Hi there, thought I'd chime in here since I work for a car dealership group that sells both Hondas and Chevys.

Chevy definitely has the advantage when it comes to technology. The cars generally have more techy features and often get better gas mileage than their Honda counterparts. That being said, where Chevy often fails is on the simple/obvious stuff, like space utilization and interior materials.

Not every Chevy is a disaster. The Cruze is a far nicer car than the current Civic (I have owned three Civics over the years). Many of the current Hondas are incredibly boring (Accord, Civic, Crosstour), while of course other models are excellent.

Personally, I have a 2010 Fit Sport and a 2011 Pilot EX-L. I felt like these were superior the the comparable Chevy offerings. However, if I needed a truck, there is no way I would choose a Ridgeline over a Silverado.

So, I guess my point is, Chevy and Honda both have some great vehicles in their lineups, and they both have some not-so-great vehicles in their lineups.

 

Respectfully, you have some very good points, but personally, I don't believe that there is a single General Motors vehicle that could surpass a Honda/Acura, or any other auto maker for that matter. I won't argue this any further, but what I will say, is let's give this new lineup of Chevys idk, 5-7 more years, and we'll see what car is still running like a top. You got to have a high attention to detail, and look at the vast performance when looking into cars, otherwise, you'll never see past all the technology and slightly better gas mileage. I honestly can't relate to the whole "this car is getting boring" deal either. I just don't see it in any Honda car no matter what the age.

 

I promise I am not picking on you specifically but I want to comment on a couple of these. Keep in mind I am a big Honda fan and I think most of their cars are superior to the domestic offerings. However ...

Regarding a decrease in fun to drive ... it is possible you just haven't had the opportunity to compare it to things actually fun to drive. Purely as a personal example, the 1987 Accord had double wishbones (in a family car!) and could execute an emergency lane change in a controlled manner that put Porsches to shame. You can attribute this to the cheap yen which allowed Honda to build expensive suspension design while still making a profit; or their racing team which was actively developing back then; or their niche focus that hadn't yet broadened to the mass-market audience they pursue now.

Try a lane change maneuver on the Fit, and you get inconsistent body movement, axle skipping from the not-fully-independent rear, undesirable F/R weight shift and general uncertainty about how much the EPS is actually turning the front wheels. And it's not just Honda; every manufacturer knows they have to spec strut front / twist-beam rear in order to produce a cheap car. In fact Honda is better than most; some companies just rely on the stability control to clean up after dangerously not-thought-out suspension. As you go up in price, a more sophisticated suspension is a possibility, but the cars get heavier too. A truly fun car is one in which the suspension action is completely transparent, not one in which the driver is aware of acceptable flaws. The Fit is fun enough to be acceptable, but even compared with the Civics of the 1990s .. it sort of is more like the "idea of" driving fun, in the same way that a chicken nugget tastes like the "idea of" a real chicken.

But that's just the way it is today. You want real fun, you have only a few choices left: An MX-5 Miata, an FRS/BRZ, or a Lotus. Everything else is either too heavy (Mustang, Porsche, BMW) or too cheaply designed (Veloster, Scion, Focus), etc. The tradeoff is that you get a lot more safety and fuel economy these days. It's a good trade. Nobody wants to personally crash test a 1987 Accord instead of a new one.

 

That's where Chrysler were the "leaders". In lieu of building a good car, just make the grills and wheel arches really big. Now GM and Ford are following the big grill look. How about that GMC Terrain? Reminds me of an Aztec with a monster grill. Actually, the Sonic isn't too bad looking though. I prefer the straight roof line to the Fit's sloping-toward-the-back look.

 

Sat in a Chevy Spark today... makes my Fit look like a big luxury car!

As far as running like a top in the future, all I can say is both of our dealerships have service departments that stay pretty busy. Personally, of the 14 cars I've owned, the car that gave me the most service trouble was my 2008 Civic Si. On the other hand, the only car I've had that has never needed a single thing is my 2010 Fit!

I agree that the overall appeal of a vehicle is more important than a slight difference in gas mileage or techo gadgets.

And regarding fun to drive... the Fit is OK, but it's no Mini!

 

The Fit is great to drive! But my Accord handles so much better, yeah I hate those sparks, they're pretty much pointless. Who wants a cheap 1.0 liter car that gets 38 mpg when a 1.8 Civic will get even better with more power? I know they make one that get's around 40, I think it cost a bit more but still, that car is pointless when they have a sonic. If the sonic is a sub compact, what's the spark? A sub-sub compact? It's just pointless crap. Pointless like Nissan making 80 friggen different SUVs.

 

I don't get it either. And they are styled so similarly, most people can't tell which is which unless they are parked side by side.

 

The Spark is pointless if you live in Maine. Or Michigan, or California or mostly everywhere. It has a very important point, however, if you live in Boston's North End, where the only free parking is parallel, there are 5% more cars than there are spots, and it's "open" ie there are no lines denoting the length of a parking bay. Shortest car gets the "in between" spots left after the street is parked up. Current champ is the Mini (the Smart is just a big fail is so many ways) but the Fiat 500 is looking to grab that. The Sonic will compete here.

Trust me - first time you spend 1.5 hrs circling in your del Sol looking for a spot, you too would appreciate the utility of having another 15 inches cut off your car. :P

 

I disagree with a few items here as some of it just doesn't make sense. The Fit will out lane-change the 87 accord any day even without independent suspension. (For reference purposes, the 89 Prelude 4WS would run the slalom at 65.5mph while the fit will do it at 65.8mph). There's no way the 87 accord was even close to the 4WS Prelude which at it's time was out-performing corvettes, Lamborghinis and Ferraris in slalom tests. The Civics of the 90's were also pulling slalom tests in the low 60's.

Also, you say you can't have real fun except in a miata, etc... why not? Today's "economy" cars are outperforming supercars that were heralded 20 years ago. Has the requirement for "fun" increased so much that we'd say that we couldn't have fun in a 20 year old Lamborghini?

It's about Perspective

~SB

 

This is my comparison of the Fit and Sonic LT 1.4 Turbo based on extensive research and test drives. My main reference point is my daily driver, a Miata. Also, my opinions are based on test drives, so I can't comment on things like tire feedback at the limits or brake fade:

Engine and manual transmission: The character of the engines are different. The Fit produces most of its power up top. The Sonic's push is the greatest through the midrange. That said, the Sonic's engine is more powerful at any RPM, returns better gas mileage, and feels smoother. Also, the Sonic's 6 speed with 6 being an overdrive is superior to the Fit's 5 speed, which leaves one at a high RPM while cruising on the freeway.

Chassis and handling: The Sonic felt more solid to me. Furthermore, it exhibited less body roll. As I said in my preface, I was unable to push the cars to the limit so I don't know which one behaves better at 9/10ths, but for a road trip or commute, the Sonic just handles like a more expensive car.

Interior: The Fit has the best designed interior of any car I've ever been in. The Sonic feels like a smaller car inside. I could rave about how the Fit's rear legroom is like that of a larger car, or how useful the magic seat is, but you guys already know this. When it comes to interior quality, neither car struck me as being above average. Both car manufacturers apparently made a Costco trip to pick up cheap plastic when they designed the respective interiors, but it feels like Honda at least went with the name brand.

Exterior: You have eyes, so you can form your own opinion. I prefer the Fit.

Conclusion: I slightly prefer the Sonic with the 1.4 Turbo. It is the better driving car in my opinion. That said, the Fit is the more practical choice. The useable interior space is otherworldly and it is known for amazing reliability. With the Sonic, who knows what depreciation will be? It is a Chevy after all. Furthermore, how confident can one be that a newly engineered 1.4L Turbo engine will go 200,000 miles? Remember, Chevy is the same company that gave the world the troublesome Northstar engine, and that engine never had to deal with the strain of a turbocharger.

 

So we all agree then? The only sonic I would ever buy is a hedgehog by the way

 

I thought the Chevrolet Spark was their smallest vehicle.