What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

hpmctorque · December 2010

"...curiosity 'sparked.' " Good play on words there!

ateixeira · December 2010

Yeah, but even the B2B warranty is 5/60, and that's still quite generous.

What I'm wondering is now that they've improved, could they drop it? I'm sure dealers lose a nice profit from not selling extended warranties.

isellhondas · December 2010

Oh, the dealers can still sell extended warranties.

Remember, it's only the powertrain that has the 100K warranty. Everything else is 3/36.

So they will offer a "wrap" that way, everything is covered to 100K.

It's highly unlikely an engine or transmission will fail before 100K but it wouldn't be unusual to lose an A/C compressor or have something else break.

ateixeira · December 2010

Everything else is 3/36

Nope, 5/60:

http://www.hyundaiusa.com/assurance/america-best-warranty.aspx

ateixeira · December 2010

Small cars
Chevrolet Cruze
Honda Civic 4-door models (except Si) with optional electronic stability control
Kia Forte sedan
Kia Soul
Mitsubishi Lancer (except 4-wheel drive)
Nissan Cube
Scion tC
Scion xB
Subaru Impreza sedan and hatchback (except WRX)
Volkswagen Golf 4-door
Volkswagen GTI 4-door

Minicar
Ford Fiesta sedan and hatchback built after July 2010

Good to see lots of little cars made the list.

Also - note that Hyundai beat not only Honda and Toyota, but BMW, Mercedes, and Volvo as well:

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/21/iihs-crowned-66-top-safety-picks-in-2011/

isellhondas · December 2010

I didn't know that.

Some people will actually buy cars because of the length of the warranty even though they are paying for that warranty in the price of the car.

They can still "wrap" that 5/60 warranty to match the powertrain.

ateixeira · December 2010

Indeed, but there will be fewer takers, is my guess.

Note that only the 5/60 portion of the warranty transfers to a 2nd owner. That actually hurts residuals, because as used cars it has less of a warranty.

fintail · December 2010

"Beat out" via better "safety" or more models tested?

stever · December 2010

Some people will actually buy cars because of the length of the warranty

It's definitely was a factor in the last two new cars I bought. I got the Quest instead of the Villager twin for a couple of reasons, but one was the longer powertrain warranty (5/60 v 3/36). Didn't need it, but you never know.

And the 89 Voyager had a special 7/70 promo out when I got it. It had a transmission reputation and the "free" longer warranty was a factor. I used that one (tranny was fine, but had the head gasket fixed 3 times).

If your product is so good, why wouldn't you warrant it at least as long as the competition? The additional claims expense couldn't be that much to worry about; otherwise the manufacturers wouldn't sell their own extended warranties.

ateixeira · December 2010

Good point, but it's IIHS that chooses the models to test, not the manufacturers, so it's not like Hyundai cheated.

Looks like they haven't conducted all the tests on many Benz models, maybe they focus on affordable vehicles. :P

tifighter · December 2010

Photos of the new Japanese Vitz have hit the webernets...

fintail · December 2010

But at the same time, it doesn't show a superior performance either.

They did test a couple of E variants - not the most affordable, which performed well, no surprise there.

But no doubt the latest crop of Hyundais are competent in that regard too...I can't think of a brand that has jumped so far in such a short period.

hpmctorque · December 2010

Good info on the new Vitz/Yaris. It looks like they moved the gauges from the center of the dash to in front of the driver, which is an improvement. It'll be interesting to learn more details about the U.S. version, including the introduction date.

tifighter · December 2010

Here is a better article about the new Vitz/Yaris.

nippononly · December 2010

That is a much better article about the Yaris, and wow! A year from now the Yaris may actually compete in its class on other merits besides just low price.

The RS is what we will get here, of course. They won't bring over the 1.0 or 1.3.

Which is good, because it's the only one that comes with an available stick. And it looks like Yaris will be moving to use of a CVT instead of a TC automatic come MY 2012.....

They go on a bit about the new exterior styling, but really they have gone from cutesy jellybean to needlessly angular, with no stop at anywhere attractive along the way....

As for body roll, they are claiming it is all under control in the new model, and it's about time - that has always been a big problem with this model since the first-gen Echo in 2000.

iluvmysephia1 · December 2010

skips! Amongst the IIHS winners are the...

Mitsubishi Lancer (except 4-wheel drive)

plekto · December 2010

Yeah, as I mentioned earlier, it's a really "off of everyone's radar" vehicle. Yet the drive-train is reasonably reliable, handles great, gets decent enough fuel economy, does well in a crash, has huge rebates at the end of the year(typically), and few people have one, so it stands out a bit from the crowd. It's not an Accord or something like an IS250, to be sure, but for what it is and how dirt cheap you can get one, it's tons better than most other entry level cars.

Drive one and you'll wonder why you're even bothering with the entry level Mazdas and Hondas and rubbish like a Yaris. Me, I like good fuel economy, but I won't drive something that feels like a plastic-lined tin can or handles like a rental vehicle.

http://www.carsdirect.com/build/options?zipcode=91107&acode=USC00MIC101B0&restor- e=false
$15,241 with fog lights added. Yeah, not desiring the Fit or the Mazda 2 that much after seeing that price.

Trust me that no Yaris will go up a 5% grade in 5th, which means MPG drops like a stone and it sounds like a scared dog as it struggles at 4000rpm or so to keep up with traffic. And that's with the manual.(thankfully the OP wants manual - the automatic is a travesty)
A quote from a review I ran across "It takes considerable planning to merge in Los Angeles traffic". With 250-300hp large cars and SUVs around you, you're simply relegated to the slow lane most of the time with 100hp.

I've been there, and done that, and any on-ramp that puts you into the fast lane is extremely unpleasant with that kind of HP/weight ratio. Truth to be told, even my old 1984 Buick was faster to get into traffic than my econobox. (it was a Mitsubishi Mirage, but essentially the same as a Yaris in power). I had to rev the thing in 3rd to get up to speed without getting killed getting onto the 101 freeway in Hollywood.

They offer a 143HP PZEV engine that has lower compression(for no extra charge). This gets a very good 24/33 mpg. sacrificing 3lb-ft of torque is not noticeable but gaining 2mpg overall is nice. I like that they offer a higher mpg option as opposed to trying to win the HP contest like the rest.

nippononly · December 2010

Not thinking I will convert you to the subcompact way of life or anything here, but I have never yet met the freeway on-ramp I couldn't be at 65 mph at the top of in my 106 hp Echo.

That's just a bunch of drivel written by people used to driving 300 hp sport sedans, trying to sell magazines.

Now I think it is important to get the stick shift in small-engined cars like mine, so perhaps they were driving an automatic. Automatics typically impact the acceleration MUCH more in the subcompact class than they do in bigger cars.

plekto · December 2010

Where I live, there are lots of hills and stupidly short on-ramps and while cars will slow down to 40mph most of the time to let me in, it's extremely difficult compared to something with 140-160hp as is the norm for most 4 cylinder cars these days. I never got much above city ratings for my car as a result of having to rev it harder to keep up with traffic.

Case in point - Top Gear drove a Prius around its test track opting for speed instead of driving it like a grandmother and it got 18mpg. Saying that a car can get you 30+mpg is fine and all, but that requires barely touching the throttle. Catch-22 unless you live in Illinios or Indiana where it's almost completely flat. It's also why a typical Civic will get virtually the same as a Yaris in mixed driving. And also why cars like the Smart don't live up to their hype - if you have to floor the pedal all the time, you're getting no fuel economy.

tifighter · December 2010

...while we're at it, the 2012 Hyundai Accent appears to be a major step up in the looks department...

plekto · December 2010

True. But that's also what happens when you all hire designers from the same half dozen design schools. Is it an Accent, a Focus, or a Matrix? You can't tell from 500ft away.

nippononly · December 2010

Well, my Echo has proven contrary to the notions you present there - 40 mpg is the rolling average for my commuting and suburban driving, and I am at 65 mph at the top of every on-ramp on which a Civic or Accord could achieve the same result. Those results are over a period of almost 6 years and 100K miles.

And as you know, I live in the Bay Area and am in San Francisco quite a lot, on the hills, around the town.

I think the magazines and TV shows do well testing cars for their speed and handling and providing a standard of reference for the same, but they don't do a good job of presenting what the day-to-day experience over a long period of time will be with a car, so stuff like the Top gear piece on the Prius are red herrings - not representative.

Yes, they got 18 mpg over 10 miles because they had it floored the whole time, but what about the next 1000 miles in the hands of the Prius buyer who will achieve 50 mpg without even trying? Rolling average: 49.68 mpg.

Look at it this way, I NEVER "barely touch the throttle" in the Echo - that is a fun car to get up over 4000 rpm where the VVTi kicks in and the power surges - and as you can see my mileage is well over the "30+" you mention.

I have a personal theory that Americans are programmed to want/need big cars with even bigger engines, so we are fearful to believe that the smallest cars can routinely get very good gas mileage while being plenty fast enough to keep up with traffic. And yet it is so, if only we could give it a try for ourselves, professional car reviewers be darned.

tifighter · December 2010

True. But that's also what happens when you all hire designers from the same half dozen design schools. Is it an Accent, a Focus, or a Matrix? You can't tell from 500ft away.

If you are Hyundai, does it really matter? So long as it doesn't scream 'Excel' it is a win. To be mistaken for older, more established/mainstream brands is a big stride for a Korean brand that was regarded as 'sub-prime' by most American consumers less than 10 years ago...

stickguy · December 2010

I like it. Cleaner looking than the Fiesta. More mature maybe (and I certainly am a tad older than the normal demo for something like this!)

I liked the Elantra, but would have liked it a whole lot more as a hatch. Hopefully this is out by late january when I go to the philly auto show (at least as a no-touch preview)

hpmctorque · December 2010

I agree with you regarding the "need" for high horsepower. Hot performance is nice, but not necessary. The automotive press has brainwashed a lot of people over the decades on this matter.

plekto · December 2010

True. It is a win for them, but the styling overall in the industry is so utterly devoid of any soul. At first I hated my dad's new CTS and the more I see it, the more I like it because it really does harken back to the 60s and 70s when cars still had distinctive styles across the brands.

dave8697 · December 2010

I've had a 4 cyl for 10 months now and finally saw a couple mpg improvement over my V6 car until the cold weather hit. Then the difference dropped to near nothing. A marginal gain in mpgs for giving up 120 ft-lbs.

nippononly · December 2010

Yeah, in the big cars the 4-cylinder won't give you much of an advantage over the V-6 unless your driving is all city.

But the next-gen 4-cylinders are now making an appearance, starting with Ford and Hyundai, and they will provide significant mileage advantages over the V-6s in models that offer both, I think.

ateixeira · December 2010

Case in point - Top Gear drove a Prius around its test track opting for speed instead of driving it like a grandmother and it got 18mpg

Except that test is COMPLETELY meaningless since the average Prius never sees a race track.

Euro mags show their bias against the Prius because they never test it in the environment it was meant to be in - city traffic.

Notice how they always compare to diesels by taking a road trip? They always focus on highway driving, where a diesel is more at home.

Top Gear is a great show, but accuracy and fairness is not exactly their strength, in fact most of their humor stems from them being wrong about 95% of the time.

plekto · December 2010

My point was that in hard city driving, hybrids and the like don't get much better MPG than the normal cars that they are based off of. If the vehicle has too little torque and too tall gearing, you have to push it really hard to keep up with traffic. And that kills your fuel economy.

The Prius is set up to make you play its video game. It trains you to eek out every last bit of economy by following the gauges and so on. But it's incredibly frustrating to be behind one in traffic as it creeps along at about 2-3mph a second while accelerating like a 90 year old man is at the wheel. Now, the Prius also doesn't have a manual option, and that's where my original comment comes into play. No sane person with a manual is going to lug the engine at 1500rpm while accelerating just to get the rated MPG. They will down-shift and doubly so on a hill rather than watching their speed creep down to 50-55mph.

The second that you shift into 4th on a Yaris, your mpg drops down a whole class(30mpg, tops - try not shifting into 5th for a whole tank and report your MPG). If you live where there are hills, you'd be better off with a vehicle that can maintain 70mph and keep up with traffic while staying in 5th gear.

100hp just isn't adequate these days when you can sacrifice 2-4mpg and get 140-160 HP alternatives. Also, as I pointed out, the Yaris has the worst ratings in the entire industry other than the Smart when it comes to real world insurance claims for injuries. It's just too small and too flimsy when everyone is driving 3500-6000lb monsters. (average weight of passenger vehicles in the U.S. is now around 4500lbs if you include SUVs) A 1 ton difference in weight is impossible to design for and stay within the Yaris' minuscule budget. (note - Mini does it, but it's 10K more)

crkyolfrt · December 2010

Your interpretation of fewer rpms, always equating to better mpg is flawed.
Many dif engines, and configuration, and state of tune (I don't mean maintenance-wise, I mean design) run more efficiently at varying rev ranges, than others. Honda engines, for example, actually give more economy at higher revs than their competitors. Engine design, state of tune, intake/exhaust design etc all dictates this.

I feel the racetrack test of the Prius was very telling actually. And that aggressive throttle test, wouldn't have to be confined to just the Prius. The principle of being extra aggressive will strongly impact most car's economic capabilities that are designed to (generally) perform their stated ratings at relatively low revs. While it may initially sound like I am contracting myself, not so. A perfect example of what I am talking about would be any of the very high performance V8 (and even V6) muscles cars like a Mustang or Corvette. Look at the relatively impressive FE rating of a Vette on a gentle highway cruise. But, start racing the Vette around with lots of two-lane passing and quick starts etc, and you will see the fuel consumption skyrocket. Same principle even with the V6 in the new Mustang. Yes, it has impressive FE ratings, but step just outside the expected economic usage and the reality of those 300 horses will have you looking for a refill often.

Now, all that said, there are other parameters that muddy the waters even further when you modify the driving habit that the mfgr is hoping/assuming you adopt. Again, the Prius is a good example. The engine size, style and design is not really an efficient power-plant for a car the size and weight of a Prius (even minus battery weight). Its design is completely dependent on the intended usage to be in conjunction with electric assist. So if you go to the race track, or even just start bootin' it around, now you are using lots of gas AND the electric assist, which uses engine power to recharge that very electric assist so in aggressive usage, the engine is actually using gas to perform two duties. Moving the car AND charging the batteries. And doing all this with an engine that was designed to be assisted gently, not being the constant primary source of urge. The little bit of braking regenerative recharge to the batteries, while helping, is nothing really when looking at the bigger picture of driving aggressively.

And as one more example, take that little Yaris with an auto. Now start trying to keep up with aggressive freeway traffic with 4 or 5 passengers with the A/C on. Not only is the engine out of its element through pumping losses of a torque convertor and the restriction of only 4 speeds to allow the engine to perform in its best rev range for the load, but it simply has too many expectations of it. The throttle now is being floored most of the time with quite a bit of the time spent even in 3rd gear screaming its guts out. It has gone beyond that 'sweet-spot' rev range and now all FE bets are off. You can improve the FE a bit by eliminating the TC loss and offering one extra gear to assist keeping the engine in rev range of urge but with FE also in mind, by opting for the 5 speed manual, but you are still left with a small engine with a big load.
If the expected use of a Yaris was to spend most of its life, with a big load at fast speeds, it would actually be more efficient-capable with more displacement.

This is why, for example, an 03 to 06 Corolla 1.8 for example, actually had higher FE highway ratings than the smaller engined, lighter, Echo/Yaris 1.5 litre.

crkyolfrt · December 2010

"The engine size, style and design is not really an efficient power-plant for a car the size and weight of a Prius (even minus battery weight). "

meant to say on the end of that...

If being used most of time, as urge or battery recharging (which in colder climates is represents a lot of the time even if not being aggressive). This is why diesels more consistently perform closer to their rated FE numbers, throughout all 4 seasons and in all hands and driving styles/habits, than their gas engined competitors. In towns with aggressive use, is where a diesel REALLY shines...not just on the highway.

nippononly · December 2010

Not true.

03-06 Corolla 1.8, highway EPA rating = 38 (auto)
Echo 1.5, highway EPA rating = 40 (auto)

The manual Corolla was fairly impressive, making 40 on the highway if memory serves, but the manual Echo still beat it at 41.

Echo was 2100 pounds when the Corolla was going from 2500 (-2002) to 2700 (2003-).

The Yaris was and still is around 2300 pounds. Nothing touches it for weight except the new Mazda2. I would characterize both of these models as small engines pulling a SMALL load, and the FE reflects that.

Now we have these new 4-cylinder engines incorporating all the latest tricks including DI, and in the compact class we are starting to see 40 mpg ratings even under the new EPA testing methodology.

The question is, will the subcompact class be deemed too cost-sensitive to bring these engine innovations to them as well? Or will the automakers deem it necessary to meet ever-tightening fuel economy standards? I am sure the Yaris's engine could see a 45 mpg rating with the next-gen model, for instance, but it won't because they won't make the effort due to cost. That is the Toyota way - cheap out and keep the purchase price low.

But will Ford incorporate the same improvements in its Fiesta 1.6 as it is about to for the upcoming (2.0?) in the Focus? If so, we could see that engine's rating rise to 43-45, giving them extra ammo in the battle to keep their average corporate FE from falling too low with all the F-150 sales.

crkyolfrt · December 2010

First, I am using Cdn EnerGuide ratings. They are like your EPA, only more optimistic. To equate to your gallon- subtract 20% off these numbers.

I'm reading them right out of the 06 book.

Corolla hwy - 5 speed - 53
auto - 50
city 5 spd - 40
auto - 36

Yaris hwy - 5 speed - 51
auto - 49
city 5 spd - 41
auto - 40

I think that given the weight difference the most impressive number here is the city Corolla manual tran figure. As we are starting to notice, many car ratings are now listing as autos as getting the nod for FE in town. So for the Corolla to be only ONE mpg less in city than the Yaris (which everyone would agree is the smaller and lighter of the two cars and actually built for city use more than the Corolla) is a great indicator of how well sorted Toyota has done with their entire setup with the 1.8 and std tran in the Corolla.

IMO, just because your EPA numbers show otherwise (by a small amount) does not negate the point I was making regarding the inefficiency of too small an engine in too big/heavy a car and/or if driven beyond the normal expected parameters.

Interesting that you mention Fiesta and Mazda2 in this example, because the bigger, 20 hp greater engined heavier car (Fiesta) here in Cd, gets higher FE ratings than the Mazda2, so actually further supported my point. Planting an auto instead of the std just exemplifies that even more so.

Some of these super high numbers they are getting is coming at the expense of some pretty complex technology, (that in some brands, even while still under wty they are having a hard time fixing and debugging...just think Equinox as only one of quite a few examples) but imagine the costs later on down the road once out of wty? I think the best cars to have for the next decade (unless we get more diesels...and even those have a lot more complexity to meet ever more rigid emissions stds) have been between 03 and 09. The extra FE they are getting out of new ones will probably not pay off in the end when you start paying to have that technology 'fixed' and you can't drive your car even at reduced fuel mileage until you do.

A lot of what is going on now is to cater to the NA political green effort. Meanwhile, 3rd world countries are still spewing their dirty exhaust into the same atmosphere as ours and in far greater numbers.

Balanced tech, we just need some balance..

nippononly · December 2010

Interesting that you mention Fiesta and Mazda2 in this example, because the bigger, 20 hp greater engined heavier car (Fiesta) here in Cd, gets higher FE ratings than the Mazda2, so actually further supported my point. Planting an auto instead of the std just exemplifies that even more so.

Yes, but that's because Ford gave the Fiesta super-tall gears (with two more ratios in the automatic vs the Mazda2) to achieve extra FE.

I would posit that it has little to nothing to do with the increased size of the Fiesta's engine, and EVERYTHING to do with the Fiesta's gearing, which makes it drive like a dog in higher gears (and which is why it is more than a full second slower to 60 mph than the Mazda2).

When they gear them to be fast and fun, the FE suffers. When they don't, they can achieve some higher EPA numbers. Not rocket science. Of course, if they made them faster by leaving the gearing the same and adding expensive technology like DI, we could have the best of both worlds perhaps......but they probably won't, because they are trying very hard to meet a specific and very low price point. :-(

crkyolfrt · December 2010

About 2 or 3 weeks ago, I guess when site was still the old format, but not sure, i read a review or test on the Fiesta or one of the small new cars. And at the end they had comparo comments about the Fiesta, Mazda2, Fit and i think Yaris. Yesterday i spent an hour trying to find that test and while i found various site pages that came close, I never did find that those same comments. Do you know where they are, cuz wasn't you who test drove the Fit etc and wrote a good post on your test drive? I figure you must know that review Edmunds did?

ateixeira · December 2010

My point was that in hard city driving, hybrids and the like don't get much better MPG than the normal cars that they are based off of. If the vehicle has too little torque and too tall gearing, you have to push it really hard to keep up with traffic. And that kills your fuel economy.

I don't think that Top Gear episode represented city driving at all.

Think about it - they drove around a track with no traffic at all, at the Prius' maximum possible speed.

I commute in DC city traffic every day, and let me be totally clear about this - THAT NEVER HAPPENS.

Never, ever, ever, ever, ever!

Traffic, around me at least, is the exact opposite - you creep along slowly, never full throttle. Hybrids can creep using electric power only. Diesels get 0 mpg and idle constantly. At least hybrids aren't burning fuel while idling.

I think half of my commute is with my car at idle. Start/stop alone would make a big improvement.

The only time you could use more than 20-40% throttle here in DC is at 4 o'clock in the morning, and cops would think you're a drug dealer.

Top Gear may have simulated a drug dealer escape through the streets of DC at 4am, but that's about as close to city driving as they got.

ateixeira · December 2010

http://www.autoblog.com/2010/12/27/ford-expanding-start-stop-technology-to-non-h- ybrid-models/

There you go, that's what you need for city driving...

nippononly · December 2010

Actually no, I hadn't read that comparo and would be VERY interested to do so! If you find it again please link it in here. :-)

There WAS a comparison of the '09 Fit Sport vs the '10 Euro-spec Fiesta, which was interesting enough, but no-one has bothered to include the Yaris in a comparo in quite a while, as far as I know. Too bottom-of-the-barrel I guess.

crkyolfrt · December 2010

ok will do..but it was u that really liked the std tranny Fit right? And said you could spent all day in the seat, but wouldn't want to have to in the Yaris? You have an Echo now? Or who am i confusing u with? If it's not you I might be able to find that thread cuz that comparo might have been linked.

nippononly · December 2010

Yup, that was me. The Yaris's seat isn't terrible, but I much prefer the Fit's seat.

I am now getting calls from that dealership, claiming that if I was serious about cross-shopping the Fit, then I drove the wrong car. I should have driven the xD, and they can do BIG discounts right now on the xD (which supposedly has no-haggle pricing) because it is the end of the year.

I don't really want a Scion, and the xD in particular is almost as big as the Matrix (I prefer a smaller car, as some here will have discerned! :-P), but maybe if I get a minute I will go over there and drive one....

stever · December 2010

We liked the xD better than the Fit. I don't think I'll mention your post to my wife though.

nippononly · December 2010

What about it did you like more?

stever · December 2010

Liked the shape quite a bit better (more hatchy, like the old Rabbit/Golf than the mini minivan Fit), liked the more upright seating position, seemed to have better road manners on the interstate, and it seemed set up a little better for roof racks. We just tested the manual. I thought the Fit and xD both shifted good and the manuals both seemed peppy enough.

Liked the blue color but it chips easily. The Fit is roomier, but we could thought we could live with the xD just fine. And yeah, we like minivans, but in a smaller car, we tend to like a hatch or boxier shape more. Transit Connect appeals to us. Have to admit the C-Max looks pretty good in the pictures though, and it resembles a Fit (at least more so than the xD).

Obviously more people like the Fit, and it'll have better resale. I sometimes wonder if Scion is even going to be around next year!

Let us know what kind of ballpark figure gets thrown your way.

oregonboy · December 2010

According to Wikipedia, the xD and Yaris are built on the same platform, so it can't be all that big.

"The xD is... essentially a mildly elongated five-door Toyota Vitz. The Vitz is a three-door marketed in the U.S. as the Yaris. Thus, the five-door Yaris was not offered in the U.S. market when the three-door and sedan were launched; however, as of 2009, the five-door Yaris will be offered in the US."

Steve's concern about Scion's future appears to be valid. Their sales are WAY down from pre-economic crash days. I would think that a $0.75 jump in the price of gas would get them back on track over-night. :P

(Assuming that a gas-price jump didn't send the economy into another tailspin.) :sick:

iluvmysephia1 · December 2010

the new 2011 Scion FR-S drift-able coupe and sedan.

2011 Scion FR-S Coupe

There was online confirmation on a FT-86 enthusiast's website the other day that Toyota still intends to sell the base model for a price in the low 20's.

hpmctorque · December 2010

I like the appearance of the xD more than the Fit too. I don't think I'd let Scion's questionable future stop me from choosing that brand, since I'm confident Toyota would stand behind warranties and most parts if it decided to fold Scion into Toyota. Sure, it would be more difficult to find certain Scion body and trim parts in 12 or 15 years than for a Honda or Toyota, but by that time the car would be close to used up anyway.

michaellno · December 2010

I've looked at both the xD and the Fit (prev. generation) and there are pros and cons to each.

With the xD, as has already been noted, it's a size up from the Fit, Yaris, Fiesta, etc. I think of it as more of a Corolla sized hatch - same 1.8L 128 HP engine, IIRC. Decent amounts of room, and the rear seat slides forward and back, to increase rear seat legroom or luggage space depending on your needs. I didn't like the dash at all, especially the counter intuitive tach / speedo combination. Gimmicky for no apparent reason.

The Fit, OTOH, is a nice sized package with lots of flexibility. The one thing I noticed when driving it was that there wasn't really a good place for my left foot when not using the clutch .. has this been addressed with the new version?

ateixeira · December 2010

That drives me nuts - Hondas are supposed to be driver-oriented and they often forget a dead pedal.

In a clutch car that's inexcusable. I want one even if it's automatic!

nippononly · December 2010

The new Fit has a dead pedal and maplights, two things missing from the old model that I would miss if I didn't have them.

They offered me $1000 flat off any new 2010 Scion in stock, but among the xDs they had only automatics remaining. :-(

They did have an xB manual they wanted about $16,000 for, but they ruined the looks of the xB when they restyled it, not to mention it has piss-poor fuel economy now.

All of the reviews on-line, including Edmunds, said the xD is OK as an inexpensive people-mover, but don't expect anything in the way of driving dynamics. And as michaell noted, the gauges are just dumb, with the speedo and tach rotating counter-directionally to each other, and both in the same gauge face. I didn't bother to drive one.

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles