It looks interesting, but it reminds me too much of a minivan. It also reminds me of the previous generation Civic Si, which is not such a good thing...

Other than that, it looks like a very nice, well built little vehicle that should be useful as a daily commuter and as a grocery getter. Sporty is not a thought that this car evokes IMHO.

Only 9 more horses??? weak, tiny, puney Vtech engines coming from Honda as usual. I never even liked the Honda Fit to begin with, so why should I start now?! Any way, it's mostly a women's car. I shouldn't be surprised about it's tiny power boost.

It's not supposed to be a rocket. It's a gas friendly grocery getter. We should all be driving these things, just ask the people serving in iraq.

I actually like the look of this more than the current Fit. Yes its underpowered, but as mbw mentioned, its a grocery getter. The people buying this car care more about fuel economy than power.

Saheed, I don't know where you live, but around here, the "women cars" include basically all GM mid-fullsized SUVs, Muranos, and Ford Excursions.

Looks ugly imo, but the reviews give it great handling characteristics. If they throw in a foot rest, I might be taking a look at one soon.

This thing will sell like mad, (assuming the price is anywhere close to reasonable.) Honda has a good reliability rep. It holds 4 or 2 and a bunch of cargo, will sip gas, and do it for years and years and years, like all Hondas do.

People who insist on monster power need not apply. For every person who noisily objects to 118 hp being meager, there will be 10 people quietly lining up to buy.

Wow, this thing looks just like a mini-van in most angles.

Couldn't agree more!

I am an enthusiast at heart, but a commuter in real life. The Fit is on the short list to replace my aging Mitsubishi commuter car.

Its a mini-mini van lol.

I'd buy it, minivan looks be damned. I commute 50 miles a day (round trip) and I can use as many MPG as I can get. As long as it can merge onto the freeway at speed and gets me where I need to go reliably and as inexpensively as possible, I'm all for it.

There are alot of people who will scoff at this car at first glance. I was in a fit last year (Japanese Spec) that had an aftermarket turbo installed, and it was quite amazing. From the handling to the overall size/feel of the cabin.

This car is a winner.

@Saheed:

You obviously don't know much about engines if you think all engines from Honda are weak and puny. Also its VTEC not VTECH. VTECH is a phone not a valvetrain technology. Honda produces some of the highest hp/ltr engines around, if not the highest. They may be small but they pack a punch. If you want to talk about crappy engines just look at most American V8's. They're luck to break 80 hp/ltr when honda regularly breaks 100 hp/ltr with theirs.

Back on track... This fit looks more like a mash up with the early 2002ish Civic SI. Not bad, but not my cup of tea unless they throw the K24 or atleast K20 in it.

Notice how Honda's super car, the "NSX" has less than 300 hp. Now tell me if you still think that Honda produces some of the highest hp/ltr engines around, if not the highest. Where did you come with that??? You wouldn't even see that on the back of a cereal box!!!

Saheed:
The first NSX had a 3.0L 270hp engine, that's 90hp/liter...
Also, since you seem to think that it was less than 300hp because they can't make powerful engines... at the time there weren't any Japanese production cars that had engines with more than 300hp, it was an unofficial hp limit observed by all Japanese car companies until recently.
If you're still not convinced maybe you should check out the F1 engines honda produces. The RA005E engine is a 3.0L naturally aspirated engine producing 900bhp. That's 300bhp/liter.

As said previously, this car is meant to be a cheap effective mode of transportation, not a sports car or muscle car...

@Saheed:
The NSX was a design exercise in light weight materials, therefore it did not need a high hp engine to motivate it. The NSX extensively used aluminum and titanium for many of the major components. With approx 275hp, the NSX easily held its own with other sports cars of the day. Second, the NSX came out in the early Nineties. It seems to be an unfair comparison to compare a decade old vehicle with todays engines.

Very nice looking

Who cares about it not having a lot of horses, that would defeat the purpose of its fuel saving marketing. Does anyone think this would sell a lot if it had a big engine and only got 18mph tops per gallon? No.

"It's not supposed to be a rocket. It's a gas friendly grocery getter. We should all be driving these things, just ask the people serving in iraq."

You are clueless. I have served in Iraq, so please keep your inane comments to yourself. Your ignorance is insulting.
Dad

It's a silly argument. Yes, american V8s have like 60-80hp/L but they are displacing 6 and 7 liters so we're talking 500, 600hp. Yes, there are honda engines that have specific outputs of 120hp/L (S2000, 2.0L version). But it's only 2L so it's not going to have the hp levels of say a Z06. At least give a complete picture of the puzzle...

Also, Honda F1 motors may be 300hp/L but several F1 engines from the 80s beat that by a mile- BMW's 1982 F1 engine produced about 1200hp from 1.5L, turbocharged with something like 45lbs of boost. Figure out that specific output- 900hp/L?

VTEC and 118hp in this case is preferable because no one is going to buy this car to drag race. 45mpg? that's more the target market.

And finally, the NSX did 0-60 in less than 5 and a half. 18 years ago. It was definitely on par with the porsches and ferraris of its day. It's like today's Elise- proof you don't need a ton of horsepower to go fast.

y are there two taill light designs

How come when there is news about economy cars there are always the "hardcore racing fools" making comments on how pathetic the car is? You think hardcore speedsters are going to buy this? Hell no.

But look at its competition: Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris, etc.... those aren't powerful, but they satisfy the basic need of transportation that most people want. The average person doesn't look at a car as a toy, but as an appliance to their lives.

It fits the bill for the target market. But, yeah, it's not my kind of car, either.

I can't believe someone saying 118HP is not enough for a small car like this; actually for any car. The Fit a is good looking, 5 door hatchback, with a clever interior; perfect around-the-town car.

A car is a car, gets you from one place to the other, and if it can do it with the least amount of pollution (petrol used) the better. I would happily take the 1.3L with manual shift that would do 5L/100Km in the city, and use the extra cash left in my pocket for other things, (and help the environment in the same time).

I wonder how bloated this beast is, if it's a trim 2400 lbs then 118 hp will make it peppy, if it's a bloated 3000+ lbs then it will suffer from poor performance. If you do the math 118 hp in a 2400 lb car is the same as 177 lb in something that weighs as much as say a Ford Mustang which last I checked was around 3600 lbs. Anyways if this car is 2400 lbs I could see it going for about 7.2~7.5 seconds on the 0~60 with a manual, and getting around 28/40 for the economy. Could work well if it has a lot of leg room.

From every other article i've read, the new model adds 22 lbs to the old model (while giving much better interior space, etc. etc.). The weight gain won't even be noticed.

FYI
The current 2007/2008 Fit (109HP) hits 65 in about 10 seconds (manual) or a more sedate 13 for the auto.
That's with sipping 30/40 MPG (C/H). That's much better than a CIVIC in the city, but about the same as on the highway. And, if memory serves about the same as my 600cc Honda car from the 70's. I'd rather drive the FIT.

FYI
The current 2007/2008 Fit (109HP) hits 65 in about 10 seconds (manual) or a more sedate 13 for the auto.
That's with sipping 30/40 MPG (C/H). That's much better than a CIVIC in the city, but about the same as on the highway. And, if memory serves about the same as my 600cc Honda car from the 70's. I'd rather drive the FIT.

FYI
The current 2007/2008 Fit (109HP) hits 65 in about 10 seconds (manual) or a more sedate 13 for the auto.
That's with sipping 30/40 MPG (C/H). That's much better than a CIVIC in the city, but about the same as on the highway. And, if memory serves about the same as my 600cc Honda car from the 70's. I'd rather drive the FIT.

I think the problem is that some people are missing the point of this car. It isn't intended to be a sports car, or anything like that. It is intended to be a very economical, utilitarian vehicle with good driving dynamics.

Fuel efficiency and roominess in a small package is what this car is all about. Nothing more, nothing less. Those who want sport should look elsewhere, that is why we have CHOICE...

@Bliq:

We're talking about Naturally Aspirated engines not forced induction. Anyone can slap 45lbs of boost on an engine and get astronomical efficiency. It's NA that is Honda's specialty and until last year the only turbo engine that Honda made was for jet ski's.

@Bliq:

If you want to paint a really fair comparison try showing GM's 2.4 4 cylinder against Honda's iVTEC 2.0 and you'll really see what I'm referring to. GM barely squeezes 63 hp/ltr with that one and Honda is right at 100. The Honda also gets better mileage and only gives up like 10 lb/ft of torque as well. Just wait for the next NSX that should be a 450+hp 4.2 litre V10. Now that's a sexy motor

I've driven the Canadian version- not sure how different it is from this one. I can say first-hand, the steering is very responsive & crisp but plenty of body roll, the acceleration and braking is what you'd expect, and the interior is spacious and the seating is very versatile. I don't like small cars, but if I was in the market, I'd scoop one up.

As a current Fit owner, I can only hope that (1) the suspension is a bit softer than the current model, which feels like it has no suspension at all, and (2) the manual transmission top gear is a bit longer. 3700RPM at 75MPH is ridiculous and it may be the reason why my 1997 Civic got slightly better gas mileage.

Chryslers mini van is not mini at all. They should make something like this that will haul a lot and still get good mileage.

"Wow, this thing looks just like a mini-van in most angles."

Hmmm.....some thing's just not right about my first comment.

THIS THING LOOKS JUST LIKE A MINI-VAN!!!

Yeah, now that's more like it. .

I didn't notice it so much from the front, but yeah, from the back it really looks like a mini-van. I would look much better with 2 doors.

When even the mainstream guys are predicting 4.00+ a gallon gas this year these small cars end up looking much better.

as far as horsepower goes, look back 10 and then 15 years at the hp ratings of cars of the same size/weight.

I just noticed, looking over the teams for the 2008 IndyCar series, that every single team is using the Honda engine.

Every single one.

Food for thought.

Anyone who thinks this car is good on gas is retarded. Any 2.5L TDI diesel is going to get 2x the hp, 3x the torque and the same MPG. If you have an equivalent sized motor, you'll have 50% better gas mileage and slightly better hp and torque measurements.

I drive a Jetta TDI that is roughly twice the size of this car and was disappointed this winter when my snow tires dropped my mileage from 49mpg to 45mpg.

Americans are as a group the most ignorant brainwashed people on earth. (As if Iraq is not evidence enough). It boggles my mind how much the oil industry controls all US bound automobiles. Ask yourself this: Why does canada get a 100+mpg version of the Smart ForTwo car, yet america gets the 40mpg version? Ask yourself this: Why, when it has the 2nd most fuel efficient vehicle available in america does VW not mention 2 words about their diesel cars on television advertisements? Ask yourself this: If the military is so for the war in Iraq, why are the #1, 2 and 3 contributing organizations to Ron Paul's presidential campaign the US Army, Marines and Navy?

90 to 100hp per liter is no fun if you have to rev the engine to 9000 rpm to get at it.

There is where a bigger displacement engine come in handy.

Also given the choice between an engine that is turning 4000 RPM at 70 or one that turns at 2000 at the same speed. I am going to take the slower one. Much quieter on the highway.

My old 1999 Pontiac Grand Prix With the supercharged 3800 got close to 30 MPG on the highway. The Fit gets 35 with a 1.5L with less than half the HP and a 1/3 of the torque and the Pontiac weighs twice as much. And I had put about 150,000 miles on it before TRADING IT IN. (not breaking down, not panels falling off of it,)

I don't see the superiority

As a owner of a 2007 Honda Fit, I can say I love the car. For people who say the new one only has 9hp more that the old one, the Fit is not marketed as a sports car. It's a economy car...a very well built and reliable economy car. I love my Fit and the way it drives. The handling is superb and I find that 109hp is plenty of power for such a light vehicle.

Why did this turn to an anti american debate? Sure it's known that deisel is more efficient yet it also cost generally 80 cents more per gallon which is enough to turn a majority of people away. Could also be that i'm in california and unless i'm wrong i believe deisel isn't exactly outlawed but never used, and vx tdi's aren't even legal due to emissions.

All in all i think it could be a nice car. I'm young and love good mpg. What i don't get is why the Fit has such low power. Even a 2000 civic ex gets the same gas milage with only a 1.6L vtec, yet has 127hp.

Why did this turn to an anti american debate? Sure it's known that deisel is more efficient yet it also cost generally 80 cents more per gallon which is enough to turn a majority of people away. Could also be that i'm in california and unless i'm wrong i believe deisel isn't exactly outlawed but never used, and vx tdi's aren't even legal due to emissions.

All in all i think it could be a nice car. I'm young and love good mpg. What i don't get is why the Fit has such low power. Even a 2000 civic ex gets the same gas milage with only a 1.6L vtec, yet has 127hp.

kd,

Seems that many non-americans are sheep for believing the group think notion that americans are sheep. Your example of the Smart Fortwo is highly misleading and just plain incorrect. You say that they are selling two different vehicles ... while technically true since there are adaptations for the american market and regulations, your assertion that the mileage is vastly different is incorrect. Your 100mpg version is actually a 83 mpg version using imperial units for gallons for the DIESEL engine as tested by the EEC. An imperial gallon is not the same as a US gallon, buddy ... 50 mpg imperial = approx. 40 mpg US. The EEC measures the gasoline version at 60mpg imperial and 50mpg US. The EPA (which has different testing standards) tests the gasoline model at 43 mpg imperial and 36 mpg US. Furthermore, the 2008 model in Canada is not the diesel version because the diesel version does not meet emissions standards. The diesel engine, the BlueTec, will be introduced for 2009, but sorry, no it will not get 100mpg (even in imperial units).

There are many reasons why diesel cars do not sell in the US. There is an image problem to start with ... and deservedly so ... from some very bad diesel cars on the market in the 80's. You could smell and hear a diesel car before you could see it ... not too hard with the car consumed in a black cloud. That is not going to be hard to overcome now. Modern diesel engines are superior to gasoline engines in many ways. What will be harder to overcome is the 25% difference in cost per gallon for a 15% improvement in fuel efficiency. That speaks to the pocketbook. The government will have to get involved ... probably by reducing taxes on diesel fuel. It may have to do that anyway. The cost differential is a supply issue ... fewer refineries and a switch to ultra low sulfur. It will start hitting the pocketbook as the cost of transporting goods is passed on to the consumer. Another reason is the short-sightedness of regulatory agencies. The rush to increase emission standards has eliminated the sales of diesel cars that were available just a couple of years ago. Strict emission standards are a good thing but it does not consider that those diesel engines that do not meet emission standards actually produce fewer greenhouse gases because of its higher fuel efficiency. Of course, BlueTec was a response to that and Honda has an engine that will pass all 50 states for 2009. Diesel engines are on their way back to the US.

In the meantime, we buy what is available to us. I own a 2008 Honda Fit Sport. Great car. I'm a married male who drives 400 miles a week in 60/40 city/highway. At last check, I'm getting 31.4 miles per gallon from the time I bought the car ... that is US gallons, not imperial gallons ... and that is logged and recalculated at every fillup. I expect the mileage to get a little better now that the weather here in Indianapolis is getting less arctic. I couldn't be happier with my decision to buy a Fit. For those who think it is underpowered ... well, I've never found that to be an issue ... it has enough power for the few times I've needed it. Never had a problem blowing past people on the highway with it. Fun to drive, phenomenal handling. And no, I do not care if some think it is a woman's car ... and my bank account doesn't either.