Honda Fit vs. Scion xA vs. Toyota Matrix
bennettsongs
Member Posts: 5
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!!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
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:
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...
i vote fit.
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
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.
so, sounds re-training myself would be necessary if i make the purchase... ?
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...
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.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Wow, scion hasn't been around all that long. You go though cars like budduh!
He does rip through the rigs pretty quickly!
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
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.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
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.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.)
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