Subcompacts are a quickly growing segment of today's automotive marketplace. Heightening concerns over rising fuel costs and environmental issues have prompted many Americans to consider smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles for their transportation needs. As a result, the subcompact class has become a hotly contested arena, with several fresh designs vying for shoppers' dollars. The Honda Fit, Suzuki SX4, and Toyota Yaris all debuted as new-for-2007 models. The Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio were redesigned for the 2006 model year. The Chevrolet Aveo first hit the market for the 2004 model year, and the Aveo sedan received exterior and interior styling upgrades for 2007.

The oldest vehicle design in the subcompact class is the Suzuki Aerio, which debuted as a 2002 model. For 2007, it comes as a sedan only. The two other vehicles in the subcompact class, the Scion xA and xB, skipped the 2007 model year. The next-generation xB and the xA's replacement, the xD, will hit the market later in the calendar year as 2008 models.

As of now, the subcompact market is the domain of import carmakers. The lone domestic nameplate in the class is the Chevrolet Aveo, but even that vehicle is an import; it's built in South Korea by GM Daewoo Auto and Technology Co. Ford and Chrysler are reportedly readying new subcompact cars, but these will almost certainly be produced overseas as well.

The Face-Off

Consumer Guide decided it was time to put a few of these pint size players to the test, head to head, and see how they stacked up. Our editors had previously spent seat time in all of these vehicles, but we knew that the opportunity to drive them back-to-back would prove enlightening.

As it turned out, the four shootout contenders included our three subcompact Recommended picks--the Honda Fit, Suzuki SX4, and Toyota Yaris--plus the popular Chevrolet Aveo. The 2007 Hyundai Accent and Kia Rio claimed our subcompact Best Buy honors for their outstanding features-per-dollar ratio, full complement of standard safety equipment, and generous warranty coverage. As such, we've excused them from this comparison, but they should be included on any subcompact buyer's shopping list.

Before we discuss the individual competitors, a couple of general observations about subcompact vehicles are in order. Though subcompacts have made great strides in passenger comfort and noise/vibration/harshness levels in recent years, there are tradeoffs to their affordability and fuel-efficiency. No subcompact is a serene highway cruiser. All of the vehicles in our test exhibited a stiff, occasionally harsh ride over bumpy surfaces. Engine, wind, and road noise are much more prominent than in larger, more substantial vehicles. And subcompacts' small, economy-minded engines frequently require foot-to-the-floor throttle applications for adequate passing power.

That said, let's look at each of our shootout competitors individually.
Note that our test vehicles varied slightly in terms of bodystyle and levels of equipment.

The Players

Chevrolet Aveo: Our Aveo tester was the lone four-door sedan of the group. It was a topline LT model, which comes well-equipped with such standard features as keyless entry, heated power mirrors, power windows and door locks, and alloy wheels. Our tester had just two options: fog lights ($110) and the automatic transmission ($850). Price as tested was $14,775.

Honda Fit: The Fit comes in one bodystyle--a four-door hatchback. Our tester was the Fit Sport model with a manual transmission. Fit Sports include alloy wheels, cruise control, fog lights, and keyless entry. Price as tested was $15,720.

Suzuki SX4: Like the Honda Fit, the SX4 comes in a four-door hatchback bodystyle only. Our tester was a base manual-transmission model, which stickers for $14,999. Base SX4s offer just one option, which our tester did not have: a $300 Convenience Package consisting of cruise control and a leather-wrapped steering wheel with radio controls. SX4 is the only car in the group to offer all-wheel drive and four-wheel disc brakes.

Toyota Yaris: Yaris offers two-door hatchback or four-door sedan bodystyles. Our tester was a hatchback outfitted with the automatic transmission, Weather Guard package, Power Package with 15-in steel wheels, carpeted floor mats and cargo mat. As equipped, our tester was missing some key features, including keyless entry ($230), ABS ($300), front side airbag and curtain side airbag protection ($650), and alloy wheels (available with the Power Package for an additional $390). Price as tested was $13,980.

We took into account the variations in passenger and cargo flexibility between our competitors' varying bodystyles. Traditionally-minded shoppers will likely be more comfortable with the conventional four-door sedan bodystyles offered by Yaris and Aveo, while the four-door hatchback designs of the Fit, SX4 and Aveo offer the best cargo utility. Yaris' exclusive two-door hatchback bodystyle offers a slightly sportier character.

The Showdown

Eight Consumer Guide editors spent a day driving these pint-size players literally back to back to back to back. Our suburban Chicago test route included stop-and-go traffic, highway sprints, and everything that falls in between. We drove, acted as passengers, popped the hatchbacks, flipped down the rear seatbacks, adjusted the radios and climate control systems, and scrawled copious notes. Here's what we found:

Chevrolet Aveo LT four-door sedan:

Pros: Pleasing interior materials, solid-feeling structure, "safe" overall design
Cons: Stingy rear seat space, meager interior storage, curtain side airbags not available

Interior Accommodations/Cargo Space: The Aveo's conventional trunk is not as versatile as the hatchback cargo areas of the other cars, but it was surprisingly large for the exterior size of the car. However, the trunk lid's unprotected sickle-shaped hinges cut into cargo space and can crush packages. Aveo was the only one of the bunch to offer a height-adjustable driver's seat and a flip-down driver's seat center armrest. We were pleasantly surprised by the subtle but effective interior and exterior styling upgrades to the 2007 Aveo sedan; one tester went so far as to call the interior accommodations "classy." The fancy trim and solid assembly went a long way toward making our test sedan feel like a more substantial, quality vehicle. However, the Aveo got low marks for interior storage space, with its lone front cupholder, meager storage cubbies, and ultra-shallow map pockets. Our testers also found the Aveo's rear seat to be the least hospitable of the bunch, with legroom particularly tight. The Aveo's lack of curtain side airbags is also a significant demerit.

Performance: The Aveo's road manners didn't quite live up to its pleasant interior. Body lean was pronounced in moderate corners, and wind noise was high even for this class. However, the four-door sedan body structure felt solid, and the ride was stable at highway speeds. Acceleration was adequate, but the abundant engine noise made it seem heavily labored. Our automatic-transmission tester averaged 24.5 mpg, a bit disappointing for the class.

Honda Fit Sport:

Pros: Sporty and fun to drive, great cargo space/versatility, best overall refinement
Cons: Price, lower level of features per dollar

Interior Accommodations/Cargo Space: We unanimously agreed that the Fit had the best-designed, most versatile cargo space. Both front and rear seat room was adequate, even for tall passengers. After removing the rear seat headrests, the seatbacks fold down to form a flat, unobstructed load floor. The space is so expansive that one of our testers wondered if the Fit's outstanding cargo capacity might outstrip its diminutive engine: "How much stuff would you honestly try to carry in a vehicle that has only 109 horsepower?" Some of our testers praised the Fit's interior accommodations, while others felt that the materials were chintzy in places, especially compared to other Honda vehicles.

Performance: All of our testers also agreed that the Fit was the sportiest of the bunch and the most fun to drive. Despite its modest power, the Fit's responsive steering, solid body structure, and finely tuned suspension made it quite agile in quick cornering. With the manual transmission, overall acceleration was slightly above average for the class, but often required revving the engine to near redline rpms, where the engine racket becomes bothersome. Though the Fit was not significantly quieter than the others, its engine emitted a more pleasant, refined sound. In previous tests, our manual-transmission test Fit averaged a laudable 31.8 mpg.

Suzuki SX4:

Pros: Exclusive all-wheel drive, best-in-class horsepower, impressive standard features
Cons: Bottom-of-the-class fuel economy, some lapses in overall refinement

Interior Accommodations/Cargo Space: Our testers found the SX4's interior controls pleasant and logically placed, with no real ergonomic gaffes. Likewise, interior materials and assembly were deemed above average. Front and rear headroom are good for the class, though rear seat legroom quickly becomes cramped if the front seats are more than halfway back. Overall, the SX4 boasts excellent passenger and cargo space for the class, but still trails the Honda Fit slightly. With the rear seats folded down, the SX4's load floor is not as low and flat as the Fit's. We were unimpressed with the SX4's awkward rear-seat folding mechanism, which requires clipping a fabric retaining strap to the front seat headrests. The soft-touch tailgate latch is a nice, upscale feature, however. Up-to-date audiophiles will be disappointed that the SX4 doesn't offer an input jack for an MP3 player.

Performance: Our testers found the SX4 almost as fun to drive as the Fit, but noted a few gaffes in refinement and overall driving dynamics. The SX4's manual shifter was notchy and not as precise as the Fit's, but some testers preferred the Suzuki's clutch pedal feel. The SX4 felt only marginally quicker than the others--it has a 35-40 horsepower advantage, but it is also the heaviest vehicle in the class by far, due in part to the weight of its AWD system. Our head-to-head test occurred on dry pavement, but in our previous tests, the SX4's AWD system was effective in rainy and snowy conditions. A couple testers noticed occasional unsettling jolts transmitted through the SX4's steering column in bumpy turns. The engine note was coarse and buzzy under full throttle, but receded somewhat during cruising. In our previous tests, the SX4 averaged 24.43 mpg--the worst in the subcompact class, but acceptable for an all-wheel drive vehicle.

Toyota Yaris two-door hatchback:

Pros: Decent ride for the class, some useful interior storage spaces, exclusive bodystyle
Cons: Awkward interior design, budget-grade interior materials, optional equipment drives up base price

Interior Accommodations/Cargo Space: Most of our testers were turned off by the Yaris' unconventional interior layout, especially its centrally mounted gauge cluster. Some were impressed with the numerous interior storage cubbyholes and storage compartments. Others noted the small, poorly placed cup holders, which are mounted precariously high on the dash. One of our taller testers complained of the limited range of motion in the height-adjustable steering column and the lack of a shoulder-belt height adjustment. Being the only two-door hatchback in the test, the Yaris suffered from the storage compromises inherent in that bodystyle. The rear seat area was the most difficult to access for both passengers and cargo. The rear seat space was also cramped, though the optional sliding/reclining rear seat helps somewhat. The Yaris was the only car among our contenders to feature a sunvisor with an extender panel, a nice feature.

Performance: The Yaris had decent off-the-line acceleration in our test, but highway-passing power was lacking. None of the engines in this class speak in dulcimer tones, but the Yaris' engine sounded particularly coarse and distasteful. One of our testers noted a bad passenger side wind seal and some noticeable body drumming. On the plus side, the ride was the most compliant of the group. The Yaris' smallest-in-class exterior dimensions and tight turning radius make for great parking-lot maneuverability. In our previous tests, a manual transmission Yaris averaged 34.8 mpg, an automatic 31.6--the best of any car in this group.

The Standings

It was a closely contested battle for first place, but SX4 narrowly edged out Fit for the top honors, thanks to its higher level of standard features (AWD among them), more power, and highly competitive sticker price. These factors make up for its slight lack of engineering finesse compared to the Honda Fit. The Fit's level of equipment and refinement pushed its price close to the $16K mark, which prompted some of us to question whether it would be wiser to step up another $1000-1500 for a larger, more substantial-feeling compact, such as Honda's own Civic.

Though the two cars are comparable dynamically, the Chevrolet Aveo squeaks past the Toyota Yaris for third place largely on the strength of its conventional design and pleasing interior. One editor summed up the Aveo's appeal thusly: "Inside and out, Aveo looks like a traditional American sedan, only in 5/8 scale. I think many small-car shoppers will find Aveo's conventional shape and pleasant interior very welcoming."

The Yaris gets high marks for absolute affordability and fuel economy--important in this value-oriented class--but sacrifices much in the process. Most of our testers found it to be the most unpleasant of the pack in terms of refinement and day-to-day livability. The Yaris' low base price is also a bit misleading, since the other vehicles come standard with many important features that cost extra on the Yaris.