What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

One reason I like the 2007 MINI is that it has that extra legroom and that tall gearing in 5th (and 6th!). What it doesn't have is the xA's carrying capacity. It's not bad with the back seats down but it's a narrower car is the problem.

Really what I strive for is not the "perfect" car but a car that can do 90% of what I need it to do ALL the time, rather than search for a car that can do that extra 10% SOME of the time.

fezo · October 2007

119 pounds? I need to know your methodology. My cat and I average under 100 pounds each....

qbrozen · October 2007

i'll steal shifty's thunder here and say "get more cats." ;b

did I mention my wife is 5'4" and my son is 1.5 years old?

ateixeira · October 2007

The Cooper would work for me but only because we have a spare car.

For me the issue is price - equipped the way I'd want it, it's not really an economical car. I hate the speedo in the center so you gotta get NAV. Add a few sporty options and I'm in the mid $20s, and that's not even an S.

kyfdx · October 2007

With the new one, even NAV won't eliminate that big eye in the center...

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

You'd get used to it I think.

ateixeira · October 2007

Bummer.

Ergonomics are important to me. I'm not sure I could get over that.

I sit inside a car, and it's pass/fail right there, on the spot.

I mean, you drive enthusiastically as often as you can, but that's usually only once in a while on public roads.

You stare at the ugly all the time.

british_rover · October 2007

I got used to it. After a while I just used the tach to figure out how fast I was going. I knew what rpm corresponded to what speed in each gear.

And even then the speedo is so huge you can see it out of the corner of your eye very easily. The speedo in the new MINI is even larger so I bet it is even easier to read.

fezo · October 2007

I thought that might be the sort of math involved. I could get very good numbers from thin wife and light kids....

robertsmx · October 2007

Let me guess...
Your son: 34 lb
Your wife: 108 lb
You......: 215 lb (more than a tenth of a ton) :P

qbrozen · October 2007

Ok. Stop doing the math. I can't tell on my wife. But, no, I'm not that heavy (although at 6'5", 230 wouldn't be that bad). :b

hey, now, you edited it. stop that! No more guessing. :b

robertsmx · October 2007

I've not clicked on the link yet, but in all likelihood, people are overloading their tires more than the vehicles. Isn't load rating of tires a big part of GVWR? (And GVWR - curb weight = payload).

robertsmx · October 2007

I was just being nice to you with the edit.

I'm 6'0" (32 inseam), 178 lb. It will take my big Rhodesian Ridgeback hybrid and I to exceed your weight. :P

andre1969 · October 2007

've not clicked on the link yet, but in all likelihood, people are overloading their tires more than the vehicles. Isn't load rating of tires a big part of GVWR? (And GVWR - curb weight = payload).

I dunno if it's the tires or the vehicle itself, but my Intrepid's GVWR is around 4400 pounds. The 225/60/R16 tires that are on it are load-rated for 1653 lb apiece. So the way I'm reading that, at around 6600 pounds, the tires are overloaded. But I don't think you want to load up a 3400 lb car with 3200 lb of cargo, anyway. I'm sure something would fail in the car.

My '79 New Yorker has a GVWR of around 5455 pounds. It originally came with wussy 195/75/R15 tires. I can't find that size on www.tirerack.com, but the 195/75/R14, which would have been stock on something like a 1979 Malibu, Monte Carlo, or Volare perhaps, is still rated at 1400 pounds. I dunno if the 195/75/R15 would have a higher rating, but even the 1400 pounds is adequate for a car with a 5455 lb GVWR. Something like a Monte Carlo or Malibu back then probably only had a GVWR of around 4400 lb, while a Volare might've been around 4800?

Also, I think payload is a bit more complex than just GVWR - curb weight. If that were the case, my Intrepid would have a payload of around 1000 lb, and not 895 like the sticker says. And even my '67 Catalina convertible has a sticker in the glovebox that says the payload is 1200 pounds for station wagons, 1100 lb for all other bodystyles. They didn't list GVWRs for cars back in the 60's, but the 70's equivalent of this car would have a GVWR well north of 7000 lb. And while the cars themselves got heavier in the 70's, I don't think their GVWRs did. So in the end you'd have the same GVWR, but more curb weight, and LESS payload capacity.

andre1969 · October 2007

It will take my big Rhodesian Ridgeback hybrid and I to exceed your weight.

What kind of economy do you get out of that hybrid? :P

british_rover · October 2007

10 MPL...

miles per lion

robertsmx · October 2007

There aren't any lions left in my neighborhood, unfortunately.

qbrozen · October 2007

thanks to your dog.
now you will have to find other sources when it yells "Feed me!"

tiff_c · October 2007

One reason I like the 2007 MINI is that it has that extra legroom and that tall gearing in 5th (and 6th!). What it doesn't have is the xA's carrying capacity. It's not bad with the back seats down but it's a narrower car is the problem.

Well there is always the new MINI Clubman although it'd be mighty hard to put anything long sticking out with those barn doors opening sideways. The tall gears are nice, I haven't tried a MINI. The dealer is really far away and I think I'd like it if I tried one but it's just too small. I think it's tougher now to find an all purpose car. The older WRX wagon would do everything I needed. The new one... Ugh! I bought the WRX sedan but would prefer the wagon but it just doesn't appeal to me. Less car for more money, no thanks, my wife likes the small subcompacts but finding a good one is tough and $15K+ isn't all that cheap and resale figures heavily into our purchase price. My WRX is sold as soon as I want to sell it even with all the miles it has because the guy is going to convert it into a full blown race car.
But I'd like to see better economy at least with my wifes car and she doesn't like the Civic with it's invisible nose and tail. Not much out there. she'd love to try a Mini but it's too small and that leaves the Mazdaspeed 3 for a performance car for me and a Scion xD for her or some other subcompact. I've researched a few cars online and driven a few but not much speaks to me with that BUY ME!, TAKE ME HOME TODAY! voice that I want to hear. :sick:
She can wait until 2009, I can't. If I can get 90% of what I want it'll have to do.

robertsmx · October 2007

Wow, your Intrepid had tires with load rating of 98? Ford could have taken a lesson or two from Dodge for tires on Exploder. :P

ateixeira · October 2007

Both Consumer Reports and Car & Driver test the Mini and the new Scion this month.

The Scion actually holds its own, it's not the blowout one might expect. In fact, the one difference that really stands out is price (in both publications).

I realize the stats don't paint the whole picture, but it's hard to justify the Cooper on merely practical terms. You have to be an enthusiast and want it for the right reasons.

robertsmx · October 2007

but it's hard to justify the Cooper on merely practical terms. You have to be an enthusiast and want it for the right reasons.

Or, be like some of my female friends who want it for it being "so cute". They also happen to like pugs. :P

And speaking of pugs, there aren't many of those left in my neighborhood either.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

MINIS are expensive, no doubt about it. They are, however (to be fair) much more nicely built than a Scion. They really are little jewels. Both a MINI and a Scion "cut corners" but not in the same way

lilengineerboy · October 2007

The Cobalt handled okay. You give me enough money, I'll beat a MINI with a Yugo.

I know its just for illustration, but the Yugo weighs under 1800# dripping wet in the driveway, and its pretty easy to make that number lower. Its basically a Fiat so any bolt on or parts swap should be fine.

I think a 1500# car with 100-125 hp should put the hurt on a lot of things, and it wouldn't take a whole lot of $$.

boaz47 · October 2007

The only thing a Fiat has ever been in the hunt for is a mechanic. I had a clean Fiat 124 spyder and I knew the mechanic by name and had his phone number on speed dial. But like he said, when she was running she, "Justa made da sweetist songa."

snakeweasel · October 2007

The only thing a Fiat has ever been in the hunt for is a mechanic.

Of course Fiat means Fix It Again Tony.

andre1969 · October 2007

I remember years ago reading some Mopar enthusiast magazine where they took a 1965 or so Imperial and tried to chop as much weight off of it, to see how that would improve its performance time. They did it in response to a GM mag where they did a similar thing to an early 70's Cadillac.

It'd be interesting to do that with a modern car and see what kind of improvement you get. I guess it would be kinda hard though, to just yank the roof and most of the rear body off of a unitized car. You'd probably lose too much supporting structure.

I don't remember all the details of the performance improvements they got out of the Imperial, as it was a long time ago. I think they did trim about 2 seconds off the quarter mile, though.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

The problem of course is that while cutting weight on a car is all to the good, the cutting is NOT CHEAP, if you want a safe, quality car.

Adding weight to an object isn't expensive but you can charge a lot for it (can you say Harley Davidson?), whereas making a car small, light, fast and strong can be expensive and it's more difficult to charge a lot for it (can you say MINI?).

One reason I think the new breed of SUBS is so brilliant is that they are managing to slowly solve this equation. The $16K subcompacts are light years ahead of their humble forebearers like the old Metros and Justys and Festivas, etc.

jlawrence01 · October 2007

One reason I think the new breed of SUBS is so brilliant is that they are managing to slowly solve this equation. The $16K subcompacts are light years ahead of their humble forebearers like the old Metros and Justys and Festivas, etc.

Think of all of the high-tech metals, composites, and plastics that exist now that were not around 10-20 years ago.

ateixeira · October 2007

One publication had a hilarious article where they took a sawzall to a base Nissan Sentra and made it so light it performend like a super car. It was hysterical.

By the time there were done, it almost looked like a bare chassis with a windshield. Wish I had bookmarked it.

british_rover · October 2007

I think that was Sport Compact Car and it might have been a first gen Nissan Altima.

andre1969 · October 2007

in the overall scheme of things, these small cars aren't exactly lightweights. I'm looking at the C&D right now that has the xD and the Mini in it. The xD's curb weight is 2611 lb and the Mini is 2555. Just for comparison, a 1968 Dodge Dart started at 2705 lb for the 2-door sedan...and that's WITH the 475 lb lump of a slant six under the hood!

Now of course, modern cars are much better-optioned. The xD and Mini have a/c, which was optional on most cars back then. But a/c probably adds a negligible amount of weight these days. I've heard back in the day, ordering a/c on a car added 100-150 pounds. But on the flip side, considering how marginal some small car a/c systems can be, maybe rolling down the windows and flipping open all the vents on a Dart will work better than cranking up the a/c on an xD! :P

Power windows probably don't add much weight these days, either. I've swapped out the power window motors in an '89 Gran Fury and a '79 Newport, and I doubt if each motor was more than 2-3 pounds. And they're only going to be lighter today...plus the tape drive thingies they use to roll up the windows are lighter than those old lift mechanisms with the teeth in them.

If anything, I think these little cars are just proving the old adage that heavier is safer. Not bigger necessarily, but heavier. On the page before the Mini, they have a short take on a BMW 535xi. 4042 pounds. Roughly the size of my old 1980 Malibu, but the weight of a DeSoto.

Sure, they're building them a lot safer these days, and a lot of that is due to crumple zones that deform in a controlled fashion. But a lot of it is also about putting weight in the right places.

Technology is improving, but I'm guessing that lightweight techniques of making a car stronger and safer are still too cost-prohibitive for mass-produced cars. When I see something the size of an xD, fully equipped, that can still come in at around 2000 pounds, THEN I'll be impressed by weight efficiency. But as things stand, if you want to make up some kind of index, such as dividing curb weight by length, today's cars are probably as weight-inefficient as they've ever been. Sure, they're also safer than they've ever been, but that actually helps with the argument that weight can be your friend!

boaz47 · October 2007

There does seem to be some smoke and mirrors in the new sub compacts. They also have solved the problem by being bigger than their forbearers. The Mini Cooper is only one example. The Versa is another. Just look at the Commercial for the Versa as they poke fun of other sub compacts and how they have solved that problem by giving you more room.

But looking at what a light year might be if we took a 1990 Civic Hatch for 10k+ or so new we would have bought a Compact that had a curb weight of 2127. It was 157.1 inches long and 66.2 inches wide and 52.5 inches tall. It was rated at 33 and 37. Now we have the Fit sub compact at 13k+ and it has a curb weight of 2514. It is 157.4 inches long and 66.2 inches wide and 60 inches tall and is rated at 33-38. The Versa is bigger and a bit heavier than both and gets 30 -34.

So it seems to me they are solving the problem that same way it has always been solved. Get bigger and add a bit more weight. It doesnt seem like the Sub Compact is a sub compact in reality. And looking at Scion after one generation we see bigger and more power is the same solution they have always used.

One mile per gallon doesn't seem like the sub compacts have come light years ahead of compacts to me.

andre1969 · October 2007

Just look at the Commercial for the Versa as they poke fun of other sub compacts and how they have solved that problem by giving you more room

I haven't noticed those Versa ads. However, touting the fact that your small car is bigger than the competition's small car is nothing new!

However, I do think small cars still have come a long way. For instance, I'd guess my uncle's '03 Corolla weighs around 2500 pounds. EPA rated 30/38. I had a '91 Civic rental once. It was a 4-door sedan, pretty nice interior. I always thought it had the 100 hp 1.6 4-cyl, but I'm thinking now it was the weaker 1.5 4-cyl. Anyway, the 1.5 is rated at 28/33. I guess something like that would've weighed like 2100-2200 lb?

I dunno how fast that Civic was "supposed" to do 0-60, but if I were to take a guess, I'd say about 15 seconds. I'm sure the buff rags and such had it pegged around 11-12. I think I've seen 0-60 times of around 9.5 for my uncle's Corolla. So, the cars are improving in the sense that they're giving you better performance and economy in a package that's bigger and heavier. I do often wonder though, if they could find a way to keep the weight and size the same, while making other improvements, how much the economy would go up? For instance, if you took a 2007 Civic's drivetrain (rated at 30/40 for the automatic) but were able to get the weight of the car down to what a 1991 Civic would have been, what kind of fuel economy you would get?

ateixeira · October 2007

They may have done it more than once, but this was definitely a Sentra.

I searched for "Sentra Sawzall" and got several hits to the article. I won't link them because Edmunds doesn't allow linking to other forums, but it's easy to find.

boaz47 · October 2007

That brings us all they way back to the idea that Americans might pay more for more but not often will they pay more for less.

andre1969 · October 2007

here's a link for the Sentra, which should be okay to post, since it's not a forum or message board.

I think it's interesting that just swapping out the wheels, saving 13 pounds at each corner, cut the 0-60 time from 8.6 to 8.1 seconds and the quarter mile time from 16.3 to 16.0 seconds. However, that was 13 pounds of sprung (or is it unsprung? I always get the terms mixed up...anyway, it's whatever is the "bad" one) weight, and also a narrower tire (195 mm versus 225) for less friction.

ateixeira · October 2007

That's unsprung weight.

Sprung means it is held up by the suspension.

Unsprung means the suspension has to fight that weight on bound/rebound.

With a lighter, smaller wheel and tire, you actually have a lot less rotational inertia.

Racers often say you should use the smallest wheels that fit over your brakes. :shades:

ateixeira · October 2007

Thanks for the link.

This is priceless:

nippononly · October 2007

I'd pay more for a 2000 pound Fit, better yet 1800 pounds, employing lightweight materials and high-tensile steel to achieve the weight savings. With 1800-2000 pounds of curb weight, and just using the little 1.5 and gearing it already has, the thing would be a ROCKET. Or, gear it taller for big fuel economy savings, I bet it could pull the same 0-60 it does now and 50 mpg FROM THE SAME ENGINE.

We are just so enormously overdue for automakers to start taking weight reduction seriously. :-(

Kinda makes you think: if Toyota spent the money they are already spending on the Prius batteries in a focused, intensive weight reduction program for the Corolla and Matrix, I wonder if they couldn't produce a faster car with the same fuel economy for the same money.

ateixeira · October 2007

See post 5264.

And...it's topless!

nippononly · October 2007

No, I'd like a complete car please! :-P

andre1969 · October 2007

that they couldn't have found a way to do fuel economy calculations, to see how much each one of those weight-reducing steps helped out in that regard.

I'm also impressed that they were able to cut off that much of the car and have what was left still be structurally sound. Although I wonder if you tried taking it out on some bumpy roads, maybe it would start to deform?

On the subject of wheels, the 1998-99 Dodge Intrepid had 205/70/R15's standard, whereas my 2000 has 225/60/R16. I wonder if swapping it to those narrower 15" wheels and tires would have any noticeable effect on fuel economy or performance? Overall diameter would be the same, 26.6". Weight would go down by 2-3 lb per tire, plus however much is saved by the lighter rim, and the tread width would be reduced by about 34" I guess?

Somehow, in my case, I have a feeling that all it would do is give the car sloppy cornering, without any real benefit in acceleration or economy. :sick:

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

paying more for "less" requires a certain level of discrimination, or stupidity, depending. :P

andre1969 · October 2007

paying more for "less" requires a certain level of discrimination, or stupidity, depending.

Well I think people have to at least perceive that they're getting "more" in some category, in order to part with their money. Either in quality, luxury, performance, or SOMETHING.

And it seems like improved fuel economy isn't one of those things most people associate with as a "more". I have a feeling that's why most hybrid cars are pretty well-equipped. Most people would probably balk at the cost of s stripper hybrid, but dump a load of nice features into one, inflate the price even more, and suddenly people think they're getting a good deal.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

I bought mine for "value"...bang for buck, that sort of thing. Given the high resale value, versatility, and zero problems, I think I was right. (for ONCE!)

boaz47 · October 2007

But I wonder? If in 2004 according to Edmunds pricing I could buy a Corolla, the bigger brother to the xA and today the Corolla is worth 10,188 from a dealer and 8210 trade in one has to wonder how many will feel as you do? Now consider that the Corolla gets 32-40 MPG and the xA gets 31-37 what advantage other than simply wanting a smaller car is there? Not that wanting small for smalls sake is a bad thing. With the Corolla a person will get better fuel mileage and a better resale value after 3 years. Plus they still make the Corolla. My question becomes why would one the average consumer give up fuel mileage for smallness? I understand your reasoning Shifty but you have to admit you are different. And Scion must feel the other consumers are not as different as you or Nippon. The replacement for the xA is the xD and compared to the Corolla still listed in Edmunds the Corolla still gets better fuel mileage and is even 100 pounds lighter. Plus it lists for 45 dollars less. So based on 2004 figures the Compact is a better deal than the "new" subcompact. Unless the xD is no longer a sub compact and if it isn't then Scion has no sub compacts after only three or four years. Or do you disagree?

andre1969 · October 2007

The Scion xA still had a cheaper sticker price than the Corolla. IIRC, they basically came in one trim level, fully-equipped, with the only option being stick or automatic. They had power windows standard and a few other niceties that you had to pay extra for on the Corolla.

One thing I'll say for the xA, compared to the Corolla, is that it doesn't give up much in front seat comfort. Now that may not be saying much from my perspective since I don't find the Corolla comfortable to drive, but when you figure the xA is about 2 feet shorter, yet doesn't really seem any worse.

With the xA though, you do give up some back seat legroom. My uncle's Corolla is pretty impressive in the back, IMO. The xA's not bad for its size, but I can tell the back is tighter. The xA also gives up trunk space big-time, compared to the Corolla. Now I'm not talking TOTAL cargo area, as you can fold down the back seats of an xA (I think you can on a Corolla too, but being a sedan it's not as versatile), but the area behind the back seat. The Corolla's trunk is about 14 cubic feet. That's midsized by today's standards. The xA is "rated" at 12 cubic feet, but to utilize that 12 cubic feet that means you're packing stuff up to the ceiling in that tiny hatch area. If you want to still be able to see out the back window, I'd say you have like 7 or 8 cubic feet.

So if low price and "bang for the buck" is your priority, I'd say the xA would still win over the Corolla. Its fuel economy is a bit worse, but with the xA's lower price, a couple mpg when you're dealing with numbers in the 30's anyway, it would take you ages to break even with the Corolla's fuel economy.

I dunno how a Corolla is with the stick shift, but the xA is pretty quick. I think comparing automatic to automatic, the Corolla might've been a bit quicker. I know the xB was pretty slow with the automatic, somewhere around 11 seconds from 0-60. I've seen the Corolla automatic pegged around 9.5 seconds (I swear my uncle's doesn't feel that fast), but I can't remember any tests of the xA automatic.

nippononly · October 2007

But Corolla is a sedan - blecch! If my Echo had been available in a hatch in the U.S., I would have bought the hatch. Hatchbacks are so much more useful for carrying odd-size stuff.

Corollas are everywhere - their resale is somewhat suppressed as a result (flooded market). The same thing happens to Camrys, relative to other models in the Toyota line. I have yet to get much of a picture of how Scions will do for resale, but I bet they will do at least as well as Corolla/Camry.

And even today you can't get the Corolla as cheap as the Scion, even comparing to the new xD that replaced the xA. Comparably equipped at sticker, that is. Routine discounting on the ages-old Corolla will give it the edge in the real world, but that will change when the new model arrives in about 6 months.

Oh, and the handling comparison is no comparison: Corolla is understeer city, designed to be numb and smooth. The xA, partly thanks to its small size, is very nimble and a lot more fun to drive.

tiff_c · October 2007

With the xA though, you do give up some back seat legroom. My uncle's Corolla is pretty impressive in the back, IMO. The xA's not bad for its size, but I can tell the back is tighter. The xA also gives up trunk space big-time, compared to the Corolla. Now I'm not talking TOTAL cargo area, as you can fold down the back seats of an xA (I think you can on a Corolla too, but being a sedan it's not as versatile), but the area behind the back seat.

Has anyone sat in the back seat of the new xD? My gosh that thing has a LOT of rear legroom! The seats move back and forth so much. Amazing legroom in the xD.

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles