Review: 2007 Nissan Versa 1.8 S
11-28-06, 01:54 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2007 Nissan Versa 1.8 S
http://www.nissanusa.com/versa/
In a Nutshell: Neither a Vice-Versa nor a Viceless one.......a little of both.
Nissan, in a move that is basically similiar to what Honda did with the Civic and Fit, has moved its formerly entry-level Sentra up one marketing notch and has introduced the 5-door subcompact Versa hatchback as its new American market entry-level car. As I have already reviewed the latest verions of the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, and Kia Rio, I felt that the Versa, naturally, should be the next small car I look at, not only to evaluate it on its own merits but to compare it to its established competition as well. The Versa has not been available until now......Nissan has dragged its feet somewhat getting it to market....and they are just now beginning to appear at American dealerships. Two different trim lines are offered, ( S and SL ) each with the same 1.8 L in-line four. The base S model has a choice of a 6-speed manual or 4-speed automatic, while the SL offers the same 6-speed manual plus a CVT. Versas are not exactly plentiful at most Nissan dealers right now, and the one I visited today had only one or two ready to go...and a dark blue S automatic one with beige cloth interior was parked right out in front, and as that particular model is ( usually ) better-suited to the driving conditions around here than the manual, ( but not necessarily better than the CVT ) I decided to go ahead and review it.
Nissan, in its public-relations hoopla, has made a big deal about this car's size and power advantages over its rivals for about the same price. I did find the interior, in general, well-suited for big, tall people (and my physical size is generally a good test) but, like with several other entry-level cars in this price range, I did not find this particular engine and powertrain combination very impressive. In spite of a clutch and manual transmission's awkwardness in heavy traffic, on cars like this, with small engines, a manual may be worth considering unless you have a foot or leg problem, simply can't drive a clutch, or don't mind being in the slow lane all day.
Other than that, the car, more or less, is visually a basically scaled-down version of larger Nissan products, trim and appearance-wise. There are some differences with other Nissan products in the ride-and-handling department, neither of which was particularly impressive. So now let's take a look at the car in greater detail.
Model Reviewed: 2007 Nissan Versa 1.8 S Automatic
Base price: $13,350
Major Options:
1.8 S Power Package $700
ABS Package $250
Freight $615
Price as reviewed: $14,915
Drivetrain: FWD, Transverse-mounted DOHC 1.8L in-line 4, 122 HP @ 5200 RPM, 127 ft.-lbs. torque @ 4800 RPM,
4-speed automatic transmission.
Exterior Color: Blue Onyx
Interior: Beige cloth
PLUSSES:
Good exterior fit-and-finish.
Good exterior hardware.
Well-designed automatic transmission lever.
Efficient 6-speed manual and CVT transmissions available.
Better-than-average small-car paint job.
Roomy for tall people and space-efficient inside.
Well-designed gauges.
Slick-feeling controls.
High-friction suede-like cloth on S-model seats and door panels holds you in place.
Solid-feeling exterior mirrors.
Relatively quiet-running engine.
Good torque.....but only starting from rest.
Nice stereo for an entry-level car.
Engine fits underhood nicely, reasonably good access to dipsticks and some components.
MINUSES:
Engine runs out of breath too quickly with 4-speed automatic.
Spongy brakes, with poorly-designed pedal for big feet and shoes.
Low-feel, feathery, non-self-centering power steering.
Suspension not a particularly good compromise of either ride comfort or good handling.
Lots of road and tire noise on coarse road surfaces.
Cheap-looking silver finish on much of the interior metallic trim. ( wood-tone trim not avalable ).
Oil filter unaccessible from above, plastic panel complicates access from below.
Absurd exterior paint-color choices.
Flat, square, oddly-shaped front seats with almost no side bolstering.
Small, triangular A-Pillar windows do not provide any significant added visibility.
Droop-down front fenders not visible from driver's seat....a hinderance in parking.
The first impression of this car as you walk up to it is that of a not-too-terribly original-looking car. The front end is strongly Nissan Murano-like in appearance, and the rear end, particularly the C-pillars, is strongly reminiscent of the new Toyota RAV4, Mitsubishi Outlander, and Pontiac Vibe, with Nissan 350Z-like taillights. Nissan, recently, has given all of its cars, and most of its other vehicles, the same general look on the outside, trim-wise, and this car is no exception......it is instantly identifiable as a Nissan product at first glance.
Having said that,though, it does benefit a little on the outside from Nissan's also-recent efforts to improve the fit-and-finish on its cars. The paint job is better-than-average for an entry-level car, though not quite to the level of Toyota / Scion small cars. The outside mirrors, a weak point on many vehicles, are made of solid-feeling materials and are well-screwed on. The outside trim is neatly and tastefuly done, again not lavish, but in line with the car's price. But the exterior paint colors.......an unbelievably poor choice. Come on, Nissan.....you can do better than THIS. Two medium-to-dark blues, two silver-grays, bright red, white, and black. Reminds me of Henry Ford with his model T, some 80-90 years ago.
Get inside, shut the rather light-feeling door, which shuts with a fairly solid thud, and the interior is reasonably well-done, although the all-too-common Nissan metallic-trim and low-finish cheapness is evident in some places, like the interior door handles. Even with the beige interior, where a number of automakers use wood-tone with the beige, and metallic trim with the gray / black, Nissan offers only the brushed-metal look...no wood-tone available.
But the interior is generally quite well-done. There is plenty of room for large, heavy people like me, there is no sunroof to cut down on headroom ( I had no problem even in my ubiquitous baseball cap ), there is adequate legroom front and rear....especially with the front seats a little forward, and a reasonable amount of room to carry things behind the seats. Looks like Nissan's advertising was correct when they bragged about the room inside.
The gauges and controls are also generally well-done. The well-designed dash gauges had the usual Nissan / Infiniti yellow-orange lighting and numerals. Almost all of the controls and stalks were clearly labelled and easy to operate. About the only thing I missed was a proper radio tuning **** instead of the small button provided, but that is the case on many vehicles today. The dash gauges were surrounded by the now-trendy chrome rings......much nicer than the regular Nissan metallic trim.
OK...start her up. The 1.8L 122 HP four is quite refined and idles smoothly and quietly, with little noise or vibration. Shift it into gear, which is a real pleasure with the fore-aft shift-lever movement ( none of that zig-zag nonsense here ) and take off. It is obvious that Nissan's engineers programmed the engine's computer, fuel injection, and transmission ratios to try and create an artificial feeling of power, which it does provide right on take-off. Unless you featherfoot it, the throttle is quite jumpy from rest...up to about 10 MPH, where it then goes flatter than Twiggy in a stack of pancackes. Get rolling from a stoplight up to about 15-20 MPH or so, and THEN give it some gas, and, with the 4-speed automatic at least, you'd better be ready to stay in the slow lane. I did not check-test a manual or CVT model ( none were available today ), but rest assured, the 4-speed automatic model is not going to win any Friday-night drag races.
The automatic transmission, though it obviously saps a lot of power from the engine, is quite exemplary in other ways. Despite a lack of a manual-shift mode and having only 4 gears. it is smooth and quiet, and has the " OD/OFF " mode that Mazda and Ford pionered on their automatics years ago. Punch a button on the left side of the shift lever, about halfway down, and the OD OFF lights up on the dash. This locks out fourth overdrive gear and prevents the transmission from going above third......useful for going up and down long, steep, hills, for engine braking, for keeping the tranny out of O/D in the twisties where you want quicker response, and just for situations in general where you don't want the engine to lug. And it still allows the transmission to downshift to 1st automatically when you stop, and then upshift automatically back up to 3rd when you start up again.
Unfortunately, the suspension and the relatively high-profile 185/65-15 all-season tires (a rarity on today's cars) do not deliver either a very smooth ride or particularly sharp handling....often one is a trade-off for the other. On the road, and particularly in the twisties, I missed the superb driving dynamics of the rival Honda Fit. I wouldn't call the Versa's ride particularly rough, nor its handling particularly sloppy, but both, especially compared to other rival entry-level cars, could be better. The power steering had neither much road feel nor self-centering charactristics. And, while the Versa's engine and 4-speed automatic transmission are quiet, and the body ( by entry-level car standards ) well-sealed against wind noise, a pretty fair amount of tire noise penetrates the cabin, especially on concrete and grainy surfaces. There is some body roll, but the suspension and chassis keeps it in check.
The brakes are also nothing to write home about. The pedal is spongy, especially with light prssure, the response is not even, and the pedal is too low and too close to the gas pedal for my big size-15 clodhoppers, which tend to catch the brake pedal as I lift them from the gas. ( This is not a Versa-only problem....my big, wide, clown-shoes have that trouble in many smaller vehicles, and I just have to drive them carefully at first until I get used to them ).
So...the Verdict? And how does it compare overall with its entry-level competition? Well, about average, overall. The Versa has nice interior space efficiency with plenty of room, acceptable fit-and-finish except for the cheap metallic trim, a reasonable price, and an efficient CVT option. But I found it mediocre in the important categories of ride, steering, handling, refinement, and braking action. In the form I reviewed it, it is little more than basic commuter transportation. Nissan needs to rework the steering, suspension, and brake systems a little, offer better metallic trim, and offer a MUCH better exterior color choice. I would rate the Versa well above the Daewoo-built Chevrolet Aveo, and just slightly above the Yaris, overall.....mostly because the Aveo is just too much of a toy, and because of the Yaris's too-stark interior and awkward, unacceptable center-mount gauges. But the Honda Fit trounces the Versa in chassis dynamics, steering feel, and interior fit-and-finish, and both of the Korean entry-level cars...the Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio.......substantially outdo the Versa in value for the money and in the warranty department. None of these cars, particularly with a conventional automatic, really has enough power to handle a situation where you need to accelerate quickly.....like on a short expressway on-ramp.
So there you have it. If you want to save money and gas, don't want to pay the higher cost of a hybrid ( or the ADM's that Honda dealers are charging for Fits ) don't care much about automotive status or big-car crash protection, and are satisfied with base transportation, and want a vehicle that is at least reasonably reliable, here are definitely some cars to look at.
In a Nutshell: Neither a Vice-Versa nor a Viceless one.......a little of both.
Nissan, in a move that is basically similiar to what Honda did with the Civic and Fit, has moved its formerly entry-level Sentra up one marketing notch and has introduced the 5-door subcompact Versa hatchback as its new American market entry-level car. As I have already reviewed the latest verions of the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Hyundai Accent, and Kia Rio, I felt that the Versa, naturally, should be the next small car I look at, not only to evaluate it on its own merits but to compare it to its established competition as well. The Versa has not been available until now......Nissan has dragged its feet somewhat getting it to market....and they are just now beginning to appear at American dealerships. Two different trim lines are offered, ( S and SL ) each with the same 1.8 L in-line four. The base S model has a choice of a 6-speed manual or 4-speed automatic, while the SL offers the same 6-speed manual plus a CVT. Versas are not exactly plentiful at most Nissan dealers right now, and the one I visited today had only one or two ready to go...and a dark blue S automatic one with beige cloth interior was parked right out in front, and as that particular model is ( usually ) better-suited to the driving conditions around here than the manual, ( but not necessarily better than the CVT ) I decided to go ahead and review it.
Nissan, in its public-relations hoopla, has made a big deal about this car's size and power advantages over its rivals for about the same price. I did find the interior, in general, well-suited for big, tall people (and my physical size is generally a good test) but, like with several other entry-level cars in this price range, I did not find this particular engine and powertrain combination very impressive. In spite of a clutch and manual transmission's awkwardness in heavy traffic, on cars like this, with small engines, a manual may be worth considering unless you have a foot or leg problem, simply can't drive a clutch, or don't mind being in the slow lane all day.
Other than that, the car, more or less, is visually a basically scaled-down version of larger Nissan products, trim and appearance-wise. There are some differences with other Nissan products in the ride-and-handling department, neither of which was particularly impressive. So now let's take a look at the car in greater detail.
Model Reviewed: 2007 Nissan Versa 1.8 S Automatic
Base price: $13,350
Major Options:
1.8 S Power Package $700
ABS Package $250
Freight $615
Price as reviewed: $14,915
Drivetrain: FWD, Transverse-mounted DOHC 1.8L in-line 4, 122 HP @ 5200 RPM, 127 ft.-lbs. torque @ 4800 RPM,
4-speed automatic transmission.
Exterior Color: Blue Onyx
Interior: Beige cloth
PLUSSES:
Good exterior fit-and-finish.
Good exterior hardware.
Well-designed automatic transmission lever.
Efficient 6-speed manual and CVT transmissions available.
Better-than-average small-car paint job.
Roomy for tall people and space-efficient inside.
Well-designed gauges.
Slick-feeling controls.
High-friction suede-like cloth on S-model seats and door panels holds you in place.
Solid-feeling exterior mirrors.
Relatively quiet-running engine.
Good torque.....but only starting from rest.
Nice stereo for an entry-level car.
Engine fits underhood nicely, reasonably good access to dipsticks and some components.
MINUSES:
Engine runs out of breath too quickly with 4-speed automatic.
Spongy brakes, with poorly-designed pedal for big feet and shoes.
Low-feel, feathery, non-self-centering power steering.
Suspension not a particularly good compromise of either ride comfort or good handling.
Lots of road and tire noise on coarse road surfaces.
Cheap-looking silver finish on much of the interior metallic trim. ( wood-tone trim not avalable ).
Oil filter unaccessible from above, plastic panel complicates access from below.
Absurd exterior paint-color choices.
Flat, square, oddly-shaped front seats with almost no side bolstering.
Small, triangular A-Pillar windows do not provide any significant added visibility.
Droop-down front fenders not visible from driver's seat....a hinderance in parking.
The first impression of this car as you walk up to it is that of a not-too-terribly original-looking car. The front end is strongly Nissan Murano-like in appearance, and the rear end, particularly the C-pillars, is strongly reminiscent of the new Toyota RAV4, Mitsubishi Outlander, and Pontiac Vibe, with Nissan 350Z-like taillights. Nissan, recently, has given all of its cars, and most of its other vehicles, the same general look on the outside, trim-wise, and this car is no exception......it is instantly identifiable as a Nissan product at first glance.
Having said that,though, it does benefit a little on the outside from Nissan's also-recent efforts to improve the fit-and-finish on its cars. The paint job is better-than-average for an entry-level car, though not quite to the level of Toyota / Scion small cars. The outside mirrors, a weak point on many vehicles, are made of solid-feeling materials and are well-screwed on. The outside trim is neatly and tastefuly done, again not lavish, but in line with the car's price. But the exterior paint colors.......an unbelievably poor choice. Come on, Nissan.....you can do better than THIS. Two medium-to-dark blues, two silver-grays, bright red, white, and black. Reminds me of Henry Ford with his model T, some 80-90 years ago.
Get inside, shut the rather light-feeling door, which shuts with a fairly solid thud, and the interior is reasonably well-done, although the all-too-common Nissan metallic-trim and low-finish cheapness is evident in some places, like the interior door handles. Even with the beige interior, where a number of automakers use wood-tone with the beige, and metallic trim with the gray / black, Nissan offers only the brushed-metal look...no wood-tone available.
But the interior is generally quite well-done. There is plenty of room for large, heavy people like me, there is no sunroof to cut down on headroom ( I had no problem even in my ubiquitous baseball cap ), there is adequate legroom front and rear....especially with the front seats a little forward, and a reasonable amount of room to carry things behind the seats. Looks like Nissan's advertising was correct when they bragged about the room inside.
The gauges and controls are also generally well-done. The well-designed dash gauges had the usual Nissan / Infiniti yellow-orange lighting and numerals. Almost all of the controls and stalks were clearly labelled and easy to operate. About the only thing I missed was a proper radio tuning **** instead of the small button provided, but that is the case on many vehicles today. The dash gauges were surrounded by the now-trendy chrome rings......much nicer than the regular Nissan metallic trim.
OK...start her up. The 1.8L 122 HP four is quite refined and idles smoothly and quietly, with little noise or vibration. Shift it into gear, which is a real pleasure with the fore-aft shift-lever movement ( none of that zig-zag nonsense here ) and take off. It is obvious that Nissan's engineers programmed the engine's computer, fuel injection, and transmission ratios to try and create an artificial feeling of power, which it does provide right on take-off. Unless you featherfoot it, the throttle is quite jumpy from rest...up to about 10 MPH, where it then goes flatter than Twiggy in a stack of pancackes. Get rolling from a stoplight up to about 15-20 MPH or so, and THEN give it some gas, and, with the 4-speed automatic at least, you'd better be ready to stay in the slow lane. I did not check-test a manual or CVT model ( none were available today ), but rest assured, the 4-speed automatic model is not going to win any Friday-night drag races.
The automatic transmission, though it obviously saps a lot of power from the engine, is quite exemplary in other ways. Despite a lack of a manual-shift mode and having only 4 gears. it is smooth and quiet, and has the " OD/OFF " mode that Mazda and Ford pionered on their automatics years ago. Punch a button on the left side of the shift lever, about halfway down, and the OD OFF lights up on the dash. This locks out fourth overdrive gear and prevents the transmission from going above third......useful for going up and down long, steep, hills, for engine braking, for keeping the tranny out of O/D in the twisties where you want quicker response, and just for situations in general where you don't want the engine to lug. And it still allows the transmission to downshift to 1st automatically when you stop, and then upshift automatically back up to 3rd when you start up again.
Unfortunately, the suspension and the relatively high-profile 185/65-15 all-season tires (a rarity on today's cars) do not deliver either a very smooth ride or particularly sharp handling....often one is a trade-off for the other. On the road, and particularly in the twisties, I missed the superb driving dynamics of the rival Honda Fit. I wouldn't call the Versa's ride particularly rough, nor its handling particularly sloppy, but both, especially compared to other rival entry-level cars, could be better. The power steering had neither much road feel nor self-centering charactristics. And, while the Versa's engine and 4-speed automatic transmission are quiet, and the body ( by entry-level car standards ) well-sealed against wind noise, a pretty fair amount of tire noise penetrates the cabin, especially on concrete and grainy surfaces. There is some body roll, but the suspension and chassis keeps it in check.
The brakes are also nothing to write home about. The pedal is spongy, especially with light prssure, the response is not even, and the pedal is too low and too close to the gas pedal for my big size-15 clodhoppers, which tend to catch the brake pedal as I lift them from the gas. ( This is not a Versa-only problem....my big, wide, clown-shoes have that trouble in many smaller vehicles, and I just have to drive them carefully at first until I get used to them ).
So...the Verdict? And how does it compare overall with its entry-level competition? Well, about average, overall. The Versa has nice interior space efficiency with plenty of room, acceptable fit-and-finish except for the cheap metallic trim, a reasonable price, and an efficient CVT option. But I found it mediocre in the important categories of ride, steering, handling, refinement, and braking action. In the form I reviewed it, it is little more than basic commuter transportation. Nissan needs to rework the steering, suspension, and brake systems a little, offer better metallic trim, and offer a MUCH better exterior color choice. I would rate the Versa well above the Daewoo-built Chevrolet Aveo, and just slightly above the Yaris, overall.....mostly because the Aveo is just too much of a toy, and because of the Yaris's too-stark interior and awkward, unacceptable center-mount gauges. But the Honda Fit trounces the Versa in chassis dynamics, steering feel, and interior fit-and-finish, and both of the Korean entry-level cars...the Hyundai Accent and the Kia Rio.......substantially outdo the Versa in value for the money and in the warranty department. None of these cars, particularly with a conventional automatic, really has enough power to handle a situation where you need to accelerate quickly.....like on a short expressway on-ramp.
So there you have it. If you want to save money and gas, don't want to pay the higher cost of a hybrid ( or the ADM's that Honda dealers are charging for Fits ) don't care much about automotive status or big-car crash protection, and are satisfied with base transportation, and want a vehicle that is at least reasonably reliable, here are definitely some cars to look at.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-28-06 at 02:03 PM.
11-28-06, 09:49 PM
#2
Speaks French in Russian
Nice review as always Mr. Car Talk. 
Yea I think Ive only seen this car once on road. Pretty wierd looking if ya ask me. Then again, just about all of the cars in this class look weird. But they are great alternatives to those looking at Hybrid models.
Yea I think Ive only seen this car once on road. Pretty wierd looking if ya ask me. Then again, just about all of the cars in this class look weird. But they are great alternatives to those looking at Hybrid models.
11-29-06, 07:52 AM
#3
Thanks for the review!
It seems that automakers are preparing for the inevitable (lack of urban space leads to smaller cars or motorcycles/scooters), but these cars just don't spoil us like we're used to. It seems that even compact cars like the Corolla, Civic, or Sentra and the such provide just a little extra room and amenities that make these small cars too inept.
However, function for function (read from point A to point B), they do a good job at a great price...
It seems that automakers are preparing for the inevitable (lack of urban space leads to smaller cars or motorcycles/scooters), but these cars just don't spoil us like we're used to. It seems that even compact cars like the Corolla, Civic, or Sentra and the such provide just a little extra room and amenities that make these small cars too inept.
However, function for function (read from point A to point B), they do a good job at a great price...
11-30-06, 06:24 AM
#4
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Well, Philip.....just wait till you see the Smart car.....especially the Smart for Two.
That is a true minicar if there ever was one.
http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/
That is a true minicar if there ever was one.
http://www.smartcarofamerica.com/
11-30-06, 09:33 AM
#5
Thanks for the review!
It seems that automakers are preparing for the inevitable (lack of urban space leads to smaller cars or motorcycles/scooters), but these cars just don't spoil us like we're used to. It seems that even compact cars like the Corolla, Civic, or Sentra and the such provide just a little extra room and amenities that make these small cars too inept.
However, function for function (read from point A to point B), they do a good job at a great price...
It seems that automakers are preparing for the inevitable (lack of urban space leads to smaller cars or motorcycles/scooters), but these cars just don't spoil us like we're used to. It seems that even compact cars like the Corolla, Civic, or Sentra and the such provide just a little extra room and amenities that make these small cars too inept.
However, function for function (read from point A to point B), they do a good job at a great price...
I haven't seen a versa yet, only 1 honda fit. I see lots of yaris though.
I agree with Philip. The corollas, civics, and sentras are pretty compact already while still providing the extra rooms/trunk space.
Here is cali the land of overgrown suvs, bad drivers, and tons of 18 wheelers and big rigs, I'll be crushed like a sardine
Wait, what about the miata/s2000/z guys
???
11-30-06, 12:42 PM
#6
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Just reviewed the new Miata a couple of weeks ago, GS3.
Here you go.....
https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...07+mazda+miata
11-30-06, 04:19 PM
#7
Lead Lap
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How would you compare it to the Fit (?), I drove the Fit and was impressed especially with the interior room and driving feel.
One strong caviat, I would not be comfrotable driving a 2600 lb car (like the Fit) on the HW, I'm sure they are crash tested well and have great air-bag systems and crush zones (etc...) but they are under the gun to 98% of the other cars out there as far as weight.
I wish this was not a consideration, and honestly I'm not sure how much better a mid-size (accord/camry) car is vs a large truck or SUV, but for my peace of mind, I'm getting a larger car and will pay more at the sale price and at the pump. But in the US half (or more) of the cars on the road are SUVs/PU-trucks and large cars/minivans so if you're under 3000 lbs you are at a disadvantage.
I love the way a small cars 'feels' I love 'under 3000 lb cars', but push comes to shove and I'm getting an Accord (or such) weight car 99 times out of 100.
This from a guy who owns a S2000.
PS. I knew a guy who owned a Subi Justy, bought it b/c it was cheap and got good gas mileage (btw this was 12+ years ago). He told me he drove it (solo) but didn't put his family in the car b/c it was so small (and he thought it unsafe). That's near where I am with the S2000. I would dearly love an Elise, but that's 1900 lbs (can't do it) one step up from a motorcycle.
One strong caviat, I would not be comfrotable driving a 2600 lb car (like the Fit) on the HW, I'm sure they are crash tested well and have great air-bag systems and crush zones (etc...) but they are under the gun to 98% of the other cars out there as far as weight.
I wish this was not a consideration, and honestly I'm not sure how much better a mid-size (accord/camry) car is vs a large truck or SUV, but for my peace of mind, I'm getting a larger car and will pay more at the sale price and at the pump. But in the US half (or more) of the cars on the road are SUVs/PU-trucks and large cars/minivans so if you're under 3000 lbs you are at a disadvantage.
I love the way a small cars 'feels' I love 'under 3000 lb cars', but push comes to shove and I'm getting an Accord (or such) weight car 99 times out of 100.
This from a guy who owns a S2000.
PS. I knew a guy who owned a Subi Justy, bought it b/c it was cheap and got good gas mileage (btw this was 12+ years ago). He told me he drove it (solo) but didn't put his family in the car b/c it was so small (and he thought it unsafe). That's near where I am with the S2000. I would dearly love an Elise, but that's 1900 lbs (can't do it) one step up from a motorcycle.
Last edited by rai; 11-30-06 at 04:23 PM.
Trending Topics
11-30-06, 04:42 PM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
The Fit, particularly the Fit Sport, is IMO definitely more of a driver's car, especially in the steering, handling, and chassis dynamics. It also has a higher roof than the Versa ( though the Versa was no problem even for my big tall frame and cap ) The Fit has better-engineered steering, brake, and suspension systems. It has, IMO, a better choice of paint colors. It has, of course, the famous Honda build quality...though the one I reviewed had a poorly-finished metal seam under the hood latch, as I was opening the hood to check the engine fluids, that gave me a nasty finger cut and required a bandage there at the dealership and a 20-30-minute wait to stop bleeding before I could do the test-drive.
Because of the droop-down front fenders, you couldn't see the front corners from the driver's seat in either car, which makes front parking difficult. Neither car had a whole lot of room behind the rear seat in the cargo area, but rear legroom was OK in both of them even for tall people.....unusual in a small car.
Neither car had very much power...the tested Fit had a manual transmission but lower HP / torque ratings, while the tested Versa had about 15-20 more of each
and conventional but relatively inefficient 4-speed automatic.
However, there are some reasons, IMO, to consider a Versa over a Fit. An efficient CVT transmission is available in upmarket Versas.....not in the Fit. I personally liked the Versa's interior more except for the cheap-looking door handles and metallic trim....the suede-looking and feeling cloth on the base Versa is unusual but nice...and it grips very well. And......something very important.......Nissan dealerships end to be less arrogant than Honda dealerships, and the Fit, especially, price-wise, is a rip-off when you consider what Honda shops are actually asking for them. The Nissan shop said they would bargain a little...just a little...on the Versa I had, and knock off maybe a couple of hundred. By contrast, although the Honda salesman I dealt with when I drove the Fit was a gem, the dealership had stuck on the typical Adjusted Market Value sticker that bumped its price up from betwen 15-16K to over 19K...and he made it clear that there wasn't much room for dealing. 19-20K, IMO, is absurd for a manual-transmission car in this size class, even if it is the upmarket Sport model. For that kind of money you can have a Versa and a couple of thousand left in the bank.
Last edited by mmarshall; 11-30-06 at 05:10 PM.
11-30-06, 07:03 PM
#9
Lead Lap
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: NY
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
theres very little profit to be made on small cars which is why SCion and the old Saturns had no haggle pricing. if you check edmunds for MSRP and invoice, you'll see there's about a $1000 difference when larger cars and SUVs sometimes have up to $5000 or more between the 2.
The Fit, particularly the Fit Sport, is IMO definitely more of a driver's car, especially in the steering, handling, and chassis dynamics. It also has a higher roof than the Versa ( though the Versa was no problem even for my big tall frame and cap ) The Fit has better-engineered steering, brake, and suspension systems. It has, IMO, a better choice of paint colors. It has, of course, the famous Honda build quality...though the one I reviewed had a poorly-finished metal seam under the hood latch, as I was opening the hood to check theengine fluids, that gave me a nasty finger cut and required a bandage there at the dealership and a 20-30-minute wait to stop bleeding before I could do the test-drive.
Because of the droop-down front fenders, you couldn't see the front corners from the driver's seat in either car, which makes front parking difficult. Neither car had a whole lot of room behind the rear seat in the cargo area, but rear legroom was OK in both of them even for tall people.....unusual in a small car.
Neither car had very much power...the tested Fit had a manual transmission but lower HP / torque ratings, while the tested Versa had about 15-20 more of each
and conventional but relatively inefficient 4-speed automatic.
However, there are some reasons, IMO, to consider a Versa over a Fit. An efficient CVT transmission is available in upmarket Versas.....not in the Fit. I personally liked the Versa's interior more except for the cheap-looking door handles and metallic trim....the suede-looking and feeling cloth on the base Versa is unusual but nice...and it grips very well. And......something very important.......Nissan dealerships end to be less arrogant than Honda dealerships, and the Fit, especially, price-wise, is a rip-off when you consider what Honda shops are actually asking for them. The Nissan shop said they would bargain a little...just a little...on the Versa I had, and knock off maybe a couple of hundred. By contrast, although the Honda salesman I dealt with when I drove the Fit was a gem, the dealership had stuck on the typical Adjusted Market Value sticker that bumped its price up from betwen 15-16K to over 19K...and he made it clear that there wasn't much room for dealing. 19-20K, IMO, is absurd for a manual-transmission car in this size class, even if it is the upmarket Sport model. For that kind of money you can have a Versa and a couple of thousand left in the bank.
Because of the droop-down front fenders, you couldn't see the front corners from the driver's seat in either car, which makes front parking difficult. Neither car had a whole lot of room behind the rear seat in the cargo area, but rear legroom was OK in both of them even for tall people.....unusual in a small car.
Neither car had very much power...the tested Fit had a manual transmission but lower HP / torque ratings, while the tested Versa had about 15-20 more of each
and conventional but relatively inefficient 4-speed automatic.
However, there are some reasons, IMO, to consider a Versa over a Fit. An efficient CVT transmission is available in upmarket Versas.....not in the Fit. I personally liked the Versa's interior more except for the cheap-looking door handles and metallic trim....the suede-looking and feeling cloth on the base Versa is unusual but nice...and it grips very well. And......something very important.......Nissan dealerships end to be less arrogant than Honda dealerships, and the Fit, especially, price-wise, is a rip-off when you consider what Honda shops are actually asking for them. The Nissan shop said they would bargain a little...just a little...on the Versa I had, and knock off maybe a couple of hundred. By contrast, although the Honda salesman I dealt with when I drove the Fit was a gem, the dealership had stuck on the typical Adjusted Market Value sticker that bumped its price up from betwen 15-16K to over 19K...and he made it clear that there wasn't much room for dealing. 19-20K, IMO, is absurd for a manual-transmission car in this size class, even if it is the upmarket Sport model. For that kind of money you can have a Versa and a couple of thousand left in the bank.
12-01-06, 04:04 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
theres very little profit to be made on small cars which is why SCion and the old Saturns had no haggle pricing. if you check edmunds for MSRP and invoice, you'll see there's about a $1000 difference when larger cars and SUVs sometimes have up to $5000 or more between the 2.
It also helps some potential Saturn and Scion customers on cars in high demand and short supply ( the Saturn Sky roadster is a good example ) by forbidding dealer markups as well, like the nonsense I described above with the Honda Fit. Saturn dealers can lose their fraqnchise if they mark cars up over list. However, they CAN, legally, get around this to some extent by adding factory-approved accessories on the car and bumping the price up a little...some Saturn dealers do and some don't.
12-01-06, 05:10 AM
#11
Lead Lap
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes no sense to pay over MSRP for a car like the Fit or the Si (like I hear)... for the Fit, I think it's already fully priced near $16K you can get a stripped Accord for just a it more. Also the Fit is an economy car, and people are trying to save on fuel costs, what sense does it make to pay an extra few grand up-front?? That's throwing away all the gas savings you would have (several years worth).
I can see paying MSRP for these cars if they are in short supply, I did that with a few of my cars. But I've never paid over MSRP and don't think I would unless it was a super rare care like a Ferrari that has a several year waiting list or a car like the Ford GT that only had a 4000 car run (?) or whatever it was.
Car like the Si (I heard some dealers wanted $30K+) for that price you can get a 325i (for example) it makes no sense b/c the main reason why the Si is such a good car is that it's affordable, if they charge you +$8K than it's not so afforbale any more.
I can see paying MSRP for these cars if they are in short supply, I did that with a few of my cars. But I've never paid over MSRP and don't think I would unless it was a super rare care like a Ferrari that has a several year waiting list or a car like the Ford GT that only had a 4000 car run (?) or whatever it was.
Car like the Si (I heard some dealers wanted $30K+) for that price you can get a 325i (for example) it makes no sense b/c the main reason why the Si is such a good car is that it's affordable, if they charge you +$8K than it's not so afforbale any more.
Last edited by rai; 12-01-06 at 05:14 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
I8ABMR
Car Chat
55
02-26-08 11:36 AM
Gojirra99
Car Chat
5
12-14-06 07:26 AM