Honda Fit vs. Scion xA vs. Toyota Matrix



  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    No I don't think most engines are run at the factory....a few luxury makes do that. It would be quite time consuming to do so and really unnecessary unless it's a Ferrari or something that plans to go 200 mph and where HP is more or less guaranteed.
  • aathertonaatherton Member Posts: 617
    I just read your "fast break-in" piece, and I must say it rang a bell. It is the exact way I used to break in my three restored mid-1960 BMW motorcycles. Failure to break them in right could have resulted in re-ringing and re-honing, but the method I was told to use worked in every case. And it was the same as your street method.

    When it came time to break in my new manual transmission xB last month, I did the same thing as for my old BMW bikes. Constant acceleration and deceleration, on country roads with no one behind me to annoy. Used hard throttle all the time, but never exceeded 3000 rpm in any gear, and did not hold 3000 rpm in 5th for longer than a minute at a time before backing off. As wasteful as I thought this practice would be, the xB always got 33 mpg. After break-in I was able to get 40 mpg on one tank with lots of concentration, while regular driving around Louisville produces 35 mpg on every tank.
  • pensy77pensy77 Member Posts: 1
    Either car and driver or motor trend tested an xa manual against a rio and I believe an aveo. The xa did 0-60 in 8.8 seconds, and the quarter in 16.3 or 7 at 83mph. As far as the competition the editors concluded the other two cars were not even in the same class as an xa. So the xa and fit would be a very close match in a race.
  • barsonbarson Member Posts: 34
    I'm about to inherit some money, the final sign that it's time to give up my Subaru wagon with 300,000 miles on it. I test drove the xA last year and liked it, haven't driven a Fit yet. Anyone who has driven both, I'd like to hear your opinion.

    My situation: 12 minute commute to work, no kids, high fuel efficiency is a big plus. Does the Fit really have that much more usable cargo room than the xA? Which is more comfy on long trips? I did drive a Civic last year with electric power steering, and loved it, but it's not a requirement.
  • barsonbarson Member Posts: 34
    p.s. -- I'll be getting a manual transmission.
  • petro33petro33 Member Posts: 192
    FAST BREAK IN The method you described seems 100% opposit of what Honda recommends. How does it work and is it any better?
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    That site shows and explains why it's the correct way.

    Auto manufacturers are lazy and since they can't make sure people follow a simmilar break-in method, they hedge their bets and also insure that the car will require more repairs in the future. That makes the lawyers and the dealers happy. Win-win for them, and you gain nothing in return.

    They should instead, run the engines on every car and break them in like this before they reach the showroom. This would also mean every engine gets an oil change at 50 miles, then is switched to the semi-synthetic.

    What we should see:
    "Every vehicle is delivered with the engine already broken-in. The first 40-50 miles you see on the odometer is a result of this process. This ensures that the engine delivers proper power and fuel economy over the lifetime of the vehicle."

    What we get if you read between the lines:
    "There is no break-in on this engine - we've put synthetic lubricants in the engine to ensure that it never happens correctly."

    I know which I would rather see.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I did the fast break-in, strictly by the rules of the article, and I can only relate the anecdotal evidence. My xA is very peppy, and with proper attention to shifting speeds and rpm, I find the car has no disadvantage in left lane power or passing on California freeways. I can easily mix it up with the big boys up to 85mph and easily pull away from my friend's xB, which has the same engine. On a wild guess, I'd say fast break-in was worth 10-15HP, but that's just speculation.

    I decided to do the fast break because the article was geared to motorcycles, which are, after all, small high revving engines.
  • carfanatic007carfanatic007 Member Posts: 267
    Sorry Plekto. I'll go with what the Manufacturer says vice what someone in an internet forum says.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    You're flat-out wrong on this one. Don't believe the mantra that they spew.

    It's like the DMV tests and what driving instructors tell you. Answer these two DMV test questions:
    1:What are the proper positions for your hands on the steering wheel?
    2:What is the proper position for your side view mirror(s)?

    Now, what immediately came to mind as their wrote reply. And why is it wrong? The answer is decades of regurgitating the same mantra that they learned wrong and that our current generation takes as fact by now.

    The same happens with engine break-in.
    Read the following from that site:
    Break-in periods can vary depending on the type of engine and the intended application. The more "stock" the engine is, the longer the break-in period. For example, a new-stock engine for a Mazda project vehicle was broken in for 16 hours, per their requirements. We usually break-in a stock engine about 4 hours, race engines between 3-4 hours.

    Mazda's OWN recommendations to professionals who break-in engines for a living is 16 hours! They do in in 4. The same engines that are in the cars that they recommend taking months to do the same thing with. Something smells fishy right off.

    These guys base their lives and careeers on racing and winning - and helping others accomplish it as well. I believe them more than I believe a manufacturer's legal department.

    Do a search - you'll find numerous examples of professionals and racers using stock engines or ones that are based upon stock engine blocks all using a proper break-in procedure in direct opposition to what we are told.
    This is the site we are talking about.

    Note - three things have to be followed religiously.
    1:Allow for proper cool-down between runs.
    2:Use non-syntetic oil in the 10-30 or 10-40 range. If this means changing out the original oil, it has to be done. You need the oil to be sticky and more viscious and not be the least bit synthetic.
    3:Change the oil immediately after the dyno runs/break in. This means at 30-50 miles. Replace it with the manufacturer's recommended oil of course. The oil you break-in with is meant to have a 50-100 mile lifespan but do what it should - seat the rings properly and flush out metal grit and debris.

    The older addage for break-in was:
    Get the engine warmed up. Run it from 50% throttle to near maximum and then let it wind itself down. Repeat ten times. Do this again. Change the oil.

    This I read online from an old magazing from the 30s. It's amazingly close to what the guy at the site above recommends.
    Here's one from a very well respected flying club. It's a bit wordy, but it's pretty simmilar - run it gentle, get ot warmed up, then progressively rev it up until it's going full-blast. - nts/operation/engineBreakIn.html
    They state it pretty clearly:
    A good break-in requires that the piston rings expand sufficiently to seat with the cylinder walls during the engine break-in period. This seating of the ring with the cylinder wall will only occur when pressures inside the cylinder are great enough to cause expansion of the piston rings. Pressures in the cylinder only become great enough for a good break-in when power settings above 65% are used.

    Unless you stress the metal enough to get hot and expand, it's doing nothing at all. Yet it's still wearing awaty at the outer walls the same. And after a few hours, there's nothing for the rings to really grind and seat against - the machining and finishing marks are mostly gone. Of course, heat oil viscosity is a prime consideration. After the dyno runs, the oil will be mostly shot, full of junk, and be slightly acidic as well. Thankfully, oil changes are cheap. :)

    P.S. Later in that page, they state:
    For those who still think that running the engine hard during break-in falls into the category of cruel and unusual punishment, there is one more argument for high power settings during engine break-in. The use of low power settings does not expand the piston rings enough, and a film of oil is left on the cylinder walls. The high temperatures in the combustion chamber will oxidize this oil film so that it creates a condition commonly known as glazing of the cylinder walls. When this happens, the ring break-in process stops, and excessive oil consumption frequently occurs. The bad news is that extensive glazing can only be corrected by removing the cylinders and rehoning the walls. This is expensive, and it is an expense that can be avoided by proper break in procedures.

    And this is why modern engines burn oil. Straight from an engine manufacturer. You "break-in" the engine slowly and you glaze the walls heavily. This gives you the effect of seating the rings, but the rings aren't seated - the walls of the cylinder have buildup on them in the shape of the rings.

    Definately a loose-loose situation. You burn oil as it ages and you get massive blow-by, with all of the ills and shortened lifespan and gasket failures and so on.
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Member Posts: 678
    "I'll go with what the Manufacturer says vice what someone in an internet forum says."

    My family had a car purchased in 1987. It was broken-in normally, per the instructions in the owners manual and none of this "fast break-in". We sold the car at approximately 260,000 miles. In its entire life, it did not burn a single drop of oil. It had some things replaced like the radiator, starter, brake system, partial transmission re-build. Although the seals leaked some oil (poor replacement when the transmission was done), the engine ran as smooth at 260,000 as it did when it had 26,000 miles. Had it not been for the problematic transmission, my family would still be driving it.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    From the site that recommends a faster break-in:
    The biggest factor is that engine manufacturers now use a much finer honing pattern in the cylinders than they once did. This in turn changes the break-in requirements, because as you're about to learn, the window of opportunity for achieving an exceptional ring seal is much smaller with
    newer engines than it was with the older "rough honed" engines.

    GMs 3.8L engines, for instance, were very loose spec and pretty rough out of the box - tolerant of abuse. Comparing it to a modern engine like you'd find in a Honda Civic - totally different world twenty years later.
  • barsonbarson Member Posts: 34
    So,uh, why did people choose the xA over the Fit, or vice versa, or the Fit over the Matrix, etc.? I assume there are already plenty of discussions about oil changes on this board.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Well the Matrix is really kinda sorta an xA will a bit more space in back and a bit more power, for a bit more $$---so I could see someone wanting to choose a Matrix over an xA because of these clear advantages.

    I've sat in and inspected a Fit but didn't drive it, and so far I'd say there really isn't much difference between a Fit and an xA except "brand loyalty". I find the Fit odd-looking...not that the xA isn't, but the xA somehow is less chaotic in the styling. The Fit looks "chopped" to me in the back end.
  • howardmdhowardmd Member Posts: 6
    I am also in the North Texas area (dallas). Did you ever buy a matrix? I found one with side airbags but no ABS or stability control. I am also concerned about the no ABS. What have you learned or decided? Any help would be apprciated?
  • barsonbarson Member Posts: 34
    Do the rear seats in the Matrix fold down flat? I saw a Nissan Versa drive past today, and got excited about that, but some quick research seems to indicate that the Fit is the only one (of the Fit, xA, and Versa) with flat fold-down rear seats. I think it's dumb to make a hatchback with rear seats that don't do this.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Yep, xA seats fold down flat.
  • crimsonacrimsona Member Posts: 153
    Matrix folds flat too.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    I've had a variety of small cars over the past 5 years, including a Scion xA, and wouldn't go that small again, unless I were principally in an urban environment like San Francisco or Manhattan where the ability to park in really tiny parking spaces overlooked by larger vehicles would be a big plus. The only other reason for buying an xA or a Fit would be to have sports car handling without the disadvantages of being so low to the ground and having no luggage space (the xA has "next to no" luggage space however, unless you use the back seat for your stuff like I did.

    Finally there is the safety issue. Light cars don't fare as well as heavier cars in crashes with other vehicles, which in America are almost always larger and heavier (they do fine in the more common single car crashes). Of the two cars, the Fit is safer unless you can find an xA with side curtain air bags - side curtain air bags are seeming more and more critical to saving lives in side impact crashes. It's the curtain style you need (head protecting) not the torso style which came out first.

    All of which leads me to ask - why not get another Subaru? You've had a good experience with your last one, and they are one of the safest cars out there (standard side curtain airbags FOR THE CURRENT YEAR) - read the test results. Gas mileage is a little lower, since they are a little heavier and have awd, but I don't think that is as big a factor as people make it out to be, in total costs of ownership. It's just that "mpg" is a hot topic right now.
  • barsonbarson Member Posts: 34
    Good points on the Subaru, and I do like them a lot. The one I have now feels as sturdy as an up-armored HUMVEE, despite no airbags, and I know mechanics love Subarus because they're easy to work on. Here's why I'm not leaning toward Subaru: I live in a mild climate, and AWD is not a necessity. On the few winter days there's snow or ice on the road, I'll just stay home for a day as it melts. MPG is lower, as you mentioned. But also Subaru has positioned itself pricewise as more upscale. I feel I can get a car that meets my needs for $5K less than a Subaru. Also, any car I buy is going to have side curtain airbags, and it seems some of the smaller cars have them as standard.

    I should have been more specific on folding down the rear seats -- on the xA I test drove, the rear seats folded to a horizontal position, but not flush with the rest of the cargo area. The seat backs were about 5 inches higher when folded down. It seems that on the Fit there's a continuous flat surface when the rear seats are folded down.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I think what was happening is that the rear seat headrests were hanging up on the front seatbacks. I take the headrests off and now the rear seats fold flat.
  • barsonbarson Member Posts: 34
    Hmmm, now that I think about it, the salesman did seem pretty incompetent. I guess I need to go back to a dealer and try taking off the headrests.

    Before someone mentions hybrids, yes I like high MPG, but to me the premium charged for hybrids doesn't make them cost effective.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I just checked the rear seat fold-down again. With the headrests off, it's pretty darn flat but perhaps it is an inch or so higher than the rear cargo deck. Hardly noticeable, as good as flat in other words in terms of cargo loading.

    I may have mentioned (forgive the repetition if I did) that I got an entire mountain bike, a folding table and 4 grocery bags into the back of the xA, and was able to close the hatch and doors. I did, however, have to wrap towels around certain parts of the bike--it was a tight fit in there.

    My friend's Matrix feels a lot like the xA. On the plus side, it has more room in back, that extra two feet or whatever they tack on behind the rear seats...but on the minus side (for me), the Matrix isn't nearly as much fun to drive. It's kinda boring to me.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    I echo Shiftright's comments on the Matrix being boring compared to the xA; in fact I selected my former xA precisely because in a lot of ways its a modern MINI (as opposed to BMW's well-done retro re-creation).

    There is one factor in favor of the xA (assuming you get the one with side curtain airbags). In this month's Motor Trend magazine, a comparison test between the Versa, Yaris, and Fit puts the Fit dead last in acceleration - 11.5 seconds 0-60, which is sad considering it has a 5 speed automatic. The Yaris, with essentially the same engine as the xA, was quicker (I don't recall the actual acceleration test results).

    The Fit was the best handling of the group though.

    The xA is also a lot cheaper than the Fit.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    You can improve the xA's handling very easily for about $300, and make the handling mighty close to a MINI with hi-performance tires and lowering springs (about another $1,000, installed). So you'd have a $15,300 xA at that rate that should match just about anything in its price range in handling.
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    With or without the aftermarket extras, the xA comes very close to Fit handling, but at a substantial savings. The only change I made on mine was to add Bridgestone 950 tires instead of the stock 15".

    In fact, I think the xA is cheaper than a similarly equipped Yaris (if you can even find a Yaris with all the stock goodies on the xA)!
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Did you change the rim size?
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    No, 15 inch with an H rated tire (950's) instead of stock seemed to work fine without making the ride harsh.
  • greenearth2greenearth2 Member Posts: 5
    Purchased Toyota Matrix instead of Honda Fit.

    Did not like Fit Interior.
    Fit was too small for a primary car.
    Mercy of dealers.
    Price was MSRP.

    My purchase was Matrix XR AT + All the options was below invoice for $18,100= airbags+6 CD changer+sunroof+premium tyres+etc+ 3 free services+1 year emission check.

    Interior feel was defnitely a big plus. I was able to bring a Queen size head board, footboard and frame+ side stand from ikea with wife sitting in back with seats folded down. Thats what I want.

    I am getting 34 miles per gallon after 1000 miles break-in.

    Thanks for all for your inputs.

  • anotherscottanotherscott Member Posts: 93
    I like the Matrix too. I didn't seriously consider it because, for me, it was a different price range. (I was looking at the base Fit, which even at MSRP $14,400 is less than any Matrix.) But I'm curious, did you actually test drive both? The alternative I was most considering was another Toyota, the Scion xB, but it was the test drive more than anything else that swayed me to the Fit.

    I'm also curious as to whether you could have fit all that ikea stuff into the Fit as well, but I guess we'll never know for sure! I bet you could, though... I did measurements when I was looking, and the cargo bed of the Matrix is only about 2" deeper (though there is more overhang from the end of the cargo bed to the seatbacks of the front seats, and that can be useful); the Fit actually has about 5" more height in the cargo area; and the Fit is mostly wider (the Matrix is just slightly wider between the wheel wells--less than an inch--but mostly doesn't get much wider, whereas the Fit starts giving you much more width past the wheel wells).
  • greenearth2greenearth2 Member Posts: 5
    I test drove FIT, CRV, Scion XB, RAV4, Matrix, Rabbit,Civic.

    Best interior -Rabbit. Mileage is low for a small car.
    Best Interior and mileage---Civic. No flexibilty in Cargo.

    CRV, RAV4 --Not bad It falls more on size and less on mileage. CRV is less than Invloce and RAV4 is MSRP of $25K which is beyond my range.

    Fit- May be more inches in Cargo compared to Matrix but that did not factor me. I am not heavy cargo person. When I need it I got to have the option thats it. But the Feel and look inside drove us away from Fit. It is CHEAP man! Sit in Matrix and Fit and u decide. The mileage is 5 miles less than Fit. But my commute to work is not that much to factor 5 miles plus it is my primary car.

    The reason for me to go for 35 miles per gallon on high way is purely MORAL.

    Where can u get fully loaded (sunroof, 6 cd changer, airbags, alloy wheels, power locks, cargo flexibility, 35 miles per gallon, reliability) for 18K?

  • barsonbarson Member Posts: 34
    Comparison of a 5-speed Versa with an automatic xA:

    - the Versa had better acceleration than the xA; the larger engine (1.8L vs. 1.5L) and 5-speed more than compensated for the Versa's extra 340 pounds.

    - despite the center mounted gauges, I thought the xA's dash was more stylish and functional than the Versa's. All the xA's knobs and buttons were easy to identify and reach,and the wheel mounted stereo controls were very useful.

    - both vehicles felt roomy on the inside, but I seemed to sit higher and have better visibility in the xA.

    - rear seats do fold down flush with the rear cargo floor on the xA (with the driver's seat pushed all the way back and with the headrests on the back seats -- I had the salesperson demonstrate it); on the Versa the rear seats are not flush with the cargo area when folded down, making stowing large boxes, etc., a little awkward.

    Yeah, I know the title of this discussion says Honda Fit not Nissan Versa, and I'm going to post this in a Versa discussion, but I still have not been able to locate Honda dealer with a Fit that I can test drive. I did see one pass me on the road -- to me it looked like an Aveo.
  • crimsonacrimsona Member Posts: 153
    The Versa SL trim has steering wheel mounted controls, it's part of the Canadian technology package (includes AUX jack, subwoofer, bluetooth, wheel controls)

    In the US I believe it's the Conven. package.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Why not just get the Vibe if the Matrix is so expensive? GM practically gives them away by comparison at the end of the model-year. Other than the front Grille and a bit of bodywork, they are identical, much like how the Geo Prism was.

    Better yet, get one 1-2 year old for the price of a stripped-down base Aveo or Rio.

    As for the discussion, this should have been titled "Fit and Other Alternatives"
  • carfanatic007carfanatic007 Member Posts: 267
    I totally disagree with you on the Fit's interior. It is not cheap at all. I think it is very nice, almost Acura like. I found the "silver overdose" on the matrix to look cheap. My brother just had his 2006 Toyota Yaris S delivered last Monday. Compared to the Fit, I prefer the Fit. Don't like the center speedometer, seat color, less back seat room, cup holders etc. GO FIT!
  • treemindtreemind Member Posts: 1
    I have now recently tested both the FIT and the XA, and i must say that while the FIT had extra pep, & some amazing design features that are really impressive, COST is the big difference in my book. Let me put it this way... the fit MSRP is listed with the sport model around $16,500, however the SEATTLE dealership i saw the fit at had it marked at $18,000 and a five month waiting list because of the line up of people ready to pay that price. That is crazy. I really liked the little XA vibe, and it is easily a better value at $14,120 for the base automatic model i want. Thats the direction i will be heading. Also the backseat crash tests are better in the SCION XA... with my 11 year old daughter back there, that helped seal the deal.
  • stevengordonstevengordon Member Posts: 130
    Hold on a minute...backseat crash tests? Where can I find those test results?

    Are you talking about side crash ratings for the rear passengers or a test that determines the results of a rear-end collision?
  • micwebmicweb Member Posts: 1,617
    A brand new Scion xA pulled up next to me on the way to work this morning, and I realized why I bought one of the first ones that came out (long gone, due to my "frequent trade-in" disease). To me it looks much better than the Fit - the lines and way things are put together are better looking. On the Fits I have seen on the road, the ground effects and spoiler look add-on and roughly integrated with the body.

    The xA is definitely worth the money.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    gotta agree with you---I'm impressed with the Fit but the rear deck is very awkward-looking and spoils the car entirely.
  • crazedcommutercrazedcommuter Member Posts: 281
    I totally agree with your thoughts on the XA versus the Fit. I test drove the Fit and Versa last week, and the Matrix tonight. The styling of the Fit does look like the 06 Aveo, but with much less backseat room. The rear looks like Honda cut off the tail of the Aveo 5 door and welded onto a mundane front end. The backseat of the Fit is tiny and might be ok for a couple of small kids but definitely not for adults and teens over 5'6". My wife is 5'6" and felt cramped back there. I'm 6'2" and had my knees under my chin back there. We own an 05 XB and are pleased with the enormous amount of room in the vehicle. The Matrix did not have the space of the XB but it's well equipped with auto and sunroof for less than the Fit. My wife liked the Matrix because of the styling. She likes the lines and interior. The XA is also on our short list but seems to lack the amount of space that we've grown accustomed to in our XB. We will buy one of these by the end of the month.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    What did you think of the Versa by the way, compared say to a Matrix? I liked the idea of the more powerful engine--1.8 liter I think, than offered in the xA or the Fit.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    The Fit's back seat sits bigger than it looks, because it is so high. I found no problem sitting "behind myself" in the back seat (I am 5'10"). The seatback reclines a bit also, and in the process raises the bottom up a little, providing even more room. So I have to disagree that the Fit's back seat is not for people over 5'6", unless maybe the driver's seat is all the way back. The xB is much roomier of course, but I didn't see a bit difference in rear seat room between the Fit and xA. One big problem for me with the xA is the lack of storage space with the rear seat up. The Fit and Matrix are much better there. The Fit also has a much roomier storage space with the rear seat folded than does the xA.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    The backseat of the Fit is tiny and might be ok for a couple of small kids but definitely not for adults and teens over 5'6".

    That has to be the worst assessement ever. Seriously. The Fit has the biggest rear seat area with the seat moved back that I've ever seen in a car outside of a Buick.

    It's huge. Only the new RAV-4 is better, and it's not a tiny little econobox. I mean- SMALL CAR - it's not a damn minivan. The Yaris, for instance, is so tiny my head hit the ceiling in the rear, and I'm 5'7". It was horrendously small. Okay, not as bad as the rear seat in a 911, but really close.

    Push the seat back - the rear, especially the one behind the passenger seat - it has way more room. Unless you are a Sasquatch, you'll be able fit easily.
  • hungarian83hungarian83 Member Posts: 678
    I completely agree. The back seat area is incredibly spacious and comfortable for a B-segment. I have fit 3 adults (none of them small) in the back seat and all remarked on how much larger it was than expected. To say that it is only suitable for a children is a joke.

    ...and not only is it comfortably large enough for 2 adults, you can also haul a good bit of luggage behind the seats.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    The way to deal with the xA's lack of storage behind the rear seats is to use the split seat system, which is 60/40. I fold down the left rear seat only (behind the driver) and this gives a nice small platform that you can load from the tailgate or from the left rear door--and you can still have one person in the back of course, with decent leg room. You can actually stuff an enormous amount of stuff into an xA, relative to its size.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    Sure, assuming you are OK with carrying no more than three people in the car--two, if the other person is a child. I frequently have to carry more than that.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    Well a four person family with young children shouldn't even BE in an xA---not the car for them. They should be in at least a Matrix size vehicle or a conventional wagon.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    I have three kids, although one is going to college next year. What's wrong with having a small, economical car that is used by one person much of the time but by more than one person also? I don't like buying a car that is any larger than I need. The Fit is plenty roomy for my needs, for example. I have a MPV when we need room for the entire family.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Sonoma, CaliforniaMember Posts: 64,482
    I was talking about a one-car family with small children. That doesn't seem to be you, so my opinion wouldn't apply.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesMember Posts: 18,946
    How many one-car families with small children make do with cars the size of the Fit and xA in Europe and Asia? Quite a few I'll bet.

    When I was growing up, my dad owned one car until I was in my teens. I am the youngest of three kids. Some of these cars didn't have as much usable room in them as a Fit. We managed just fine. My kids are spoiled by being able to ride in captains chairs in a minivan, watching movies on long trips. Progress I guess.
This discussion has been closed.