The current issue of Road & Track Magazine has a comparison test between the Toyota Yaris, the Honda Fit, and Nissan Versa. Of course we all know the outcome without even reading the article. The Honda wins. Honda ALWAYS wins! Don't blind them with the imperical data. It's a Honda and therefore it's the winner!

These guys are SO hung up on handling and "Road Feel" that their eyes are closed to any other virtues a competitive vehicle might offer. Do I REALLY care that the Fit can go through a slalom faster than a Corvette Z06. Personally, I've never driven through a slalom coarse and don't intend to start any time soon. I can't even remember the last time I cornered on the sidewalls of the tires. Sure I want a car that won't fall it's face everytime I go around a corner but lateral G-Force capability is highly overrated. I'm also not interested in feeling EVERY little tar strip the wheels go over. A little isolation is welcome in my book. Anyways, get this. On the test race track, the Honda Fit cut a lap of 1 minute, 15.5 seconds. The Nissan Versa completed the same lap in 1 minute 16.0 seconds which they found pretty stunning. Hardly a statistical advantage for Honda. The Toyota trailed at 1 minute, 17.6 seconds. Realistically though, how many people buy this type of vehicle to go racing?

Let's move on to the styling. So what is their take? The Road & Track staff agrees that the Honda is the best looking and indeed sporty. What is my take? STYLING is a totally subjective evaluation and is virtually irrelavent in the context of this class of vehicle. Let's face it. None of these cars are exactly strikingly beautiful! That's not their purpose. They're small fuel efficient vehicles with some cargo versatility. Personally, I think the Honda Fit looks VERY awkward, especially in the side/rear profile and the Yaris is plain _ _ _ _ _ but that's just my opinion. However, it is just as valid an opinion as theirs.

They DID acknowledge that the Versa has the most interior room, particularly for passengers. They gave the Honda the nod for the way in which the back seats fold down out of sight and I can't really fault that. I came to the Versa from a PT Cruiser and can verify that the Nissan's cargo area could hardly be classified as innovative. However, the testers failed to mention the Honda has no Left Foot dead pedal and for me, that was an absolute deal killer for Fit. My left leg was totally uncomfortable with my ankle twisted at a weird angle due to the intruding wheel well. They disliked the center dashboard in the Toyota Yaris and I'd have to agree that that was a major turnoff for me as well.

So let's look at some more data: (Note: All Vehicles Were Equipped with Manual Transmissions)The Honda Fit ran the quarter mile in 16.7 seconds @ 81.8 mphThe Nissan Versa ran the quarter mile in 16.7 seconds @ 84.1 mphThe Toyota Yaris ran the quarter mile in 16.6 seconds @ 84.4 mph

Hmm! In my book that makes Honda the Loser but once again, who takes this type of vehicle to the dragstrip? Statistically they're all about the same.

In Braking, the Toyota was the quickest and stopped 4 feet shorter than the Honda and 6 feet shorter than the Versa from 60 mph. None of them could be considered amongst the greatest in the world but they're O.K. considering how little rubber they have on the road. It is not suprising that the Toyota Yaris won this particular round of the contest since it only weighs 2295 pounds. The Honda Fit tipped the scales at 2475 pounds and the Nissan Versa is the porker of the bunch at a whopping 2725 pounds.

So now, let's get to the reason people actually BUY these cars. Basically fuel efficiency, cost, and versatility are the primary drivers in the equation and here, the data all falls apart.

The Versa was the least expensive by far at $14,005 even though it is the roomiest, heaviest, and uses the only 1.8 liter engine in the group.

The Honda listed at $15,765 and the Toyota racked up for $16,355. As we know, both the Honda and Toyota use 1.5 liter engines. On a pound for dollar basis, the Versa wins this round hands down.

On to fuel efficiency:At the top was the Toyota Yaris at 34 city and 40 highway; not surprising due to it's light weight and small engine.The Honda Fit was 2nd at 33 city and 38 highway.The Porker Nissan Versa trailed at 30 city and 34 highway.BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE:For the duration of all their testing (and we know these guys are not exactly gentle when testing vehicles) the Nissan Versa topped the field in "Real World" fuel economy at 32.5 mpg overall which is smack dab in the middle of their city/hwy EPA numbers. The Toyota came in at 32.3 overall (almost 2 mpg below their city rating) and the WINNING Honda managed to achieve (Tah-Dah) 28.5 overall which is 4.5 mpg or 14% below their city rating. Say what???? The least expensive and heaviest vehicle with the biggest engine and the worst EPA ratings topped this portion of the competition even though it has the lowest ratings.

Now why does that not surprise me? Because I've owned Hondas and I've owned Toyotas. I don't know HOW they get away with it all the time but somehow, they've managed to totally figure the EPA test process. On EVERY other vehicle I've EVER owned, I can exceed the EPA ratings with careful driving in the real world. Not so with my Toyota's and Honda's. I see this born out in 50,000 long term tests time after time. Most vehicles will land somewhere between the city and highway ratings for overall economy but rarely will you see a Honda or Toyota hit their lower city rating for overall economy. Personally, I think they're getting a FREE ride and should be taken to task. Hopefully, the new EPA system can correct this misleading competitiveness. I don't actually take delivery of my Versa SL CVT until next Saturday but it will be interesting to start the real world fuel economy testing. I'm a little anal about mileage and log all my receipts into an Excel database so I'll be able to give unbiased report in a few months.

At any rate, the poor sucker who buys the Fit can console themself about the lousy mileage whilst romping through the slalom in their WINNING Honda!

For me, I'll take the comfort, quietness, excellent stereo, and smooth ride down the road in my Versa.

P.S. I would LOVE to see this test repeated in the Automatic Transmission version of these vehicles, particularly with a CVT equipped Versa. On paper at least, it is supposed to outperform the 6 speed manual by 0.3 seconds to 60 mph and it has higher fuel economy ratings as well. Another statistical matchup with the Fit and Yaris should prove interesting.

Achr,

I get 32-34 mpg conbined city/highway consistently in the real world. It may take a few thousand miles to break in and get that. My synth change was good for another 2-3 mpg.

I do the same as you... You'll probably get a disappointing 20-25 for the first couple thou, but it goes up... this past fillup (not logged on my page yet) was 31.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2548377/7

... if you're interested ...

I cancelled my subscription to Car and Driver around 2002 after they gave the Acura CL-S a rather mediocre review. I loved that car (for 6 years ). I haven't purchased Car and Driver since. I can't speak for Road and Track.

I think many movie reviewers suffer from the same out-of-touchness. They see too many movies and hence can't relate to what the man-on-the-street really would enjoy.

If I believed the Australian reviews of the Tiida/Versa I would never have bought the car. One reviewer said the Tiida could "not outrun an old lady with a shopping cart at a streetlight". Pure BS.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about preferring a little road isolation (and sound proofing by the way, which is another area the Versa excels in)

Bottomline is do your homework, sure, read the reviews but take them with a grain of salt. Then go drive something and follow your heart.

i never read these reviews i go and test drive the car myself. with the fit. ive driven it. its nothing "exciting". the seating position is too high and etc. the versa does have some sporty driving behind it and lower seating position. overall i like the versa better. the yaris does come in second that little egg is fun to drive also.

The Fit's quick steering aand road feel it's almost scary on the freeway. They never mention that if you sneeze, the car will move over 2 lanes. Great in Europe or Japan... the market it was designed for. It's also too cramped. I could never do a long trip in that car. In my Versa, we're towing my motorcycle out to Colorado and back in May for a weeklong vacation.

I think you have to filter the revieews for the features that matter to YOU and toss out a lot of hte subjective criteria.

My fiancee and I test drove a Toyota Sienna yesterday and got back in my Versa, and we realized how comfortable the seats are and how much I like the steering feel and thick steering wheel. The Sienna was very smooth, refined, had a lot of power, but we still liked the Odyssey better for the steering feel, seats and controls layout.

The Yaris was too much of a little toy car. With a passenger, it wasn't much faster than the Versa and with the 4 speed automatic, it had the typical nasal, tin can drone of a economy car.

I test drove all three several times. The thing that sold me on the Versa was the quality of the fit and finish of the interior. It was by far the best of the three. The Yaris reminded me of the cheap and tinny feel of my daughter's Pontiac Wave (Aveo). The Fit felt somewhat cramped to me. While I wasn't all that taken with the styiling of the Versa at first, I like it better than the Wedge look of the Fit. As for the driving experience: I drove my wife's Vibe the other day for the first time in a while and I instantly realized how much I like driving the Versa. While I like the Vibe, I'm happy that my wife has that one and I have the Versa. I have absolutely no regrets about my decision

Personally, I believe that these tests are influenced by the amount of advertising dollars that go into the magazines. If they tested cars without name plates or logos, you might get a different result. I use these tests as general info, but I don't base a purchase on them. Some cars with the best ratings are outright ugly to some. I see a Yaris in my work parking lot daily and regardless of its rating, I wouldn't drive it because of the way it looks.I am sure the owner thinks its beatiful. Everyone has their own taste.

Here is another way of looking at it, though. If these magazines praised the Versa, would you still say that they are biased?

If you accept what the auto magazines say when they tell you what you like to hear, and reject them when they say something that you do not like, you are just as biased as a receipient of information.

I am with all of you who say that these mags are biased. Absolutely. No question about that. But as readers, we also need to be careful. We as human beings have cognitive dissonance - we open ourselves to what we like to hear, and close ourselves to what we don't. Do we ever cite an auto mag to support your car in one situation, and then reject another mag when it says something negative about it?

This bias-ness is the pure reason why in Transworld snowboarding's review of snowboards, they all come totally blank (no graphics, no brand name, no nothing) and the reviewers have absolutely not idea which board is which. With cars that is unrealistic unless you seclude people from when the cars are first out to when they drive them. Either way i wouldn't even give any of those reviews a look at since most of the area's they "grade" are purely subjective and have no actual merit whatsoever.

jacksan1 wrote:H... you are just as biased as a receipient of information.

Of-course, all humans are biased, by nature. (I am reminded of a cartoon where the character was in a cell saying, "Help, help, I'm a prisoner of my cultural upbringing, family environment and education").

The real question is: does the reviewer's bias align with the reader's bias? (I actually prefer the word 'preference' to 'bias' as the word bias implies something is wrong with the opinion.) Would Richard Petty's preference in a daily driver align with the average person on the street? Probably not. In a like manner, the 'expert' reviewers have preferences that have developed in an environment of automotive publishing, testing minutiae, job pressure and peer writer competition, etc. - quite unlike our daily drive. Hence, they have almost a built-in tendency for preferences that will not align wholly with the average person's preferences. The irony is that those writer's who can relate to the average person are often considered geniuses in their field.

i'm just wondering here but what is the actual point of doing a review if you aren't even reviewing the car as it was meant to be used? seems to be a bit of filler just to say they reviewed a certain car to put in their mags etc. Seems a little pointless for us to read if the cars aren't graded on their intended usage. But thats just me

brettv wrote: Seems a little pointless for us to read if the cars aren't graded on their intended usage.

The individual 'grade' will have some value to you, especially if it is a somewhat objective measurement. The key is in assigning your own daily-driver weighting to their grade. If you weight gas economy and interior room at the top of your scale then your overall weighted score will be quite different than the final score of a reviewer who values skidpad and road feel above all else. (I digress but, really, how many consumers care about skid pad figures?).

I'm not suggesting you need to pull out an Excel spreadsheet and create a subjective linear model (aka weighted score). It can be as simple as 'these are the three things I value and they were rated high or low', etc. By tailoring the review to your unique preferences it can become one piece of the car buying equation.

I used the gut method,

how did I feel when I first looked at the car, then how did I feel when I first opened the door and sat inside, then how did I feel when I first drove the car..

maybe not very scientific, but it passed all these tests

then I looked at the reviews from people who had bought one , reliability issues mostly

at that point it still felt right and my wife felt the same as I did, so I looked for a good deal..

Lastly I look at whated the 'experts' had to say..not that it made me change my decision..just can't help myself

The thing I loved about that review was how they compared a base model versa s to the Fit sport and yaris s (I believe the yaris was an s). That kinda like comparing apples and oranges if you ask me. Granted there isn't a huge difference between the packages but there is definately a difference in interoir materials and exterior styling. These types of test need to be done on comparable models with similar options to really evaluate the difference between vehicles.

I'll give a little bit of my opinion, as I chose the Honda Fit over the Nissan Versa (Versa being my second choice), and test drove both.

They both have their pro's and con's, and it really all depends on what your looking for. I liked the comfort of the Versa slightly better than the Fit, but they are both good in my opinion. Some talk of the Fit's cramped interior, but I am 6'3" and fit nicely into it.

That "real world" test was quite a bit off, at least with numbers I have gotten in mine. I always get around 32-35 mpg, and I don't drive like a grandma, I'm a fairly aggressive driver.

Overall, though, I picked the Fit because I liked the way the drive felt better - it felt less big and bulky, and I liked the styling better. But as the author of this thread stated, looks are subjective. The Fit seemed to have more for the money to me.

justmerging wrote:The thing I loved about that review was how they compared a base model versa s to the Fit sport and yaris s (I believe the yaris was an s). That kinda like comparing apples and oranges if you ask me.

I agree with you in that they should have tested the base models of each with the base of the versa. But that would also bring one of the pros of the versa stated by the author down, and that would be the price. The Honda Fit Sport is $15,765, however when I bought mine (base model), it came out to $14,848. Granted, there's no nice body kit or wheels or iPod link (none of which I care too much about), It still has the same interior and road feel. It was best for what I wanted.

Shame to Road and Track for comparing subjective opinions though. It didn't help me at all in making my decision.. I just got out there and found out for myself.

Loved your commentary! Apparently these guys never sit in the back seat. Does a Yaris even have a back seat??? I guess the Yaris Sedan does....

The hatch does too, although it isn't much of one. The Yaris hatch was actually bigger when you get in it then in person... but still WAY too cramped for me. The Yaris just looked too much like a midget camry, I couldn't stomach the styling or the cheapness of the handling.

i test drove the fit, which was going to be my car originally, and found that the versa was a "funner" car for me...and i love the 6spd tranny....they fit sucks...we all know that, thats why 99.9% of the people on this forum have them....but its up 2 everyone to choose what they like more....

I think what the R&T article shows best is how badly Toyota cranks up the prices on their cars. Even their MSRPs are high, "justified" by the (mostly misguided) idea of superior Toyota reliability. However, like all their models, once you're equipped to compete with the competition, you're well outside their price range.

But with the Yaris the situation is worse than most of Toyota's lineup.The Yaris offers the least car out of all 3 of these cars. It's smaller, more basic, and the hatch is short 2 doors. So why does it cost more? Typical Toyota BS.

Car mags are definitely unfairly biased these days. It seems like they're determined to ignore faults in some brands they have come to love while ignoring good qualities in brands they don't love. I stopped listening to the opinion in car magazine reviews and comparisons a long time ago: the raw data is there to help you make your own decisions.Today's automotive world is upside-down anyway. FWD monocoque Minivans and wagons are considered trucks, people by econocompacts for PERFORMANCE...

One review will have two hardcore sports cars face off and have the best performer loose because it's not "refined" enough (SPORTS CAR! Not Buick!) and a microcompact comparo is won by the best performer, not the best compact. I think we're a LITTLE bit backward...