Honda Fit vs. Scion xA vs. Toyota Matrix

bennettsongsbennettsongs Member Posts: 5
edited March 2014 in Honda
Time to buy my daughter her first car. Must be a hatchback. She's moving to either north of NYC or to San Francisco. Priorities are of course good combo of price, affordability, safety, ease of maintenance, mileage, looks, reality. We've narrowed down to these three. Yes, I know Matrix is more expensive (and larger) than Fit or xA but we might buy a young used one if this makes sense. Would appreciate your feedback, advice, warnings, encouragement, etc. Thanx in advance!!
«13

Comments

  • dreed9dreed9 Member Posts: 1
    Make sure your daughter will be able to get used to the xA's idiotic speedometer location. I still can't get used to it. Also note that the hatch area of the xA is rather shallow and folding the rear seat to make more space is infinitely less flexible than the Fit's. I haven't driven a Fit, but the xA's rear suspension is rather stiff. All that said, my wife loves our xA - but then she married me, so how refined can her tastes be?
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Alamogordo, NMMember Posts: 7,615
    a poor man's BMW Mini-Cooper, because it handles remarkably well and from what I hear steers into and out of a parking spot remarkably well. Makes sense considering it's small size. I may go test drive one today if the dealer in Idaho Falls has any xA's in stock. Their online Scion department is devoid of any information so I don't know if they have any Scion's in yet. I saw a billboard up in Idaho Falls that reads 'Teton Toyota-Scion', so, who knows? Nice day out, so I'm gonna go (pack up the two Pomeranians to go with me)check it out! :D

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    xA is a great "city car" above all else. Not the best long distance commuter but it'll do the job without too much hassle. Unlike the Mini, with 4 doors you can load from the side if the hatch is blocked by the cargo net, tote bag option and the cargo blind. I've stuffed a mountain bike and a dining room table in there, (not at the same time, and the table was knocked down).
  • scallscall Member Posts: 1
    For the size/price you're looking at, the Fit, forgiving the pun, looks to be a good Fit. If you're looking at the larger Matrix class stuff, also check out the Pontiac Vibe. My sister and her husband bought one of these during the GM "Employee Price" promotion for around $15k. It's build with the same frame, engine, and powertrain as the Matrix, with slightly different body styling.
  • hatchgeekhatchgeek Member Posts: 7
    I'm trying to choose between these three as well, funny. I'm also throwing in the Mazda3, just to make it even harder. XA cuz it's small, Matrix for the bigger cargo, and the Mazda for sportiness. What I've somewhat decided is that while I like the smallness of the XA it's way too small in the back (will my laundry basket even fit?), the Matrix is roomier but bigger than I wanted, ditto for the Mazda so I'm gonna hold out and go for the Fit. I've had 4 Hondas so I guess I'm a fan (although I was really trying for a Toyota this time, I swear!) and I can count on them. Let's hope they look as good in real life as they do on the website and that they are as reliable as all my Civics.

    P.S. If your daughter is moving to SF though and she has to have a car there (you don't really but it is nice)I'd recommend the XA primarily because of the parking hell. :mad:
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    The xA has split rear seats...just knock one down and you have the whole rear passenger compartment.

    Will your laundry basket fit it? No, not without dropping a seat...but a bag of laundry will fit in behind the seats...

    I drove the Mazda3 and I didn't find it any more sporty than an xA or a Matrix...it's not a very reassuring car if you charge into a turn at high speeds, I'll tell you that...
  • bseriesfanbseriesfan Member Posts: 1
    what about the toyota yaris... those are really the closest to the fit... Im looking at the Yaris and Fit... cant wait to test drive them both :D
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,519
    A top-of-the-line Yaris is very close in price to a Fit Sport in Canada. Subjectively, I think the Yaris looks sportier, funkier, and dare I say it...cuter! But the Fit has side and curtain airbags, and 5-sp auto, which tip the scale in its favour, for me anyway. Now, if only its styling is a little less dorky.... :cry:
  • jonniedeejonniedee Member Posts: 111
    Plus according to April Car and Driver Fit will spank the Yaris all over the road!
  • nwngnwng Member Posts: 663
    fwd (stock)cars are never reassuring when you throw it into a corner.
  • sclairesclaire Member Posts: 3
    i personally was very disappointed with the yaris. it is supposed to be the cheap toyota subcompact, but i didn't know it would look that cheap on the interior. almost nothing comes standard, plus it is just a tiny little car.
    i vote fit. :)
  • cdoccdoc Member Posts: 41
    Have you tried the Scion xA? It's small, but certainly not cheap: it comes loaded as a base model. It also drives very well, it looks great, and it has plenty of room for four adults. Of course, it lacks the luggage space of a fit, so it depends what you need it for. But it does have split-folding rear seats. Also, it has the same engine as the Yaris (and Echo). I've had mine for almost two weeks now, and I'm already getting 35 mpg average.
  • texasdriver1texasdriver1 Member Posts: 2
    i was interested in buying a matrix base or XR with FWD until i learned that no dealership within toyota's gulf states region i'm in has one equipped with anti-lock brakes! i just assumed ABS either came standard or was readily available as an option. when i asked the dealer why that was the case, they said toyota's tests had shown that lighter-weight cars such as the matrix and corolla do not need ABS as other heaviers like camry do. would i be crazy to buy one w/o them? i live in north texas where we rarely have wet or slippery conditions; but when we do, they're fairly wet&slippery (i.e. ice). i'm an assertive driver that's used to the ABS on my Accord coupe. my driving is in-town during the week & highway on the weekends.
    i've considered comparable vehicles but find them all to rate lower in usually two or more of the following categories: reliability, customer satisfaction, safety, gas mileage, resale value, unique body styling, etc.
    welcome your thoughts. thanks
  • cdoccdoc Member Posts: 41
    My new xA is the first car I've had with ABS. I have to keep reminding myself that I now have to use the brakes in a completely different manner, keeping the pedal pushed instead of pumping, letting the ABS do the work. If you went to a car without ABS, you'd have to go in the other direction, and I imagine this would take just as much practice. You could learn in a hurry, after a rainstorm or icestorm, by practicing in an empty parking lot. It's the best way to figure out how your car handles.

    We looked at the Matrix, too, and liked it very much. But it was considerable larger than what we ended up getting, and a little outside of our price range. Still, we liked it very much.

    Have you looked into the Pontiac Vibe? It's essentially the same car as the Matrix, and you may be able to find what you want.
  • texasdriver1texasdriver1 Member Posts: 2
    yes, i'm looking to 'sit up' a bit more off the road, but want a fuel economic car. and i'm a honda&toyota driver, so that's a limitation i've set.
    so, sounds re-training myself would be necessary if i make the purchase... ?
  • bodble2bodble2 Member Posts: 4,519
    if 2007 Golf should be added to this comparison, since a number of us are comparing the Golf to the Fit in the main Fit thread?
  • cdoccdoc Member Posts: 41
    Have you testdriven the Scion xA? It's made by Toyota, and although it's a small car, once inside you feel like it's bigger than it really is. And it comes with ABS standard. We didn't set out to buy one, but we saw it and drove it and liked it.
  • bostonjazzbostonjazz Member Posts: 51
    I had been anticipating the Fit's arrival since August, and for our needs and preferences, my wife and I were comparing it to the xA and Matrix. I never thought I'd consider the XB, but I'd argue the XB - particularly if you're going for storage space - is a more appropriate comparison... form-factor aside. What's more, they're very close in price - you can get a loaded XB (like the Xa) for less than a similarly equipped Fit, and customize it to your liking.

    Here are some stats I ran on various interior measurements in cubic ft.:

    1. Passenger Volume -

    Fit - 90
    XB - 90
    Matrix - 96
    Civic - 84

    2. Cargo volume (regular-hatch)

    Fit - 21.3
    XB - 21.2
    Matrix - 21.8

    3. Cargo volume w/ seats folded

    Fit - 41.9
    XB - 43.4
    Matrix - 53.2

    Conclusion: The Fit and the XB are identical in terms of cargo volume and passenger volume (makes sense given that they're almost exactly the same dimensions, though the XB is much taller). The XB has a tiny bit more cargo volume with the seats folded down :)

    ==============

    FIT

    Length 157.4 " (2 inches longer than XB)
    Width 66.2 " (identical width)
    Height 60 " (XB is 6 inches taller!)

    Front Headroom 40.6 (XB has 6 inches more headroom)
    Rear Headroom 38.6 (XB has 8 inches more headroom!)

    Front Legroom 41.9 (XB has 3.4 inches more front legroom)
    Rear Legroom 33.7 (XB has 6 inches more rear legroom!)

    Front Shoulderoom 52.8 (The FIT has 4+ more inches here)
    Rear Shoulderoom 50.6 (identical)

    Front Hiproom 51.2 (+1 inch for the Fit)
    Rear Hiproom 51.0 ( "" )



    XB

    Length 155.3 "
    Width 66.5 "
    Height 64.6 "

    Front Headroom 46.1 "
    Rear Headroom 45.7 "

    Front Legroom 45.3 "
    Rear Legroom 38.0 "

    Front Shoulder Room 48.6 "
    Rear Shoulder Room 50.0 "

    Front Hiproom 50.6 "
    Rear Hiproom 50.6 "

    ===

    To my knowledge, the Fit is not equipped with electronic stability control - a safety feature often found only on more expensive cars. The XB has it - the XA may as well?

    On fuel economy, I was attracted to the 37/38 highway ratings on the Fit but realized when you look at the combined or city only, the Fit doesn't maintain much of an edge (this wouldn't have been the case if Honda didn't add a more powerful engine, etc.) The XB's 30 city is very competitive with the FIt's 31... and I think the XA may be higher.

    The Matrix is a great car, and I was particularly interested in the fact you can get 4WD for winter up here in the Northeast. But, at that trim model, you're looking at about $20,000! What amazes me most is that the Matrix's fuel economy is so poor. I don't recall what it is exactly but want to say it's 27-30 city, 30-32 or maybe as low as 29 highway...
  • cdoccdoc Member Posts: 41
    I purchased my new '06 xA is just over three weeks ago. For the first tank of gas, I had an overal mpg of 35. For my second tank of gas, I had an overall mpg of 37. I couldn't be happier, especially now that the price per gallon is going up again. I'm the one laughing at the pump.

    Looking at the Yaris on the Toyota website, and what does (and doesn't come) standard, and looking at the price of the Fit and the wait time now involoved, I'm thrilled with the choice I made.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    The amazing thing is, I am getting the same mpg on my new 2006 Cobalt! (I had a Scion xA about 4 cars ago, for 12,000 miles, and easily and steadily hit 35 mpg, a little lower.) I presume we both have manual transmissions and spend a lot of time on the freeway, little time on city streets....
  • cdoccdoc Member Posts: 41
    I drive mostly on back country roads where I cruise at 50 or 60 mph. No traffic, no traffic lights, just the occasional depressed and now poor gambler leaving the casino and contemplating suicide, whom I overtake quite nicely with my peppy xA.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Alamogordo, NMMember Posts: 7,615
    LOL...there are seemingly more and more gambling and casino's, aren't there? You and your Scion xA ought to fly right by them, they're lost in thought of how they can score some more greenbacks to throw away!

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    I had a Scion xA about 4 cars ago,

    Wow, scion hasn't been around all that long. You go though cars like budduh!
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Alamogordo, NMMember Posts: 7,615
    a car tester, or conisseur, so to speak. He has lots of advice on the Scion xA if anyone has any questions.

    He does rip through the rigs pretty quickly!

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    I've been called a car 'ho. But I specialize in economy cars. I don't know if that's good or bad. Really, I ask myself sometimes, are cars REALLY that different within a certain classification?
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Alamogordo, NMMember Posts: 7,615
    I'm taking a hankering to the new 2007 Toyota Yaris sedan.
    What'd'ya think of the sedan and/or Yaris hatchback? I can't believe Toyota has actually designed a small car that I like to look at! I am not tiring of looking at the Yaris sedan and I love it's simple, sporty look. I'm gonna have to at least test drive it.

    Do you like the Yaris, or Versa, or Fit, any of 'em for that matter? The 34 city and 40 highway mpg's speak to me regarding the Yaris, too.

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • mrcranstonmrcranston Member Posts: 4
    I've test driven both the xA and Matrix - I liked the Matrix better because it feels a little more high end and the all wheel drive is definately a plus for winter driving. The xA didn't have enough get up but I really liked the way the seat makes you feel like your driving a bigger car, the fuel economy and size. When I read the information about the Fit I thought, this is it - everything I liked about the xA but with more power! The only thing I am concerned about is how it will handle in snowy conditions and will it make it up to the mountains without really having to push it. Any ideas? Thanks
  • hmarhmar Member Posts: 15
    I rented one (a hatchback) while in Europe about 3 1/2 years ago and I rather liked it. It handled well and was no nonsense. I remember thinking that if they ever made it available here in the States that I'd consider buying one. I just purchased a Matrix because I need a little more room and 4 doors these days, but if they haven't fundamentally changed it since '02, it's a pretty neat little car.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Alamogordo, NMMember Posts: 7,615
    it's real-world responses from every day drivers(even if you were just renting the rig)that almost mean more to me than reviewers opinions. It sounds like a pretty decent little car.

    2011 Kia Soul Sport 5-speed

  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    I haven't driven the Yaris, Fit, or Versa; haven't even seen the Fit or Versa, or the Yaris liftback, so it's too early to comment meaningfully.

    I'd Google for reviews, they are starting to come out.

    My personal recommendations, fwiw, would be a Scion xA or Fit over the Yaris, since Toyota did a very poor job of marketing and supporting the Echo, its predecessor, and the odd option packages etc. aren't convincing most of us that they have figured out how to sell the Yaris. That having been said, I like the pictures of the liftback Yaris better than any of the others, but how well they will execute (upscale Scion, or tacky Tercel?) makes all the difference in the world.

    If you can wait until the fall, I think the Yaris 5 door liftback will be sold here as the new Scion xA....so you'll get the benefits of the latest generation thinking, and the superb resale and standardized, upscale features of the Scion line.
  • sclairesclaire Member Posts: 3
    i test drove a 5spd yaris sedan the other day... i have to say i went in with a negative attitude, but after driving it i've (somewhat) changed my mind. it drove beautifully in the city, great over the bumps, shifted smoothly. my only complaint about the drive quality would be that it is a much smaller car than what i am used to driving, therefore the highway driving was a bit shaky. but it still had no trouble getting up to 80 and staying put.
    although the drive was great, i am not buying a yaris because i still maintain the interior looks cheap and DULL. i suppose that was toyota's choice to make an inexpensive economy car, but i would like a little more pizazz.
    that's just my take on it :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I've got a guard rail to show you... I got run off my lane last summer; I stood on the brakes (it's instinct - you need to stop, you stand on the brakes, even though I already knew better). I ended up skidding, losing control, and giving myself some back problems and $2,200 in bodywork to my 1996 non-ABS Accord LX. I'd push for ABS if it was me.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    A recent test of $15,000 cars said basically the same thing you just did. (Car and Driver) reported that highway stability was awful, but the shifter was nice and smooth.
  • anotherscottanotherscott Member Posts: 93
    re:

    Cargo volume w/ seats folded

    Fit - 41.9
    XB - 43.4
    Matrix - 53.2



    I took some rough, quick measurements at the car show that are at least close, and actual usable cargo space does not jibe with those figures.

    If we're talking about the area defined by the surface that is created when the rear seats are folded down, here's how it works out (listed from biggest to smallest in each category):

    Length of cargo area:

    Matrix: near 58", of which near 49" is at full height (height slopes down toward the rear)
    Fit: 56", of which 51" is mostly at full height before the rear slope
    xB: 43", of which there is varying height, because the seats don't fold flat

    You can also make use of "overhang" space if you're carrying things that don't need support at the end; and that space can be quite substantial if you are travelling alone and can move the passenger seat all the way up. You can grab an extra 9" on the Fit, and an extra 20" on the xB. (But note that you need to grab at least 13" there just to match the supported space on the Fit which also gets there without sacrificing space for a front passenger.)

    On the Matrix, you can fold the passenger seat down flat and regain supported area well beyond these figures. On the Fit, you also have the option of folding that seat to get maximum length, but there is a trade-off, as then the main cargo area is no longer totally flat, and neither is the long area this configuration creates. On the xB, that seat doesn't fold. (On the driver's side, you'll always have overhang space on the xB and Matrix, you may not on the Fit if you're a tall driver and need to move the seat all the way back.)

    Height of cargo area:

    Fit: Mostly 40"
    Matrix: mostly 35"
    xB: varies, 36" at the rear, to 32" at the front (because seats don't fold flat)


    Width of cargo area:

    Fit: over 40" at the wheel wells, with a large 50" area in front of the wheel wells

    xB: 38" at the wheel wells, near 49" in front of the wheel wells

    Matrix: near 41" at the wheel wells, but only a small portion ever gets much larger

    Overall, without taking into account overhang or the ability to fold the front passenger seat, these numbers indicate that the Fit easily has the most cargo space... its length is almost identical to Matrix, its height and width noticeably greater; and it beats the xB in all dimensions. (If you can make good use of overhang space and the ability to fold the front passenger seat, I think the Matrix may come out on top, I didn't calculate that.)

    The xB comes out last, and it is also the only one whose surface is not flat, and the only one where you can't fold the front passenger seat down to expand the storage area. However, you can claim some extra space in the deep trough behind the front seats, an amount that will vary depending on the position of the front seats, but it is a more usable space on the xB than on the others.

    If anyone here with an xB or a Matrix wants to fine tune those figures, chime in! But I think they're very close and fairly represent the differences.

    (I posted some more about this in the main Honda Fit forum, message #2946.)
  • chrisducatichrisducati Member Posts: 394
    As an owner of a 2006 Matrix I have to say it is higher priced than any of the others you have talked about. We like the Matrix but I would look at the Fit. We would have bought either an Xb or Xa had we not had such a terrible time with the Scion dealers in our area. We could not get the equipment we wanted even though it was listed as available. Your best bet is just to take your daughter and let her pick from the models you have talked about. Nissan Versa, Honda Fit, Scion Xb /Xa should all come in under 15G. The Yaris hatch will only be a 3door here in the states. Good luck finding one like you want it.
  • lablover2lablover2 Member Posts: 115
    does anyone know if the honda fit has height adjustable front seats? i know the xa does and it is nicer being higher up to see traffic but i didn't like where the speedometer was. i like the matrix but it is more than i want to pay, what bout the dodge caliber?
  • anotherscottanotherscott Member Posts: 93
    Update: I posted some more dimension information in the main Honda Fit forum, message # 3245.
  • anotherscottanotherscott Member Posts: 93
    The FIt does not have adjustable seat height. I'm surprised the xA does, because (at least according to the dealer I asked), the xB does not.
  • bagaheybagahey Member Posts: 1
    I test drove the 5 speed Fit Sport on 4/27/06 in dry conditions on the highway, it was
    a noisy bumpy ride,I can't imagine snowy mountain driving in this car would be any fun.
    I was disappointed in the amount of engine and road noise above 50 mph that the Fit
    made. Test drove 06 XR Matrix after Fit test drive-will purchase Matrix if I can get price
    down a little bit more.
  • ramoramo Member Posts: 66
    The Matrix is pretty solid. We were so sure for 3 yrs. that it would be our next car. Luckily, we live in a mild climate so our needs are minimal, but the deal breaker, certainly on a new Matrix, was the take it, or leave it attitude of the Toyota salespeople. Access pricing, really means that Toyota won't budge on their prices, so you had better be able to get good trade in value. I'd be interested in knowing how you do. I don't know that the Matrix is really comparable to the Fit given a big price difference.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    In my limited experience (limited because I have only bought one Toyota, an Echo, and one Scion, an xA, both from the same dealer), Toyota dealers are a bit of a pill compared to Honda - and Honda is not as nice as Chevy and Dodge. However, they have advertised specials on Camry's periodically that are really low priced.
  • bdog3bdog3 Member Posts: 2
    We're also looking at the Fit and XB(not the XA) - both seem pretty adequate for our needs EXCEPT we have been unable to determine how well the XB or the FIT (both with automatic) would do in the mountains (5500 feet or so up and down little to no snow conditions). Would appreciate any comments as to mountain driving experiences.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    At 5,500 feet, you will lose about 22% of your car's horsepower...so figure it will be like running on 3 cylinders at zero altitude--something like having 88HP instead of 109. You'll get by, but with the automatic you'd be better off shifting the transmission manually, and staying in the lower gears longer between each upwards shift.

    In my xA, I could not quite pull the left lane at 65 mph in 5th gear, (stick shift) up to Lake Tahoe at something like 4,400 feet. In my old Mercedes diesel, with 90 HP, high altitude performance was really pathetic, since that would put me down to about 70HP in a 3,600 lb car.

    Hope this helps---I think you'll be fine but you'll have to adjust your driving habits, especially a) starting from rest and b) moving to the right or middle lane when mountain climbing on longgggg stretches.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    My experience was different from our host's. On the same drive to Tahoe (presumably from the Bay Area) my xA (exact same engine as the xB you are thinking about) with manual was fine - no appreciable drop off in acceleration or passing power. Keep in mind that the xA (or your xB) is not a rocket to begin with, so passing cars while going uphill requires more downshifting and higher rpm. (I drove to the South Shore where there is more one lane driving than the North Shore).

    Driving at high altitude has almost no perceptible impact on modern cars driven within "normal" throttle ranges, unless you are used to driving a lot at WOT (wide open throttle, otherwise known as "pedal to the metal").

    The reason being, that in modern cars with fuel injection the air mass sensor automatically adjusts the fuel delivery to keep the fuel/air ratio optimal regardless of altitude. In the old days, with carbuereted cars, high altitude driving was terrible because the carbueretor had no way to adjust the fuel jets to the higher altitude, so your air/fuel mixture was leaning out and starving the engine regardless of your actual throttle position, speed, etc.

    Of course, there is ultimately less air at higher altitudes, so you may be using an additional part of your accelerator pedal to keep the air flow the same, but the difference is hardly noticeable - it doesn't feel, for example, like you are pressing down another 1/4 of the way to the floor as you climb up the mountain. In terms of horsepower delivery, then, you don't actually experience the effects of the lost "top end" horsepower until you hit WOT - in which case the air density at the higher altitude is the limiting factor on your power, and not the position your your accelerator pedal. And yes, in a passing situation you probably WILL use WOT in any of these cars, and your passing power will be slightly less.

    Shiftright was absolutely right that the maximum available power (103 on the Scion, whether xB or xA) drops off significantly at higher altitude. But this is only part of the picture. That horsepower is really only coming into play at very high rpm - mabye at 6,000 rpm on the Scions. At 2,000, 3,000, 4,000 rpm, if you look at typical dyno curves, you may only be running with 20, 40, 04 60 hp anyway!

    So it's not as bad as Shiftright makes out. At least not on a relative level. In absolute terms, Sion xA and xB owners almost always wish for more horsepower. These simply aren't "pocket rockets" like Ford Focii and Chevy Cobalts; even the Corolla is faster.

    In terms of 0-60 tests, it appears the Fit may have a 1-2 second edge on the xA/xB - probably due to gearing, but possibly due to breathing better at higher rpm.

    Therefore the odds are the Fit would perform slightly better in the situation you describe. On the other hand, it might be better to give priority to the form factor you need (xB = Big Box, Fit = microwagon). Or wait until this fall when a rumored xB replacement, slightly larger, comes out with 2.4 liter Camry engine, if the rumors are true. (I find the engine size rumor hard to believe, it would make more sense to me if Toyota dropped the Corolla 1.8 into the xB - the new xB, from the pictures floating around on the web, doesn't look to be going all Honda Element on us in terms of size - just a larger rear trunk area.)

    Hope that helps.

    (I used to think the xA was slow, until I got a minivan with a 4 cylinder.)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    well I did say I couldn't accelerate in 5th gear, which means of course I had to downshift, so really you and I are on the same page here.

    I guess my point was that if you are at high altitude and you are climbing something, don't expect to pass anybody safely.

    I can't imagine a Fit would be appreciably faster 0-60 than a stickshift xA....I can do about 0-60 in 9.7 sec. The slowest of all combinations on a Scion would be an automatic xB.
  • mankomanko Member Posts: 9
    Fit is quicker than an xA/xB @ ~8.7 secs. I replaced my xB with a Fit Sport and it's a noticeable difference, particularly in the mid-high end of the rpm range. Definitely more peppy and responsive overall than the xB I had.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    You said, in part,

    well I did say I couldn't accelerate in 5th gear, which means of course I had to downshift, so really you and I are on the same page here.

    I see what you mean. You were saying there's no power in the mountains to pass in 5th gear. But I was used to downshifting to 3rd for the passing, with an upshift to 4th as I hit redline.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    Manko, who actually has significant driving time on both cars, said:

    Fit is quicker than an xA/xB ~8.7 secs. I replaced my xB with a Fit Sport and it's a noticeable difference, particularly in the mid-high end of the rpm range. Definitely more peppy and responsive overall than the xB I had.

    I was almost tempted to note in my own post that most testers clock the xA/xB at 10-11 seconds 0-60, while the Fit (per Car and Driver) clocked at 8.5 or 8.7 (don't have the article in front of me), much better. I DIDN'T make that comment because 0-60 tests can often be misleading - dropped clutch, spinning wheels, redline first and hope to hit 60 before you redline 2d.... I had two VW Golfs with their ancient 2.0 engine, and although they didn't "clock" well in 0-60 runs, they actually had good passing power and good freeway scoot (stick shifts, low gearing, pulled well to redline).

    But you have the actual experience, and it sounds like the Fit definitely has better breathing, or something, as you approach redline. My little xA would pull to redline, but didn't seem happy about it. I'm glad the Fit has more "real world" power and doesn't run out of steam.

    BTW I am a real believer in "cheap" and so wish to point out that the suspension and engine in the regular Fit are the same as in the Fit Sport, so drivers on a budget won't lose any of the punch of the Fit in either trim level. (Tires are bigger and wider, though, on the Fit Sport.)
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I did a "fast break-in" on my car and some of you might find it interesting, especially as these little cars we are talking about could use every ounce of HP you can squeeze out of them.

    I should emphasize though, that this method is somewhat controversial. I did it to my new car and was quite pleased with the resulting peppiness of the engine. I can pull away smartly from my friend's xB. YRMV.

    http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm
  • lemmerlemmer Member Posts: 2,699
    Wouldn't this break-in have to take place at the factory. Aren't all engines run for a while at the factory?
This discussion has been closed.