(Hat tip to Peugeot!)

Pluck and tenacity is all well and good, but in any title bout a good big fighter beats a good small fighter. We love the Honda Fit, but as capable as it may be, it's obviously limited in its getaway-car abilities by its tires when being pursued by the LAPD.

Next time we recommend the guy in the Fit find a healthier outlet for his talents. [KTLA]

The test involves compressing a metal plate into the corner of the roof. Withstand four times your vehicle's weight before reaching five inches of crush and you earn a "good" rating (the Smart Fortwo did 5.4 times its weight). Withstand better than 3.25 times your weight and you earn an "acceptable" grade. This is where the Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Mini Cooper, and Toyota yaris performed. The Aveo was a the bottom with a "marginal" rating, which means it had to do better than 2.5 times its weight.

Full details in the IIHS press release below the photos.

Smart Fortwo rates good for roof strength; test is designed 
to assess & compare occupant protection in rollover crashes
ARLINGTON, VA - The Smart Fortwo has the strongest roof and the Chevrolet Aveo has the weakest among 2009 micro and minicars recently tested by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. The Smart earns the highest rating of good compared with acceptable for the Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, Mini Cooper, and Toyota Yaris. The Aveo is rated marginal.
The rating system is based on Institute research showing that occupants in rollover crashes benefit from stronger roofs. Vehicles rated good must have roofs that are more than twice as strong as the current minimum federal safety standard requires. The ratings, products of the Institute's new roof strength testing program, add to consumer information tests that rate vehicles for front, side, and rear crashworthiness. The roof test is designed to help consumers pick vehicles that will help protect them in rollover crashes.
"We anticipate that our roof strength test will drive improved rollover crash protection the same way our frontal offset and side tests have led to better occupant protection in these kinds of crashes," says Institute president Adrian Lund.
Roofs have gotten stronger during the past few years, Institute research shows. Part of the reason is that automakers have made structural improvements to earn better front and side ratings in Institute tests. Strong A and B pillars help prevent intrusion in these types of crashes. They also help hold up the roof.
"Small cars should have an easier time with the roof strength test," Lund explains. "Their light weight means their roofs don't have to work as hard to keep the structure around the occupants intact in a rollover."
About 10,000 people a year are killed in rollovers. When vehicles roll, their roofs hit the ground, deform, and crush. Stronger roofs crush less, reducing the risk of injury from contact with the roof itself. Stronger roofs also can prevent people, especially those who aren't using safety belts, from being ejected through windows, windshields, or doors that have broken or opened because the roof deformed. Roofs that don't collapse help keep people inside vehicles as they roll.
The best protection is to keep vehicles from rolling in the first place. Electronic stability control is significantly reducing rollovers, especially fatal single-vehicle ones. When vehicles do roll, side curtain airbags help protect people. Belt use is essentiall

How roofs are evaluated: In the Institute's test, a metal plate is pushed against 1 side of a roof at a constant speed. To earn a good rating, a roof must withstand a force of 4 times the vehicle's weight before reaching 5 inches of crush. This is called a strength-to-weight ratio. For an acceptable rating, the minimum required ratio is 3.25. A marginal rating value is 2.5. Anything lower than that is poor.
"Compared with the current federal standard of 1.5, a strength-to-weight ratio of 4 reflects an estimated 50 percent reduction in the risk of serious or fatal injury in single-vehicle rollover crashes," Lund explains.
The Smart withstood a force of 5.4 times its weight. The Aveo withstood a force of just over 3 times its weight.
Cars have been built to meet the same roof crush standard, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 216, since 1973. The rule was extended in 1994 to include all passenger vehicles up to a gross weight rating of 6,000 pounds. Many SUVs and pickup trucks are heavier, so they're exempt.
New federal requirements: In April the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ended numerous delays by unveiling a new rule that doubles the current roof strength requirement (strength-to-weight ratio of 1.5) for vehicles with weight ratings up to 6,000 pounds. Roofs on vehicles with weight ratings 6,000 to 10,000 pounds will be required to withstand a force equal to 1.5 times their unloaded weight. Another requirement is that roofs maintain sufficient headroom during testing. For the first time, the government also will require the same performance on both sides of the roof when tested sequentially. Phase-in begins in September 2012, and all vehicles must comply by September 2016.
"The federal government's leisurely phase-in of the new standard means roofs won't have to get stronger right away," Lund says, "so we plan to continue rating vehicle roof strength for the foreseeable future. We want to reward manufacturers who are ahead of their competition when it comes to providing protection in rollover crashes. We want to help consumers identify the safest vehicle choices."

Roof ratings added to award criteria:  A good roof strength rating will be a new requirement to earn the Institute's Top Safety Pick award for 2010. This is the second time criteria for this award have been tightened since the first winners were announced in 2005. Availability of electronic stability control became a requirement starting with 2007s.
"Adding roof strength to Top Safety Pick criteria means we're going to see fewer winners in 2010," Lund points out. A record 84 vehicles have qualified for the 2009 award so far."

These ads may not be quite as punishingly 80s as the legendary Cocaine Factory Duster commercial, but they're up there with the rest of the 80s Car Ad contenders. Check out the special scooter, designed to fit in the back of the City!

Disregarding any pop culture references, Honda Cars India decided this would be a great way to represent their home market Honda Jazz (our Fit). Is it just us or does this seem like a crazy bad idea? (Hat Tip To Andre!)

[via Honda India]

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) tested the seven most popular small cars — the smart ForTwo, Chevy Aveo, Mini Cooper, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio — in four different low-speed tests: front bumper, front corner, rear bumper, rear corner. The cost of replacing the parts were used to determine whether the cars achieved high or low ratings. The worst performer was the Kia Rio with $9,380 worth of damage, earning it a "Poor" rating. Also earning a "Poor" rating were the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio. The Chevy Aveo did one better with a "Marginal" rating. The best vehicle was the Smart Fortwo with only $3,281 in total damage from the four tests, earning it an "Acceptable" rating. None scored "Good." Take a look at the damage below.

The costliest design choices include the Mini Cooper's sloping hood, which wraps around the front car like a fender and thus has to be replaced in a low speed test. The numerous plastic pieces help keep the Smart on the cheaper end of repairs because the parts are easy to replace, saving the trouble of replacing an entire fascia. The Chevrolet Aveo received a "Marginal" rating, due in large part to its pre-painted fenders, which are cheaper to replace because there's no need to factor painting into the replacement cost.

Mini and microcar bumpers allow pricey damage;
none of the 7 tested rates good under new system

ARLINGTON, VA - Urban drivers often pick mini and microcars because they're affordable, fuel efficient, and easy to park on city streets. Fender-benders are hazards of urban driving, and just one of them can add up to thousands of dollars in repair costs because the bumpers don't adequately protect vehicles from damage. None of the bumpers on 7 mini and microcars the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recently tested earns the top rating of good, and just 1, the Smart Fortwo, is acceptable. Five out of the 7 earn poor ratings and 1 earns a marginal.

The Institute evaluated results according to a new ratings protocol for low-speed tests that better represents the damage insurance claims centers assess daily. The worst performer is the Kia Rio with $9,380 total damage in the 4 tests, 2 full-width and 2 corner impacts, to earn a poor rating. The Rio's repair bill is worse than those of most other small and midsize cars and minivans the Institute has tested. This minicar racked up about $3,700 damage, or 30 percent of its purchase price, in the full-front test alone. The Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, and Mini Cooper also earn poor ratings for bumper performance (see table below).

The Smart Fortwo is best overall, with $3,281 total damage in 4 tests. Costs are relatively low for this microcar because its prepainted plastic body panels are dent-resistant, inexpensive, and easy to replace. The Chevrolet Aveo, a minicar, is next best, with $4,490 total damage.

"You should be able to drive your car home after a low-speed crash, but too often vehicles are sidelined by only minor impacts," says Institute senior vice president Joe Nolan. "Damage to sheet metal, air-conditioning condensers, and safety equipment like headlights should never happen when your car is bumped at just 3 to 6 miles an hour. Bad bumpers add up to one big headache for consumers."

New ratings system: These are the first bumper test results released under a new Institute ratings protocol that's based on repair costs averaged and weighted to reflect real-world damage patterns. These averaged and weighted repair costs determine each vehicle's overall rating of good, acceptable, marginal, or poor in 4 bumper tests representing full-width and corner crashes at low speeds. Weighted average repairs must be less than $500 for a good rating, less than $1,000 for acceptable, and less than $1,500 for marginal. Repairs of $1,500 or more earn bumpers a poor rating.

"Bumpers can be designed so there's no damage in these low-speed impacts. At a minimum, repairs should cost less than the typical insurance deductible for a collision, which is $500," Nolan explains. "This is why we set the benchmark for a good rating at less than $500. Damage at this level may be only cosmetic, so consumers may choose not to bother with repairs. Likewise, $1,000 is about the cost of a new bumper cover, reinforcement bar, and paint, while $1,500 includes replacing vehicle parts like grilles and headlights. When you reach $1,000 the bumper isn't doing its job, and anything $1,500 or higher is egregious."

No vehicle can earn a good or even an acceptable rating in the Institute's bumper tests if it's unsafe to drive afterward or can't be driven at all. Inoperable headlights or taillights, severely buckled hoods, or a compromised engine cooling system would prevent any vehicle from achieving the top 2 ratings. For instance, the Accent's hood buckled and its radiator hose kinked in the full-front test.

"If you decided to drive away after this, you'd be calling a tow truck in short order because of engine overheating," Nolan says.

Besides this group of minicars and a microcar, the Institute has tested 54 other vehicles under the new ratings protocol. The Smart Fortwo joins the Ford Focus and Scion xB as the only cars to earn acceptable ratings. The Aveo is 1 of 15 to rate marginal. Of the 61 cars the Institute has tested so far, 43 rate poor.

How they're rated: The Institute puts bumpers through 4 crash tests including full front and rear into a barrier that mimics the front or back bumper on another vehicle plus front and rear corner impacts. The full-width impacts are run at 6 mph while the corner ones are at 3 mph. The shape of the barrier the Institute uses to test bumpers represents a typical vehicle bumper. It's set at 16 inches from the ground in the corner test and 18 inches from the ground in the full-width test.

Bumpers are supposed to absorb the energy of low-speed collisions and slow vehicles before there's damage to expensive-to-repair parts like grilles, hoods, and fenders. They also should extend to vehicle corners to protect costly lights and fenders.

Bumpers have to be tall enough to engage, and stay engaged with, the bumpers on other vehicles in collisions, even during emergency braking. Otherwise, the bumpers bypass each other when vehicles collide, overriding and underriding so crash energy is absorbed by body parts instead of bumpers.

For example, the front bumper of the Rio briefly engaged the barrier in the front full-width test before it underrode it, resulting in damage to its grille, hood, headlights, radiator, fender, and air-conditioning condenser, plus the bumper reinforcement bar. The Rio had the most expensive damage in this test, and the Accent had the second highest.

Five of the 7 cars in the full-front test underrode the barrier, and none sustained less than $1,000 damage. The 2 that engaged the barrier, the Aveo and Fit, have the lowest damage totals in this test. In the full-rear test, only the Mini Cooper fully engaged the barrier. It also has the highest bumper of the group and the second lowest damage total behind the Smart Fortwo's. The Mini's rear bumper is tall enough to do a reasonably good job in the full-width-rear test. Repairs cost $929, while the Smart's bill is $631. Damage to the Fit in the same test is $3,648, or 25 percent of this car's list price.

"Just about every panel and part on the back of the Fit had damage in the full-rear test," Nolan says. "The bumper isn't in the right place to protect the tailgate, rear panel, and taillights because it's mounted too low. It's built this way to allow easy cargo access through the tailgate. The trade-off is that in an everyday rear-ender, the other car will hit the tailgate instead of the bumper."

Pricey styling decisions: The Mini Cooper is the only car the Institute has tested with a hood that buckled in the front corner test. This is a pricey styling design on the manufacturer's part, Nolan points out. The minicar's hood wraps around the front of the car like a fender, so instead of replacing just a fender, the car needed an $810 new hood. Repairs total $2,637 in this test.

Minor impacts can cause lots of damage if the bars underneath bumper covers aren't long enough to protect car bodies out to the front and rear corners, compromising lights and other safety-related parts. Five of the 7 cars in the full-front test and 6 in the front corner test required headlight replacement.

In the rear corner test, the bumpers on the Aveo, Mini Cooper, Rio, and Yaris all engaged the barrier. Damage was limited to the bumper cover, a sign of a better bumper design.

"Bumpers are doing their job if the only damage is to the bumper cover. Bumpers aren't doing their job when headlights get knocked out or sheet metal crumples after a low-speed impact," Nolan says.

Smart's design saves on repairs: The Smart's plastic body parts easily can be replaced in sections. This makes repairs relatively affordable in comparison to other vehicles. For example, front and rear bumper covers come in 3 sections each (left, right, and center), so mechanics need to replace only the damaged parts instead of the entire plastic cover. Also keeping costs down is the fact that the bumper cover sections are prepainted. They cost roughly $160 for the center section and $180 each for the left or right fender sections.

This is the first car the Institute has tested that has prepainted body panels. In comparison, it costs $480, not including labor, to replace and paint a front bumper cover on the Aveo.

"With consumers watching every penny in this shaky economy, no one should have to shell out hundreds and even thousands of dollars to fix damage that shouldn't happen in the first place. That's not to mention the time that's wasted coordinating and waiting for repairs," Nolan says. "Our new bumper ratings should help streamline the buying process so consumers can zero in on vehicles with good bumpers. At the same time, the ratings should encourage automakers to make improvements that help move cars off their lots."

Better bumpers don't have to be complicated. Auto manufacturers already know how to make good ones. Longer and taller reinforcement bars and energy-absorbing material are key to reducing damage in low-speed collisions.

[Source: IIHS]

The three tests we have are between the Honda Accord and the Honda Fit, the Toyota Camry and Toyota Yaris, and finally the Mercedes C300 and the Smart ForTwo. With each we get a full speed offset frontal crash with both cars traveling at 40 MPH, destruction and carnage ensue and rightly so, there's a lot of energy involved here. These are hardly scientific tests, and they represent the absolute most extreme crash scenario for these speeds, especially for the smaller cars. Ratings got from "Good" at the top of the scale through "Acceptable" and "Poor." Considering this is one car bashing into another, the evaluation is somewhat subjective, but it gives an idea of relative performance. Let's take a closer look at each.

Smart ForTwo Versus Mercedes C300

The Smart ForTwo is the poster child for Micro-Machine scale automobiles. With a tiny, tiny footprint and virtually zero front overhang, the 1808 lb ForTwo relies on a super-strong safety cage and airbags for protection. It's cold comfort against the much bigger Mercedes-Benz C300, tipping the scales at 3,560 lbs. Considering the circumstances, the little Smart held up pretty well, even though it bounced off the Benz like a pinball. The Benz scores a Good while the Smart gets a Poor, which is pretty harsh under these conditions. We like watching the three-pointed star float past the Smart in the slo-mo.

Honda Fit Versus Honda Accord

The Fit is one of our favorite little cars, with the new design maintaining the fun character of the original while giving it a little more room inside. The Fit uses traditional crumple zones for crash force dissipation but with such short overhangs there's not much room to slow absorb energy in a collision. When Accord meets Fit, we get an seriously mangled mess with the Fit. There's significant damage to the safety cage with the A-pillar crumpling and the wheel well smooshing up into the footwell. However, the front and side airbags kept the driver's head from bashing into hard parts. The 2489 lb Fit scored a Poor while the 3297 lb Accord was Good.

Toyota Yaris Versus Toyota Camry

The Yaris scores a Poor and the Camry gets an Acceptable, but this one seems like it needs another level of bad. In this crash the Yaris crumples up into a pretzel, with the A-pillar severely kinking, the wheel occupying the space where the driver's feet used to be and the door flying open. Yikes. The 2288 lbs Yaris is 200 lbs lighter than the Fit and the Camry is only 30 lbs less than the Accord, but the results seem more out of proportion than the differences in heft.

This all started when the 42-year-old woman driving the Fit attempted to turn around and her tires stuck to the railroad tracks. We're not sure if they were so cold they froze to the tracks or, somehow, the front wheels were angled into the air in a way making it impossible to drive. Either way, the woman did what you should do when your car is stuck on the tracks and you see a train coming — she ran for her life.

The engineer attempted to halt the train when he saw the car ahead but was unable to fully bring it to a stop. The train's engine caught on fire and the Fit was totaled, but casualties were limited to two minor passenger injuries. All things considered, the Fit is in decent shape given the force it was thwacked with and the resulting fire.

[MLive]

As with any publication, when we put together a product review, the editorial staff collaborates to develop parts of the overall opinion of the car in question. The staff person driving the car takes an initial stab at the driving experience. Then I, as road test editor, take the lead in helping to refine their position into something resembling English. Often, when I'm driving the car, I'm deciding a lot of what Jalopnik's opinions are. As the head honcho, Ray gets to stick his head in when he feels I’m drastically wrong. To be fair, he’s actually pretty good about this, deferring to my far greater expertise in nearly every instance. This morning he didn’t.

I thought the Fit was a suitable car for both working stiffs and technogeeks; Ray disagreed, saying, “I don't think working stiffs will work with the Fit. And technogeeks? Also a "no" — is the ipod connector digital or just an aux-in jack? Frankly, a full-fledged iPod connector attachment should be the base level for almost any car these days.”

We define “working stiff” as an individual, typically a male, who uses his car for work. These are typically plumbers, construction worker or similar, so a vehicle like the Ford F-150 would be a good example of something suitable for a working stiff.

We define “technogeek” as Brian Lam.

While I’d agree that iPod integration should be included in all cars and isn’t a qualification for becoming a technogeek car, I think it’s the Fit’s lack of gadgets that makes it the perfect car for nerds. You see, the Fit doesn’t feature many gadgets because it doesn’t need them, it is a gadget.

My dictionary defines “gadget” as, “a small mechanical device or tool, especially an ingenious or novel one.” I think that also sums up the Fit. Its flexible interior is so incredibly useful and is wrapped up in a tiny, good-looking package that’s a pleasure to use. Driving the Fit, I get the same feeling that I get from using my SOG PowerAssist multi-tool or my iPod. It’s an ingeniously useful, fun product that defies categorization as just another subcompact.

But Ray doesn’t think so. Why? Bias. Both his own and the bias he assumes exists in the mind of mainstream Americans.

Historically, Americans struggle to perceive utility in small cars, assuming anything smaller than an Escalade is unsuitable for carrying any more than a single resident of San Francisco and possibly, in a pinch, his poodle. But, as the era of cheap gas and universal American affluence comes to an end while simultaneously most of us become city-dwellers, that perception is rapidly disappearing.

As the most progressive auto publication on the planet we need to anticipate changes like that and work to include them in our editorial. We should be telling people that they would probably be happier in a Fit than in a mid-size sedan. Its utility and efficiency also makes it appropriate for working stiffs that don’t have enormous pieces of material to cart around. For that and many other reasons, I felt the Fit deserved five stars. Ray didn’t. He’s wrong.

Wert Is Wrong is a new weekly feature designed to help Jalopnik editorial staff deal better with Der Werter's oppressive OCD control on content, and will rotate between Jalopnik’s editorial staff. Ray will have an opportunity to respond to the criticism in the comments below, just like you have an opportunity to expound on just how wrong he is. He will keep his editing of this feature to a minimum. Mostly just looking for spelling errors that make us look silly.

Why you should buy the 2009 Honda Fit Sport:
You plan on buying a small, practical car not because you have to, but because you want to. You realize that, unless you have three kids, a larger vehicle is just an extravagance. You need a car that can do everything and you’re on a budget. You need a high cup holder to vehicle size ratio; the Fit is small and has 10.

Why you shouldn’t buy this car:
This is America dammit, hatchbacks are for Rainbow-wearing Euro Commie Terrorists. Your active lifestyle — involving wind surfing, mountain biking, heavy construction work and modeling for SUV ads — necessitates the purchase of a yellow Hummer H3T. You think a) cars impress women and b) those women prefer something a bit manlier. You can only afford one car and you need that car to be a sportscar.

Suitability Parameters:
Speed Merchants: No
Fashion Victims: No
Treehuggers: No
Mack Daddies: No
Tuner Crowd: No
Hairdressers: No
Penny Pinchers: Yes
Euro Snobs: No
Working Stiffs: No
Technogeeks: No
Poseurs: No
Soccer Moms: No
Nascar Dads: No
Golfing Grandparents: Yes
Very Serious Businessmen: No
Sheiklets: No

Also Consider:
• Toyota Yaris
• Nissan Versa
• Suzuki SX4
• Hyundai Accent
• Mazda5

Vitals:
• Manufacturer: Honda
• Model: Fit Sport
• Model year: 2009
• Base Price: $16,360
• Price as Tested: $18,960
• Engine type: 1.5-liter I4
• Horsepower: 117 HP @ 6600 rpm
• Torque: 106 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
• Transmission: 5-Speed Automatic w/paddles
• Curb Weight: 2,615 lbs
• LxWxH: 161.6" x 66.7" x 60.0"
• Wheelbase: 98.4"
• Tires: 185 / 55 R16 83H
• 0 - 60 mph: 9.0 seconds
• Top Speed: 100 MPH (est)
• EPA Fuel economy city/highway: 27/33 MPG
• NHTSA crash test rating: *****/*****

Also see:
• 2009 Honda Fit Sport, Part One
• 2009 Honda Fit Sport, Part Two

Exterior Design: ***
The Fit’s biggest problem is it looks, at best, like a jellybean. At worst, like a minivan. Having said that, the exterior is a means to an end. That end? Space, and lots of it in a tiny package. Vision is also excellent through the large glasshouse.

Interior Design: *****
The Fit’s defining characteristic. If ever the term “Tardis-like” applied to a car, it’s this one. There’s room for four adults and their luggage or, start folding seats, and you can carry tall objects, long objects, big objects, small objects (lots of them), awkwardly shaped objects or just about anything really. While you’re not going to mistake this interior for that of an Audi, all the materials are robust, the controls intuitive and the quality high.

Acceleration: ****
0-to-60 takes just 9 seconds. In a 30 MPG subcompact that looks like a jellybean, equipped with an autobox. That’s as fast Mk 2 Golf GTI 8V. Sure, you have to rev the bejesus out of the engine, but doing so is very enjoyable. Use the gearbox and, even at highway speeds, you'll never feel underpowered.

Braking: ***
Competent and unremarkable; the front disc, rear drum setup is more than enough to haul the lightweight Fit to a stop quickly and easily.

Ride: ****
The long wheelbase to overall vehicle size ratio helped the Fit handle New York’s permanent road construction admirably, but ultimately it feels unsettled over the really rough stuff.

Handling: ****
Initially a little soft for our tastes, the Fit is actually extremely capable, communicative and rewarding. Sure it’s a front wheel drive economy car, but the fundamental rightness of the Fit’s chassis elevates it above most cars on the road, not just its category.

Gearbox: ***
We got lumped with the autobox version (a 5-speed is standard), but equipped with paddles it was fun to use, responsive and quick to shift.

Audio: ***
Basic, but functional, there’s an iPod connector in the top glove box.

Toys: ***
We had the specced-up version with Satnav. That system works well, but that's all there is to play with. Aside from the folding rear seats, which are quick, easy and effective.

Value: ****
Everything we need and just about everything we want in a car for a $16,260 starting price (Fit Sport, the Fit starts at $14,750). We’d take one of these over the far more expensive Mini and spend the savings packing the rear full of Ikea furniture. The Fit is actually several thousand dollars more expensive than the far less practical Toyota Yaris or Nissan Versa, but we actually want a Fit and it’s the cheapest car we can say that about.

Overall: ****
The Fit Sport is good to drive, exceptionally practical, frugal and affordable. It’s the kind of simple, well-engineered vehicle that Honda built its reputation on and would do well to emulate across the rest of its current range. We’ve recommended that friends and family purchase a Fit more than any other vehicle on sale not just because it’s the kind of car that can fit (pun!) into many different lifestyles and fulfill most people’s needs, but also because they’ll enjoy owning it. We would.

Also see:
• 2009 Honda Fit Sport, Part One

One of the things we’re constantly advocating here on Jalopnik is simple, well-engineered cars that are both fun to drive and have high utility. Honda has traditionally been a stalwart of those values, delivering cars that did everything we wanted and needed without frills and complication. Sadly, we found the 2008 Honda Accord did just the opposite. Like the new Accord, the 2009 the Honda Fit is also bigger and heavier. Also like the Accord, we're wondering whether it's lost its fundamental rightness in the pursuit of an impressive spec sheet.

The original Fit went on sale in the US in 2006. Driving the 2007 Honda Fit Sport, Mike Bumbeck reported, “The Honda Fit is a truly fun-to-drive subcompact econobox with some innovative features and a great deal of character.” That car developed a cult following not just for its cute and cuddly looks, but for the extremely capacious interior, frugal fuel economy and, most importantly its fun drive.

For 2009, the Fit is a little heavier (2,661 Lbs to 2,551), a little longer (161.6” to 157.4) and a little more powerful (117 HP to 105. But, it’s not any less economical. In fact, at 30 MPG combined, it’s one up on the outgoing model. Most noticeably, it now looks like a jellybean.

The Fit has developed enough of a reputation that, when we jumped into the new model to rush to La Guardia, motorcycle designer JT Nesbitt recognized the car and looked forward to riding in it. That feeling lasted as we loaded it up with three six-foot plus biker badasses, a week’s worth of winter luggage and hit the road at 6pm on a snowy weeknight with only an hour to go to catch a departing flight.

Once we got going, it was a different story. With a redline bumped up from 6,300 to 6,800 RPM and a ready willingness to kick down from the paddle shifters (we were sadly lumped with an automatic transmission) the Fit makes you very aware that its engine is working hard to deliver its 9-second 0-60 time. Heading out of Greenpoint and up the challenging off-road course that doubles as the Brooklyn Queens Expressway I was using every one of those revs to push the car hard through traffic. Realizing that JT had stopped asking questions about the car I looked over to seem him white knuckled and wide-eyed, fearing for his life not on a land speed record motorcycle, but a friendly-looking hatchback.

The 2009 Fit is every bit as good to drive as its predecessor, rewarding drivers for finding the hidden depths that lie behind the cushy ride and propensity for body roll. Smaller than most other cars on the road, you cannot only exploit gaps in traffic, but the width of the road itself, shifting position in corners for added-visibility and therefore speed. The fit is the first fun-to-drive car I’ve been able to do that in since I owned my last E30.

Arriving home later that night the Fit’s tiny dimensions helped again. Instead of playing the usual New York game of hunting for parking spots for 20 minutes or more, I was able to squeeze into a tiny space right outside of my apartment. It may not be the fastest, nor best looking vehicle on sale, but at just $14,750 it offers a better driving experience than many cars that cost twice as much and has the interior space of cars twice the size. In short, it’s exactly the kind of simple, well-engineered, fun-to-drive, practical affordable car we’ve been asking for.

[4WheelsNews]

Honda is planning to ship roughly 90,000 2009 Fits to the US from its Suzuka, Japan plant, the only factory currently producing US-market Fits. If current market trends hold, however —and the new Fit is well-received — we think Honda's allocations are on the low side. The company sold over 12,000 new Fits in the US in July alone, so it doesn't take a mathematician to see that if you want a Fit, you might want to get to your dealer earlier rather than later. [Automotive News; Sub. Req.]

Sadly, we're entering a time when tighter budgets and higher fuel costs are going to make people start hating their cars again. And they've gone and redesigned the Fit for 2009, making it a bit larger (4.2 inches longer), a tad heavier (2489 lb. with a manual vs. 2432 lb. for the old one), a dash more powerful (117 HP and 106 ft-lb of torque vs. 109 HP and 105 ft-lb) and a dollop less chunky in the midsection (less than an inch wider). So is the Fit still worthy of affection? Or is it starting to outgrow us as it grows up?

Because this car is certainly growing up. Inside, it's roomier, with head and legroom for robust full-sized people. The 60/40 split rear "Magic Seat" fits actual humans too, plus it now folds down flat to the floor with a single little lever and will let you carry, for example, a bicycle with the front wheel removed. Fold them up and you can carry houseplants or monster stereo speakers or any other lifestyle accessory. The nook-and-cranny factor has been expanded, with lots of little compartmentlets and even a small top-secret hidden stashbox under the rear seats where no one will ever find it. And it will hold the hell out of your cups, with ten receptacles provided for that purpose alone.

Outside, it looks much bigger as well, and not in a positive way. Those four inches don't sound like much, but this car looks like it could be the box the old Fit was shipped in. It's more bulbous, less of a bullpup and more of a breadvan. The front end starts out all right, with a decent grille and a large, aggressive headlight treatment, but then it just sort of, well, continues. Eventually, a rear end is achieved, apparently by default. Viewed from the front, its best angle, the effect is roughly comparable to looking at a box turtle that's been given an expensive pair of Oakley sunglasses and then polished to a high sheen. That's bad enough, but there's worse: From every other angle, it looks less like the hunkered-down old Fit and more like the box a Prius was shipped in.

Now, I'd rather drive the box a Prius was shipped in than a Prius itself, and luckily, when you're driving this car you're not looking at it. And it's really very good to drive indeed. There's just the one engine, the adequetastic 1.5 liter with kick-innable VTEC, but it's sufficient for its class. You'll want the Fit Sport with either the fun and obedient paddle-shifters or the five-speed manual, as the five-speed automatic is noteworthy for its extra gear but is, inevitably, merely decent. Its strut front/torsion-bar rear suspension may be nothing special, and the chassis may be designed more with crumpling than handling in mind, but it still goes down the road and through the turns very well, almost eagerly. On the fun roads you and your game little buddy can whip around with a abandon and build up quite a bit of speed before it starts to push, although by that time, you'll probably have noticed your bicycle and monster stereo speakers and houseplants flying about in the rear and calmed down anyway to just enjoy the view.


View enjoyment is very much a possibility, because the Fit's outward visibility is amazing, obstructed laterally by only the narrowest of pillars and interrupted overall only by the lack of an available sunroof and the continued spineless refusal of Honda, and all other cowardly automakers, to offer a glass-bottom option. The view in front is a bit spoiled by the business of the instruments, which feature abundant blue LEDs at important marks on the dials such as every ten MPH or every thousand RPM and so on. Further along the dash, there's also a USB-capable 160-watt stereo, which is nice, and an optional navigation system in the Fit Sport's Navi package, which is rather poorly integrated but functional and, sadly, also the only way to get stability control. But everyone gets an odometer that now doubles as a fuel economy meter which, happily, is almost always full of good news.

That good news is 28/35 miles per gallon for the automatic version and 27/33 for the manual and the Fit Sport. That's for all real-world purposes the same as the last model, even with a few more horsepower—Your pal doesn't want you spending lots of money. And the trusty Fit is now a ULEV-II vehicle, which means it's better at cleaning up after itself; in fact, Honda says they now use less nastiness such as PVCs and hexavalent chromium and demon bile and chloride and so on to build the Fit, so that when it finally stops running after about 300 years, the parts that aren't recycled can evidently, if I'm interpreting Honda's press kit correctly, be made into a delicious and healthy blueberry-wheatgrass smoothie.

So it's more capacious, just as economical, greenier, and still pretty fun to drive. No, it's certainly not pretty, and right now shopping for one can be downright ugly, with demand forcing poor unfortunate dealers to ask for large premiums above the MSRP, no doubt against their will. But since Honda aims to give people 85,000 Fits over the next year, pricing could very well fall back into line. That would pit it against the Yaris, a slightly more powerful but softer and more wallowy car; the Versa, a car for people for whom driving is something to get over with as soon as possible, unless that means driving quickly; and the Scion xD, a kit car built by Toyota marketers in their spare time as a clumsy way of bonding with their tweenaged children.

The Fit, though, is an actual automobile, aimed not just at people who want a first car, but people who want a good car that just happens to start at $14,550. If it turns out to be the kind of car you can be friends with, so much the better. These days, cars need all the friends they can get.

Sadly, we're entering a time when tighter budgets and higher fuel costs are going to make people start hating their cars again. And they've gone and redesigned the Fit for 2009, making it a bit larger (4.2 inches longer), a tad heavier (2489 lb. with a manual vs. 2432 lb. for the old one), a dash more powerful (117 HP and 106 ft-lb of torque vs. 109 HP and 105 ft-lb) and a dollop less chunky in the midsection (less than an inch wider). So is the Fit still worthy of affection? Or is it starting to outgrow us as it grows up? Happily, yes and no. Rest assured the 2009 Fit would never desert you, and be sure and read the full review of your new best buddy tomorrow afternoon — when the 2009 Corvette ZR1 doesn't get in the way. For now, have fun with the press release.

All-new 2009 Honda Fit Big on Style and Refinement, Small on Price and Fuel Consumption
Pricing starts at $14,550 with A/C, AM/FM CD player and power windows; EPA fuel economy(1) up to 35 mpg highway

TORRANCE, Calif., Aug 19, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ — The completely-redesigned 2009 Honda Fit is set to go on sale August 26 with a Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price(2) (MSRP) starting at $14,550, plus a destination and handling charge of $670, American Honda Motor Co., Inc., announced today. The Fit Sport, equipped with additional premium features, is also set to debut with a starting MSRP(2) of $16,060, plus destination and handling.
The Fit is designed to lead the subcompact segment with a quality feel and a multi-functional interior. The Fit has become more refined for 2009 with a sportier demeanor through improved suspension, steering and body rigidity enhancements; an improved rear Magic Seat(R); and a high level of standard safety equipment, including the addition of the Advanced Compatibility Engineering(TM) (ACE(TM)) body structure and front seat active head restraints. A new, more powerful 117-horsepower, 1.5-liter i-VTEC 4-cylinder engine further improves the Fit's high-revving, fun-to-drive character.
"With the all-new Fit, Honda is offering premium features and advanced technology within a high-function, small vehicle package," said Dick Colliver, executive vice president of American Honda. "Customers who choose the Fit are choosing superior refinement and premium quality, along with value and economy."
Dimensionally compact on the outside with an overall length of 161.6 inches, the interior provides a surprisingly spacious passenger volume of 90.8 cubic feet and a rear cargo volume of 20.6 cubic feet. The seats offer multiple seating and cargo-carrying configurations — tall object mode, long object mode and utility mode — in addition to the standard five-passenger mode.
An improved rear Magic Seat provides one-motion dive-down functionality without having to remove the rear seat head restraints to folds flat into the floor, creating a rear cargo volume of 57.3 cubic feet. Dual-stage, dual-threshold front airbags, dual front-side airbags with passenger-side Occupant Position Detection System (OPDS) and side-curtain airbags are standard equipment on all models.
The engine produces 117 horsepower at 6600 rpm and 106 lb-ft. of torque at 4800 rpm. A 5-speed manual transmission is standard and a 5-speed automatic transmission is available. Steering-wheel-mounted paddle shifters allow for manual gear selection on the Fit Sport equipped with the available automatic transmission. The Fit equipped with the available automatic transmission achieves an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) city/highway fuel economy rating(1) of 28/35 miles per gallon. The Fit with a manual transmission and Fit Sport with either a manual or the available automatic transmission achieve an EPA city/highway fuel economy rating(1) of 27/33 miles per gallon.
The Fit comes with standard amenities such as air conditioning, an AM/FM/CD audio system with four speakers, MP3/WMA playback capability, Radio Data System (RDS), auxiliary audio input jack, power windows, power mirrors and power door locks. The Fit Sport adds alloy wheels, an underbody aero kit, rear roofline spoiler, fog lights, security system with keyless remote entry and cruise control. The Fit Sport audio system provides six speakers, a five-mode equalizer and a USB Audio Interface(3).
For the first time, the Fit is available with the Honda Satellite-Linked Navigation System(4) with Voice Recognition on the Fit Sport, featuring a 6.5-inch screen and more than 7 million points of interest. Models equipped with the navigation system also include Vehicle Stability Assist(TM) (VSA(R)), also known as electronic stability control.
The front MacPherson strut suspension and torsion beam rear suspension settings are tuned to provide a sporty, solid and dynamic driving experience. Upgraded by 1-inch on each model, larger 15- and 16-inch wheels (Fit and Fit Sport respectively) are shod with 175/65 R15 84S (Fit) and 185/55 R16 83H (Fit Sport) tires. The standard anti-lock braking system (ABS) with electronic brake distribution (EBD) uses 10.3-inch ventilated discs in the front and 7.9-inch drums in the rear.

2009 Honda Fit Pricing

Fit Transmission MSRP(2) City/Hwy./Combined(1)

5-Speed Manual $14,550 27/33/29
5-Speed Automatic $15,350 28/35/31

Fit Sport Transmission MSRP(2) City/Hwy./Combined(1)

5-Speed Manual $16,060 27/33/29
5-Speed Automatic $16,910 27/33/30

Fit Sport with Transmission MSRP(2) City/Hwy./Combined(1)
Navigation

5-Speed Manual $17,910 27/33/29
5-Speed Automatic $18,760 27/33/30

Additional media information and high-resolution photography is available at http://www.hondanews.com.

(1) Based on 2009 EPA mileage estimates, reflecting new EPA fuel economy
methods beginning with 2008 models. Use for comparison purposes only.
Do not compare to models before 2008. Your actual mileage will vary
depending on how you drive and maintain your vehicle.

(2) MSRP excluding tax, license, registration, $670.00 destination charge
and options. Dealer prices may vary.

(3) The USB Audio Interface is used for direct connection to and control
of some current digital audio players and other USB devices that
contain MP3, WMA or AAC music files. Some USB devices with security
software and digital rights-protected files may not work. Please see
your dealer for details on compatibility.

(4) Certain functions that rely on a satellite signal will not work
correctly in Hawaii and Alaska. These functions include but are not
limited to automatic clock updates and time zone adjustments.

SOURCE American Honda

Photo Credit: Dean Chandler