Brief replys above...however there are several other threads on HID's (ex. GE HID Installation) so let's try to stay on topic here.

 

Autoblog's post/reference to the CR review...

Honda Fit dominates Consumer Reports subcompact test - Autoblog

 

I wonder if they tested the AT or MT to get 9.2 secs. Impressive if it were the AT. We know the MT does the trick in 8.3-8.5 secs.

 

Oh, and I'm still perplexed by the numerous reports of the bad headlight performance. Mine are excellent. Maybe some are defective?

 

Some seem to have come badly adjusted.
Moon

 

It's only relative to what your last car was. My previous Civic's low beams were 65W compared to Fit's 55W. Tell me that's because of bad aim.

 

I've driven many many cars at night other than my last car. I can confidently say that the headlight performance on my Fit is excellent - on low beam mode it's bright and wide with no hot spots but a relatively sharp cut-off in front. On high beams it stretches far and wide, again with no hot spots. This is how headlights should perform. I've driven many cars that are good examples of bad headlights. The Fit is not one of them. Generally, Hondas have one of the best non-HID headlight performance. I've owned 1 car with sub-par headlight performance - 93 Mazda RX-7.

 

I agree. Out of the four Hondas I've had (91 accord, 93 accord, 98 accord, 08 fit, 09 fit), all headlights projected and beamed pretty good. That is, of course, after I upgraded to Silverstars or something similar.

 

Not meaning to argue, but I doubt a 10w difference is detectable with the naked eye.
While the 100w 7"s Hella E-codes in my Jeep are great lights, they aren't orders of magnitude better than the Honda's.
From the sound of relays clicking, I'd guess the Fit is not wired thru' the steering column; it's probably possible to bump the wattage a little if desired. Talk to the folks at Susquehanna.
Another question altogether; the lights in my bride's Passat have degraded over time; only time will tell if the Honda lights do so as well.
Refreshing to have a car evaluation actually consider headlights, even if they may have gotten it wrong in this case. In many parts of the country, expressway lighting is such that car lights are less important; in our neck of the woods, good lights are essential. Used to be that crappy lights were easily enough replaced with standard-dimension E-codes. With aero-lights, you're pretty much stuck with OEM.
Moon

 

You may note that Cr rated it first in econoboxes. And read the Fit test in the latest C&D for an earfull. And yes everyone here is right about CR losing it over the headlights. They couldn't even explain theur rating. Either Perhaps they just had maladjusted headlights but they didn't bother to check that with a dealer shop.

 

One of the things CR does different from C&D, R&T, et al, is they start all acceleration tests at idle, not with the engine at 3000 rpm (or whatever) so their acceleration tests are a trifle more realistic. Check the acceleration times between given mph to get a true idea of acceleration. All tests from standing starts are subject to a huge number of uncertainties which is why most testers use the fastest time out of maybe 20 trials. 0 to 60 mph.is probably the worst way to measure acceleration. Try 60 to 100 for a more comparative evaluation.

 

CR doesn't know how to test cars. C&D and Edmund's utilize a rolling acceleration start to 60 in addition to the brake torque / clutch drop 0-60 tests. The rolling starts are meant to exemplify typical acceleration #s on the street. C&D's 5-60 mph acceleration for the Fit MT was 9.0 secs.

 

In case anyone wanted the full text (I have an online subscription):

Honda Fit
Honda Fit Review
The redesigned Fit does many things very well. It's fuel-efficient, packs a lot of space into a tiny package, and is fun to drive.

Trim line Base, Sport
Drivetrain 118-hp, 1.5-liter four-cylinder engine; base: five-speed automatic transmission; Sport: five-speed manual transmission
Major options None
Tested price Base: $16,020;
Sport: $16,730
HIGHS | Fuel economy, handling,
space utilization, cargo flexibility,
crash-test results
LOWS | Ride, road noise, fit and
finish, headlights
The Fit Line

Body style 4-door hatchback
Drive wheels Front
Trim lines Base, Sport
Engines & transmission 1.5-liter 4 (118 hp); 5-speed manual, 5-speed automatic
Base price range $14,550-$16,060
The Fit seems roomier on the inside than you might expect, with an interior that is unusually versatile and flexible. It has easy cabin access and a panoramic view out. It also comes well equipped and has comfortable seating. Lightness and agility make it fun to drive, the powertrain is smooth and willing, and fuel economy is enviable. Road noise is pronounced, though, and the ride is a little choppy, especially in the Sport version. Reliability is likely to be very good.

Handling, ride, and drivetrain
The Fit swallows the odd road bump well enough, but rough roads provoke short, choppy motions. Even the highway ride feels busy, more so in the Sport.
The cabin is never quite free of road noise. That, plus some engine hum, can grow a little tiresome.
Quick, direct steering and very little body lean aid the Fit's eager cornering abilities. The Base version handles a bit less crisply, and its smaller tires provide a little less cornering grip. The Fit wagged its tail somewhat in our avoidance maneuver but remained ultimately secure. ESC would help but is available only in the Sport and only bundled with the expensive navigation system.
The 118-horsepower, 1.5-liter, four-?cylinder engine delivers quick takeoffs but doesn't brim with power. Either transmission is a good choice. The easy-shifting five-speed manual adds sportiness, and the smooth, responsive, five-speed automatic is more relaxed with lower engine speed on the highway. Expect 33 mpg overall with the manual shifter and 30 mpg with the automatic, using regular fuel.

Inside the cabin
With the rear cushions folded up, sizable items fit in the Fit. Cheap, hard plastics trim the otherwise stylish interior. Although the panels fit well, some have sharp edges and mold flash. The Sport has nicer seat fabric.
The 2009 redesign greatly improved the driving position and added a tilt-and-telescope steering wheel. There is plenty of head, knee, and leg room, and despite a lack of seat-height adjustments, short drivers can still see out well.
Front seats are well-shaped and comfortable, although the cushion provides too little thigh support for tall people. Also, many drivers found the head restraint to be too close. The rear is roomy, and it's comfortable for two adults though very tight for three.
The gauges are clear, and most controls are easy to use, but they come with a few quirks. The steering wheel hides the large climate-control knobs. The radio has an unusual volume-and-tune knob that's a little confusing at first. The climate system is basic but works well.
The cargo area is roomy, and one or both rear seatbacks can be easily folded down flat to accommodate more cargo. Or you can fold the rear-seat cushions up against the seatbacks, creating a space that resembles a second trunk.

More test findings
BRAKING: Very good overall.
HEADLIGHTS: Low beams give insufficient forward illumination. High beams project farther but are dimmer close in.
VISIBILITY: Large windows and mirrors provide a good view out.
CABIN STORAGE: Modest capacity in several small bins.
ACCESS: Easy in front and rear.
HEAD RESTRAINTS: Active front restraints should mitigate whiplash injury. Rear restraints must be raised to be effective.
CHILD SEATS: Rear-facing infant-seat bases might be difficult to secure in the rear using safety belts. Latch anchors in outboard rear seats are awkward to access.

Posted: February 2009 — Consumer Reports Magazine issue: March 2009

 

Thanks for the post.

But case in point. It's as if they don't know squat about cars.

First, they misprinted the 117 hp to be 118. Then they make the noise levels seem unbearable, when relatively it's quiet.

"Expect 33 mpg overall with the manual shifter and 30 mpg with the automatic"....Huh? EPA rates both AT and MT identically. Unless you opt for the base AT. But they don't say this. Are they just guessing here?

Don't even get me started again on the headlights.

The review may be positive, but their undertone seems hell-bent on finding crap to complain about.

 

I think they hit the nail on the head with the highs and lows. The low beams are the worst I've experienced since my '76 Vega. The high beams are all right.

The pluses outweigh all of the minuses. If we buy these small, economical cars we're not going to get an Acura (my TL has really, really good headlights). But if I hit the road tomorrow, I'm sure going to take our Fit and we'll enjoy every mile of it. The best five minutes will be at the gas pump.

Cheers.

 

After a week of ownership I think my headlights are fine but my fogs seem to throw light way to the left.

I love CR but I agree, the review seemed like they were just trying to nitpick instead of freak out over how much they loved it

 

Just remember CR looks at cars as appliances and not from the enthusiast stand point. Lights are far better then the Mini I just came from, fogs fill in the close up area nicely. Also I noticed with the huge forward area that you can see out the front, far more then any other car I have been in.

 

[CHILD SEATS: Rear-facing infant-seat bases might be difficult to secure in the rear using safety belts. Latch anchors in outboard rear seats are awkward to access.]

I found this comment a bit puzzling. I've put a forward facing seat for my 20 month old in the rear seats and found the latches pretty easy to find. I have found other cars with slots in the fabric of the seat to make finding the latches super easy, but I found these latches easy to find.