What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

imidazol97

> Chevette.

Where did the Vega fit in that. It was small. It's usually maligned greatly by those who didn't have one and those who did...

andre1969

Well, this isn't much of a sample, but I could drive cross-country with more ease in my '68 Dart, '79 NYer, or '76 LeMans than I could in my Intrepid. The Intrepid might handle better, although its difference from the LeMans is marginal, and any of those three older cars could handle steep mountain grades much better. The Dart would also out-accelerate the Intrepid on your typical highway merge ramp, while the LeMans and NYer really wouldn't give up much to it.

The main factor is that I can just stretch out better in those older cars, which keeps the comfort factor up. I consider most of today's cars half-hour cars, at best. Meaning that I'm getting sore, achy, fidgety, cramped, etc after about a half hour.

Really, it depends on your body, and what you can tolerate, moreso than the car.

andre1969

was Chevy's second stab at an entry-level subcompact. I can't remember if it was cheaper than the Vega or not. The Vega tried to be sportier though, looking a bit like a baby Camaro. And being offered only in 2-door configuration, it wasn't especially versatile.

IIRC the Chevette used some foreign lump of a 1.6 4-cyl engine, which would definitely have been weaker than the aluminum 2.3 in a Vega, or the 2.5 Pontiac Iron Duke the later models had. The Chevette was crude and simple, but fairly reliable, and had better rust resistance than the Vega, or your typical Japanese car of the time. They'd squeak, leak, and rattle, and nickle and dime you to death, but would soldier on. Initially only a 2-door hatchback was offered, but I think they added the 4-door hatch in 1977. It would be the first domestic 4-door subcompact of the 70's...at least until the Omni/Horizon came along for '78. Those cars were much more modern, and fun to drive (relatively speaking...light weight isn't much of a reward when it's coupled with undersized tires and an undersized motor) but not as dead-simple reliable.

imidazol97

I see a few Chevettes or T1000s here in Western Ohio. Was there a Buick version? They are usually being driven to work judging by appearance of driver/car.

210delray

Since I'm short, stretch-out room isn't as much an issue. But seat comfort is. Those old Chevys had bench seats with only manual fore-and-aft adjustment. Both of my Camrys have 8-way power driver bucket seats, and the '05 has the same on the passenger side. And the '04 of course has a seat back recliner on the passenger side.

Domestic cars were so pitifully slow in adopting manual recliners.

As far as acceleration and hill climbing, I have no doubt even the loaded-down Camrys would outperform the '67 Chevy six. Maybe even true for the Monte Carlo with the small-block (but emissions-strangled) V8. Plus consider how much more flexible the 4-speed and 5-speed autos on the Camrys would be compared to the 3-speed manual and auto units on the older cars.

Handling - not even close for the older cars.

210delray

No there was never a Buick version. GM wouldn't stoop that low. But there was a Buick version of the Chevy Monza called the Skyhawk (think small sporty 2-door Vega variant).

andre1969

there was an Opel derivative of the Chevette...if you look at this pic of a 1970's Opel Kadette, you can see the Chevette underpinnings coming through in the windshield, cowl, A-pillar, B-pillar, and doors. Now Buick dealers sold Opels in the 70's, so perhaps some of these things got badged as Buicks? I was under the impression though that it was mainly the little Corvette-looking Opel GT, and a larger sedan, called the Manta or something like that that the dealers sold.

There was also a Daewoo version way back then, for the home market. I think it was called the Maepsy or something sickly sounding like that? That platform was one of the first "world cars", so it ended up torturing cultures all around the world.

210delray

Oh yeah, you're right. Forgot about those Opels. They were sold (reluctantly I'm sure) by Buick dealers, starting in '67 as I recall. I don't think they were badged as Buicks though, but known as Opels.

My wife even had a Kadette as her first car (a '69 IIRC).

The Opel GT came along around 1970 and the Manta somewhat later. Both were very much subcompact sized.

andre1969

The thing that usually kills me on most modern cars is that the seats give me very little lower back support. It's almost like they hollowed out the lower part of the seatback, and that forces me into a slouching position. Also, since I have long legs, if the seat can't go back far enough or high enough, it leaves my thighs hanging, with no support, and that brings on the fatigue faster. I find that on long trips with the Intrepid, if I drive barefoot it gives me just enough extra legroom to get fairly comfy.

The Intrepid's floor is also not flat...it slopes downward just a bit toward the center, so if I plant my left foot on the floor, it bends my ankle. And the dead pedal is also in an awkward spot. That's not an Intrepid-specific problem though, but just a new-car problem. Most dead-pedals are useless to me, because they're either too narrow for my size 13 foot, at an awkward angle for me, or they're also not tall enough, so my foot goes up under the dash, where I can snag wires and other things.

And as for the power thing, to be fair I have no idea how much horsepower my '68 Dart really has. The 318-2bbl is rated at 230 hp gross for 1968. By 1972 it was rated at 150 net. However, compression was cut in that timeframe as well. Then, add in the fact that my 318 was rebuilt and hopped-up before I bought that car, so I'm sure it's putting out more hp than it did stock.

My '76 LeMans, with its 350-2bbl only had something like 155 hp stock. However, it's been tinkered with, and somewhere along the line picked up a dual exhaust and a shift kit in the tranny. So I'm sure that it performs much better today than it did in 1976!

As for handling, I don't see such a huge difference, but part of that might just be because I've been driving older cars for so long that I've adapted to them. What's torture for some people is acceptable to me. Also, all of these cars have modern 70-series radial tires on them, which improves handling a lot over those older 75-series radials, and especially those dreadful old bias ply tires.

sigt1

camry has real nice cloth seats; so does new civic sedan

boaz47

You forgot to toss in words like, greedy Americans, spoiled buyers and needless desire for bigger and better, maybe even whippersnappers in your post. I would totally agree with if you are saying that sub compacts are and will continue to be aimed at basic transportation. And that is one of my contentions as well. Point A to Point B vehicles. But the Accord and Camry have pointed the way the majority of people feel about "basic" transportation. Even the Civic and Sentra have shown how much more effective they can be to the mass market. The xA is the "slowest selling Scion by a "great" margin. The Echo sold so poorly that it is being dropped. It never once made production goals. The last two memorable sub compacts that were sold as "basic" transportation failed in the market place, the Metro and the Sprint. Perfectly suited to down town traffic and they both got better fuel mileage than a Hybrid and a third of the price. Crappy cars you say? Compared to what? To a Accord or Camry? Sure but then the Accord and Camry aren't sub compacts and they are both selling quite well. Why are people willing to pay more for a Accord or Camry than they would for a xA or Echo, both are now and have been available to take sales away from Camry and Accord so they could be considered for cross shopping. I think the answer is that people want more than Basic. That is why the Mini type S get more press than the standard version even thought the standard version most likely sells better. Better in this case is still pretty slow compared to mainstream cars.

We come back time and time again to trying to get people into what some of us feel they need verses what they want. We are talking Americans here and their culture is such that we try to get what we want even if it means working overtime to buy it. It has been that way for a very long time and I for one don't see a great change in the wind any time soon. Yes the world economy could crash and change everything but as long as we have a gross average national income higher than our European cousins more than likely we will be willing to spend the difference on a Mid sized car for the once or twice a month we might need it. If for no other reason other than it is a nicer car than the Sub Compact. Doesn't matter how flawed the reasoning might be that is just how it is.

kyfdx

Don't forget... all of these cars were rear-wheel-drive.. So, when Honda came in with the Civic and Accord, not only were they better cars (not a lot better, but better), but they also had the packaging advantage of FWD... So, you got a smaller on the outside, bigger on the inside package, with an efficient four-cylinder engine..

By the time the domestics finally came out with FWD to compete, the Japanese had leapt ahead in quality, as well.. The Americans never caught up... and, still haven't..

jlawrence01

Remembering the Chevette, those cars were brutal in the snow. I remember getting stuck in the parking lot in 2-3 inches of snow. I would have to shovel behind the car to get out of the parking space.

kyfdx

I had a '77 Cobra (Mustang) II with a V-8.. I finally gave up and got studded snows for the rear... I could get forward momentum in almost anything after that, but holy cow, you could kill yourself on a dry road...

An old girlfriend (not really old, just a long time ago) had a '79 320i.. Her condo parking space was on a sideways incline.. With even a dusting of snow, you couldn't even back out of the parking space.. As soon as you let out the clutch, the rear end would immediately start sliding downhill... BMWs didn't get standard traction control in the '90s for no good reason..

210delray

...pretty much disappeared from the roads around here a few years back; before that they were fairly frequently seen, driven typically by, ahem, "economically challenged" people.

Seems to validate my rule of thumb that once a car reaches the age of 15, it vanishes from the roads, and the latest model Chevettes were 1987s. The major exceptions to this rule (I'm talking about daily drivers, not classics driven on nice days) seem to old Volvo 240s, old Mercedes, and of course, Chevy/GMC C/K pickups and Ford F-Series pickups, with a smattering of old Dodge Ram pickups.

imidazol97

Age does seem to make most disappear at about that 15 year mark.

I saw some Chevette driven by those "economically challenged" but also a lot of people just buy something that's a few hundred and often pick up deals on those, drive them til something breaks they don't want to repair, and buy another low cost car. It is a fairly practical method of getting low cost transportation to work and back especially if it's not the only older car and you don't have to depend on it. It's just wheels.

jlawrence01

I saw some Chevette driven by those "economically challenged" but also a lot of people just buy something that's a few hundred and often pick up deals on those

While the vehicles are almost primitive for want of a better word, there are several advantages. The car was a VERY simple design with few electronics. Also, the car was simple to repair and the parts were plentiful and cheap. IOW, it is a great car for someone needing cheap transportation.

Last May, I spend 10 days on Vancouver Island. I saw no less than 30 Chevettes/ T1000 / Acadians all in operating conditions. They would have been a minimum of 18 years old as the model was discontinued in 1986.

kyfdx

The last year for these was '93.. You might not be too far off on the 15-year thing with them, either... The sightings of them are dropping fast... in another couple of years, I think they will be a very rare occurrence..

kyfdx

I have another alternative to the Yaris/xA.. (obviously, I consider those the "cream of the crop"). Today, in my local paper.. Ford dealer is advertising an '06 Focus ZX-3, with A/C... MSRP of $14,900.. for $11,200..

I haven't driven a Focus for a few years, but it seems you might be stepping up a little in size/utility and power.. Plus, that is at least $2K under the Toyota twins...

Whaddaya say?

bumpy

The ZX3 gets you another 30hp, but you have to pay a 300+ pound penalty for it. I wonder if the Celica 1.8 will fit in the Yaris?

nippononly

fuel economy is fairly unimpressive. What does it do, somewhere around 25/32? Or am I remembering wrongly?

The weight penalty has other disadvantages too. But the next wave of subs about to appear are all going to start at around 2400 pounds curb weight, so it would appear that the age of really light cars has ended.

Mr_Shiftright

IRS is pretty much irrelevant to street driving. Doesn't make a bit of difference except on a bumpy high speed road course. Besides, torsion beam is good for increasing rear cargo space and it's inexpensive to manufacture. Also very very durable.

If solid axle is good enough for the new Shelby Mustang, it's good enough for most subcompacts I think.

CHEVETTE: compared to modern subcompacts, it's a dog cart.

bumpy

IRS is pretty much irrelevant to street driving. Doesn't make a bit of difference except on a bumpy high speed road course.

That's what I drive on every day. Most of the roads around here are old dirt paths with a few layers of tar and gravel on top. Lots of lumps.

If solid axle is good enough for the new Shelby Mustang, it's good enough for most subcompacts I think.

It's not good enough for a sports car; it's cheap enough for a domestic sports car. Subcompacts in particular need good suspensions, since they don't have the weight and length to disguise poor handling.

Mr_Shiftright

I think you may be a few years in the past about subcompact handling bumpy. It's really pretty good now. Sway bars and larger tires make a lot of difference from the old days of small wheels, cheesy tires and a much too compliant suspension.

andre1969

my biggest problem with it is the seating position. Compared to the Corolla, at least the Focus doesn't have that steering wheel position that almost requires you to be built like an ape, with long arms and short legs. The Focus's seating position seems like it was designed for more "normally" proportioned drivers. However, it's still not good for tall drivers with long legs.

As for space efficiency, does an IRS take up more space? I was always under the impression that IRS was the reason for increased space efficiency, in RWD cars at least. Since the center carrier of the rear axle is stationary on an IRS car, the driveshaft is also stationary, and that allows them to move the gas tank up under the back seat, instead of hanging it off the rear of the car like older RWD cars did. And then, with the gas tank under the seat, they can put the spare tire under the trunk floor. With older cars, the only other way to get the spare tire under the floor was to make a really long rear overhang and reshape the gas tank so that it wraps around the spare tire well, like they used to do with Dodge Darts. But then you ended up with a compact car (for the time) that had more rear overhang than many full-sized cars.

I guess with FWD though, since you don't have a center carrier and a driveshaft, you can still get the gas tank up under the back seat regardless of whether it has IRS or not.

Mr_Shiftright

You are exactly right. On a FWD, an IRS offers no space saving, but more initial cost and more maintenance for essentially a very slim advantage for 99% of owners.

robertsmx

As for space efficiency, does an IRS take up more space?

By default, it does. Also a reason why European Civic (the hatchback) doesn't get the traditional double wishbone rear suspension as the other Civics... more cargo space.

The compromise... not as smooth ride to go with handling (the ride will be more stiff even for similar handling characteristics, forget about bumpy road surfaces).

andre1969

that Honda started doing away with double-wishbones was that MacPherson struts were cheaper?

nippononly

Yes, that's probably true, but the reason they STATED was more cabin space up front, which is true - when they went from the double wishbones in '00 to the MacStruts in '01, they gained a bunch of foot and leg space in the front, in a package that barely grew on the outside.

robertsmx

I was talking about rear suspension, not the front (which is still independent... with the control link MacPerhson Struts said to be more "space efficient" than Honda's double wishbone layout).

Civic sedan and coupe continue to use double wishbone rear suspension, but for the Civic hatchback, Honda opted to use semi-independent/torsion beam rear suspension. Immediate advantage would be that of increased utility (cargo space). So, in Europe, Civic Sedan (the only trim offered their is the hybrid) has IRS with double wishbone layout, compared to Civic Hatchback that has the semi-IRS set up.

andre1969

Funny thing though...I could fit in the front seat of a '92-95 or even an '88-81 Civic than I could the '01-05. I can't remember the '96-00 style.

The '01-05 feels a bit tight to me, though. Now the '06 feels decent, but when you consider it rides a 106.X inch wheelbase, it better! There's no space efficiency magic here...it's just a bigger car!

Maybe some of those older Civics just felt roomier inside too, because they had those big windows and low cowls? Still, I do remember being able to stretch out in the front seat of the '91 Civic rental I had. And being able to stretch out your legs isn't an "in-your-mind" trick they can play on you with larger window area!

The main area where I remember that '91 Civic being shorchanged was the back seat. It was a cramped, inhosbitable place to sit, but I'd rather have a car that sacrifices the back seat for a comfy front seat, than a car that tries to compromise with a so-so back seat and a so-so front seat. Because after all, if the driver isn't comfortable, what good is the car?

andre1969

what exactly is a "semi-" independent suspension? IMO, that's a sham right up there with "pillared hardtop". Either it is or it isn't. It's like being "a little bit pregnant".

nippononly

Also, there's the advantage of durability. In general the torsion beam rear is going to be more durable than the double wishbones, important in a car like a hatch or wagon that might carry heavy loads over the rear wheels (less likely in the coupe or sedan).

In these little subcompacts, which are already so light on their feet, it would be nice to have an independent rear for less skittering around on bumpy turns. I guess that's one thing I can hope for in future if they enjoy more sales success this time around. :-)

robertsmx

Not quite.

"All Maximas have an independent front strut suspension and a semi-independent rear beam suspension"

I don't know if we should apply the word "semi" for pregnancy etc, but the fact is that it finds use, a lot, and did with suspension as can be seen in the road test (above) for the previous generation Maxima.

There's no space efficiency magic here...it's just a bigger car!

Longer wheelbase does not mean a bigger car. The new Civic is actually shorter than the older model (although it sits on 3 inch longer wheelbase).

robertsmx

They will have to give up some of the bootspace to take advantage of IRS.

andre1969

That same article also states: The Maxima SE's handling is flat and predictable with very high limits, but it could use more damping to soften out bumps, and the beam-type rear suspension has its limitations over rough, inconsistent road surfaces. This is one area where the Altima has the advantage: it has an independent rear suspension.

So, I still don't understand? Is she pregnant or not? It just doesn't seem to me that something can be "semi-independent". Either it is or it isn't. It's like a true or false question. If you hit a big bump with one wheel, can it affect the travel of the other wheel, like a conventional, "non-independent" suspension? I don't know what the opposite of an independent suspension would be these days. Back in the day it was called a solid axle, or live axle, or beam axle, although "beam" often referred to those real old front suspsensions that were used in ancient cars, or are still used in really heavy-duty trucks.

Anyway, judging from what we got with the 2004 Maxima, I guess the answer to my question yes, she WAS pregnant! I see the Altima was the mother, but who was the daddy? C'mon, fess up! :P

robertsmx

This might help you.

"torsion beam suspension is only half-independent - there is a torsion beam connecting both wheels together, which allows limited degree of freedom when forced."

So, how about pregnancy? Are we up for a different kind of news now?

andre1969

thanks for that link...I'm starting to kinda understand it now. That torsion beam setup kinda makes me think a bit of my old '89 Gran Fury, only with fewer parts and more compact. I just kept picturing some derivative of those cheap, simple old beams they used to put up under the rear-ends of K-cars, Cavaliers, and other cheap FWD cars.

210delray

I think it was VW that introduced the semi-independent rear torsion beam suspension with the first Rabbit. I had one -- a first year (1975) lemon! (Not the suspension, but a lot of other things.) VW may have also been the first to come up with the "security cover" over the rear hatch area that raised up when you opened the hatch.

But then again, maybe you guys know of a 1950s European car that had one or both of these first! (Were there hatchbacks in the '50s?)

andre1969

one of the first mass-produced hatchbacks was the 1961 Renault 4. However, this one looks like the rear door goes all the way down to the load floor. Also, the rear of the car is vertical, and this is really nothing more than a stubbier version of countless station wagons that had been built for years before.

I'd consider something like this old beast to be more of a true hatchback. I guess those old "shooting brake" style cars were probably the first real hatchbacks, although they were often expensive, elitist cars, and not really a vehicle for the masses.

210delray

I agree, the '61 Renault 4 looks more like a wagon to me than a hatchback. It even has a D-pillar, unlike typical hatchbacks. The car looks ancient even compared to its contemporaries.

The other car looks very nice from the rear at least, and I'd say it's a hatchback. Is it an Aston?

ubbermotor

It hardly qualifies as a Sub-compact, but Kaiser was offering a hatchback in 1951.

andre1969

were very hatchback-ish, but I wonder if they'd be disqualified from being a "true" hatchback because of having the little tailgate that dropped down? Although it seems to me that would add utility? Well, in some ways at least. Having the little drop-down gate makes the cargo area much more accessible, but then you also have to reach further, which could lead to back problems and such.

Also kinda interesting that, for a RWD car, they figured out how to get the spare tire completely under the trunk floor.

nippononly

A tailgate that dropped down? Why, in that case those were the very first ever SUVs! :-)

Mr_Shiftright

I think the first real hatchback in America was the MGB GT coupe.

imidazol97

I saw another Chevette during an evening walk in a neighbor's drive. Looked like it was well-polished and in good shape on the outside and inside. Little far to see but no headliner drooping, seat tops looked good where visible through the glass. Maybe I underestimated the ability of GM to build a good car in those days that would last! Thing probably had been garaged all it's life.

andre1969

did the Chevette use? My experience with cars has been that those old ribbed headliners, where you had the stitching every foot or so, which kind of resembled a convertible with the top up, would last forever. Their weak spot would be if the stitching started to come loose, or if it got torn.

Those newer 1-piece headliners that have the felt over the acoustical insulation don't seem to hold up as well. Over time, the insulation itself starts to deteriorate, and the felt pulls loose. Now, the time it does it can vary widely. I remember my 1980 Malibu started letting go after maybe 7-8 years. And once it started, it went fast. But then my grandma's '85 LeSabre only let go in a few small patches, which looked like felt-covered bubbles, and was still holding pretty well at the age of 18, when we finally got rid of it.

I guess whether a car is garaged or not would have a big bearing on how well those headliners would last. I'd imagine that sun would heat up the roof considerably, and that acoustical insulation, and cause it to break down.

210delray

I once carpooled with a group, and one of the members had a 70s AMC Matador coupe (ugly knockoff of the Monte Carlo of the same era). Its drooping headliner was held up by gigantic safety pins! I didn't know they made pins that big.

nippononly

the first one of the new pack is here - the Yaris. I have driven one, and I have to say the driving experience is very pleasant. Forget everything you thought you knew about subcompacts. Blindfold the passenger, and there would be precious little to distinguish this car from the Corolla in terms of materials, peppiness and ride, and even space - you notice it is a little narrower than a Corolla, but apart from that it uses its interior space extremely well.

I can't wait to get a look at the Fit, the Versa, the updated Aveo, and the new Accent. This will be a fun year of test drives....

:-)

Mr_Shiftright

come up to Sausalito and I'll give you a ride in the xA, see what you think compared to the others....