2009 Fit
Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 59
From: Shreveport, LA
I've never seen a compelling argument for avoiding a 1st year model Honda. I can understand avoiding a 1st year model VW, Chevy, Fiat, or even Mitsubishi (just to cite a few random examples of marques with iffy reliability issues), but never a Honda. IMHO, some posters are being far too risk averse in this particular case.
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 354
From: Saskatchewan
I only avoided the 09' because of gov't rebates towards the 08's.
Since I only have 21km on my Fit I will have to wait a few years.
Would I have bought a new model though?
Usually I wait 6 months until the job #2's are out.
Since I only have 21km on my Fit I will have to wait a few years.
Would I have bought a new model though?
Usually I wait 6 months until the job #2's are out.
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,049
From: lake worth FL
I've never seen a compelling argument for avoiding a 1st year model Honda. I can understand avoiding a 1st year model VW, Chevy, Fiat, or even Mitsubishi (just to cite a few random examples of marques with iffy reliability issues), but never a Honda. IMHO, some posters are being far too risk averse in this particular case.
Go read any Consumers reports "Buying Guide" and the "Detailed reliability" charts and look close at the real owner feedback data on HONDA models based on 1st year.
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 111
From: USA
Case Closed
Accord (4 cyl.), 2003, Better than average
Accord (V6), 2003, Better than average
CR-V, 2007, Much better than average
Civic Hybrid, 2006, Much better than average
Civic, 2006, Much better than average
Element, 2003, Much better than average
Fit, 2007, Much better than average
Odyssey, 2005, Average
Pilot, 2003, Much better than average
Ridgeline, 2006, Better than average
S2000 (not applicable because Consumer Reports only reports six years back, and the S2000 was introduced prior to 2002)
By the way, Much better than average is the highest rating a car can earn. So as you can see, your argument has no merit. There is no reason to believe that first year Honda's should be avoided.
And he kicker about VW is that they "de-content" (remove a few standard features) after the first year, and charge extra... dirty little trick, that. Perhaps it's their gift to first year buyers.
Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 82
From: Canada
I'm looking at the April 2008 Consumer Reports "2008 Best and Worst Cars" issue. The following are results from the "Used-car reliability" section that starts on page 86. Here are the "Used Car Verdicts" for all Honda's on page 90, and 91. I will list the model, first year of most recent generation that they have data for, then verdict.
Accord (4 cyl.), 2003, Better than average
Accord (V6), 2003, Better than average
CR-V, 2007, Much better than average
Civic Hybrid, 2006, Much better than average
Civic, 2006, Much better than average
Element, 2003, Much better than average
Fit, 2007, Much better than average
Odyssey, 2005, Average
Pilot, 2003, Much better than average
Ridgeline, 2006, Better than average
S2000 (not applicable because Consumer Reports only reports six years back, and the S2000 was introduced prior to 2002)
By the way, Much better than average is the highest rating a car can earn. So as you can see, your argument has no merit. There is no reason to believe that first year Honda's should be avoided.
Accord (4 cyl.), 2003, Better than average
Accord (V6), 2003, Better than average
CR-V, 2007, Much better than average
Civic Hybrid, 2006, Much better than average
Civic, 2006, Much better than average
Element, 2003, Much better than average
Fit, 2007, Much better than average
Odyssey, 2005, Average
Pilot, 2003, Much better than average
Ridgeline, 2006, Better than average
S2000 (not applicable because Consumer Reports only reports six years back, and the S2000 was introduced prior to 2002)
By the way, Much better than average is the highest rating a car can earn. So as you can see, your argument has no merit. There is no reason to believe that first year Honda's should be avoided.
Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 524
From: Dallas, TX
I'm looking at the April 2008 Consumer Reports "2008 Best and Worst Cars" issue. The following are results from the "Used-car reliability" section that starts on page 86. Here are the "Used Car Verdicts" for all Honda's on page 90, and 91. I will list the model, first year of most recent generation that they have data for, then verdict.
Accord (4 cyl.), 2003, Better than average
Accord (V6), 2003, Better than average
CR-V, 2007, Much better than average
Civic Hybrid, 2006, Much better than average
Civic, 2006, Much better than average
Element, 2003, Much better than average
Fit, 2007, Much better than average
Odyssey, 2005, Average
Pilot, 2003, Much better than average
Ridgeline, 2006, Better than average
S2000 (not applicable because Consumer Reports only reports six years back, and the S2000 was introduced prior to 2002)
By the way, Much better than average is the highest rating a car can earn. So as you can see, your argument has no merit. There is no reason to believe that first year Honda's should be avoided.
Accord (4 cyl.), 2003, Better than average
Accord (V6), 2003, Better than average
CR-V, 2007, Much better than average
Civic Hybrid, 2006, Much better than average
Civic, 2006, Much better than average
Element, 2003, Much better than average
Fit, 2007, Much better than average
Odyssey, 2005, Average
Pilot, 2003, Much better than average
Ridgeline, 2006, Better than average
S2000 (not applicable because Consumer Reports only reports six years back, and the S2000 was introduced prior to 2002)
By the way, Much better than average is the highest rating a car can earn. So as you can see, your argument has no merit. There is no reason to believe that first year Honda's should be avoided.
So I still think that old adage that you're more likely to have trouble with 1st year models is still correct, even with a Honda. In the case of Hondas, though, even their first year models are "better than average" or "much better than average" when compared to comparable cars from other manufacturers. So the first year of a redesigned Honda may statistically be more reliable than a not-recently-redesigned GM product, but I bet the 2nd or 3rd year of the Honida redesign will be more statistically reliable than the first year Honda.
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 111
From: USA
Although if you go look at an individual Honda model's reliability record over the past 10 years, the 2nd year of a redesign nearly always has better ratings than the first model year. It's obvious that Honda is addressing design issues because within 1-2 years of introduction, any initial trouble areas have been corrected.
So I still think that old adage that you're more likely to have trouble with 1st year models is still correct, even with a Honda. In the case of Hondas, though, even their first year models are "better than average" or "much better than average" when compared to comparable cars from other manufacturers. So the first year of a redesigned Honda may statistically be more reliable than a not-recently-redesigned GM product, but I bet the 2nd or 3rd year of the Honida redesign will be more statistically reliable than the first year Honda.
So I still think that old adage that you're more likely to have trouble with 1st year models is still correct, even with a Honda. In the case of Hondas, though, even their first year models are "better than average" or "much better than average" when compared to comparable cars from other manufacturers. So the first year of a redesigned Honda may statistically be more reliable than a not-recently-redesigned GM product, but I bet the 2nd or 3rd year of the Honida redesign will be more statistically reliable than the first year Honda.
If enough people don't buy a 2009 Fit, I will get a better deal on a 2009 Fit!
This argument is moot anyway because the 2009 NA Fit is not a first year design! It's been on the roads in Japan since last fall as a 2008 model.
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,049
From: lake worth FL
Although if you go look at an individual Honda model's reliability record over the past 10 years, the 2nd year of a redesign nearly always has better ratings than the first model year. It's obvious that Honda is addressing design issues because within 1-2 years of introduction, any initial trouble areas have been corrected.
So I still think that old adage that you're more likely to have trouble with 1st year models is still correct, even with a Honda. In the case of Hondas, though, even their first year models are "better than average" or "much better than average" when compared to comparable cars from other manufacturers. So the first year of a redesigned Honda may statistically be more reliable than a not-recently-redesigned GM product, but I bet the 2nd or 3rd year of the Honida redesign will be more statistically reliable than the first year Honda.
So I still think that old adage that you're more likely to have trouble with 1st year models is still correct, even with a Honda. In the case of Hondas, though, even their first year models are "better than average" or "much better than average" when compared to comparable cars from other manufacturers. So the first year of a redesigned Honda may statistically be more reliable than a not-recently-redesigned GM product, but I bet the 2nd or 3rd year of the Honida redesign will be more statistically reliable than the first year Honda.
Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 136
From: NY
I agree with Crankshaft. Nobody else buy a 09.
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 519
From: North Carolina
Thanks for making this clear.
Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 26
From: Bartlett, TN
2009 Honda Fit Photos - Consumer Guide Automotive
College Hills Honda site shows a preview listing of accessories including an armrest but no details yet.
Honda Fit Accessories - Genuine 2009 Honda Fit Interior Accessories
Last edited by kgraham11; May 16, 2008 at 03:39 PM.
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 519
From: North Carolina
Scratch that. You can see the armrest on this video at: 2008 New York Auto Show Preview: 2009 Honda Fit News
Member
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 123
From: Madison, AL
There is a clear picture of the arm rest here (it is on the second page of pictures):
KickingTires: Up Close: 2009 Honda Fit
KickingTires: Up Close: 2009 Honda Fit
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 43
From: Massachusetts
I can't wait until pricing is announced.
I doubt it will be any more expensive than the current base and sport trims even with all these improvements.
Why?
- Because it still needs to be positioned below the Civic's price point.
- Because it plays against other subcompacts that still undercut even today's Fit - A lot of people buy the Yaris because it's cheaper so Honda must keep the new Fit as close as possible.
- Most redesigned models rarely go up in price that much - even with vast improvements (automakers seem do be able to break the rules of economics by always offering more and more)
I heard $1,000 more on one of the youtube reviews.
I would say about 1500~2000 more since Japan`s retail on the new FIt is more than the 1st gen Fit..... Don`t be surprised if you see then going for close to 19500ish +~-
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 43
From: Massachusetts
2008 Honda Civic:
DX FWD1.8L I4 Manual $14,810
DX FWD1.8L I4 Auto $15,610
LX FWD1.8L I4 Manual $16,760
LX FWD1.8L I4 Auto $17,560
So if the '09 Fit is $1000 more, it would bring the AT Fit Sport to $17,000+.
That will be too expensive to compete against the Fit's class as it would be priced in the Civic's class.
DX FWD1.8L I4 Manual $14,810
DX FWD1.8L I4 Auto $15,610
LX FWD1.8L I4 Manual $16,760
LX FWD1.8L I4 Auto $17,560
So if the '09 Fit is $1000 more, it would bring the AT Fit Sport to $17,000+.
That will be too expensive to compete against the Fit's class as it would be priced in the Civic's class.
