What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

andre1969

The EPA uses a different classification for the Fit. It's classed as a small station wagon. EPA interior volume is 90/21 (passenger/cargo). If they had classified the FIT as a regular passenger car, rather than a wagon, it would actually be considered a midsize, mainly on the merit of the cargo area.

I think the 1-series coupe is classified as 86/10 or something tiny like that, while the 3-series sedan is something like 89/11. I don't think they list the 3-series coupe.

ateixeira

I'm sure it's roomier on the inside.

For some reason I find the Fit roomier than the Civic, even. Maybe it's just the way I sit in them, or the big windows.

qbrozen

well, what I'm getting at is the Fit is listed in the subheading of this topic.

andre1969

For some reason I find the Fit roomier than the Civic, even. Maybe it's just the way I sit in them, or the big windows.

I tried both the Fit and the Civic at the auto shows. I fit more comfortably in the front seat of the Civic, mainly because the seat goes back further and is more car-like. The Fit's seating position is more like a bus, IMO. The back seat, however, is a wash. Fit has better legroom, but because of the way the sides curve in I have to slouch and lean inward to keep from brushing the ceiling. In the Civic, there's enough room on either side of the front seatbacks that I can sort of straddle the back of the front seat without my knees hitting. If forced to choose between the two, I'd have to go with the Civic for its more tolerable driving position. Still, you have to admire the Fit for packing as much room as it does into such a tiny package.

andre1969

Technically, I don't think the Versa is a subcompact, either. Maybe they need to just change the thread to What's "wrong" with these new little cars"?

boaz47

"Technically, I don't think the Versa is a subcompact, either. Maybe they need to just change the thread to What's "wrong" with these new little cars"?

Well we have discussed this before. If cars like the Altima Coupe with a V-6 is a sub compact the answer is nothing is wrong with sub compacts. If a 3 series BMW is a sub compact nothing is wrong with sub compacts. So maybe we should add the 3 series and the Altima to the side bar? Would a viper be a sub compact? Or a Z06?

I have been looking at the Versa a lot more lately and I have to admit it has a lot of room. I am not sure but it seems like it might have as much room as a Mazda3. Maybe we can change the topic to what is wrong with 108hp sub compacts? Make them bigger like a Altima and add some ponies and you have solved the sub compact delima. It could also be one of the ways sub compacts are selling better. We simply add more cars that we are already producing and call them sub compacts? (Hyperbole is free in this post)

podred

Well the EPA rates the 3-series as a subcompact, so the 1-series might actually qualify as a mini-compact!

I was under the impression it was under the EPA classification: Micro-Compact

andre1969

I have been looking at the Versa a lot more lately and I have to admit it has a lot of room. I am not sure but it seems like it might have as much room as a Mazda3.

From my experience, at least, the Mazda3 is roomier up front, but the Versa is roomier in the back seat. So I guess it just depends on what your priorities are.

lilengineerboy

Check your engineering. The base Celica GT shared its block but not its head (nor power rating) with the Vibe, the GT-S had nothing in common at all.

2005 Toyota Celica GT 1.8l 140 hp
2005 Toyota Celica GT-S 1.8 180 hp

2005 Pontiac Vibe 1.8l 140 hp
2005 Pontiac Vibe GT 180 hp

2005 Toyota Corolla XRS 1.8l 180 hp

* all cars have since have their horsepower whacked to meet the new SAE test procedure.

The original RAV4, Corolla, Matrix/Vibe, and Celica are all based on the same underpinnings (the RAV4 AWD system will bolt onto a Celica).

plekto

To be honest, the RX-8 gets similar real-world MPG to what most of its competition would get if they came with manual transmissions and were geared for power and sportiness instead of mile high highway cruise gearing to make pretty EPA numbers.

Take a Camry. Manually lock out overdrive. Presto - 22-23mpg highway.
Take an IS300. Shift manually and never use overdrive(or again, lock it out). 24-25MPG highway.

The simple fact is that the RX-8 has no overdrive gear and is geared to produce power, so you get ~20mpg combined. Mind you, the thing's displacement is apples to oranges here. Torque and power-wise, it's equal to 3x the physical displacement in terms of a 4 stroke engine, or about a 4 liter V6. (I count 6 combustion chambers). So it not surprisingly gets gas mileage a lot like the 350Z or the Mustang do.

It's a sportscar and not a yuppie bling-mobile, so yeah, gas mileage isn't going to BE like a Civic. Then again, you get what you pay for - You can buy one for $24K easily and the price difference between it and the nearest competitor is several thousand dollars.

Cars Direct has one with the Sport Package for $24,600 plus destination charge. And that's not counting the deals Mazda usually runs on these.

The closest thing I can find right now is maybe an IS250(though it's not a coupe, it's about it until the 1 series comes out) at $28,200 plus destination.

eg:
25K at 20mpg. Drive 100K miles. 5000 gallons of gas.
28K at 25mpg. Drive 100K miles. 4000 gallons of gas.
1000 gallons of gas times $3 a gallon = $3000.

And with the BMW, well, TRY to pay under MSRP or get special financing.
$28,600 + 1200 for the sport package(includes traction control and such like the sport package on the Mazda) = $29,800. That's bare-bones, as well, so any options like floor mats or whatnot and you're at $30K. That's roughly 150K miles to break even on gas.

And that's not counting lower interest, less down payment, less money tied up, lower insurance, less tax on the sale, less registration...

thegraduate

The Matrix/Vibe has never had a 140 horse engine.

Originally, they had 130 horses (just like the Corolla), with 123 horses in the AWD model. With the SAE power changes, the 130 horse engine dropped to 126, just as in the Corolla.

boaz47

Isn't Nippon talking about the RX-8 only getting 19MPG at best and 12 as lowest? But what ever the fuel mileage you have to add all the oil they use. Nice sporty little car but it is a bit of a fuel hog. And it is no torque monster no mater how many times you multiply its Cubes.

Long term test from Edmunds

Current Odometer: 4,440
Best Fuel Economy: 19.1 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 12.0 mpg
Average Fuel Economy (over the life of the vehicle): 16.9 mpg
Body Repair Costs: $516 (repair and replace damaged wheel and tire).
Maintenance Costs: None
Problems: Excessive oil consumption.

Car&Driver long term test.

Speaking of 5W-20, the Mazda went blotto on the stuff. All rotaries supply oil to the combustion chambers to lubricate the rotor seals. The RX-8's new Renesis rotary has a computer-controlled injection pump that is supposed to meter out about one quart every 10,000 miles. For some reason our RX-8 guzzled one quart an average of every 3600 miles, demanding a total of 11 extra quarts and drinking its sump dry enough to flash the ominous low-oil warning on no fewer than five occasions.

Road and track long term test.

The normally aspirated Wankel twin- rotor engine is an engineering marvel, but it consumes a quart of oil nearly every 3000 miles. It’s normal for this type of engine, so we learned to live with it, and out of necessity began carrying an extra quart in the trunk.

lilengineerboy

You are right, I got used to typing 140 from the other examples.

Its interesting that the 130 went to 126 but the 180 went to 170.

thegraduate

Yeah, the hp rating system change was an odd one - some were affected much worse than others.

qbrozen

As boaz indicated, comparing it to a V6 is not even close due to total lack of torque.

And mileage is NOT similar to a 350Z. I used to get over 25 mpg combined in my Z. I don't think I've read of anyone getting that in their RX8. (and this very well probably has something to do with the fact that one doesn't need to wind the Z to high heaven to get anywhere quickly)

Don't get me wrong, I'm an RX fan. Love the idea of the rotary. But we really can't make fair comparisons with it. Its just a different type of driving experience.

I am a bit confused, however, concerning the comment that a 6-speed RX8 doesn't have overdrive. (???) So how many more gears would you say mazda needs to add to this thing?

boaz47

I also was found of the RX-7. In fact the old RX-7 was faster than the new RX-8. But while the new 8 is far more dependable they have not fixed the two characteristics that have kept the Rotary from become more mainstream. Fuel mileage and oil useage. That and in the old Mazda the motor was almost a throw-a- way. I don't know about the RX-8s dependability over the long term.

texases

Now that this is an RX-8 discussion what I don't understand is why a low torque, high rpm engine was saddled with extra doors and a back seat - this from the one main line company that seemed to 'get it' where weight control was concerned.

andre1969

The simple fact is that the RX-8 has no overdrive gear and is geared to produce power, so you get ~20mpg combined. Mind you, the thing's displacement is apples to oranges here. Torque and power-wise, it's equal to 3x the physical displacement in terms of a 4 stroke engine, or about a 4 liter V6. (I count 6 combustion chambers). So it not surprisingly gets gas mileage a lot like the 350Z or the Mustang do.

Yeah, but if you lock out top gear on a Camry, IS300, or whatever, you're just wasting fuel and needlessly over-rev the engine. The simple fact is that those engines still have enough power that they can still make use of the taller gears, which is why they have one. With something like the RX8, which has to rev really high to get any power, a really tall top gear would be useless because it would probably put the engine at too low of an rpm, where it would have no power. So you'd end up stalling, lugging the engine, or whatever. Basically it would do more harm than good.

boaz47

Well we just discovered that the RX-8 was a sub compact I guess. Once it was mentioned that there were no real rules to define a sub compact other than interior space it open up a whole new discussion.

But it does point out one thing. The US consumer has no clue what a sub compact should be. All the new sub compacts are bigger than the old sub compacts including the one sub compact that might interest me the most, the Mini Cooper.

I just read the opening blurb on the Smart on the IM homepage and while it has a lot of positive things to say it does show what a single purpose car the smart will be. Not a grocery getter. To me the Smart looks like it will be marketed as the Vespa of cars.

thegraduate

1980 Honda Civic



A new, sleeker body and increases in wheelbase and base-model engine size marked the 1980 Civic. The wheelbase now measured 88.6 inches for the hatchback (the two-door "sedan" was dropped) and 91.3 inches for the wagon. All Civic engines now used the CVCC design; the base 1,335cc ("1300") engine made 55 horsepower, while the 1,488 ("1500") produced 67 horsepower. Three transmissions were offered: a four-speed manual (on base models), a five-speed manual and a two-speed automatic.

The Civic 1300 and 1500 came in base and DX versions, and the latter featured a five-speed manual, rear window defroster, intermittent wipers and a cigar lighter. The 1500 GL added radial tires, a rear window wiper/washer, tachometer, clock and bodyside moldings. The Civic wagon came in a single version that was tantamount to the DX trim level.

True Subcompacts like the Civic are gone!

kyfdx

I think the actual first year for that Civic in the USA was the 1981 model.. I helped my girlfriend at the time, shop for one... MSRP+!!

andre1969

the fuel economy ratings on the 1980 Civic with the 1.5 are slightly higher than the 1.3! The EPA only lists the "combined" figure for 1980, instead of city/highway.

For the 1.3/5-speed it's given a combined rating of 28 mpg, but the 1.5/5-speed is a more commendable 36. Maybe that 1.3 was too underpowered even for this little car, and it had to struggle?

thegraduate

I'd love to know what the weight for this car was.

Today's Honda Fit: 2439lbs/109 hp = 22.32 lbs/hp

My old 1996 Accord: 2855lbs/130hp = 21.97 lbs/hp. This car is a semi-daily driver and does just fine, having no problems running 85 MPH for long periods (at 85, the car is running at 3400 RPM).

If the old Civic weighed 1800 lbs, it would have a wt/hp ratio of 32.73 lbs/hp. That's enough to make it work awfully hard!

andre1969

I have a Consumer Guide used car book that I bought ages ago, and it covers the period from 1977-86. When I get home tonite I could look up the Civic and give you some stats on it. I'd imagine 1800 pounds is pretty close, though.

I think about the worst lb/hp ratio I ever had was with a 1982 Cutlass Supreme. 110 hp from a 231 V-6 and I'd imagine that car weighed about 3100-3200 lb. So that's about 28-29 lb/hp. It was slow off the line...0-60 probably came up in about 13-14 seconds. But it was a good highway cruiser, and passing power actually seemed decent.

My stepdad had an '84 Tempo, which had 86 hp and weighed around 2500 pounds. That would also be around 29 lb/hp. But that thing was a REAL dog! I'm sure the Cutlass had a much better lb/torque ratio. It had 190 ft-lb. I have no idea what the Ford 2.3 would've had back then. Maybe 120, tops?

plekto

I am a bit confused, however, concerning the comment that a 6-speed RX8 doesn't have overdrive. (???) So how many more gears would you say mazda needs to add to this thing?
***
Overdrive is a function of gearing and ratios. These new cars are designed so that the torque converter locks up at about 40-45mph if you let it and the gearing is so silly high and the torque curve is so low that it's just appalling. Mazda designed it so that essentially there's no lockup and it stays at pretty high rpms on the highway so that it can pass and so on without bogging down like a diesel.

Yes, you have to add oil to it. Just like a 2-stroke engine(just lots less unless you hammer it like the Edmunds testers did). The oil and fuel aren't independent of each other, and that's just the way it is, so complaining about it is moot. It just shows how people have no idea that they are dealing with a different technology. It would be like complaining that their engine makes funny noises and isn't quiet when it has a huge turbocharger fitted. DUH.

Oh - it does have loads of torque. But it's like a motorcycle. You have to rev it hard to get that torque. Lugging it like you do a V6, well, yeah, it's going to stink off the line. Driving it like you would a 600CC sportbike... whole other animal. And it revs sportbike quick, which is a point most people miss. It's a very quick car. It does changes and maneuvers in traffic like a Porsche, or close to it, if you've got it already wound up to 4-5K rpm and punch it.

Yes, gas mileage is poor. That gets a big "meh" from me. If I wanted a Prius, I'd buy one.

BTW:
The RX-8 is 231HP and 2888lbs.(sunroof and cosmetics like the spoiler and such add 100lbs of bloat) That's 12.5 Lbs/HP! 0-60 in 5.9.

A Porsche Cayman: 245HP and 2954Lbs. 12.1 Lbs/HP. 0-60 in 5.8.

The RX-8 isn't a Porsche, but it's really close to one for half the price. And it's certainly worlds faster than a Civic.

P.S. Those rear seats and doors have to be 100lbs right there. That's probably the difference, though the lack of rear seats in a Cayman is a big minus to many people.

jlawrence01

Have to admit that as I paged down past your picture of the 1980 Honda Civic, that I was looking at the Dodge Omni or the VW Rabbit of the same era.

I wish that we could still purchase DEfeatured vehicles. (no elecrtic doors/locks, power seats, ABS, airbags).

walterquint

Well, I haven't perused the posts here, so what I'm writing has likely already been said. I personally adore the Honda Fit and its brethren: BUT the fortwo is a travesty!!
Seats only 2 (as its name fairly implies, I guess), but NO cargo capacity, a slow tranny, short as a golf cart, and mediocre mileage!!! What gives?

My friend recently returned from Paris. He said cars like the fortwo are all over the place there. I told him that's logical, since the cars there will likely never exceed 40 mph in their lifetimes.

IMHO, the fortwo will be a failure in the States. The engine is too weak for the highway and it's just too small. And I say this with some regret, because I've always wanted a RWD economical 4cyl hback car.

andre1969

just opened up my CG used car book, and here's a few stats...

3dr hatchback: 88.6" wb, 148" long, 1832 lb
4dr sedan: 91.3" wb, 161" long, 1950 lb
5dr wagon: 91.3" wb, 160.8" long, 1956 lb

As for fuel economy, they list the following:
1.3/81 CID 3-bbl 4cyl: 30-35 mpg, 58-62 hp depending on year (1980-83)
1.5/91 CID 3-bbl 4cyl: 28-33 mpg, 67-69 hp depending on year (1980-83)

thegraduate

Thanks... that's 32 lbs/ hp for the 1.3. Talk about slooow.

Imagine if we kept similar power/wt ratios, what kind of economy we might could have. In the Fit, that would be about 80 horsepower (what does the 1.3L Fit offer in the way of HP?)

boaz47

"(what does the 1.3L Fit offer in the way of HP?) "

I think it is 108 or 109 HP.

thegraduate

The 1.5L has 109 hp. I doubt that 1.3 has that much!

boaz47

Sorry, I didn't realize the Fit offered more than one engine choice. I should have looked. We only have one choice and that is a 1.5 with 109 HP.

thegraduate

Yes, in Europe, Japan the Honda "Jazz" has a 1.3L option. Here in America we don't get to decide.

podred

It seems a bit odd to be discussing what's underpowered and lacking horsepower. After all we are talking entry level priced economy cars here. If the goal is to have lots of horsepower, torques and acceleration, then there are other forums for that discussion. It's simply really, simply put a big pile of money on the table, and buy whatever suits you. The more you spend the more speed and horsepower you get.

thegraduate

Nah, i think you're missing our point. The point is that cars back in the eighties were a lot slower. If current car companies were willing to go back to those types of hp/lb ratios, we'd have higher-mileage cars.

The real question would be whether or not the public would give them a shot in the land of the 75MPH interstate.

lilengineerboy

After all we are talking entry level priced economy cars here.

Not necessarily, the Mini is far from entry level. I think its only in America that small cars = cheap cars.

If the goal is to have lots of horsepower, torques and acceleration, then there are other forums for that discussion. It's simply really, simply put a big pile of money on the table, and buy whatever suits you. The more you spend the more speed and horsepower you get.

Eh, there really isn't a lot of challenge to that. Since most of America has pockets that lack the depth of yours, and are more limited in the number of vehicles they may own, value, however it is defined, becomes a bigger piece of the equation. Fun to drive characteristics are very important to me personally at any price level.

boaz47

As thegraduate said the point isn't that they are simply entry level cars it is at the price point and fuel economy they don't offer anything more than we already can buy before the new batch of sub compacts. The base Fit is just under 14k. has 109HP and gets 28-34 MPG. The Base Civic, that we had had access to for quite a while has 140 HP and is just over 14k and it gets 26-34 MPG. The base Corolla is just over 14k with 126 HP and gets 28-37 MPG. we have had access to those for quite a while as well. The new Scion xD is about the same price as a Corolla and only gets 27-33 MPG. So where is the advantage to the new sub compacts? Other than just wanting a small car?

nippononly

"Its interesting that the 130 went to 126 but the 180 went to 170."

The 180 went to 170 because of changes made to the catalysts to meet ever-tightening smog standards. The engine from the old GT-S (dropped the year Matrix XRS/Vibe GT was downrated in power) was WAY dirty in that department.

When the SAE ratings system changed, the GT/XRS dropped in power again, to 164.

nippononly

"The base Fit is just under 14k. has 109HP and gets 28-34 MPG. The Base Civic, that we had had access to for quite a while has 140 HP and is just over 14k and it gets 26-34 MPG...So where is the advantage to the new sub compacts?"

Oh, I dunno, how about handling? I am perusing my latest R&T Road Test Summary a little bit here, and I find some interesting tidbits...

...like the Fit Sport at $15K is as fast through the slalom as the WRX and GTI, both a solid $8-10K more. Interestingly, it is faster through the slalom than a Mustang GT. BIG weight advantage for the Fit there.

It is MUCH faster through the cones than that icon of automaker profitability, the Cayenne Turbo. It kicks butt over the magazines-call-it-a-subcompact-but-it-definitely-isn't Caliber SRT. Indeed, it is faster through the cones than the MDX (by a long shot) and even the TL type-S.

Anyone else care to mention a hotted-up version of their favorite go-fast car? The list is, of course, not comprehensive. But the Fit beats the pants off the Galant Ralliart through the cones. Tops the R32. Comfortably tops the Sentra SER Spec V. Eclipses the Eclipse GT. Outhandles EVERY SINGLE Mercedes they have on the list except the SLR Mclaren and the CLK63 AMG Black Series, most by a wide margin, and I don't think I have to tell you what pork-mobiles most of the current Mercedes line consists of.

It does all that for $15K on 15" rims with 195mm tires and all-season tires. The key? It is SMALL and it is LIGHT. :-)

qbrozen

These new cars are designed so that the torque converter locks up at about 40-45mph if you let it and the gearing is so silly high and the torque curve is so low that it's just appalling. Mazda designed it so that essentially there's no lockup and it stays at pretty high rpms on the highway so that it can pass and so on without bogging down like a diesel.

sorry. I thought we were talking about the manual tranny. (??)

Wait. I just checked. We were talking manual trannies. I'm pretty sure manuals don't have torque converters. I'm darned sure my 350z, Alfa spider, mazda pickup, Jeep Cj, Toyo 4runner, and Accord 6-speed didn't have one. And the only one of those that got worse mileage than the RX8 is the CJ (thanks to the 3-speed).

Oh - it does have loads of torque.

I don't want to look it up right now, but isn't it something like 150 ft-lbs peak? I don't consider that anywhere near "loads." I guess maybe that's a personal thing.(??)

Yes, gas mileage is poor. That gets a big "meh" from me. If I wanted a Prius, I'd buy one.

That's far from the point. We aren't comparing it to a Prius. What I am saying is that getting mileage similar to a big honkin V8 sportscar with twice the torque (and far less than a more powerful V6) is just not impressive to me with such a tiny engine.

andre1969

Isn't a base Fit also a bit better equipped than a base Civic? At least, I know I've seen Civics pimped up to the $22-23K mark, so that would imply to me that a $14K Civic would be pretty spartan.

My uncle's Corolla MSRPed for about $16K, nearly six years ago! And it's just a CE model, no great shakes. So either a brand-new $14K Civic is a steal of a car, or it's one heck of a stripper!

nippononly

Well, the RX-8's advantage is similar to that of the subcompact cars, although here it is more DISTRIBUTION of weight than TOTAL weight. But compare it to a 350Z (what I consider its closest competitor) and you WILL find it a quarter ton lighter. More to the point, that little 1.3L rotary engine is small and light and can be mounted behind (IIRC) the front axle for a completely different distribution of weight. So RX-8 handling is pretty fantastic.

nippononly

The $15K Civic has no A/C and a 2-speaker stereo (or wait, does it have a stereo at all? I forget). By comparison, the $14K Fit base model has a 160-watt 4-speaker stereo and A/C standard.

Move up to the Civic LX, the volume trim (they hardly sell any of the $15K DX), and you have also moved up to around $17K, more than either trim of the Fit. And even then, the $15.5K Fit Sport has a standard 200-watt 6-speaker stereo and standard alloys, neither of which the Civic LX has.

And the Civic? NOT so fast through the cones, significantly slower than the Fit in fact.

qbrozen

Oh, I agree.

But I guess to the point of this topic: "what is wrong with these subcompacts?" In the case of the RX8, its the gas mileage (well, that and the fact it is built for people quite a bit shorter than me). So if they could lick the mileage problem, it would be a great subcompact. seating for 4, lightweight, well balanced, etc.

andre1969

yeah, the motor is a bit aft of the front axle, according to this C&D blurb

They also say it takes 6-7 seconds to get from 0-60, with the 6-speed stick, which isn't all that fast, but it's supposed to be a great handler, so it probably shines on twisty roads.

Seems to me it would be kinda chunky, though. At 2950 lb and about 70" wide, it ain't exactly little. Its wheelbase of 106.4" is pushing midsize, although it's only ~174" long, so there's very little front or rear overhang. It wasn't that long ago that a wheelbase that size would be more associated with cars around 185-200" long.

boaz47

But because Civics and Corollas have been with us so long we "never have to pay sticker or even MSRP. Pick up your sunday paper and you will see lots of cars selling brand new for less than a Fit. So what they say they will sell them for and what they sell for are two different things. I remember this point being debated with Nippon when the Scions first came out. The only dealer within 100 miles of me that didn't mark up their prices was Longo Toyota.

Nippon I am impressed with the Fit's slalom times. Not because it is a small car but because it is a small sub mini van. I fall back on the bias pointed out to me earlier. I see than coming up into the mountains for weekends and their slalom times don't transfer coming up the mountains. At least the old Civic Hatch had some style even if it wasn't my cup of tea.

ateixeira

Whatcha waiting for, go buy one.

nippononly

Just making a point for my chum boaz, juice, just making a point... ;-)

Well that, and I am waiting for i-VTEC and a change in styling. :-)

ateixeira

I helped my mom buy one. Her sons all pitched in.

She was gonna buy another Fiat rust-bucket. She goes through one every 5 years or so. We talked her into spending a bit more, then helped her afford it.

I believe they make them in Brazil for that market.

nippononly

It's a nice car as is, but the new model coming in the fall will be significantly better IMO. I just hope the price doesn't skyrocket.