Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options

Which New Budget Car Better? Fit/Yaris/Versa?

135

Comments

  • Options
    earthearth Member Posts: 76
    Agree with all three posters. Once the newness wears off, they hit their heads on the wall thinking they just made a dumb mistake in purchasing a so called econo car for only a thousand of so less than a better car with about the same gas mileage, and missing out on some added luxury.

    In reality they got taken for a new model. Once, Honda or Toyota come out with a real econo car that gives at least 40 mpg in city only driving at about the same as todays Fit or Yaris, if not less, than I'll give it some thought.
  • Options
    nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    the real Civics, the ones that people actually buy (read: NOT the DX), start at $17K. And you can bet that the new Sentra will be within $500 of that figure in the fall too. Ditto the Corolla next spring.

    Once these cars have a real-world $3000 advantage, some of you may change your minds about their relative value. But in the meantime, bear in mind that some people will pay similar money for a car that is not EVERYWHERE, ALL OVER the roads, as the current Corollas and Sentras are. As long as the newer models still have whatever they need in a car.

    I drove a Corolla S yesterday, fully loaded, with a sticker of $18,1. The dealer would let it go for $15,9 right off the bat because it was a demo with almost 1500 miles. Me, I would take that car over the $16K version of the Yaris sedan, which would be fully loaded with power package etc to get to that MSRP.

    But I would rather have a Yaris hatch than either. However, Toyota is as usual cheaping out on the hatches, so finding one with ABS, alloys, and cruise is completely impossible.

    But a year from now, when next-gen Corollas are selling within 5% of sticker, and the car I drove yesterday sells for $18K and not a penny less, I would take the Yaris sedan with PP for $2500 less. There is precious little between the current Corolla and the Yaris sedan to justify buying one over the other, IMO.

    Now the new Corolla will be all that AND a bag of chips, I am sure - it has the new Civic to vault past after all. So I am sure it will be worth the price. But the two models will no longer be selling at similar prices after that.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Options
    bottgersbottgers Member Posts: 2,030
    ....the Fit and Yaris are selling at the prices people are used to paying for Civics and Corollas, while the new Civics and Corollas will sell for what people are used to paying for Accords and Camrys? Brilliant strategy! As if no one is going to notice? What they SHOULD'VE done is kept the pricing of the Civic and Corolla close to where there are now, and priced the Fit and Yaris at $10K-$11K. That's the price range for a subcompact, not $15k-$16K. BTW, there's no comparison between the Yaris and the current Corolla. The Corolla is simply A LOT more car for the money.
  • Options
    nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    well, I think we should agree to disagree. Different strokes for different folks.

    The Yaris and the Corolla both have fairly cheap interiors compared to the class leaders (Civic, Mazda3, maybe Jetta if you include that one). The Corolla has overboosted steering (a fault the Yaris lacks) and a numb driving experience. But it has less road noise. It's not notably bigger inside at any passenger position. It has about the same fuel economy, and higher emissions. Both cars have seat height adjustment if you spend extra, but not in base form. The Corolla has that weird, slightly-left-pointing, too-far-away steering wheel that causes most people NOT to be able to find a comfortable driving position.

    And of course, as I mentioned before, Corolla is EVERYWHERE, whereas Yaris is fairly distinctive.

    But my main point would be this: carmakers can't just keep on making the same cars year after year, and they can't just keep the prices the same when they go to the trouble of developing a completely updated model which is much better than the old. So Corolla/Civic/Sentra prices have to go up. IMO, the Yaris is a pretty nice car at $13-15K, which will be the bulk of the real-world prices after the initial rush, and which will soon be a bargain compared with compact cars. That applies to the Koreans too. As for the domestics, well the Focus and Cobalt may wind up having ten-year runs in their current form, in which case they will become the new bargain cars for folks looking for a cheap car. BUT, you get what you pay for.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Options
    robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    What they SHOULD'VE done is kept the pricing of the Civic and Corolla close to where there are now, and priced the Fit and Yaris at $10K-$11K

    It would be possible, but only if completely stripped of features... no power mirror/windows/locks, smallest engine (better fuel economy), remove side/curtain airbags, no ABS, no power steering, no airconditioning, no audio (or a basic radio).

    With those features (or lack of), Civic CX/DX hatchback carried an MSRP of $11K-12K, that was 6-7 years ago!

    And those models were taken off the market after MY2000. I wonder why?
  • Options
    johnnyvjjohnnyvj Member Posts: 112
    "[the mass buying]....of these new cars is mainly because they're new and different. Once the newness wears off and reality sets in, I think most people who are interested in these vehicles now will end up going back to the Corolla, Civic, and Sentra."

    I doubt it. Even though it'd sure be beneficial to me if your prediction were to come true, since I'd be able to find a Fit for cheap this fall. :)

    Don't get me wrong, I've driven the current gen Corolla (a weeklong rental in Vegas), and sat in/played around in a new Civic at a few autoshows and car lots. Both are nice cars. But neither can give me what I really want, which is an abundance of interior room (especially head room) and the ability to haul a lotta stuff. But the Fit does.

    Don't know what it is about the Civic and Corolla, but when I'm in one I constantly have the feeling that there's BARELY enough interior room. Doesn't help that in either car, when I sit in the back seat my head touches the ceiling... and I'm only a torso-y 5'10". Front seats aren't much better. What is so Herculeanly hard about providing a skosh more headroom? :confuse:

    And of course, neither car has anything remotely like the interior versatility of the Fit. So, assuming your priorities are headroom and the ability to haul stuff (plus sportier handling, another Fit strength), why would people "go back to the Civic and Corolla"? Those cars don't really meet their needs.

    Conversely, the Fit works on a different level than the Civic and Corolla and Sentra, as a kind of mini-SUV with great handling and gas mileage. Coming from a Honda CR-V, I would know.

    I don't think there's as much overlap between the microwagon and the small sedan crowd as is commonly believed, so unfortunately for me and my chances of getting a cut rate deal on a Fit, I expect the econohatch crowd to remain pretty loyal. Drat, drat, and double drat. :mad:
  • Options
    sc00bssc00bs Member Posts: 87
    You said: But neither can give me what I really want, which is an abundance of interior room (especially head room) and the ability to haul a lotta stuff. But the Fit does.

    I say: Why do people think that these cars have this abundance of interior room?? I surely do not find that these cars have any room at all.

    Abundance of interior room would be buying a full size sedan, not buying some car that probably would fit into the trunk of a full size sedan.

    I do have to agree that they have a niche, that being people who want great gas mileage. My family could not even fit comfortably in this car.

    The safety of driving one of these cars is also debatable. The smaller the car the more likely you are to die in a crash. I personally would rather give up a few miles per gallon and drive a larger sized sedan than be caught dead (literally) in some little yaris, fit or whatever.

    The other posters are correct in pointing out that these cars are over priced. I went and looked at a Yaris and its price for what you get is way out of line. Just my two cents.
  • Options
    nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    I am sure this is just that my POV is different from yours, but $13,000 for a brand new, fully-warranted Toyota with CD and air that seats five seems like way overpriced? You may be out of touch with the prices of new cars.

    Actually, the Honda makes the better case: $14,000 for a brand new, fully warranted Honda with CD, air, and power package, that seats five and has curtain airbags and ABS? The average purchase price of cars has reached $27-28K now. The Fit costs HALF that much, equipped as I described. Its price is $4K less than the very lowest-priced midsize sedans. It has more interior room (in some dimensions) than the Civic, apparently (was just reading a quick blurb on it tonight in some magazine). It certainly will carry more cargo than most compact and even midsize sedans.

    Calling it overpriced just seems not to take into account the state of the market today.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Options
    sekulicsekulic Member Posts: 1
    SCOOBS SAID: "The safety of driving one of these cars is also debatable. The smaller the car the more likely you are to die in a crash. I personally would rather give up a few miles per gallon and drive a larger sized sedan than be caught dead (literally) in some little yaris, fit or whatever."

    The Fit just got rated 5 out of 5 stars for front-impact crashes by the NHTSA. That's better than most cars, large or small.

    Yahoo article on Honda Fit safety
    Link to Honda Fit on the NHTSA site
  • Options
    iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,704
    about "I'd hate to be in a Fit/Yaris/Rio, etc. if I ran head-on into a semitruck" is tired and out of date with reality. I would rather be in a small rig, even a small SUV like my Sportage, where I feel I have this nice little attribute called maneuverability.

    I can get out of the way of more trouble than if I were in a bigger rig. My rig will be small and nimble and mobile. That's comfortable to me. Big is bulky, obnoxious, rude and fake. Kind of like Hollywood. Big is out-AAMOF-big was never in to me.

    Small=good.

    Big=bad.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • Options
    johnnyvjjohnnyvj Member Posts: 112
    I say: Why do people think that these cars have this abundance of interior room?? I surely do not find that these cars have any room at all.

    Abundance of interior room would be buying a full size sedan, not buying some car that probably would fit into the trunk of a full size sedan.

    Oh, I know what interior room is... when I was a teen, I drove one of those 20-foot long Pontiac station wagons. With faux wood exterior trim, no less. What's the line from that song?... "I'm drivin' a car as big as a whale, and it's about to set sail..." :D

    While the Fit obviously doesn't have THAT level of room, an apples to apples comparison does reveal a car that has a lot of interior room for a subcompact. I'm especially sensitive on the issue of headroom, and sitting in a Fit, I felt fine. It was close to my CR-V in that department, actually, as was its cargo hauling ability.

    So yeah, I'm pretty happy with how roomy this car is. If I had a family of eight, I'd feel differently, but then I'd be on the 'mammoth enviroment-destroying SUV' boards instead of this one, wouldn't I? :shades:
  • Options
    pernaperna Member Posts: 521
    about "I'd hate to be in a Fit/Yaris/Rio, etc. if I ran head-on into a semitruck" is tired and out of date with reality. I would rather be in a small rig, even a small SUV like my Sportage, where I feel I have this nice little attribute called maneuverability.

    I don't know how many accidents you've been in, but I've been in (and witnessed) a couple.

    Manueverability only goes so far. Both accidents I was in, the other vehicle literally came out of nowhere (once going around a blind curve, and another time the other car decided to keep going into my lane instead of stopping in the next lane over). Even if I was driving a motorcycle and had superhuman reflexes, I would have gotten hit both times.

    Talk to any cop/EMS about what happens when a small car gets hit by a larger one. The survivability rate is... not good. My sister's best friend works as an ER nurse, and she has stories I wish I could forget. She drives a Nissan Pathfinder. I don't personally think that's the safest choice of vehicle, but I remember my sister talking about buying a Civic, and her friends' reaction. She talked her out of it with a couple graphic examples why it's bad to be t-boned in a small car, and that was enough.

    In 15 years of driving, I've seen a couple accidents that had the coroner's wagon on-site. One involved a Cavalier vs. larger vehicle (minivan, I think), and the other had some little Mitsubishi vs. a pickup.

    You can't overcome physics, regardless of airbags or seatbelts.
  • Options
    joepublicjoepublic Member Posts: 1
    Sure, you can't overcome physics, but the outcome that the physics dictates changes when you have airbags and seat belts. The best example I have in mind is the IIHS side impact test which simulates the test car in the exact circumstance you mentioned: being T-boned by a pickup truck or SUV at 31 mph.

    With head curtain airbags, results are generally good (even with some small cars like the Civic). Without them, results are almost always bad (even with large cars like the Malibu). These are controlled tests with real results. Proof positive that safety equipment trumps mass.
  • Options
    iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Member Posts: 7,704
    always followed, one must put their seat belt on. I don't buy the idea that one can survive a nasty wreck by leaving their belt off. A woman at the hospital stated that "she'll leave her belt off and be safer". The guy we treated had not worn his seat belt and was thrown out of the vehicle. He survived with initial CPR and through one operation then coded again and died during the second CPR session. I won't get into specifics because they are quite gross. I will wear my seat belt at all times.

    Physics may make her idea work on a strange angle at just the right speed and trajectory and even an airbag going off and doing it's job just perfect. But most of the time a person is safer buckling up their belt. I do it instinctively now, although sometimes I click it together as I'm backing out of my spot, or just upon acceleration down the road. I don't know why this phenomenon is occurring because it doesn't really save me any time to do it that way. My wife looks at me with this perturbed look and says "why don't you buckle that before you go?"

    She's got a decent argument there. ;)

    At least I wear it, though. I wouldn't cruise around without it on and would never drive the freeway system without wearing my seatbelt.

    I am going to get side airbags and side curtain airbags in my next rig. The new Rio LX sedan and Rio5 from Kia has them as standard equipment, and the Yaris base sedan I was looking at a month ago had side airbags as a $650 option and I wouldn't have minded paying that money extra for them at all. In cars that size they add safety to the equation.

    2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick

  • Options
    hungarian83hungarian83 Member Posts: 678
    "These are controlled tests with real results. Proof positive that safety equipment trumps mass."

    These days it is not the size, but it is the structural integrity of the car (combined with the safety features) that matters in a collision. Look at the Jazz or the Yaris for the 40% frontal offset in the EuroNCAP. The body cage stays strong and solid...no deformation. It crumples in designated spots, but the area of the passenger compartment is protected.
    image

    Then look at the supposedly "big must equal safe" crash tests of the Chevrolet Astro by the IIHS using the exact same 40% frontal offset. The entire body cage crumples along with the engine compartment.
    image

    I can tell you right now which car I would rather be in during a crash.

    I have never understood the bigger is better philosophy, but that is just my personal opinion.
  • Options
    paranodeparanode Member Posts: 2
    Lots of groups have done studies on crash survival and anyone who still believes that trucks and SUVs are safer just has their head in the sand. By and large you are more likely to die in a truck, then an SUV, then a car. The Fit has a great safety rating and lots of airbags.

    The Fit does have lots of interior room for a car of its class and the fact that you can reconfigure the back seats means you can fit things in it that Civics and even Accords could probably not carry. I am getting out of my Civic for just that reason!
  • Options
    hungarian83hungarian83 Member Posts: 678
    The Fit is considerably smaller than both of my previous cars (Accord and Corolla) in terms of exterior size, but it leads the way by a huge margin in terms of interior size and versatility. I have driven my Fit with 5 adults many times already, and although it is sometimes a bit tight in the back, it is never really uncomfortable for the passengers.

    I think I made an excellent choice and I plan to keep this car for many years to come. Long live the B-segment! :shades:
  • Options
    logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Then look at the supposedly "big must equal safe" crash tests of the Chevrolet Astro by the IIHS using the exact same 40% frontal offset.

    I do not espouse the big equals safe line, but have to wonder about your choice of comparison.

    First of all, the Astro is not all that big. Second, the Astro is around an 18 year old design that GM kept making for service and contract people who needed a heavy duty rwd vehicle in urban markets or other places where a full size van is not convenient.

    A more fair comparison would be a modern mini-van such as the Sierra or Caravan. I imagine they would do reasonably well in a crash. I do not know whether they would do better the same or worse than the car in the top picture.
  • Options
    fitman548fitman548 Member Posts: 172
    I wanted to start a new thread, but I'm not sure how.

    Here are two recent comparisons. The Fit comes out on top in both.

    Fit vs. Caliber, Versa, Kia, and Hyundai, from Car and Driver.
    http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/10925/comparison-test-review-2007-dodge-- caliber-se-vs-2007-honda-fit-sport-vs-2006-hyundai-accent-gls-vs-2006-kia-rio5-s- x-vs-2007-nissan-versa-18sl-vs-2006-suzuki-reno-vs-2007-toyota-yaris-s.html

    Also, the new Popular Mechanics compares Fit and Versa, Kia, and Yaris.
    http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/automotive/2483546.html

    Fit is also their "Car of the Week"
  • Options
    pernaperna Member Posts: 521
    Then look at the supposedly "big must equal safe" crash tests of the Chevrolet Astro by the IIHS using the exact same 40% frontal offset. The entire body cage crumples along with the engine compartment.

    1. The Astro is ancient.
    2. It's not the frontal impact that necessarily gets you with a smaller car, it's the side impacts.

    My wife's Ford Explorer has a huge bar of steel going across all its doors to protect the passenger in a side impact collision. There is no possible way to do something as protective as that in a subcompact.

    The only thing a side impact airbag protects you from is a concussion from the door. It's not going to stop a 2-ton SUV from just biting through a subcompact up to the center console.
  • Options
    corvettecorvette Member Posts: 10,267
    The only thing a side impact airbag protects you from is a concussion from the door.

    Not true. It helps keep your head from exiting the vehicle and contacting whatever is outside it.
  • Options
    inaudibleinaudible Member Posts: 9
    no matter what i say, i'll probably get flamed for this, but people need to understand that the auto makers will tell you anything to get you to buy their cars, the reality is just absent in the resoning for SUVs.

    "2. It's not the frontal impact that necessarily gets you with a smaller car, it's the side impacts. "

    Ummmm.... yea, about that side impact thing, SUVS sit much higher off the ground, you might wanna see what the nhtsa has to say about the side-impact saftey of your ford explorer, my friend.

    and i quote: " Safety Concern:During the side impact test, the driver door became unlatched. Following the test, the door was open six inches at the latch. " --plenty of room for any number of limbs to be torn off through (i dont even wanna think about the poor sould who don't wear seatbelts...)

    all the steel bars in the world ain't gonna help you if you ain't in the car... (from my research, this seems to be a common problem with the ford and GM suvs)

    "First of all, the Astro is not all that big. Second, the Astro is around an 18 year old design that GM kept making for service and contract people who needed a heavy duty rwd vehicle in urban markets or other places where a full size van is not convenient."

    i hate to break it to you, but they STILL use the same type of frame in most their SUVs, trucks and pickups - body-on-frame anyone?

    the astro IS the same size as most of chevy's big trucks.

    read a little on the history of detroit SUVs and you'll see that in order to maximize profit, one must share as many components as possible between lines. in response to the HUGE response SUVs got in the late 90's ford and GM simply took their truck platforms and threw hatches and leather on them.

    the body on frame construction method and the ladder-type frame is an out-dated method of construction dating back to the 1930's!!!

    that photo of the smashed astro could have been a:
    chevy silverado
    chevy suburban
    chevy tahoe
    GMC envoy
    GMC yukon
    chevy c/k
    chevy venture
    chevy lumina

    ...need any more? they all share basic frame components.

    not only are there problems with the frame integrity, there are no places in the frame for the kinetic force, created by an accident, to go - except the cabin. you find a much higher instance of spinal/neck injuries in SUVs for this reason. all that extra force created by hitting the wall needs to go somewhere.

    since SUVs over 4000lbs are classified as "commercial vehicles" they don't need to follow the same strict saftey rules cars do (thats why you can have tints on an SUV and not on a car in most major metro markets)

    to their credit, gm and ford are shifting to the unibody-type construction more and more... but that doesn't account for the MILLIONS of vehicles already on the road with this archaic architecture.

    most 90 - 02 american SUVs got 3 or fewer stars for OVERALL saftey... granted, thats changing now that the government have put the pressure on them.

    oddly enough, SUVs that share passenger car frames and unibody construction have typically scored 4 or more stars -
    not coincedentally these are the japanese SUVs - CRV, RAV4, etc (not the ones that shared platforms with american suvs)... you know, the ones that "aren't big enough to be much safer"

    which brings me to my next point - being in an SUV isn't going to make you safer insomuch as it makes you more deadly. in being classified as commercial vehicles, SUVs don't need to have their bumpers as low to the ground as is mandated by the law... what you find is SUVs riding up on other people's hoods - not only does it put the person in the car at risk, it's also probably going to roll you over... once again, since trucks don't need to adhere to the same saftey policies as cars, you will likely be crushed when the heavy ladder frame smashes the reprehensibly under-supported roof within about 12 inches from the middle of the seat. (even the newest SUVs only receive around 3 stars on average-- ironically, the "safer" nissan pathfinder was quite low on the scale)

    so here's what im trying to say:

    SUVS ARE NO SAFER THAN PASSENGER CARS. PERIOD.

    so what you're getting in an SUV is this:
    more cargo (arguably)
    less saftey
    old architecture
    lower gas mileage
    a less agile vehicle
    likelyhood to roll over
    higher chance to kill another person and get sued to high heck....
    and finally, rampant presumptions regarding the need to compensate for a certain inadequate extremity (sorry guys, the ladies DO think this :cry: )

    ...so i was mostly kidding about the last one, seriously though, you say you know someone who works in the ER, ask them what happens when a person gets hit by one of these monstrocities.

    (i have several family members who have all worked as ER nurses and doctors, so i have heard the stories too.)
  • Options
    inaudibleinaudible Member Posts: 9
    the order i would choose is as follows:

    the fit - more room, stupendous stereo system, most versatility, higher gas mileage, peppier, the only 5spd auto in the group, 21cu. ft. cargo w/ seats up, and safe. (this one's 109hp engine beat out the versa's 125hp one in car and driver testing by a considerable margin)...
    cons: no sunroof, no arm rest, hard to gauge distance from curbs when parallel parking...

    nissan versa - the best looking of the bunch, imho, the most creature comforts, SUNROOF!!, 6 speed manual...
    cons: lower mpg, apathetic engine, built in mexico (volkswagens are and they're terribly unreliable.)

    toyota yaris - cheapest, least "me too" styling of the bunch, most mpg, build quality...
    cons: 9 cu. ft. cargo?! what the?? center mounted gauges... i LOATHE them. worst handling (squishy is how i would describe it), slowest engine of the three, very feminine styling (obviously wouldn't be as much a con if i were female.), liftback is totally stripped.

    those are the only three i checked out, so i don't have much of an opinion on the others except what i've read. i obviously bought the fit after checking out the other 2 pretty thoroughly.

    really, they're all good, this is the way the three broke down for me - nissan = more toys, honda = more sensible, toyota = more radical design
  • Options
    logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    the astro IS the same size as most of chevy's big trucks.

    This is plain WRONG. The Astro was never longer than 189.8 inches nor wider than 77.5. The Silverado is 205 inches long and 78.5 inches wide. The Avalanche is 221.3 inches long and 79 inches wide. The Suburban is 229.4 inches long and about 79 inches wide. (perhaps you are confusing the Astro with the Chevrolet Express, which is a full size, 224 inch van)

    Again, the proper comparison would be the Fit and a modern Minivan, such as the Caravan, not the ancient and discontinued Astro.

    read a little on the history of detroit SUVs and you'll see that in order to maximize profit, one must share as many components as possible between lines. in response to the HUGE response SUVs got in the late 90's ford and GM simply took their truck platforms and threw hatches and leather on them

    The Astro was a body on frame mini-van and shared some platform components with the compact Chevrolet SE-10 pick up and its GM counterpart. Their engineering including safety designs would have varied significantly from the full sized pick ups and suvs.

    Its design has signficant differences from the SUVs and trucks GM is making now. The Fit is a new vehicle. Arguably Honda did not use 18 year old safety technology standards with its design. The proper safety comparison should be with new trucks. Not a truck that was designed 18 years ago.

    I submit that phots of the new trucks going through crash tests most likely are available. Make the proper comparison.
  • Options
    bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    I submit that phots of the new trucks going through crash tests most likely are available. Make the proper comparison.

    Here you go:

    2007 Tahoe
    image

    2007 Fit
    image
  • Options
    logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    Thanks.

    The photos show as I suspected. The more modern trunk makes use of crumple zones at front, allowing the engine compartment to bare the brunt of the impact, while the passenger compartment remains relatively intact. The Astro, on the other hand, shows significant mid-body crushing.

    I imagine a head on against a solid object will hurt the truck more than the Fit, simply because the truck has more inertia behind it.

    Still, crush zones make all cars safer than ever, large and small.
  • Options
    nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    make you feel pretty safe to be in either vehicle in a crash, eh?

    Go for the side curtain airbags people! They make SUCH a difference in a side crash.

    This is the big disadvantage of the Yaris, I think. They just aren't making any with the optional side bags, and I think what with the up-trim 'S' costing $1500 more than the base sedan, they should have made them standard in that trim at the VERY least. Instead, they put in the CD player, 15" wheels, and 60/40 rear seat. In contenting, Toyota is losing the race with Nissan and Honda in the B segment. Isn't it the only one of the three not to have any radio at all in the base model?

    Despite that, I still love the looks of the hatch. Problem is, even if i could equip one with all the safety equipment and other stuff I want, it would end up being about $17K, which would make me think about just getting a Mini Cooper instead!

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Options
    harrycheztharrychezt Member Posts: 405
    Mirth:
    I hope Ford does build a version of that Reflex from the autoshow. I'd seriously consider one.

    Who knows, though, what they will do.
    :confuse:
  • Options
    inaudibleinaudible Member Posts: 9
    "This is plain WRONG. The Astro was never longer than 189.8 inches nor wider than 77.5. The Silverado is 205 inches long and 78.5 inches wide. The Avalanche is 221.3 inches long and 79 inches wide. The Suburban is 229.4 inches long and about 79 inches wide. (perhaps you are confusing the Astro with the Chevrolet Express, which is a full size, 224 inch van)"

    a quick look at wikipedia goes to show you're comparing apples to apples:

    "The Lincoln Town Car dominates the American limousine market because it is the last American luxury car made with body-on-frame, which makes it easy to "stretch."

    body-on-frame frames are incredibly easy to stretch, adding 20" to a frame is not hard, or expensive-- which is why they use them.

    GM and ford are finally starting to use unibody more and more, but that doesn't change all the other points.

    "Again, the proper comparison would be the Fit and a modern Minivan, such as the Caravan, not the ancient and discontinued Astro."

    granted they've converted to the unibody design for this van, they still use a ladder on frame construction-- the same as all the ford and gm trucks and minivans.

    did you know that something as simple as driving with two wheels on a different textured surface can cause an suv to flip? anyone who has driven through construction where it impedes upon the shoulder lane knows that this happens alot... ABS only aggravates the problems during evasive maneuvers.

    i will admit that safety has gone way up in the last 5 years, but the core remains the same.

    even with all the new regulations set to take effect in the 2007 model year, things like roof integrity have gotten only token mention.

    sorry if i totally sidetracked the whole discussion, but it's worth it if someone can learn about these facts.

    as long as ladder frames and body on frame construction is still used, these vehicles will remain unsafe.
  • Options
    bumpybumpy Member Posts: 4,425
    The Tahoe isn't the death trap the Astro was, but I don't like the way the door skin wrinkled and there was enough force transfer to knock the rear bumper off. By contrast, the Fit crinkled some in the rear quarter panel but otherwise contained the entire force of the collision ahead of the firewall.
  • Options
    logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    sorry if i totally sidetracked the whole discussion, but it's worth it if someone can learn about these facts.

    as long as ladder frames and body on frame construction is still used, these vehicles will remain unsafe.

    Yes, it is important that you learn about car design.

    Yes, trucks are mainly built on ladder on frame construction. Yes, trucks tend to tip more easily if driven the same way people drive cars.

    But the pictures we are discussing don't have anything to do with tipping, do they? No, on the contrary, they are showing off center head on collisions.

    And the difference between vehicles designed in the early 1980s - the Chevrolet Astro - and vehicles designed from the Mid 1990s on - almost every other major selling truck and SUV, save the Ranger - is that introduction of crumple zones.

    The reason the Fit and the Tahoe occupant section remain intact in the photos above is because the steel casing surrounding the engine is designed to absorb the impact of the collission by crushing. This design technique is used in both ladder on frame construction and unibody construction.

    as long as ladder frames and body on frame construction is still used, these vehicles will remain unsafe.

    Ladder on frame construction will remain because it is the best solution for vehicles designed to carry and tow heavy loads. Ladder on frame is not - nor have I ever thought or ever argued (your humble desire to educate me notwithstanding :sick: ) the optimal platform for commuter or sports vehicles. Stability systems, slightly wider and longer wheel bases and stronger occupant cages make them far less prone to roll than earlier. But people who think trucks should be able to corner the way a car does are asking for trouble. I have never said otherwise.

    sorry if i totally sidetracked the whole discussion

    The sidetrack which you should apologize for is you turning a discussion on off center frontal collissions into one on rollovers.

    Your, apples to apples: claim to the contrary, you changed the debate topic mid flow.
  • Options
    logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    I agree.

    As I said in my first post on this debate, I do not agree with the argument bigger is always safer. And, as I said in my first response to your post with the Tahoe picture, it appears the inertia inherent with the heavier Tahoe caused more damage to the rest of the car, the crumple zones notwithstanding.

    Of course, this has nothing specific to do with ladder on frame construction (except, of course, LOF is almost always going to be used in heavier vehicles) but rather the greater mass of the Tahoe coming to a sudden stop.
  • Options
    fintailfintail Member Posts: 57,169
    So GM has crumple zones now...congrats
  • Options
    logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    I think all cars and light trucks designed for NA from the mid 1990s on have crumple zones, not just GM.

    It is true the European luxury makes were ahead of both the US and Japanese makes on this.
  • Options
    pernaperna Member Posts: 521
    and i quote: " Safety Concern:During the side impact test, the driver door became unlatched. Following the test, the door was open six inches at the latch. " --plenty of room for any number of limbs to be torn off through (i dont even wanna think about the poor sould who don't wear seatbelts...)

    Yes, I've seen that. Now, show me a picture of what happens when a Yaris is t-boned by an Explorer at 50 mph.

    all the steel bars in the world ain't gonna help you if you ain't in the car... (from my research, this seems to be a common problem with the ford and GM suvs)

    If you don't wear your seatbelt, I'd imagine this would be a common occurance with any type of motor vehicle. When you are sitting at ground level in your little aluminum can with an SUV bearing down on you, you'd better hope your "research" was correct.

    which brings me to my next point - being in an SUV isn't going to make you safer insomuch as it makes you more deadly.

    Well, this much we can agree on. I personally hate my wife's Explorer for several different reasons. However, if I had to choose that vehicle or my Maxima to get t-boned in, I'd still choose the Explorer. Both have side airbags.

    SUVS ARE NO SAFER THAN PASSENGER CARS. PERIOD.

    You can't possibly make that blanket statement hold up, same as I never said that all SUVS are safer than all passenger cars.

    I'm no shill for the car companies, but did you see that video shot a couple weeks back with that horrific Explorer accident? In case you didn't, this woman rolled her explorer end-over-end several times, and it came to rest on its roof. Her only injury was a broken finger. That accident, which made national news, actually happened where I live.

    At any rate, it's enough to know that every accident has many variables, none of which can be duplicated in a lab somewhere. In case you never figured out why that Explorer's door popped open in the test (and it didn't in that woman's high speed end-over-ender, which was MUCH more violent than the pansy NHTSA test), is because the bar just happened to hit the lock mechanism perfectly. If you look at the door of an Explorer, you'll see what I mean. In the real world, such an accident would never happen, unless you got t-boned by a truck with a brush guard. And, of course, one of the edges of the brush guard would have to hit the side of the vehicle in that same location.
  • Options
    Karen_SKaren_S Member Posts: 5,092
    A national finance magazine is looking to interview consumers who are looking to purchase a or have already purchased the new subcompact cars because of the high cost of fuel. Please send an e-mail to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Saturday, June 10, 2006 by 5:00 PM PT/8:00 PM ET containing your daytime contact information and the vehicle you are considering.

    ---------------

    A national finance magazine is looking to interview consumers who have traded-in their larger SUV for a smaller vehicle, because of the high cost of gas. Please send an e-mail to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Saturday, June 10, 2006 by 5:00 PM PT/8:00 PM ET containing your daytime contact information and car you traded-in and the current car you own.

    Thanks,
    Chintan Talati
    Corporate Communications
    Edmunds.com
  • Options
    nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    we have managed to turn this thread on the pros and cons of specific models into the old "I hate SUVs, why don't you" thread. :sick:

    Assuming you have decided to go with a small car, which of the current crop do you prefer? I test drove a Yaris sedan again the other day and found the gas and brake pedals to be so close together that I almost couldn't fit my shoe into the allotted space. This was NOT something I had noticed before.

    I can't wait to drive the new Rabbit when it comes, and also the new Versa. Everyone in the press seems to like the Fit best in this segment, but I dunno - I think it has some very worthy contenders for that title.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Options
    logic1logic1 Member Posts: 2,433
    I test drove a GTI a few weeks ago and really like it. Not sure about the $$ though.

    I mentioned elsewhere that I joined a car sharing service a while back. This weekend I drove a new Civic Hybrid for a few hours. The car had around 900 miles on it. Not sure I really liked it, given the permium. I think if you are intent on a Honda, the Fit makes more sense than the Civic Hybrid.

    I am hopeful GM is going to pull a surprise on us and announce it will bring the soon to launch Corsa over as a Saturn. From what I have seen in the press, this may be as nice a sub compact as there is.
  • Options
    nwngnwng Member Posts: 663
    perhaps you can do heel n toe in the yaris all day long :shades:
  • Options
    nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    Well, if only I could get my foot on the gas fast without stomping the brake at the same time! I snagged my foot on the underside of the brake pedal once or twice too, which made me wonder why I hadn't noticed it before. Perhaps the hatch has more space around the pedals or something.

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • Options
    brianmitabrianmita Member Posts: 9
    you should check out the versa when it comes out. they say the interior is about as big as a maxima. It is the largest vehicle in the class, and a bit more power. You're not compromising as much here.

    I think the rear legroom is 38 inches. that's pretty big.
  • Options
    mwqamwqa Member Posts: 106
    Maybe this is a silly question, but can't you move the pedals, or replace them with 'aftermarket' ones?

    I've read of people complaining about the pedal placement in the Honda Fit, too.
  • Options
    smc_13smc_13 Member Posts: 2
    "Lots of groups have done studies on crash survival and anyone who still believes that trucks and SUVs are safer just has their head in the sand. By and large you are more likely to die in a truck, then an SUV, then a car. The Fit has a great safety rating and lots of airbags."

    The above is simply not true. These tests are not real world tests. They do not show what happens when a small car and a big car collide. These tests show a basic physics lesson, F=MA. A small car has less mass so when it hits a wall it has less force then a large car. Less force means it does less damage to itself. It also means that it does less damage to other cars it hits. On the other hand, your full size trucks and your vans out mass these small vehicles by a large margin. Assuming the wall is strong enough not to break, a full size truck exerts a temendous amount for force on itself when it runs into a wall. let me put it this way, when a yaris does one of these crash tests, it is essentially the same as a yaris running into a parked yaris (at whatever angle). When an astro does one of these crash tests it is essentially the same as an astro running into another astro. Since the astro isn't designed that well and it exerts a lot of force, if an Astro hits an Astro, the Astro's driver is in bad shape. Since the Yaris is better designed, when a Yaris hits a Yaris, the driver is fine.

    But, here is the key. When a big car, hits a small car, the big car exerts much more force then the small car does so the small car is in much worse shape then if it hits itself. When a small car hits a big car it is hitting the big car with much less force then the big car hitting itself so the damage to the big car isn't nearly as bad as when the big car does a crash test.

    I drive a pickup truck and I have been rear ended by small cars twice, while I was stopped. Both times my truck suffered no damage and both times the small car had extensive front end damage.
  • Options
    reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    yup

    Some one posted a chart link that showed the proportion of deaths by vehicle class and weight. heavier was better. Unfortunately I can't remember where it was posted or find the link anymore.

    The crux is.. are we willing to sacrifice some safety for economy...and the answers vary.
  • Options
    johnnyvjjohnnyvj Member Posts: 112
    All of that is true. But one thing you are forgetting is how much more prone trucks and SUVs are to rollover type crashes. That IS real-world, as in physics. You have a higher center of gravity, you're more likely to roll the vehicle.

    And roll over crashes are approximately three times more likely to be fatal than your average crash, probably because heavy vehicle (truck/SUV) + relatively weak roof = crushed occupants. :surprise:

    The point that was made about trucks and SUVs not being as safe as ppl think is true, just not in a 'big car vs small car crash' type scenario. But you can certainly kill yourself quite easily in a truck/SUV solo crash scenario, and lots of ppl do every year, sad to say.
  • Options
    smc_13smc_13 Member Posts: 2
    I really started reading this discussion because I am interested in looking at a fit or versa. However, I felt compelled to respond to the crash test issue and now I feel compelled to respond to the rollover issue. Here is a good link on rollovers:

    http://www.consumersunion.org/rollover/faq.html

    The thing you should notice is this line:

    "78% of the people who died in single-vehicle rollover crashes were not using a seatbelt, and 64% were partially or completely ejected from the vehicle."

    The issue with rollovers is like anything else in a car. Cars are not toys, they are deadly. Most deaths don't occur because of speed, rollovers, or poor crash test safety. Deaths occur because of what a friend of mine calls DWI. Driving While Idiotic.

    As far as these subcompacts go, I really want to test drive a Fit.
  • Options
    johnnyvjjohnnyvj Member Posts: 112
    Excellent article, but let's also keep in mind that a disproportionate number of passenger car deaths likely involve folks who don't wear their seatbelts either. And its not like wearing your seatbelt is a guarantee of safety in a rollover crash. Nor is that 78% figure broken down into SUV/light truck and passenger car categories.

    But still, an excellent article. The things that really struck me:

    CU believes the severity of rollover accidents, the rapid rise in popularity of SUVs, and the fact that SUVs generally have a significantly higher propensity to roll over than do sedans, underscore the need for an accurate rollover ratings

    In 2001, 10,138 people died in rollover crashes, a figure that represented 32% of occupant fatalities for the year. Of those, 8,407 were killed in single vehicle rollover crashes.

    Rollover stands out as a category of highway fatality because the number of rollovers has increased, while the total number of highway fatalities has remained stable over the past decade. According to NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis, from 1991 to 2001 the number of passenger vehicle occupants killed in all motor vehicle crashes increased 4%, while fatalities in rollover crashes increased 10%. In the same decade, passenger car occupant fatalities declined 15% while rollover fatalities in light trucks increased 43%.

    Though rollovers are relatively rare events, they are particularly deadly when they do occur. Overall, rollover affects about three percent of passenger vehicles involved in crashes, but represents nearly 1/3 of all occupant fatalities each year. For example, in 2001, 10,138 people died in rollover crashes, which represents 32 percent of passenger vehicle occupant deaths for the year.

    Sixty-one percent of all occupant fatalities in sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and 45% of pickup truck deaths were the result of a rollover crash. By contrast, 22% of passenger car fatalities in 2002 were the result of a rollover crash. The estimated risk of rollover differs depending on the type of vehicle. 10% of cars and 10% of vans in single vehicle crashes rolled over, compared to 18% of pickup trucks and 27% of SUVs.

    5. Are SUVs more involved in rollover than other vehicles?
    Yes. NHTSA announced in July 2003 that "fatalities in rollover crashes accounted for 82% of the total fatality increase in 2002. . . The number of persons killed in sport utility vehicles (SUVs) that rolled over rose 14%. 61% of all SUV fatalities involved rollover."

    Heavy stuff. :surprise:
  • Options
    mattschechtermattschechter Member Posts: 58
    The new Nissan Versa has been called the Fit's closest competitor for the '07 model year. With the Versa's release in July, simple economics says that increased competition for the Fit will decrease demand and keep the current Fit dealer markups in check or even make them vanish altogether.

    However, do you think it possible that after consumers compare the Fit (Magic Seats, better MPG, made at old plant in Japan) and the Versa (No Magic, no standard ABS, made at new plant in Mexico) the consumer demand for the Fit will increase to a level greater than today?

    Add to this the increased advertising Honda will buy to compete with Versa, and we could see Fit prices rising even higher than today. What are your thoughts?
  • Options
    johnnyvjjohnnyvj Member Posts: 112
    I don't think the Versa's release is going to matter much either way... the key thing affecting the Fit's price is whether Honda holds to its plan of shipping only 40-50k Fits to the US (or is North America?) this year.

    If Honda holds to those numbers, and gas prices remain high (as they are likely to), demand is all but certain to outstrip supply, and buyers will have to pay MSRP (at the minimum) to acquire a Fit. Just the way it goes.

    Dramatically lower gas prices and/or Honda opening up the Fit supply spigot would change all that, but I do not count on either thing happening, at least not this year. :(
  • Options
    reddroverrreddroverr Member Posts: 509
    Popular mechanics reviews the B classers.

    They liked the Fit best. Thought it looked a little more upscale inside and handled nice. Felt like the next class up.

    They had something against the yaris driving position and center gauges. Seems a little subjective to me. They tested the sedan instead of the hatch and thought it looked bland. Too small, they said.

    Versa..couldn't make 30 mpg. more like a B+ class size car. Most room for passengers.

    Rio.. Fun but, revs too high, funky m/t shifting.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles