Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

1434435437439440486

Comments

  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 1,350
    Which is funny, because the UK press raves about the 500, and not just the Abarth. I think a lot depends on the engine and spec. I see them all the time when I'm overseas...sharp looking cars.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,986
    "Car buyers typically consider what they want first and what they need second. Rarely does anyone want a small car, especially f they can afford a larger one. Unless gas prices keeping pushing up toward the $4.00-$5.00 range, buying a midsize car or truck is still affordable, and desirable, for the average car buyer. That's not going to change anytime soon."

    Americans Still Shunning Small Cars Even As Gas Prices Rise (Straightline)
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 16,897
    edited February 2010
    Gotta love incomplete statistics...

    When AutoPacific asked consumers in January of last year if they would consider a small car to replace their current car, 24% said yes. That number dropped to 12% by January of 2010.

    This is obviously written to make it LOOK like the number WILLING to trade for a smaller car dropped by half. But without knowing how many of that 24% ACTUALLY traded for a smaller car in that timeframe, we don't know what the actual decrease was (if a decrease at all).

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '08 Town&Country

  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,986
    Well, maybe I can interest you in a Mercury?

    image (Green Car Advisor)
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 16,897
    Not if they really call it a Tracer, you can't.
    :P

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '08 Town&Country

  • tifightertifighter WAPosts: 1,350
    edited February 2010
    image
    So far,so good from what I can tell. Looks like the concept isn't getting the normal watering down. Interior is intact, too.
  • ghuletghulet Posts: 2,628
    ....though I can't help but wonder (believe) that with it's fancy-ing up, its price and fuel usage won't go up (I guess this is inevitable, but still). So many bottom-of-the-line cars have had to be replaced (or undercut?) with less expensive, smaller substitutes because of just sheer growth (think Civic, Focus, Sentra). I like it, though the application of the dual-deck Silverado-esque grille on every single Chevy is gettin' a little old.
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 16,897
    edited February 2010
    Looks pretty good.

    But it leaves me wondering how this slots in with the Cruze. (??)

    Are we talking like Corolla vs Yaris? The proportions of this pic make it seem like it is darned close to the Cruze. Whereas the Yaris looks cartoonish.

    '13 Stang GT; '86 Benz 300E; '98 Volvo S70; '12 Leaf; '08 Town&Country

  • bumpybumpy Posts: 4,435
    I haven't seen any hard numbers, but I think the Aveo is going to end up being the size of an older Cavalier while the Cruze ends up being a Corsica. The Spark would take over the bottom rung.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    I haven't seen any hard numbers, but I think the Aveo is going to end up being the size of an older Cavalier while the Cruze ends up being a Corsica.

    IMO, that's just too much overlap, something Chevy has had a problem with for years. I know it's sort of a lame duck and on its way out, but the Impala just isn't big enough, IMO, to be Chevy's "big" car. To me, it feels like a step down from a 1978-83 Malibu (I could at least fit in the back seat of one of those without hitting my head, or twisting my legs into obscene positions). Meanwhile the current Malibu seems like a slight step down from the old Celebrity (a bit tight on legroom in back for me, but oddly better than the Impala, and shoulder room definitely more suited for a compact). So if the Cruze ends up being like a Corsica, IMO that's just too close to the Malibu. And truth be told, the old Cavalier really wasn't that much smaller than the Corsica.

    Ford and Chrysler, at least, seemed to do a better job differentiating their size classes. For instance, while the new Taurus (or the old Taurus/500/Montego/Sable) doesn't quite feel "full sized" to me, it definitely feels bigger inside than a Fusion/Milan, which in turn is a definite step up in size from a Focus.

    Chrysler's really just down to two cars now, the Sebring/Avenger and 300/Charger. But again, while the 300/Charger (or the old Intrepid/Concorde/300M) never felt quite "full-sized", there was still a noticeable difference from the midsized cars, which again were a notable step up from a Neon.

    I can see the rationale for the Japanese cars moving up the size rung, as they built nothing but small cars when they first came to the US, so they've spread out into just about all size classes. As some models moved up, there was room to bring in new models. But with the domestic brands, they already had larger cars (and if anything, the biggest cars are either standing pat, shrinking slightly, or getting dropped altogether). So in this case, moving the smaller cars up just causes them to compete with existing models.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Looks good to me.

    I see a bit of Lancer in the greenhouse, but overall it definitely looks like a Chevy should.

    The interior looks great. Consider the price class - IMHO this puts the Yaris to shame (I hate center-mounted gauges).
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Got Lancer?
  • watkinstwatkinst Posts: 122
    Guess I'm Lucky

    My wife will only drive a manual. She hates autos. Which greatly reduces our replacement vehicle options. Though I suspect it will be easy - the 1.8T jetta gets replaced with a decked out TDI 6spd. I doubt I would even need to say anything about it.
  • ingvaringvar Posts: 205
    Subaru knows their market and expand it to the new customers. I switched my IS350 to Legacy 3.5R and I'm happy, love my new car, better than my old Toyota.
  • ghuletghulet Posts: 2,628
    edited February 2010
    is the Impala being dropped, or at least replaced with something a little bigger (its design quite old at this point)? It's currently about the same size, and at almost exactly the same price point, as the Malibu, which makes it redundant. I agree with you re interior room, for both, though in the back seat I felt better in the Impala, maybe just because of the larger greenhouse (I'm a bit shorter than you, 6'0" and less 'leggy', though). I sat in the back of a Saturn Aura, basically the same as a Malibu, and wasn't too impressed with the space relative to the car's size.

    I apologize if these questions have been answered, I'm not keeping up too well these days!
  • watkinstwatkinst Posts: 122
    Look at the new Subaru Legacy Sedan. The back seat space is lets say eye popping ha ha.

    A friend just bought one because he's over 6ft tall and its the only sedan he could find where he could have his seat in the proper spot and a rear facing child seat behind him!

    As for the car - runs circles around the competition on price and options.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Didn't hurt that in Consumer Reports testing both engines were more fuel efficient than a similar Honda Accord (even with the AWD handicap).

    Bringing this full circle, I'd like to see Subaru improve the mileage on the Impreza. Right now a Legacy 2.5i is actually more fuel efficient!
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    I apologize if these questions have been answered, I'm not keeping up too well these days!

    I gotta confess, I'm not keeping up like I used to, either. :blush:

    I think the main reason I could fit better in the back of the Malibu/Aura is that I could splay my legs and straddle the seat in front of me, but I couldn't do that with the Impala, so I had to practically sit sideways. The seats in the Malibu/Aura do have those little cutouts in the back for your knees, but they're way too low for mine.

    IIRC, the Impala's back seat is also a bit higher than the Malibu's, and sometimes I've found that actually makes it tighter for me, since my legs are now more straight-out, rather than angled upward, so I need more fore/aft room, or whatever they call that measurement.

    I have to admit though, I've been a bit impressed with the Aveos I've sat in at auto shows. I know they're usually ragged on as miserable little cars, but I don't think they're that bad. While there's no denying that they're small cars, they're actually roomier inside than I thought they'd be.
  • iluvmysephia1iluvmysephia1 Posts: 5,663
    edited February 2010
    image
    2008+ Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

    I'm thinkin' Mitsubishi has this thing down better than The General.

    image
    2012 Chevrolet Aveo

    2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS

  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    The Aveo is definitely an improvement over the current model, but I think you're right, that the Lancer looks better. I think part of the Aveo's problem is that the front-end is just too big for that car. The Lancer just seems better-proportioned, IMO...
    image

    I think it also helps that the Lancer's grille seems wider and larger, while the headlights are smaller and a bit more toned down. I also like the way the Lancer has that forward thrust to it, and with the overall shape of the upper and sub-grille, with its surround, evokes slight memories of the 1957-59 Chrysler 300 Letter Series cars.

    Still, not a bad effort for the Aveo.
Sign In or Register to comment.