and I did. Of course, it wasn't even close to the Prius's numbers, given that the Fit does not have an additional electric motor, but I still got a respectable 7.5 L/100 km.

The thing is I enjoyed driving the Fit a lot more than the Prius. I have nothing against the Prius -- it's an extremely fuel-efficient car and perfect for my mostly city driving requirements. Like the Fit, it's a roomy hatch with tons of storage space -- the Prius has 16.1 cubic feet; the Fit 21 cu. ft. Unlike the Fit, the Prius has a backup camera, which made it very easy to park on narrow city streets and crowded parking lots. With a combined output of 110 horsepower, it's not a rocket -- but neither is the 117-hp Fit. But the Prius lacked a certain fun factor compared with the Fit. Like yet another colleague said to me: "You don't drive the Prius; the Prius drives you." It's a very apt description of my experience.

Granted, I'm sure some of the clunkiness in the handling and cornering departments was due to the Prius's electric motor and battery, which make the hybrid almost 200 kilograms heavier than the Fit Sport (1,335 kg compared with 1,147 kg).

I admit I may also have driven a little slower in the Prius not because I was hypermiling but because I was transfixed by the fuel economy/ engine usage gauge. I enjoyed watching the electric motor in action and I used the regenerative braking on hills and, perhaps, as a result, I did stay within the speed limit, if not intentionally. That nifty gauge spoiled me for other hybrids because I expected the same thing in the Honda Civic Hybrid I drove next; I was disappointed when it wasn't there.

I was also a little more relaxed in the Prius than in the Fit, which may have contributed to the softer pressure on the accelerator. The cynic in me might say it was the lack of excitement in the Prius compared with the Fit that led to my calmness. The tree hugger in me would say it was the self-satisfaction I felt from doing my part to help save the planet that contributed to my docile demean-our. But the realist in me admits it was simply the peace and quiet that soothed me, even when some idiot cut me off or proceeded to drive directly beside me to get a better look at the hybrid.

Even when running on gas, the Prius is completely silent. For the first few days after I picked it up, I had to keep checking to make sure I had turned off the engine because I couldn't tell the difference between when it was on or off. And because I used the push-button start (which comes standard), I remained unconvinced even with the keys in my hand. It was a little disconcerting at first, but I learned to enjoy the silence and even drove with the radio off, which was even more relaxing.

So, on the Prius's plus side, we have incredible fuel economy, a silent ride, a small carbon footprint (a reduction in smog-forming emissions of up to 70% compared with a conventionally powered vehicle, according to Toyota), plenty of room for the driver, passengers and cargo, a fun-to-look-at fuel economy and gas/electric motor usage display, a backup camera, a comfortable ride and a long list of safety features. On the downside, it still looks a little funny, even though it's not as weird-looking as when it first came out in 1997. It also feels a little heavy when cornering and isn't sporty at all. At a base price of $29,500, it's also on the expensive side, as most hybrids tend to be.

On the Fit's plus side, we have respectable fuel economy, a smallish carbon footprint, a lot of room for the driver, passengers and cargo, a comfortable ride, a long list of safety features and an attractive design, which I like better than the original Fit's boxy look. It also feels sporty and is a lot of fun to drive. And, of course, there's the price--$14,980. One could buy two Fits for the price of one Prius. And, considering the tough economic times and the cheapest gas prices we've seen in a while, the Fit makes a lot of sense.

If you're looking for outstanding fuel economy, the Prius wins hands down. If you want a fun ride at a cheap price, the Fit is your top choice. It was mine.

Source;
http://www.nationalpost.com/cars/story.html?id=1258570

Honda Fit top subcompact car: Consumer Reports

Yonkers, New York - The newly-redesigned Honda Fit has been named Consumer Reports’ highest-rated subcompact, beating six subcompacts and small sedans in the magazine’s most recent round of tests.

“The Fit seems roomier on the inside than you might expect, with an interior that is unusually versatile and flexible, and cargo capacity rivaling that of a small SUV,” said David Champion, auto test centre senior director. “Lightness and agility make the Fit fun to drive, the powertrain is smooth and willing, and fuel economy is enviable.”

Consumer Reports tested a base model with automatic transmission, and a Sport model with manual transmission, both of which earned “Very Good” overall road test scores. Among the vehicles tested, the Suzuki SX4 and Nissan Versa rated “Very Good” overall, while the base model Toyota Yaris and Chevrolet Aveo5 scored “Good” overall.

The Fit and SX4 are the only vehicles in the group that are rated “Recommended” by Consumer Reports. To qualify, a vehicle must perform well in the magazine’s tests, have at least average predicted reliability based on magazine surveys, and performed at least adequately if crash-tested or included in a government rollover test.

The magazine said that the Versa sedan’s reliability has been much below average, while reliability for the Versa hatchback has been average, and the Aveo and Yaris scored too low in testing to be recommended.

Source;
http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/02/03/honda-fit-top-subcompact-car-consumer-reports.htm