- #10 of 11
-
Re: a good comparason for you... [inaudible]
by mustangleader
-
Jun 25, 2009 (11:54 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: inaudible (Jun 05, 2006 10:32 pm)
After reading this article, I have to disagree with the writer. I went and drove a Fit. It's sits higher than the PR5 which for me, takes the fun out compared to my 2002 PR5. I also own a Speed 3 which is a different car because it's a turbo, higher profile as well, and heavier. Purely from standpoint driving a car every day, I acturally prefer the PR5. Don't know whether the writer had a automatic or a heavy foot, but I get 25-26 miles in town and 32-34 highway, depending how fast I drive. The PR5 has been geared with low end torque which makes it's more usable than the Fit as well as the 2002 Matrix which required more rpms to get max torque. Though I never felt the car was underpowered, I added a K&N cold air filter, a megna flow exhaust system and had the computer reprogrammed. With these aftermarket equipment, I have the combination of acceleration and cornering that Fit can even come close to. Since I made these modifications early on (I have 172,000 miles now), I can't remember the acceleration back then but I was never unhappy with it though review of the PR5 bring this issue up. But I believe it was Car & Driver wrote, "Some cars performance numbers don't impress you but the Protege5 drives just feels right regardless." It rated number 1 against its competitors at that time which was the PT Cruiser, Matrix, Focus, Vibe, etc.
PR5 is better looking, bigger and drives like a sports car than the Fit I drove. I would recommend that if you have a PR5, I wouldn't trade it in for a Fit. if you can find a low milegage PR5, I buy and keep the difference than a new Fit. As every owner of a PR5 has written in places like Edmunds, these cars are mostly maintenance free. And they last!!!
|
- #11 of 11
-
Re: a good comparason for you... [inaudible]
by mustangleader
-
Jun 25, 2009 (11:58 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: inaudible (Jun 05, 2006 10:32 pm)
After reading this article, I have to add more than my earlier reply/statement to the writer who said the Fit is a better car than the PR5. I went and drove a Fit. It's sits higher than the PR5 which for me, takes the fun out compared to my 2002 PR5. I also own a Speed 3 which is a different car because it's a turbo, higher profile as well, and heavier. Purely from standpoint driving a car every day, I acturally prefer the PR5. Don't know whether the writer had a automatic or a heavy foot, but I get 25-26 miles in town and 32-34 highway, depending how fast I drive. The PR5 has been geared with low end torque which makes it's more usable than the Fit as well as the 2002 Matrix which required more rpms to get max torque. Though I never felt the car was underpowered, I added a K&N cold air filter, a megna flow exhaust system and had the computer reprogrammed. With these aftermarket equipment, I have the combination of acceleration and cornering that Fit can even come close to. Since I made these modifications early on (I have 172,000 miles now), I can't remember the acceleration back then but I was never unhappy with it though review of the PR5 bring this issue up. But I believe it was Car & Driver wrote, "Some cars performance numbers don't impress you but the Protege5 drives just feels right regardless." It rated number 1 against its competitors at that time which was the PT Cruiser, Matrix, Focus, Vibe, etc.
PR5 is better looking, bigger and drives like a sports car than the Fit I drove. I would recommend that if you have a PR5, I wouldn't trade it in for a Fit. if you can find a low milegage PR5, I buy and keep the difference than a new Fit. As every owner of a PR5 has written in places like Edmunds, these cars are mostly maintenance free. And they last!!!
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks 
