CVT tranmissions are fine for pensioners that live in flat lands. They work well in theory, but real life they are real dogs. I have driven the little Dutch DAF 66s (later Volvos) with them and they are slow, borderline on dangerous.

 

Had the opportunity to test drive a SL CVT Versa today, here are some of my impressions (currently driving Fit Sport Auto 100% city):

Seats:
Versa is far more padded, and conforms to your body better than the Fit's. The cushions on the Fit are far more firm, which could be a good or bad thing. The Versa also has a height adjustment on the driver's front seat (Fit missing item #1)

Passenger front seat is the most spacious compared to the Fit. Plenty of kneeroom and footroom. Headroom seems to be a bit less at all positions, but there is still plenty for me. Passenger side has a vanity mirror as well as the driver's side (Fit missing item #2)

The back seat has the same material, but I think leans too far back, and the headrests were not really comfortable. There is supposedly 8 more inches of legroom, but this is mostly at your feet and not necessarily your knees. At the knee, there is maybe 3 inches more at my regular driving position. I am 5'9, and tend to sit pretty far back.


Driving:
There is a dead pedal on even the Automatic (Fit missing item #3).

Visibility:
Front: Whoever was complaining about being unable to see the hood on the Fit won't like the Versa much either. From my position, I barely caught a glimpse of the hood, no more than what you can see in a 5 cent peepshow. Definately not useful enough to help with parking, etc.
Rear: Worse than the Fit if the Fit's rear headrests are removed, better if the Fit headrests are there.

CVT vs Conventional auto
Hands down, CVT. With no shift points, the ride is far smoother with zero lurching around. Made me wish my Fit had CVT too. Vancouver is no San Fran, but there are still plenty of hills. Went up and down a few, no problems keeping up at all times. I'm quite confidant that CVT will replace conventional autos soon enough, including the 2008 Fit. It's already offered elsewhere in the world (even with paddle shifters!), and it's about time it came here. CVT offers equal or better fuel economy than a MANUAL gearbox, which is one of the major reasons people give for getting a stick.

Handling:
As the Fit is my first car that I've owned, I didn't have much experiance with the handling charectoristics of many other cars other than my instructor's Corolla. And after driving the Versa, it made me realize how much I've been taking the Fit's handling for granted. Steering feels much heavier than a Fit's, the brake pedal is harder to press, and the throttle response is a tad slower. The steering wheel itself is thicker while also being smaller (I think)

I also have issues with the pedal placement - the Versa's brake and throttle pedals feel like they are on 2 different steps on a stairwell. I had to lift my foot quite a lot further than what I was used to.


Interior:
The Versa actually has padded surfaces on the doors and such, while the Fit just has the fabric to look like its padded.

The drive cluster and controls on the Fit look far superior. By comparison, the Versa's one looked small and cheap. Usuable though.

The Canadian Versa SL comes standard with carpet floor mats (Fit missing item #4) and a folding center armrest (Fit missing item #5)

Cargo capacity is much weaker on the Versa. Whatever interior dimension figures are given on brochures are not reflective of the possibilities of storage with the seats folded down (not level with the trunk floor). I can't imagine trying to carrying a 32 inch TV in the Versa as easily as the Fit. There is a levelling shelf available for the JDM Tiida which is not available as an accessory here, but should be something that prospective buyers should consider getting.

With the seats up, there seems to be more space behind the rear seats than the Fit (and comes with a hard cargo cover [Fit Missing Item #6]). The hatch opening, however, is abysmal. At the lowest point, it's a measly 28 inches, and gets larger as you go up. This means for wide boxes, you have to lift it higher before you can slide in in. I'm looking at 35 inches easy on the Fit.

Safety:
Even. 6 airbags on both, ABS on CANADIAN SL trim standard.

Pricing, top line SL trim with CVT - Fit Sport Auto is $25,000 CAD after taxes :
WITH technology package (Bluetooth, AUX jack, mp3 player, Rockford sound system with subwoofer, steering wheel controls): $1500 cheaper than a Canadian Fit Sport

Without tech package: $2500 cheaper than CAD Fit Sport

With Sport package (not available yet, unknown pricing). I'd expect a $1500 premium for the Sport package, which includes skirts, spoiler and SUNROOF. The Canadian VW Rabbit has sunroof as a $1400 option, so $1500 should be a decent ballpark figure. But even at $1500 for the Sport trim AND tech package, it will cost the same as a Fit Sport (but with a lot more features)

The CAD Fit is definately overpriced by a good 1k at the least, especially if you consider all the junk you have to buy (cargo cover, gas cap, floor mats, center armrest)

 

yep 100% agree.

a CVT simply doesnt lurch or hunt. much better for hills. if you live in 100% flatland a conventional geared AT might be ok, but in the real world a CVT is superior in all ways.

driving in san fran or seattle gets real old real quickly with the constant hunting and downshifting you suffer in an AT.

but from this thread it appears people just love their AT lurchmobiles. i say good riddance to AT and bring on the CVT.

 

CVT > all

i love the fun of a stick, but if a car had CVT i'd choose that. CVT doesn't have toruqe converter so it doesn't have the loss of mileage/performance an automatic does. CVT can maintain a rpm better than a stick shifter since CVT has infinite gears while a stick will have 4 or 5.

CVT + paddles is better than CVT. sometimes u want to sprint (maintain at high rpm), climb a mountain (high rpm), or sometimes u want to cruise (low rpm).

 

Uhhhhh NO - see how much the Fit is worth in 2 years compaired to the Mexican built Versa. Also if Versa is like any other Mexican built Nissan product also deduct time spent in the shop for repairs. Yes Honda is more expensive FOR A REASON - better long term value.

 

hondas are built in mexico too.

 

Uhhh... YES. Did you see how much Fits cost in Canada?
In Canada, it costs 25 THOUSAND CAD$ after BC taxes for a Sport Auto. That's *22k* USD for a Fit Sport. The Versa with ABS + Convenience package + CVT costs just under 22.5k CAD after taxes. That's a $2500 difference (2200 USD)

In the US, the Versa SL with CVT and convenience is 16.2k (no destination), which is a little more than the Fit Sport Auto's MSRP.

For comparison (all automatic, all after BC taxes), a 5-door Yaris RS with everything is around 24k CAD, a 5-door Rabbit works out to 26.5k, Civic LX (with alloys here) 26k.

To sum up: Canadians pay a $2500 CAD (2200 USD) premium over a similar Versa on the Fit Sport Auto while Americans get a $200 discount (assuming you buy each car at MSRP. $700 discount if you could put ABS on the SL, which the US website doesn't allow - yet is standard on the Canadian SL)

Sorry, but the Canadian Fit is overpriced by approximately 1k, all things considered. Sure it might be a good deal for the Americans, but up here? Not as much.

 

The Hondas that are built in Mexico arent sold in Canada or the US. So that's a moot point.

 

it's not even a good deal down here, with all the insane markups pushing the fit well past the honda civic and into honda accord territory.

 

yes my friend. Although the fit is not of them... for now.

I think the Nissans are quite good cars. This is my first new honda ( I had an accord, and have a shadow ACE). But my last 4 cars were Sentras, and none of them had any, not one, quality issues....

 

I just read a comparison in Autoweek. The fit verses the versa haha. It actually has more cargo space by a lot then the fit which I found very interesting and didn't understand since it doesnt have a lower floor or magic seats. The fit in the comparison won though, the editors liked the drivablity and sporty feel of the Fit over the Versa. Chaulk up one more for the Fit.

 

Has anyone done a comparison between the Versa and the Toyota Corolla? I know the Corolla is actually one class higher than the Fit & Versa, but....I had a chance to ride in my sister-in-law's Versa and my impression was that it was almost the same size as the Corolla. It has 122 HP, but also weighs a couple of hundred pounds more than the Fit, so I think the acceleration is about the same for the Versa and Fit, with maybe the Fit being a bit quicker. I think the Corolla is actually lighter than the Versa (at around 2550 lbs). Oh, I guess I should mention that I was lucky to get the ride in the Versa, as I had told her that it was a "Japanese-French Ford (re: quality), and she wasn't too happy about that. :p By the way, she did like the Fit, but bought the Versa cuz 1. Couldn't find a Fit 2. Cheaper than the Fit.

 

dude you got ripped on ur fit ... i got my LX with keyless entery for 21,000 on the road

 

in theory, but cvts arn't as strong as autos or manuals and tend to give more wear and tear, i'm not sure about a cvt not having a torque converter as it may either have a torque converter or a clutch depending on the transmission you're talking about, there are lots of places in a transmission for power to be lost, not just the torque converter, in addition since cvts are not yet mainstream, repairs can cost quite alot negating the savings in mileage

 

my grandma swapped paint in her fit with someone elses car in a church parking lot so shes in a rental nissan versa... its extremely cheap inside when compared to the fit, and it looks more like a stationwagon when viewed from the direct side or back.

 

I was also seriously considering the Versa, but the Fit won hands-down in cargo versa-tilitity (ironic, isn't it?). I couldn't live with the fact that the rear seats in the Versa did not fold down flush with the cargo floor. The better MPG rating of the Fit was also a major factor.

Otherwise, I liked the interior and the ride of the Versa. I could tell the Fit was sportier around corners, but at age 49 my need for slalom speed has receded on the priority list.

Unfortunately, I'm having a hard time living with the driving position in the Fit. It REALLY needs a telescoping steering wheel.

 

i have a 6 speed model and even though it may have more power than the Fit it doesn't seem like it, the brakes take alot of effort to stop the car and the handling is nowere near the Fit. does have ALOT of rear seat leg room though.

 

The Versa weighs 2779 lbs Vs the Fit's 2535 lbs, so that's why it's not any faster than Fit. I've noticed in some road tests about the Versa that the stopping distance was long compared to others, as you mentioned. An interesting comparison in the future will be the new Scion XD. It's almost the same wheelbase as Fit, a bit shorter in overall length, height is the same as Fit and Versa. No weight figures yet, but I'd guess around the same as Fit. The engine is the Corolla engine at 128 HP, and that is going to make it stand out in this class.

 

I'm actually wrong about the torque converter. That post is july, and now I know it has one. I think hybrids don't. But a gas engine CVT does have a toruq converter.

 

Something funny.

I heard that the Versa lost power once a supercharger got put onto it. The car was on the dyno making run after run. Of course the car wasn't fully tuned yet, but still. A supercharger and a loss of power? And no, this was a reputable Japanese tuner, not just a random company. But no thanks, I'll stick with our Top Fuel turbo'd Fit.