Model Year | 2010 | 2012 | |
Model | Toyota Tundra | Honda Fit | |
Engine | |||
Transmission | |||
Drivetrain | |||
Body | |||
Difference | |||
Total Legroom | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in (over 1 rows) | 0 in |
2010 Toyota Tundra Seat Room and Comfort: Pros | ||
Year | Body/Powertrain | Comment |
2010 | 4dr Crew Cab 5.5ft bed 381-horsepower 5.7L V8 6-speed shiftable automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
Lots of room for my long legs and seat is comfortable for the long haul. see full Toyota Tundra review |
2010 | 4dr Crew Cab 5.5ft bed 381-horsepower 5.7L V8 6-speed shiftable automatic 4WD, part-time w/low range |
With the front seat back and back seat forward, still have knee room. The recline on the back seat is great. see full Toyota Tundra review |
2012 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 |
2012 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 |