Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Honda Fit vs. Scion xA vs. Toyota Matrix
This discussion has been closed.
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
When it came time to break in my new manual transmission xB last month, I did the same thing as for my old BMW bikes. Constant acceleration and deceleration, on country roads with no one behind me to annoy. Used hard throttle all the time, but never exceeded 3000 rpm in any gear, and did not hold 3000 rpm in 5th for longer than a minute at a time before backing off. As wasteful as I thought this practice would be, the xB always got 33 mpg. After break-in I was able to get 40 mpg on one tank with lots of concentration, while regular driving around Louisville produces 35 mpg on every tank.
My situation: 12 minute commute to work, no kids, high fuel efficiency is a big plus. Does the Fit really have that much more usable cargo room than the xA? Which is more comfy on long trips? I did drive a Civic last year with electric power steering, and loved it, but it's not a requirement.
Auto manufacturers are lazy and since they can't make sure people follow a simmilar break-in method, they hedge their bets and also insure that the car will require more repairs in the future. That makes the lawyers and the dealers happy. Win-win for them, and you gain nothing in return.
They should instead, run the engines on every car and break them in like this before they reach the showroom. This would also mean every engine gets an oil change at 50 miles, then is switched to the semi-synthetic.
What we should see:
"Every vehicle is delivered with the engine already broken-in. The first 40-50 miles you see on the odometer is a result of this process. This ensures that the engine delivers proper power and fuel economy over the lifetime of the vehicle."
What we get if you read between the lines:
"There is no break-in on this engine - we've put synthetic lubricants in the engine to ensure that it never happens correctly."
I know which I would rather see.
I decided to do the fast break because the article was geared to motorcycles, which are, after all, small high revving engines.
It's like the DMV tests and what driving instructors tell you. Answer these two DMV test questions:
1:What are the proper positions for your hands on the steering wheel?
2:What is the proper position for your side view mirror(s)?
Now, what immediately came to mind as their wrote reply. And why is it wrong? The answer is decades of regurgitating the same mantra that they learned wrong and that our current generation takes as fact by now.
The same happens with engine break-in.
http://racingbeat.com/testprocedures.htm
Read the following from that site:
Break-in periods can vary depending on the type of engine and the intended application. The more "stock" the engine is, the longer the break-in period. For example, a new-stock engine for a Mazda project vehicle was broken in for 16 hours, per their requirements. We usually break-in a stock engine about 4 hours, race engines between 3-4 hours.
Mazda's OWN recommendations to professionals who break-in engines for a living is 16 hours! They do in in 4. The same engines that are in the cars that they recommend taking months to do the same thing with. Something smells fishy right off.
These guys base their lives and careeers on racing and winning - and helping others accomplish it as well. I believe them more than I believe a manufacturer's legal department.
Do a search - you'll find numerous examples of professionals and racers using stock engines or ones that are based upon stock engine blocks all using a proper break-in procedure in direct opposition to what we are told.
http://www.mototuneusa.com/break_in_secrets.htm
This is the site we are talking about.
Note - three things have to be followed religiously.
1:Allow for proper cool-down between runs.
2:Use non-syntetic oil in the 10-30 or 10-40 range. If this means changing out the original oil, it has to be done. You need the oil to be sticky and more viscious and not be the least bit synthetic.
3:Change the oil immediately after the dyno runs/break in. This means at 30-50 miles. Replace it with the manufacturer's recommended oil of course. The oil you break-in with is meant to have a 50-100 mile lifespan but do what it should - seat the rings properly and flush out metal grit and debris.
The older addage for break-in was:
Get the engine warmed up. Run it from 50% throttle to near maximum and then let it wind itself down. Repeat ten times. Do this again. Change the oil.
This I read online from an old magazing from the 30s. It's amazingly close to what the guy at the site above recommends.
http://www.cessna.org/benefits/articles/breakin.html
Here's one from a very well respected flying club. It's a bit wordy, but it's pretty simmilar - run it gentle, get ot warmed up, then progressively rev it up until it's going full-blast.
http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp?bodyPage=/support/publications/keyRepri- - nts/operation/engineBreakIn.html
They state it pretty clearly:
A good break-in requires that the piston rings expand sufficiently to seat with the cylinder walls during the engine break-in period. This seating of the ring with the cylinder wall will only occur when pressures inside the cylinder are great enough to cause expansion of the piston rings. Pressures in the cylinder only become great enough for a good break-in when power settings above 65% are used.
Unless you stress the metal enough to get hot and expand, it's doing nothing at all. Yet it's still wearing awaty at the outer walls the same. And after a few hours, there's nothing for the rings to really grind and seat against - the machining and finishing marks are mostly gone. Of course, heat oil viscosity is a prime consideration. After the dyno runs, the oil will be mostly shot, full of junk, and be slightly acidic as well. Thankfully, oil changes are cheap.
P.S. Later in that page, they state:
For those who still think that running the engine hard during break-in falls into the category of cruel and unusual punishment, there is one more argument for high power settings during engine break-in. The use of low power settings does not expand the piston rings enough, and a film of oil is left on the cylinder walls. The high temperatures in the combustion chamber will oxidize this oil film so that it creates a condition commonly known as glazing of the cylinder walls. When this happens, the ring break-in process stops, and excessive oil consumption frequently occurs. The bad news is that extensive glazing can only be corrected by removing the cylinders and rehoning the walls. This is expensive, and it is an expense that can be avoided by proper break in procedures.
And this is why modern engines burn oil. Straight from an engine manufacturer. You "break-in" the engine slowly and you glaze the walls heavily. This gives you the effect of seating the rings, but the rings aren't seated - the walls of the cylinder have buildup on them in the shape of the rings.
Definately a loose-loose situation. You burn oil as it ages and you get massive blow-by, with all of the ills and shortened lifespan and gasket failures and so on.
My family had a car purchased in 1987. It was broken-in normally, per the instructions in the owners manual and none of this "fast break-in". We sold the car at approximately 260,000 miles. In its entire life, it did not burn a single drop of oil. It had some things replaced like the radiator, starter, brake system, partial transmission re-build. Although the seals leaked some oil (poor replacement when the transmission was done), the engine ran as smooth at 260,000 as it did when it had 26,000 miles. Had it not been for the problematic transmission, my family would still be driving it.
The biggest factor is that engine manufacturers now use a much finer honing pattern in the cylinders than they once did. This in turn changes the break-in requirements, because as you're about to learn, the window of opportunity for achieving an exceptional ring seal is much smaller with
newer engines than it was with the older "rough honed" engines.
GMs 3.8L engines, for instance, were very loose spec and pretty rough out of the box - tolerant of abuse. Comparing it to a modern engine like you'd find in a Honda Civic - totally different world twenty years later.
I've sat in and inspected a Fit but didn't drive it, and so far I'd say there really isn't much difference between a Fit and an xA except "brand loyalty". I find the Fit odd-looking...not that the xA isn't, but the xA somehow is less chaotic in the styling. The Fit looks "chopped" to me in the back end.
Finally there is the safety issue. Light cars don't fare as well as heavier cars in crashes with other vehicles, which in America are almost always larger and heavier (they do fine in the more common single car crashes). Of the two cars, the Fit is safer unless you can find an xA with side curtain air bags - side curtain air bags are seeming more and more critical to saving lives in side impact crashes. It's the curtain style you need (head protecting) not the torso style which came out first.
All of which leads me to ask - why not get another Subaru? You've had a good experience with your last one, and they are one of the safest cars out there (standard side curtain airbags FOR THE CURRENT YEAR) - read the www.iihs.org test results. Gas mileage is a little lower, since they are a little heavier and have awd, but I don't think that is as big a factor as people make it out to be, in total costs of ownership. It's just that "mpg" is a hot topic right now.
I should have been more specific on folding down the rear seats -- on the xA I test drove, the rear seats folded to a horizontal position, but not flush with the rest of the cargo area. The seat backs were about 5 inches higher when folded down. It seems that on the Fit there's a continuous flat surface when the rear seats are folded down.
Before someone mentions hybrids, yes I like high MPG, but to me the premium charged for hybrids doesn't make them cost effective.
I may have mentioned (forgive the repetition if I did) that I got an entire mountain bike, a folding table and 4 grocery bags into the back of the xA, and was able to close the hatch and doors. I did, however, have to wrap towels around certain parts of the bike--it was a tight fit in there.
My friend's Matrix feels a lot like the xA. On the plus side, it has more room in back, that extra two feet or whatever they tack on behind the rear seats...but on the minus side (for me), the Matrix isn't nearly as much fun to drive. It's kinda boring to me.
There is one factor in favor of the xA (assuming you get the one with side curtain airbags). In this month's Motor Trend magazine, a comparison test between the Versa, Yaris, and Fit puts the Fit dead last in acceleration - 11.5 seconds 0-60, which is sad considering it has a 5 speed automatic. The Yaris, with essentially the same engine as the xA, was quicker (I don't recall the actual acceleration test results).
The Fit was the best handling of the group though.
The xA is also a lot cheaper than the Fit.
In fact, I think the xA is cheaper than a similarly equipped Yaris (if you can even find a Yaris with all the stock goodies on the xA)!
Did not like Fit Interior.
Fit was too small for a primary car.
Mercy of dealers.
Price was MSRP.
My purchase was Matrix XR AT + All the options was below invoice for $18,100= airbags+6 CD changer+sunroof+premium tyres+etc+ 3 free services+1 year emission check.
Interior feel was defnitely a big plus. I was able to bring a Queen size head board, footboard and frame+ side stand from ikea with wife sitting in back with seats folded down. Thats what I want.
I am getting 34 miles per gallon after 1000 miles break-in.
Thanks for all for your inputs.
I'm also curious as to whether you could have fit all that ikea stuff into the Fit as well, but I guess we'll never know for sure! I bet you could, though... I did measurements when I was looking, and the cargo bed of the Matrix is only about 2" deeper (though there is more overhang from the end of the cargo bed to the seatbacks of the front seats, and that can be useful); the Fit actually has about 5" more height in the cargo area; and the Fit is mostly wider (the Matrix is just slightly wider between the wheel wells--less than an inch--but mostly doesn't get much wider, whereas the Fit starts giving you much more width past the wheel wells).
Best interior -Rabbit. Mileage is low for a small car.
Best Interior and mileage---Civic. No flexibilty in Cargo.
CRV, RAV4 --Not bad It falls more on size and less on mileage. CRV is less than Invloce and RAV4 is MSRP of $25K which is beyond my range.
Fit- May be more inches in Cargo compared to Matrix but that did not factor me. I am not heavy cargo person. When I need it I got to have the option thats it. But the Feel and look inside drove us away from Fit. It is CHEAP man! Sit in Matrix and Fit and u decide. The mileage is 5 miles less than Fit. But my commute to work is not that much to factor 5 miles plus it is my primary car.
The reason for me to go for 35 miles per gallon on high way is purely MORAL.
Where can u get fully loaded (sunroof, 6 cd changer, airbags, alloy wheels, power locks, cargo flexibility, 35 miles per gallon, reliability) for 18K?
:shades:
- the Versa had better acceleration than the xA; the larger engine (1.8L vs. 1.5L) and 5-speed more than compensated for the Versa's extra 340 pounds.
- despite the center mounted gauges, I thought the xA's dash was more stylish and functional than the Versa's. All the xA's knobs and buttons were easy to identify and reach,and the wheel mounted stereo controls were very useful.
- both vehicles felt roomy on the inside, but I seemed to sit higher and have better visibility in the xA.
- rear seats do fold down flush with the rear cargo floor on the xA (with the driver's seat pushed all the way back and with the headrests on the back seats -- I had the salesperson demonstrate it); on the Versa the rear seats are not flush with the cargo area when folded down, making stowing large boxes, etc., a little awkward.
Yeah, I know the title of this discussion says Honda Fit not Nissan Versa, and I'm going to post this in a Versa discussion, but I still have not been able to locate Honda dealer with a Fit that I can test drive. I did see one pass me on the road -- to me it looked like an Aveo.
In the US I believe it's the Conven. package.
Better yet, get one 1-2 year old for the price of a stripped-down base Aveo or Rio.
As for the discussion, this should have been titled "Fit and Other Alternatives"
Are you talking about side crash ratings for the rear passengers or a test that determines the results of a rear-end collision?
The xA is definitely worth the money.
That has to be the worst assessement ever. Seriously. The Fit has the biggest rear seat area with the seat moved back that I've ever seen in a car outside of a Buick.
It's huge. Only the new RAV-4 is better, and it's not a tiny little econobox. I mean- SMALL CAR - it's not a damn minivan. The Yaris, for instance, is so tiny my head hit the ceiling in the rear, and I'm 5'7". It was horrendously small. Okay, not as bad as the rear seat in a 911, but really close.
Push the seat back - the rear, especially the one behind the passenger seat - it has way more room. Unless you are a Sasquatch, you'll be able fit easily.
...and not only is it comfortably large enough for 2 adults, you can also haul a good bit of luggage behind the seats.
When I was growing up, my dad owned one car until I was in my teens. I am the youngest of three kids. Some of these cars didn't have as much usable room in them as a Fit. We managed just fine. My kids are spoiled by being able to ride in captains chairs in a minivan, watching movies on long trips. Progress I guess.