If you'll look at the actual post I replied to (#129, from September), there are no little :P s or s. Just sarcastic comments like:
As far as 200 hp in a fit goes, that is quite a bit of engineering. TO build an engine that can do that is incredible. Hyundai even remotely acknowledging this by putting an intake on their little accent is hilarious.
So, Honda can build a performance engine, but Hyundai can't even give performance enhancements a shot?
Sounds a little high and mighty, and that's from a guy who has only driven Hondas.
Actually i have driven mazdas and i currently own a 07 vw rabbit, so theres that. And as far as perfomance goes, everyone knows that honda is legendary for aftermarket compatability. Hyundai has no track record at all and everyone here is acting like the se is the sport hatch that will take everyone down including the fit!! Arrrghhh here comes the accent! Back up! Don't step forward, STEP BACK!! :surprise: Can hyundai attempt it? Sure go for it..but may they know thier place in the sport compact world. Thats all this 'only drives hondas' young man was saying. And so i forgot the little car faces. SO what? Plenty of punctuation though... :P
wow i've been gone for so long i didn't realize how serious everyone was taking me! That's kinda funny! Oh and i'm sure i'm not taking any kind of credibility from honda owners. I think it would take a lot more than a few 'bad mood' posts to do that.
Well, with every post sounding basically the same (Sarcastically denouncing Hyundai sometimes), it's hard to tell whether or not you are being serious. Remember, on pure text messages, there are no contextual communication clues to pull from to distinguish one's attitude, be it jovial or serious.
Well said.
I would expect as much from someone who graduated.
The CR December issue puts the Fit on top in the manual/sport version and in second place to the Versa in the auto/base version. I wonder if they compared the auto/sport version to the CVT Versa version that the Fit might have been in the #1 position in both categories. Note that the Versa in the manual version was in 4th place.
The deciding factors had to do with reliability, handling, mpg, braking, and interior space. Negatives on the Fit were road noise, acceleration with the auto, steering wheel position and lack of height adjustable drivers seat. The Versa had better marks for interior comforts, noise levels, but the driving characteristics were not as good on the Fit.
In the Manual category, the Fit was in first place by a pretty wide margin, while in the Auto category, the Versa SL beat out the base Fit auto by only one point.
It seems like with other reviews I've read, and based on my own experience, the Fit and Versa are the top two in this category of tall 4dr hatchbacks with good interior room, with the Versa being quieter and with more comforts, and the Honda having better driving characteristics and quality.
The Rio, Accent and Yaris were grouped at the bottom for various reasons.
Actually as far as "tall 4-dr hatchbacks", that includes only the Fit, Versa, and Rio5.
Since you seem to have the article, can you tell us which versions of the cars were tested, e.g. were both the base and Sport Fits tested? And were both the Accent 4-door and Accent hatch tested--and which hatch? And what was the equipment, including transmissions, on these cars? Thanks.
I just flipped through the article at lunch in the bookstore, and I only know that they had two categories, Manual and Automatic, and what I said in my previous post was about all I could remember. But they tested the Fit, Versa, Rio, Accent, and Yaris all in both automatic and manual versions. Plus they threw in the Focus 3dr because with discounts, you can get one for the price of these other cars.
I don't remember everything from my quick read, but it seemed like it was on the driving characteristics, handling, braking, etc, and on road noise, interior space, and reliability.
"I don't remember everything from my quick read, but it seemed like it was on the driving characteristics, handling, braking, etc, and on road noise, interior space, and reliability."
That about covers everything. So, they pretty much disliked the cars?
Okay, I'm not too sure. I just remember from my quick read that they commented on the reliability, but there were actual points for the rankings but I'm not sure exactly how that's calculated. Too bad you can't just go online and pull down the CR report for free...anyone here have a userid/logon?
I like to read the narratives because sometimes they'll point out things that they consider bad, but that I don't. Or they'll mention things you might not think about. And then I do like looking at the actual mpg, braking, handling and other more objective stats, again just to compare, but if you have 4 cars that all handle great, just because one is slightly better it doesn't matter so much, but at least you can see the real dogs.
I finally found a store with the December issue today. The Fit and Accent were pretty close with automatics, just two points separated them. But it was a runaway for the Fit with the MT-equipped cars, with a score 20 points higher than the next car in the B class, the xB. (The Focus ZX3 was tossed in also, and was 2nd in the MT ratings behind the Fit, but CR admits it's in the next class up.) I put my overall impressions of the review in the Low-End cars discussion, since more than the Fit and Accent are discussed:
First, reliability does NOT factor into Consumer Reports' final score. It's a completely separate component that figures into whether or not they recommend the car. Next, the Fit Sport isn't any different mechanically than the base Fit. The only reason the manual Sport got a higher score than the auto base was because they really like the manual tranny in the Civic (and it gave it respectable acceleration figures). Next, the Rio and Accent scored extremely well, especially compared to the Yaris. The reason the manual versions scored lower is because CR will dock a car roughly 10 points if they don't buy it with ABS. For anyone who hasn't read the article, here are the scores: Versa CVT - 65 Fit Auto - 64 Rio Auto - 63 Accent Auto - 62 So the four of them essentially tied. I wish they would have tested the Accent SE, though. There's no question the improved handling would have bumped it up a few points, probably to win the whole comparison.
If they tested a Fit sport auto instead of a Fit base auto, the Fit would have handled and braked better with the larger tires, so that, plus the additional internal features (cruise, paddle shifters, etc) might have put the Fit auto at the #1 spot, maybe by a wide margin like the manual.
I think they should have tested each car in the fully loaded version (auto and every option) and then each car in the stripped out version. Now we can only speculate.
I was under the impression that different "niceties" like cruise control don't really figure into the total score for Consumer Reports because it's an option that doesn't really affect performance. I could be wrong, though. But you're right about the discrepancies between equipment. It's kinda shady that people will look at the tests and say "Oh, the Versa's the best" but it was the high-end CVT SL model that outscored the cheaper models. They could have at least tested the Versa S with the 4-speed auto.
Especially when at a first glance, you would think that the only differences between the cars tested in the two categories is the transmission. If that were the case, then it makes the Versa's manual and the Fit's auto to be real dogs based on the scoring differences between the manual and automatic versions.
Actually I think testing the Versa SL with CVT is a good choice, since as soon as production of CVTs gets going, the 4sp auto is gone.
Especially when at a first glance, you would think that the only differences between the cars tested in the two categories is the transmission. If that were the case, then it makes the Versa's manual and the Fit's auto to be real dogs based on the scoring differences between the manual and automatic versions.
Actually I think testing the Versa SL with CVT is a good choice, since as soon as production of CVTs gets going, the 4sp auto is gone.
i would think that these 2 have different features. If you would like just a daily driver car like stock to stock features, you'd go for Fit. Its definetly practical since its a four door hatch. Its a car between a Wagon and a Hatchback. plenty of room compared to a hatchback but less than a wagon's. Fun to drive only falls to the Accent SE since it had close ratio tranny as well as sporty suspension and wheels. if money doesnt matter, civic hb Si or type-R would be the choice.
I think the Fit is plenty fun to drive, with crisp handling and shifter--actually crisper than the Accent's standard shifter. I think the Accent is more for someone either looking for basic transportation at a bargain price (they can be had under $9k in my town for a GS hatch) or for something with a good complement of equipment, sporty looks and handling, and lower price than a Fit Sport. Also the Accent SE has an available moonroof, which some people like to have.
I am pretty sure it's without a/c, since the ad didn't mention a/c. Also w/o ABS of course. But it's not uncommon up North to have a basic car w/o a/c, especially for a student. I should know--I did w/o a/c for ten years driving in MN before I moved to Houston--got a new car with a/c then! But now I'm back in MN and try to use a/c as little as possible--I prefer the fresh air.
I am the same way and I live in Mississippi where it's in the 90's from May to October, but A/C is still a necessity if I ever want my wife to ride in the car. I also use it when I am bringing ice cream home from Aldi's. My parents lived in Rochester, Minnesota until they retired and then moved to Mesa, Arizona for 10 years before returning to Rochester for health reasons. At any rate, they took their Chysler Newport without A/C out with them and used it as their only vehicle for the whole 10 years in Arizona. That's what I call depression era toughness.
So you've actually calculated your highway MPG with and without windows open and with and without the AC on. What was the difference in MPGs based on your calculations?
I have friends who live in downstate IL (I live near Chicago) so going to see them I usually drive most of the trip on the Interstate. Usually going there in the heat of the day I would drive with the A/C on but coming home well after dark I would drive with the windows open in the cool of the night. At times I would test this theory by filling it up at each end and checking the mileage. IIRC it was slightly more than 1 MPG difference.
Now my dad lived out of state (about 450 miles away) and I had a car that if I drove windows open I could make the trip in one tankfull. But with the A/C on I would have to stop for gas maybe 10-15 miles sooner.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
This comparison between Honda Fit & Hyundai Accent was pretty good. I only read the latter parts of the thread & didn't see any comparisons of the MPG of both cars. My wife's 2008 Accent, bought in Dec 2007 gave 30 to 32 thru the winter & rose just a bit as the weather warmed. I was a bit disappointed, thinking a Honda Fit might have given better MPG.
Finally, I got to take the Accent on 3 day trips to the mountains & Mt. Rainier, getting 41.5, 42.6, & 45.1 MPG! Suddenly, I didn't think the Fit could have gotten any better MPG.
Just an interesting note, the 2009 models MPG ratings are changing on both vehicles. The Honda FIT is getting heavier, and getting a more powerful engine. The engine is a little more advanced but I think the weight is taking the Govt. rated MPG ratings downward on the FIT.
The Accent is just the opposite. The Koreans twiddled the engine or transmission gear ratio to get the Automatic version of the Accent up to 35MPG Hwy(listed on the sticker). That is a 2 MPG improvement over the 2008 Accent on the government testing. The net result is that the Accent will likely now be the MPG leader of the two, although the new FIT looks like a much more expensive vehicle with many more options (but with a price tag to pay for it).
I think the 2009 Fit with AT is also EPA rated 35 highway. Also the Fit has more power now (117 hp) than the Accent. The Fit Sport does get a little pricey, especially with nav (and with ESC, both of which the Accent doesn't offer)--nearly $19.5k with the AT.
A reporter is looking for a car shopper who thinks 40 MPG is a requisite before they buy. If you have recently shopped for a car, and you have only considered cars that get 40 MPG, and you are willing to share your story with a reporter, please contact pr@edmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at noon Pacific/3 p.m. Eastern.
I saw an interesting thing the other day. A VW Bug from the 60s and a Yaris parked together. Guess which one was larger?
Cars have become truly bloated and immense compared to the past. They Accent truly IS a compact car. It's just seen as tiny as there are precious few sub-compacts left for sale in the U.S. Probably the Fiat 500 and the Mini Cooper are about at that's left.
From what I'm reading, some owners are and some are not. When CR tested the Accent recently, they averaged 45 mpg on the highway with the 6AT--5 mpg above the car's EPA rating--and hit 40 mpg with the manual. They got 24 mpg city with the manual and 20 with the automatic, but 22 mpg with the automatic on the Rio. Of automatic cars they tested, only the Versa and Yaris, at 23 mpg, bested the 22 mpg on the Rio, and the Rio has a lot more power than either of those cars. For overall mpg, the Accent with the manual tied for the top score of the group, at 32 mpg--right about at its EPA combined rating--while the automatic Accent was at 31, only one mpg less than the less-powerful Versa and Yaris.
When I test-drove the Accent hatch with automatic, I had no trouble hitting mid-40s mpg on the highway @ 65 mph, and got mid-30s overall for my test drive which was city + highway. The Rio5 automatic I tested got a little less than that but still topped 40 mpg on the highway and was in the low 30s overall, but it was a different test course. And when I test-drove a 2012 base Fit with stick shift, I was able to exceed its EPA ratings but not get close to what I or CR got with the Accent and Rio.
All auto transmissions: 2011 Fit Auto 32mpg 2012 Accent 33mpg 2011 Yaris 31mpg 2012 Kia Rio 33mpg
You'll see they're all about the same. I have a 2007 Fit auto sport and average about 32mpg as well. Right now, a lot of manufacturers are really tuning cars to get maximum mpg on the highway test, rather than in real-world average conditions. And you can't really compare based on a few mile test drive at a dealer either because you need a lot more miles to get an accurate mpg reading than what the trip computer will instantly provide.
CR's tests are over hundreds of miles, not a "few mile test drive". And I CAN compare FE over a test drive. Why not? Even if the computers are off, they give me some idea of relative FE. It appears from reading posts on edmunds.com etc. that many people who buy cars expecting high FE have never measured FE in a test drive that approximates how they drive a car on a daily basis. Then they are surprised when the car doesn't meet their expectations on FE.
So, by the data in fueleconomy.gov, it appears in real-world driving the 138 hp Accent and Rio get better FE than the 106 hp Yaris and 117 hp Fit. I don't see that as being a bad thing, as you seem to.
But the EPA MPG figures for the Accent and Rio are higher than the Fit, so my point is that just because a car tuned to get 40MPG on the EPA's highway test won't necessarily get a better average MPG than a car that can only reach 38MPG on the EPAs highway test.
And of course you can compare FE in a 5 mile test drive at your local dealer, but it won't be statistically as reliable as having a larger sample size, like those posted on fuelseconomy.gov.
That's why for me since all of the 4 cars listed in my previous post get about the same real-world MPG, factors other than MPG would be used to compare them.
And of course you can compare FE in a 5 mile test drive at your local dealer, but it won't be statistically as reliable as having a larger sample size, like those posted on fuelseconomy.gov.
What is more important to me than looking at results from other drivers is what fuel economy the car gets when I drive it. With my driving style. On roads I frequent. In weather that is what it is where I live. In traffic that is what it is where I live. With the kind of gas I can buy where I live. etc.
I have yet to be disappointed in the FE of a car I bought or leased after I measured its FE during my test drive(s)... which usually include a few days of renting the car. I try to rent a car and drive it for awhile in real-world conditions before plunking my money down on it. I get the impression from reading posts on FE that some folks have never done this, let alone even taken the car on a long test drive. They are surprised by the FE they get, and also surprised by other aspects of the car that a long test drive or better yet a rental would have brought out.
You're right that a few days of renting a car is better than a 5 mile test drive. Of course if the car you're renting or test driving isn't the exact car you're buying, then you'll also lose out statistically since you're only sampling a single car vs fuelseconomy.com where multiple cars are driven. Two exact same models of a car driven identically won't have the same mpg. Every car is a little different, which is another reason (other than the greater miles driven) that it's better to look at a large number of cars driven a large number of miles.
Comments
As far as 200 hp in a fit goes, that is quite a bit of engineering. TO build an engine that can do that is incredible. Hyundai even remotely acknowledging this by putting an intake on their little accent is hilarious.
So, Honda can build a performance engine, but Hyundai can't even give performance enhancements a shot?
Sounds a little high and mighty, and that's from a guy who has only driven Hondas.
Well, with every post sounding basically the same (Sarcastically denouncing Hyundai sometimes), it's hard to tell whether or not you are being serious. Remember, on pure text messages, there are no contextual communication clues to pull from to distinguish one's attitude, be it jovial or serious.
Well said.
I would expect as much from someone who graduated.
(was that smile jovial enough?)
The deciding factors had to do with reliability, handling, mpg, braking, and interior space. Negatives on the Fit were road noise, acceleration with the auto, steering wheel position and lack of height adjustable drivers seat. The Versa had better marks for interior comforts, noise levels, but the driving characteristics were not as good on the Fit.
In the Manual category, the Fit was in first place by a pretty wide margin, while in the Auto category, the Versa SL beat out the base Fit auto by only one point.
It seems like with other reviews I've read, and based on my own experience, the Fit and Versa are the top two in this category of tall 4dr hatchbacks with good interior room, with the Versa being quieter and with more comforts, and the Honda having better driving characteristics and quality.
The Rio, Accent and Yaris were grouped at the bottom for various reasons.
Since you seem to have the article, can you tell us which versions of the cars were tested, e.g. were both the base and Sport Fits tested? And were both the Accent 4-door and Accent hatch tested--and which hatch? And what was the equipment, including transmissions, on these cars? Thanks.
What reasons did CR give for rating these cars bottom of the pack?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That about covers everything. So, they pretty much disliked the cars?
I like to read the narratives because sometimes they'll point out things that they consider bad, but that I don't. Or they'll mention things you might not think about. And then I do like looking at the actual mpg, braking, handling and other more objective stats, again just to compare, but if you have 4 cars that all handle great, just because one is slightly better it doesn't matter so much, but at least you can see the real dogs.
Maybe if I am lucky, mine will be in my mailbox tomorrow.
backy, "Low End Sedans (under $16k)" #3704, 6 Nov 2006 9:17 am
Next, the Fit Sport isn't any different mechanically than the base Fit. The only reason the manual Sport got a higher score than the auto base was because they really like the manual tranny in the Civic (and it gave it respectable acceleration figures).
Next, the Rio and Accent scored extremely well, especially compared to the Yaris. The reason the manual versions scored lower is because CR will dock a car roughly 10 points if they don't buy it with ABS. For anyone who hasn't read the article, here are the scores:
Versa CVT - 65
Fit Auto - 64
Rio Auto - 63
Accent Auto - 62
So the four of them essentially tied. I wish they would have tested the Accent SE, though. There's no question the improved handling would have bumped it up a few points, probably to win the whole comparison.
I think they should have tested each car in the fully loaded version (auto and every option) and then each car in the stripped out version. Now we can only speculate.
Actually I think testing the Versa SL with CVT is a good choice, since as soon as production of CVTs gets going, the 4sp auto is gone.
Actually I think testing the Versa SL with CVT is a good choice, since as soon as production of CVTs gets going, the 4sp auto is gone.
I rather like that my Fit MT beats out the versa.
If you would like just a daily driver car like stock to stock features, you'd go for Fit. Its definetly practical since its a four door hatch. Its a car between a Wagon and a Hatchback. plenty of room compared to a hatchback but less than a wagon's. Fun to drive only falls to the Accent SE since it had close ratio tranny as well as sporty suspension and wheels.
if money doesnt matter, civic hb Si or type-R would be the choice.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now my dad lived out of state (about 450 miles away) and I had a car that if I drove windows open I could make the trip in one tankfull. But with the A/C on I would have to stop for gas maybe 10-15 miles sooner.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
My wife's 2008 Accent, bought in Dec 2007 gave 30 to 32 thru the winter & rose just a bit as the weather warmed. I was a bit disappointed, thinking a Honda Fit might have given better MPG.
Finally, I got to take the Accent on 3 day trips to the mountains & Mt. Rainier, getting 41.5, 42.6, & 45.1 MPG! Suddenly, I didn't think the Fit could have gotten any better MPG.
The Accent is just the opposite. The Koreans twiddled the engine or transmission gear ratio to get the Automatic version of the Accent up to 35MPG Hwy(listed on the sticker). That is a 2 MPG improvement over the 2008 Accent on the government testing. The net result is that the Accent will likely now be the MPG leader of the two, although the new FIT looks like a much more expensive vehicle with many more options (but with a price tag to pay for it).
Cars have become truly bloated and immense compared to the past. They Accent truly IS a compact car. It's just seen as tiny as there are precious few sub-compacts left for sale in the U.S. Probably the Fiat 500 and the Mini Cooper are about at that's left.
When I test-drove the Accent hatch with automatic, I had no trouble hitting mid-40s mpg on the highway @ 65 mph, and got mid-30s overall for my test drive which was city + highway. The Rio5 automatic I tested got a little less than that but still topped 40 mpg on the highway and was in the low 30s overall, but it was a different test course. And when I test-drove a 2012 base Fit with stick shift, I was able to exceed its EPA ratings but not get close to what I or CR got with the Accent and Rio.
"YMMV".
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=31079&id=30623&id=31191&id=- - - 31691
are the reports of actual drivers for these vehicles with their average mpg.
All auto transmissions:
2011 Fit Auto 32mpg
2012 Accent 33mpg
2011 Yaris 31mpg
2012 Kia Rio 33mpg
You'll see they're all about the same. I have a 2007 Fit auto sport and average about 32mpg as well. Right now, a lot of manufacturers are really tuning cars to get maximum mpg on the highway test, rather than in real-world average conditions. And you can't really compare based on a few mile test drive at a dealer either because you need a lot more miles to get an accurate mpg reading than what the trip computer will instantly provide.
So, by the data in fueleconomy.gov, it appears in real-world driving the 138 hp Accent and Rio get better FE than the 106 hp Yaris and 117 hp Fit. I don't see that as being a bad thing, as you seem to.
And of course you can compare FE in a 5 mile test drive at your local dealer, but it won't be statistically as reliable as having a larger sample size, like those posted on fuelseconomy.gov.
That's why for me since all of the 4 cars listed in my previous post get about the same real-world MPG, factors other than MPG would be used to compare them.
What is more important to me than looking at results from other drivers is what fuel economy the car gets when I drive it. With my driving style. On roads I frequent. In weather that is what it is where I live. In traffic that is what it is where I live. With the kind of gas I can buy where I live. etc.
I have yet to be disappointed in the FE of a car I bought or leased after I measured its FE during my test drive(s)... which usually include a few days of renting the car. I try to rent a car and drive it for awhile in real-world conditions before plunking my money down on it. I get the impression from reading posts on FE that some folks have never done this, let alone even taken the car on a long test drive. They are surprised by the FE they get, and also surprised by other aspects of the car that a long test drive or better yet a rental would have brought out.
No... I guess not. :sick: