Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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?)
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.
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.
What reasons did CR give for rating these cars bottom of the pack?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That about covers everything. So, they pretty much disliked the cars?
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.
Maybe if I am lucky, mine will be in my mailbox tomorrow.
backy, "Low End Sedans (under $16k)" #3704, 6 Nov 2006 9:17 am
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.
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.
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.
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.
I rather like that my Fit MT beats out the versa.
If you would like just a daily driver car like stock to stock features, you'd go for Fit. Its definetly practical since its a four door hatch. Its a car between a Wagon and a Hatchback. plenty of room compared to a hatchback but less than a wagon's. Fun to drive only falls to the Accent SE since it had close ratio tranny as well as sporty suspension and wheels.
if money doesnt matter, civic hb Si or type-R would be the choice.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now my dad lived out of state (about 450 miles away) and I had a car that if I drove windows open I could make the trip in one tankfull. But with the A/C on I would have to stop for gas maybe 10-15 miles sooner.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
My wife's 2008 Accent, bought in Dec 2007 gave 30 to 32 thru the winter & rose just a bit as the weather warmed. I was a bit disappointed, thinking a Honda Fit might have given better MPG.
Finally, I got to take the Accent on 3 day trips to the mountains & Mt. Rainier, getting 41.5, 42.6, & 45.1 MPG! Suddenly, I didn't think the Fit could have gotten any better MPG.
The Accent is just the opposite. The Koreans twiddled the engine or transmission gear ratio to get the Automatic version of the Accent up to 35MPG Hwy(listed on the sticker). That is a 2 MPG improvement over the 2008 Accent on the government testing. The net result is that the Accent will likely now be the MPG leader of the two, although the new FIT looks like a much more expensive vehicle with many more options (but with a price tag to pay for it).
Cars have become truly bloated and immense compared to the past. They Accent truly IS a compact car. It's just seen as tiny as there are precious few sub-compacts left for sale in the U.S. Probably the Fiat 500 and the Mini Cooper are about at that's left.
When I test-drove the Accent hatch with automatic, I had no trouble hitting mid-40s mpg on the highway @ 65 mph, and got mid-30s overall for my test drive which was city + highway. The Rio5 automatic I tested got a little less than that but still topped 40 mpg on the highway and was in the low 30s overall, but it was a different test course. And when I test-drove a 2012 base Fit with stick shift, I was able to exceed its EPA ratings but not get close to what I or CR got with the Accent and Rio.
"YMMV".
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31079&id=30623&id=31191&id=- - - 31691
are the reports of actual drivers for these vehicles with their average mpg.
All auto transmissions:
2011 Fit Auto 32mpg
2012 Accent 33mpg
2011 Yaris 31mpg
2012 Kia Rio 33mpg
You'll see they're all about the same. I have a 2007 Fit auto sport and average about 32mpg as well. Right now, a lot of manufacturers are really tuning cars to get maximum mpg on the highway test, rather than in real-world average conditions. And you can't really compare based on a few mile test drive at a dealer either because you need a lot more miles to get an accurate mpg reading than what the trip computer will instantly provide.
So, by the data in fueleconomy.gov, it appears in real-world driving the 138 hp Accent and Rio get better FE than the 106 hp Yaris and 117 hp Fit. I don't see that as being a bad thing, as you seem to.
And of course you can compare FE in a 5 mile test drive at your local dealer, but it won't be statistically as reliable as having a larger sample size, like those posted on fuelseconomy.gov.
That's why for me since all of the 4 cars listed in my previous post get about the same real-world MPG, factors other than MPG would be used to compare them.
What is more important to me than looking at results from other drivers is what fuel economy the car gets when I drive it. With my driving style. On roads I frequent. In weather that is what it is where I live. In traffic that is what it is where I live. With the kind of gas I can buy where I live. etc.
I have yet to be disappointed in the FE of a car I bought or leased after I measured its FE during my test drive(s)... which usually include a few days of renting the car. I try to rent a car and drive it for awhile in real-world conditions before plunking my money down on it. I get the impression from reading posts on FE that some folks have never done this, let alone even taken the car on a long test drive. They are surprised by the FE they get, and also surprised by other aspects of the car that a long test drive or better yet a rental would have brought out.
No... I guess not. :sick: