rai

I told some people I test drove a Fit and they they were like "what for?" So I got to thinking...

I sold my neighbor our old Escort with ~99K miles on it (it was not a safe car IMO). He took it off my hands as his 3rd or 4th car and has put a ton of miles on it about 12K/year. It now has 140K miles and going strong. He hasn't spent more than a few hundred on it in 4 years.

My point about the Escort and the Fit is, the Escort was a poorly put together and poor handling little car. But it got great mileage and it was fun to drive (4-speed MT). Also even tho it was put together like crap it ran fine all day long. Dispite it's poor handling it was fun to toss around and it had some pep with the MT. The Fit is (IMO) a much safer car with all it's airbags and abs, etc..

Sometimes I miss a small economical car like the Escort. The Fit seems to me like an Escort in some ways yet built to a much higher standard. Much more solid more features and handles well.

IheartS2ks

I'd entertain the notion, but wouldn't go through with it.


I like the new Suzuki Swifts look 10x more, if and when they come out here.


But if I were buying a car in that market, I'd probably buy something used, that is more inexpensive.

Chris Stack

No. Nevermind the styling, I couldn't imagine having that little power. I mean, my TSX is obviously no rocket, but I can get to highway speeds plenty quick. Even with my '98 Civic EX 5spd, I sometimes felt like it was dangerously gutless when trying to merge onto the highway (in New England, we often have ridiculously short little on/off ramps), for instance. Having to grab third gear to avoid getting nailed by a semi was no fun. Even now that I wish for another 30hp in the TSX, I can't imagine switching to something that has about half the power and 2/3rds+ the weight. I don't need a ZO6, but I want at least SOME balls. I really think an early-00s Accord (or Camry, or whatever) is the money shot in the $12k segment.

rai

[QUOTE=Chris Stack,May 12 2006, 01:35 PM] No.

no_really

yes, but what happens to the passengers of a Tahoe compared to the passengers of a Fit when a truck rear-ends them?

If your parents buy you a Fit, they want you dead. If you buy your kids a Fit, you should be prosecuted for child endangerment. Adults are free to purchase and drive what they want, even if it puts their life at risk. But I don't think the tiny deathtraps like the Fit belong on our nation's highways. At the very least, restrict them like mopeds. They come from a design philosophy that says a moped is a viable commmuter vehicle. And for some, it is. But for most of this nation, at least, they are woefully inadequate. If you don't want your kid to die in a wreck, buy them something that is big and solid, not small and slow. A Honda Civic-type car is borderline, IMHO, and I'll never own something similar again - I just happen to like knowing I'll not die if someone hits me.

Chris Stack

Yeah, but 0-60 isn't the be-all, end-all, and it isn't realistic for a street car. I'm more concerned with passing power and rolling starts, which I think are a more accurate depiction of useable power, and that's where the Fit's weaknesses show up:

TSX:
Top Gear Acceleration
30-50mph: 10.7
50-70mph: 10.5
5-60 rolling start: 8.2
Car and Driver, 2/06

Fit:
Top Gear Acceleration
30-50mph: 12.0
50-70mph: 13.5
5-60 rolling start: 9.6
Car and Driver, 5/06

So, not WORLDS apart, but there is a considerable performance difference there, methinks.

The other issue is that my TSX is worlds better than my Civic at the old "75-80mph highway cruise" in terms of quietness, stability, etc, and I think the Fit would be closer, if not worse than, the Civic at cruising. My sister's '01 Accord isn't much worse than the TSX, just a little noisier, and I think probably more comfortable for longer-distance cruising, and therefore a better choice for me.

Bz2005s2k

The "big and solid" car is not always safer then a smaller car that has safety features like crumple zones and airbags. The car looks waaaaay worse in a wreck but that is because they are designed to take the impact so your body does not.

Now of course in extreme cases where you are in wreck with a semi-truck or a huge SUV, it MIGHT be safer to be in a bigger car with some weight.

I would feel safer in a fit then a Tahoe!

Compact cars do not come from a "design philosophy that says a moped is a viable commmuter vehicle", they come from tons of hours of engineering to create a safe and practical vehicle.

Just my opinion...

rai

This is a point. More than looks or price or fuel econ, I like a safe car.

The Fit is small at 2500 lbs. My Passat has another 1000 lbs on it. I was looking at a GTI (3300 lbs) etc.. Most cars that are 3000+ lbs should be reasonably OK.

The Fit was designed to pass crash tests and has side curtain bags etc..

One thing has to come to a point what car is big enough? I have a friend who has had: 350Z, WRX, M5, GS430 etc.. The GS430 was his latest car but he got scared when a truck almost rear-ended him so he doesn't drive it anymore and now drives a Toyota Land Cruiser. Do we need to be in 5500 lb trucks to feel safe?

rai

This has a point. I mean millions of Corollas and Escorts are on the road. If they were death traps (hmm I don't know). There are death-rate data for each car, I'm not sure Civic is much worse than a mid-size car like a Camry etc..

Bz2005s2k

Instead of making or allowing vehicles like the H1, excursion, monster cab(or whatever it is called) dodge, and others of this sort to be on the road would seem like a more reasonable solution. Some people can not afford to drive something like a TSX or a cadillac. They need something that gets good gas mileage and is cheap. Most people(I said most not all) who own these huge vehicles do not use them for anything but to drive from point a to point b like the rest of us. Is there a need for the excursion at all??

Leave the more useful cars on the road and limit the huge "Icon" trucks and SUV's.