- #215 of 239
-
Re: CR Article [bobw3]
by backy
-
Nov 03, 2006 (11:47 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Nov 03, 2006 11:45 am)
My local stores don't have the December issue yet. Should have it out in a day or so.
|
- #216 of 239
-
Re: CR Article [backy]
by fitluver
-
Nov 03, 2006 (8:54 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: backy (Nov 03, 2006 11:47 am)
My local stores don't have the December issue yet. Should have it out in a day or so.
Maybe if I am lucky, mine will be in my mailbox tomorrow. 
|
- #217 of 239
-
Re: CR Article [fitluver]
by backy
-
Nov 06, 2006 (9:30 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: fitluver (Nov 03, 2006 8:54 pm)
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:
backy, "Low End Sedans (under $16k)" #3704, 6 Nov 2006 9:17 am
|
- #218 of 239
-
Re: CR Article [bobw3]
by herotakesafall
-
Nov 06, 2006 (9:45 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Nov 03, 2006 10:54 am)
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.
|
- #219 of 239
-
Re: CR Article [herotakesafall]
by bobw3
-
Nov 06, 2006 (9:56 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: herotakesafall (Nov 06, 2006 9:45 am)
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.
|
- #220 of 239
-
Re: CR Article [bobw3]
by herotakesafall
-
Nov 06, 2006 (10:01 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Nov 06, 2006 9:56 am)
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.
|
- #221 of 239
-
Re: CR Article [herotakesafall]
by bobw3
-
Nov 06, 2006 (10:12 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: herotakesafall (Nov 06, 2006 10:01 am)
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.
|
- #222 of 239
-
Re: CR Article [bobw3]
by fitluver
-
Nov 14, 2006 (8:52 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: bobw3 (Nov 06, 2006 10:12 am)
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 rather like that my Fit MT beats out the versa. 
|
- #223 of 239
-
Not comparable
by hatchbackfreak
-
Jun 03, 2007 (7:01 pm)
-
|
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.
|
- #224 of 239
-
Re: Not comparable [hatchbackfreak]
by backy
-
Jun 04, 2007 (6:42 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: hatchbackfreak (Jun 03, 2007 7:01 pm)
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.
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks 
