The weights are in...

GE8:
Base MT: 2489 lbs. (57 lbs. heavier)
Base AT: 2575 lbs. (61 lbs. heavier)

Sport MT: 2520 lbs. (49 lbs. heavier)
Sport AT: 2604 lbs. (53 lbs. heavier)

Sport with Nav MT: 2534 lbs.
Sport with Nav AT: 2615 lbs.

it looks like even with only 8 hp more, the power to weight ratio advantage goes to the new GE8.

 

^^^ Good info! Will Rep tomorrow. I'm maxed out for today.

 

Np.

looks like the only match up for the GD3 to beat a GE8 is; the GD3 base MT vs. a GE8 sport AT with Nav. But even then, only barely.

0.04482 vs. 0.04474 power to weight.

 

even with the better pwr/wieght i think the fact that the motor will have a better curves wiht more useable power will make the GE8 faster stock for stock.

 

My English friends say the weight gain is more like 160 lb, not 60.
In any case torque is only 1 lbft higher which will result in slower acceleration unless the gear ratios improve. Torque = acceleration; hp = top speed.
And the extra 8 hp only matters at top speed. Unless the aero Cd is considerably reduced, the extra frontal area is more likely to reduce top speed, again unless the gear ratios improve, and mpg likewise.
I have strong expectation that the reduced mpg numbers are the result of more weight, no greater torque, and greater aero drag.
I'm beginning to like my 08 more every minute although I am jealous of the extra room. And perhaps improved suspension.
Worse though is the cost rose by $600 according to Automotive news.

 

yeah, i think the new fit has an advantage of power to weight and also power curve and the MT has better gearing.

 

the weight change is from the USDM GD3 to USDM GE8, not from UKDM to USDM. i checked the official numbers from Honda.

you are correct about the torque not going up much, but the torque is supposedly more usable in the lower end under 4,000 rpm, plus the gearing on the MT is shorter.

 

I always thought it was better to write this as weight divided by horsepower. It's still a measure of power and weight, but you can express it as a more usable number, e.g. 22.26 pounds per horsepower (09 Sport Auto). As in, how many pounds each unit of horsepower must move. It just makes the numbers nicer to compare. The 08 Sport Auto would be 23.40 pounds per every horsepower. Meanwhile each horsepower of the 08 Si Sedan need only move 14.95 pounds.

Anyway, thanks for the info! May I ask where you got these numbers?

 

typically the number is given in "power to weight" not "weight to power". but either way works, you just have to know that p to w is better to have a higher number, and w to p is better to have a lower number.

i got the numbers from hondanews.com

Honda Media Newsroom Release: 2009 Honda Fit Specifications and Features

 

If this were true, diesels would have better 0-60 and 1/4 mile times than their gas counterparts and this is almost never the case even though the diesels have more torque.

Horsepower to weight ratio is the predictor of acceleration. The complication is that you're really looking for area under the hp curve and not a peak hp number. Small-displacement engines tend to have a peaky hp curve (and associated lack of torque at low RPM). The flatter you can get that hp curve, even if the peak hp doesn't go up at all, the faster the acceleration will be.

 

I haven't seen the specs yet, maybe this weekend.
As far as 'official' weights they don't mean much as the lower the number the less cost/taxes due. When we get our hands on a real car we will weigh and find out.

I can't wait to see the gear ratios; certainly the auto 3rd needs to be shorter. There's absolutely no reason for it to be good to 95 mph. We didn't have much of a problem with MT's gearing in 08. If the first abnd second gears are shorter it says to me the 09 is heavier.

If the cross-sectional area increases as much as dimensions call out, that 8 hp more won't help a bit. Aero forces per mph increase by the cube. I seriously doubt the 09 will be as fast as the 08's and likely not as good mpg (which Honda already admits.)
But it will be a better 'family' car.

The best performance ratios are weight to torque as well as weight to power. Nascar engines for Bristol and drag racers maximize torque and Nascar maximizes horsepower for Talledega or Daytona. A good vehivcle has superior numbers for each.

 

Sorry, but since torque is always the key to power HP = T x rpm/5250 the flatter your hp curve the less your torque and acceleration will be. The force to turn the wheel always is better than the number of wheel revs per second. Thats why there are gears. Power only matters at top speed. When those little engines reach high power its at high rpm. Likewise their torque values.
Acceleration increases with torque but the hp also increases, just not as greatly because as rpm increases the ability to get torque dimishes. The only assist is forced induction, aka supercharging and turbocharging.

Generally speaking you can expect about 1 lbft ot torque for each cubic inch displacement for good street engines and about 2 for race engines.
And thats what is measured on dynamometers, not power. When you design an engine for max power the drive is to increase rpm, as you see iin F1.

The reason diesels have lots of torque but slow acceleration is their weight and slow rotation of their crankshafts. The diesel engine is very heavy mostly because its parts are much stronger -and heavier - than gas engine. When you have heavy crankshafts, pistons, and valves the ability to increase rpm is hard to get. Trucks use diesels not only because they are good torque engined but also because they are very economical. Comression ratios of 18:1 will yield more torque than 10:1 but then the extra weight to have those heavy duty parts are slow to move.
As always there' no free lunch. 4000 rpm is a high rpm engine. Lots of displacement but low rpm. Lots of torque not much hp from rpm.

 

Manual Gear Ratios: 1st: 3.308, 2nd: 1.870, 3rd: 1.303, 4th: 0.949, 5th: 0.727, Reverse: 3.308, Final Drive: 4.62

Automatic Gear Ratios: 1st: 2.996, 2nd: 1.679, 3rd: 1.067, 4th: 0.761, 5th: 0.552, Reverse: 1.957, Final Drive: 4.56

here are the GD3 gear ratios:

Manual: 1st: 3.462, 2nd: 1.870, 3rd: 1.321, 4th: 0.970 5th: 0.757, Reverse: 3.231, Final Drive: 4.29

Auto: 1st: 2.996, 2nd: 1.679, 3rd: 1.067, 4th: 0.756, 5th: 0.550, Reverse: 1.957, Final Drive: 4.56

 

So in the GD3's, the final drive ratio for the MT's was lower than that AT? That is quite an interesting change for the 09's - it goes from quite an economy car (GD3) to more of a focus on 'sport' (in quotes because this is a Fit we are talking about). Overall, however, we are talking small differences auto vs. manual (4.56 vs 4.62) in the '09.

Mark

 

I think we're getting to the same point but a couple other concrete examples...

Look up 1/4 Mile ET and trap speed calculators... almost none have you input torque info, it's weight and hp and possibly some other things like tire diameter and/or gearing.

Staying in the Honda family, the Civic SI has something like 11lb-ft more torque than the standard Civic Coupe, which is a 9% increase. The SI's power however, is up 57 hp over the non-SI, which is a 41% increase. That's the indicator of the difference in acceleration between the 2. The SI has not only more peak hp, but due to a higher redline, significantly more area under the curve.

I'm not saying that torque isn't important, and yes T and HP are directly related, but Honda is the prime example of using small, low-torque, but high revving/high hp engines to get good acceleration. The problem with that approach, though, is that if you bog the launch or have a corner exit that puts you out of the power band, the lack of torque is a detriment. Abundant torque provides flexibility and brisk acceleration at any RPM and not just the RPM band near the power peak.

 

do you not accept the honda-given figures for the gd3 either mahout?

i don't think ANYONE has actually weighed thier fit, we have always gone by the numbers honda has given us.


the only numbers to lie about in this day and age are gas mileage and honda didnt hold back on those...they have no reason to do so with the weight.

anyway, to sum up this thread, those calling the new fit a 'whale' and 'land rhino' can politely STFU.

 

The gross vehicle weight rating is posted on the door jam with other info (See the certification label attached to the driver's doorjamb.) and sets the loading limits. These numbers should be correct!

 

One interesting weight difference is that automatic nav Fits add eleven pounds to vehicle weight and manual nav units add sixteen. I wonder why?

 

In R&T's road test summary you should note the 1/4 mi acceleration time is 15.1 sec compared to 16.1 sec. The ratio of torque to weight is 23.5 compared to 21.2 lbft per lb; the hp to lb ratio is 22.7 vs 14.9 hp per lb.

Which ratio is closest to ratio of the measured 1/4 mile times?
For top speed you have to know that aero forces increase by the cube of speed increase increments; the ratio of 22.7 to 14.9 has a cube root of 1.15, which is a close approximation of 130 to 120, although we have not seen a Fit exceed 112 mph in an accurately measured top speed so we have a tiny doubt about R&T's 120mph top speed for Fits. C&D's either.
(when you measure acceleration over 90 mph those horsepowerper lb numbers do become more important.) And of course assuming efficient gearing for all.

Those acceleration calculators depend on torque being a constant percentage of horsepower which is why they aren't that precise.

 

Man! that's 400 lbs heavier than my EG Civic Sedan!!! My new car's gonna be a porker!