Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Stupid Fact of The Day
Today's stupid fact of the day; the 2016 Honda Fit has a maximum cargo capacity of 52.7 cubic feet while the 2001 Chrysler PT Cruiser has 64.2 with all of the seats removed. Stick that in your craw, Magic Seat! Just as a comparison, the Buick Encore CUV has a maximum of 48.4.
9 comments:
If you want to share a Youtube video, just copy and paste the URL in your comment.
Need to add an image of no more than 600 pixels wide? Use Imgur to edit and generate the BBcode you need or you can copy and paste this code [img]image-url-here[/img]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Interesting. When comparing, one probably should keep in mind that the Fit is somewhat smaller than the PT Cruiser (but I am not so concerned as to actually research the question!).
ReplyDeleteI remain surprised at the relative rarity of fold-flat front passenger seats, as that really improves the usability of a smaller hatchback. Since those same seats already include recliner mechanisms, often it would just be the exclusion of a detent that would make things possible.
Another frequent hindrance to useful carrying is putting the 40% portion of the rear seat on the wrong side. In my opinion, the single-seat portion belongs behind the driver (who has to be present, after all). Combine that with the previously mentioned fold-flat front passenger seat, and you could have a two-seat (tandem) configuration, with a wide cargo area that extends right to the dash.
Agreed! How's winter treating you, B?
DeleteWell, winter finally arrived, more or less. "Someone" got lulled into a false sense of security, so I had to go and retrieve their snow blower during the first blizzard of the year. Gobs of fun. At least it reminds you that you are alive.
DeleteYes, it does that. I'm happy to be currently not being repeatedly reminded that I'm alive, frankly. A nice little break this year. Of course, our weather has been record-breaking weird.
Delete2016 Fit LxWxH = 13'4"x5'7"x5'
ReplyDelete2010 PT = 14'x5'7"x5'3"...all of it in the nose, which makes sense (1.5 vs a 2.4). The PT is admittedly a LOT more work to access that larger cargo capacity but the flexibility makes it worth it.
Wow, I had thought that the PT was significantly larger than a Fit. Of course, there is 10 years between the designs, and we know how the bloat factor plays out these days.
DeleteWhat is the reliability/build quality like on the PT? I have been generally leery of Chrysler products, but I am a sucker for a practical small car.
The Fit IS still a paragon of efficient design, that's for sure. Can't take that away from it.
DeleteThere's no comparison, reliability-wise between just about ANY Chrysler and ANY Honda.
Still, I've been thinking about maybe getting a PT GT. They're dirt cheap and you get the SRT-4 turbo with it. Cheap parts, too. But, as with all modern Chryslers, it's definitely a roll of the dice more than a product of Japan.
Neon are pretty popular up here for ChumpCar racing, because both the cars and the parts are soooooooooo cheap. I heard one of the racers bragging that they use $12 brake rotors.
DeleteProb one of the few benefits of a Chrysler.... ;-)
ReplyDelete