One of my colleagues was quite jazzed by Honda’s new subcompact, the Fit. He and his wife had found their Infiniti G35 prohibitively expensive for their daily drive. He read all the Fit’s stats and test drives and even bugged me for some ‘insider’ info. (I had reviews but was prohibited to discuss them until the embargo was lifted.) Finally, the Fit arrived at a nearby dealership and he scheduled a test-drive.

He’s now looking to purchase a Mazda 3.

What happened? Reality. In briefly, he didn’t find the driver’s seat comfortable. And while the Fit’s a basic car, he found it too basic, lacking too many features like tilt/telescoping steering wheel which he had grown accustomed with his G35.

Does he pan the Fit? No. It’s still a fine car for someone looking for subcompact at that price range. But his experience is a cautionary tale of getting enthusiastic over data versus the ‘real deal’.

I read an article over at The Truth About Cars that questioned if auto shows were necessary. My colleague’s Fit experience quickly demonstrates that they are. There’s only so much one can learn about cars from magazines and on-line resources. Stats that show horsepower or torque don’t convey the ‘feel’ of driving a vehicle. Same with cubic space for this car or that one. I encountered the latter back in 2004 when buying a new car. I had read everything I could about the Accord and Camry. All the information stated I should have no problem sitting in them. Wrong! My head brushed the sunroof on each one of them. Only later did I learn about the seat controls, information that the salesfolks should have known. Now I’ve dropped both from my list because they don’t feel right: I like a more stiff ride provided by Mazdas and even Pontiacs. None of this information, though, could be gleamed from words.