What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

snakeweasel · November 2007

Why can't a reviewer be as good a judge of fun as an owner?

Moor time behind the wheel. more familar with the car.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2007

Here's a pretty fair review: Doesn't sound like THAT much fun, though.

http://www.whatcar.co.uk/car-review/smart-fortwo-coupe/2705/

I'd guess the convertible might be fun to drive. You know how it goes---the best model is always the rag top, always the biggest engine, always the most options.

boaz47 · November 2007

I think we have to add that in all the years they have been selling the Smart in Europe, where they are supposed to like mini cars and fuel makes 4 bucks a gallon seem like a great deal the Smart has been in the Red. If the Brits, Germans, French, Italians, or Spanish can't find enough in them to make them sell in the black with fuel about twice what our is why would we make it a success here? Didn't Suzuki try and sell a small two seater and it fell flat on its grill?

The representative for the Smart Car at the LA Auto Show said that driving across the country to get to LA they got an "Honest" 40 MPG. This was on the News this Morning on our local KTLA. Doesn't sound like we will be getting much for giving up a rear seat.

nippononly · November 2007

"Since it is mainly a commuter car for city driving do you really want a manual?"

Oh GOD yes! I wouldn't have it any other way. My current commuter is a manual, as have been all the ones before it.

snakeweasel · November 2007

I think we have to add that in all the years they have been selling the Smart in Europe, where they are supposed to like mini cars and fuel makes 4 bucks a gallon seem like a great deal the Smart has been in the Red.

You also have to take into consideration that Smart also sold the Fourfor and a roadster both IIRC didn't sell well. Those two models could be the reason for Smart being in the red. Eliminating them and just keeping the Twofor might be a different story.

snakeweasel · November 2007

Then you don't have my commute, if you did it would take you a week maybe two before you're trading that manual in for a automatic.

lilengineerboy · November 2007

Then you don't have my commute, if you did it would take you a week maybe two before you're trading that manual in for a automatic

That would probably prompt me to move or change my lifestyle. I have no idea why people sit in traffic for hours, that seems like a waste of time (and gas) to me.

jlawrence01 · November 2007

My two friends driving SMART cars reported 50 on the highway and 44 on the city but both were inb the break-in period.

bumpy · November 2007

Saturn Astra. Wasn't it supposed to be here by now?

nippononly · November 2007

It's due late November. But it's not a subcompact, it's as big as the Matrix and Mazda3s.

bumpy · November 2007

IMO, "late November" is a week off at best, and some people (not to point fingers) think anything smaller than an LS400 is a subcompact. :confuse:

robertsmx · November 2007

CanadianDriver has a review on Astra. GM is marketing it as a Civic, Corolla, Golf competitor, so not being compared to likes of Fit and Yaris.

Well, we're discussing Smart as a subcompact when it is really a micro-car... comparable to Kei cars in Japanese market (or is it even smaller?)

texases · November 2007

Yes, the Smart's a class of one in the US, so I guess it gets lumped into the subcompacts. Did see a CR blurb on last year's Canadian turbo diesel Smart, 0-60 in 22 seconds...gulp...

thegraduate · November 2007

They should've revised that to say:

0-30 : Sooner or later
0-60 : Eventually
0-100: Hopefully

bumpy · November 2007

Well, we're discussing Smart as a subcompact when it is really a micro-car... comparable to Kei cars in Japanese market (or is it even smaller?)

The old fortwo was the only non-Japanese car to qualify under the kei regulations. The new is just a bit too big, IIRC.

british_rover · November 2007

I am thinking about getting one. I can't remember if we had discussed it in this thread or not.

michaellno · November 2007

The Astra goes on sale in the US on 2 January 2008.

The Corsa (one size smaller, expected to compete with the Fit and Yaris) may come to the US in 2010 or 2011 .. it'll be the next generation Corsa. Not sure what body styles will show up here ... I'm hoping for the 3 and 5 door hatches.

snakeweasel · November 2007

I have no idea why people sit in traffic for hours

Well its not exactly hours maybe an hour give or take round trip but those stop lights with mile long back ups makes manuals a living hell.

The reason to do it? It beats starving to death.

snakeweasel · November 2007

The Canadian website has the 2008 doing 0-100Km/hr (0-61) in 13.3 seconds. Enough to keep up with most city and suburban driving.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2007

That 0-60 would make it (easily) the slowest car sold in America.

lilengineerboy · November 2007

I have no idea why people sit in traffic for hours

Well its not exactly hours maybe an hour give or take round trip but those stop lights with mile long back ups makes manuals a living hell.

That is a full hybrid's dream. You can spend all that time rolling forward on battery power, with the engine off.

The reason to do it? It beats starving to death.

Debatable.

snakeweasel · November 2007

Maybe so but it would easily keep up with most traffic accelerating from a traffic light in most cities and suburbs.

snakeweasel · November 2007

That is a full hybrid's dream. You can spend all that time rolling forward on battery power, with the engine off.

Until the batteries wear down and the engine kicks in.

british_rover · November 2007

I have driven a 1.0 with an automatic and a 2.0 with a manual. The 2.0 is the way to go for sure. The 2.0 is the way to go Better interior, better exterior styling, sharper suspension and hugely impressive stereo. Doesn't steer as sharp as the MINI does but it is a much more comfortable highway ride.

qbrozen · November 2007

Better interior? Please elaborate.

british_rover · November 2007

Ehh more interior options I mean. I don't think all of the different interior colors available on the 2.0 are available on the 1.0

qbrozen · November 2007

ah. i see.

british_rover · November 2007

I gotta borrow another V2.0 manual from my dealer down the block when it comes in. I want to take one overnight this time and drop it back off in the morning. Now that they have a few more cars in I should be able to do that no problem. The C30 is so short with such a tight turning radius I can actually turn around at the top of my driveway which is great. The only other car that has ever been able to do that was the MINI.

Hmhh I wonder if I can snag one for thanksgiving...

Oh I saw a P1800ES in new haven yesterday. It looked in very good shape and was in orange.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2007

Not disputing that, only mentioning that it's a downer for marketing.

snakeweasel · November 2007

We drove the 2.0 with an automatic tranny. It did shift smoothly almost couldn't feel the shift points. It handled well and it did move pretty good.

They didn't have the 1.0 and since it was one of those drive events they didn't have manuals.

snakeweasel · November 2007

Truthfully how important is a 0-60 time for someone looking for an economy car?

jlawrence01 · November 2007

Truthfully how important is a 0-60 time for someone looking for an economy car?

How important is it to be able to merge in with traffic on the Kennedy ... oh, Most of teh cars are doing 70, not 60 mph.

texases · November 2007

Given approximately equal price and economy, very important (Yaris). I know, Smart (may be) better (I'm waiting for a comparison test), but getting onto a freeway that's going 70 requires some umph. 20 years ago 12 s 0-60 was commonplace, not now, even for subcompacts.

snakeweasel · November 2007

How important is it to be able to merge in with traffic on the Kennedy ... oh, Most of teh cars are doing 70, not 60 mph.

Can't remember when the last time I got on the Kennedy when traffic was going faster that 35-40. Last time was a Sunday afternoon and traffic was going at the break neck speed of 10MPH.

andre1969 · November 2007

20 years ago 12 s 0-60 was commonplace, not now, even for subcompacts.

Yeah, 0-60 in 12 seconds is definitely on the low end these days. But probably perfectly adequate for most driving situations. Heck, in most situations, if I tried to do 0-60 in 12 seconds, I'd rear-end whatever was in front of me! :sick:

texases · November 2007

Sure, 95% of the time, no problem, but there's that 5% (in Dallas). Kinda like the pilot's comment - flying is hours of boredom separated by moments of terror...

Mr_Shiftright · November 2007

Biggest complaint against the xA and xB was "power", and they could do 0-60 under 10 secs. A manual xA could do 0-60 in about 8.6 to 9, and people were whining.

The gravest danger of underpowered cars is (in my experience) when you find yourself stuck in the right lane of a freeway (say behind a vehicle that has suddenly slowed down too much) and then trying to merge in to the next lane to the left when you yourself are stopped or nearly stopped.

My 300D Benz was 0-60 in something like 15 seconds and it was truly frightening in those types of situation.

People are crazy nowadays, You need power for self-defense. (not you Canadians, you are very polite drivers).

thegraduate · November 2007

The scariest thing acceleration-wise I have ever experienced was trying to merge onto a 70MPH Limit Interstate (Which equals 80+) in my 130hp, 4 Speed Auto 1996 Accord. I had the pedal floored for a good 15 seconds to get to 75 or 80. I believe that car runs 0-60 between 10 and 11 seconds. I had people flashing their lights and honking, but after waiting over 5 minutes, I had to go when I found a decent hole.

0-60 in 10+ sec

Here's a vid running 25-70. If you say 3 seconds to 25MPH, it runs the 60MPH in 10 or so, based on this video, although it is a slight (3-5% maybe) grade. It's not fast, by any means, but adequate 99% of the time.

snakeweasel · November 2007

One time me and a friend time acceleration during regular driving around town. There wasn't one time we got to 40 MPH in under 10 seconds.

andre1969 · November 2007

One time me and a friend time acceleration during regular driving around town. There wasn't one time we got to 40 MPH in under 10 seconds.

Yeah, that's pretty much my experience, too. Now sometimes if I'm merging onto the highway, I'm going to need the acceleration. There's a back exit from my job that puts you right on a highway, and it can get a little scary. Part of the problem is that the entrance ramp takes a VERY sharp right turn before merging onto the highway, so that limits how much speed you can build up. I can't take that curve in my pickup at any more than maybe 30 mph. And honestly, most other drivers don't take it much faster.

However, acceleration isn't the issue...once or twice, just out of curiosity, I've punched the pickup just to see how fast it would be going at end of that merge lane. 70-75 mph. Speed limit on that road is 55. About the only time the flow of traffic would be more than, say, 65-70, would be in light traffic situations where there's plenty of time to merge in. Whenever I get on that road, it's usually moving at around 50-60, and tightly packed. Finding a spot to squeeze in is the problem...not getting up to a fast enough speed.

When I go up to Pennsylvania for my car shows, I notice that many of the on-ramps to I-83 and such are much less generous than the highway on-ramps down here in Maryland. For awhile they were doing construction around York, and the on-ramps would pretty much be reduced to a stop sign with no merge. Something like that can be scary no matter how fast your car can accelerate.

bumpy · November 2007

The gravest danger of underpowered cars is (in my experience) when you find yourself stuck in the right lane of a freeway (say behind a vehicle that has suddenly slowed down too much) and then trying to merge in to the next lane to the left when you yourself are stopped or nearly stopped.

That's a bad idea no matter what you're driving. If the speed differential is more than 20 mph or so, you shouldn't be lane jumping in the first place.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2007

Granted, but what do you do? Sit there and eat a sandwich and dial 911?

sooner or later you gotta make your move.

bumpy · November 2007

It's not that big of a deal. If traffic is just slowing down, it will get going again before long. If traffic stopped completely and stays that way, there is a good reason for it and you can drive around that reason on the shoulder.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2007

I'd rather shred rubber and get out of there! :shades:

kreuzer · November 2007

cars be safe (Example: escape severe injury or death) if it was at a dead stop and a large truck, SUV or other, rear ended it going at a high speed say 40+mph?
I'm just curious to see what others who know the laws of physics much better than me think.
What about large cars under the same conditions? I understand the more metal that you have between the occupant and the other car increases the odds but really by how much?

Mr_Shiftright · November 2007

The dynamics of accidents are too complex to predict any outcome based on size or weight. You could be in an Abrams tank and still get a rear view mirror imbedded in your head, or other freakish thing.

Race cars are among the lightest and smallest vehicles on earth and people survive 200 mph crashes in them.

People always counter-argue "Yes, but all things being equal, a big car is safer" but even that doesn't wash.

Accidents are too complex and unpredictable, and that's why despite huge technological advances, we still lose 43,000 people a year to them.

I'd say that a mandatory 1 month jail term for not wearing a seat belt would save far more lives than heavier cars with armor plating over them.

andre1969 · November 2007

ars be safe (Example: escape severe injury or death) if it was at a dead stop and a large truck, SUV or other, rear ended it going at a high speed say 40+mph?

Well, a rear-end collision is a totally different dynamic from a front-end collision. In this case, one of the most important factors could very well be how well-designed your seats are. A big car with crappy seats (too low, poorly designed headrests, etc) might hurt you more than a little car with well-designed seats. Now as a result of the impact, the smaller the car, the more easily it's going to get thrown forward at a greater speed, so you have to take that into account. Now if you have, say, a Scion xA and a Lincoln Town car, and the vehicle doing the rear-ending is an Expedition, the heavier Town Car won't get pitched forward nearly as brutally as the xA. But if it's a Greyhound bus, dump truck, or tractor trailer doing the hitting, the extra bulk of the Town Car is probably negligible.

I forget all the nuances of the physics behind deceleration and such, but I do remember that if you have two 4000 pound cars hit head-on at 50 mph, they should stop dead. So basically, each driver decelerated from 50 to 0 instantly. However, if a 4000 lb car doing 50 mph, a 2000 lb car coming the other way would have to be doing 100 mph for the impact to cancel out and the cars to both stop dead. So in this case, the 4000 lb car decelerated from 50-0 instantly, whereas the 2000 lb one has to decelerate from 100-0...a much more brutal force.

Anything less than 100 mph, and the result is that the 4000 lb car doesn't get totally stopped, but is still moving in its original direction, whereas the lighter car has not only been stopped from moving forward, but has actually been thrown backward.

Of course, this is all theory, and doesn't take into account the energy absorbed in crumple zones, friction of the tires, gravity, etc.

Oh, another problem with trucks, SUVs, etc, is that they tend to sit up higher, so when they hit you, they override your bumper and come into contact with the much more vulnerable parts of your car. So they can often mess up any car, no matter how big it is. Years ago, there was an accident in Baltimore where someone was in an OJ style Bronco, trying to run from the cops. He hit a '95-96 style Caprice copcar, head on, at some ridiculous speed. The Bronco pretty much ceased to exist from the firewall forward. The Caprice? Pretty much obliterated back to the C-pillar, as the Bronco over-rode it and basically stripped the body from the frame. The police officer was killed instantly, while the Bronco driver just suffered bruises and scrapes.

ateixeira · November 2007

So I parked facing it, just to see the contrast.

bumpy · November 2007

cars be safe (Example: escape severe injury or death) if it was at a dead stop and a large truck, SUV or other, rear ended it going at a high speed say 40+mph?

Sure. One woman I know with a Toyota Matrix got rear-ended by a Toyota pickup going about 60 mph. The Matrix was totaled since the unibody bent behind the front doors, but she came out with nothing worse than some soreness from the seat belt. A bigger vehicle would have just pushed the Matrix farther forward.

andre1969 · November 2007

A bigger vehicle would have just pushed the Matrix farther forward.

That probably depends on the speed that the car gets hit. For example, if you hit it with another Matrix at 10 mph, or I ran into it with my pickup at 10 mph, the damage would probably be about the same...even if I just kept my foot on the gas and kept pushing that Matrix along at 10 mph indefinitely.

Once you get up into higher speeds though, the heavier vehicle is going to hit harder. Now eventually, there probably gets to a point any extra weight doesn't matter. For instance, getting hit by a 200 ton locomotive at 60 mph, it doesn't matter if it has a few thousand tons of train behind it or not!

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles