Shiftbox Revolution: We Search for the King of the Five-Door Subcompact
Once upon a time, not all that long ago, if you were in the market for a small, five-door economy hatchback, you were swimming in cheap-infested waters. Automakers seemed to think of the buyers of small, inexpensive cars as nothing more than an inconvenience, a market that had to be pacified through the cheapest means possible.
Well, no longer. Today’s economy car market has grown by leaps and bounds, especially in the past five years. The Honda Fit had something to do with that, showing consumers and other automakers that an economy car need not be a penalty box. Predictably, the Fit achieved meteoric sales, and the rest of the industry was forced to catch up.
Today, the Fit is several years into its second iteration, and the industry is, in fact, catching up. Since our last look at this market niche in mid-2010, Toyota, Kia, Hyundai, Chevrolet, and Mazda have all released brand-new players, while the current Fit is three years into its life cycle. Who stands ahead of the pack in 2012? To find out, we invited the Ford Fiesta, Toyota Yaris, Kia Rio, Hyundai Accent, Mazda2, Chevrolet Sonic, Honda Fit, and Suzuki SX4 out for a couple days of testing and driving. The cars had to be five-door hatchbacks, and, to be equal, each had to have a manual gearbox. Ford said it didn’t have a Fiesta for us, and neither did any rental agencies, but the other seven automakers were game.
And so the shiftbox revolution was upon us, as we set out to determine where your money would be best spent. The results may surprise you.
SEVENTH PLACE: Kia Rio
Sometimes, relegating a car to last place is a tricky proposition, forcing us to ignore our hearts and follow our heads. Not so with the Kia Rio. The majority of judges had no trouble whatsoever giving Kia the bottom-of-the-barrel prize.
Initial impressions were positive, with several judges preferring the Kia’s exterior styling to that of others in the group. But as each climbed behind the wheel for some time on the road, discouraging comments became all too frequent.
“I am more and more convinced that Hyundai and Kia are not in any way related,” said senior features editor Jonny Lieberman. “No rational person would ever think the Rio is related to the Accent.”
That was a remark heard time and time again in a multitude of ways over the course of our driving loops, which included city streets, winding roads, and plenty of freeways. Though both the Kia and Hyundai are equipped with the same 138-hp, 123-lb-ft 1.6-liter direct-injected engine and in-house six-speed manual transmission, the driving dynamics of the two cars were night-and-day different.
“Wobbly, jarring ride at all speeds, especially on the highway,” groaned Jason Davis, an online editor we borrowed from sister site Automotive.com, after a stint in the Rio. “Much louder engine and road noise and not nearly as refined as the Accent.”
“Thrashy, thrashy drivetrain. No grip, no road feel, very noisy,” echoed Lieberman.
Kia’s hyperactive traction control sapped any chance of a quick start. Two editors discovered the deficit after trying to launch the Kia through a busy, blind intersection.The Kia was also able to manage only mid-pack fuel economy with an average of 30.8 mpg, placing it fourth behind the five-speed Honda Fit.
The biggest asset the Rio has is its price tag. At a shade over $14,000, the Rio was the cheapest car of the group. Unfortunately, that cheapness was evident in much more than the window sticker. Our base model LX had no cruise control, power door locks, or electric windows, features common in other entry-level cars. Satellite radio is standard, making us wonder about Kia’s priorities.
“The cheapest interior here by a mile,” summed up associate editor Mike Febbo. “I hate to say this, but I can’t imagine anyone ever being proud to say ‘I just got a new car’ when referring to this Rio.”
SIXTH PLACE: Suzuki SX4
“If the Kizashi midsize sedan is New Suzuki, then the SX4 is still Old Suzuki,” I scrawled in my notebook after exiting the SX4. “This thing is full of character, but it’s hard to make a case for character alone in this segment.”
The front-drive Suzuki (all-wheel drive is still available) felt to many like an underdog in this comparison. The car dates back to 2005 in Europe (2006 in the U.S.), and though a 2010 refresh on the original Giugiaro-penned design has helped keep its styling current, the rest of the car — save for the new transmission — can’t help but feel a little old by now.
“With the exception of the slick shifter, everything about the SX4 feels tired and ponderous,” lamented Lieberman. “If Suzuki doesn’t care, why should we?”
With a displacement of 2.0 liters, the SX4’s engine was the largest in the group. It also made the most power, at 150 hp and 140 lb-ft of torque. Unfortunately, due in part to having the heaviest curb weight of the group at 2769 pounds, acceleration was decidedly mid-pack, while observed fuel economy was a dismal 27.8 mpg — good enough for second-to-last place, ahead of the Mazda2.
Gripes also were voiced about the Suzuki’s soft, uncontrolled ride; excessive wind noise around the A-pillar windows; vague clutch take-up; and a somewhat rough-revving engine. Despite these complaints, some felt the Suzuki possessed a very honest quality that was lacking in several other contenders.
“Although it definitely feels cheap, there’s something about the Suzuki that feels more rugged and solid than the other cars here,” opined Febbo. “The Suzuki feels like it will shake abuse off and keep going for years.”
Associate online editor Nate Martinez eloquently summed up the Suzuki: “The SX4 has been surpassed by a competitive set made up of more comfortable, more efficient, less expensive alternatives. You want to root for a tiny automaker, but there are so many better choices in today’s market. Too bad the new global Swift isn’t here.”
FIFTH PLACE: Mazda2
Not only does the Mazda2 have the shortest wheelbase of any of our competitors, it also has the lowest curb weight (2266 pounds), the least potent engine (100 hp, 98 lb-ft from a 1.5-liter I-4), and the smallest amount of cargo room (13.3 cubic feet). What other distinction does the Mazda2 have in this group? Besides being many judges’ pick for most fun to drive, it also achieved the worst fuel economy. Yes, worst as in last place. When the dust cleared and the mpgs were tallied, the Mazda2 rolled away with a score of just 27.0 observed.
What was it about the ‘2 that kept its fuel mileage so low? That modest engine and short-geared five-speed transmission were working harder to keep up.
Per Lieberman: “The poor ‘2 had to run around at 5500 rpm for most of the loop. Seriously, where’s the torque?”
“In this thing, you really notice the lack of power. There’s nowhere in the rpm band where it feels quick,” agreed Febbo.
That short wheelbase combined with firmer-tuned dampers also gave the Mazda2 one of the rougher freeway rides, with every crack, dip, and expansion joint in the road surface making itself known.
Interior space was another concern. Associate online editor Benson Kong, not a bear of a man by any stretch, even felt a little cramped.
“The Mazda2 definitely felt the tightest from the driver’s seat,” said Kong. “The door panel is constantly hugging your left side, and the small footprint makes all the surrounding traffic seem extra-close.”
But that’s not saying the ‘2 wasn’t entertaining. It was. Judges raved about the short, precise shifter, the direct steering, pleasing interior ergonomics, and the amount of road feel that all contribute to a lot of fun on the back roads. Unfortunately, fun to drive isn’t much of a judging point this time around, where we placed an emphasis on practicality, comfort, and economy, just as the majority of B-segment car buyers would.
In the end, Febbo pinned down the ideal Mazda2 buyer: “The ‘2 is a great city car. If you’re buying it as an in-town commuter or you live in an area with restricted parking, it would make a great choice.” Funny — the design was optimized for the European market.
FOURTH PLACE: Honda Fit
There’s no denying the Honda Fit is a benchmark and a giant in the small-car game. We even crowned it the subcompact car king back in our Summer 2010 test, where it ranked ahead of the last-gen Toyota Yaris, Ford Fiesta, and Nissan Versa. Today, the Fit is the one to beat, but it’s looking a little long in the tooth.
For example, Honda still hasn’t given the little Fit a six-speed manual. Equipped with only five speeds and a not-too-tall fifth gear, the Honda buzzes along at over 4000 rpm at freeway speed. It still places third in observed fuel economy with a 31.0-mpg rating, but that’s over a full mpg less than both Yaris and Accent. That also doesn’t make up for the fact that the Fit is anything but a relaxed freeway cruiser.
“It’s annoyingly loud,” commented Kong. “The road noise paired with the zinging engine on the freeway really kills the Fit for me.”
Still, similar to the Mazda2, the Fit was seen as one of the sportier-feeling offerings, with steering and handling that made back road driving a pleasure. Unfortunately, the stiffer suspension (second only to the Mazda’s) and high-strung attitude didn’t win the Fit any points with our utilitarian judging criteria.
What did score the Fit some points was its interior packaging. We were impressed in 2010, and we’re still impressed today. Honda has managed to cram an amazing amount of usable capacity into a relatively small box, giving it the largest cargo capacity of any of our contenders at 57.3 cubic feet with the seats folded.
“The Fit feels like a real car inside, not something you’d expect to see a dozen clowns falling out of (though there’s probably enough room for them),” this author jotted. “The use of space is just incredible and still sets a benchmark for the segment.”
Positive remarks were also made about the Fit’s comfy seats and tactile knobs and switches. Unfortunately, those weren’t enough to triumph over the car’s shortcomings.
In the end, many judges felt that the Fit is a significant refresh away from again being top dog in its class. If Honda ups the ante by adding a sixth gear and a little refinement to the package, the Fit will again be the one to beat.
THIRD PLACE: Toyota Yaris
As editor-in-chief Edward Loh has noted before, Motor Trend’s collective staff is perhaps the youngest in the industry. Judges in this comparison ranged from mid-20s to mid-30s, and it wasn’t surprising that the younger staffers preferred the styling of the Yaris to that of the Accent, while the “older” staffers felt quite the opposite, thank you very much.
As Febbo (among the 30-somethings in this group) put it, “I might look silly driving this at my age. It looks like it should be sliding around the streets of Tokyo chased by a giant robot.”
Exterior styling aside, the Yaris was an entrant that comes across significantly better than it looks on paper. With just 106 hp and 103 lb-ft on tap from its 1.5-liter engine, acceleration isn’t what you’d call brisk. But the gearing makes the most of the Yaris’ capability, providing acceptable acceleration in lower gears. A tall enough fifth gear makes freeway cruising more relaxed than in the Fit. Would we like a little more torque? Sure, we would, but we could make the same argument for nearly every car here. As the second-lightest car of the group, the Yaris is able to make do with what it has.
The Yaris’ interior was a mixed bag, with bonus points for partial soft-touch door tops, Bluetooth connectivity, and a leather-wrapped steering wheel, though not all were fans of the “rice paper”-pattern dash plastic or the driving position. The steering wheel was mounted a bit low for some. Some editors thought the shifter felt vague, and while a few of us rated the interior materials as below average, others ranked them as above average. Passenger space was also on the list of pros.
“The back seat is large and might be the very biggest in the test,” said Lieberman.
What really solidified the Yaris’ position in the top three is a little party trick called mega fuel economy. At the end of our drive loop, the little Toyota managed an observed fuel economy of 32.3 mpg, good enough for second place behind the Hyundai Accent. Along just the freeway portion of our loop, the Yaris managed to pull off a heady 40 mpg — 2 mpg better than its EPA rating. Color us impressed.
SECOND PLACE: Chevrolet Sonic
It’s been a long time since GM had a serious competitor in the econocar segment, and the Sonic proved itself to be just that. From its aggressive styling to its feature-packed spec sheet, the Sonic marks a clear departure from past Chevrolet failures (cough*Aveo*cough). At day’s end, the red-orange Chevy was the one that gave our winner its biggest challenge.
Perhaps the Sonic’s most impressive characteristic was its quiet, composed, relaxed freeway ride. A combination of a six-speed transmission, effective noise insulation, and a well-composed suspension had us sailing along with traffic in silent comfort and with a mere 2300 rpm registering on the motorcycle-inspired tach.
“I’d say it’s status quo for manufacturers to underrate the importance of ride quality in this segment,” Kong said. “For Chevrolet to take it more seriously deserves commendation.”
Other editors agreed, including Herr Lieberman.
“By far the most relaxed and comfortable on the freeway because of the turbo torque and a sixth gear,” he noted. “Much quieter at speed than the others as a result.”
We also found the engine one of the most refined in this group, though a little turbo lag and lack of top-end power were somewhat disappointing. Cargo space was impressive, with the Sonic placing second to the Fit at 19.0 seats-up cubic feet. Kudos also went to the clear motorcycle-inspired gauge layout, though feelings were mixed on the exterior styling, ranging from overdone to just right.
Where did the Sonic fall behind? It had more torque than any other car in this comparison at 148 lb-ft and tied for second in the horsepower race with 138 hp, but it was third-slowest in acceleration. It also scored just fifth place in fuel efficiency, eking out 30.6 observed mpg.
The tall gearing required frequent sixth-to-third shifts, and the Sonic’s curb weight was just 4 pounds shy of the heavy Suzuki. Also, the Sonic was the most expensive contender here by nearly $1400, something even heated seats and Bluetooth connectivity can’t quite justify.
“The Sonic is a solid effort, overall,” my notes read. “It’s not quite as exciting to drive as I’d hoped, but it more than makes up for it in refinement.”
FIRST PLACE: Hyundai Accent
Consider these facts: The Accent achieved the greatest observed fuel economy of the group at 32.4 mpg, has the quickest 0-60-mph acceleration of the group, the strongest quarter-mile acceleration, has the shortest stopping distance of all contenders, the second cheapest as-tested MSRP, and ties the Kia for longest warranty. Impressive, no?
Plus, pretty much all the techy college-kid turn-ons are present and accounted for. Bluetooth, iPod integration, satellite radio — all here. The engine is the same 138-hp direct-injection mill found in the Rio, but here it feels stronger, smoother, and less noisy (improved sound insulation is likely to thank for the last two), and the six-speed transmission helps the Accent stay relaxed at freeway speeds. While not quite as quiet and comfortable at a high-speed cruise as the Sonic, the Accent is really the only contender that comes close.
In fact, the Accent seemed to drive more like a small C-segment car than a B-segment car, an impression partially explained by its longer wheelbase. At 101.2 inches, the Hyundai and Kia Rio have the only wheelbases over 100 inches in this comparison. That fact, plus a fairly compliant suspension tune, leave the Accent feeling like a more grown-up car than its subcompact brethren.
“In many ways, the Accent is the most mature car here,” concurs Lieberman.
The Accent’s styling helps, too. Love or hate Hyundai’s “Fluidic Sculpture” design language, most judges thought the Accent’s interpretation was the best yet (Veloster excluded), appearing much more subtle and restrained than the Sonata. Interior styling had some takers and some passers, with plenty of praise for Hyundai’s build quality but a few thinking the layout was a bit too busy.
We had other gripes. The Accent’s steering continues to be a blemish on an otherwise solid car, with off-center response lacking in feel and precision. We also noticed a bit of extra movement in the car’s suspension over certain surface imperfections, as is common with other Hyundai/Kia models. Still, the car remained reasonably well composed over twistier sections of our road loop, and was even called “sporty” by one evaluator, who rationalized his remark with, “though I suspect it’s by accident.”
“The Accent hits the mark on blending value, performance, and efficiency, so my hat’s off,” Kong summed up.
Well done, Hyundai.
Astute readers may notice a few dissimilarities between our findings in this test and those of our 2012 Car of the Year program. Of the cars that participated both tests, only the Chevrolet was voted a Car of the Year finalist. Yet the Hyundai won here. So what gives?
COTY consideration goes to a model’s entire lineup, and Hyundai sent us a racy Accent SE hatch like this one and its quotidian, heavier GLS sedan counterpart. That six-speed automatic buzzkiller loafed to 60 mph in 9.2 seconds. Chevy perhaps cunningly refrained from sending along a ho-hum low-torque 1.8-liter Sonic sedan. This, along with our incredulity that GM might finally have created a cool B-car, advanced the Sonic to the COTY finals. Here we’re zooming in on seven of the sportiest examples of the subcompact segment, and the Accent provided more value and a better driving experience to more people.
|POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS||2012 Kia Rio||2012 Suzuki SX4 Sport Back||2012 Mazda2||2012 Honda Fit|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front engine, FWD||Front engine, FWD||Front engine, FWD||Front engine, FWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||I-4, aluminum block/head||I-4, aluminum block/head||I-4, aluminum block/head||I-4, aluminum block/head|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||SOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||97.1 cu in/1591 cc||121.7 cu in/1995 cc||91.4 cu in/1498 cc||91.4 cu in/1497 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||138 hp @ 6300 rpm||150 hp @ 6200 rpm||100 hp @ 6000 rpm||117 hp @ 6600 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||123 lb-ft @ 4850 rpm||140 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm||98 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm||106 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm|
|REDLINE||6500 rpm||6500 rpm||6250 rpm||6800 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||17.9 lb/hp||18.5 lb/hp||22.7 lb/hp||21.4 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||6-speed manual||6-speed manual||5-speed manual||5-speed manual|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|BRAKES, F;R||10.1-in vented disc; 10.3-in disc, ABS||11.0-in vented disc; 10.8-in disc, ABS||10.2-in vented disc; 8.0-in drum, ABS||10.3-in vented disc; 7.9-in drum, ABS|
|WHEELS||5.5 x 15-in, steel||6.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum||6.0 x 15-in, cast aluminum||6.0 x 16-in, cast aluminum|
|TIRES||185/65R15 86T M+S
Kumho Solus KH25
|205/50R17 88V M+S
Dunlop SP Sport 7000 A/S
|185/55R15 82V M+S
Yokohama Avid S34
|185/55R16 83H M+S
Bridgestone Turanza EL470
|WHEELBASE||101.2 in||98.4 in||98.0 in||98.4 in|
|TRACK, F/R||59.9/60.0 in||59.1/58.9 in||58.1/57.7 in||58.1/57.4 in|
|LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT||159.3 x 67.7 x 57.3 in||162.0 x 69.1 x 61.8 in||155.5 x 66.7 x 58.1 in||161.6 x 66.7 x 60.0 in|
|TURNING CIRCLE||33.5 ft||34.8 ft||32.2 ft||34.4 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||2464 lb||2769 lb||2266 lb||2509 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||61/39%||61/39%||62/38%||62/38%|
|HEADROOM, F/R||40.0/37.6 in||39.6/38.0 in||39.1/37.0 in||40.4/39.0 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||43.8/31.3 in||41.4/36.4 in||42.6/33.0 in||41.3/34.5 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||53.1/52.1 in||53.3/52.8 in||52.8/51.2 in||52.7/51.3 in|
|CARGO VOL BEHIND F/R||49.8/15.0 cu ft||51.8/16.8 cu ft||27.8/13.3 cu ft||57.3/20.6 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||2.7 sec||2.6 sec||2.6 sec||2.5 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||4.5||4.6||5.1||4.6|
|QUARTER MILE||16.4 sec @ 84.9 mph||16.3 sec @ 84.6 mph||16.7 sec @ 81.4 mph||16.3 sec @ 83.3 mph|
|BRAKING, 60-0 MPH||127 ft||117 ft||123 ft||126 ft|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.80 g (avg)||0.85 g (avg)||0.84 g (avg)||0.79 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||27.9 sec @ 0.60 g (avg)||27.4 sec @ 0.61 g (avg)||27.7 sec @ 0.59 g (avg)||28.2 sec @ 0.57 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||2500 rpm||2450 rpm||2600 rpm||2900 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$14,350||$17,564||$16,985||$17,680|
|AIRBAGS||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain||Dual front, front side, f/r head||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain|
|BASIC WARRANTY||5 yrs/60,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||10 yrs/100,000 mi||7 yrs/100,000 mi||5 yrs/60,000 mi||5 yrs/60,000 mi|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||5 yrs/60,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi||None|
|FUEL CAPACITY||11.4 gal||13.2 gal||11.3 gal||10.6 gal|
|EPA CITY/HWY ECON||30/40 mpg||23/32 mpg||29/35 mpg||27/33 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||112/84 kW-hrs/100 mi||147/105 kW-hrs/100 mi||116/96 kW-hrs/100 mi||125/102 kW-hrs/100 mi|
|CO2 EMISSIONS||0.57 lb/mi||0.74 lb/mi||0.62 lb/mi||0.66 lb/mi|
|MT FUEL ECONOMY||30.8 mpg||27.8 mpg||27.0 mpg||31.0 mpg|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded regular||Unleaded regular||Unleaded regular||Unleaded regular|
|POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS||2012 Toyota Yaris SE||2012 Chevrolet Sonic LTZ||2012 Hyundai Accent SE|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front engine, FWD||Front engine, FWD||Front engine, FWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||I-4, aluminum block/head||Turbocharged I-4,iron block/aluminum head||I-4, aluminum block/heads|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||91.4 cu in/1497 cc||83.2 cu in/1364 cc||97.1 cu in/1591 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||106 hp @ 6000 rpm||138 hp @ 4900 rpm||138 hp @ 6300 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||103 lb-ft @ 4200 rpm||148 lb-ft @ 2500 rpm||123 lb-ft @ 4850 rpm|
|REDLINE||6400 rpm||6500 rpm||6750 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||22.3 lb/hp||20.0 lb/hp||18.0 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||5-speed manual||6-speed manual||6-speed manual|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; torsion beam, coil springs|
|BRAKES, F;R||10.8-in vented disc; 10.2-in disc, ABS||10.8-in vented disc; 9.0-in drum, ABS||10.1-in vented disc; 10.3-in disc, ABS|
|WHEELS||6.0 x 16-in, cast aluminum||6.5 x 17-in, cast aluminum||6.0 x 16-in, cast aluminum|
|TIRES||195/50R16 83V M+S
Bridgestone Turanza EL400
Hankook Optimo H428
|195/50T16 83H M+S
Kumho Solus KH25
|WHEELBASE||98.8 in||99.4 in||101.2 in|
|TRACK, F/R||57.5/56.9 in||59.4/59.4 in||58.6/58.8 in|
|LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT||154.7 x 66.7 x 59.4 in||159.0 x 68.3 x 59.7 in||162.0 x 66.9 x 57.1 in|
|TURNING CIRCLE||36.7 ft||36.1 ft||34.1 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||2367 lb||2765 lb||2488 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST, F/R||61/39%||63/37%||61/39%|
|HEADROOM, F/R||39.3/37.6 in||38.7/38.1 in||39.9/37.8 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||40.6/33.3 in||41.8/34.6 in||41.8/33.3 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||52.5/51.8 in||53.4/53.0 in||53.7/53.4 in|
|CARGO VOL BEHIND F/R||25.7/15.6 cu ft||30.7/19.0 cu ft||47.5/21.2 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||2.7 sec||2.8 sec||2.6 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||5.0||4.8||4.3|
|QUARTER MILE||16.8 sec @ 81.3 mph||16.6 sec @ 84.0 mph||16.3 sec @ 85.4 mph|
|BRAKING, 60-0 MPH||118 ft||119 ft||116 ft|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.81 g (avg)||0.84 g (avg)||0.82 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||28.2 sec @ 0.58 g (avg)||27.3 sec @ 0.62 g (avg)||27.5 sec @ 0.61 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||2700 rpm||1800 rpm||2500 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$17,340||$19,055||$16,700|
|AIRBAGS||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain||Dual front, front side, f/r head||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain|
|BASIC WARRANTY||3 yrs/36,000 mi||3 yrs/36,000 mi||5 yrs/60,000 mi|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||5 yrs/60,000 mi||5 yrs/100,000 mi||10 yrs/100,000 mi|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||2 yrs/25,000 mi||5 yrs/100,000 mi||5 yrs/unlimited|
|FUEL CAPACITY||11.1 gal||12.2 gal||11.4 gal|
|EPA CITY/HWY ECON||30/38 mpg||29/40 mpg||30/40 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||112/89 kW-hrs/100 mi||116/84 kW-hrs/100 mi||112/84 kW-hrs/100 mi|
|CO2 EMISSIONS||0.59 lb/mi||0.59 lb/mi||0.57 lb/mi|
|MT FUEL ECONOMY||32.3 mpg||30.6 mpg||32.4 mpg|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded regular||Unleaded regular||Unleaded regular|