Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
There is a large storage space behind the rear seats and the rear seatbacks can be folded down to accommodate large or awkward objects. My friend’s wheelchair fit easily back there.
The flat cabin floor means three people can ride in the rear seats in reasonable comfort provided none are too broad of beam. And when they’re back there, they’ll have a great view of what’s going on outside. Tall doesn’t matter. I’m close to 6 ft and I had at least 4 extra inches of headroom.
(It) is everything I need or want in a car. It’s attractive and it’s compact enough to tuck into almost any space. Yet it’s roomy enough for four full size adults plus their overnight bags and a weekend’s worth of groceries. It’s cheap to buy and economical to operate"
It's from a Toyota Yaris review here
http://newautos.about.com/od/cars/fr/ch_07yaris.htm
but it could be applied to most of the new subcompacts available today, and it sums things up just nicely, I think. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"I invite all you folks who remain unconvinced that any sub-compact can satisfy your space requirements to take a long, careful look at the (insert name here). This one is a lot bigger inside than it looks.
There is a large storage space behind the rear seats and the rear seatbacks can be folded down to accommodate large or awkward objects. My friend’s wheelchair fit easily back there.
Granted, the Yaris IS bigger inside than it looks. I still find it sorely lacking in legroom though. As for "large storage space behind the rear seats", it depends on your frame of reference. Yeah, if you're thinking in terms of a 1980 Accord or Chevette, a Yaris trunk might as well be the Carlsbad Caverns. But if you're thinking in terms of a 2000 Intrepid or 2006 Xterra where you packed the storage area so full for a trip that some of the cargo spilled over into the back seat, it's still going to come up short.
The flat cabin floor means three people can ride in the rear seats in reasonable comfort provided none are too broad of beam. And when they’re back there, they’ll have a great view of what’s going on outside. Tall doesn’t matter. I’m close to 6 ft and I had at least 4 extra inches of headroom.
I don't care how flat the floor is, unless you have at least 57 or so inches of shoulder room, you ain't getting 3 across in comfort back there! At the Philly auto show, Grbeck, Lemko and I crammed into the back of a Lucerne just for giggles, and I didn't think it was comfortable. If a Lucerne can't do it, a Yaris sure as heck won't! Of course, "reasonable" is a subjective term.
The Yaris has a somewhat formal roofline, which does give it good headroom. However, you put that front seat all the way back, and forget about getting a "full sized" adult back there.
It) is everything I need or want in a car. It’s attractive and it’s compact enough to tuck into almost any space. Yet it’s roomy enough for four full size adults plus their overnight bags and a weekend’s worth of groceries. It’s cheap to buy and economical to operate"
Again, it depends on what you mean by "full-sized". You're not getting 4 people my size to fit in that car with any degree of comfort. You're not even getting someone my size in the front seat for more than 10 minutes. About the best I'd say is "it's not as cramped as I thought it would be".
Now like I said before, I don't think the Yaris is a bad little car. I could probably deal with one for most of my driving. My job is 3 1/2 miles away, and I probably only do around 6,000 miles per year total these days. Something like that would be pure torture for me on a trip more than, say, a half-hour, though.
Still, subcompacts do have potential. I sat in a Hyundai Accent 2-door hatchback at the DC auto show, and that sucker felt like it had legroom in the league with some 70's mastodons.
And while it's considered a compact and not a subcompact, I think I could handle a Honda Civic.
Well, as long as no-one weighs over 160 and they pack light. I have been unable to find the Yaris GVWR, but I would be curious to know what it is. I also assume the review deals with the 4 vs the 3dr.
That's a good point. I didn't even think about the GVWR. For some reason, I want to say the GVWR of my uncle's '03 Corolla is around 3500 pounds, which is pretty impressive considering the car's only around 2500-2600. Seems like nowadays around 800-900 pounds of spread between curb weight and GVWR is about all you can hope for regardless of size, unless you get something old-school like a Crown Vic. My buddy's '04 has a GVWR of 5600, which is in the league of a mid-70's intermdediate. I think the GVWR on my Intrepid is around 4400 lb, which is kinda lame considering the car's probably around 3400 pounds. I think there's a sticker either in the glovebox or the doorjamb that says the maximum load capacity is 895 pounds. Heck, get 4 people my size in the car after a big meal, and you're at the GVWR.
I think this might be a good example of how cars are often "under-built" these days, in some respects. Back in the 70's, even a lowly Dodge Dart with a slant six had a GVWR of around 4800 pounds, and would've weighed around 3200 pounds. That's a pretty big spread there. Most 1/2 ton pickups don't even have that big of a spread between curb weight and GVWR these days.
It is just that a sub compact requires more planning to do anything more than going to work and driving home 5 days a week. It is like a skill saw versus a a table saw. Both will cut a straight line but it is easier to do with the table saw.
There has to be a reason we see so many releases of the "new" sub compact only to see them grow over the years into a compact or even a mid sized car like the Accord did. There must be a reason that most of these sub compacts start out with tiny motors and tout their fuel economy only to bump them up like the Scion did. Sub Compacts are simply on the opposite end of the scale of big cars.
The advantages of a small car are fuel mileage and that is about it. Maybe entry level pricing in some cases. But in our modern world easy to park is not an issue for most people. They don't even teach parallel parking in Southern california and except for the small compact spaces even a hummer can park in a normal parking space. And Accords and Camry both seem to fit in a compact space just fine. I know my Focus does. I agree I would like to get 40 MPG. But I would also like to have more HP and right now I can't have both.
Go "sit" in the student section of the Big House. The way they get capacity to buck-oh-seven is by giving the students 10" of seat space each. Yes that means the Maize and Blue are standing the whole game. Cheap trick. There isn't even enough room to stand.
My Intrepid only has something like 58-59" of shoulder room in back, which isn't bad, but noticeably less than the Crown Vic. However, the seats are flatter. They feel thicker to me, too, possibly because it's an FWD car? And it's a base model with no armrest in back, so that doesn't take away from the comfort of the middle spot.
However, I've seen some cars where they measure the hip room and it's greater than shoulder room! And that just doesn't seem logical, unless the car has no armrests and the lower parts of the doors actually bow out. Usually if there's any bowing to be done, the car will bow out up toward the beltline and tuck in lower down...especially with those old "fuselage" body styles of the 70's.
The only thing I can guess is that maybe for hiproom, they measure down low, where your hips would be, but they follow the contouring of the seat? A car with deep contouring would then have a higher hiproom measurement than a car with a flat bench backrest. But that doesn't mean you're going to be able to get bigger people in there. If anything, that contouring is going to limit how big of a person you can get in that seat.
If my hips are touching someone else's then my shoulder is probably in front of their nose.
I remember when my buddy bought his '04 Crown Vic. Two friends and I went along for the ride, in the back seat. I'm 6'3" and around 190-200 lb, one guy is about 6'2" and around 190-200 lb, and the other is around 5'10" but skinny, around 125 lb. We put the skinny guy in the middle. The way those seats were contoured though, it sort of pushed us outer passengers to where we had to lean inward, and our shoulders were actually overlapping. That's not something that should happen, IMO, in a car that claims to be a full-sized 6-passenger auto. Now, I realize that few people really NEED a 6-passenger car, but if you're going to claim to build one, then build one, dammit! :P
Seemed roomier, priced about the same...drove okay.
Downside? Very rough engine and doggy transmission. The Toyota engines seem very refined compared to this thrasher in the base model car.
Domestics still seem to be behind the curve in engines for their smaller cars.
I guess it's just when I see an automatic Corolla rated at 30/38 and an automatic Civic rated at 30/40, the Cobalt sort of slips your mind, at least in fuel economy. I'd almost be tempted to cut the Cobalt some slack because I prefer its driving position to the Corolla. However, the Civic's driving position also feels fine to me, so it shows you can have a small car with good fuel economy AND a good driving position.
Still, of those three cars, I guess the Cobalt would be the quickest, so at least something good comes of the relatively low economy.
ALSO we were at some altitude so that might explain the performance deficiency completely---however, not the roughness of the engine. The little 1.5 Scion engine sings compared to this thresher.
It was comfortable to drive long distances however...just not uphill.
The car was uncomfortable to get into, uncomfortable to drive, and the usual boring interior. However, the killer to me, was the poor gas mileage. A compact should get a whole lot better gas mileage than the 26-28 mpg that I was able to get.
Anyway, if the Cobalt had a 4-speed automatic, compared to a 5-speed stick in the xA, that's definitely going to be a handicap for the Cobalt. Not only will the automatic slow it down, but sticks tend to be more jerky and direct, which can sometimes make you feel like you're taking off even faster than you are.
Also, if this Cobalt was a new one, is it possible that the transmission was just going through that adaptive "learning" phase, and that was messing with it?
I know the Civic is not a sub-compact but I find it truly amazing. I found the driving area huge and the way the dash is laid out it feels very roomy. To get 30/40 mpg seems almost impossible. Now if they could get the price down a bit I would be all over one.
I haven't driven one so I cannot say with any authority. Didn't they make one that had a supercharger?
http://tunersource.gmblogs.com/blog/archive/2007/08/02/a-perfect-race-for-the-sc- adapack-chevy-cobalt-ss
and back in 2006
http://www.grand-am.com/News/Article.asp?ID=6858
I believe in the Grand Am Koni Challenge Cobalts are ahead of Honda Subaru and Mini Cooper this year. But like I said I haven't seen anything official in the last two months. I know, I watch too much TV.
There are many other classes in compact sport racing and Cobalt doesn't seem to do anything in the point totals in those...such as modified, hot rod, sport FWD and all motor. But it does very well in Pro FWD.
So, er...this isn't the car Shifty drove or any of us is likely to experience as a "Cobalt".
This past weekend was the last weekend of the Los Angeles County fair, so a few friends and I decided to take our 2007 Honda Fit and drive the hour out to the fair grounds. By a few friends I mean myself plus four full size, adult passengers. I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a tight fit, however the Fit handled it just fine. What surprised me even more was that when merging onto the highway the Fit seemed to be unaffected by the full load. I guess this little car has more to offer than I thought.
Anyway we drover it up a pretty decent sized hill in town and I mean a paved street where the radio tower is and you have to shift it down low to get up that street. it was mostly in 2nd gear and 3rd just wasn't going to happen. The street isn't even a mile long but it's a great test for a cars power. For most stuff in the city it's ok although I didn't drive one in the winter. My kids whined about it being small for 3 of them in the back, the youngest is 19 so they are adults. If you are in a place like Florida it'd be great as it's mostly flat but lots of hills will kill the economy in any vehicle and the Fit is no exception. My wife is no power fiend but it's not enough juice for our area and with snow I have no idea how it would work out.
The Cobalt handled okay. You give me enough money, I'll beat a MINI with a Yugo.
These little cars are FINE for 4 people for commutes. But not 5 for anything more than short hops.
Exactly. That's why I find the earlier comment about how that poster's Fit would "fit" 5 adults. I'm presuming that meant 3 in the back seat, unless they put the 5th adult back in the cargo area!
Unless I'm reading the original post wrong? But according to the way I was taught English, the statement "This past weekend was the last weekend of the Los Angeles County fair, so a few friends and I decided to take our 2007 Honda Fit and drive the hour out to the fair grounds. By a few friends I mean myself plus four full size, adult passengers." means 5 people total...the driver plus four passengers.
As for comfort, or at least my perception of it, I doubt if there's ANY car made today that's really designed to hold three people across. Maybe something like a Benz S-class or BMW 7-series? I know those back seats are designed to be the ultimate luxury for 2 people, but even they might not suffice for 3 across.
I think you'd really need a full-sized pickup or SUV or a not-so-mini-anymore-van to really get good 3 across seating.
In the case of mine (Scion xA), two inches more legroom (not sure where that's coming from though :P ) and a taller 5th gear and I'd never sell it I don't think. The small 1.5 engine I can work around by paying attention to shifting.
Not in America.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Couldn't they just give the car a longer seat track so it could go back further? That's going to rob rear seat legroom, but it would at least make the car more useable for taller drivers.
Also, if you take a car that's already small, and add a bit of length, but make sure it all goes to legroom, it's not hard at all to make a roomy car. For instance, if they added 2 inches of wheelbase to the xA, you'd still have a really tiny car. But if that 2 inches added up to improved legroom, it would be a world of difference. I'd imagine that something like 99.5% of all cars fall in between 40.5 and 42.5" of legroom, anyway.
This was how Chrysler ended up getting some really roomy cars from their K-car design. The main difference between an Aries/Reliant/LeBaron/400 and a 600/E-Class/Caravelle/New Yorker was 3 inches of wheelbase...103.3" versus 100.3". However, they made sure that all of that extra length went inside the passenger cabin, instead of ahead of the firewall or behind the back seat. These cars pretty much peaked with the Imperial and 5th Avenue versions of the early 1990's, which were on something like a 109.9" wheelbase. Again, just about all that length went inside the passenger cabin. Most of it went into the back seat, but I guess even if you add all that length at the back door, you can still move the front seat back a bit further, or give it greater range of motion so it goes back further between the B-pillars.
On the flip side though, it's not easy to take a big car and make a smaller car out of it. If you took, say, a Crown Vic, and chopped one inch out of the back seat area and one inch out of the front seat area, you'd have a pretty miserable car, unless the seats themselves were radically revised, or the seating position made higher, or something.
My mom just bought one, with a little help from my brother and myself.
Needless to say, I thought the car looked like it was sitting a little low. I looked up those driveway pavers online, and it turns out each one was 26 pounds! :surprise: So I figure that, between us and those driveway pavers, we were over the weight limit by around 150 pounds. I wonder how far you have to overload a vehicle to do permanent damage, anyway? Probably depends on the vehicle.
So how has that worked out for you? 16 miles is more than any dealer around here will let you test drive a car for. They want zero mileage cars, most will let you drive around their imaginary test loop, more than that and it's usually a big excuse about adding up miles on the car.
I also will run the A/C but to be honest if we use it 30 days out of the year I'd be amazed.
Did you test the Fit on your run? It just couldn't handle my family and figure an extra kid is like suitcases (only more expensive!)
I kid you not. The bikes were on a hitch carrier.
My mom just bought one, with a little help from my brother and myself.
Becasuse of its upright, minivan shape (a Fit is really a minivan scaled down to 2/3 size), it probably has more cargo room than a Civic. And with the back seat folded down, it's definitely going to be more versatile than a Civic.
However, from a driving standpoint, I find the Civic to be more comfortable. Tall vehicles like the Fit tend to be great if you have a long torso and short legs. However, if you have long legs and an average torso, all that extra room above your head, which is counted in EPA interior volumes, is just wasted space IMO.
I was surprised to find that I could fit in the back seat of a Civic, with the front seat all the way back and adjusted for my comfort. I think it was a combination of a low seating position, and the shape of the front seatback that made it feel roomier than the published dimensions might otherwise suggest.
What about the much unloved Scion xD? Sure it has a high beltline but it does have a bit more room from what I can tell. I haven't driven a Scion xA but I did sit in the xD (not driven it) Seems ok but then again, I'm fairly short at 5'7"
I'm 6' tall, yet my inseam is just 30".
I Fit perfectly.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator