Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Economy Sedans (~$16k-$20k)
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Plus the hybrid weighs more, has a small electric motor and has a 1.3.
I got about 9 seconds. That is still a far cry from 15. Was the car loaded with people stuff and the a/c on full blast? Otherwise its just impossible. OR there is something wrong with the car.
No stick shift will make a car improve its 0-60 time by 6-7 seconds. Ridiculous.
>Adequate around town, but engine slow to gather speed, so highway on-ramps, most passing maneuvers demand judgement and often foot-to-the-floor throttle application. Assertive use of smooth-shifting manual transmission results in adequate acceleration for most situations. Fit feels notably lazier with automatic: Test automatic Sport took a lengthy 11.4 sec 0-60 mph. Automatic does have handy steering-column shift paddles that help get most from engine.<
Automatic Fit Test
Manual Fit Test
From the Manual Test:
Our little red Fit was the quickest to 60 mph (tied with the Reno) and the quickest in the quarter-mile yet offered the least engine NVH and the second-best observed fuel economy. It came equipped with the most supportive seats, the most expensive-looking interior, an Acura-grade gauge cluster, and the ergonomics of an Accord.
What truly set the Fit apart was its handling — not a pretense of handling but the real deal, with springs and struts that allowed one gentle rebound and no more, the only car here that felt happy storming the switchbacks. We later confirmed this when the Fit sailed through our lane-change test 6 mph faster than anything else here — faster, in fact, than a Corvette Z06.
The Fit is not meant to be a hot-rod. It is meant to be a fuel efficient, good-handling, subcompact car. A highway grand tourer it is not (what in this class is that gets 38 MPG?)
LOL, that's a good one! Maybe the ergonomics of an Accord that has no seat-height adjuster, no telescopic steering wheel, no dead pedal, and in general an uncomfortable driving position for many people (check out the Fit discussions here in Town Hall for details).
Not sure how we got into the Fit, but it's not in this category of cars anyway.
Biological science which defines relation between workers and their environments; used to define healthy workspace set-ups. Defines equipment such as chairs which are designed to suit the human anatomy and facilitate tasks without injury.
Correct posture and positioning of the body while at work, rest and play.
(do "define ergonomic" on google)
Seems to me they were also talking about the driving position. The HVAC and stereo controls on the Fit are nothing special, IMO. For example, a manual slider for fresh/recirc air. Took me back 20+ years to my '85 Civic when I saw that. Now, the Fit has a nice-looking steering wheel, gauges, and shifter for an inexpensive car, I'll give it those points in the interior.
if c/d thought the ergonomics were good, thats them.
I'm suprised there was no 'but the hyundai accent DOES' after all the things you mentioned the fit doesn't have.
A lot of the people complaining about the fit in town hall seem to have not been familiar with test driving a vehicle fully before purchasing it. I would know right off the bat if there was not height adjuster and wether i could live with it or not.
You'd be suprised how many over 10 sec 0-60 cars there are out there for a lot more money.
Do you know of another amazing 1.5 litre out there? You should tell us about it, and then tell us how much the car it resides in costs. :P
Have you driven a Miata? It makes you think about cars in a different light. My fiance' drove mine a few times and bought a brand new one. She had been content with her SUV for 10 years, and suddenly could not stand it, and could not bear the thought of driving anything not as precise handling, as direct as a Miata. If it were not for the long trips I have to make, I'd still be driving mine.
The only thing I've heard of that would melt my miser's heart, so far, is the upcoming BMW 1-series, but I'll have to wait for a used one.
I look forward to seeing GM's attempt, but I'm not holding my breath. GM does faitly well with mid and full-size cars, but I've been totally unimpressed with their attempts at compacts. The Soltice and Saturn Sky had so much potential, but typical GM design got in the way.
What I would absolutely LOVE to see, in this age of retro, would be a modern Datsun 510.
Probably the closest modern equivalent to the 510 is the Versa sedan, or maybe (to stay on topic) the Sentra. And fond memories aside, I would wager that the Versa and Sentra are lot better cars than the 510 ever was--in room, safety, performance, comfort & convenience etc.
I put the Focus in the same appliance category as the Elantra, not so much because of its handling, which is pretty good, but because of its appliance-like looks. To me, the Mazda3 is much more an enthusiast's car than the Focus. Not to say there is anything wrong with a really good appliance--Toyota and Honda have sold millions of cars on that premise over the last few years.
I don't know about that. It is clear however that you are on a mission, one that has nothing to do with talking about cars.
But i'm not posting the definition of 'ergonomics' to someone who in previous posts has clearly made it obvious he knows what he is talking about.
For that matter, parts availability and pricing in general may be cheaper for the Focus, even though they are so similar.
As long as we are discussing these "economy cars," I really don't think there is much economical about a compact or subcompact 16-20k car, especially when you can easily get a midsize (Accord, Fusion, etc) in that price range. It would seem this thread is more about "Premium Compact Cars" more than "Economy Cars."
As you get towards 20k though (Civic EX/SI, Mazda3 2.3 Touring, VW Jetta), you should be able to swing a mid-level Accord (or maybe an EX stick), a V6 Sonata, and maybe a V6 Fusion.
Like I said, I definitely understand the "smaller car" mentality but if you are spending more than is necessary on it, it looses some "economy."
The Mazda3 fails me in that it mutes the connection between driver and the road more than the Focus. Compared to the Miata, the Focus does the same, but not as much as almost every other car in it's class. The Mazda3 is not in the appliance category, but it's closer than the Focus. The connection with the road is what makes a car an enthusiasts car, and not an applaince.
A car can look like a rocket sled, but if it drives like an appliance, it is. It can look as boring as can be, but if it makes you feel like you are at one with it, then it's an enthusiasts car.
I don't agree at all that the Mazda3 is closer to an appliance than the Focus. And I don't own either one.
Since 2007 is the final year for the ST, at least in 2.3L form, that is a valid point. As mentioned by others though, there is a VERY good aftermarket following for the Focus, so supension upgrades are very easily available, from mild to wild.
I found the shifters to be about the same.
I wound up putting a 1mm thicker aftermarket rear bar and stock size Goodyear F1 GS-D3 tires on the stock 16" wheels. The effect from the bar was subtle, but gave me a more neutral balance that I prefer. Light trailbraking will set the car up into a 4-wheel drift. The tires give more adhesion in corners.
I don't worry about AutoX classes, as I do not do it to compete, just to have fun a few times a year.
I don't think that even the actual svt put out better numbers than the mazda, except when it came to acceleration.
Avi should check this out! :P
The SVT Focus was a step above the ST, with stiffer springs, wider, stickier tires, and much more power, but due to the torque of the 2.3 in the ST, was not much quicker. I looked at used SVTs, but the ST was not much more, and new.
The Focus ST does not compare to the MazdaSpeed3. The MS3 has over 100 more horsepower than the Focus ST, wider, stickier tires, and a limited slip differential. It goes for about $10k more, starting out, than the Focus ST though, at typical sales prices. In that price range, I'd be looking at a used BMW 330Ci.
The Sandman
Mazda Old? No way!! Maybe you are now use to yours. Well at least it looks new and very modern. I love the shape of the body and the round effect of the side panels. I have the 2007 Mazda M3S GT model. Simply Awesome!!! Great quality too, I think the 2005 and 2007 are different in quality and the A/C performance too.
Did you realize that if you take all the body panels off of the focus and mazda, you have the same car?
As for what we can and can't compare here, stallionre... the Focus and Mazda3 are both economy sedans in the $16-20k price range, so why not compare? There are a lot stranger comparisons in Town Hall, e.g. Civic vs. Sonata.
Compared to the new Corolla pic I saw last week, the Lancer has a more edgier look to it and that'll help with the sales figures. And seems like the killer stereo can be had on the ES trim...good choice by Mitsu. If this car drives as well as it looks, it'll be a winner. Sure hope Mitsubishi will market this car properly so people will know it's not the boring Lancer that it's replacing. They need to spend some major $ to get the word out. The look of the car is striking enough to get people through the door, just hope the driving experience is enough to keep them there.
Honda, Mazda & Hyundai, this is a car that's gonna give y'all some competition. I'd definitely keep my eyes on Misubishi! On looks alone, I'd give this car a 9 outta 10.
The Sandman
The Lancer gets an average of 10 MPG less than the Civic. That's a LOT!
The Lancer gets an average of 21/29 MPG, with 152 hp and 146 lb-ft. The Mazda 3 gets an average of 26/33 MPG, with more horses AND torque.
Mitsubishi needs to clean up its act in the economy department, it is behind the midsizers and some FULL SIZE cars, and doesn't offer an incredible amount of power.
On the other hand, the exterior styling is tops in the class IMO, though. It's a LOOKER!
The car appears to be a small sporty sedan, but it's no economy car.
Mitsubishi, get your act together with these mileage figures you can compete your competition on a level playing field.
The Sandman
The european focus has a killer chassis.
I don't think the Lancer makes the Civic look dated. They are different in styling, however. I think the Lancer looks very sharp on the exterior. The interior, however, is full of cheap, hard plastic, unfortunately--e.g. no padded dash surfaces, and more importantly no padding even on the door armrests. Mitsu needs to take lessons from Nissan and Hyundai in this regard. And from Honda and Toyota on fuel economy.
That is not a very nice thing to say about Mazda engines.
For reference, here are the new numbers for the class. I'll use all automatics where I can, since they are more popular.
3i(2.0L)...3s(2.3L) 23/31...22/29
Civic(1.8L) 25/36
Focus(2.0L) 23/31
Elantra(2.0L) 25/33
Spectra(2.0L) 23/32
Sentra (2.0L) 25/33
G5/Cobalt (2.2L) 21/29
Ion (2.2L) 21/29
Impreza (2.5L) 20/25
Forenza/Reno (2.0L) 19/28
Aerio (2.3L) 22/28
Corolla (1.8L) 26/35
Jetta/Rabbit (2.5L) 19/28
NewBeetle (2.5L) 20/29
Vehicles matching or dropping below the Lancer are in bold
My bunny is in bold.. but thats ok, i get exactly 28 anyway so i'm good.
I hope you and your rabbit had a Hoppy Easter!
Take it easy!