Honda Fit v. Scion xB

Sylvia

With the Fit hitting the market, many shoppers are comparing these two vehicles. How do you think they stack up?

anotherscott

Having mentioned earlier on that I almost bought a Scion xB, I thought I'd share what I thought the key differences are between that and the Fit, for anyone else trying to make the same decision.

Background: I hadn't heard of the Fit, and I was close to buying the xB. I had two stumbling blocks: the cargo space was going to be really tight for me, possibly unworkable; and when I finally test drove it, it just didn't feel "fun" to me. But thinking there was unlikely to be any better choice for me, I intended to bring all the stuff I need to fit into it to the dealer and see if I could fit it all into the xB. (The dealership was very obliging about the idea.) Then I learned about the Fit, and have been hanging out in this forum ever since.

Anyway, comparing the base models of each, which are priced almost the same ($14,570 xB vs. $14,400 Fit)...

xB advantages:
* stability control
* traction control
* better stereo (MP3 CD compatibility, 6 speakers, steering wheel controls)

Fit advantages:
* better cargo space (larger and flatter main cargo area, more flexible)
* better fuel economy (EPA 33/38 vs. 30/33; edmunds real world test 32 vs. 28; Car & Driver 35 vs. 27)
* side and side curtain air bags
* from published reports, seems likely to be more fun to drive, though that's TBD, I haven't driven one yet

Personally, I'd rather have the stability control and the traction control than the side and curtain air bags. Most accidents are not side impact disasters. Most are of other types, which could be better avoided in the first place with stability and traction control. I figure I'd be much more likely to "make use of" those. (Best to have it all, of course.)

Other notes: I prefer a quieter car. In this case, cruising at 70 mph, Edmund's said the Fit was quieter, at 70 dB vs. 74 for the xB; but Car and Driver measured both at 69 dB. So that's not conclusive.

A little thing that I liked is that the Fit monitors mileage and driving conditions, and will prompt you for when you should change oil, rotate tires, etc. Not everyone will care, but it's a good feature for someone like me who tends to forget about that stuff for long periods of time!

Overall, my own weighting of the various factors lead me to the Fit, but I could easily see why someone might choose the xB.

Any key differences I missed?

reddroverr

"A little thing that I liked is that the Fit monitors mileage and driving conditions, and will prompt you for when you should change oil, rotate tires, etc. Not everyone will care, but it's a good feature for someone like me who tends to forget about that stuff for long periods of time! "

Anyone know if they can track oil changes and possibly void your warranty?

Just wondering.

johnnyb11

Re: the comparisons of the Fit to the xB. I just traded in my xB (05) for the black , fit sport mt.

I drove my xB for 20k miles, just under a year. Very roomy, fun to drive, and really you get a lot for your money. But, you get even more with the Fit.

The Fit is quieter - road noise, wind noise and engine noise, oh, and squeaks and rattles (despite earlier writer suggesting otherwise).

The Stereo in the Fit Sport is better (except no steering wheel controls - which in a subcompact seem rather silly to me).

The Fit handles better than the xB.

The xB's actual gas mileage was a huge disappointment - I was lucky to average 27 mpg - totally unacceptable in a subcompact with a 1.5l 4cyl 105 hp motor.

The interior fit and finish, placement of controls, quality of materials, is simply night and day better in the Fit.

The drivetrain is far more refined than the xB (though the xB is no slouch for the price point).

My kids lost some legroom with the Fit, but it's still quite spacious back there for my 6' tall 14 year old - and I now have far more useable room behind the back seat than in the xB - this comes to the heart of the matter regarding space between these two vehicles. The overall measurements in the two vehicles are nearly identical, but the Fit's space is simply more practical. Yes, the box offered lots of perceived space, but the fact is that most of that height was almost never needed - it is length and width that is more important. And, the truly flat folding seats in the Fit give almost the same height as the Fit.

I believe gas mileage will be far better in the Fit according to some real life tests - avg. 32-35 (much better than 27).

The Fit just looks better; while I enjoyed the uniqueness of the xB, in the end, after a year, I still felt a little odd in it (I'm 38 years old).

The xB had too many rattles - that was totally unacceptable, and surprised me about a Toyota.

In the end, I've always been a Honda person, but found the xB package to much of a value to resist. The Fit, though, just did a better job of everything, really. I'll miss stability control and traction control, but I think I'd rather have the side and side curtain airbags. And, in the end, the Fit's price is better too.

Ultimately, I am totally impressed by what you get for your money in the Fit. The xB was quite a deal, but this is even more, which says a lot. I feel lucky to know that I can get most of what the SUV and horsepower folks are getting in space and amenities (and safety) for less than half the price, and way less gas. To any prospective buyers, jump on this vehicle. It's great. (yeah, I too wish it had height adjustable seats, armrest, 6th gear - but nothing is perfect - nothing). Thanks Honda!!

aatherton

I got my xB firstly for the ease of entry provided by the upright A-pillar and high seat. I am 6'-2" and age 63, and have trouble bending and crouching to get in my wife's LeSabre, not to mention even smaller cars.
The xB does have a mileage reminder for oil changes. It is reset after each change, and can be set to appear in increments of 1000 miles.
I have from 33 to 40 mpg with my manual transmission in mixed suburban and hilly country driving. The low figure was using constant acceleration and deceleration during break-in. The high figure was driving very gently using minumum throttle and rpms to see how good the car could do. Most tanks are 35 mpg.
The xB's ride was greatly improved by replacing the too-stiff rear shocks with Monroe SensaTracs. I also added a rear sway bar that flattened the already good cornering.
I would still get the xB over the Fit, but only because I need the ease of entry. For a smaller, more agile person, the Fit sounds like the better choice. Certainly its styling is prettier.

anotherscott

re:

Yes, the box offered lots of perceived space, but the fact is that most of that height was almost never needed - it is length and width that is more important. And, the truly flat folding seats in the Fit give almost the same height as the [Scion xB].

Actually, if the xB seemed to offer you more height, it was an illusion of the shape. I did some measuring, and the Fit actually offers more height in the cargo area than the xB does!

WIth the seats down, the Fit has a storage area height of 40" over most of the area (it drops some for the back 5", and where the hump for the rear center seat belt retracts). The Scion xB height is 36" over most of the back half of the storage area, and then, since the seats don't fold flat, the height gradually drops to about 32" by the time you reach the front edge of the cargo area.

In terms of length, the floor of the cargo area (seats down) is about 55-56" deep in the Fit, and 45" in the Scion, so again, the Fit is notiiceably larger. However, there is an overhang area in front of the cargo area in the Scion, so the difference may not be as bad as it seems, if you can make use of that.

Width at the narrow section (between the wheel wells) is also better in the Fit, at a bit over 40" (the Scion is a bit under 38"); width at the widest section (between the rear doors) is 50" on the Fit, and slightly under that in the xB.

So the Fit beats the xB in the size of the cargo area in all dimensions. The only thing I"m not sure about is how the amount of the cargo space that has a 50" width (or close to it) compares.

anotherscott

re: "The xB does have a mileage reminder for oil changes. It is reset after each change, and can be set to appear in increments of 1000 miles."

The Honda version is a little more sophisticated. From their web site:


The Maintenance Minder system automatically indicates when to have standard service performed based on actual driving conditions (tracked by the ECU) and minimizes the guesswork related to whether the vehicle is being used in standard or severe use conditions for maintenance interval purposes. The display indicates when to change the oil, air cleaner, transmission fluid, spark plugs or coolant, as well as when to rotate the tires

nwng

handling?

And I don't know if you drive a stick or not, could someone who did compare the shifter and clutch between those two?

anotherscott

I drove both with a stick. I can't be specific about the shifter and clutch. Both were easy to drive, no surprises, but I enjoyed driving the Fit much more.

aatherton

"... The display indicates when to change the oil..."

Our Buick LeSabre Limited has that. At 3000 miles it indicated 70% oil life remaining, far longer than I like to go. But I guess the computer reminders would save a car from severe neglect.

aatherton

"... I got my xB firstly for the ease of entry provided by the upright A-pillar and high seat. I am 6'-2" and age 63..."

Besides the upright A-pillar that does not smack my head, here is the height difference that makes the xB so easy for me:
The Fit is 60" high with 40" headroom.
The xB is 64" high with 46" headroom.

bdog3

We're ready to choose between the two (automatic-both) but thus far have been unable to verify how either will perform when faced with regularly going up and down a 5500 foot mountain (summer season). Would appreciate any input from drivers with XB or FIT mountain-driving experience.

jimmy5150

I am currently a Scion xB owner considering a lateral move to the Fit.

I'm a Honda fan, but 19 months ago, the Fit wasn't available, so I opted for the best thing on the market for the money.

I am a big fan of xB for around town driving. Taking kids to school, grabing some groceries....very roomy, nice stereo, easy to enter and exit the vehicle

I am not a big fan of the xB for long trips or mountain driving. I find the vehcile to be very underpowered and the aerodynamics do nothing for it at highway speeds.

The gas mileage is about 27 in town, 32 higway....horrendous for such a lightweight, small vehcile.

While the vehicle is pretty quiet on the highway, the engine noise is a little much for me. It's like the exhaust is tuned a bit to sound "throaty" and is annoying at times.

I also find start up to be a little rough at times and overally I'm not overly impressed with the powerplant in the Toyota.

Around town it's great, but the xB is not a highway vehcile and has a tendancy to "beat you up" on long trips.

manko

With reference to the question about the differences in feel for the xB and Fit's clutch/shifter, definitely the Fit has it over the xB. My xB had a very reliable tranny, but the feel was kinda crappy. Most annoying was that more often than not, when downshifting from 5th to 4th the shifter would get caught in the gate and balk going into 4th smoothly or at all, letting the revs drop too low and causing a missed/sloppy down shift. Also, the throws were long and thus the shifts kinda slow. As for the clutch, very light and smooth, but too weak if you like to use the engine -- mine started to slip noticebly after about 15,000 miles. You could say it's just bad driving, but I've heard the same from other xB owners, so I know it's not me. This is particularly an issue if you have any mods like intake, headers, exhaust that up the power somewhat, and/or drive aggressively with no issues using the engine fully.

The Fit, on the other hand, has an exceptionally smooth shifter, shorter in throw than the xB's, but still a bit long. Clutch is light and smooth also, but the point of engagement is a bit narrow compared to the xB, so it's taking me a little bit to get used to it still. Downshifts are much easier than the xB I'd say, blipping to revmatch is almost second-nature and very natural and smooth. Smooth is the keyword with the Fit over the xB I'd say, tranny/clutch wise.

My only real complaint is that the car is way too quiet for my taste. I know many people are the opposite, but when I'm driving, I'm driving, not trying to duplicate sittng on the sofa in my livingroom with a wheel in front of me. I want direct feedback, both from the engine and road, which I feel the Fit lacks compared to the xB, although the Fit's handling is greater overall. The xB had a very direct, immediate feel to it, whereas the Fit is a bit dead, probably due to softer springs/dampers.

plekto

I had looked at the Fit and noticed a few things with the Xb:

- No telescoping steering wheel
- No seat height adjuster
- No sunroof.

Of course, neither does the Fit.

The fit has side airbags, a useable center console. The Xb has unuseable for larger drinks cupholders and the dash near the driver is incapable of actually securely storing anything in those little 2-3 inch deep indents.

The Xb also has a deal-breaker for me. No rear cupholders, console, A/C vents - nothing. It's completely sparse and vacant, and none of the options fix this. It reminds me of the rear of an extended cab pickup truck - the jumpseats are just that - a seat. nothing more.

Oh, and while it also does tall and refresh modes(or simmilar), the Fit's rear seats go back a second notch so as to actually be comfortable.

Problems with the Fit(to be fair-we know most of the Xbs already):
- No locking gas cover
- Dead pedal area is strangely curved, so you can't rest your foot on the floor, even.
- No maplights/garage door opener buttons.
- No traction or stability control.
- rear seats are reversed. In the XB, the wider seat is behind the passenger. In the Fit, they still have it set up for the Japanese market - with the wider seat behind the driver, who usually sits much farther back than the front passenger does. OOPS.
- visors are also reversed. No mirror on the passenger side but one on the driver's side? OOPS.

aatherton

"... The gas mileage is about 27 in town, 32 higway....horrendous for such a lightweight, small vehcile. "

At 2,200 miles with a manual transmission, my worst tank during break-in on rural roads with constant speed variation (wasteful acceleration and deceleration) was 33 mpg. My best tank after break-in was 40.5 mpg, which took some concentration to acheive. In normal driving keeping up with traffic around my city of Louisville, I consistently get 35 mpg.

johnnyb11

"At 2,200 miles with a manual transmission, my worst tank during break-in on rural roads with constant speed variation (wasteful acceleration and deceleration) was 33 mpg. My best tank after break-in was 40.5 mpg, which took some concentration to acheive. In normal driving keeping up with traffic around my city of Louisville, I consistently get 35 mpg."

Congrats, because in my xB, I also averaged 27, mixed driving, and not "spirited" driving. REALLY disappointing.

malachy72

It's making mine look more common.

protospork

I would love to know if anyone has a sense of how the air conditioning compares in the Fit. I test drove the Fit on a cool foggy day ,so I didn't feel how it performed.

On my Scion xB the a/c is sub par; if you are in the front you make out okay but, the back never gets cool.

Also, does anyone know the 0 to 60 performance specs on the Fit? For the xB it is 11.4. I find the xB a bit poky and not a good choice for a long highway trip. I like the Fit a lot, but, don't want another around the town car.

vivi

I'm considering an xB purchase, but the current xB does not accelerate well. So I thought I'll wait for the 2007 model.
Does anyone know any specs yet for the xb 2007? Colours?
Thanks
VV

plekto

The Xb'x engine gets terrible mileage considering its almost Geo Metro like acceleration. That and the lack of ANY back seat amenities/cupholders/unhappy kid back there... Those were deal-breakers.

nwng

thanks for the reply. Can you tell me what's the rpm in the fit at 70 mph? (in fifth of course)

One thing I like about honda's small engines is they can really rev and likes to be reved. But it gets real buzzy at highway speeds.

toyota's gearing are better for highway cruising, and the clutch is actually easier to engage than honda's. But shifting is less satisfied than honda's.
I guess based on your opinion, this still holds true after so many years I've been driving cars by both manufactures.

hungarian83

"One thing I like about honda's small engines is they can really rev and likes to be reved. But it gets real buzzy at highway speeds."

The Fit is not loud at all though at higher speeds...I can say this from experience. Definitely not buzzy.

Also, the clutch is very easy and light. I can't say the same for the 2002 Civic I often drive, but the Fit's clutch is wonderful to use and makes driving in rush hour traffic a breeze.

manko

"Can you tell me what's the rpm in the fit at 70 mph? (in fifth of course)"

Sure, it's about 3400-3500 rpm, 80 is ~3900 rpm. xB at same speed is almost identical, 70 is 3500 and 80 is 4000. To be honest, gearing on both is nearly identical if you compare the ratios, but definitely feels different due to the engines and where they make their power.

tundradude

After reading several posts, the xB does have one cupholder in the rear. Thats where the cell phone goes in mine. Mine also has plenty of power, its in the 9's for 0-60 with a manual. If I would like to go faster in the same test, I can drive my Tundra with its V8. Otherwise, the xB is not a sports coupe like a tC.

However, I do agree that the xB is NOT a good long distance car. My Tundra and Corolla are much better for the task.

aatherton

"... considering an xB purchase, but the current xB does not accelerate well... Does anyone know any specs yet for the xb 2007?"

My xB with manual transmission accelerates strongly. The road test of four "Rebellious Boxes" by Car & Driver put the xB's 0-60 mph time at 9.6 seconds.

The 2007 xB will reportedly be the same as the 2006. The 2008 xB will reportedly be changed from the present Echo platform to the larger Corolla platform. It will be res-styled, larger, more powerful and more expensive.

jimmy5150

For those who obsessed with RPM.

2005 Scion xB
Automatic

70mph = 2900RPM

aatherton

My xB with manual has gotten 40 mpg on a tank when I really tried, 35 mpg in my usual driving, and 33 mpg when I drive spiritedly. But I don't stay over 65 on interstates - the resistance at 80, for instance, will put the mpg into the high 20's.

And how can you compare the xB to a Metro?
The xB has 1500 cc, 108 hp and does 0-60 in 9.6 seconds (according to Car & Driver's review of four econoboxes last January). My xB with manual transmission has good acceleration left from 60 to 80, and then keeps going more slowly up to 100.
The Metro has 1000 cc, 55 hp and does 0-60 in 12 seconds.

The xB is the most incredible car I have owned (age 63). The easy entry, legroom, headroom, smooth gearbox and clutch, free revving engine, sport car handlilng and acceleration, gas economy, and low price -- are an unbeatable combination.

plekto

I didn't comare it to a Metro - that was reserved specifically for the Aveo. Dreadful little car. The XB is nice, actually - but it has a weak engine(power vs mpg) and not a single amenity for the rear passengers. One small cupholder as an afterthought.

And.. Not a single option on it that actually siginificantly alters the interior. Saw a ully tricked-out Xb at the dealer and it had $4K in bling - same interior and lack of features.

aaykay

If the styling of the xB was a bit less un-appealing, I might have looked at it. The Honda Element is also boxy but it does not look this odd, and truly looks nice. The xA on the other hand is something I would definitely consider, purely from a looks perspective.

As far as the Honda Fit is concerned, the Base and the "Sport" are essentially identical, except for the functionless plastic stuck all around the "Sport". Same engine, same transmission, same interior etc. "Sport" in my lexicon, should have had additional bolstering for the seats, stiffer suspension, tighter steering and possibly a boost in the power and how it is delivered....along with a 6-speed manual.

aatherton

"... I didn't comare it to a Metro..."

What you said was: "The Xb'x engine gets terrible mileage considering its almost Geo Metro like acceleration."

"...The XB... has a weak engine(power vs mpg)..."

My xB does 0-60 in 9.6 seconds - that feels very lively to me. My xB's acceleration and ride and handling remind me of the two BMW 2002s that I put 100K miles on between 1972 and 1995. The xB also has some almost identical specs to a Minicooper: both weigh about 2400 lbs, and both have DOHC VVT engines of almost the same displacement and horsepower.

As for mileage, in lively driving, my xB gets 32 mpg. Regular driving gets 35 mpg and careful driving on suburban and country roads gets 40 mpg.

aatherton

"... If the styling of the xB was a bit less un-appealing, I might have looked at it. The Honda Element is also boxy but it does not look this odd..."

The Element is a lot larger, more powerful, more expensive, yet gets much worse mileage and seats one less person. And the styling of the Element, especially the curved door tops, is unappealing to me.

jimmy5150

I love the Element....my first choice over the xB, bout couldn't swallow the price tag along with the horrible gas mileage.

If money wasn't an issue, I'd have an Element just to take camping...throw some bags of mulch in the back....take the seats out...just to take the seats out.....neat vehicle.

strager

I've had a xB for almost 3 years, and it has the most comfortable seats (and seating position) of any vehicle that I've driven in. Not to mention that it's fun to drive with a HUGE amount of room for passengers.

If I had to make the choice today, I'd still buy the xB. The only advantage that the Fit has is side curtain airbags, but the xB has stability control, which is supposed to be a must safety feature.

As far as gas mileage, I get 26 mpg/city and about 36 freeway. My guess is that in reality, the Fit gets about the same. It all comes down to personal preference.

jonniedee

Quote: As far as gas mileage, I get 26 mpg/city and about 36 freeway.

You must drive REALLY SLOW. My neighbor drives 75mph on the highway with her Xb and has never got much over 30mpg (auto AC) :confuse:

raychuang00

...I think the next-generation Scion xB will be based on the next-generation Corolla platform. We could have gotten the new Toyota bB that came out in Japan at the beginning of 2006 but I think Toyota wanted the new xB to be a bit roomier. If you're seen the Scion T2B concept it may hint at what the new xB will be like.

johnnyvj

"As far as gas mileage, I get 26 mpg/city and about 36 freeway. My guess is that in reality, the Fit gets about the same."

Actually, over in the MPG thread, most Fit owners report beating those numbers.

aatherton

I saw a site that said the next xB would be based on the Corolla platform, too. I guess that means longer, roomier, bigger enginel, more expensive, and more gas. More like an Element. Glad I got my little old '06 xB.

propappr

Well being a large fellow, at 6'4" I find the XB very confortable even in the back seat. I can actually ride behind the driver and be comfortable. There are not many cars at all that I can say that about. The element is one but the gas mileage is just not as good.

ew3074

BTY, just wanna show you guys the Japan version bb.


This picture was taken on a street in Hong Kong. I hope America will have this one soon.

newownerxb

I am a brand new xB owner and am quite disappointed with the ride. Did not take it on the "right" test drive roads to determine that the suspension was so harsh. Read your email and cannot find Monroe Sensatracs for a Scion xB on internet. Where did you get yours? Did you get them for the Echo? Help, want to sell this car because of the harsh ride and it only has 40 miles on it!

dewaltdakota

Both guys I know that have put Monroe Sensatracs on their xB's used Monroe Part #5987 for the rear, and #71575 for the front, which are technically for the 2001-2003 Toyota Echo. Monroe doesn't officially acknowledge having a Sensatrac for the xB.

newownerxb

Just to clarify...did this add more comfort to the ride by changing the shocks? Need to ask because I've talked to 2 shock places and they told me that it would make a minimal difference.

newownerxb

I'm a new owner of a 2006 xb, polar white, 5 speed. I have test driven the Fit twice, both times a 5 speed. While it was fun to drive and had great shifting and handling and most likely better gas mileage, I felt my seating position was a little low for my liking and also could not swallow the appearance/design of the rear half of the car. Something about the looks didn't sit right with me. So I bought the xB. I have had lots of fun shifting the xB manual transmission. The car handles well and just feels crisp and is fun to drive. I almost bought a Versa that same day. It's more of a whole car than the xB, but not nearly as fun to drive. At 38 years old, I'm looking for some fun!

dewaltdakota

Yes, they did it to soften the ride of their xB's.

carfanatic007

Personally, I find the XB to be one of the ugliest cars I have ever seen! I would be embarrassed to be seen riding in one! No insult to those of you who own one, that is my personal opinion. To each there own.

crimsona

The box on wheels has created a entire market segment in Japan.

Check out Honda japan's lineup

http://www.honda.co.jp/auto/

Just press the skip movie button

newownerxb

Dear carfanatic...I used to think the very same thing! But since it's been here I couldn't help to convert ugly into cute when considering that my choices for my $14,000 were used vehicles with 40-60,000 miles on them and little to no warranty remaining. It's my opinion that the Fit's rear styling is "odd" and this comes from a previous Aztec owner. To each there own is very true.

atl400

Having test drove both a Fit Sport mt & a xB mt I agree 100%.

atl400

I disagree. I test drove both the base Fit (auto) & Fit Sport (mt). The base Fit has 14' wheels vs. 15" on the Sport. The ride & handling on the Sport was much better. I didn't feel secure driving the base Fit.

hungarian83

"I didn't feel secure driving the base Fit."

Oh please...

"The ride & handling on the Sport was much better."

There is no difference between base and sport in those respects, and I really cannot imagine that an extra 20mm of tire width and extra inch of wheel would make so much of a difference for you to feel "secure" in the Sport as opposed to not secure in the base..

The engine, transmission (apart from paddle shifters), and suspension are 100% identical between the two. Apart from somewhat better tires and larger wheels, there is no ride/handling/performance difference. Anything you thought you noticed was your imagination.