Personal Picks: Small cars

With all the doom and gloom news dominating the airwaves these days, it’s good to know that there’s a new, small car that really blew us away...and it doesn’t cost a fortune. For about $17,000, the manual transmission Honda Fit goes from 0-60 mph in under 10 seconds, holds five people (or lots of cargo) and still gets 33 mpg overall. Remember the “economy” cars of the 1980s? While several got terrific fuel economy, none were as comfortable, fun to drive, or as safe as the Fit. It does so many things well, the Fit is the answer to many buyers’ needs.

As gas prices continue to climb, more and more people may retreat to smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. All of the other fuel-thrifty models in this test group--the Chevrolet Aveo, Nissan Versa, Suzuki SX4, and Toyota Yaris--were competing for second place.

But vehicle choice is a personal one, and here are our staff picks:

Mike Quincy: The Smart ForTwo sparks more conversation than just about anything I’ve driven in the last 10 years. But when people ask me about the diminutive design, I immediately bring up the Honda Fit. I’ve repeated these lines so many times: For about the same money as the Smart, the Fit is immensely more fun to drive and easier to live with. The Fit is faster, has superior steering, loads more cargo room, and only gives up 6 mpg overall. I don’t hate the Smart, but there’s no way I’m buying one over a Fit. Finally, what puts the Fit over the top for me is the relationship between its four-cylinder engine and manual transmission. I can’t think of many engine/transmission combinations that come close to the shear precision of their operation. And after running through the gears in our manual Sport model, I have to again remind myself that it only costs $17,000. The Fit is the smartest choice.

Gabe Shenhar: The engineer in me admires the originality of the Honda Fit design. What a genius of a car. With the gas tank mounted under the front seats, rather than the rear seat, it frees up a lot room, which gives the car its amazing spaciousness and in-cabin flexibility. It’s not for nothing the Fit has already established a cult following during the relatively short time it’s been for sale in the U.S.

But I’d have trouble shelling out $16,000 on a new Fit that’s still a noisy and jittery-riding car. For me, a used Mini Cooper for similar money would be much more enjoyable with similar gas mileage, go-kart agility, and nicer interior (but, admittedly, less space). You can’t have everything.

Rick Small: These small sedans are enjoying a surge in popularity due to poor economy and fresh memories of high gas prices. The Subaru Impreza is a nice car, but only comes in AWD--hurting fuel economy--and the driving position doesn’t fit my tall body as well as some. The Hyundai Elantra is very nice, has a long warranty and good fuel economy. The Toyota Corolla gets very good fuel economy but my tall frame also doesn’t fit in it so well. The Ford Focus has lost some of its grip and with it went braking distances and some of the fun-to-drive factor. The Focus’s driving position is decent for tall drivers but it has no rear headrests which is a serious safety omission. The VW Rabbit feels more solid and sporty than some here and has a good driving position for taller people.

All that being said, my favorite, though, is the Mini Cooper. Both the base and S models are a blast to drive, get very good fuel economy and surprisingly have a very good driving position for tall drivers. The back seat is petty much for storage or very small passengers, however. The Honda Fit has a versatile interior, a useable rear seat and good driving position for taller drivers; a new tilt-and-telescoping steering wheel really helps here. The manual shifter feels sporty. Fuel economy is very good--even with the automatic transmission--but if you want even more mpg, get the manual.

Tom Mutchler: True confession time: I had already written my Personal Pick for this group, the Honda Fit. I started out with a diatribe about the lack of ESC unless you get navigation, but then noted that the Fit was great fun to drive with a very clever interior.

But then I read a post on our expert forums by a Pontiac Vibe owner, suggesting that his car might be the best "budget car" over the Fit. Never mind that the Vibe is larger than the Fit and isn't really a subcompact, or that the MSRP of his Vibe 1.8-liter manual with air and power accessories is $18,630 compared to the $16,730 Fit Sport manual.

Let’s examine his idea. First, that price difference mostly dissolves with the Vibe’s incentives. You can likely buy that Vibe for a little over $17,000; you’ll probably pay list for the high-demand Fit. The Fit doesn't give you the Vibe’s standard ESC or a fold-flat front passenger seat or OnStar. (You do get iPod control and alloy wheels on the Fit Sport; the cheaper base Fit lacks cruise control.)

The Fit isn't exactly a ball of fire and the interior trim is on the cheap side - ditto for the Vibe. Neither is that quiet inside. We haven’t tested a Vibe 1.8-liter manual, but given that our Toyota Corolla manual got 32 mpg overall with the same engine, we’d expect the larger Vibe to get something less. Not quite up to the Fit Sport manual’s fuel economy, but probably still quite good.

Both have room for four and a spacious cargo area. The Vibe has long been reliable too--remember, it's basically a Toyota Matrix that costs less.

My heart still leans towards the spunky, fun-to-drive Fit (or a used Mazda 3s Touring); put simply, I wouldn't look forward towards hustling a Vibe down a twisty road. But logic says that a discounted Vibe is a fine alternative.

Comments

[Cale]

Whoa!!! You folks need a serious reality check...or at least a serious "crash test" reality check. Please review the Fit meets Accord crash test done at the IIHS and check in with your respective loved ones. I'm no longer feeling that "Fit" love after watching the vids. Linky here, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLfK35O91gE

[Matt]

The Accord vs Ridgeline would be just as ugly, as would the Ridgeline vs an Excursion, as would the Excursion getting hit by a bus. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

In 2007 in the US there were 1.36 deaths per 100 MILLION miles driven. Of the ~41,000 deaths that year, about 50% were single vehicle accidents. Also, of those 41k, 5000 were motorcyclists and another 5000 were pedestrians/cyclists. 1/3 of all the fatal crashes involved alcohol. Vehicle rollovers contribute to higher injury/fatality rates as well, meaning bigger isn't always better.

In other words, being a responsible driver (staying in your lane, not running red lights and getting T-boned, not drinking and driving) will contribute to your safety more than which vehicle you pick. Above and beyond that, surplus armored military vehicles are an option as well.

[Cale]

Matt's comments reflect the misconception that buyers have no choice but to accept the inherent risks of driving and that personal responsibility is the key to ensuring one's safety. Unfortunately, his analysis misses on some important points.

1) Driving the smallest car on the road leaves you vulnerable to the greatest risks. All the other cars on the road, with the exception of similar small cars, are capable of inflicting debilitating injuries.

2) The IIHS tests of micro or minicar frontal offset crashes with mid-size sedans from the same manufacturer offer evidence of high risk of injury for the micro and minicar drivers. There is no similar evidence for crashes between cars of different class sizes. I suspect Matt is correct that a Ford Fusion vs Ford Taurus crash test would result in greater injury to the Fusion driver but I wonder how much greater. Surely, the drivers of micro and minicars are offered the least protection in terms of the structural cage that surrounds them.

3) As far as personal responsibility goes...I'll be the first to advocate responsibility but what these tests illustrate is what happens when the driver is hit by someone else.

Buckle up.

Cale

[Michael]

This is about personal picks among small cars, so I don't see the point of comparing crash protection across size ranges. Any small car would be at a disadvantage compared to any larger car, but does that mean that no small cars should be recommended? Any road vehicle would be devastated in a collision with a train--does that mean we should not drive on the road anymore?

Among small cars, the argument against the Fit's crash protection has little merit anyway--the Fit is the only minicar to earn an IIHS "Top Safety Pick" designation.

[Jeff]

Interesting thread--it really illustrates the root of the problem with the US, and that is the inability to understand relative risk. Certainly, if one were to be absolutely safe, one would not drive at all, since it is clearly the most dangerous thing an average person does. Instead, we have deliberately created a enormous energy intensive transportation system, partly because of overweight (and top heavy) personal vehicles--it has contributed to direct national security problems that would have been much less if we consumed much less oil. Anyway, thanks Matt--you hit the nail on the head, as far as I am concerned.

[Cale]

Where are the small cars that offer adequate protection?

Michael, the inadequacy of the IIHS's Top Safety Pic designation was proven by the IIHS when they crashed the Fit into the Accord. It takes a careful eye-for-detail to see that IIHS tests (Top Safety Pic notwithstanding) are meaningless when cars are compared across size classifications.

To those that say that a critical review of micro and minicar safety will lead to a paralyzation of national energy independence and consumption goals, I respond, "You're not coping with the reality that giant vehicles (relative to most European and Asian countries) dominate our roads and you should be concerned with a different sort of paralysis!"