Honda Fit Info
12-01-2006, 06:32 AM
#21
HC Racer H5
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: KCK
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Honda Fit vs. Nissan Versa
Link
[quote=AutoWeek]Honda Fit [base model] vs. Nissan Versa [SL model]
AutoWeek
Published 11/27/06
With a bevy of B-class cars from the Chevrolet Aveo to the Toyota Yaris hitting the street in numbers, we thought it a good time to pit two of the best examples against each other and let them duke it out for the title of Best of the Bs.
The Nissan Versa and Honda Fit are both as good as the segment gets, but that’s not enough for us, at least from a DoubleTake standpoint. We want, nay, need a winner, so we dragged each to our testing facility in perpetually sunny Southern California to thrash the bejeebers out of both. And after feeding the resulting data into the AutoWeek ENIAC and filtering through punch cards, we’ve deemed one victorious.
But that’s for later.
Though diminutive in size, both cars deliver efficient designs wrapped in small but smartly styled packages. The Nissan, in hatchback form, provides 94.4 cubic feet of passenger volume for five. That’s just 2.1 cubic feet shy of a sunroof-equipped Infiniti G35 sedan, for example. The cargo space eclipses the G35’s, with 16.9 cubic feet of grocery-hauling capacity to the Infiniti’s meager 13.5. Flip down the folding rear seats of the little hatchback and cargo jumps to a whopping 50.4 cubic feet.
Likewise, the Honda Fit seats five with a total of 90.1 cubic feet of passenger volume. Rear-seat legroom suffers a bit compared with the Versa’s, at 33.7 inches to the Nissan’s capacious 38.0. But there’s more cargo space behind the rear seats, at 21.3 cubic feet, even if that advantage diminishes once the seats are folded, to 41.9.
Rear seat and cargo room in the Fit fall short of the Versa, due mainly to the Honda’s shorter wheelbase and overall length. At 157.4 inches long, the Fit gives up 11.7 inches of length to the Nissan; with its wheels pushed farther out to the corners, however, the Honda’s wheelbase makes up some of the deficit, at 96.5 inches to the Versa’s 102.4.
Both cars use independent MacPherson strut front suspension setups and rear torsion-beam configurations with antiroll bars. Both also feature front vented disc brakes, the Versa’s measuring 11.02 inches in diameter to the Fit’s 10.3-inchers, and rear drum brakes.
On the road, both cars exhibit decent road isolation, though we did detect a few minor trim rattles from the Honda’s dashboard when hitting larger bumps. The front suspension on the Honda also felt a bit softer than the Nissan’s, though we never felt any sort of freeway hop from either. And neither car demonstrated outstanding straight-line stability, both front-drivers tending to track along with freeway grooves and requiring the driver to maintain regular steering corrections.
We found both interiors well laid out, with the materials used in both of a decent quality. We give the nod to the Versa in this category, as the Fit did have a few cheap, shiny plastic parts sprinkled about. The Nissan felt a bit better put together as well, though the Honda did a better job of noise isolation, both at idle and at maximum first-gear revs.
Under the hood, the Fit makes do with a five-speed manual transmission and 1.5-liter inline-four, a single-overhead-cam design utilizing Honda’s signature VTEC technology to pump out 109 horses and 105 lb-ft of torque. The Versa, however, trumps the Honda’s output, turning out 122 hp and 127 lb-ft from its larger 1.8-liter dual-cam four mated to a six-speed manual. Much of that power advantage unfortunately gets eaten up by the Versa’s significantly higher curb weight, at 2722 pounds compared to the Fit’s 2432.
Perhaps partly due to its weight advantage, the Fit managed a hair-thin advantage in off-the-line performance at the track, reaching 60 mph from a standstill in 9.3 seconds to the Versa’s 9.33. By the time both hit the quarter-mile sticks, the Versa made up for the slightly slower start—due to its shorter fourth gear and significantly superior 60-to-80-mph split time—reaching a top speed of 81.6 mph in 16.99 seconds compared to the Fit’s slower but quicker 79.9 mph in 16.92.
Through the slalom course, we found the Honda understeered noticeably less than the Nissan, allowing for the throttle to remain planted through most of the run. Its best runs came when driven fairly gently. Overall, we found the Fit incredibly easy to maneuver through the cones; the entire exercise involved just flicking the steering wheel and waiting for the response.
The Versa, on the other hand, felt underpowered in the slalom, requiring much more throttle modulation through the early cones and a more aggressive approach overall. The Nissan would lose too much momentum too quickly with the smoother, less-involved technique we used with the Honda. The quickest run we achieved in the Nissan, at 42.3 mph, fell far short of the Honda’s 44.2 mph.
Likewise, the Fit displayed a perfectly controlled demeanor on the skidpad, requiring the driver to simply hold the steering wheel steady and steer with the gas pedal to achieve 0.74 g of lateral acceleration. The Versa, on the other hand, while as easy to direct around the 200-foot diameter circle as the Fit, delivered far less feel, with a sort of disconnect between the tires and the steering wheel, where the Honda felt firmly connected to the tarmac. Its lateral acceleration fell just shy of the Fit’s, at 0.71 g.
The Fit outperformed the Versa in braking, as well, eating up just 130 feet in coming to a stop from 60 mph, with the Nissan requiring an additional six feet. We found the antilock brakes operated far more smoothly in the Fit, with less of a pulsating sensation. The Honda came equipped with standard ABS; the Nissan ABS is an extra-cost option.
We found track performance disparities between the cars particularly interesting given the difference in stock tires. The Honda was the one sporting the super cheap rubber, with Dunlop 175/65R-14s all around compared to the Nissan’s slightly more performance-oriented Continental ContiPro Contacts, 185/65R-15s. Had we tested the Fit Sport with its upgraded, 195/55R-15 rubber, we have no doubt the performance margin the Honda displayed over the Versa would have been wider.
In terms of fuel economy, the Honda had the Versa beat. The Nissan’s EPA combined 32 mpg falls short of the Fit’s 35 mpg, while on the road we realized the same advantage, with the Honda achieving 34.3 mpg and the Nissan just 31.1.
So after an exhausting all-day testing affair where we pushed both little cars to their limits, we have to award the Fit the winner. Where the Honda started out with an apparent disadvantage, at least on paper, when it came to proving itself at the track, the Fit simply outshone the Versa.
More Views
I like both cars but prefer the Nissan Versa to the Honda Fit. Why? The Versa seems like more of a grown-up car to me; where the Fit has a chintzy quality to it, the Versa simply feels more robust. I also think the Versa’s ride and handling are nothing short of superb. It’s a close call, but I gotta go with the Versa this time. WES RAYNAL
This segment couldn’t have blossomed at a better time, whether for the national interest in increased fuel economy or for my personal interest (in perhaps as a ride for my teen boys). If push came to shove, I’d go with the Nissan Versa, maybe precisely because the Honda will get sucked up by the tuner masses. Then again... DUTCH MANDEL
The Honda Fit feels a bit more sporty and fun to drive. The fact that it simply looks better is the icing on the cake. I give both of these B-segment cars props for delivering loads of quality and utility in a small package, but I’d rather live with the Fit on a day-to-day basis. PHIL FLORADAY
Given the choice of these two, I’d have me a Fit. This despite my impression that the styling is behind the curve because it’s really a few years old (sold elsewhere under the far better name Jazz) and the interior is sub-par. But it drives like a small Honda, and that’s a good thing. Of course, a base Cooper drives like a Mini and that’s a better, if costlier, thing. KEVIN A. WILSON
2007 Honda Fit
ENGINE
Front-transverse 1.5-liter/91-cid sohc I4
Output: 109 hp @ 5800 rpm, 105 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
Compression ratio: 10.4:1
Fuel requirement: 87 octane
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Five-speed manual
Final drive ratio: 4.294:1
CHASSIS
Unibody five-door wagon
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.5 in
Track (front/rear): 57.3/57.1 in
Length/width/height: 157.4/66.2/60 in
Curb weight/GVWR: 2432/3446 lbs
SUSPENSION
Front: MacPherson struts with coil springs, hydraulic shock absorbers, antiroll bar
Rear: Torsion beam with coil springs, hydraulic shock absorbers
BRAKES/WHEELS/TIRES
Discs front, drum rear, ABS; aluminum 175/65R-14 Dunlop SP31 A/S
CAPACITIES
Fuel: 10.8 gal
Cargo: 21.3 cu ft
OPTIONS AS TESTED
None
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 9.30 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 9.86 sec
0-quarter-mile: 16.92 sec @ 79.9 mph
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (second gear): 3.9 sec
40-60 mph (third gear): 5.8 sec
60-80 mph (fourth gear): 10.0 sec
BRAKING
60 mph-0: 130 ft
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: 44.2 mph
Lateral acceleration (200-foot skidpad): 0.74 g
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: 35 mpg
AW overall: 34.3 mpg
INTERIOR NOISE (DBA)
Idle: 38
Max first gear: 73
Steady 60 mph: 66
2007 Nissan Versa SL
ENGINE
Front-transverse 1.8-liter/110-cid dohc I4
Output: 122 hp @ 5200 rpm, 127 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
Compression ratio: 9.9:1
Fuel requirement: 87 octane
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Six-speed manual
Final drive ratio: 3.933:1
CHASSIS
Unibody five-door wagon
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 102.4 in
Track (front/rear): 58.3/58.5 in
Length/width/height: 169.1/66.7/60.4 in
Curb weight/GVWR: 2722/3770 lbs
SUSPENSION
Front: MacPherson struts with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
Rear: Torsion bar with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
BRAKES/WHEELS/TIRES
Discs front, drum rear, ABS; aluminum 185/65R-15 Continental ContiPro Contact
CAPACITIES
Fuel: 13.2 gal
Cargo: 16.9 cu ft
OPTIONS AS TESTED
ABS package, with antilock braking system, electronic brake force distribution, brake assist ($250)
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 9.33 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 10.02 sec
0-quarter-mile: 16.99 sec @ 81.6 mph
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (second gear): 3.8 sec
40-60 mph (third gear): 5.3 sec
60-80 mph (fourth gear): 7.8 sec
BRAKING
60 mph-0: 136 ft
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: 42.3 mph
Lateral acceleration (200-foot skidpad): 0.71 g
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: 32 mpg
AW overall: 31.1 mpg
INTERIOR NOISE (DBA)
Idle: 41
Max first gear: 75
Steady 60 mph: 64
[quote=AutoWeek]Honda Fit [base model] vs. Nissan Versa [SL model]
AutoWeek
Published 11/27/06
With a bevy of B-class cars from the Chevrolet Aveo to the Toyota Yaris hitting the street in numbers, we thought it a good time to pit two of the best examples against each other and let them duke it out for the title of Best of the Bs.
The Nissan Versa and Honda Fit are both as good as the segment gets, but that’s not enough for us, at least from a DoubleTake standpoint. We want, nay, need a winner, so we dragged each to our testing facility in perpetually sunny Southern California to thrash the bejeebers out of both. And after feeding the resulting data into the AutoWeek ENIAC and filtering through punch cards, we’ve deemed one victorious.
But that’s for later.
Though diminutive in size, both cars deliver efficient designs wrapped in small but smartly styled packages. The Nissan, in hatchback form, provides 94.4 cubic feet of passenger volume for five. That’s just 2.1 cubic feet shy of a sunroof-equipped Infiniti G35 sedan, for example. The cargo space eclipses the G35’s, with 16.9 cubic feet of grocery-hauling capacity to the Infiniti’s meager 13.5. Flip down the folding rear seats of the little hatchback and cargo jumps to a whopping 50.4 cubic feet.
Likewise, the Honda Fit seats five with a total of 90.1 cubic feet of passenger volume. Rear-seat legroom suffers a bit compared with the Versa’s, at 33.7 inches to the Nissan’s capacious 38.0. But there’s more cargo space behind the rear seats, at 21.3 cubic feet, even if that advantage diminishes once the seats are folded, to 41.9.
Rear seat and cargo room in the Fit fall short of the Versa, due mainly to the Honda’s shorter wheelbase and overall length. At 157.4 inches long, the Fit gives up 11.7 inches of length to the Nissan; with its wheels pushed farther out to the corners, however, the Honda’s wheelbase makes up some of the deficit, at 96.5 inches to the Versa’s 102.4.
Both cars use independent MacPherson strut front suspension setups and rear torsion-beam configurations with antiroll bars. Both also feature front vented disc brakes, the Versa’s measuring 11.02 inches in diameter to the Fit’s 10.3-inchers, and rear drum brakes.
On the road, both cars exhibit decent road isolation, though we did detect a few minor trim rattles from the Honda’s dashboard when hitting larger bumps. The front suspension on the Honda also felt a bit softer than the Nissan’s, though we never felt any sort of freeway hop from either. And neither car demonstrated outstanding straight-line stability, both front-drivers tending to track along with freeway grooves and requiring the driver to maintain regular steering corrections.
We found both interiors well laid out, with the materials used in both of a decent quality. We give the nod to the Versa in this category, as the Fit did have a few cheap, shiny plastic parts sprinkled about. The Nissan felt a bit better put together as well, though the Honda did a better job of noise isolation, both at idle and at maximum first-gear revs.
Under the hood, the Fit makes do with a five-speed manual transmission and 1.5-liter inline-four, a single-overhead-cam design utilizing Honda’s signature VTEC technology to pump out 109 horses and 105 lb-ft of torque. The Versa, however, trumps the Honda’s output, turning out 122 hp and 127 lb-ft from its larger 1.8-liter dual-cam four mated to a six-speed manual. Much of that power advantage unfortunately gets eaten up by the Versa’s significantly higher curb weight, at 2722 pounds compared to the Fit’s 2432.
Perhaps partly due to its weight advantage, the Fit managed a hair-thin advantage in off-the-line performance at the track, reaching 60 mph from a standstill in 9.3 seconds to the Versa’s 9.33. By the time both hit the quarter-mile sticks, the Versa made up for the slightly slower start—due to its shorter fourth gear and significantly superior 60-to-80-mph split time—reaching a top speed of 81.6 mph in 16.99 seconds compared to the Fit’s slower but quicker 79.9 mph in 16.92.
Through the slalom course, we found the Honda understeered noticeably less than the Nissan, allowing for the throttle to remain planted through most of the run. Its best runs came when driven fairly gently. Overall, we found the Fit incredibly easy to maneuver through the cones; the entire exercise involved just flicking the steering wheel and waiting for the response.
The Versa, on the other hand, felt underpowered in the slalom, requiring much more throttle modulation through the early cones and a more aggressive approach overall. The Nissan would lose too much momentum too quickly with the smoother, less-involved technique we used with the Honda. The quickest run we achieved in the Nissan, at 42.3 mph, fell far short of the Honda’s 44.2 mph.
Likewise, the Fit displayed a perfectly controlled demeanor on the skidpad, requiring the driver to simply hold the steering wheel steady and steer with the gas pedal to achieve 0.74 g of lateral acceleration. The Versa, on the other hand, while as easy to direct around the 200-foot diameter circle as the Fit, delivered far less feel, with a sort of disconnect between the tires and the steering wheel, where the Honda felt firmly connected to the tarmac. Its lateral acceleration fell just shy of the Fit’s, at 0.71 g.
The Fit outperformed the Versa in braking, as well, eating up just 130 feet in coming to a stop from 60 mph, with the Nissan requiring an additional six feet. We found the antilock brakes operated far more smoothly in the Fit, with less of a pulsating sensation. The Honda came equipped with standard ABS; the Nissan ABS is an extra-cost option.
We found track performance disparities between the cars particularly interesting given the difference in stock tires. The Honda was the one sporting the super cheap rubber, with Dunlop 175/65R-14s all around compared to the Nissan’s slightly more performance-oriented Continental ContiPro Contacts, 185/65R-15s. Had we tested the Fit Sport with its upgraded, 195/55R-15 rubber, we have no doubt the performance margin the Honda displayed over the Versa would have been wider.
In terms of fuel economy, the Honda had the Versa beat. The Nissan’s EPA combined 32 mpg falls short of the Fit’s 35 mpg, while on the road we realized the same advantage, with the Honda achieving 34.3 mpg and the Nissan just 31.1.
So after an exhausting all-day testing affair where we pushed both little cars to their limits, we have to award the Fit the winner. Where the Honda started out with an apparent disadvantage, at least on paper, when it came to proving itself at the track, the Fit simply outshone the Versa.
More Views
I like both cars but prefer the Nissan Versa to the Honda Fit. Why? The Versa seems like more of a grown-up car to me; where the Fit has a chintzy quality to it, the Versa simply feels more robust. I also think the Versa’s ride and handling are nothing short of superb. It’s a close call, but I gotta go with the Versa this time. WES RAYNAL
This segment couldn’t have blossomed at a better time, whether for the national interest in increased fuel economy or for my personal interest (in perhaps as a ride for my teen boys). If push came to shove, I’d go with the Nissan Versa, maybe precisely because the Honda will get sucked up by the tuner masses. Then again... DUTCH MANDEL
The Honda Fit feels a bit more sporty and fun to drive. The fact that it simply looks better is the icing on the cake. I give both of these B-segment cars props for delivering loads of quality and utility in a small package, but I’d rather live with the Fit on a day-to-day basis. PHIL FLORADAY
Given the choice of these two, I’d have me a Fit. This despite my impression that the styling is behind the curve because it’s really a few years old (sold elsewhere under the far better name Jazz) and the interior is sub-par. But it drives like a small Honda, and that’s a good thing. Of course, a base Cooper drives like a Mini and that’s a better, if costlier, thing. KEVIN A. WILSON
2007 Honda Fit
ENGINE
Front-transverse 1.5-liter/91-cid sohc I4
Output: 109 hp @ 5800 rpm, 105 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
Compression ratio: 10.4:1
Fuel requirement: 87 octane
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Five-speed manual
Final drive ratio: 4.294:1
CHASSIS
Unibody five-door wagon
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 96.5 in
Track (front/rear): 57.3/57.1 in
Length/width/height: 157.4/66.2/60 in
Curb weight/GVWR: 2432/3446 lbs
SUSPENSION
Front: MacPherson struts with coil springs, hydraulic shock absorbers, antiroll bar
Rear: Torsion beam with coil springs, hydraulic shock absorbers
BRAKES/WHEELS/TIRES
Discs front, drum rear, ABS; aluminum 175/65R-14 Dunlop SP31 A/S
CAPACITIES
Fuel: 10.8 gal
Cargo: 21.3 cu ft
OPTIONS AS TESTED
None
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 9.30 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 9.86 sec
0-quarter-mile: 16.92 sec @ 79.9 mph
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (second gear): 3.9 sec
40-60 mph (third gear): 5.8 sec
60-80 mph (fourth gear): 10.0 sec
BRAKING
60 mph-0: 130 ft
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: 44.2 mph
Lateral acceleration (200-foot skidpad): 0.74 g
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: 35 mpg
AW overall: 34.3 mpg
INTERIOR NOISE (DBA)
Idle: 38
Max first gear: 73
Steady 60 mph: 66
2007 Nissan Versa SL
ENGINE
Front-transverse 1.8-liter/110-cid dohc I4
Output: 122 hp @ 5200 rpm, 127 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm
Compression ratio: 9.9:1
Fuel requirement: 87 octane
DRIVETRAIN
Front-wheel drive
Transmission: Six-speed manual
Final drive ratio: 3.933:1
CHASSIS
Unibody five-door wagon
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase: 102.4 in
Track (front/rear): 58.3/58.5 in
Length/width/height: 169.1/66.7/60.4 in
Curb weight/GVWR: 2722/3770 lbs
SUSPENSION
Front: MacPherson struts with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
Rear: Torsion bar with coil springs, gas-charged shock absorbers, antiroll bar
BRAKES/WHEELS/TIRES
Discs front, drum rear, ABS; aluminum 185/65R-15 Continental ContiPro Contact
CAPACITIES
Fuel: 13.2 gal
Cargo: 16.9 cu ft
OPTIONS AS TESTED
ABS package, with antilock braking system, electronic brake force distribution, brake assist ($250)
STANDING-START ACCELERATION
0-60 mph: 9.33 sec
0-100 km/h (62.1 mph): 10.02 sec
0-quarter-mile: 16.99 sec @ 81.6 mph
ROLLING ACCELERATION
20-40 mph (second gear): 3.8 sec
40-60 mph (third gear): 5.3 sec
60-80 mph (fourth gear): 7.8 sec
BRAKING
60 mph-0: 136 ft
HANDLING
490-foot slalom: 42.3 mph
Lateral acceleration (200-foot skidpad): 0.71 g
FUEL MILEAGE
EPA combined: 32 mpg
AW overall: 31.1 mpg
INTERIOR NOISE (DBA)
Idle: 41
Max first gear: 75
Steady 60 mph: 64
11-17-2009, 06:50 PM
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: columbia, sc
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a bad looking car for what it is...I hope someone comes out with a macho looking, amazing mpg getting, vehicle soon....I need great gas mileage, but lets face it...I'm not giving up my manhood to get it...
11-21-2009, 04:29 AM
#24
2gr84u
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: VIRGINIA
Posts: 3,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by the sounds of it you havent acheived manhood, so youve got nothing to lose
New Honda Fit Announcement
