Honda Fit 2009
Hatchback · Gasoline · FWD
vs
Volkswagen Polo 1.0 TSI
Hatchback · Gasoline · FWD
Honda Fit 2009
Car A
Honda Fit 2009
The 2009 Honda Fit blends five-seat practicality with efficient 1.5L performance and a notably large 712 L cargo area for family and city use. Signals point to strong reliability and safety at a price that represents good value in its segment.
5 seatsHatchbackGasoline5-star safety118 hp
Volkswagen Polo 1.0 TSI
Car B
Volkswagen Polo 1.0 TSI
A compact, city-focused petrol model that balances efficiency and everyday usability with decent pace. Strong reliability and safety signals make it an easy fit for commuters and small families, but it’s not aimed at cargo-heavy or premium tastes.
5 seatsHatchbackGasoline5-star safety5 L/100km
Why compared more reliablecomparison picksame body typesame powertrainsame ranking profilesame seats

Usage fit

Family 76 / 64
City 74 / 76
Budget / value 74 / 75
Road trip 37 / 29
Performance 30 / 29
Cargo 40 / 19
Practical 61 / 54
Premium 13 / 15
Winter 20 / 20

Scores out of 100. Blue = Honda Fit 2009 · Orange = Volkswagen Polo 1.0 TSI

Specs side-by-side

Spec Honda Fit 2009 Volkswagen Polo 1.0 TSI
Values are representative — confirm for your market and trim.

Pros & cons

Honda Fit 2009

  • Versatile 712 L cargo space supports growing families and errands
  • Efficient for its class at 6.5 L/100 km for city and commuting
  • Signals emphasize strong reliability and safety priorities
  • At 15,990, represents good value in its segment

Volkswagen Polo 1.0 TSI

  • Efficient for its class at 5 L/100 km.
  • Responsive enough for city traffic (0–100 km/h in 9 s, 115 hp, 200 Nm).
  • Useful everyday space for a compact car (351 L trunk, five seats).
  • Good value in its segment around 21,000.

Verdict

Pick Honda Fit 2009 if…
Lower entry price
Honda Fit 2009 starts lower, making it the stronger value pick if budget is a priority.
Pick Volkswagen Polo 1.0 TSI if…
Reliability edge
Volkswagen Polo 1.0 TSI scores higher on reliability — worth considering for long-term ownership.

Related comparisons