What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Mr_Shiftright

The article said that the reason people are going into debt so quickly (doubling their debt every five years) is that they "think" they are rich because of the inflated value of their homes.

ANYWAY--the point was that maybe in the near future people will not choose to go into further debt...obviously they can't keep doing what they have been doing if they double debt every five years.

logic1

I think a lot of people buy a lot more car than they can afford on the furtive hope the equity in their house will keep growing.

Even if they manage to pay off the car, the missed chance to add tothe 401k will never come back.

boaz47

even the talk drifts to bigger cars...LOL. But to tell the truth there are lots of ways to save money. There is no need to buy new cars. Most cars people have run just fine when they trade them in. So why not just hold on to what you have? I know it is wants that drive us but we have been talking need for quite a few posts. If we simply bought on need we would buy at all. even if we aren't talking used cars here at least we have to admit that the used cars on the lots today have many miles left in them. The point I am making is not that we should buy used cars over sub compacts but rather that someone sold their perfectly good car or traded it with many miles worth of service left. That indicates one major truth. Whoever sold those cars didn't "need" a new car. They may have been tired of their old car or maybe they like what the new cars have to offer. But no way was the majority of decisions made on need. We don't need cable or Satalite TV. We don't need several pairs of shoes. We don't need surround sound in our homes.

what we want is a different story. When people work 40 hours a week and maybe work on their house one day each weekend they quickly get in a rut. So they decide they need something more. Something for the soul. Something enjoyable. A boat maybe. Perhaps a motorcycle or ATV. Maybe a pool for the house. Do we need any of those? No but life would sure be a lot more dreadful without them.

The constant bemoaning about people buying more than they need even if they can afford it makes me wonder why the Soviet Union failed. After all they preached need over want. Maybe we don't need the comfort or power of a bigger vehicle. It is possible that a family of three should have a car "just" big enough for three. Once they become four maybe they could rent a car that seats the extra kid till one leaves the house? Would a older couple ever need more than a two seater? You see the problem don't you? Who is going to be the need police? If it is the guy bringing down high six figures a year we might find that our needs are far greater than if the need police was making minimum wage. Need like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My wife might tell you I didn't need to take up playing with a band once a week once my son left the house for good. But she can tell you I am a lot happier than I would have been sitting in the recliner watching TV all night. She would also tell you that weekends are a lot more fun going to music festivals or a play now and then. And they are a lot more comfortable getting to than they would be in a Sub Compact. But then, she might disagree if some told her she didn't need that bit more comfort. I just don't think trying to convince the American public to only buy just what they "need" is going to work. Maybe some disagree. Telling someone they don't need more power or more space in their vehicle is a bit like saying they don't need a raise. After all they knew what their job paid when they got it. why would they"need" a raise? yes that is an extream example but it makes a point.

nippononly

yes, but if people WANT (as opposed to need) a new car and are on a limited budget, I guess they could buy a new subcompact as opposed to a used larger car, eh? There, now I have completely shot myself in the foot, as emphasizing the low price of subcompacts was not my aim. I wish there were a few more choices in this class that were less inexpensive and more "premium", like the Minis.

But there is a difference between new and used, even if I agree with you 100% that many used cars are a great buy and will run fine for years. People want that new car smell (I think of it as new-car plastics off-gassing :-P). They want the B2B warranty, the feeling that no-one has ever driven their ride before them.

But what I feel is the most important point of this debate has gotten lost in the shuffle yet again - small size and low weight are their own advantages. There was a great series of articles in R&T this month about the advantages of low-weight cars. And of course, many of those were $50K+ sports cars that have little or no bearing on this discussion. But there was also a long discussion about all the advantages low weight has that can't be fully compensated for by large engines and huge tires. I firmly agree.

Try out some of today's subcompacts and you will discover all of those advantages intact, even though most are not designed to be sporty. At the same time you will find they are not the torture chambers that their rep has apparently become over the years.

andre1969

instead of tossing it up between a new subcompact and a used larger car, why not go with a used subcompact.

One problem here is that you won't necessarily save that much up front, because the better subcompacts tend to be Japanese and don't depreciate like the domestics. For example, my Dad might have paid about the same for his used '03 Regal, in late 2003, that Nippon recently paid for his used Echo!

But then you do get the fuel savings the moment you start driving it. And it'll probably continue to depreciate at a slower rate than the domestic.

bumpy

There was a great series of articles in R&T this month about the advantages of low-weight cars. And of course, many of those were $50K+ sports cars that have little or no bearing on this discussion. But there was also a long discussion about all the advantages low weight has that can't be fully compensated for by large engines and huge tires. I firmly agree.

Sigh. My perfect car would a 3-door hatchback on a Miata platform with an RWD, fabricated-block version of the 2.0 turbodiesel in the Euro Mazda5. Just thinking about it hurts. Maybe I can go looking for one of these.

nippononly

your last point is germaine: your Dad and I will spend about the same if we keep our cars three or four years, and at the end my car will be worth the same as his (at least here in CA that will most likely be true), but along the way I will have saved 50% in gas bills, and had a car that skips around town and which I can slot between two motorcycles on the curb in the SF financial district. Can you say 32-FOOT turning radius?! :-)

boaz47

Now we come the the crux of the debate. Some want a small, underpowered light weight car and some do not. It is no longer need, or price, at least between you and I, it rests on advantages verses advantages. While light weight and small size have their advantages they also have their disadvantages. Short wheel base equals more bounce over freeway expansion joints. Make it ride softer and it handles worse. Just they way things are. Plus cross winds move small cars more than bigger cars. SO some sacrifice has to be made by those that prefer small cars. Our society has by in large decided that compacts and mid sized cars are what they prefer, about 20 to one over sub compacts. I don't see that changing that much in the long run do you?

Lets say we decide to seriously cut back on fuel useage and people do turn to sub compacts. Lets pretend that that trend lasts ten years. Would you like to bet a paycheck on what would happen when some company came out with a mid sized car that got sub compact like fuel mileage? When you read a review of the mini cooper do you ever wonder why it is bigger than the old mini cooper. Have you ever asked yourself why they put a caveat on a review of the new one? The Caveat being, "but for any real enjoyment you need to get the Mini Cooper S." You never hear, the "the standard mini is every bit as good as the "S". That is the mindset we have. As for Americans and sub Compact diesels? Not likely unless some really drastic happens. By drastic I mean all the tree huggers have to die off or Diesel has to find a way to be cleaner than gas. Tree huggers will fight each other other to the death over clean air verses less fuel useage.

SO it all comes down to preferences. Do you believe the public preferences can be changed to overcome all the disadvantages and perceptions people have about sub compacts? I have my doubts.

andre1969

you're just simply never going to have one solitary type of car that can fit the needs, wants, and desires of every single person out there. This country is just too diverse. There is no right answer for everybody, and probably never will be. Just buy what you like and enjoy it.

Mr_Shiftright

the term "undepowered" is, I think, archaic for subcompacts. Most of them move out smartly now, and if you eliminate the rarified atmosphere of over 80 mph, you can hardly tell the different in performance between 0-60 in 8.5 and 0-60 in 7.5.

bumpy

Plus cross winds move small cars more than bigger cars.

I'll take issue with that. Those crosswinds have to gust to 35-40 mph with a long fetch before I have to countersteer into them, and how often is that going to happen in the urban and semiurban environments best suited to smaller cars? (I live half an hour past the middle of nowhere, and the crosswind thing is really not any kind of problem for a competent driver.)

Would you like to bet a paycheck on what would happen when some company came out with a mid sized car that got sub compact like fuel mileage?

The same thing that would happen if some company came out with a subcompact that got minicar mileage (and we may just find out when the Accent hybrid shows up in a year or so).

When you read a review of the mini cooper do you ever wonder why it is bigger than the old mini cooper. Have you ever asked yourself why they put a caveat on a review of the new one? The Caveat being, "but for any real enjoyment you need to get the Mini Cooper S."

The new Mini is bigger simply because it was engineered by Germans, who seem to be congenitally incapable of designing lightweight cars. The Mini has the size and power of a subcompact with the curb weight of a compact, thus you need the extra power of the S to compensate for the unnecessary blubber it's hauling around. Pulling 400 pounds out of the Mini would cure the base model.

As for Americans and sub Compact diesels? Not likely unless some really drastic happens.

Low-sulfur diesel. Tougher emission standards also go into effect in 2007, but any diesel that meets the new Euro standards will also meet ours, so the structural obstacles keeping Euro diesels out of the US will vanish by the end of the year.

andre1969

crosswinds seemed to affect my '79 Newport quite a bit. More than what you'd think for a car that big and heavy. My '68 Dart, which was about 2 feet shorter, a bit lower, and probably 700 lb or more lighter, didn't seem to be affected as much. So smaller cars aren't automatically going to be affected more by a crosswind than a bigger car. Now if it's a lightweight car that presents an unusually large surface area that the wind doesn't flow smoothly over, then you might have a problem.

One of my buddies, who's from Michigan, told me that Yugos are banned from the Mackinack bridge, or whatever that bridge is that connects to the upper peninsula because one supposedly got blown off in an 11 mph gust of wind. Now I'm POSITIVE he got the facts mixed up on that one! :confuse:

carlisimo

"Basically... you're just simply never going to have one solitary type of car that can fit the needs, wants, and desires of every single person out there."

Amen! And let's keep it that way!

boaz47

Nope, living in California I can assure you that even european gas standards don't meet ours. And also cross winds do blow in our desert are at those velocities quiet a bit. Look at your weather maps for the last month and you will find the freeway of Southern California were tossed about by "exactly" those kinds of winds for three and for days at a time. Maybe even in Nippons area I am not sure. But remember the Brits and other europeans measure air differently than we do. Diesel traps won't cut it because we have the problem with people having to change them more frequently that every 50 to 100k miles. A CARB mandate for smog equipment in this state.

LA may be different because people commute back and forth to work on the Freeway to other places even within LA because surface streets take just too long. Ask anyone living here and they will tell you that once outside of LA and heading for palm springs on the 10 80 MPH is hardly a rarefied speed like Shifty mentioned. And what ever reason the Germans might have for making their cars the size they do it must work, they still make cars? Is the old cooper company still in business? Who owns Rolls and Bentley? Seen a lot of micro cars on you local streets lately? Or have you seen some of the 800,000 mid sized Hondas and Toyotas driving down the street?

nippononly

Well, I certainly never meant to imply there was one best sort of car for everybody out there. BUT...

"Do you believe the public preferences can be changed to overcome all the disadvantages and perceptions people have about sub compacts?"

...I AM hoping to overcome the pre-conceptions people have of these cars in the U.S., which pre-conceptions seem to go something like this: "all subcompacts are cheap crappy little torture chambers without any redeeming qualities". In fact, they have some disadvantages balanced by some advantages, and none are torture chambers any more, nor are most "totally crappy".

Obviously we can't overcome the disadvantages because they do exist for some buyers. But I feel that in a lot more cases than the sales indicate, the advantages do in fact outweigh the disadvantages, it's just that people don't know it. They are locked into their preconceived notions.

andre1969

when I was out in CA back in spring break of 1992, I got my little Civic rental up to 100 mph on a few occasions out in the high desert (and 115 once on Cajon Pass) and that still wasn't THAT fast compared to the other cars out there.

Heck, even when I go from DC up to Carlisle and such for the various car shows, 80 mph comes up pretty effortlessly.

nippononly

I would have to say that once I get up to speeds of 80 and above, I am just as blown around in my tall-sided, skinny-tired, lightweight Echo as I am in my almost-two-ton, super-wide-tired, fairly tall 4Runner. And since the Echo has more precise steering on-center than the Runner, it is a little easier to compensate for the winds in the Echo.

snakeweasel

Plus cross winds move small cars more than bigger cars.

The amount of sail (flat or near flat surface area that the wind will push against) will have a greater impact on this than the weight of the car. So a big heavy van will have more trouble with cross winds than a small lightweight car. The small car just has less surface area for the wind to push against.

Mr_Shiftright

ah, but I said "OVER" 80 mph. The percentage of Americans who *regularly* drive over 80 mph? Hardly a fraction of a fraction--you'd be wallpapering your room with speeding tickets.

Sensitivity to wind is a matter of profile height and tires, too. A miata is light but it's a small wind target. What happens when you lay on the tank of a motorcycle during high winds? You go faster and move around less.

My two cents is that the only really valid arguments against subcompacts are:

1. room for lots of cargo

2. towing ability

The rest---safety, stability, power, looks, etc., I think have all been adequately addressed by the SUBS in 2006.

xkiddx13

some of that is logical, i have kept my cars, though i did trade one in because it would have costed more to keep so instead i bought a cerified pre-owend one, for a good deal, i dont agree with buying brand spanking new cars, no need waste of money

andre1969

The rest---safety, stability, power, looks, etc., I think have all been adequately addressed by the SUBS in 2006.

I think the those other issues are still open to debate.

1) Safety...that's something that will be debated for eternity. No single car is going to be best-suited for any type of accident. Big cars do better in some types of accidents, while little cars do better in others. And SUVs will do better in some types, and worse in others. There are just too many variables. A bigger car can be made to be just as maneuverable than a smaller car and then some...that depends more on vehicle design than size. However, a bigger car will present itself as more of a target to be hit than a little car.

2) Stability...that's going to, once again, be more design than car size. While there are small cars out there that are very stable, I'm sure there's still enough that aren't, which will perpetuate the stereotype

3) Power...more a function of power-to-weight than size of the car. However, many small cars are still at the point where they're really only balanced for one person. Put in a second passenger, and performance lags big-time whereas on a bigger, torquier car, the drop-off might not be noticeable. But again, this is more engine-related than car size/weight related.

4) Looks...totally subjective. I like long, low, sleek cars on relatively lanky wheelbases, with some rear-end to them. So you're never going to convince me that any of these newer ones are beauty queens. Still, totally subjective, but that does leave it open for argument. And it always WILL be, as you'll never get everybody to agree on the merits of one style.

Then, let me add a few more...

5) Ride...again, this is going to be subjective, as not everybody likes the same type of ride, firmness, isolation, see-sawing, etc.

6) Noise...some people like a little high-revving engine, but others will find it annoying. Add to this the fact that many small cars skimp on the sound insulation and other dampening. This also isn't really a small-car issue either, but more a factor of how much the engine has to rev.

I'm sure I can think of some others, but it's time to go home, and I don't want to hang out here at work any more than I have to! :shades:

nippononly

I have now had four adults in the Echo on more than one occasion and find that even loaded down almost to its GVWR, it never lugs, and only feels affected at launch from a stoplight (even then, it's not much of a change). On the highway or whatever, it has as much power for acceleration as it did when it was just me in there.

Mr_Shiftright

You can buy SUBS now with dual front and side curtain bags, ABS, and TC. This ain't your father's old Civic.

NOISE -- that could be a valid complaint for some drivers...I find that satellite radio solves that problem easily :P

boaz47

well my friend. You must be a very lucky guy. One of my employees has a Echo and sometimes can get four of his friends in it to go to lunch. I have been behind him several times and he is a lot slower getting on the freeway with people than by himself. At a metered light by himself he will get on the freeway and be merging into the second lane before I catch him after I get the green. with people I catch him before he gets in the first lane.

But I know the point you are making is not about power or performance. we have read some of the same magazines and looked at the slalom times and 0-60 times on the sub compacts. While they may be as good as some of the 4 banger mid sized cars that only tend to indicate the mid sized cars need more motor. And so far none of the sub compacts have been very "crisp" in any of the reviews I have read. I don't see the hope you have for small cars and manual transmissions as a bad thing. I just see them as a fading desire by the people that buy cars. The Mini cooper was only one example. Everyone admits it is bigger than the old one and everyone has an excuse. everyone knows the origional Accord started out at the sub compact level and grew into a mid sized. everyone knows that compact trucks started out small and now have grown to the size of some early full sized trucks. I don't think the cycle can be stopped. But maybe we need an infusion of sub compacts every now and then for the die hard little car people. Remember I once had an NSU Prince and a Healey Sprite. Today I wouldn't give them a second look. I did look at a Miata when I bought my wife her ZTS. However after sitting in it I realized it just wouldn't do. It seems by sales numbers that most people feel the same. But I do hope they stay small long enough for you to get something you like. But I bet you will have to hurry before they get two generations under their belt or they too will grow in size. If for no other reason than to make people feel they are getting more when they buy the new and improved Mini Cooper like vehicle. I also doubt I will ever see a review that says, "if you have a choice don't get the Cooper S. It has more power than you need.". Or better yet, "car enthusiasts should look at something other than the Civic SI. The standard powerplant is much more fun to drive."

andre1969

with my uncle when he took an '02 Echo out for a test drive. Now this one was an automatic, so that might make a difference. And my uncle is over 200 lb, this salesman was well over 200 lb, and I'm not much under. Anyway, that car was definitely feeling the strain.

Now, I don't know what an automatic Echo would do 0-60 in, but would it be less than 12 seconds? Reason I ask is because that's about what my grandma's old '85 LeSabre would do it in, according to tests I've found. We drove that LeSabre to the sales lot. My Mom and stepdad came along too, because they wanted to check out a Camry. Anyway, I can tell ya that accelerating onto the same highway in the Buick that we did with that Echo on the test drive, the Buick felt considerably quicker. I had no trouble merging onto the highway actually going quicker than the flow of traffic...had to slow down in fact, while with that Echo you had to kind of pace yourself and time the gaps in the traffic.

Now for the most part, if you drive fairly gently, most cars probably wouldn't feel the strain of extra weight, but when you need to accelerate hard, such as merging and passing, that's where you'll often feel it. For example, I normally don't take off fast from a traffic light. Might take me 20 seconds to get from 0-60, maybe a bit more. One time I accidentally overloaded my Intrepid, because I bought 20 of those big square paving blocks. I remember handing one to my buddy and saying "Whaddya think this weighs, about 10 pounds?" "Yeah" he replied. Well, I just happened to look up the specs for the things and I couldn't have been more wrong! turns out each one of them was 23 lb! So that was 460 pounds right there. Plus I had two friends in the car. One about 200 lb, one around 125. So that's about 785 pounds of extra weight. I think the car weighs around 3400 lb. So I figure this experience was roughly the same as driving a 4200 lb car with the same engine, but with only me on board. Well, taking off from traffic lights, it didn't take any longer to accelerate. And braking distance wasn't any longer either. However, if I had to floor it to get onto a highway, or had to do a panic stop, that's where I would've noticed the extra weight.

Once I overloaded my pickup, too. I didn't realize firewood was so heavy! My stepdad said I probably had about a ton in the bed. There's a little sticker in the glovebox that says "bed capacity: 864 lb." Oops!

So basically, that little 305, instead of having to move 4200 lb of truck, suddenly had to move roughly 6200 lb of truck! Now I didn't take it down to the drag strip to time it or anything, and didn't challenge anybody out on the street. But in just plain, normal driving, that truck handled the same at 6200 lb as it does at 4200. But again, if I were in a situation where I would have had to gun it, I would have probably been screwed. Well, except for the fact that it's big enough to bully its way in, whereas they might just cut you off if you're in a little subcompact! :P

To show another example of how bad a little car can bog down under weight, a buddy of mine in college had a 1980 Accord coupe with an automatic. Now with a stick, these cars were good for 0-60 in around 15 seconds according to CR. An automatic would be worse, but I dunno how much. Well, one day I timed my buddy's Accord, with 3 of us on board, from 0-60. Took something like 26 seconds! I remember timing my '69 Dart, which CR rated around 14 seconds. In this instance we had 4 people on board, and instead of being straight-on from a stoplight, this involved making a right turn from a stoplight, which is going to eat up some time. Anyway, I timed it at 17.9 seconds. So basically, 3 passengers plus the driver (and having to immediately make that right turn) hurt its time by about 3.9 seconds. Yet with that Accord, 2 passengers plus the driver probably threw it off by around 8-10 seconds.

Of course, Accords are better nowadays, but then again, so are Darts, er, well, Aspens, er, well, whatever would be the most direct replacement for a Dart. Waitaminute...Stratus? Hmmm, maybe in this respect, the Dart WAS better!

imidazol97

The solution for the slow motor with a high load is to gear it up a little. The pep will be better for accelerating but when you're cruising you sound like a sewing machine at 65.

Mr_Shiftright

That's what the xA does...it's pretty lively 0-60 due to lower gearing. Nobody's going to crawl up your back until you try to pass at 80- mph.

210delray

... to drive one of iluv's favorite cars, a 2005 Kia Spectra5 with 17K miles. It's a rental covered by insurance to replace the '04 Camry while the latter gets its body damage repaired.

Snappy little car, feels like it's got some grunt. Handles well too in curves. But it's the first automatic I've ever driven that actually lugs in top gear (4th). At that point, the engine is turning at 1800 rpms. I guess it's a fuel economy thing.

Nice looking car, with alloy wheels and a bright red paint job. 4-wheel disk brakes and side torso/side curtain airbags also, but no ABS.

Amazing when I pulled it into the garage. I didn't pull as far forward as I do with my Frontier or the Camry. Still, there's a good 5 feet of space behind the car!

I used to sometimes park my employer's ex-company car, a '92 Crown Vic on the same side of the garage. It could barely fit!

The driver's seat is reasonably comfortable, once I got the hang of adjusting it. The recline lever is too far back though. I do like the gauge layout, with the big speedo front and center. But the 140 mph indicated top speed is a little optimistic, don't you think?

I don't feel particularly small driving it in traffic, but there's not a chance I'd actually own one, knowing the odds if you do happen to crash!

And it will be interesting to see what kind of fuel economy I get. I'm averaging 26 mpg in my Frontier in daily commuting -- great for a truck. (It does have a 5-speed manual.) Let's see how the Spectra5 compares.

Mr_Shiftright

4th gear lugging is not a good thing. Either the auto trans will "hunt" all day long or worse yet you'll lug the engine and put a load on it. 1800 rpm with a load is a lot worse than 3500 rpm with little strain.

andre1969

was that tranny pulling 1800 rpm? My Intrepid will go into 4th gear around 40 mph in the right conditions, and at that point is pulling around 1300 rpm. Most 4-speed automatics I've had in the past (okay, all two of them...an '85 Buick 307 and an '86 Chevy 305) would usually go into overdrive around 45 mph. Those big cars had much taller axles, though. In overdrive, the effective ratio was around 1.7X-1.8X. At least the Intrepid's effective ratio in overdrive is around 2.60:1.

Any of them would downshift in a heartbeat if need be, though.

At a more "normal" highway speed, like around 60-65, my Intrepid's pulling around 2000-2200 rpm, but is still readily willing to downshift if need be.

I've never had a problem with the tranny hunting in the Intrepid, but right around 45 mph, those old GM cars tended to do it. That seems to be kind of a magic number, too, because around that speed the torque converter in my '79 NYer seems to get confused and keeps locking and unlocking. And even my '85 Silverado doesn't seem to like that speed.

BTW, is it bad on the transmission when it "hunts" back and forth like that? Or just annoying? I know the owner's manuals would just tell you to throw it down into third (the "D" without the circle on the older cars) if it did it too much.

210delray

I'll have to check on the speed at 1800 rpm -- I think it's around 40-45 mph. I know that 55 mph = 2100 rpm. My '04 Camry (with 4-speed auto) does 55 at 2000 rpm, and the '05 Camry (with 5-speed auto) does 55 at 1850 rpm.

Based on what Shifty said, if it were my car, I'd have to downshift manually into 3rd to keep it from lugging. OTOH, if I actually bought a subcompact, it would have a manual tranny!

boaz47

That one of the main attractions for sub compacts to my friend Nippon is that they will be best used with a manual transmission. If they do become popular the chances of a Manual option remaining in the American fleet gets much stronger. But he has always liked small cars as well as manuals. The problem as I see it is that better than 75 percent of American drivers prefer Automatics and most sub compacts lack the power to manage that type of transmission as they are currently made. I even understand that the Mini has a third option that is quite popular in europe, the CVT, that helps solve some of the power issues. But there is the rub, if the issue is there at all it indicates people are concerned with performance even in a economy car and so the next car the buy will be something more than they had in the first place. The whole cycle of starting small and getting bigger will only start again. Just like it has every time a sub compact has been introduced in this country before.

Mr_Shiftright

Well again that points to the subcompacts strong point--it appeals to a) first time buyers who can't afford much more or who are shrewd enough to hold off on a "better" car and not get sucked into high monthlies, or b) the older driver like me who wants a nice but not so expensive second car to zip around the metro areas. Neither of these is "stepping up" to a more $$$ car at the moment...one can't, the other chooses not too.

And these two markets (first timers + retirees or mature drivers needing second cars) are BIG markets.

boaz47

Well yes first timers and retirees are a sizable market. However in my experience first timers are not looking for a "cheep" new car as much as they are, "any" car. Most high school parking lots are full of used cars and Compact trucks with a few Hondas' and Acuras' with spoilers and wings. I can honestly tell you that the number of Echos' and Rios' can be counted on one hand. And having a mother in Hemet California I can also attest to there being far more Buicks and Crown Victorias than I have seen in any other community. (retired or not) That and the Sales figures for Accords, Camrys and Altimas compared to Echos, about to be dropped, and even xA not selling in any great great numbers compared to Camrys or even Corollas.( notice I said compared to cars larger than a Sub compact.) So if we look at the figures we can pull up today Sub Compacts are the bottom feeders in just about everyones line. Now we my need bottom feeders for those few that want them but they are hardly poised to become the next craze as first the Mini-Van and then the SUV were. Or does anyone believe they have a chance of surplanting the larger compacts and mid sized cars as a dominate force in the industry? I will admit the people in the retirement communities have more sub compacts hitched to the back of their motor homes then anyone else i know of.

nippononly

"That one of the main attractions for sub compacts to my friend Nippon is that they will be best used with a manual transmission. If they do become popular the chances of a Manual option remaining in the American fleet gets much stronger"

Amen! :-)

Just did an 1100-mile trip in my "subcompact", a very comfy if not quiet trip, pulled a 44-mpg average, and when the trucks were getting blown around on the descent into Castaic north of LA, I was going in a straight line with ease.

Lots of older people were the primary buying group for the Echo, and for all those who can't get into a $25,000 Buick at that late stage in life, the appeal of a brand new car at half the price must be pretty strong.

On campus in San Francisco where I am finishing my masters degree, most of the kids with new or newish cars are actually one step up from this class of car - lots of Civics and Corollas around. Of course, in those cases, I assume that quite often it was their parent that bought them the car. But among commuters, especially ones with long commutes, this class of car remains quite popular, I think. Look around in the morning commute, and there are a sizable number of them. Looks like the Accent is the most popular for these folks, with the Scions pulling a close second.

robertsmx

The new Civic 5AT turns under 1900 rpm at 60 mph in the fifth. That is impressively low for 2700-2800 lb car with just a 1.8-liter motor. Compared to my 1998 Accord (3200 lb, 2.3/150 HP, 4AT), that turns a shade under 2300 rpm.

210delray

My rental '05 Kia Spectra5 engine is turning at 1800 rpm (45 mph) in top gear (4th - auto tranny) when it lugs.

In my experience, engines don't generally lug on level ground above 1500 rpm (manual or auto tranny).

kyfdx

Hopefully.. on topic..

Why would you pick the Scion xA or the new Yaris over... say.. a Chevy Aveo? I haven't driven them, but they seem similar, and the Chevy appears to sell for about $2K-$3K less..

And.. on the other side of the coin... If those two cars are worth the higher price... What about going $3K up on the other side, and purchasing a base MINI Cooper, instead?

regards,
kyfdx

andre1969

with the upcoming redesign of the Aveo, but I believe the xA and Yaris do have better fuel economy than the Aveo. And possibly nicer materials and interior furnishings, although honestly at this price point you can only expect so much.

So an xA/Yaris might run you a bit more up front than the Aveo, but you'd at least get that warm, fuzzy feeling of improved fuel economy...even if it the reality is that it takes you forever to reach the break-even point. Plus, you're going to most likely have better resale value on the Toyota.

BTW, is there really that much of a difference in price? There was a Yaris at the Philly auto show, and I thought it was only around $12,500. Isn't that about what an Aveo stickers for?

logic1

Why would you pick the Scion xA or the new Yaris over... say.. a Chevy Aveo? I haven't driven them, but they seem similar, and the Chevy appears to sell for about $2K-$3K less..

The Scion is certainly better looking than the Aveo (imo in any event). Not sure if that is enough to pay several thousand for, but it is there.

From what I see of the Yaris, I would go for the $ savings and buy the Aveo.

I think the Mini is a swell little car. But it is pricey. And for the price, some of the quality concerns I've seen voiced by the experts scare me.

robertsmx

Aveo: $10K
Yaris: $12-13K
Mini: $17K

A buyer looking at Aveo, may find Yaris more appealing at $2-3K more. But, at $7K more for the Mini, I suspect most will consider it way out of budget.

Besides, initial cost is just one side of story when it comes to ownership cost in the longer term. That is where cars like Yaris and Fit should excel, even over Aveo. This ownership cost, however, may also require more attention from the buyer… most do look at only the purchase price.

andre1969

is also a bit of a porker for its tiny size. And an extra $3K or whatever over a Scion or Yaris is just going to get you the base 115 hp model. You'll get a good looking little car, but at the same time you'll get a less practical car (2 door, smaller back seat, probably smaller cargo area as well) that's heavier, no more nimble (same turning circle of 34.8 feet), worse fuel economy, and probably not much faster, if any.

For any real fun, you'd probably have to spend a few thousand more bucks for the sporty model.

kyfdx

Don't know about that... Even the base MINI is a hoot to drive... I haven't driven the others, though I'd find it hard to believe they are up to par with the handling of the MINI..

I definitely wouldn't compare the MINI to the Aveo... Just looking at the $3K spread either way...

In other words... if the Toyota twins are worth $3K more than the Aveo for what you get.. (disregarding resale, we all know the answer to that)... then, is the MINI worth $3K more, on the other side..

And... less than 200 LBS. separates the cars..

Edmunds comparison

kyfdx

..is definitely more than $3K, though.. I'll give you that..

bumpy

The Mini would be tons better if it were the same size, weight, price, and RWD. As it is, you get compact weight and price, subcompact size and power, and dubious reliability. Having said that, I'll still give it a spin next year when I take the Grand Subcompact Hatchback Tour of 2007.

carlisimo

The xA has some advantages, which will resonate with certain people. More options, nicer interior, dunno how they drive but I've heard their suspensions are pretty different. If you can afford $13k, it's a decent option.

The Mini still has high real-world prices, and unless you love good handling, it doesn't offer much compared to comparably priced cars.

kyfdx

MINI: 115/2524.. 21.9 lbs/hp

Scion: 103/2340.. 22.7 lbs/hp

Aveo: 103/2343.. 22.7 lbs/hp

Even though the MINI is slightly heavier, it is most likely quicker and handles better... Both the Scion and MINI go for MSRP.. Resale is likely to be similar (both very good).. Aveo resale is likely to be pretty crappy..

I'm only bringing it up, because I've considered getting a commuter car... but... I really like to drive.. Once you pick one over the other (xA over Aveo, for example), then you have to see what other alternatives there are.. It is a never-ending struggle..

michaellno

I've always felt that lbs per horsepower was a pretty good measurement for quickness. In my stable I have the following ratios:

Focus: 130/2699 = 20.76

L300: 182/3197 = 17.57

VUE: 250/3630 = 14.52

So, in my mind, the Mini would 'feel' slower than the Focus, all else being equal.

Wasn't it Colin Chapman who said that "low weight is its own reward"? It's nice to see the HP ratings go up with every new iteration of a car, but if the weight goes up as well, then it's a wash in terms of performance.

I'm very interested to see how the US buying public reacts to the Versa, Fit and Yaris -- specifically, if they end up cannibalizing sales from the Sentra, Civic and Corolla, respectively.

nippononly

still going for close to MSRP too, from what I hear.

Drive the Aveo and the xA and then tell me which you would take. Back to back, there is no comparison in things like steering feel, sound and smoothness of the engine, etc. The Aveo is the discount choice, and there is a reason. It will pretty much own that end of the price spectrum now, what with the Rio and Accent moving up.

I assume the Yaris will drive an awful lot like the xA, but I will have to wait and see.

Oh yeah, and Mini handling? Best, bar none, among subcompacts and compacts alike. Even the base Cooper. It strains against the A/C when accelerating, but corners on a razors's edge and almost flat regardless of speed. Fantastic. I would put it against cars costing thousands more in the handling category.

If it were me today, I would stick with Toyota/Scion. The nearest Mini dealer is too far away, and its rep tells me I would have to visit them for more than just maintenance. Not to mention the no-discounts-off-MSRP thing. The Aveo actually fits the description "penalty box" which is applied by some to this whole class collectively. But for $10K, I wouldn't expect a whole lot. People buying the loaded up $15K Aveo LTs at anything close to sticker would get the arched eyebrow of incomprehension from me, because at $13-14K actual transaction price, there are a number of better options.

logic1

Best, bar none, among subcompacts and compacts alike. Even the base Cooper. It strains against the A/C when accelerating, but corners on a razors's edge and almost flat regardless of speed. Fantastic. I would put it against cars costing thousands more in the handling category.

Isn't the 3 Series considered a compact sedan? Not sure if their roadster status changes things, but the Lotus twins, the Miata and Solstice are the same size as the compacts as well.

No fwd compact is going to have the same handling dynamics as rwd cars.

Maybe it would better to say the Mini handles best among the compact fwds.