Coming from a 2002 Honda CR-V 5sp (great peppy power, mild ballz!), and from a 1999 Honda Civic 5sp (right amount of power for steep hills), I can honestly say the Fit is noticeably inferior even to the Civic in terms of power and ballz. It has no ballz really. I feel it needs about 20% extra oomph to really feel peppy enough.

But we dd not buy the car for its power... so...

 

I swear, it sounds like we're talking about two different cars here sometimes.

Either that or two different sets of expectations.

 

09 Fit has less power over 45mph than the 97 Odyssey it replaced (it had a 2.2L 4cyl, not vtec). But the Fit is surprisingly peppy under 45mph.

 

It does seem we are talking about 2 different vehicles. It's just as fast, or faster than my 95 Civic or 89 Civic, neither was an Si. I guess it depends on expectations. When I look at it, it is not a drag car or a canditate for 1.0 g's on the track. It is a 4 door hauler, with good mileage and fun handling and adequate power for most needs. If someone bought a Fit for high speed corner carving and low ET's I question if they even saw, much less drove the car before they bought it. How could a Fit be a replacement for an Odyssey? They aren't even remotely similar. Anyway, I knew exactly what I was getting before I bought it. Test drove it. If after that, I don't like what I got, that was my fault, and I should not have any complaints.

 

so we're in agreement the Fit is "slow" whether it meets expectations or not?

 

I think the issue is power to weight over cars in a similar class (economic family cars). Or should I have replaced the Odyssey with a mustang? I was looking for a smaller Odyssey with better mileage. That's what I got. I'm very happy with the Fit, but it needs more power to be as drivable as a 12 year old Odyssey (first gen with a 4cyl!).

 

Yes the CRX is 400# lighter and has almost double the hp (SiR) but thats not the point. I raced CRX's for many years and they were far quicker than my Fit by stopwatch, the only measurenent that counts. 12 sec vs 18 sec is a serious difference. it also explains why the Fit is a bottom feeder is stoplight entanglements.. just wave 'em on.

 

I commuted 70 miles round trip on a 150cc Lambretta motor scooter in the late 1970s and loved the challenge of not becoming a very large greasy spot on I-20, but chose to ride it in preference to a much faster motorcycle that I owned .... I don't have a clue why people always want to compare the performance of a 1500 cc economy car with the performance of cars that have performance as their only marketable asset and a larger sticker price and higher insurance premium.

 

Steve...I would not agree that it is "slow" Slow was my 77 Plymouth..The biggest dog ever. Slow is relative..Compared to what? Everyone will never agree on this, it depends on perspective, and willingness to admit that some did not think it through before buying. Not Honda's fault.

 

Ding Ding Ding!!! Give the man a prize!

I don't think these people ever heard of a "Test Drive"





Bring on the flames. Cause I find all the complaining kinda....

 

Just rev the shit out of it and come back to us. Those who are keeping it under 3 or 4,000 rpm might as well get out and walk. The magic happens up top. Want torque? Get a diesel. Want to go faster in your fit? You just have to downshift. Seriously.

 

Like to modify the subject slightly...What is the best and worst car you ever owned? My best is my 09 Fit..Worst is a tie..03 Kia Rio I bought for my daughter and a 73 Subaru

 

Having watched it, the issue the reflash was solving was on boosted cars. Since the FIT isn't force inducted, I'm not sure that alot can be gained by reflashing the ECU. Might be wrong, but I'd be surprised if there was some flash that could improve a stock FIT. OTOH, I'd expect that some tweaking of a modified FIT might gain some additional power by an ECU flash.

 

1st test drive was a manual 09 sport with 3 of us in it including the salesman. It was miserably slow. 2nd test drive was with an auto. It wasn't any faster but at least I didn't have to fight with the transmission (oddest throttle behavior ever). I bought the automatic Fit because it is comfortable and economical. I certainly would not have bought it for speed. it's slow. Not a complaint: fact.

(my wife drives a gxp... she complains every time she gets in my Fit, I don't let her drive it anymore.)

 

yeah, my Solstice, we have 2 of them, is a real kick to drive. The others are my Fit and the wifes' CR-V. The CR-v is surprising in it's performance with only 150 hp. Way faster than my 150hp PT was.

 

LOL. I got rented a PT for a 2000 Mile vacation, as an upgrade to a Ford Fusion 4dr. I wish I'd gotten the Fusion. Overall MPG was around 22-23 which was almost all highway driving, which was substantially lower than the advertised 29MPG combined at the Rental Car Kiosk.

I'm thrilled with my FIT. I still fill up every two weeks due to my short commute, but it's 10 gallons of regular instead of 15 gallons of high test (Mustang Cobra)

 

Its not FAST! but its got enough power to merge on to fast moving California freeways, in higher RPM's its actually pretty peppy...Im comparing this to my once, and now gone V6 bi turbo S4, so its not going to beat that for quickness, but its not always straight line speed that makes a car fun, the Fit buzzes around corners (lowered on Tanabe springs) pretty nicely compared to my tuned S4(bit head heavy that one was)...I do have to mention that I have the 5M, so I can keep the rev's up and I often do...

 

see the new CR-Z for 2010? Now that is a cool looking car. Hope IT'S performance is up to it's looks.

 

I've got you beat; worst was a 78 Chevette.

Best for speed 09 Solstice GXP
Best all around hauler 97 Odyssey
Best sedan 98 Camry V6.

The Fit is the best economy car.

 

yeah, the Chevette was pretty bad. I forgot about them..and come to think of it, the Vega...rolling rust from the factory.