Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Subaru WRX
Forester XT
Outback XT
Legacy GT
Mazdaspeed 6
Enjoy test drives.
Krzys
pointatob
As for why we don't see the 5-door Civic with all the Euro features, it comes down to two factors: First, hatchbacks are more mainstream in the Euro market but are a fringe segment in the U.S. Second, the relative status of Euro cars moves down one platform compared to the U.S. So a Civic in Europe is thought of as an Accord is in the U.S., and a Fit is thought of the way we think of a Civic. So over there, a Civic is an average family car, not an econobox. As such, it gets a lot of amenities in Europe that they wouldn't put on in the States for fear of pricing it out of its own market niche.
Krzys
also, if anyone has the inkling, they could price out the UK civic 5 door with options and convert to US dollars just to see where they are priced...
backy, "The Forums Test Drive Team" #182, 1 Jul 2006 2:12 pm
Here are the cars I've actually driven:
Accent GS MT (and GLS sedan AT)
Aveo MT
Fit (base) MT and AT
Rabbit 3-door AT (and Jetta MT)
Rio5 AT
Versa S MT
Yaris (sedan) MT and AT
Driving position: Accent and Rio5 (tie)
Honorable mention: Rabbit
Front seating: Versa SL
Honorable mention: Rabbit
Rear seating: Versa
Honorable mention: Rabbit
Controls and displays: Rabbit
Honorable mention: Accent SE
Ergonomics: Rabbit
Honorable mention: Accent
Acceleration: Rabbit
Honorable mention: Fit
NVH: Accent
Honorable mention: Versa
Transmission (manual): Rabbit (based on Jetta)
Honorable mention: Fit
Transmission (automatic): Rabbit
Honorable mention: Fit
Fuel economy: Yaris
Honorable mention: Fit
Handling: Fit
Honorable mention: Rio5
Ride: Rio5
Honorable Mention: Rabbit
Brakes: Rabbit
Honorable mention: Accent SE
Cargo hauling: Fit
Honorable mention: Rio5
Features: Versa SL
Honorable mention: Accent SE
Interior quality: Rabbit
Honorable mention: Versa SL
Exterior fit and finish: Accent SE
Honorable mention: Rabbit
Fun to drive: Fit
Honorable mention: Rabbit
Price (with 6 airbags, ABS, and power package): Yaris
Honorable mention: Versa S
(Note that right now neither the Yaris nor Versa is available in my area with ABS; the lowest-price car that has ABS available plus 6 airbags and power package is the Fit.)
So overall the Rabbit has the highest number of firsts (7) and honorable mentions (6), with the Accent and Fit tied for 2nd (3/4), followed closely by the Versa (3/3), then the Rio5 (2/2) and the Yaris (2/0). Note though the Rabbit has the highest starting price ($15.6k with destination), so it is not surprising it did well.
The main flaw in this analysis is that the categories aren't weighted. Fuel economy, for example, might be much more important to someone than acceleration. And some categories may not be important at all, while others are deal-breakers. So you need to drive the cars yourself and rate them against YOUR priorities. For example, the Yaris and Versa are no-ops for me right now because neither is available in my area with ABS. And while the Rabbit is a very nice hatchback, it gets much lower fuel economy than I would like.
Just out of curiosity, did you, or are you planning on driving the Mazda3 hatchback? IMHO, it is the most fun to drive hatchback in the price range you are shopping. It should also stack up pretty well in the features and safety department if you get the SAB package.
Otherwise, that is a nice list I'll bet you have had some fun driving all these cars...
I tried the Mazda 3 hatch and ran into a very annoying problem of pressure and noise when I had both back windows down, at freeway speed. (I'd lowered them to get vision through the dealer stickers for lane changes.)
It's a problem that will happen in just about any car, but it was *way* worse in the 3 than other cars I've tried. And, sorry, but I don't like using the A/C unless I absolutely have to (like driving through Stockton or something like that).
I have seen this happen on many different vehicles. The easy solution is to try different heights for the rear windows, or try opening one or both of the front windows partially. My favorite way to get good airflow w/o noise in my ear and buffeting is to lower the passenger front window and the driver's rear window. fully. (Except on my car with the moonroof, then of course that is the way to go!)
I thought the drag caused by opening windows lowered your MPG more than using the AC.
But I also prefer the breeze of outside air to the air coming out of the air conditioning. And having just the back windows down can be one way of getting that.
Alternately, passengers might like to do that, while the up-front people, not so much.
You do get this with other cars as well, but it was particularly bad with the 3.
Which hatchbacks are you looking at these days?
The rule of thumb for the majority of cars was if you are driving under 40 mph, crack the windows. If you are driving over 40 mph, use the AC.
It's been over 100 degrees several days in a row now. I was driving with the windows down in the morning and afternoon when it was slightly cooler (after maybe blasting the AC to cool off the steering wheel) and getting 28-29 mpg. Since I'm only doing that in the morning now, I'm getting 26.5-27. If I run with windows up and AC on both ways, I get about 25.5-26.
I record my mileage every tankful, so I have a pretty good idea of what I get for given conditions.
The one thing I wish I could do is shut off the AC when the defrosters are on. I understand at least some Canadian Elantras do this, but recent model American ones don't.
I think you are right. I am sure the mythbusters test had the front windows down, and am also curious what type of car they tested this on. Certainly aerodynamics plays a key role and a smaller, more aerodynamic car (like the Elantra), may not have as much drag as say a Ford Explorer.
Anyway I really do appreciate all of your comments, even if there are some I scratch my head about. Keep up the good work.
If you don't like how I figure mpg, better not read the reviews in mags like C/D and MT because they report mpg on single trips ranging from a couple hundred miles to 1000 miles or so. And they have different drivers in the cars (in comparos), so in that sense their tests are not as "consistent" as mine. Maybe they have a more accurate way of measuring fuel, however.
If you don't like what I say, just hit "Page Down".
:P
i tried to find a forum for the suzuki reno but there are NONE!!! :surprise:
i was pretty much set on a scion xA, but then i saw a red reno couple of days ago, looked real nice!( and bigger than xA, which was parked a few parking space away..so i was able to compare) i reseached it on suzuki.com, edmunds and some other car sites and noticed it does come with a lot of goodies!!:) almost as many as the xA, for basically the same price...even has 8 speakers standard..that is better than the xA!!!
apparently, a lot of buyers got it under the invoice, which is not possible with the pure pricing on scions...
only bad thing i read about it the gas mileage is only around 30 mpg but the engine is 126 (or 127 hp)compare to 103 HP with xA, i would trade in a few MPG to be able to pass other cars without making an appointment :P
so, since this is the hatchback forum, i wanna know if there are any reno owners around here??? or anyone has comments??
Ther's a reason nobody's talking much about them, and it's not just the fact that there are so few Suzuki dealerships out there.
If you don't need to buy a car right away, you may want to wait a few weeks and check out the new Suzuki SX4, which will replace the Aerio. It's Japanese-made (the Reno is a Daewoo from Korea), has standard AWD, and nicely equipped is supposed to start at about $15k. Fuel economy is rated about the same as the Reno, but at least the SX4 will have 143 hp and AWD. Edmunds has a review of the car on their home page now.
i am really a JEEP girl, but with the gas $$$$ i just have to look at something else, too bad the new JEEP compass is just a little over my budget
i think that's why i am not familliar ( and overwhelmed and confused!!!) with what's out there now...i never thought i was gonna drive anything else but a JEEP... :surprise:
but i appreciate your comments, you may be also right about why we dont see them much on the road, i will get all my infos to make an informed decision.
AS i said in many post, the scion xA was my 1st pick but the fact that it only has 103HP just worries me..
i dont need a James Bond car
(that would be aston martin i guess )
but i want something that has a bit more guts than my husband S10 /2.3 L pick up truck,that i am driving now :mad:
i wont even go on the highway with it because it barely gets to 70 mph!!! passing? nah, that is NOT happening with this truck. :sick:
there is still the versa with 122 HP...
funny that i was talking in a recent post about my beloved subaru Justy 4WD 1989 and that it was a shame that no car maker had come up with similar product...looks like the sx4 would fall into that category, with more horse power and more than likely a lot more goodies than back in the justy day!!
In the end I got a Hyundai Elantra. Roughly the same cost, but I think it's a much nicer car for the money. It also is a lot more popular and has more owner forums and stuff. The only hitch is that if you're looking for a hatchback, you may have trouble finding one. The 2007 Elantra is an all new model, and Hyundai is pretty much just selling the 2006 stock they have, and most of that is in sedan form.
If I were looking today, I'd look at the new Suzuki SX4, the Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris, Ford Focus, Kia Rio5 & Spectra5 and Hyundai Accent & Elantra. I've checked out the Dodge Caliber and the fit and finish on the car, especially on the inside, is horrible, which is a pity since it has some innovative features.
I got to drive another hatchback, the PT Cruiser, for the first time this week (rental). In general I'm not too impressed. The ride is pretty smooth, but rubbery; much of the plastic in the interior looks cheap; the driver's seat bottom has bulges in the wrong places; and the fuel economy of this 4-banger is about the same as my 2-ton '99 Grand Caravan V6--25 mpg on the highway. On the plus side, the A/C is powerful, the car is relatively quiet at cruise, and it has Sirius radio.
i am waiting on 2 dealers to reply my email asking for the arrival date. my husband is pretty excited about it too and we will go test drive as soon as they are available.
I owned a real Suzuki (Alto) on the island of Saipan from '88 to '92. That was a great little car with a motorcycle sized engine that got 50 mpg city and ran from a stop like a hyperactive jackrabbit. So if you are looking at the Reno, get one of the real Suzuki models instead.
I've had the cold start problems experienced by other poor souls posting to web sites, only to be told likewise by the mechanics at Oak Ridge Suzuki in Tennessee that I didn't know what I was talking about, when I informed them of the problem last November. They sort of half acknowledged the problem later on and actually made a computer adjustment, which I was later told was the cause of my catalytic converter going out at less than 10,000 miles!
I called American Suzuki Motor Corporation and was told in May that they were aware of the problem in the Forenza model but not in the Reno and offered to make my payment until the problem was fixed. They "fixed" the car and now it starts without a problem. But I wonder what other problems the "fix" might be causing? I've posted this on CarTalk in hopes of getting an honest answer from a reliable source.
My automatic transmission shifts like someone driving a manual for the first time. Ever since it was fixed the car sometimes lurches right after cold starting the engine so I keep my foot close to the brakes.
My city mileage is 23 mpg; freeway mileage to Nashville was 34 mpg.
I hope this car lasts a few more years without losing too much of its resale value because I'll be trading it in for a real Suzuki next time!
Plusses:
* Good legroom in back for such a small car--will fit two average-sized adults pretty well.
* Fun handling--like a go-kart.
* Good-looking cloth interior for such an inexpensive car.
* Strong A/C.
* Standard ABS and power package--they are optional on many competitors, with ABS hard to find on some.
* Decent-sounding stereo with wheel-mounted controls.
* Good visibility (although I couldn't see the hood).
* Rear seat folds flat.
Minuses:
* Harsh ride over bumps that other small cars tackle without complaint. It's as if the suspension bottoms too easily. For example, the Versa, Rabbit, and Accent offer much smoother ride quality. The Fit is also more compliant than the xA.
* Driving position is not very comfortable. The seat height doesn't adjust (I wanted more thigh support, although it was not terrible); the wheel doesn't telescope; there is no right armrest; and the left armrest is hard plastic. At least the wheel tilts and there is a comfortable dead pedal.
* Very noisy in the cabin, compared to cars like the Accent, Rabbit, and Versa--a combination of engine drone (3000 rpm at 70 mph), lots of wind noise, and tire noise. Good thing the stereo sounds good!
* No cruise control or remote locking/alarm.
* Small cargo compartment with the rear seats up.
* Center-mounted gauge cluster (yes, I might get used to it eventually, but I prefer gauges at 12 o'clock).
* Quality gaffes--two plasticy rattles in the tester, one in the dash and one near the driver's B pillar.
* Side bags/curtains not standard, as they are on many competitors (they were not on the tester).
* Limited storage--no center console, no bins in the rear doors, no cupholders in the rear.
* Non-folding side mirrors and no side moldings to protect doors (seems to be the case on many new models).
* Limited availability--meaning it would be hard to find a car with the features/color I want.
The car wasn't very quick, but I didn't expect it to be, especially with the automatic.
For what I am looking for in a small hatchback, the xA doesn't cut it compared to choices like the Fit, Versa, Rabbit, and Accent. Which is a good thing I guess, since it is hard to find a xA in my town. But then, it's hard to find a Fit, too. One dealer I talked with today has a five-month wait list for the Fit.
I believe the Suzuki SX4 is a product of Suzuki, *not* Daewoo.
Incidentally, I read in my News Sentinel today that Suzuki ranks next to last in JD Power reliability surveys. Wonder if that's due to the Daewoo Reno/Forenza/Verona cast offs?