Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

16970727475195

Comments

  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    I can live with feel as compared to full sized trucks. Because they are bigger as well. But the Ranger is now one of the smallest “compact trucks.’ But compared to 1990 even? Even in 1990 the standard cab was only 2819 pounds and had a Wheel Base of 107 inches and was only 176 inches long. The Extended cad was 3159 lbs with a WB of 125 inches and it was 193 inches long. The Toyota was about the same. The New mid sized truck was the Dakota. In 1990 it was 4520 pounds with a wb of 112 and it was 185.9 overall for the standard cab. The extended cab was 4750 with a wb of 131 inches and 204 over all. Today the Ranger is heavier at 4380 for with a wb of 111 inches, one inch shorter than the old Dakota. The extended Ranger is 4600 pounds with a wb of 125 inches and 202 inches over all. The Toyota went to 4850 for the shortest cab you can get and a 127 inch wb plus 208 inches over all and the big cab is 5450 with a 127 wb and 208 inches over all. So what happened to the Compact truck market? It simply moved into the spot the mid sized market once had.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Boaz, I think you might be getting curb weight and GVWRs mixed up. I just checked, and the heaviest 2007 Ranger I could find is the FX4 Level II 4door supercab 4wd, with a 4.0 V-6. Curb weight is 3672 pounds, GVWR is 5000. Wheelbase is 125.7", which definitely ain't compact in a car sense...my '57 DeSoto's wb is 126", and it was considered one of the bigger cars at the time! Length is 203.6".

    However, if you get a 3.0 model with just RWD, curb weight's down to 3171 pounds, and GVWR is 4600. That might be a misprint though, as I'm seeing a base regular cab model with a 2.3 coming in at 3012 pounds. I'd think that the extended cab and V-6 would ad more than 159 pounds!

    If you want to get real stripper on a Tacoma, there's a model wit ha 2.7 4-cyl, regular cab, regular bed, that's 3180 pounds and has a GVWR of 4550 pounds.

    Still, these are a far cry from stuff like the '72 Chevy LUV that my grandparents had as a spare vehicle! It had a camper shell on it, and I remember Granddad wanted to take it off to save weight, but Grandmom tried to get him to leave it on because she thought it made the truck look bigger!
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    Whatever the numbers they post are the new compact trucks are bigger. And they are at least as Big as the old dakota. Because for a year or two they made the Dakota and the D-50 and the Dakota was called a mid sized truck. Today nothing is as small as a D-50, or my First Toyota Pickup.

    You are absolutely correct in that the person that wanted a compact truck has been abandoned. And this is the second failure for Subaru on introducing a compact truck.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    You are absolutely correct in that the person that wanted a compact truck has been abandoned. And this is the second failure for Subaru on introducing a compact truck.

    I thought the BRAT was kinda successful for awhile as a niche vehicle? Ultimately it went away, but I thought it had a good, solid run.

    I think the Subaru Baja was doomed from the start though. It just tried to be too many things at once, and ended up not being very good at any of them. And IIRC, it was pretty expensive as well. I'm sure there were a few buyers out there who found the Baja's package of features and utility appealing, but just not enough to keep it viable.

    My grandparents had a D50, too, which replaced their LUV in 1980. Back then gas was scarce, and rumors of $3.00 per gallon gas were looming on the horizon (it would just take 25 years to get there!). Their other two vehicles were a 1972 Impala with a 350 and a 1976 GMC crew cab 3/4 ton truck that was about 21 feet long. So in their case, I guess a little runabout made sense. My grandparents wanted to get a stick, but I think you could only get the stick with bucket seats, and they wanted a bench, like the LUV had.
  • boaz47boaz47 Member Posts: 2,747
    It is off subject but I do sometimes miss the bench seats. But My D-50 had one. I remember sitting three across with My wife and sister in law in the truck. But I could be wrong about it being the D-50.
  • michaellnomichaellno Member Posts: 4,120
    I saw one today on my way to work. Man, is it small when compared to current trucks!

    I had a friend in HS who co-owned one with his brother. They had ripped out the OEM seats and installed Recaros with 5-point harnesses. We drove it up to Laguna Seca back in the mid 80's to check out the IMSA races up there. Was a long, long ride up and back in one day. We lived just north of LA at the time.
  • mwqamwqa Member Posts: 106
    This discussion, I feel, is more about the new crop out there, the much-improved (from 10-20 years ago, even from 5-7 years ago in many ways) cars ... that are the equal (or better) of their compact and midsize brethren in interior quality, handling, and performance, only in a smaller size.

    I'm not so sure much has changed. Whenever I defrost the windows in my 1992 Mazda 323, the passenger side defrosts first. Why? Probably because the car was never properly adapted to left hand side, North American driving.

    In the new crops of subcompacts, I look at the Fit and I see indications that Honda has not properly redesigned the car for left hand side drivers. For example, to me there seems to be a lack of space for the left foot in the driver’s foot well. Maybe this is deliberate, but the passenger side's foot well sure feels spacious!

    Many of these subcompacts are originally designed for other markets and right hand side drivers. They are also made outside North America in factories producing mainly right hand side versions of the car. To me, these cars still don’t seem to be properly tailored to North American driving.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Do you mean that the right side of the passenger's footwell is more spacious than the left side of the driver's footwell?
  • mwqamwqa Member Posts: 106
    I mean, even taking into account the room taken by the pedals, that the passenger's side foot well seems larger in volume than the drivers's side.

    There seems to be more room for feet and for pedals on the right side of the car.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Maybe it's just an illusion because of the pedals? If the gearshift is in the center and the seats are evenly spaced you'd think that the footwells would have to be the same. I guess you could just look and see if there were extra bulges on the drivers footwell.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I've seen cars where the driver's side footwell is wider than the passenger side. I think most RWD cars are actually like this, but with the cars I've had, they've always been so big that an extra inch on the driver's side isn't that noticeable.

    I first noticed it when I bought a 1969 Dart GT with bucket seats and a column shift. The driveshaft and transmission hump were shifted over about an inch off center from the driver's side. The main reason it was so noticeable was because you could look down between the bucket seats and tell that the passenger seat was closer. With a bench seat though, or if there had been a center console filling that space, it wouldn't have been as noticeable.

    I've also seen cars where the floor on the passenger side is shallower, because in the 70's they had to make room for the catalytic converter, and it was on that side up under there. I think on dual exhaust cars, they just let the driver's side converter hang down more and take its chances.

    I've never noticed the passenger side being noticeably different in FWD cars, though, although with my Intrepid, the passenger side feels a bit shallower somehow. I never measured it or got under the car to look at it to see if it really is, though.
  • w9cww9cw Member Posts: 888
    I recently visited the IIHS site to check on some test results of various cars, and was somewhat shocked to find no test results on Scion. On other sites, the Scion vehicles are listed under Scion or Toyota, but the brand "Scion" is no where to be found anywhere on the IIHS site. Perhaps this has been discussed here before, but I find it very strange the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety hasn't crash tested any of the Scion vehicles. I wonder why?
  • imidazol97imidazol97 Member Posts: 27,132
    If I remember from time spend under cars in the past, the transmission had the levers for the gear selector on the right side and also the vacuum modules and/or before that the link rod for the accelerator connection to measure demand was on the right side. The hump may have been larger toward that side to accomodate the extra linkages sticking out of that side of the tranny. I think that was true of manual Mustangs that I had.

    2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,

  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    One aspect of this discussion that makes me smile is that somehow there's an assumption in here that modern subcompact drivers are "handicapped" in some way, when in fact driving a modern subcompact is no different than driving most other cars aside from the huge luxury liners.

    At one time there was this vast universe of difference when you jumped from a subcompact into a "regular" car, just like there was once this vast universe of difference between a "sports car" and a "regular car" (can you imagine going from a 1965 Alfa Romeo to a 1965 Impala???).

    Now all those lines are blurred. A modern subcompact can perform just as well as 95% of the cars out there in 95% of the situations.

    Aside from the heavy feeling of a luxury car, or a few radical sports car, and a few decibels less interior noise, I really don't feel any difference when I jump from one modern passenger car or small pickup to another. They are remarkably uniform in experience these days.
    Corolla, Ranger, Eclipse, Solara, Civic, Focus, Mazda3, Subaru....it's all the same most of the time.

    Modern cars are all merging to uniformity of experience except for the top 'o the line cars. It seems to parallel the trend in "fashion jeans" and other "once-luxury, now mass-consumed" items.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Interesting observation. I've noticed that every Honda and Toyota that I have driven has a lift to rest the left foot. This makes full extension of the left foot impossible (ie your leg is always bent and can't be extended). It is not an illusion. The driver has less leg room than the passenger, especially for the left leg of manual transmission vehicles. I do not like this feature.
  • Mr_ShiftrightMr_Shiftright Member Posts: 64,481
    I'm going to check that out. That IS an intersting observation.
  • british_roverbritish_rover Member Posts: 8,502
    I like the idea of a dead peddle but it needs to be far enough back so that you can have some leg extention or idealy adjustable.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    I always thought the only purpose of a dead pedal was to make the area where the wheel well intrudes into the passenger compartment into something useable. If they just kept the rounded shape of the wheel well, it wouldn't be a useable spot to rest your foot.

    This is mainly an issue with FWD cars though, I've noticed. RWD cars usually have the front wheels far enough ahead that they don't intrude into the passenger compartment, so the floor/lower part of the firewall area is flat. I would not benefit from a dead pedal with any of the RWD cars I've ever owned, although a shorter driver might, as the firewall might be too far away to rest your foot on.

    If I was to put my left foot under the brake pedal of my Intrepid, I could stretch out pretty nicely, but that's not exactly a safe way to drive! :surprise:
  • mwqamwqa Member Posts: 106
    I was sitting in an auto transmission Fit last weekend. The pedals seemed to be flush with the lift for the left foot. The lift felt too far forward to me and I found it more comfortable to put my left foot under the brake pedal than on the lift.

    I may just be used to the positioning of the pedals in my 1992 Mazda 323. The pedals are forward of the lift and the lift itself seems to be located more deeply in the foot well.

    I also sat in the Toyota Yaris hatchback and thought the pedals were somewhat recessed, like the Fit. However, resting my left foot on the lift was a bit more comfortable.

    I think part of the problem with the Fit is that lift is not shaped, so when you rest your foot on it, the angle is wrong. The fabric ‘bump’ seemed to be sticking out more at the top than at the bottom, so the angle works against the natural positioning of the foot. I felt that my foot was being forced into an 80-degree angle, instead of a 100-degree angle (if I remember my high school geometry correctly!).

    Anyway, that was my impression. :confuse:
  • grbeckgrbeck Member Posts: 2,358
    Mr. Shiftright: Now all those lines are blurred. A modern subcompact can perform just as well as 95% of the cars out there in 95% of the situations.

    Aside from the heavy feeling of a luxury car, or a few radical sports car, and a few decibels less interior noise, I really don't feel any difference when I jump from one modern passenger car or small pickup to another. They are remarkably uniform in experience these days.
    Corolla, Ranger, Eclipse, Solara, Civic, Focus, Mazda3, Subaru....it's all the same most of the time.


    Very true, but that is because most of the old subcompacts got bigger and heavier and faster, which means that they are quieter, more comfortable and easier to live with on a day-to-day basis.

    Several posters have decried that very trend.

    Last night I was behind a 1978-79 Chevrolet Chevette four-door sedan at a red light. What struck me was how diminutive that car looked today. It was short, narrow and low (but despite a height lower than most modern sedans, it somehow came across as "spindly" in its basic proportions). It seemed like a Matchbox car in traffic - even compared to a Civic or Mazda3.

    It struck me that my 1977 Honda Civic was about the same size (if anything, probably smaller). That car was great at the time, but I would not buy anything that small today. I would, however, consider a new 2006 Civic sedan.

    I seriously doubt that Honda would be selling 300,000+ Civics today if it had not reguarly enlarged the car for greater room, comfort and safety.
  • john500john500 Member Posts: 409
    Initially, I also thought that it was wheel well intrusion. However, my perspective was coming from a 2000 Saturn SW2, which was also a small front wheel drive vehicle (~ 2400 lbs). My recollection was that I could fully extend my left leg in that car (also a 5 speed). Therefore, I think it might be a deliberate design. It has been over 3 years since I have driven that vehicle. Maybe it was an illusion.
  • jlawrence01jlawrence01 Member Posts: 1,757
    Last night I was behind a 1978-79 Chevrolet Chevette four-door sedan at a red light. What struck me was how diminutive that car looked today

    I was in St. Louis last year with my friend who was driving his 1992 Camry. He parked it between a new Camry and a new Corolla. The 2006 Corolla was as large as the 1992 Camry.

    On the Chevette, the car was small, but teh amount of cargo that you could cram in the vehicle and still see out the hatch was unbelievable.
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    last weekend I noticed an XA parked next to a an older compact pickup. The XA looked HUGE. It was at least as tall and appeared wider.
  • nippononlynippononly Member Posts: 12,555
    It's the high roofs of the modern subcompacts that makes them look bigger than they are. I saw a Versa in traffic yesterday, and that thing shouldn't be called a subcompact (if it actually is), it should be called a microvan!

    2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Versa is based on a B segment Renault, it's not really a sub-compact. It's probably bigger than the euro Civic hatch, for instance.

    $12.5k for starters is a bargain, but in their own commercial it says $17.3k as tested, yikes! Price creeps up a bit too quickly.

    -juice
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Yes the high roofs are great. It's sort of like high ceilings in homes, even though you don't need more than 7' high ceilings, it makes the house seem more spacious with 10' ceilings. I've sat in the Honda Fit and it feels more spacious in the back seat than a Crown Vic because it's so open. Plus it gives you more cargo space in the back, it's a lot easier getting kids in/out of carseats in the rear, and on road trips it's easier to crawl to the second row and back while driving! And it can make the overall length of the car shorter because you're sitting more upright. Yeah, some people may not like the exterior style of tall cars, but I'll take the functionality over looks anytime.
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    Its not just looks. The height increases frontal area with consequent aerodynamic drag. Probably why the Fit achieves no better highway mileage than my '84 Civic managed in aggressive suburban driving, no matter 22 more years of engine development. High ceilings are great in houses, but in vehicles, more than necessary to clear my head is a waste.
  • snakeweaselsnakeweasel Member Posts: 19,290
    High ceilings are great in houses,

    that is until your heating bill shows up. :P

    2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D

  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    High roofs make me think of the BMW 2002.

    As a general trend, cars are getting higher. Our old '93 Civic (51.7") is 5" shorter than the new one (56.5") which is considered "sleek". The '06 Ford 500 (74.5") is over a foot higher than the '86 Taurus (54.1"). Even sedans are turning into SUVs.
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    because it had a relatively low "belt line", lots of glass and modest windscreen and rear window rakes. GREAT visibility! I wish I still had mine.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Like in a house with high ceilings, it's more expensive (ie more gas spent to heat the house), but people like them anyway. But it's true if everyone drove a Civic or Corolla they'd get better mpg that whatever they're currently driving. I'm not sure of the exact specs of your '84 Civic, but I'm guessing that the Fit has more interior space for passengers and luggage.
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    Yes, I'm sure that it has more space. But becouse of its meager power and considerably greater unladen mass (500lbm), all that space is of questionable value.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Not questionable when you're carrying two adults, two kids in carseats, and all their stuff in the 21CuFt of luggage space for a three hour drive to the grandparents and getting 35mpg...that would be tough to do in a Civic.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    But becouse of its meager power and considerably greater unladen mass (500lbm), all that space is of questionable value.

    Well, in a nutshell, if you don't need the extra space then it's going to be useless to you. But if you have a need for it, then it's essential.
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    The load space is of questionable value without the power to haul it.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    The load space is of questionable value without the power to haul it.

    Well, I was thinking in terms of space in general, not just load space. The way I see it, a slow car that I can fit comfortably in is more useful than a faster car that I'm not comfortable in.
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    Actually, we carried two adults and one child with all of our luggage for a weeks vacation from Virginia to Illinois @37mpg.
    We chose the Civic over our "big" car because the adjustable rear seat was more comfortable for our daughter.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    It's true that sometimes bigger isn't always more comfortable. I'm not too concerned with racing around in the Fit full of kids, so the power is good enough for my needs. I looked at the Civic (and Corolla) before buying the Fit, and I didn't see any gain in spending a couple thousand more for either Civic or Corolla when I'd lose the versatility of the 4dr hatch layout, extra cargo space, and more roomy interior (plus the shorter length of the Fit gives me more space in my crowded garage!).

    And pure HP numbers are overrated anyway. My big car is a Ford Freestyle and the reviews always state that it's underpowered, but after driving it for almost 2 years and over 40K miles it's never felt underpowered for my needs. Granted I wasn't carrying seven 200lb adults and towing a boat up in the Rocky mountains, but I've had 7 people in the car and luggage doing normal driving and situations where I lacked power never came up.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    The last vacation I went on was a week long trip from Maryland to Florida. I went with two of my friends, and we took my Intrepid. I remember trying to pack the trunk so we could get to the cooler at rest stops without having to do any major unpacking, but there just wasn't an easy way to do it. And no matter how we tried to configure it, we still ended up with luggage in the back seat. Kinda reminded me of that "I Love Lucy" episode where they tried to pack everything in the Pontiac for their trip to Hollywood, but couldn't do it.

    If I had a smaller car I we would've had to do ship a bunch of stuff down separate, like what they did with their luggage, Little Ricky, and Mother MacGillicuddy! :P
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    See...if you had the Fit, the back seat passengers could have reached and opened the cooler from inside the car while driving. :P And you might have been able to fit everything in the Fit's 21CuFt of luggage space versus the Intrepid's 18CuFt. Of course you'd have to use your ouside mirrors because you'd have luggage stacked to the ceiling of the Fit (hmmm...then how would you open the cooler!). And what's amazing is that the Intrepid is 203" long by 74" wide, as compared to the Fit at 157" long by 66" wide.
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    We had ready access to our cooler in the Civic, no unpacking required.

    The Fit is an undeniably useful layout, if it were only closer to the Civic's 1950lbm, I'd have few gripes.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    21CuFt of luggage space versus the Intrepid's 18CuFt. Of course you'd have to use your ouside mirrors because you'd have luggage stacked to the ceiling of the Fit

    I think I would've had problems stuffing this much luggage into the cargo area of just about any car, short of a good-sized station wagon, SUV, or minivan. Part of the problem is not just the actual cargo volume, but the shape of the cargo area and the shape of the cargo going into it. If we were talking about stuff that's easily deformed like pillows, sleeping bags, etc, then I'd have no problem. I think the biggest problem with my Intrepid was the shape of the trunk opening. That seems to be a problem with many modern cars today, especially as you get these sleeker rooflines where much of the trunk space is underneath the rear window and package shelf. And the designs with the struts that hold the trunk open seem to make for a smaller trunk opening, whereas those old torsion bars would just rob you of trunk space (and smash your luggage if improperly placed)

    The FIT does seem to have a roomy cargo area, but I have a feeling that my Florida trip would have easily filled this to capacity

    This cooler I had was a big, bulky old fashioned metal thing, too. With both parts of the back seat up, it would take up the majority of the floor space of that FIT. And I doubt if I would've been able to lay down and sleep in the back seat of a FIT!

    Also, I end up hating my uncle's '03 Corolla after about 10 minutes of driving it, so unless the FIT is orders of magnitude ahead of that, I doubt if I'd be able to handle it for hours at a time.

    Now years before this trip, when I was married, we went on our honeymoon from Maryland to Washington State in a 1988 LeBaron turbo coupe. We just had the cooler in the back seat. We also had a puppy, who grew too damn fast. I swear, in the 2 1/2 weeks we were out there he grew enough to take up most of that back seat! That was a L-O-N-G trip, too. Seems like we ended up having to stop about every 60-90 minutes because either the wife or the puppy had to pee!
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    Everything is fatter today, but with the Fit the extra 600lbs probably has to do with the reinforced doors with the side-impact door beams, air bag deployment systems, automatic adds 100lbs right there, antilock braking systems, power windows, doors, engine size, transmission size, extra 2 doors, etc... The fully loaded Civic comes in at another 300lbs over the Fit.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I was being sort of sarcastic when comparing the Fit to an Intrepid, but you gotta admit, for a car that's almost 4 feet shorter and 8" narrower than the Intrepid, the Fit make really good use of space that you can compare even in a joking manner.
  • andre1969andre1969 Member Posts: 25,652
    Everything is fatter today, but with the Fit the extra 600lbs probably has to do with the reinforced doors with the side-impact door beams...

    I used to work with a guy who has one of those Honda Civic wagons, the style with the raised roof, which I think was an '88-91 model. That thing was probbaly the spiritual ancestor of the FIT. I rode in it a couple times, and it really shocked me how flimsy it was. You could feel the body/chassis flexing as it went down the road, the cowl/hood shake was a bit disconcerting, and the thing quivered like a clapped-out mid-70's 4-door hardtop when you closed the doors!

    Sure, it might have been lightweight, but I don't think the Jell-O body would be tolerable by today's standards. No doubt that much of the additional weight went into stiffening the structure.

    I wonder if newer Hondas use thicker sheetmetal these days? I've heard some rumors that Honda sheetmetal tends to be thinner and easier to dent/ding than the competition, but I think that's ALL cars these days! This Civic wagon did feel extra thin, though.

    Is 100 pounds a good rule-of-thumb for how much weight an automatic transmission adds over a manual? I've always wondered about that.
  • plektoplekto Member Posts: 3,738
    Like you need to get a Vibe/Matrix. Toyota reliability and way WAY more cargo space than a Fit.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I just looked at the spec difference between a Fit Base with manual or auto and it was 100lbs difference. And you're right, it's hard to compare weight of cars today with those in the early 80's because the overall structural standards are higher. The Fit feels totally solid.

    As far as the Matrix, I think that Honda and Toyota quality and reliability are comparable, and the cargo space behind the 2nd row of the Matrix is 21.8 vs 21.3 for the Fit, so I don't consider that way, way more. The difference is bigger when you fold down the rear seats, but I'm more interested in max space behind the 2nd row for trips when the 2nd row is occupied.
  • crimsonacrimsona Member Posts: 153
    Who sleeps in the back seat of a Fit? Just fold down the front seats all the way down into long mode or refresh mode and voila! :P
  • daysailerdaysailer Member Posts: 720
    Actually, the Civic engine was the same displaacement as the Fit with a much more complex and possibly heavier engine management system consisting of numerous solenoid valves in a separate box with tubing to corresponding pneumatic actuators on the carburetted engine, not to mention the complexity and bulk of the CVCC prechamber/valve arrangement. Window motors may actually be lighter than the old crank mechanism and, of course, if I had a Fit (no pun intended), it would have a manual transmission.
  • bobw3bobw3 Member Posts: 2,989
    I test drove both the manual and automatic, and the manual revved to high at highway speed and was pretty noisy, the upright seating position was comfortable to me for shifting with a clutch, the highway MPG was the same, and the paddle shifters allow me to keep it in the gear I want anyway.
Sign In or Register to comment.