What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

iluvmysephia1 · January 2006

is they are sharing platforms with Hyundai and, in many cases I have read, people are preferring the Kia model more than the Hyundai model it competes with.

For just one simple example, on one of the Edmunds threads I was reading online today, one of the Edmunds' regulars, harrychezt, sat in a '06 Kia Rio and a '06 Hyundai Accent. He couldn't fit into the back of the Accent but he could fit into the back of the Rio, and he was comfortable.

Early reviews on the '06 Kia Rio are very favorable. Test drivers are digging it's quiet cabin, for instance. Kia has put several sound deadening layers in between the wheels and the cabin and it is paying off in the form of a quiet cabin ride. I have also read of reviewers stating that the Rio engine seemed "peppier" than the Accent, even though many of them say the Kia emits more noise during acceleration up through the low gears. Once the car has hit a low cruising speed the engine settles into a quiet hum. Several have commented on the Rio's quiet ride. I know this is true, since I have read them myself, I am reading everything I can get my paws on about this new "Euro" designed subcompact from Kia.

I am thinking I'll trade for one of them because I don't feel like paying extra for ghastly, for one thing. The '06 Rio in 5-speed form gets 32 city, 35 highway, certainly an agreeable set of numbers.

Now, it is true dependability figures are not great for Kia. I like to get my Kia in for anything it needs, whether a TSB is out on the rig or not. I have been treated great from the two Kia dealers I've sought service from. If a person keeps up their maintenance schedule and works hard toward keeping their Kia in tip-top shape, you can get what you want from your Kia vehice.

I am going a lot from my previous experience from Kia. I will also tolerate a repair here or there, even with a new vehicle, too, and I won't complain about it and include it on a new owner's driving survey. Skewing the data, you say? Well, no, it doesn't. It reflects customer satisfaction to handle the surverys that way, eight?

nippononly · January 2006

A future for compact trucks, boaz? Alas, I think not. The automakers have discovered they can make a stripped midsize pick-up for about $15K, and that there is no need to get much cheaper than that. All the people who wanted one as a cheap rugged runabout back in the day have since discovered they can get a brand new Korean car for about $10 grand, with as much longevity and durability as they really need, and much better gas mileage. And the fleets like pizza delivery will pay the $15K for the basic midsize pick-up, as that is less in 2006 dollars than these trucks cost back in 1986 dollars.

And UNLIKE subcompact cars, I don't see a lot of advantages to a smaller version of what is strictly a utility vehicle (the truck), rather than one sometimes or often driven for pleasure (the car). The agility, ease of parking, the handling, the joy of a lightweight vehicle, all are absent in a compact pick-up. You do not LOSE anything moving up to the next size. Even the fuel economy of the compacts was never that great - indeed, the Tacoma (the only one I know off the top of my head) maintained its FE rating with the latest generation, despite moving up from compact to midsize, and increasing in power by 20% (and by 0.3L in displacement).

I hope I have elucidated clearly what the differences are between cars and trucks in this regard. Subcompact cars have the biggest advantage of all - light weight is its own reward. Handling, agility, parking, maneuvering through city streets, the best fuel economy in the market, best of all the knowledge on the way to work each morning that it is just the right amount of car for the job it is used most often to execute. In that sense, it is the least wasteful way to own a car, if one has to own a car.

Subcompacts are not for everyone, but a lot more people would be perfectly adequately served by them than you might think.

andre1969 · January 2006

have a future, but only enough of a future for maybe 1-2 players. It's kind of like the ponycar market, where if you only have a 1-2 choices, there's enough demand that everybody's happy. But if every maker jumps into the market, it just gets too fragmented and nobody wins.

logic1 · January 2006

And to tell the truth do you ever think Urban flight will ever turn into a return to the city? Not as long as I am taking a breath I am sure. Those living in the Burbs see the city as pure crime waiting to happen.

Well, they must be looking through oddly tinted glasses.

In New York, Chicago, and LA, crime is going down while in surrounding suburban and smaller urban areas, crime is going up.

logic1 · January 2006

And you know, a great deal is said all the time about people wanting vehicles big enough to stuff all manner of poeple and gear into, but hey! Marriage and child-bearing rates are both on the decline! There are lots of people who just plain don't need all that space! Even childless couples don't need that much space. Now if you feel you do I have no quarrel about that - only you know what you use your car for. But rather than just ASSUMING that "bigger is better", as most Americans do, and never stopping for a second to examine your priorities, how about considering that if you mostly drive around solo, or with just you and a spouse in the car, you don't REALLY need all that space. And perhaps you could take it a little easier on the planet, save a whole bunch of gas money, and buy in to maneuverability all in one shot by buying SMALLER instead.

But storage space is your most consistent complaint about the Solstice/Sky.

Given the Kappa car's popularity with many people who probably otherwise prefer larger vehicles, it stands to reason you would appreciate a stealth lesson in less is more to those otherwise reluctant to listen.

logic1 · January 2006

You do not LOSE anything moving up to the next size. Even the fuel economy of the compacts was never that great - indeed, the Tacoma (the only one I know off the top of my head) maintained its FE rating with the latest generation, despite moving up from compact to midsize, and increasing in power by 20% (and by 0.3L in displacement).

One thing that gets me to wondering was why the Colorado with the I4 is so oft criticized. The I4 has more than enough oomph for hauling furniture, bikes, or towing your jet ski or small boats - in short, what almost every typical consumer not in the building or agricultural trades needs a truck for. It gets decent mileage. It is also a very smooth and quiet little engine.

Nevertheless, the small GM trucks are blasted for no V6 (and often for no V8).

andre1969 · January 2006

Well, they must be looking through oddly tinted glasses.

It's hard to change people's perceptions once something gets ingrained in their mind. For example, you could probably never convince my grandmother to move into DC, because she remembers all the rioting, crime, violence, and when DC burned. Nevermind the fact that nowadays some of those once burnt-out rowhouse shells now go for a cool Million $ plus, and these days you could probably dress a man up in high heels, a dress, and makeup, and name him Sue and he wouldn't get jumped!

But then on the flip side, a teenage girl's body was dumped less than 500 feet up the street from my grandma's house in the 'burbs, and a few years back I was mugged literally right outside my front door! :surprise:

Now granted, there are still parts of DC where you wouldn't want to get stranded. And there is still a lot of poverty and despair. But by and large, the Big City is not what they made it out to be in "Good Times". I'd say it's more like "Bob Newhart" nowadays...and I don't ever remember Bob getting mugged or Emily getting gang-raped, or Carol the secretary getting kidnapped.

andre1969 · January 2006

the Colorado got blasted is because its overall payload capacity and its towing capacity are actually down a bit over the S-10 it replaced. It's still probably more than adequate for most jobs, but it tends to still come in toward last place in most comparison tests.

logic1 · January 2006

It's still probably more than adequate for most jobs, but it tends to still come in toward last place in most comparison tests.

Clearly, appearance and comfort are an issue in this market segment and many feel GM does not match the competition.

But the I4 decently, and relatively economically, meets, (as you say) the needs of most jobs in this segment. But people still want the larger V6s (and in the case of the Dodge, even an available V8).

nippononly · January 2006

I hope you didn't mean to imply that I had some complaint about the amount of storage space in the Solstice, because I have no opinion on the matter and have never expressed one. But if you meant in general, then I might weigh in with the thought that NONE of the little roadsters in Solstice's class have much in the way of storage, so it is to be expected.

As for the Colorado, I am in agreement with you because I recently had one with the I-4 for several days. I was helping a friend haul out a ton of junk in his garage, off to the dump. We did many full loads above the top of the bed, the thing never felt strained. Hopefully, all of these smallest-class pick-ups will continue to offer a 4-cyl base engine for all the folks who use them for little things like driving their bikes and surfboards around. I should add that economical was one thing the Colorado was NOT, pulling around 18 mpg over two tankfuls of gas. But then it was loaded half the time.

Now that has no bearing on how competitive the truck's optional engine is, and in this case, I have no personal seat experience in one with the I-5. All the competition are V-6s, most are more powerful aren't they? I guess the presumption is that if you are paying for the optional engine, then you really need the power for towing or heavy loads, whatever. Most likely the I-5 is enough to meet the need for most buyers.

I am curious to see if the companies introducing new or revamped subcompacts this year see a decrease in sales of their compact cars as a result. I hope not, because that will make it more likely that they will be dropped after this model cycle. Chevy has updated the Aveo in a shorter-than-typical amount of time, while the Cobalt is beginning to age relative to its competition. Toyota has the Yaris against the 4 year old Corolla, while Honda has the Fit against the brand new Civic, some interesting contrasts. And wouldn't it be interesting if Ford reintroduced the Fiesta before they redo the Focus.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2006

All trends seem to indicate that yes people are moving back into cities, all over the world.....why? More opportunities there, smaller families, dropping population growth all over the globe.

andre1969 · January 2006

All trends seem to indicate that yes people are moving back into cities, all over the world.....why? More opportunities there, smaller families, dropping population growth all over the globe.

I wish that were the case here! I remember in the 1980 census the population of my small town was around 2,000 people. Washington DC, whose border is around 10-12 miles away, was around 650-700K people. I think nowadays DC's population is around 500K. As for my small town? Try 12,000 people. Now sure, 12,000 is still a drop in the bucket, but when you take the same amount of land and increase the population of it 6 times, you definitely feel the crowding.

logic1 · January 2006

I hope you didn't mean to imply that I had some complaint about the amount of storage space in the Solstice, because I have no opinion on the matter and have never expressed one. But if you meant in general, then I might weigh in with the thought that NONE of the little roadsters in Solstice's class have much in the way of storage, so it is to be expected.

Sorry. For some reason I thought you had complained about the Solstice trunk vis-a-vis the new Miata. Frankly, I think limited storage space in a car is liberating.

I should add that economical was one thing the Colorado was NOT, pulling around 18 mpg over two tankfuls of gas. But then it was loaded half the time.

I averaged around 20 mpgs in the one I rented. But all I had in the back was some light but bulky furniture. Given the weight and the truck geometry, I don't think you can expect all that much more without a hybrid or diesel.

Now that has no bearing on how competitive the truck's optional engine is, and in this case, I have no personal seat experience in one with the I-5. All the competition are V-6s, most are more powerful aren't they? I guess the presumption is that if you are paying for the optional engine, then you really need the power for towing or heavy loads, whatever. Most likely the I-5 is enough to meet the need for most buyers

I imagine the power is fine. My issue with the I5 is, as with all 5 cylinders - rough handling.

logic1 · January 2006

Washington DC, whose border is around 10-12 miles away, was around 650-700K people. I think nowadays DC's population is around 500K. As for my small town?

On the one hand, you have cities like San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Boston that are growing more dense.

On the other hand, you have urban areas like Washington, St. Louis, Detroit where the core city is being replaced by rings of development.

LA is unique. Both the central city and the surrounding area are growing. Many do not know this, but the greater LA area is actually more densely populated than greater New York. No, that does not mean you can find Manhattan density anywhere in LA. Rather the suburbs of LA are much more densely populated than New York suburbs.

Meaning of course LA could probably support more mass transit and more little cars than it does at present.

andre1969 · January 2006

of 5 small/midsize pickups in 2005.

Here are the acceleration highlights...

Tacoma, 4.0 V-6, 245 hp/282 ft-lb of torque: 0-60 in 7.8 seconds
Frontier, 4.0 V-6, 265 hp/284 ft-lb: 0-60 in 8.4 seconds
Ranger: 4.0 V-6, 207 hp/238 ft-lb: 0-60 in 9.2 seconds
Dakota: 4.7 V-8, 230 hp/290 ft-lb: 0-60 in 9.6 seconds
Colorado: 3.5 I-5, 220 hp/225 ft-lb: 0-60 in 9.9 seconds.

Here's all the stats, if anyone's interested.

While the Colorado was the slowest in the test, all things considered it didn't do too bad. For instance, it wasn't too much worse than the Ranger and Dakota. In real world driving you probably wouldn't even notice, unless you decided to drag race with one!

Also, the Colorado seemed to do a bit better in the quarter mile run. Time, wise, it barely beat out the Dakota, but as for MPH, it was nipping at the heels of the second-place Frontier, which would seem to indicate that what it lacked in lower-end grunt, it was starting to catch up in the higher revs.

Not bad at all, when you figure the deck is stacked against it. It still has the least torque of all these trucks, and is stuck with a 4-speed tranny, versus 5-speeds in the others (I'm impressed that Ford put a 5-speed in the Ranger) And on the plus side, the Colorado is fairly light...only the Ranger was lighter.

Oh, and Edmund's did observe some pretty poor fuel economy...it guzzled the worst in their testing.

logic1 · January 2006

Interesting, isn't it, in light of the topic here that Edmunds tested the trucks with the optional largest engines and automatic trannys.

These are meant to be more economical trucks. Why not test the base 4s with the manual? Testing trucks for acceleration strikes me as a mite odd as well.

Sports cars accelerate. Trucks carry loads.

nippononly · January 2006

back in the early 90s, I was working delivery - videos, not pizzas - and was using a roommate's Tercel to do it. That little car was pulling high 30s mpg doing that work, and I think it was rated around 35/42, or something like that?

Then the roommate moved, and I bought a recent vintage used Toyota pick-up (it wasn't called the Tacoma yet), and it got me around 24 mpg, rated the same as today's truck - 20/27 with the stick.

The talk of acceleration and fuel economy in trucks got me thinking back to those days. I don't know why you would ever want to race a RWD pick-up - the traction is awful with an empty bed and the handling is dicey too - so unless you were going to tow regularly or carry heavy gear for work or something, I don't know why you would ever get the optional engine.

And as far as fuel economy, we can fast-forward almost 15 years here, and find that the FE for both the Yaris and the Tacoma (4-cyl, stick) is basically unchanged. Now there's progress for you! :-/

logic1 · January 2006

The talk of acceleration and fuel economy in trucks got me thinking back to those days. I don't know why you would ever want to race a RWD pick-up - the traction is awful with an empty bed and the handling is dicey too - so unless you were going to tow regularly or carry heavy gear for work or something, I don't know why you would ever get the optional engine.

Exactly. Seems to me people in the market for a smaller pick up will never need the extra h.p.

And as far as fuel economy, we can fast-forward almost 15 years here, and find that the FE for both the Yaris and the Tacoma (4-cyl, stick) is basically unchanged. Now there's progress for you!

Two things probably are behind this> 1) the mad race for more h.p., even in the economy segment; and, 2) the ever increasing drain on the engine to power one thing or another in the car.

I heard a GM engineer give an interview on the radio the other day. He said in the coming years, technology advancements will probably wring another 20% or efficiency out of ICE.

He sees the possibility for better seals, fewer and more smoothly moving parts, computers allowing the engines to shut down and othewise working optimally at all time. He also says things such as moving over to small electric engines for steering (not all that popular currently) and a/c, etc., as opposed to power take off will help as well.

After that, he says further savings are going to have to come from weight reductions, better aerodynamics, and, ideally, moving to fuel cells, or straight hydrogen fuel or some such jump.

andre1969 · January 2006

to progress though. Back in 1992 I had a '91 Civic rental car. It was a 4-door, 4-speed automatic, and I think it had 100 hp from its 1.6/1.7 I-4. I averaged 29 mpg on that trip, mostly highway driving, never once used the a/c.

You had to really fake out its transmission to get much over 75-80 mph (like manually downshifting when a slight downhill slope came up, and flooring it till you got to around 85, and then you were fine unless a steep enough upgrade came up)

Well, nowadays my Intrepid would probably get around 26-27 mpg in similar driving, even with the a/c on, yet would have no trouble with those higher speeds. And something like an Impala with the 3.4 (or the newer 3.5) would probably get even better economy in that type of driving.

But then again, a 1991 Civic with the automatic and larger engine really isn't designed for maximum economy, either, so maybe comparing a stripper '91 Civic to a newer car, it would've looked better? But when I see modern full-sized cars getting the same kind of economy as that little Civic I had, I think of just how far we've come.

andre1969 · January 2006

I guess if it was your only vehicle, and had to do double duty as both a workhorse and your daily transportation, there would be some need for decent acceleration. If you're just using it to haul junk around and tow, then towing/cargo capacity is more of a concern.

logic1 · January 2006

Yes. And your Intrepid is much cleaner as well.

The one thing the GM engineer did not really dwell on is that many of the proposed advances to improve ICE mphs will also jack up the price. (although electric steering and electric powered a/c is probably less expensive than pto)

In order to make the advances saleable, gas has to go up in price. Consumers will only accept the hit in the pocket book up front if it means getting less of a hit later.

snakeweasel · January 2006

The Accent... I do not know what the numbers say, but I could NOT get behind the driver's seat, after adjusting for my comfort, w/o sitting sideways I am not a tall guy, either.

You must be, I am 6 foot 3, 240 pounds and fit behind the wheel of an Accent just fine. For a car that cost me under 10K its a fun little car to drive. Rides not the best but it handles well.

snakeweasel · January 2006

On the one hand, you have cities like San Francisco, Chicago, New York and Boston that are growing more dense.

Not Chicago, since 1990 Chicagos population increased by less than 80,000 or about 2.8% while the surrounding counties have had as much as 71% increases in population. In contrast the suburb of Aurora had an increase of over 67,000 in population, Naperville (right next to Aurora) had a 54,000 increase (Both well over 60% increases).

Many do not know this, but the greater LA area is actually more densely populated than greater New York.

Going by the US Census for 1997 (don't have time right now to search for more recent data but will try later) the New York Metro area has a population density of 1,955.3 people per square mile making it number 1. The second most dense is Honolulu, HI at 1,449.3 followed by Chicago, Miami and Philipelphia. the LA metro area ranked 37th.

logic1 · January 2006

Well, we are drifting. In the last few years new housing in Chicago has been increasing, while the suburbs are decreasing. Naperville and Aurora have not been growing at their rates due to single family homes. Rather, people in the larger Chicago burbs are living in multi-family homes.

I should have been more precise on LA. Two mountain ranges meet in the middle of LA. A UCLA study recently reported in the Architectural Digest makes the point a significant percentage of LA's territory does not accommodate residential or commercial dwellings. In other words, the people live in far more dense conditions than raw data would suggest. Meaning that mass transit is more feasible than many think.

nippononly · January 2006

a 32.5-foot turning radius in my subcompact? Can't get that at any price in a midsize car. And yet it doesn't buck like a horse on the freeway, I guess they did a decent job with the suspension. Very maneuverable in parking lots.

Speaking of which - it fits easily in all those "compact" parking spots they have these days. Try that with your Camry.

logic1 · January 2006

Going by the US Census for 1997 (don't have time right now to search for more recent data but will try later) the New York Metro area has a population density of 1,955.3 people per square mile making it number 1. The second most dense is Honolulu, HI at 1,449.3 followed by Chicago, Miami and Philipelphia. the LA metro area ranked 37th

I see you are from the Chicago area. Check out the pages 50 and 51 of the February Chicago Magazine.

The US Census Bureau changed its definition of Metro area since the 2000 Census. Under the new definition, LA is the most densely populated Metro area, with 7,068 people per square mile, followed by NYC with 5,309 and Chicago with 3,913.

I believe the UCLA study I mention above used the new Census Bureau criteria. I have always been very suspicious about how the census does with undocumented residents in both LA and Chicago. Here in NY, I do not think there are quite so many. I may be wrong.

Long and short, LA is ripe for more compacts and mass transit

logic1 · January 2006

a 32.5-foot turning radius in my subcompact? Can't get that at any price in a midsize car.

Tight turning radii are worth their weight in gold.

Speaking of which - it fits easily in all those "compact" parking spots they have these days. Try that with your Camry.

I don't recall off hand the average "compact" parking spot size in the bay area. Here in NYC, I have seen a few so small even a good size motorcycle would have trouble parking in them. I suspect creative developers are playing games with mandatory parking spot regulations.

andre1969 · January 2006

eh, just do what I do with my Silverado...pull in and then climb out the rear window! :P

hpmctorque · January 2006

"I hope I have elucidated clearly what the differences are between cars and trucks in this regard. Subcompact cars have the biggest advantage of all - light weight is its own reward. Handling, agility, parking, maneuvering through city streets, the best fuel economy in the market, best of all the knowledge on the way to work each morning that it is just the right amount of car for the job it is used most often to execute. In that sense, it is the least wasteful way to own a car, if one has to own a car."

All the discussions and comparisons on this topic have been about subcompacts vs. larger vehicles, but outside North America there's another category, the microcars.
As the most prolific supporter of subcompacts here, nippononly, how interested would you be in something smaller than the Echo/Yaris/Fit, if it were available in the US? Let's assume for sake of discussion, not the tiniest of microcars, but one with dimensions similar to a early '70s Civic, with a 1,000-1,200cc engine, but with modern styling and attractive interior, plus safety and convenience features (A/C, PWs, etc.). The fuel economy of
such a car would probably be in the mid 40s or even upper 40s mpg.

A lightly optioned new MINI comes close to what I'm describing, dimensionally, although it may be a bit larger than the first generation Civic. The MINI is also more expensive and a little heavier than what I envision. In addition, it falls short on reliability and fuel economy, and is designed to run on premium fuel. And the original Mini was smaller than the car I have in mind for this "if subcompacts have appealing attributes, would sub subcompacts be even better?" discussion.

Your thoughts, nippononly and others? Let's not rehash the "in a world of large SUVs" safety issues, because, while they're valid, we already know that if they apply to subcompacts, of course they'd apply to sub subcompacts. A primary issue to debate here is how small is too small, for those who appreciate the attributes that nippononly has listed.

logic1 · January 2006

A lightly optioned new MINI comes close to what I'm describing, dimensionally, although it may be a bit larger than the first generation Civic. The MINI is also more expensive and a little heavier than what I envision. In addition, it falls short on reliability and fuel economy, and is designed to run on premium fuel. And the original Mini was smaller than the car I have in mind for this "if subcompacts have appealing attributes, would sub subcompacts be even better?" discussion

The Mini itself probably does not work well in this conversation as it is a niche car, marketed as more a fashion statement than economical transportation.

Daimler has considered exporting its Smart cars to the US. The problem is, even selling Smarts in Europe, Daimler is losing money.

My guess is that engineering the cars compliant with EU and NA standards pushes the price above what people want to pay for them. I am not sure, but wonder if Japan has reduced safety standards for what it calls the Kei cars so popular there.

Perhaps this is the market Chinese auto manufacturers should be looking to. China may have low enough production costs to compensate for making the very small compacts safe.

The other alternative would be a reduced standard in the EU and NA for city cars. Given motorcycles and bicycles are allowed on the roads, I am not sure why this is a problem with regulators.

nippononly · January 2006

Oh yes, bring 'em on! You are talking to someone who owned and drove one of those early 70s Civics, and loved it. I called it the peanut car for no particular reason.

You can get 50 to the gallon and still leap off the line faster than a V-6 family sedan (the limiting factor with cars of this type is usually tire traction, not the engine, because they are so light), while handling, cost of operation, maneuverability are all superlative. They have all the advantages of the subcompacts, plus 20%.

Now I am not here to make a marketing case for them, and I doubt they would ever fly in the U.S. "Bigger is better" is just too powerful a mantra for the American consumer.

But the folks in the Subaru crew claim that there have been sightings of the Subaru kei-class car, the R1e, around Sube's U.S. headquarters, and if they wind up selling it here, I will HAVE to check it out. I figure it's a brave move if they do, though, as the last time they had a tiny car here (the Justy) it sold miserably.

Now what you said is important:

"with modern styling and attractive interior, plus safety and convenience features (A/C, PWs, etc.). The fuel economy of
such a car would probably be in the mid 40s or even upper 40s mpg."

I want most of those things. I don't want some stripper commuter with bare metal in the cabin and no amenities. I like A/C, map lights, a tilt wheel, multiple seat adjustments, cruise control, stuff like that. The power package (windows mirrors locks) I am less bent on getting, but I know most people want that stuff. If it WERE to have those amenities though, I would be prepared to pay compact-car money for it.

Is there any chance this will ever happen in America? No. It will take a long long time for people to unlearn the misleading lesson of the early 90s SUV boom: bigger and heavier is crucial for safety.

logic1 · January 2006

Is there any chance this will ever happen in America? No. It will take a long long time for people to unlearn the misleading lesson of the early 90s SUV boom: bigger and heavier is crucial for safety.

I have never subscribed to the bigger is better theory.

That said, it must be acknowledged that it takes more engineering to make compact cars equal to the mid-sizes in occupant safety and knee and foot crush standards.

What we need is some brilliant engineer to figure how to make the safety device in 'Judge Dread', where a non-toxic styrofoam type product instantly coated the occupants when they crashed.

boaz47 · January 2006

"Is there any chance this will ever happen in America? No. It will take a long long time for people to unlearn the misleading lesson of the early 90s SUV boom: bigger and heavier is crucial for safety."

Nippon the thing that will be hard on micro cars is the very same thing I experienced with my motorcycles. Size does matter and when you are driving these tiny cars and you get hit by a pickup or SUV you lose. Safety in most peoples eyes is not related to single vehicle accidents. It is related to the worse fear people have, getting hit by another car. Right or wrong people all feel they are better drivers than they might be and "they" aren't going to be the cause of an accident. So safety will always be an issue between large and tiny vehicles. It is not if you have an accident to most people. It is when are you going to have one and if it is a side impact or head on the little car will simply be a preformed box to keep you in for your dirt nap. The 98 Highway traffic commissions study will always hold true. Physics will always hold true, when a 7000 pound vehicle gets T-boned by a 2000 pound sub compact you have a chance because much of it will impact as low as your frame. However in the reverse if you and your loved one are in a Sub Compact, or heaven forbid a Micro car, you lose because the 7000 pound vehicle will pound you with its bumper about halfway up the door line.

There will almost always be those who wish for a simpler form of transportation. I and most people understand that. But the majority of people think in terms of how hard they have have worked to afford their "stuff". They will buy the most house they can afford. Live in the best part of town or county they can afford. They will always want the most vehicle they can afford. It is the American way of life and unless we fall into another depression I don't think you or I will see that attitude change. I agree with you that it would be nice if all of these types of vehicles could be offered so those that are looking for something more out of the mainstream could find it. But every time conditions seem to favor small lightweight vehicles people have migrated to larger vehicles as soon as the conditions in our country improve enough to let them do so. I am just talking from a historical perspective here.

hpmctorque · January 2006

"The Mini itself probably does not work well in this conversation as it is a niche car, marketed as more a fashion statement than economical transportation."

Exactly.

In terms of dimensions, weight, and price positioning, the Ford Fiesta (remember that one from the late '70s), Ford Festiva, Justy, Metro, and, yes, even the Chevette (with RWD, no less, remember?) are closer than the MINI to the what we're thinking about here, but the MINI is closer to the mark in terms of materials quality, convenience features, safety, and driving dynamics. So the trick would be to mass market, not niche market, a modern day equivalent of the first group of cars mentioned above.

"I want most of those things. I don't want some stripper commuter with bare metal in the cabin and no amenities. I like A/C, map lights, a tilt wheel, multiple seat adjustments, cruise control, stuff like that. The power package (windows mirrors locks) I am less bent on getting..."

Since the car would be narrower, the right side window crank and lock would be within reach for most drivers, but these back seat controls would remain less accessible, so power windows and locks could be an upgrade.

"...the folks in the Subaru crew claim that there have been sightings of the Subaru kei-class car, the R1e, around Sube's U.S. headquarters...Is there any chance this will ever happen in America? No."

I think it will happen. In fact, by 2010-2012 there will be cars of the type we're describing offered by several manufacturers, driven by fuel prices, traffic congestion, demographics, and envireonmental considerations. I would expect that leather and other luxury upgrades will also be offered, once the demand for the more basic (but not '70s/'80s basic) trim levels is satisfied. Then, once this happens, one of us will introduce a discussion on the virtues of microcars. No, wait, why stop with cars when we're on a roll? With genetic engineering, humans may be downsized into smaller, more agile, more food efficient and environmentally friendly beings, without losing the attributes of regular sized '06 gen folks. That, then, will create a market for submicros (NOT/not!).

nippononly · January 2006

LOL! I love the genetic engineering bit! :-)

You are very optimistic, I think, in your prediction that by 2010-2012 there will be several kei-class cars in the U.S. Smart has been on again off again so many times, and can't seem to make money even in Europe.

Now in Japan the kei class is a gold mine for pretty much every automaker. But that is under a specialized set of conditions (pretty much a total absence of open space in the larger cities, with tiny streets and heavy traffic to boot) that is not present anywhere here except a few of the larger cities (San Francisco being one).

Specifically, I don't think environmental considerations will be enough to sway many U.S. buyers just a few short years from now. I am not sure what you mean by demographics, but I don't think traffic congestion will do much to spur sales of tiny cars either. People (not including me) want big comfy mobile living rooms to wade through the traffic, not tiny cars. And fuel prices? Yeah, they might be a spur if they really jump up, and I am talking a 50-100% jump here, in five years.

But what automakers have to remember in that case is not to try to make the tiny cars race-worthy, but rather power them and gear them to save gas as a priority, or have two versions of each model - the thrifty and the fast.

dino001 · January 2006

Big, if not the biddgest part of the safety is accident avoidance (so-called "active safety"). Almost any small car is better and easier to handle than any big vehicle, especially during emebergency manouvers. More predictable, i.e. easier to control. Thus while, yes you are more likeley to survive a crash in a tank, you are less likely to be involved in one in a compact car - at least the one in which you had some chance to avoid.

Now, even during the crash itself, the marginal safety gain due to weight is widely overstated. It does make big difference in T-bone and some head-on collisions, but whenever an still and stronger object is involved (say wall, tree), the smaller car would actually be in better shape. Why? Simple physics. More mass at the same speed equals more energy to disperse during virtually the same time. Add to it difference in structure (body on frame vs. unitbody) and much longer history of crash-zone development (late 60s small cars vs. 80s big ones) and the "bigger is better" is no more.

I would say the really safest vehicles overall are probably mids- and full-size sedans (combination of decent control, decent mass, good crash behavior), followed by sports cars and those very good compacts (exceptional control with decent crash behavior and safety features), then by SUVs (yes, mass still matters), minivans (not so good generally), cheap small cars (usually poorly developed and poorly equipped), and the pickups, which are probably the worst of all due to their inherent poor dynamic characteristics. But this is just my opinion.

Mr_Shiftright · January 2006

it all depends on how you define "sub-compact". If you mean a Mini or a Scion Xa or cars of that class, I think Americans WILL continue to embrace them more and more---since they represent great value and no discernible lack of safety (that is, they don't "look" unsafe).

HOWEVER, if you mean Smart cars and little Obvios or whatever they are called, no way in Hell most (99%) of American will drive anything that small IMO.

dino001 · January 2006

Big, if not the biggest part of the safety is accident avoidance (so-called "active safety"). Almost any small car is better and easier to handle than any big vehicle, especially during emergency maneuvers. More predictable, i.e. easier to control. Thus while, yes you are more likely to survive a crash in a tank, you are less likely to be involved in one in a compact car - at least the one in which you had some chance to avoid.

Now, even during the crash itself, the marginal safety gain due to weight is widely overstated. It does make big difference in T-bone and some head-on collisions, but whenever an still and stronger object is involved (say wall, tree), the smaller car would actually be in better shape. Why? Simple physics. More mass at the same speed equals more energy to disperse during virtually the same time. Add to it difference in structure (body on frame vs. unitbody) and much longer history of crash-zone development (late 60s small cars vs. 80s big ones) and the "bigger is better" is no more.

I would say the really safest vehicles overall are probably mid- and full-size sedans (combination of decent control, decent mass, good crash behavior), followed by sports cars and those very good compacts (exceptional control with decent crash behavior and safety features), then by SUVs (yes, mass still matters), minivans (not so good generally), cheap small cars (usually poorly developed and poorly equipped), and the pickups, which are probably the worst of all due to their inherent poor dynamic characteristics. But this is just my opinion.

hpmctorque · January 2006

"Smart has been on again off again so many times, and can't seem to make money even in Europe."

I'm not sure the Smart is a good example. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Smart built and assembled in Europe? Europe is a comparatively high cost manufacturing zone. Costs could be reduced if the car were built in a low cost country. Also, the Smart may not have been designed with manufacturing cost efficiencies as a high priority.

"Specifically, I don't think environmental considerations will be enough to sway many U.S. buyers just a few short years from now."

For sure, environmental considerations alone have little effect on buying decisions, but combined with other considerations they may be more significant.

"...I am not sure what you mean by demographics..."

Smaller households.

"...I don't think traffic congestion will do much to spur sales of tiny cars either. People (not including me) want big comfy mobile living rooms to wade through the traffic, not tiny cars..."

I think there's a sufficiently large number of people who feel as you do to justify a business case for importing sub subcompacts from low cost countries.

"And fuel prices? Yeah, they might be a spur if they really jump up, and I am talking a 50-100% jump here, in five years."

From what I've read, price volatility and supply uncertainties affect peoples' car buying decisions even more than absolute price levels. I think a variety of factors, from higher oil prices driven by a rising demand from China, India, and other industrializing countries, to terrorist supply disruptions, could conspire to shift the demand curve for smaller cars.

bumpy · January 2006

As the most prolific supporter of subcompacts here, nippononly, how interested would you be in something smaller than the Echo/Yaris/Fit, if it were available in the US? Let's assume for sake of discussion, not the tiniest of microcars, but one with dimensions similar to a early '70s Civic, with a 1,000-1,200cc engine, but with modern styling and attractive interior, plus safety and convenience features (A/C, PWs, etc.). The fuel economy of
such a car would probably be in the mid 40s or even upper 40s mpg.

I'd buy one too, but without all the foofy gear that Nippononly wants in his. Problem is, to get a car that small to meet American expectations of interior space, you'd have to build it as a dedicated 3-door, 2-seat hatchback and there wouldn't be enough sales volume to justify developing a specialized configuration like that. Having said that, I'll take a diesel with mpg in the mid to upper 60s.

fred222 · January 2006

No. It will take a long long time for people to unlearn the misleading lesson of the early 90s SUV boom: bigger and heavier is crucial for safety."
If you follow the news you will often see head on crashes between small late model cars with all of the modern safety features with occupants wearing seat belts and older full size pick-up trucks where the driver was not even wearing a seat belt. Invariably, the driver of the truck walks away and several people in the small car die.

nippononly · January 2006

I dunno. Just last month we had headline news here of a drink driver in an Explorer goign head on into a Corolla, and you should have SEEN the Corolla. Or what was left of it, that is. I was STUNNED AND AMAZED to hear that all the occupants of the Corolla (four) survived. The Explorer was not so lucky.

It is less cut and dried than SUV-safety-believers think.

nippononly · January 2006

I am all for basic AND foofy versions! :-)

The problem in the subcompact class has always been that no foofy versions were offered, and people who INSIST on the comforts had to pass them up for unnecessarily larger cars. I am sure this problem would only be accentuated in the microcar class.

As for back seats, the Civic peanut car had 'em and I carried college roommates in them. Just because a car is tiny does NOT mean it has to lack back seats. It had no cargo space of course with the seats up.

And that wouldn't have to be specialized: heck there are plenty of 3-door 4-seat hatchbacks out now, soon to be joined by the '07 Yaris in the U.S.

nippononly · January 2006

I hope you're right about a future proliferation of microcars. For the sake of clarification, we should probably call these cars you are referring to microcars, to distinguish them from subcompacts, which are a separate legitimate class of cars including xA, Accent, Rio, Aveo, and the like right now.

hpmctorque · January 2006

"For the sake of clarification, we should probably call these cars you are referring to microcars, to distinguish them from subcompacts, which are a separate legitimate class of cars including xA, Accent, Rio, Aveo, and the like right."

Sure, that works for me! But what shall we call the ~660cc four wheelers sold in Japan, China, and other countries of Asia?

boaz47 · January 2006

Avoidance is a dream in reality. If you have time to avoid it the accident may never happen. But once it does the game is over. I gave credit to the single car accident example mentioned. But when big car hits micro car, and it happens more than single car accidents, then the micro car loses. The Average driver just doesn't see themselves as the cause of an accident to running into a tree, wall or building just doesn't enter into the decission process when considering what to place your loved ones in. But even here in Edmunds people are always complaining about the other driver. They say "others" aren't good enough of skilled enough to drive and are doing far too many things while driving to be safe. It is the other person people fear in an accident. If we take a moment and consider how prevelant that thought process is all you have to do is ask yourself one question. If you are told you will be in an accident next friday at an intersection near your home and the accident will involve you and your family and the two vehicles are a Fit and a suburban which vehicle would you rather have you family in? The accident is going to happen but you have a choice of vehicles. It is that thinking that has driven the safety assumption. It isn't going to change any time soon.

kyfdx · January 2006

nano-cars?

hpmctorque · January 2006

Okay, it looks like we just introduced a new category, nanocars - one for each foot.

imidazol97 · January 2006

If the backseats and fronts were anything like the Civic I drove belonging to a friend they had be college age to be agile enough to get in and be able to sit in them. But most small cars are used by two adults.

carlisimo · January 2006

I just call them kei-cars, but nanocars fits them well.

But I was surprised that they aren't always as small as you'd expect. Especially the nanovans that you can get in Japan like the Suzuki WagonR and Honda Life Dunk Diva; they look big enough to put a small 4 cylinder engine in them (and four people!). Some of them have an optional electric AWD system, for some reason.

And some of the small ones look like a lot of fun, like the Suzuki Cappuccino, old Honda Beat, and Daihatsu Copen, all roadsters (FR, MR, and FF respectively). With a turbo, some of them have horsepower in the 80s.

So if we call them nanocars and go up the list... I'd call the Focus a compact, the Fiesta a subcompact, and the Ka a microcar. In Europe, subcompacts (and maybe microcars?) with decent engines get called "superminis" but that just adds to the confusion.

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles