>>13710352I've seen other sources for the Fit's 0-60 in the high 8s. But say it with me this time: it doesn't matter. Yes, the Focus is unquestionably quicker, so if bragging about a 16-second car's horsepower gets you off, go for it.
I can't explain C&D's mpg numbers. Window stickers said 37 for 2007, due in part to the EPA discrepancy I mentioned earlier. And you can't see how Fuelly, which lists consumers' reports including countless variables of driving conditions, behavior, vehicle maintenance, is not a scientific way of comparing two cars?
> you're the one saying they won't get less than 39 mpgClearly my point about anecdotal evidence is still lost on you. I will not explain this again.
The Fit was lauded for its road behavior in 2007, despite being based on an older platform sold elsewhere since 2001. It was replaced by an all-new Fit in 2009. The Focus never got a true second generation, and by 2011, it was old too - over a decade old. Even though it was based on a good platform, age and its competition were catching up to it. No one, except you, will argue that the 07-08 Fit is more fun to drive than a comparable Focus. It doesn't take a Honda fanboy to recognize the Fit's good engineering.
> suspension type dictates a good carSo a 90s Accord will be more fun to drive than a Boxster because double-wishbone is superior to struts?
