Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Honda Fit v. Hyundai Accent

17891113

Comments

  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    If you'll look at the actual post I replied to (#129, from September), there are no little :P s or :) s. Just sarcastic comments like:

    As far as 200 hp in a fit goes, that is quite a bit of engineering. TO build an engine that can do that is incredible. Hyundai even remotely acknowledging this by putting an intake on their little accent is hilarious.

    So, Honda can build a performance engine, but Hyundai can't even give performance enhancements a shot?

    Sounds a little high and mighty, and that's from a guy who has only driven Hondas.
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    Actually i have driven mazdas and i currently own a 07 vw rabbit, so theres that. And as far as perfomance goes, everyone knows that honda is legendary for aftermarket compatability. Hyundai has no track record at all and everyone here is acting like the se is the sport hatch that will take everyone down including the fit!! Arrrghhh here comes the accent! Back up! Don't step forward, STEP BACK!! :surprise: Can hyundai attempt it? Sure go for it..but may they know thier place in the sport compact world. Thats all this 'only drives hondas' young man was saying. And so i forgot the little car faces. SO what? Plenty of punctuation though... :P
  • fitluverfitluver Posts: 198
    wow i've been gone for so long i didn't realize how serious everyone was taking me! That's kinda funny! Oh and i'm sure i'm not taking any kind of credibility from honda owners. I think it would take a lot more than a few 'bad mood' posts to do that.

    Well, with every post sounding basically the same (Sarcastically denouncing Hyundai sometimes), it's hard to tell whether or not you are being serious. Remember, on pure text messages, there are no contextual communication clues to pull from to distinguish one's attitude, be it jovial or serious.

    Well said.

    I would expect as much from someone who graduated. :)

    (was that smile jovial enough?)
  • eldainoeldaino Posts: 1,618
    I've seen jovial-er ;)
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    The CR December issue puts the Fit on top in the manual/sport version and in second place to the Versa in the auto/base version. I wonder if they compared the auto/sport version to the CVT Versa version that the Fit might have been in the #1 position in both categories. Note that the Versa in the manual version was in 4th place.

    The deciding factors had to do with reliability, handling, mpg, braking, and interior space. Negatives on the Fit were road noise, acceleration with the auto, steering wheel position and lack of height adjustable drivers seat. The Versa had better marks for interior comforts, noise levels, but the driving characteristics were not as good on the Fit.

    In the Manual category, the Fit was in first place by a pretty wide margin, while in the Auto category, the Versa SL beat out the base Fit auto by only one point.

    It seems like with other reviews I've read, and based on my own experience, the Fit and Versa are the top two in this category of tall 4dr hatchbacks with good interior room, with the Versa being quieter and with more comforts, and the Honda having better driving characteristics and quality.

    The Rio, Accent and Yaris were grouped at the bottom for various reasons.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    Actually as far as "tall 4-dr hatchbacks", that includes only the Fit, Versa, and Rio5.

    Since you seem to have the article, can you tell us which versions of the cars were tested, e.g. were both the base and Sport Fits tested? And were both the Accent 4-door and Accent hatch tested--and which hatch? And what was the equipment, including transmissions, on these cars? Thanks.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    I just flipped through the article at lunch in the bookstore, and I only know that they had two categories, Manual and Automatic, and what I said in my previous post was about all I could remember. But they tested the Fit, Versa, Rio, Accent, and Yaris all in both automatic and manual versions. Plus they threw in the Focus 3dr because with discounts, you can get one for the price of these other cars.
  • "The Rio, Accent and Yaris were grouped at the bottom for various reasons."

    What reasons did CR give for rating these cars bottom of the pack?
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel a Certified Edmunds Poster.Posts: 11,558
    They didn't pay off CR? (did I say that? :blush: )

    There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good at math and those who are not.

  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    I don't remember everything from my quick read, but it seemed like it was on the driving characteristics, handling, braking, etc, and on road noise, interior space, and reliability.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    Reliability doesn't factor into CR's rankings of one car vs. another. It does factor into whether CR recommends the car.
  • "I don't remember everything from my quick read, but it seemed like it was on the driving characteristics, handling, braking, etc, and on road noise, interior space, and reliability."

    That about covers everything. So, they pretty much disliked the cars?
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Okay, I'm not too sure. I just remember from my quick read that they commented on the reliability, but there were actual points for the rankings but I'm not sure exactly how that's calculated. Too bad you can't just go online and pull down the CR report for free...anyone here have a userid/logon?

    I like to read the narratives because sometimes they'll point out things that they consider bad, but that I don't. Or they'll mention things you might not think about. And then I do like looking at the actual mpg, braking, handling and other more objective stats, again just to compare, but if you have 4 cars that all handle great, just because one is slightly better it doesn't matter so much, but at least you can see the real dogs.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    My local stores don't have the December issue yet. Should have it out in a day or so.
  • fitluverfitluver Posts: 198
    My local stores don't have the December issue yet. Should have it out in a day or so.

    Maybe if I am lucky, mine will be in my mailbox tomorrow. ;)
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    I finally found a store with the December issue today. The Fit and Accent were pretty close with automatics, just two points separated them. But it was a runaway for the Fit with the MT-equipped cars, with a score 20 points higher than the next car in the B class, the xB. (The Focus ZX3 was tossed in also, and was 2nd in the MT ratings behind the Fit, but CR admits it's in the next class up.) I put my overall impressions of the review in the Low-End cars discussion, since more than the Fit and Accent are discussed:

    backy, "Low End Sedans (under $16k)" #3704, 6 Nov 2006 9:17 am
  • First, reliability does NOT factor into Consumer Reports' final score. It's a completely separate component that figures into whether or not they recommend the car.
    Next, the Fit Sport isn't any different mechanically than the base Fit. The only reason the manual Sport got a higher score than the auto base was because they really like the manual tranny in the Civic (and it gave it respectable acceleration figures).
    Next, the Rio and Accent scored extremely well, especially compared to the Yaris. The reason the manual versions scored lower is because CR will dock a car roughly 10 points if they don't buy it with ABS. For anyone who hasn't read the article, here are the scores:
    Versa CVT - 65
    Fit Auto - 64
    Rio Auto - 63
    Accent Auto - 62
    So the four of them essentially tied. I wish they would have tested the Accent SE, though. There's no question the improved handling would have bumped it up a few points, probably to win the whole comparison.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    If they tested a Fit sport auto instead of a Fit base auto, the Fit would have handled and braked better with the larger tires, so that, plus the additional internal features (cruise, paddle shifters, etc) might have put the Fit auto at the #1 spot, maybe by a wide margin like the manual.

    I think they should have tested each car in the fully loaded version (auto and every option) and then each car in the stripped out version. Now we can only speculate.
  • I was under the impression that different "niceties" like cruise control don't really figure into the total score for Consumer Reports because it's an option that doesn't really affect performance. I could be wrong, though. But you're right about the discrepancies between equipment. It's kinda shady that people will look at the tests and say "Oh, the Versa's the best" but it was the high-end CVT SL model that outscored the cheaper models. They could have at least tested the Versa S with the 4-speed auto.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Especially when at a first glance, you would think that the only differences between the cars tested in the two categories is the transmission. If that were the case, then it makes the Versa's manual and the Fit's auto to be real dogs based on the scoring differences between the manual and automatic versions.

    Actually I think testing the Versa SL with CVT is a good choice, since as soon as production of CVTs gets going, the 4sp auto is gone.
Sign In or Register to comment.