maybe you don't 'need' an suv to get to the house in tahoe, or just to get home, but it can make the experience easier. maybe she is living below her means. maybe she wants to buy american. maybe she lives in a trailer. there are a million possibilities. my question is, is there a combo lincoln/scion dealer?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Can it be that most buyers are so caught up in (a) advertising hype, (b) rumors and half-truths (especially safety-related ones) and (c) relying on their cars to project a fab image for them, that they have abandoned all common sense?! :confuse:
I would say the answer must be yes, to judge by this and other discussions at Edmunds, and more's the shame.
But hey, they will say, it's a free country, right? :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Mr. Shiftright's observation on the Lincoln Navigator . . .
The answer to each of his questions is simple, just as it is for most of these individuals who drive these types of vehicles when they really don't have a valid application: ego, and the image the vehicle projects.
If everyone was comfortable within their own ego, and just wanted to be his or herself, everyone would be driving something more sensible and affordable. Certainly, some of the folks who drive large expensive vehicles, especially SUVs, can afford to do so, but most can't. They either lease or have very large car payments.
I have a thought: I wonder what would happen to the automobile industry if buyer's were required to pay cash to purchase a car, i.e. no financing or leasing?
c'mon, you KNOW nobody can commute on a modern highway on a moped....
LINCOLN NAVIGATOR ANSWER: Well, the answer "because she can" wouldn't sound so great if it were extrapolated to say "tools". What if your neighbor buys an commercial grade table saw to cut quarter round molding? Or buys a set of golf clubs but only 5 irons?
I'm not saying we need to FORBID her from her SUV; I'm only wondering why, rich or poor, driving this vehicle makes any sense to her. I'd like to know what she's *thinking*. I'm ready for enlightenment.
Sooner or later we all WILL have to kick the gasoline habit, so I'm thinking what's the least painful way....gradually weaning our way down to smaller size cars until new technology kicks in, or suddenly having our large cars ripped out of our hands by skull-crushing energy costs? Like the panic of 1973 except that it never abates!
The handwriting is on the wall in terms of energy supplies IMO. Not too much time to get rid of bad habits. So if we ask ourselves why we are doing what we are doing, that might be interesting.....
I'm not saying we need to FORBID her from her SUV; I'm only wondering why, rich or poor, driving this vehicle makes any sense to her.
The thing is it makes sense to her, you may not understand it but it does. Its her money let her spend (or waste it depending on your point of view) as she sees fit.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I am going to go into full-blown road rage mode if this discussion turns into "I don't like SUVs..." well, you know the rest. Let's focus on subcompacts and not SUVs, please.
mdennish, if you buy in bulk, they'll often deliver... or so I've heard
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Not if they come with strollers. Why would the minivan segment even exist? They aren't exactly image mobiles. There is obviously market need for significant easily accessible volume when kids and their accessories need to be loaded and transported quickly before they start crying in a hot car that has been parked in the sun for a while.
No one ever needs an xA or a 325iT either. Anything that fit in an xA can fit in a Rio Syncho for half the price (a roof box only cost $200). A Focus wagon cost less than half of a 325iT, and can carry much more.
So where does this debate really boil down to? I'm not having/using it therefore it's morally wrong for you to have and use it.
Bottom line is that most people think they need something they won't ever use
Someone driving around in a Navigator is certainly using it . . . whether to its full potential is a different story altogether. Nobody uses the 184hp of a 325iT to its full potential all the time either; not even do xA owners use its 94hps all the time or pack the rear seats all the time or even the cargo holder . . . so why isn't the 325iT or xA owner morally obliged to walk, bike, take public transportation, ride a moped or an Isetta?
As far as I know, Enterprise, the company that offers pickup on 15min notice, so you claim, does not offer $20/day rental. Different companies make money in different ways (i.e. you have to pay one way or another), you can't have Enterprise pickup and Hertz weekend rental rate at the same time for a single rental need, even if it is on a weekend day. And the $20/day is not for a Camry or Accord either, not even on the weekend day.
The crucial fact is that a casual observer never knows whether the Navigator owner has a specific need for it at some time. It's like accusing the guy practicing on the driving range of wasting money and buying the whole set of clubs when only the driver is needed. How do you know he does not play the whole 18 holes on a different day?
I actually like Minivans. It's just that the current offerings of high quality minivans tend to be the full-length ones over 200". That's just too bloody long for my garage and for street parking when going into the city.
have a thought: I wonder what would happen to the automobile industry if buyer's were required to pay cash to purchase a car, i.e. no financing or leasing?
Even more envy talk, that's for sure. Before GM took the market by storm with its GMAC financing unit, the motoring public was divided into two segments: those driving identical Ford Model T's that came only in one color (black), and those being chauffered around in something like Rolls-Royce.
Oh, btw, the company that requires cash-only purchase would quickly lose market share, just like Ford did in real life in the 1920's.
If everyone was comfortable within their own ego, and just wanted to be his or herself, everyone would be driving something more sensible and affordable.
Really? Are you driving something less than sensible? I'm actually driving the anti-ego choice. The Highlander Ltd cost me $31k, and a Lexus RX was only $5k more, and I had enough cash in the bank for either (actually both if needed), but I picked the Highlander because it was the less showy car.
Certainly, some of the folks who drive large expensive vehicles, especially SUVs, can afford to do so, but most can't. They either lease or have very large car payments.
SUV's, especially domestics and Japanese non-luxury brands, are often the sensible choices based on utility requirement. Your criticism about people making larger car payments than they should due to ego probably apply much more aptly to buyers of European sedans. Every single European branded sedan on the US market today can have its transportational capacity fully replaced by something much much less expensive. Just to bring the topic back to subcompacts, even the buyer of Mini's can have their transportational requirement fulfilled by a Rio Syncho or even xA, at much much lower price.
I thought that was, like, genetically impossible or something! What will we do now if we can't debate?! :-P
And everybody else: hey, Shifty was only asking for some insight into why the woman with the Navigator thought that vehicle made sense for her. And I believe it was more of a rhetorical question than anything else.
For the same reason subcompact detractors can't understand how folks like me can stand or could ever want to drive a car like this, there are those of us who can't understand how you would ever put up with such a large and inefficient (and lacking in versatility for cargo, in the case of most sedans) vehicle as a full-size car or an SUV.
I still have fond memories of a trip I did to Seattle with four buddies in a rented Lincoln Continental. What a car for a road trip! You sat on pillows, never felt the outside world at all for 13 hours on the interstate.
But a driver's car? God no! And when we finally got to Seattle, it became the biggest PITA - it couldn't make U-turns even in wide four-lane boulevards without a 3-point maneuver, we couldn't park it in any of the downtown lots because of the total lack of maneverability without posting flagmen on either side of the car and waving off approaching cars while the driver executed the 14-point procedure necessary to jockey it into the parking space. And parking on the street was completely out of the question, as was driving it down some of the smaller streets on Queen Anne hill and in other areas.
Best mpg it pulled was like 25 in all highway cruising, and in town it dropped quite a bit.
You people with the big cars and SUVs put up with this on a regular basis so you can, what, carry five people comfortably 5% of the time? I just don't get it.
Now if you have kids, especially more than one, then I can appreciate that you could use at least one large vehicle (minivan, etc).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yeah, minivans aren't so mini. Mazda has two smaller ones, the MPV and the Mazda5. The Mazda5 reminds me a little of that Nissan Stanza wagon with the two sliding doors and no pilar in the middle. As far as the Navigator, if you put 5 adults in it, it is reasonably close to payload and GVWR. I bet if you got 3 or 4 football players in an xA, you would be over GVWR. Maybe that lady in the Navigator had a huge backside and she needed the weight capacity of the vehicle because she would overload a lesser vehicle.
For the same reason subcompact detractors can't understand how folks like me can stand or could ever want to drive a car like this, there are those of us who can't understand how you would ever put up with such a large and inefficient (and lacking in versatility for cargo, in the case of most sedans) vehicle as a full-size car or an SUV.
Not at all. I can very well understand folks who prefer small cars, even subcompacts or smaller including motorcycles, for themselves; or even no car at all. There can be very good economic reasons for that choice, based on individual circumstances. That does not change the fact that for the vast majority of drivers, a midsize vehicle just work out better, even from an economic point of view after rental costs are factored in. What I do not understand is that why some subcompact enthusiasts havea tendency to think most if not all other drivers should be driving subcompacts too; I don't see many SUV owners advocating others should drive SUV's. Drive your own car and enjoy it; what others drive is none of your business.
That's entirely possible; or that she has a husband who needs a wheelchair.
I like the direction Mazda is going with minivans, but the engine choices are just too torqueless. I don't need more horsepower for bragging rights, but more torque at the low end would be very helpful for people and cargo movers. I sure hope other manufacturers will follow suit with small minivans . . . oh, wait, they are called SUV's or sportwagons nowadays, hahaha.
Some things never change brightness old pal: you have a gift for extreme rationalizations in the face of mild reason.
Fact: the full-size, truck-based SUV market is being usurped by car-based crossovers that merely look like SUVs. They may have AWD, but so do most Subies and Audis and such. The market has been tooling up and heading that way since even before the intro of some of the current crop of Extrusions and Pukons and Narcissigators, and well before fuel started smarting a bit.
Reality is for most people these monsters aren't of any real use, and once those folks live with them for a while, they clue in and find something ultimately more palatable. That something wouldn't exist as an alternative without the demand, so in a sense, the market is self-righting like a Hobie Cat changing tack. Add in the cost of fuel, which may be artificially inflated, but will continue to trend up anyway, and the pendulum will do what pendula do.
No moral ground here at all. I'm not passing judgement on her morals. I'm speculating on her intelligence somewhat, and questioning why someone would opt to waste twice the mass in materials alone, plus the space it takes and the resources required to keep it running day to day.
We are approaching a nostalgic point here. The time is about at hand when the lone Suburban on the block belongs to the family of eight that goes camping every other weekend and tows a glider on alternate Saturdays, and whose husband is a scout master and whose wife is a den mother, and the twins in the middle are your best friends and you get a ride home from school whenever they happen to pass you on your walking route (not that I have any personal experience). You know: folks who actually use them.
The rest of the family hauler buyers will take crossovers of some sort, and crossovers will get lower and sleeker, completing the cycle back to station wagons, which is what they were all after in the first place really. The market for compacts and subcompacts will grow, not merely because of economy, but also because they are now well-designed and fairly well-appointed, and have real-world performance and handling.
It is NOT about: SUVs Why people may/may not or should/should not drive SUVs or minivans
Further posts that fall under the "NOT" column will be removed.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Personally, I'd like a translation from other mfrs along the lines of the A3. Lexus showed a concept called (unfortunately) the BS a while back, that was supposed to be a liftback based on the IS. That should about fall into the subcompact range on cubic feet, and being RWD, would get my attention, now that they've gone and porked up the new IS.
Only defects I can see out there are not enough RWDers in the class (tough call, I know) and some displacements that could use a little optional massaging.
Like I said before, sub-compacts occupy an extreme of the vehicle size spectrum just like the full-size SUV's do. The extremes tend to be very fragile. Reversion to mean takes place eventually. That's what's wrong with sub-compacts and the extremely large SUV's alike.
Body-on-Frame vs. unibody are just construction techniques. There were subcompacts that are both truck-based and body-on-frame, e.g. Suzuki X90. The whole industry moved from body-on-frame to unibody construction over the past two decades, starting with the sedans, and eventually even Jeeps became unibody.
An interesting evolution of subcompacts is that they are getting taller. People went as far as embracing old tech body-on-frame vehilcles (SUV's of the early 90's) in order to get a taller wagon before modern crossovers became available in the 2000's . . . goes to show just how wrong-headed the industry designers were since its "longer,wider and lower" campaign for cars. Whatever one calls those five-door relatively tall people movers: hatchbacks, wagons, crossovers or SUV's, is not nearly as relevant as the clear underlying preference for those vehicles. And the most popular among them are the midsize varieties, not the sizes at either extreme. That's fundamentally what will send the subcompact segment into decline once there are too many players competing for a relatively small pie.
RWD cars are more expensive both to produce and to operate. The drive train is inherently less efficient than FWD. AWD is even worse. They are more for the sporty niche market (e.g. roadsters etc.). I can't see how RWD or AWD fits into the efficiency mantra that is the main driving force behind the resurrection of subcompacts right now.
Sub-compacts aren't micros AFAIK. Maybe we should make that distinction. The B-segment I identify with subcompact, the A-segment with micros. Did I get that wrong?
Micros will be a niche market focused primarily in urban and near urban communities and will be somewhat fad-driven. On that we can perhaps all agree.
Subcompacts are a different story now, and with future fuel costs, will continue to be a different story later, IMO.
Efficiency is a nice by-product of near-sizing, not a mantra per se, and certainly not for me.
Smaller cars are simply much more fun to drive, by and large. RWD is more fun than FWD. It is somewhat less space-efficient, but not inherently less fuel-efficient.
Did somebody say it was all about fuel efficiency?
Perhaps not the liluput equivalent of Excursion or Kenworth, but probably the equivalent of Suburban and Expedition . . . enough market demand to survive and perhaps profitable (for some manufacturers) but never able to attain main stream status.
We would not be talking about subcompacts if fue price today were $1/gallon. Even if you like driving fun in a tiny car, you'd be in the Z4 or TT forum ;-)
BTW, accusing someone else tooling around in a larger car as waste while having fun with a RWD sport tuned car burning both fuel and rubber, smacks just wee bit of hypocrosy. I averaged below 19mpg when I was driving a Z3 (as small as sporty RWD subcompacts get) for a couple weeks; that's worse than even my normal driving experience with my V6 AWD Highlander. Not to mention all the "unnecessary" miles with the Z3 ;-)
Interesting point that I never thought of . . . ironic, considering that was the original Beetle design. I'm nore sure about space efficiency though if the trunk has to be in the front. When the whole car becomes electric, perhaps all the batteries, capacitors and reactors can be under the floor board.
Trunk in the front or in the back I don't think it really matters. You can design a front mounted trunk that holds just as much stuff as a rear mounted one. The only thing you lose for sure is a passthrough from the trunk to rear seat.
The primary difference is actually the 5-door option. Most space-efficient designs involve 5-door hatchbacks (including wagons, crossovers, SUV's and minivans). It's not safe to have the front trunk extend upwards blocking the windshield ;-)
There hasn't been one buck fuel in this country in almost thirty years! We've had subcompacts here since before then (my Mom and Dad had matching Hillman Minxes back in the late 50's), and they're here still.
Now that we're paying prices for fuel that approach what the rest of the world has been paying, they become more relevant, not less.
Again, I think the distiction needs to be drawn between subcompact and micro.
I love driving fun in a small car that fits my family fine. That's why I kept the IS300 SportCross after the lease ended.
Personally, I don't care for the sedan version of most of the subcompacts. Dropping the rear deck merely gives them an ungainly look, due much to the shorter wheelbase and normal greenhouse height. A hatch config gives them a longer line and therefore, IMO, a more refined look.
Seems like some of the new subcompacts are getting very flattering reviews in a wide array of sources within the Automotive Press. I'll pick just the Honda Fit comments as an example:
AUTOWEEK: "While Americans hate hatchbacks and couldn't care less for subcompacts, soaring gas prices just might change our minds. Take the new Honda Fit. The Fit won't break any land-speed records, but it does feel surprisingly meaty (for a Honda) at lower revs"
BOSTON GLOBE: "Small cars always raise safety concerns. But this micro-wedge alleviates them with its ABS, front dual-stage air bags, front/side-impact air bags, and front and rear side-curtain air bags. Here's a car that is Fit to be tried" (shiftright's comment: GROAN! )
DETROIT FREE PRESS: "The Fit surrounds foru adults with upholstery and trim materials consistent with a car a couple of price classes up the ladder".
Well let's "unpack" these comments a bit, shall we?
If Autoweek is right, then higher gas prices will create a historically unprecedented rise in popularity among subcompacts in America. Also, it seems like the day of the "wheezy" subcom's engine are over.
The Globe addressed the safety "myth" quite squarely and has at least challenged the notion that small=dangerous.
The Detroit Free Press brings up a good point. Subcoms don't feel "cheap" anymore.
Question is, is the "progress" make by subcoms good enough/fast enough to sway Americans into a new way of choosing what they drive and why?
Not sure what country you are in, but I was gassing up at 99 cents per gallon in 1999 (95.99 was the lowest I ever got that year IIRC)
IS300 SportsCross?? That's more or less what I suspected. At 18/24, its EPA mileage is exactly the same as my 2004 V6 AWD Highlander, and worse than my 2001 Saab 9-5 wagon at 19/26, both are much bigger cars. That does not take into account the extra fuel consumption involved in "spirited driving" with the IS300.
Just a wee bit hypocritical, don't you think for you to get on the back of others for wasting fuel?
I remember late 1998 when premium unleaded went up to about $1.29 per gallon, and whining about it. I was driving a Gran Fury copcar back then that had an appetite for premium.
I had to take a business trip to California in April 1999, and was shocked to see gas for over $1.50 per gallon. Back here in MD, it was over $1.00 per gallon, but not by much. In the fall of '99 it started to shoot up though, ironically just as I went from a Gran Fury that got around 11-13 mpg around town to a 2000 Intrepid that rarely got less than 20.
However, by late 2001 and early 2002 I remember seeing gas for under a buck a gallon.
I know one thing though...I'll probaby never have the opportunity to whine about paying $1.29 per gallon for hi-test again in my lifetime!
As I said before, it's not just about fuel. I was pretty sure I made that clear. There are other resources in play, including simple space. And your Highlander is exemplary of the market shift I was talking about. A high-box Camry platform sharer, isn't it? Certainly not a full-size monster.
I LOVE the vw Squareback--it was a great space-saver, (lots of cargo room in back AND in front!) very good on gas, and had electronic fuel injection....the first mass produced car to do so, maybe 15 years ahead of the Japanese and Americans.
I also wish they'd make something like this again...paint teeth on the hood and call it the Subarracuda!
There was a bright orange I think 1969 square back for sale near me when I lived in VA. It looked like a good car at first but was rusted to the core. Too bad too as it was in good condition otherwise.
Somebody should build something like that now. With the increase in maintance intervals on modern engines the inconvience of having the engine in the back is not even really an issue anymore.
There was never a huge market for full-size monster anyway. The market shift was from low-riding camry platforms to high-box camry platform (or plug in Civic, Accord, etc.); before the high-box varieties of consumers' favorite platforms were available, they made do with high-box varieties of other midsize platforms, like Jeeps and Explorers, especially when gas price was less of a concern (i.e. when people were relatively well off in real income). My point is that the efficiency gain from shrinking a modern midsize box to a subcompact is very limited compared to the utility the buyer would be giving up . . . therefore aside from "fad"-like styling trends, the reversion to mean will take place, much to the detriment of the subcompact market.
I rather doubt it. Most car buyers probably would not shell out $14.5k for a Fit when an Accord can be had for only a thousand more and will have much better resale value. That's why Honda is only targetting 20k unit sales compared to 200k+ for Accord. If Honda wants to raise sales in subsequent years, the price have to come down significantly (or Accord going up significantly, in other words reflecting the dropping in real income for US Dollar earners as commodity prices go up); regardless whether Fit price coming down or commodity price going up, either way, Fit will have to be decontented unless the manufacturing is entirely moved to India or China. That may well happen; only then, perhaps something like Fit may become an attractive option, at perhaps 30% lower price than Accord, not the current 6% price difference.
I will believe what Boston Globe has to say on safety when Globe starts underwriting car insurance policies and life insurance policies. A car designed to ensure the death of its occupants instead of maiming in the case of major accident may perversely carry lower car insurance premium ;-)
Current sales target is set at 40k, which is still far under the demand. Waiting lists for the Fit are well into September, and if you want a stickshift, well into Xmas season.
Considering most dealers are only getting 2-3 Fits/month, I think it will be safe to say that even if supply increased by double they could probably sell every single one of them.
The Civic isn't a whole lot cheaper than an Accord VP (nor much more than a Fit), yet I don't see those sales slipping in any great amounts. Not everybody wants the bigger car.
40k unit sales is miniscule for a plebian car with its own unique platform. Accord sells 200-300k units every year. The current Fit sales reflect pent-up demand. Once that is gone, Fit price will have to come down significant to have any meaningful volume (100k units a year or more, for such a plebian car that does not share platform with anything else). Accord has many platform-mates to help pay for design and mfring cost, and so does Civic . . .whereas Fit has none. BTW, 40k units a year and 2-3/mo per dealership are incongruent numbers; there ain't 1500+ Honda car dealerships in the US. 40k a year already works out to be more than doubling 2-3/mo per dealership.
Civic price is roughly 15% less than Accord, comparably equipped (meaning interior finish and accessories). That's about right for the difference between size classes. That's why I said Fit needs to be about 30% less expensive than Accord (15% less than Civic) to find real sizable market. That means decontenting.
Gaining interior volume by height is a double-edged sword. Fit gets 38mpg on highway, whereas Civic gets 40mpg on highway! Even the city mileage is only 31 vs. 30 barely in Fit favor. BTW, EPA "highway" means 50mph; real life 75mph highway speed probably puts Fit in even worse light compared to Civic.
Aside from the truly parking space challenged (in which case not having a car may just be an even better option), I'm not sure why anyone would pick Fit over Civic, which actually cost less now in retail due to the "newness" craze of Fit. I have to chalk that up as the result of "ego"; i.e. having something different from everyone else . . . like I said, there is an element of irrationality in the pursuit of smallness just like in the early years of the SUV craze at the other end of the size spectrum.
I like smaller cars, but in honesty, the star rating systems published by the IIHS and NHTSA are pretty junky when it comes to predicting the likelyhood of injury and the severity of it across different classes of vehicles.
The IIHS also publishes a "loss data" chart that rates vehicles on a "injury/collision/theft" cost basis, scoring each relative to 100 (which represents average). The data includes models through 2004, and for instance, the Chevy Tahoe has an injury score of 59 while the Toyota Echo has an injury score of 198.
In other words, you are a *lot* safer in the Tahoe.
* One thing "wrong" with the subcompacts is that many of them are only sold as strippo to barely above stippo. That eliminates the buyers (I would be in this category) that want small for whatever reason, but still want a certain amount of sort/luxury/convenience goodies. About the only subs that offer niceties are the Mini (a tru niche car) and the Versa.
* The compacts of today (Civic, mazda 3, Corolla in some ways) have gotten a bit bigger, but have gotten so good, that it is hard to justify the sub class, unless it is a bare bones model and price is the biggest consideration. Some of the compacts (s noted above) even get better or equivilant MPG, while being roomier, more comfortable, etc.
* MPG isn't rated as high as hoped, and they also tend to be too buzy on the highway (the short gearing being a common factor).
* Few people really have such space consraints that a Civic is too big, so their may not be much justification for going even smaller (unless you are one of the few people that likes really small). Besides, most Americans probably consider the Civic (even the new large model) to be a small car.
"I'm not sure why anyone would pick Fit over Civic"
Hatchback. If the Civic had offered a hatch a few months ago when I was looking, I'd have test-driven it, despite the new god-awful restyling it underwent. The Fit is Honda's re-entry into the small hatchback market.
The Fit also has a lot of flexibility elements that haven't crossed platforms yet, but might. I've heard good things about the "origami" seating design.
If you need a small car that has a lot of cargo flexibility, the Fit "fits". Ahem.
What sorts of luxury/convenience goodies are you looking for? Because they're starting to be out there; the Mazda3 can definitely come fully loaded, as can a few of the others.
Comments
maybe she is living below her means.
maybe she wants to buy american.
maybe she lives in a trailer.
there are a million possibilities.
my question is, is there a combo lincoln/scion dealer?
I would say the answer must be yes, to judge by this and other discussions at Edmunds, and more's the shame.
But hey, they will say, it's a free country, right? :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Pick up service is part of the rental. Always has been with Enterprise as the bulk of their business is 1) garages and 2) insurance companies.
The local Hertz is renting cars for as low as $12.95/day on weekends.
The answer to each of his questions is simple, just as it is for most of these individuals who drive these types of vehicles when they really don't have a valid application: ego, and the image the vehicle projects.
If everyone was comfortable within their own ego, and just wanted to be his or herself, everyone would be driving something more sensible and affordable. Certainly, some of the folks who drive large expensive vehicles, especially SUVs, can afford to do so, but most can't. They either lease or have very large car payments.
I have a thought: I wonder what would happen to the automobile industry if buyer's were required to pay cash to purchase a car, i.e. no financing or leasing?
LINCOLN NAVIGATOR ANSWER: Well, the answer "because she can" wouldn't sound so great if it were extrapolated to say "tools". What if your neighbor buys an commercial grade table saw to cut quarter round molding? Or buys a set of golf clubs but only 5 irons?
I'm not saying we need to FORBID her from her SUV; I'm only wondering why, rich or poor, driving this vehicle makes any sense to her. I'd like to know what she's *thinking*. I'm ready for enlightenment.
Sooner or later we all WILL have to kick the gasoline habit, so I'm thinking what's the least painful way....gradually weaning our way down to smaller size cars until new technology kicks in, or suddenly having our large cars ripped out of our hands by skull-crushing energy costs? Like the panic of 1973 except that it never abates!
The handwriting is on the wall in terms of energy supplies IMO. Not too much time to get rid of bad habits. So if we ask ourselves why we are doing what we are doing, that might be interesting.....
The thing is it makes sense to her, you may not understand it but it does. Its her money let her spend (or waste it depending on your point of view) as she sees fit.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
mdennish, if you buy in bulk, they'll often deliver... or so I've heard
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Not if they come with strollers. Why would the minivan segment even exist? They aren't exactly image mobiles. There is obviously market need for significant easily accessible volume when kids and their accessories need to be loaded and transported quickly before they start crying in a hot car that has been parked in the sun for a while.
No one ever needs an xA or a 325iT either. Anything that fit in an xA can fit in a Rio Syncho for half the price (a roof box only cost $200). A Focus wagon cost less than half of a 325iT, and can carry much more.
So where does this debate really boil down to? I'm not having/using it therefore it's morally wrong for you to have and use it.
Bottom line is that most people think they need something they won't ever use
Someone driving around in a Navigator is certainly using it . . . whether to its full potential is a different story altogether. Nobody uses the 184hp of a 325iT to its full potential all the time either; not even do xA owners use its 94hps all the time or pack the rear seats all the time or even the cargo holder . . . so why isn't the 325iT or xA owner morally obliged to walk, bike, take public transportation, ride a moped or an Isetta?
Even more envy talk, that's for sure. Before GM took the market by storm with its GMAC financing unit, the motoring public was divided into two segments: those driving identical Ford Model T's that came only in one color (black), and those being chauffered around in something like Rolls-Royce.
Oh, btw, the company that requires cash-only purchase would quickly lose market share, just like Ford did in real life in the 1920's.
If everyone was comfortable within their own ego, and just wanted to be his or herself, everyone would be driving something more sensible and affordable.
Really? Are you driving something less than sensible? I'm actually driving the anti-ego choice. The Highlander Ltd cost me $31k, and a Lexus RX was only $5k more, and I had enough cash in the bank for either (actually both if needed), but I picked the Highlander because it was the less showy car.
Certainly, some of the folks who drive large expensive vehicles, especially SUVs, can afford to do so, but most can't. They either lease or have very large car payments.
SUV's, especially domestics and Japanese non-luxury brands, are often the sensible choices based on utility requirement. Your criticism about people making larger car payments than they should due to ego probably apply much more aptly to buyers of European sedans. Every single European branded sedan on the US market today can have its transportational capacity fully replaced by something much much less expensive. Just to bring the topic back to subcompacts, even the buyer of Mini's can have their transportational requirement fulfilled by a Rio Syncho or even xA, at much much lower price.
And everybody else: hey, Shifty was only asking for some insight into why the woman with the Navigator thought that vehicle made sense for her. And I believe it was more of a rhetorical question than anything else.
For the same reason subcompact detractors can't understand how folks like me can stand or could ever want to drive a car like this, there are those of us who can't understand how you would ever put up with such a large and inefficient (and lacking in versatility for cargo, in the case of most sedans) vehicle as a full-size car or an SUV.
I still have fond memories of a trip I did to Seattle with four buddies in a rented Lincoln Continental. What a car for a road trip! You sat on pillows, never felt the outside world at all for 13 hours on the interstate.
But a driver's car? God no! And when we finally got to Seattle, it became the biggest PITA - it couldn't make U-turns even in wide four-lane boulevards without a 3-point maneuver, we couldn't park it in any of the downtown lots because of the total lack of maneverability without posting flagmen on either side of the car and waving off approaching cars while the driver executed the 14-point procedure necessary to jockey it into the parking space. And parking on the street was completely out of the question, as was driving it down some of the smaller streets on Queen Anne hill and in other areas.
Best mpg it pulled was like 25 in all highway cruising, and in town it dropped quite a bit.
You people with the big cars and SUVs put up with this on a regular basis so you can, what, carry five people comfortably 5% of the time? I just don't get it.
Now if you have kids, especially more than one, then I can appreciate that you could use at least one large vehicle (minivan, etc).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As far as the Navigator, if you put 5 adults in it, it is reasonably close to payload and GVWR. I bet if you got 3 or 4 football players in an xA, you would be over GVWR. Maybe that lady in the Navigator had a huge backside and she needed the weight capacity of the vehicle because she would overload a lesser vehicle.
Not at all. I can very well understand folks who prefer small cars, even subcompacts or smaller including motorcycles, for themselves; or even no car at all. There can be very good economic reasons for that choice, based on individual circumstances. That does not change the fact that for the vast majority of drivers, a midsize vehicle just work out better, even from an economic point of view after rental costs are factored in. What I do not understand is that why some subcompact enthusiasts havea tendency to think most if not all other drivers should be driving subcompacts too; I don't see many SUV owners advocating others should drive SUV's. Drive your own car and enjoy it; what others drive is none of your business.
I like the direction Mazda is going with minivans, but the engine choices are just too torqueless. I don't need more horsepower for bragging rights, but more torque at the low end would be very helpful for people and cargo movers. I sure hope other manufacturers will follow suit with small minivans . . . oh, wait, they are called SUV's or sportwagons nowadays, hahaha.
Fact: the full-size, truck-based SUV market is being usurped by car-based crossovers that merely look like SUVs. They may have AWD, but so do most Subies and Audis and such. The market has been tooling up and heading that way since even before the intro of some of the current crop of Extrusions and Pukons and Narcissigators, and well before fuel started smarting a bit.
Reality is for most people these monsters aren't of any real use, and once those folks live with them for a while, they clue in and find something ultimately more palatable. That something wouldn't exist as an alternative without the demand, so in a sense, the market is self-righting like a Hobie Cat changing tack. Add in the cost of fuel, which may be artificially inflated, but will continue to trend up anyway, and the pendulum will do what pendula do.
No moral ground here at all. I'm not passing judgement on her morals. I'm speculating on her intelligence somewhat, and questioning why someone would opt to waste twice the mass in materials alone, plus the space it takes and the resources required to keep it running day to day.
We are approaching a nostalgic point here. The time is about at hand when the lone Suburban on the block belongs to the family of eight that goes camping every other weekend and tows a glider on alternate Saturdays, and whose husband is a scout master and whose wife is a den mother, and the twins in the middle are your best friends and you get a ride home from school whenever they happen to pass you on your walking route (not that I have any personal experience). You know: folks who actually use them.
The rest of the family hauler buyers will take crossovers of some sort, and crossovers will get lower and sleeker, completing the cycle back to station wagons, which is what they were all after in the first place really. The market for compacts and subcompacts will grow, not merely because of economy, but also because they are now well-designed and fairly well-appointed, and have real-world performance and handling.
The future is here.
Please tell me she's not that ignorant.
Please. I may have to share US101 with her at some point, and I don't want to drive near someone that lost... :P
kirstie_h, "What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?" #1224, 19 Jul 2006 5:44 am
I clearly indicated that we should focus on subcompacts. Since I didn't, here's the deal:
This discussion IS about:
Subcompact vehicles
What is wrong with subcompacts
It is NOT about:
SUVs
Why people may/may not or should/should not drive SUVs or minivans
Further posts that fall under the "NOT" column will be removed.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Only defects I can see out there are not enough RWDers in the class (tough call, I know) and some displacements that could use a little optional massaging.
Like I said before, sub-compacts occupy an extreme of the vehicle size spectrum just like the full-size SUV's do. The extremes tend to be very fragile. Reversion to mean takes place eventually. That's what's wrong with sub-compacts and the extremely large SUV's alike.
Body-on-Frame vs. unibody are just construction techniques. There were subcompacts that are both truck-based and body-on-frame, e.g. Suzuki X90. The whole industry moved from body-on-frame to unibody construction over the past two decades, starting with the sedans, and eventually even Jeeps became unibody.
An interesting evolution of subcompacts is that they are getting taller. People went as far as embracing old tech body-on-frame vehilcles (SUV's of the early 90's) in order to get a taller wagon before modern crossovers became available in the 2000's . . . goes to show just how wrong-headed the industry designers were since its "longer,wider and lower" campaign for cars. Whatever one calls those five-door relatively tall people movers: hatchbacks, wagons, crossovers or SUV's, is not nearly as relevant as the clear underlying preference for those vehicles. And the most popular among them are the midsize varieties, not the sizes at either extreme. That's fundamentally what will send the subcompact segment into decline once there are too many players competing for a relatively small pie.
With modern traction control and DSC it will be just as safe too.
Micros will be a niche market focused primarily in urban and near urban communities and will be somewhat fad-driven. On that we can perhaps all agree.
Subcompacts are a different story now, and with future fuel costs, will continue to be a different story later, IMO.
Nice history of unibody. Irrelevant, but concise.
Smaller cars are simply much more fun to drive, by and large. RWD is more fun than FWD. It is somewhat less space-efficient, but not inherently less fuel-efficient.
Did somebody say it was all about fuel efficiency?
BTW, accusing someone else tooling around in a larger car as waste while having fun with a RWD sport tuned car burning both fuel and rubber, smacks just wee bit of hypocrosy. I averaged below 19mpg when I was driving a Z3 (as small as sporty RWD subcompacts get) for a couple weeks; that's worse than even my normal driving experience with my V6 AWD Highlander. Not to mention all the "unnecessary" miles with the Z3 ;-)
Now that we're paying prices for fuel that approach what the rest of the world has been paying, they become more relevant, not less.
Again, I think the distiction needs to be drawn between subcompact and micro.
I love driving fun in a small car that fits my family fine. That's why I kept the IS300 SportCross after the lease ended.
Personally, I don't care for the sedan version of most of the subcompacts. Dropping the rear deck merely gives them an ungainly look, due much to the shorter wheelbase and normal greenhouse height. A hatch config gives them a longer line and therefore, IMO, a more refined look.
AUTOWEEK: "While Americans hate hatchbacks and couldn't care less for subcompacts, soaring gas prices just might change our minds. Take the new Honda Fit. The Fit won't break any land-speed records, but it does feel surprisingly meaty (for a Honda) at lower revs"
BOSTON GLOBE: "Small cars always raise safety concerns. But this micro-wedge alleviates them with its ABS, front dual-stage air bags, front/side-impact air bags, and front and rear side-curtain air bags. Here's a car that is Fit to be tried" (shiftright's comment: GROAN! )
DETROIT FREE PRESS: "The Fit surrounds foru adults with upholstery and trim materials consistent with a car a couple of price classes up the ladder".
---------------------------------------------------------
Well let's "unpack" these comments a bit, shall we?
If Autoweek is right, then higher gas prices will create a historically unprecedented rise in popularity among subcompacts in America. Also, it seems like the day of the "wheezy" subcom's engine are over.
The Globe addressed the safety "myth" quite squarely and has at least challenged the notion that small=dangerous.
The Detroit Free Press brings up a good point. Subcoms don't feel "cheap" anymore.
Question is, is the "progress" make by subcoms good enough/fast enough to sway Americans into a new way of choosing what they drive and why?
IS300 SportsCross?? That's more or less what I suspected. At 18/24, its EPA mileage is exactly the same as my 2004 V6 AWD Highlander, and worse than my 2001 Saab 9-5 wagon at 19/26, both are much bigger cars. That does not take into account the extra fuel consumption involved in "spirited driving" with the IS300.
Just a wee bit hypocritical, don't you think for you to get on the back of others for wasting fuel?
I had to take a business trip to California in April 1999, and was shocked to see gas for over $1.50 per gallon. Back here in MD, it was over $1.00 per gallon, but not by much. In the fall of '99 it started to shoot up though, ironically just as I went from a Gran Fury that got around 11-13 mpg around town to a 2000 Intrepid that rarely got less than 20.
However, by late 2001 and early 2002 I remember seeing gas for under a buck a gallon.
I know one thing though...I'll probaby never have the opportunity to whine about paying $1.29 per gallon for hi-test again in my lifetime!
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/covcrew/vw-type3/type3.html
Engine is a flat four mounted under the floor in the cargo area.
With the popularity of high roof wagon/crossovers now this becomes even easier.
Mount the engine down low and make it a flat four or flat six with a transaxel and now the car will handle better too.
I also wish they'd make something like this again...paint teeth on the hood and call it the Subarracuda!
Somebody should build something like that now. With the increase in maintance intervals on modern engines the inconvience of having the engine in the back is not even really an issue anymore.
I will believe what Boston Globe has to say on safety when Globe starts underwriting car insurance policies and life insurance policies. A car designed to ensure the death of its occupants instead of maiming in the case of major accident may perversely carry lower car insurance premium ;-)
Considering most dealers are only getting 2-3 Fits/month, I think it will be safe to say that even if supply increased by double they could probably sell every single one of them.
The Civic isn't a whole lot cheaper than an Accord VP (nor much more than a Fit), yet I don't see those sales slipping in any great amounts. Not everybody wants the bigger car.
Bingo. Especially when you consider just how big the smaller car really is.
Civic price is roughly 15% less than Accord, comparably equipped (meaning interior finish and accessories). That's about right for the difference between size classes. That's why I said Fit needs to be about 30% less expensive than Accord (15% less than Civic) to find real sizable market. That means decontenting.
Aside from the truly parking space challenged (in which case not having a car may just be an even better option), I'm not sure why anyone would pick Fit over Civic, which actually cost less now in retail due to the "newness" craze of Fit. I have to chalk that up as the result of "ego"; i.e. having something different from everyone else . . . like I said, there is an element of irrationality in the pursuit of smallness just like in the early years of the SUV craze at the other end of the size spectrum.
The IIHS also publishes a "loss data" chart that rates vehicles on a "injury/collision/theft" cost basis, scoring each relative to 100 (which represents average). The data includes models through 2004, and for instance, the Chevy Tahoe has an injury score of 59 while the Toyota Echo has an injury score of 198.
In other words, you are a *lot* safer in the Tahoe.
Let's see, some random thoughts:
* One thing "wrong" with the subcompacts is that many of them are only sold as strippo to barely above stippo. That eliminates the buyers (I would be in this category) that want small for whatever reason, but still want a certain amount of sort/luxury/convenience goodies. About the only subs that offer niceties are the Mini (a tru niche car) and the Versa.
* The compacts of today (Civic, mazda 3, Corolla in some ways) have gotten a bit bigger, but have gotten so good, that it is hard to justify the sub class, unless it is a bare bones model and price is the biggest consideration. Some of the compacts (s noted above) even get better or equivilant MPG, while being roomier, more comfortable, etc.
* MPG isn't rated as high as hoped, and they also tend to be too buzy on the highway (the short gearing being a common factor).
* Few people really have such space consraints that a Civic is too big, so their may not be much justification for going even smaller (unless you are one of the few people that likes really small). Besides, most Americans probably consider the Civic (even the new large model) to be a small car.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Hatchback. If the Civic had offered a hatch a few months ago when I was looking, I'd have test-driven it, despite the new god-awful restyling it underwent. The Fit is Honda's re-entry into the small hatchback market.
The Fit also has a lot of flexibility elements that haven't crossed platforms yet, but might. I've heard good things about the "origami" seating design.
If you need a small car that has a lot of cargo flexibility, the Fit "fits". Ahem.