We are looking for a small car to get around city and be easy to find
parking for. Has to be easy to get in and out. Both Fit and xA fit the
Which one is safer? (Side airbags are available in both.)
Which one is "nicer"? Is Honda's Vehicle Stability Assist available for Fit?
Toyota's Vehicle Stability Control is *not* available for xA...
How about GPS, Bluetooth integration, Remote Starter? Moon-roof?
Fit seems cheaper -- why? Thanks for any comments!
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:02:24 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
Either one is a decent choice in that category.
I looked at a Fit and not an xA (xA's are not as nice looking, to me...)
But I bought a tC.
The only thing I didn't like about the Fit? The fact it replaced the Civic
Si hatch! Imagine replacing a little Fire Breather with a Huffer-Puffer!
But that's my rant. Either one is good.
Not to mention that xBoxen aren't really in the same category -- MUCH
more interior space than either the Fit or the xA . . . . ;^)
-Don (who carried home a 10'x16' shed in his xB; in several trips ;^)
"What do *you* care what other people think?" --Arline Feynman
Consumer Reports just rated the cars you are looking at. Check it out at
your local library. I think Fit was their favorite but they actually
indicated that the slightly outdated Focus with all of the incentives
available could be a better buy than all of the new models. Worth reading.
Thanks, I'm actually, their Internet-subscriber. Nissan Versa is the best,
in their opinion, although Fit is the most economical.
With 5K miles/year, fuel efficiency is not a concern here. Safety and
Trying to configure "my own Versa" on nissanusa.com, though, I can't include
both the ABS Package and the "Convenience Package" (which includes
Bluetooth). This puzzles me greatly, but if bluetooth is incompatible with
ABS in a Nissan (and a dealer just confirmed this much over the phone),
then so be it... Oh, and the "Sunroof Package" requires the "Audio Package"
and one of the SIRIUS or XM satellite radio systems. Bizarre...
The second-best was Fit, according to CR with 64-points to Versa's 65. But
all of Toyotas/Scions were below Korean models, and Scion xA, in
particular, had only 37 :-(
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007 03:54:26 -0800, "Robert A. Cunningham"
The Fit AT which scored 64 was a base model which cost $1400 less than
the Versa SL which scored 65. The MT Fit scored 75 so it was much
better than the AT Versa, largely because it was the better equipped
Sport model. One might surmise that, if a Fit Sport AT had been
tested, it would have scored better than 65 and the cost would have
been about equal to the Versa SL.
Also, CR reported overall mpg for the several months they owned the
Fit MT 34
Fit AT 32
Versa MT 29
Versa AT 28
Finally, Nissan's reliability has been erratic ever since Renault took
over (big surprise.)
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.