Model Year | 2013 | 2006 | |
Model | Honda Fit | Ford Ranger | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
2013 Honda Fit Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2013 | 4dr Hatch 117-horsepower 1.5L I4 5-speed manual FWD |
The best in this category (when you take into consideration the size of the trunk). see full Honda Fit review |
2013 Honda Fit Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2013 | 4dr Hatch 117-horsepower 1.5L I4 5-speed shiftable automatic FWD |
Seat bottoms are typical Japanese style short bottomed and not conducive to long duration drives. see full Honda Fit review |
2013 | 4dr Hatch 117-horsepower 1.5L I4 5-speed manual FWD |
One more thing. Rear seat comfort was obviously not a big selling point, nor a necessary feature. But one piece of it was worse than it had to be: the rear seat headrests. The artful circular shape and limited adjustment made the rear seats even harder to use; the headrest would tend to jab passengers in their spine. A better solution which was more even with the seat back would really have helped here. see full Honda Fit review |
2006 Ford Ranger Seat Room and Comfort: Cons | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2007 | 2dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 148-horsepower 3.0L V6 5-speed automatic RWD |
The rear jump seats are suitable only for children. see full Ford Ranger review |
2005 | 4dr Extended Cab 6ft bed 207-horsepower 4.0L V6 5-speed automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Rear compartment of Ranger extended cab is smaller and has side-facing jumpseats. see full Ford Ranger review |