What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

qbrozen

has everyone forgotten that the federal standard has chased all the diesels out of the country for '07?

HUH?? I haven't heard this. Last I heard, Benz was still bringing the Bluetec E, ML320cdi, and R320cdi here very soon for the '07 model year.

Ya gotta give me a source on this. I've been looking forward to a preowned bluetec E-class!

http://www.mbusa.com/campaigns/alternative-fuels/index.do

logic1

One freighter in Long Island harbor which leaves its diesel engine burning (and unlike the EU and NA as of the next few months, this is dirty old diesel, not the new clean formula) is equal to thousands of diesel cars.

snakeweasel

My understanding is that with the new Federal mandate of cleaner burning diesel fuel manufacturers are working on making their diesel engines use this fuel to its maximum potential. That will take some time and in the mean time they will not offer diesels. All it means is that for several months to a year (depending on make and model) diesels will not be available in the US.

thegraduate

I believe it was a Car and Driver article I read that said only the Mercedes "Blue-Tec" Diesels met the new standards, and WOULD be on sale here in the U.S. for 2007. All other models did not yet meet the new standards (Jetta/Golf/Touareg TDI, etc...)

andre1969

I remember reading about how the National Park Service put a train into service that went to the Grand Canyon. It was supposed to help cut down on the congestion from the cars and the pollution. There was just one little problem. The 1959 Alco Diesel locomotive they were using spewed out more pollutants than the number of cars it supposedly kept off the roads! Oops!

Mr_Shiftright

I would agree that diesel engine might last longer (they have to be build stronger to withstand the tremendous compression) but I don't think they require *less* maintenance---just *different* maintenance.

Diesels will be back in California once the fuel + the technology meets the emissions standards. Japanese and European countries are already on top of this.

California's CARB is a regulatory commission and by nature tied to politics....so votes count and people who are in high smog areas tend to support these strict laws. Also you get a lot of dis-information spread by the CNG industry which you have to watch out for, and disinformation/rumors from the other side--such as "California bans biodiesel!!" (not true).

Anyway, these new diesels that should be ready in 2008 will be GREAT!!! As if often (but not always) the case---stricter regulations produce better cars.

I'm definitely considering buying a new generation diesel when they, and the improved diesel fuels, are readily available in California. I don't see why I can't have cleaner air and great fuel mileage all in one if I'm patient.

I've read on the 'net but not verified that Honda is already achieving 91 miles per Imperial gallon on a new high tech diesel in a subcompact platform. (somebody do that math for me, will ya?)

british_rover

75.7 US miles per gallon.

snakeweasel

I've read on the 'net but not verified that Honda is already achieving 91 miles per Imperial gallon on a new high tech diesel in a subcompact platform. (somebody do that math for me, will ya?)

An Imperial gallon is a hair over 1.2 US gallons so 91 miles per imperial gallon comes to just under 76 miles per US gallon. Now the question would be what would real world numbers be?

Mr_Shiftright

Well let's say Honda is using the yellow-bellied lying weasel EPA numbers, which means you can lop off 15% from the HWY numbers...so 75 mpg in the real world would be maybe 60-65 mpg, which sounds about right.

I am ....having.....this....vision.....a recurring nightmare....where American manufacturers yell IMPOSSIBLE and call forth their attorneys to "fight diesel discrimination" and "special agendas"....

and then boatloads of stylish affordable 65 mpg Honda subcompact diesels arrive in California meeting all present and future emissions standards.....

Shades of the 1970s.....

wale_bate1

Bingo for Shifty this AM.

snakeweasel

Well let's say Honda is using the yellow-bellied lying weasel...

Hey!!!

Are these really EPA numbers or are they just what Honda is saying they are getting and once you put all the parts on the car, plus the safety equipment, plus emmision controls we are now down to 45-50 MPG?

nippononly

Remember, the EPA relies on the carmakers themselves for most if its published numbers - it doesn't test every model. So Honda knows how to apply EPA testing procedures in order to provide mileage figures.

Now of course, with a figure quoted in Imperial gallons, I wonder if that is a powertrain intended for the States, and therefore if that is a number that incorporates an EPA-like test.

tsgeisel

LA may be a naturally dirty area, but the differences in air quality now and 20 years ago are *tremendous*.

CA's emissions requirements *have* made a difference. A big difference.

Mr_Shiftright

If they are relaxed 40 years of work goes down the drain, because at best LA is "holding its own" right now.

I don't know how Honda arrives at its numbers but let's say they have the audacity to lie up to 25% (that's about tne normal lying percentage of carmakers' press releases... )...well, let's call it exaggeration....hyperbole....sales puffery....embellishment...

Still 75% of 75 mpg ain't bad.

andre1969

I remember even back in the 80's, they were saying that the air was much cleaner in the LA area than it was in the 50's. I didn't mean to imply that since LA is "dirty" that we just shouldn't worry about it. Since it's an area that tends to hold pollution in, that actually makes it all the more important to battle pollution.

logic1

Not certain anyone is disputing the regulations have made a difference.

The issue here, at least for me, is that diesel fuel and diesel engines have changed since the regulations were enacted.

I am not a California resident, and may misunderstand, but from what I hear, California is not prepared to allow even the new diesel engines.

I think the regulators should reconsider, because, among other things, diesel cars of all sizes get better mileage, churn out less C02, and diesel is cleaner to make than gasoline (not an issue in Cali where there are few refineries, but certainly an issue in Lousiana and Indiana, etc. where there are).

nippononly

is this the subcompact thread, or the discussion on the benefits of diesel??

If diesel comes on strong in the future, subcompact diesels will still do better than large diesel cars just because of weight and whatnot. Or at least the potential will exist for that to be the case, depending on design (particularly gearing). :-)

But in the meantime, midsize hybrid models will actually do better for gas mileage than many of the smallest models. It's a good thing these cars have other inherent advantages! ;-)

Now I will have to start my letter-writing campaign to the Big 6 to boost the fuel economy of their subcompacts.....

explorerx4

don't forget, we family guys still need our bigger vehicles.
i'm all for driving an efficient commuter.

thegraduate

don't forget, we family guys still need our bigger vehicles.
i'm all for driving an efficient commuter.

How big?

I drive an Accord and average 30 MPG in mixed suburban/interstate urban driving. I'm 6'4" and can carry 3 passengers with ease, 4 a little tighter, and still get over 36 MPG on every trip.

Efficient enough for me!

daysailer

will probably wane quickly, now that fuel prices are plumeting ($217.9 this morning here) - people have such short memories, not to mention convoluted values - a pity!

snakeweasel

Still 75% of 75 mpg ain't bad.

But now you are talking about just over 56 MPG, but if they are increasing their numbers by 25% then it would be "80% of 75" or 60 MPG.

Then we would have to see what real world results would be.

logic1

If diesel comes on strong in the future, subcompact diesels will still do better than large diesel cars just because of weight and whatnot. Or at least the potential will exist for that to be the case, depending on design (particularly gearing)... Now I will have to start my letter-writing campaign to the Big 6 to boost the fuel economy of their subcompacts.....

I think the two are related. A well conceived turbo diesel in a sub compact will provide the high mileage and the oomph needed to motivate the slightly higher weight features and rigidity bring.

A common rail diesel with a good filter will still be a lot less expensive than replacing the steel frame with titanium or aluminum

(and, when you consider the environmental mayhem needed to extract titanium and smelt aluminum, the over all benefits of staying steel are that much higher)

brightness04

While academics can debate on:
(1) whether the planet is running out of oil;
(2) whether cars cause global warming or global cooling;
(3) whether human activity has much to do with global warming or cooling;
(4) whether global warming is good or bad for human civilization.
(5) and how many angels can dance on the tip of the pin

And they are sponsored by tax/tithe money to put on a good show for the rest of the population . . . the consumer's value system is quite simple: the cost of gas summarizes everything that the consumer needs to know. If the gas price is high, ie. his income is low in gas-purchasing power, he will get small cars; and vice versa for cars that he really wants.

john500

I believe that is a bit too "economic" of a viewpoint. Life is a combination of natural sciences (i.e. the physical laws around us) and human greed modeled as a mathematical science (i.e. economics). By the inference in your last sentence, can we assume that if another commodity, let's say porkbellies, went down in price, everyone would consume more and the national weight average would increase? I believe advertising and manipulation (i.e. what is cool or what a celebrity does) truly dictate a consumer's purchasing in the U.S. The commodity price is just an excuse to justify a behavior (low = do this, high = do that).

wale_bate1

Paul Kangas & Co. told me last night that venture capital (as a general sector) is shifting funding into alternative energy development, and has not taken to further backing petroleum development. Signs (so the report said) that long term growth in petroleum is not a market expectation, but that alternative energy ROI is. Also a sign that most agree the higher cost of petroleum is here for keeps (well, duh), but that it's not worth chasing with investment dollars.

The subcompact market is IMO a primarily urban/high density suburban market, and, dare I say it, a somewhat more educated and trendier demographic overall. What I would expect is that there will be a sustained business justification for them in the future, but I certainly wouldn't expect John and Jane Q. to embrace them nation-wide. I do fully expect compact and mid-size classes to grow, very much at the expense of full-size cars and truck sales. Not to say those classes disappear, but rather they are further de-emphasized.

boaz47

Perfect, and to the point. Americans buy what they "feel" they can afford. I am guilty as are most of my friends. The few that are not don't make up enough of the market share.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm with the side that thinks that point of view is too lopsided on the point of monetary economics---it doesn't account for other "incentives" that drive economic activity. The perfect example is organic foods, which cost more than agri-business food. People buy it anyway, because there is a big incentive (to them that buy)--health.

and my local dealer is not pumping out 85 new Priuses a month because they are a bargain..they are $26,000 OTD for a basic stripper getting only 10 mpg more than my car. So the incentive is obviously not only to save money on gas.

I think in any business the people who get creamed are the ones who either a) think there is a shift when there isn't one (my favorite examples is "organic cigarettes" and b) don't see the shift in time (owners of super $$ movie theaters).

I believe the economy is moving quicky in the direction of fuel efficient cars, and that fuel efficiency will be a given necessity for selling a car REGARDLESS of its size. The incentives will not only be economic, but social and perhaps even legal (tax breaks, tax credits perhaps for industry, new regulations, or even penalties). So industry will work in its own self-interest in new ways.

grbeck

wale_bate1: The subcompact market is IMO a primarily urban/high density suburban market, and, dare I say it, a somewhat more educated and trendier demographic overall.

The original VW Beetle appealed to those in the upper income brackets who lived in urban areas. For that matter, the Nash Rambler sold to the well-to-do as a second car for commuting, errands around town, etc.

Smaller cars didn't really go "mainstream" until the 1960 Ford Falcon, but that car was bigger than most of the imports of the time.

So nothing has really changed...

boaz47

Absolutely true. And industry will always have one prime motivator, profit. can a sub compact make a business as much profit as a Truck? Can it make as much profit as a Mid sized car? Do we believe people have to social conscience to only want just what they need or will they opt for a bit more than their neighbor? We may admire the Shakers for their simplicity but do we want to be a Shaker?

Mr_Shiftright

All you need is ENOUGH people will a social conscience, and then you have them incorporated into your brand equity and your other products. No car company has ever hurt itself in the last 5 years marketing themselves as "green".

Green is gold, or will be...even "pseudo-green" can't hurt.

explorerx4

an explorer is too small for most of my trips(400-700 miles one way). i have a cargo box to hold the extra stuff that doesn't fit inside(i need a bigger one of those). add some bikes hanging off the back, too.
for commuting a sub compact is fine with me.

Mr_Shiftright

Another substantial attribute of many of the modern subcompacts of 2006/2007 that hasn't been mentioned is that they are effortless to drive...very easy...they are agile, shift nicely, handle really well, squirt in and out of traffic, brake easily, turn easily and have all the basic amenities for comfort. I doubt there are any EASIER cars to drive than these on the road today. They'd be great learner cars for kids. It's hard to make a mistake in one, because there is no power and no mass (relative to most cars).

lemonhater

“. the consumer's value system is quite simple: the cost of gas summarizes everything that the consumer needs to know. If the gas price is high, ie. his income is low in gas-purchasing power, he will get small cars; and vice versa for cars that he really wants.”

That really depends. I own a 94 Trecel and love it dearly. I love paying about $30 bucks for a fill up and having as much range as any car that uses $50 or more buck. I love the lower repair bill compared to say my mom’s old 94 Camry or her current Avalon. I am also looking forward to replacing the Trecel next year (or so) with a Yaris. I am the kind of person who loves small cars and small car notes.

However I am the exception. My family believes in buying the biggest, flashiest car you can afford where as I don’t. They tend to upsize over the years with increasing income and there are people who would rather buy a larger car used than by a small one new.

I also don’t think sub compacts are for everyone. As much as I love my Trecel, I wouldn’t want to transport more than 2 adults in it. It can fit 4, but the back seats are both limited in space and give a very uncomfortable ride. I doubt I could put a child seat in the rear while having a really tall person in the front. You could possibly get away with putting children who do not need child seats in the rear, but trying to fit two tall teenagers in the back could be a problem. The car itself is so low to the ground that elderly people and those with limited mobility can have trouble getting in and out.

While the car has plenty of storage space for one driver (I can use the trunk and almost all the passenger compartment). I can’t imagine fitting enough groceries for a family of 4 in the car while caring the same family. The lack of space also means that I sometimes have to have stuff delivered that other people might have been able to fit inside of a full sized car.

I think there will always be a market for small cars, but I don’t think people are easily driven towards them by gas prices

boaz47

Most of us agree with your reasoning. It has always been true that there are small car people that buy them simply because they like them. Sure they are easy to drive but larger cars aren't hard to drive either. However it is pretty easy to sell flash and style and power. It is hard to sell social conscience and basic needs. As for kids, no kids Needs a game boy and a playstation but they sell plenty of both. Picture any one of us explaining to our kids, this little puddle jumper is perfect for you. Your friends may have 240 hp Accords but they won't have half the fun trying to impress the rest of your friends as you will with your 100 HP ugly car. Sorry shifty I slipped back into the image thing for a minute.

Most of us in these forums would make the ideal target market for sub compacts. We know what they can do and are interested in cars in general. The mass market consumer is not. Why did the Echo fail? Mass market consumers rejected them. Why did the Accord and Civic move from sub compact to compact and mid sized cars? The mass market wanted it that way. Why are there no more small compact trucks? Very same reason, mass market. Doesn't bother people like us, we can always get a good deal on a sub compact that the mass market has rejected. I am sure Nippon got a much better deal on his Echo than he would if it was a big seller line a Corolla or Camry.

Mr_Shiftright

Now, now, why are you still hammering on the poor Echo?

This is an OLD car, a previous incarnation. The new crop is sooooooo much better.

I think young people like the new trendy subcompacts. I suspect they look at Accords as old people's cars. Test yourself: think of yourself offering a 16 year old the choice between a bright red Scion xA or Honda Fit or MINI-- and an Accord of equal value to any of these cars. No contest.

One has to look at subcompacts as part of a bigger marketing plan...it's one offering amongst a company's many products.

Kids don't need horsepower...that's about the last thing they need.

thegraduate

I think young people like the new trendy subcompacts. I suspect they look at Accords as old people's cars. Test yourself: think of yourself offering a 16 year old the choice between a bright red Scion xA or Honda Fit or MINI-- and an Accord of equal value to any of these cars. No contest.

Well, I wouldn't say "no contest" but it's certainly an intelligent hypothesis.

I'm 19 years old and got my 2006 Accord last year. I had $22,000 to spend, and could've even waited on the Civic Si, but loved the Accord Sedan (I don't want to give up 4-doors!) and its interior room. A Fit is just too small (6'4" here!) but a Civic EX Sedan w/Navi was definitely doable for the same money (a little less actually), but instead, I got an Accord EX Cloth for $22k. I love it (I'm in a household of Accords though - parents have a 2005 EX, I drive a 1996 LX w/166,500 miles on it still too!).

nippononly

(and Tercels before them) don't depreciate notably faster than any of the other Toyota models (in fact, they hold their value a little better than the SUPER-high-volume Corollas and Camrys for the first couple of years), so they are a little less to buy new, and a little less to buy used.

You know what hold their value really well in the used market? The Scion 1.5s. My theory is that not only do these cars have the fuel economy advantage, which is a timely one with the current gas prices, but they also hold their value well because they sell at no-haggle prices. I don't have a frame of reference for that one, though, so it is just theory. Do Saturns hold their value well?

IMO, the Tercel before about 1992 was basically a throwaway car after four or five years - sure the engines would run forever, but they were very expensive to keep smog-compliant, the fabrics and bodies would begin to fall apart fast after that age, and it just became more money than it was worth to keep them going in any kind of non-embarassing way. I think this is the image of ALL subcompacts that everybody still has, and certainly before a decade ago, it was a valid one. But the times, oh, how they have a-changed...

Mr_Shiftright

I could sell my xA for more than I owe on it...but I did put $2,000 down. Still, for a year's use approaching 15K miles, that's pretty good. I also like having a car not too many people own, and I'm really liking the $26.50 fill-ups.

If I had more money to spend, I certainly wouldn't buy a bigger version of the xA, but rather another type of car entirely.

snakeweasel

I could sell my xA for more than I owe on it..

Not to surprised as $2K is a good % of a downpayment on a xA and depending on the term and interest on the loan you could have paid close to 30% of the price of the car in the down payment and loan principal payments.

tjw1308

Put $2K down on a Hyundai and see if you could say the same thing though...

Everyone has a lot of reasoning as to why Toyota/Honda products hold their value so well.

Percentage of what you paid vs. what it's actually worth is the only one that matters. The xA/xB are insane right now, but it's a pretty good indicator of just what Toyota expected.

T

boaz47

If "I" were 16 and had a choice between a Accord and a xA? Accord all the way. I was very competitive at 16 and couldn't afford enough HP. I couldn't wait to get something, anything with V-8. Like many I had to put up with lesser vehicles and got my share of rubber dust tossed on my Hood by Mustangs, GTOs and any number of SS and GT emblemed cars. But Sooner or later we can afford that power and that was something to look forward to. And isn't that the point in marketing? Offer what the buyer dreams of and can afford. Notice how well auto races are attended? even been to an economy r alley? Not many people have and it is never televised anyway. Now as I have gotten older some of that is behind me. But did I ever "desire" a bottom feeder? Did I ever want a Valiant slant 6 in a world of V-8s? Nope I drove them but desire was far from my mind. I remember one of my first new cars I paid for all by myself was an economy car. It was a big step down in power from some of the used cars I had been driving but it was new and I could afford it. I can honestly promise you that there are a whole pot full of old cars I have had that I might even long for. I fondly remember the Pony car and mussel car days. They put a smile on my face. But economy cars do not. Once I retire they will become more important to me I am sure. If I were a kid pulling up next to a old grey back in an Accord I would just hope and pray my girlfriend wasn't with me to see me get dusted at the stop light. besides I see a lot more Accords lowered with big wheels, low profile tires and new exhaust systems that I think I ever will red Scions. I don't believe teenage boys have changed all that much from when I first learned to drive. But then the ones that work for me are doing engine swaps in Integras and Civics know about Chips, cold air and inter coolers than I ever will. One has even offered a dry nox system for my Wife's focus at half price.

Mr_Shiftright

$2K total loss is pretty darn good for one year on a new car, no matter how you cut it. The only other people doing that are ones that got rebates and O% financing (maybe). I couldn't even haggle on the price. Financing was 5.54% through E-loan on a 5 year note, insurance is $886 per year.

snakeweasel

Put $2K down on a Hyundai and see if you could say the same thing though...

Again it depends on the Hyundai, If I bought an Azera no, but that would also hold true for an Avalon. Now If I got a Accent its a good chance that I could say the same thing especially if I got a 4 year note.

Mr_Shiftright

But you're not 16, so you can't say :P

Quick somebody, run out and get us a 16 year old (preferably unrelated and not subject to retribution for wrong answers).

snakeweasel

$2K total loss is pretty darn good for one year on a new car, no matter how you cut it.

But remember we are not talking about $2K, we are talking $2K plus what you paid down on the loan over the course of one year. You pay off 24.79% of the loan in the first year with a 4 year 5.54% note. $2K down and a years worth of payments you probably owe a little over 70% of the purchase price (before TTL).

boaz47

Not fair, I was about to get some kids I have been trying to teach how to drive manuals to get on line and answer the way I wanted or no more lessons.

Mr_Shiftright

Well I know what total out of pocket was, and if I get $12,500 for the car, total loss including 7.5% sales tax, licensing, options, and interest payments will be $2,800. That's pretty amazing. You couldn't beat that with a super-lease deal even. For one thing on a lease you have a cap cost and also you'd pay a penalty on 15000 miles in most cases, especially on a 2 year lease. You'd need zero financing to beat this low rate of depreciation.

Naturally, this would be an unfair comparison to a car costing $25,000, as sales tax would be double.

Of course, I'm not saying selling the car after one year is a *smart* thing to do..I'd be better off selling after 3-4 years.

Pays to buy a Toyota, is the bottom line.

Mr_Shiftright

Hey, I'm all for craftiness and deception. Give it a try! :P

boaz47

Not fair anyway. One of the kid's dad has already promised him his Corolla S. The kid has been drooling over it but has to learn to drive manual first. The other one is a toss up but I think he wants a Pick Up. But I totally believe if you give the kids a choice and walk into a showroom with two cars sitting side by side and the keys are in them if one is a Scion red or any other color and the other is Honda Civic SI the Scion will still be sitting there after the kid leaves. You'll need something more than social conscience for a generation of "everything can be tossed out in a year," youth. My grand kids know more about the Power ratings of WRX verses a FocusRs than I do today and they are 11 and 8.

snakeweasel

Well I know what total out of pocket was, and if I get $12,500 for the car, total loss including 7.5% sales tax, licensing, options, and interest payments will be $2,800.

By that I am presuming that the cars total out the door price is $15,300 which means after a $2K downpayment you took out a $13,300 note which would be $10,245 after making a years worth of payments. Thats why I am not surprised that you can sell it for more than you owe on it.

Pays to buy a Toyota, is the bottom line.

I don't know my sisters Toyota goes into the shop due to a breakdown like clockwork.