What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

bobw3

I had a '99 Cougar V-6 that got 32mpg routinely on highway drives, so I know what you mean. Heck my Fou ord Freestyle will get in the upper 20s MPG. The FS weighs about 4100lbs and the Fit about 2500, so the Fit weighs about 40% less than the FS and in my observations, the Fit gets about 40% better MPG over the FS. Low 20s MPG for the FS average, Low 30s MPG for Fit average, high 20s MPG for FS highway and high 30s MPG for Fit highway.

And just looking at highway MPG isn't the best way to compare two vehicles, unless you live on an exit ramp! You really need to look at the average and the range. Once any vehicle is moving at highway speeds, it doesn't take much power to keep it at that speed and aerodynamics will affect MPG at those speeds more than anything else, so if you really want to compare MPG, take that Monte Carlo rental and drive around town for a week and calculate the MPG and it will probably be in the low 20s.

But I do agree that they should engineer better MPG from all cars.

bobw3

What you're talking about are the old EPA testing methods. The new methods account for more "aggressive" driving and higher speeds on the highways. But these are only "estimates," so if you drive more agressively you'll get worse MPG and if you drive more sanely you'll get better MPG than the estimate.

And if manufacturers design cars to get the best possible score on the EPA test than that's great because then the cars will be designed for those who drive more conservatively and sane, and those who want to race to every stop-sign will find their MPG will suffer because of it.

colloquor

No, I fully understand what the Monte Carlo would probably get in town. And, I also understand the physics for highway driving (cruising).

Even Buicks with the old 3.8L V6 would easily get over 30 on the highway. The overall fuel economy is what's important, as most of us don't drive the freeways exclusively. But, it is an interesting comparison, as quite a few smaller cars with smaller engines deliver lesser fuel economy on the highway.

One thing that I certainly learned when renting the Monte Carlo is: Why do people buy them?? There was really nothing, other than the observed highway fuel economy, that I could live with on a day to day basis that would make me want to buy one.

robertsmx

One of the misconceptions is that the old methods went away. They didn't. EPA added three new tests. If you want to talk sanity, or lack of, look no further than one of the new tests that EPA added. The high speed test involves going from 60 to 80 to 60 in less than a mile, to a screeching halt. This is followed by 0-30-5-30-5-30-5-30-0-50-0 over a very short distance, following aggressive braking and acceleration. I don’t drive like that, and perhaps that explains why my cars easily exceed EPA ratings.

But I don’t drive to go from 0-35 in 12 seconds either. That would be insane, and nothing but a nightmare for others on a busy street, the right formula for traffic jams. Most people don’t. Just observe your driving style, and tell me if you take 12 seconds to go from a complete stop to 35 mph. In all likelihood, you don’t. The result, your transmission shift pattern will either be different (if the car was designed around EPA standard) or it won’t be (if it was designed for more realistic drive pattern).

Also, if the car was designed around (most of) EPA specs, it will shift more and hold a shorter gear, resulting in you not getting the rated fuel economy. But if it wasn’t tailored for EPA results, then the chances are it will not shift into taller gears too quickly, and do so back. The worse situation is already handled and reflected in EPA rating. The result, it improves your chance to meet or beat rated fuel economy.

And I’m not simply talking here. I have been observing this difference in several cars. Based on that, it would be criminal to rely on EPA ratings to “appreciate” better design, unless a design is better if it is designed to excel in EPA system.

boaz47

How easy it is to forget all about sub compacts and get to the real intent? Fuel mileage and Taxes? And if we use a weight formula shouldn't the lighter fit pay more taxes if the heavier Honda Civic Hybrid, mid sized Camry Hybrid and Prius get better mileage? The Prius weighs about 15 percent more than a Fit but gets about 30 percent better fuel mileage, so if we made that the standard we could tax the Fit driver 30 Percent for a lighter car using more fuel that a heavier car. And if it is a city car the Camry mid sized hybrid gets 10 percent better fuel mileage in town than a Fit so we could tax the Fit once again. Sure it is all hyperbole but it is every bit as fair.

I can hardly wait till we try and put a gas tax to the voters? I don't believe we have ever had a public execution of a politician before.

andre1969

One thing that I certainly learned when renting the Monte Carlo is: Why do people buy them?? There was really nothing, other than the observed highway fuel economy, that I could live with on a day to day basis that would make me want to buy one.

Cars like the Monte Carlo used to be all about style and flash over substance. It was all about looking good. Back in the 1970's and perhaps up through 1985, the personal luxury coupe was a very hot market segment.

As the years went on though, all coupes seemed to fall from favor, not just personal luxury coupes. Part of it may have been that people just wanted something more practical, but it could also be that with increased emphasis on aerodynamics, all the flash and flambouyance that used to be associated with personal luxury coupes was eliminated. And with the slicker sedan styles out there, coupes weren't necessarily any sleeker than their sedan counterparts.

In the past I tended to prefer coupes because I found them easier to get into and out of than a sedan. Sure, the back seat is more difficult, but the larger door openings of the coupe made it easier to get in and out of the driver's seat for me. Also, with a coupe, the B-pillar is always well aft of where I have the seat positioned, so it doesn't block my vision to the side. The only 4-door sedans I've ever seen that can boast that are pillarless hardtops, or the 1979-81 full-sized Chrysler products (Newport, St. Regis, NYer, etc). Any other sedan, and the B-pillar is smack right up beside my head.

Nowadays though, 4-door cars have much larger doors than in the past. For example, the doors on my uncle's '03 Corolla are probably as large as the doors on my grandmother's old '85 LeSabre. That helps out tremendously with entry/exit, although I still have the B-pillar problem.

If somebody would make a really good looking, fairly roomy coupe, I'd be tempted to buy one. I used to like the 1997-03 Grand Prix coupe, but never really liked the W-body Monte Carlo. I think the current style looks better than the '00-05, but it's still not enough to tempt me. I think the Solara's a fat, ugly looking thing. The Accord coupe's not bad looking, but pretty tight inside. More compact than midsized. Now I think the new Altima coupe is pretty hot looking, but I dunno how roomy it is inside.

bobw3

I'm not sure why you would care so much about the vehicle weight? The idea is to get better MPG just to encourage folks to think more about buying vehicles with better MPG and for manufactures to produce such vehicles. A tax incentive is one way of doing it.

bobw3

Can you post the EPA web link that describes the new test procedures you describe.

robertsmx

link

boaz47

Very few taxes encourage people to do anything. They cause resentment and almost always placed on the majority by the minority. But if fuel mileage was the real intent then it wouldn't matter how heavy or what the displacement of the vehicle was. If you could get 40 MPG in a 3/4 ton SUV would you buy one over a Fit? If not then isn't your commitment simply to force others to buy what you like?

If fuel mileage was the intent of this forum then it could simply be stated that sub compacts don't get significantly better fuel mileage than compacts or even some mid sized cars and therefore were not necessary nor desirable. (Nippon and Shifty and daysailer would disagree even if they didn't get better fuel mileage.) If the free market is to work there must be some easily seen advantage to buying a sub compact over a compact or mid sized car. If there isn't and someone suggests a tax to force a segment of the population into their way of thinking is simply regressive and punitive. If Gas is 3 bucks a gallon and someone with a Hummer has to pay 100 bucks a week to fill and drive back and forth to work they are already giving more in taxes than the driver of an Echo. If that isn't enough incentive what in the world would make anyone think adding taxes to us all will work better? The Hummer driver just may have the resources to pay more and the Echo driver would still have his fuel cost increased without a change in buying habits.

Produce a vehicle that people want and if it gets better fuel mileage to boot people would buy it. Produce a vehicle people don't want and then tax them into accepting it will result in exactly what happened back in the 70s when people first started buying smaller cars. They passed laws making it harder for people to get the vehicle they wanted and large family cars and wagons almost ceased to exist. But as the wages grew to compensate for the fuel prices pickups and SUV became the most popular vehicles in the US by far. Such methods only effect those who can least afford it and free the one that can afford it to flaunt their ability to ignore the taxes. What works in Europe doesn't work here. We have harbors to toss the tea into. At the very least such tax increases must be brought to the voters and there they will die.

You know what they call it when someone keeps trying the same thing and expects different results?

snakeweasel

First of all, tax based on EPA ratings gets a BIG NO from me.

I would agree, basing a tax on mileage or displacement has one major flaw. It doesn't address actual usage. Should someone with a larger less fuel efferent engine but drives 5k miles a year pay more in taxes than someone who drives a more efficient smaller engine but drives 20K a year.

taxing the gas and having people pay by usage seems to work well.

snakeweasel

Its tougher for you to individually cheat but not for some scams to develop.

boaz47

But what does the tax accomplish? Lets say I average 25 gallons a week driving a Dodge Hemi and Nippon averages 25 gallons a week in his Echo. He may drive three times the distance I do but the difference in cost to Nippon and me is the same even if he gets twice the fuel mileage that I do.

Then there is the new corporate method. When it comes time for a raise one thing you simply ask for is fuel expenses. The company issues you a credit card for fuel and if prices increase so does your raise. The corporation writes the expenses off at tax time and the employee is happy. The best of both worlds.

I just feel increased taxes on the working class is the worst possible solution but it seems to be the easiest one for some to come up with. Tax our fuel and you end up taxing our food, clothing and other products. Those items do not get to the store by transporter beam.

bobw3

"If you could get 40 MPG in a 3/4 ton SUV would you buy one over a Fit? "

If you're going to talk fantasy, they why bother with this discussion?

The fact is that I can use my Fit to drive 4 people comfortably with more luggage than a camry or accord AND get better MPG...that's a fact until anyone can post a statistic indicating that a accord or camry averages better MPG than a Fit. Sure a Civic will get the same MPG, but since I can carry more stuff in my subcompact Fit, I'll use it more often over a mid-sized vehicle and get better MPG.

I've never said the gas tax is a bad thing...it's great, but again, what's the problem with providing an incentive to drive more fuel efficient vehicles? Not for the individual necessarily, but for the good of the overall country. The problem with all of these argruments is that it's being looked at on an individual basis without looking at how it would affect the overall good.

For those families with 2 or 3 cars, if they would consider one of them to be a really fuel efficient vehicle (AND some govt incentive might help) then as a country we'd use less fuel.

If it weren't for governement, there would be no pollution standards on factories, cars, water, etc and we'd be living like in China, where capitalism and free market runs wild. Or Eastern Europe under Communism. Those who complain about government regulation should look back to the turn of the 19th centery with child labor and black skies. You want the government to provide you with a healthy environment but are unwilling to pay for it or even consider ways of improving it yourself.

bobw3

But what does the tax accomplish? Lets say I average 25 gallons a week driving a Dodge Hemi and Nippon averages 25 gallons a week in his Echo. He may drive three times the distance I do but the difference in cost to Nippon and me is the same even if he gets twice the fuel mileage that I do.

Less pollution and gas consumption per mile, which is the only way to measure it.

lilengineerboy

Less pollution and gas consumption per mile, which is the only way to measure it.

I think this is where you are running into opposition from most of the other people on the forum. You are using an arbitrary measure of what may or may not be consumed over time, and myself and several others feel it should be tied to the actual consumption, if such a thing were to come to pass.

snakeweasel

Less pollution and gas consumption per mile, which is the only way to measure it.

There is a problem with that. While a smaller and more efficient engine has less conspumtion and pollution per mile they will pollute more and consume more gas if driven more.

I have a Caddy with a 5.7 liter powerplant. While that pollutes more and uses more gas than a Prius on a mile per mile basis it doesn't pollute more on a yearly basis. Thats because I only drive that beast sparingly less than 5K miles a year. The typical prius will be driven at least 3 times as much so will use more gas and pollute more over any period of time.

So if gas usage and pollution is your issue the better way is to put a tax on usage.

boaz47

If there were no movement on technology to improve useage or to cut pollution there is a slight chance something needs to be done by the voting consumer. But the choices are there and people are free to choose them. If someone wants a Corolla they an get one and get 28-37 MPG and all they have to do is buy it. You don't need a tax to get them to make that car. Or if you don't need that much room or fuel mileage you still can get a Fit and give up a little fuel mileage 28-34 and some shoulder room about an inch in the front and three inches in the back and tax wasn't necessary to get them to build that car either.

As far as fantasy in a SUV getting better fuel mileage than a Fit if someone pulled up the specs on a Ford Escape hybrid they would see that for the city dweller the escape get 34 in town and 30 Highway that is also a better average than a Fit. So if the vehicles are there and sub compacts aren't always the best solution why in the world would we tax everyone? Fuel has almost doubled in the last few years as if someone put a 100 percent tax on it and people didn't Give up Vipers and Hummers for Echos. If we place another tax on ourselves all it does is tax the Echo driver with no promise the Hummer or Viper driver will ever notice.

If there is one universal truth we should have learned by now it is, a Tax is rarely better for all of us and they are hardly ever used for what they were intended. They also never seem to die even when they are put in as a temporary measure.

robertsmx

what's the problem with providing an incentive to drive more fuel efficient vehicles?

The incentive should be on consuming less fuel. Given the way things work in America, this will automatically help the fittest survive, and in the longer term, that will be smaller cars as more people realize they don't need mammoths and could do away with cats.

robertsmx

As far as fantasy in a SUV getting better fuel mileage than a Fit if someone pulled up the specs on a Ford Escape hybrid they would see that for the city dweller the escape get 34 in town and 30 Highway that is also a better average than a Fit.

Subcompacts can be hybridized too. So, I don't get your point against subcompacts in this regard.

BTW, Fit will get you close to 40 mpg on highway, and low-mid 30s in city, while costing over $10K less. So, if one doesn't need SUV, a car like Fit would be the smarter choice. What is it that Fit can't do, that Escape can? If someone asked me to bet on which of the two would cost less to own over 5-10 years, guess, which I would pick (and only one of them may actually be running at the end of ten years).

bobw3

"You are using an arbitrary measure of what may or may not be consumed over time, and myself and several others feel it should be tied to the actual consumption, if such a thing were to come to pass. "

Right, it is already tied to consumption via the gas tax and overall price of gas...and what has that done over the past 30 years to incentive folks to use less gas...not to much, so that's why I'm suggesting a different approach.

bobw3

" I have a Caddy with a 5.7 liter powerplant. While that pollutes more and uses more gas than a Prius on a mile per mile basis it doesn't pollute more on a yearly basis. Thats because I only drive that beast sparingly less than 5K miles a year."

Exactly...and if you drove something more fuel efficient, than you'd pollute even less.

Your logic makes it sound as though everyone driving cars with worse MPG cars just drives less and if they all bought fuel efficient cars they for some reason they're going to start driving more. People driving habits are based on their distance to work, number of children, lifestyles, etc., but not based on the MPG of their car.

It would be great if everyone cut down on the amount of driving they did, no arguements from me there, but the fact is that it would be even better if they drove more efficient cars regardless of their driving habits.

bobw3

"If there is one universal truth we should have learned by now it is, a Tax is rarely better for all of us and they are hardly ever used for what they were intended. "

That's why I was talking about a tax rebate for efficient cars, like with hybrids.

bobw3

Okay simple question:

When it comes time for your next car purchase, would you buy something like a Corolla, Fit or some other small more fuel efficient car (assuming you could fit)?

And would your answer change if gas cost $5/gal?
Or would your answer change if you were given a tax credit of $1000?

boaz47

The point is that the ratings on the Fit and the Escape Hybrid are both posted on edmunds for comparison. If fuel mileage was the issue then the Escape is a SUV that gets sub compact mileage. But if you believe the Fit is a smarter choice then why would someone support a tax for you to make it?

My point isn't against sub compacts, my point is there is no need to tax someone into a sub compact. If you can get 40 MPG in a car rated at 34 MPG then you don't need an incentive to save fuel do you?

I simply asked an earlier question to see if the debate had anything to do with sub compacts or had it evolved into one on fuel mileage and people's choices in transportation. I admit I pulled the 40 MPG SUV out ot the air but still if fuel mileage was the issue the Fit is only one choice and not necsessarly the best one at that. The Corolla gets better fuel mileage. The Prius, Honda Hybrid and the Camry hybrid get better fuel mileage and the Camry is a mid sized car. If we use the posted mileage by Edmunds or EPA ratings the Escape hybrid averages better mileage than the Fit as well. The point once more is you don't need a tax to have those cars available to the consumer.

If you are saying the Fit cost less to buy then you are willing to make the compromise in fuel mileage for decreased entry costs. You didn't need a tax to make that decission either, Fuel cost just fell below initial cost in that case. So absolutely everyone makes a compromise in what they buy based on their needs and wants. The consumer is quite capable of deciding what those compromises are in their individual lives and we do not need a tax to help us make those decisions.

What can the Escape do the Fit can't? You can get more room, a bit more than three inches of shoulder room in the front and five extra inches in the back. You can have the option of AWD and it is a cleaner running vehicle vehicle.

What I am saying is the whole tax debate has nothing to do with sub compacts and their success in the US. It is simply a smoke screen from people that want to limit our choices based on the choices they make. If the consumer wants a small sub compact they can buy one and they don't need a tax to do so. If however they don't come running into the showrooms snapping up every sub compact they see we don't need a tax to force them into seeing the error of their ways. In other words, let the consumer vote with their wallet and we can get back to debating the reasons sub compacts have to be re-introduced every 15 years.

lilengineerboy

When it comes time for your next car purchase, would you buy something like a Corolla, Fit or some other small more fuel efficient car (assuming you could fit)?

And would your answer change if gas cost $5/gal?
Or would your answer change if you were given a tax credit of $1000?

I don't care for the styling of the Fit, and the Corolla driving dynamics are eh, "sub-optimal." In fact, the Corolla represents most of what is wrong with the segment. It is a pretty dismal driving experience.

I got an Accord (not that it's driving dynamics are the stuff dreams are made of). I get 34mpg and its tagged as LEV. In fact, so is our Subaru (which has been getting ~30mpg w/me driving, drops to 27mpg w/wife).

If gas was $5/gallon because there was a 100% tax, that should provide a lot of funding to fix other aspects of our transportation system to make things more efficient. Giving someone a pat on the back for buying a particular car I think is silly.

They did do just what you purposed...there were tax credits for hybrids. Once people realized the mileage wasn't what was promised, sales slowed considerably. So to answer the "$1000 Question," no, it doesn't really affect buying decisions.

boaz47

Personally? I am at the point in life where a Mazda3 might be as small as I could go. I am typical north American where my personal space is defined by having room between me and my passengers. I would like a more fuel efficient car and wish and hope the diesels they are introducing will deliver some of that without adding too much particulants in the air.

So if given the choice between a Accord that gets 30MPG and a Fit that gets 34MPG I would pick the Accord. If I were looking at two new vehicles then a Yaris or a xD might do just fine as one of those cars. The smaller one could be used for around town and the larger one for taking friends to dinner or road trips. Ideally a Corolla or Malibu sized car with a diesel would trump a Smart car every time if I had to make a choise. But please don't suggest I need to pay more taxes to get more people into a smart car.

snakeweasel

Exactly...and if you drove something more fuel efficient, than you'd pollute even less.

But then how would I embarrass Mustang GT owners?

My point is that taxing the consumption of fuel is better because it is actually taxing the consumption and the pollution involved in the fuel itself. If I consume 50 gallons than I get taxed the same as someone else using 50 gallons. It doesn't matter if that 50 gallons is over 1,000 miles or 2,500 miles we still get taxed at the same usage rate.

Now if I drive less I am taxed less, if I drive more I am taxed more. This is regardless of what I am driving. Now if I am driving a less efficient vehicle my tax per mile would also be higher.

I have a Zephyr with a massive V-12 in it garaged some place that get driven maybe a dozen miles a month. Should I have to pay a greater tax on that thing even though it basically stays still?

bobw3

"I got an Accord (not that it's driving dynamics are the stuff dreams are made of). I get 34mpg and its tagged as LEV. In fact, so is our Subaru (which has been getting ~30mpg w/me driving, drops to 27mpg w/wife). "

That's great. So you're getting 34MPG average? Then you're at the top end of the curve becasue most folks don't average 34mpg in an Accord.

And I'm not suggesting giving someone a pat on the back for buying a particular car, but using less gas and creating less pollution.

And your answer was that the $1000 wouldn't affect YOUR buying decision.

bobw3

I would like a more fuel efficient car

Me too, so that's why I'm talking about ideas to encourage companies to build them, because they're not doing it on their own. Only the mandated EPA CAFE standards and gas price has done a little of that.

Again on the accord question, I don't think most folks average 30mpg in an Accord. Just look at the Accord Edmunds pages or fueleconomy.gov

bobw3

Every little bit helps. How many Zephyr's with V-12s are there on the road? I'm talking about the vehicles that people use for their 10,000 to 20,000 miles/years, not their car-toys. And again, a tax credit I'm talking about is designe to encourage companies, as well as people. The govt CAFE standards do that right now. Without them there would be no incentive for manufacturers to build small cars with little profit margin and we'd be in an even worse situation.

bobw3

Anyway, I'm done repeating the same points and facts...one tries to educate and provide new ideas, but sometimes it's too hard to educate in this type of forum where the educational background of anyone isn't known...anyway, I need to go paint a wall, which will be productive than trying to talk to one

snakeweasel

so that's why I'm talking about ideas to encourage companies to build them,

The main thing that would encourage companies to build them is for people to buy them. Companies will not build what people don't want. Simple economics.

Sure there are many people that want fuel efficency in cars but don't want to give up certain things to get it. I really don't think a family of five would buy a fit just to get the extra mileage. Nor would someone who wants power will give up that power to get 35 MPG in their car.

snakeweasel

How many Zephyr's with V-12s are there on the road?

I am surprised we got ours working. But we do have it titled and plated so we can drive it.

I'm talking about the vehicles that people use for their 10,000 to 20,000 miles/years, not their car-toys.

So am I, but we need to look at actual usage not potential usage. A gas tax taxes the use directly, the more you use the more you pay. Taxing the EPA figures or the displacement is taxing the potential and not the actual usage. If you tax displacement or EPA figures those who drive less will pay a higher tax rate (per miles driven) and those who drive more will get a tax break (per miles driven).

Without them there would be no incentive for manufacturers to build small cars with little profit margin and we'd be in an even worse situation.

I said it before and I will say it again, the biggest incentive is people wanting to buy them.

snakeweasel

but sometimes it's too hard to educate in this type of forum where the educational background of anyone isn't known...anyway,

OK lets talk credentials. I am a college graduate with degrees in Accounting, Economics and Information Systems. If you want to talk tax theory I am your man.

boaz47

If I had to pay a tax, not that I have voted for a tax increase of any kind in years, one on useage would seem the most fair. But I don't believe the simple act of increasing taxes will cause a manufacture to build a vehicle they can't sell. Look at what they tried with Hybrids. There was some tax break given for a few to buy them but if you think about it you have to wait almost a year to get the money back. Most cars give you a 2k break just for walking into their showroom.

snakeweasel

But I don't believe the simple act of increasing taxes will cause a manufacture to build a vehicle they can't sell.

true the reason smaller more fuel efficient cars are not being built is that we don't buy them. However increasing the gas tax will increase the cost of gas and people will start to conserve which over time will mean a greater demand for more efficient cars. Only then will companies start making them.

This is not an endorsement by me to raise gas taxes.

humblecoder

I see that the Honda Fit is being held up as an example of a "green" subcompact, and that MPG is somehow directly related to being environmentally friendly.

However, if you look at the facts, the Honda Fit is rated as LEV, which is the LOWEST emissions standard. Compare that to my 2004 Ford Focus which is PZEV, which is the highest non-hybird emission standard. So even though the Focus gets worse gas mileage than the Fit, the Fit is a dirtier and less environmentally friendly vehicle, based upon what is coming out of the tailpipe!

Likewise, the Ford Escape hybrid, which also came up in discussion, is AT-PZEV rated, which means that it is also cleaner than the Fit. In fact, I just went to the CARB website, and they also list the Mitsubishi Outlander as being PZEV. So maybe people buying the Fit should being paying an extra tax to help subsidize Outlander sales!!!

Also, if you go to EPA website, you will see that the Fit's emissions score is a 6 (on a scale of 1 to 10). Meanwhile, the Honda Pilot is a 6 or a 7, depending upon the state where the vehicle is sold. So the Pilot, which is a big-a** SUV has the same emissions rating as the tiny Fit.

My point is that, from an "environmental" standpoint, the important thing is emissions, which isn't necessarily related to MPG.

boaz47

Thanks for pointing that out. Some of the sub compacts aren't as clean as some mid sized cars.

bobw3

Sure there are many people that want fuel efficency in cars but don't want to give up certain things to get it. I really don't think a family of five would buy a fit just to get the extra mileage

I agree...how about single commuters or families of 2-3 driving a Focus.

So you don't think the CAFE standards has impact on the vehicles a company produces? Do you think companies just use supply and demand when they decide on how many small cars to build? They are required by law to build a certain percentage of cars with a specific MPG, so that determines how many cars they build with good MPG.

snakeweasel

I do believe that CAFE does play a part but not as much as people believe. Anytime you try to legislate something that goes against the law of supply and demand forces start to work to go around that law. An example of this is that light trucks and SUV's have different standards. How many vehicles that are classified as SUV's that really should not be?

In short car manufacturers are doing an end run around CAFE.

bobw3

I agree that the CAFE standards should include SUVs and Minivans and enforced better, but it's better than not having them at all.

snakeweasel

If I am not mistaken cars such as the HHR, PT Cruiser and the Magnum are classified as SUV's by the EPA.

Mr_Shiftright

Ah, now you are hitting on the "irrational" side of consumerism, which is:

We tend to base our decisions on the dimension of space but not on the dimension of time; for example:

If we calculated the actual amount of TIME we spent in that second vacation home, and divided it by upkeep, insurance, taxes, maintenance, mortgage service, etc., we might find that we could rent a magnificent villa in Italy for the same amount of time + money.

Translated to cars: If you spend very little time in a luxury car with massive front and rear leather seats and every gadget known to man, that comfortable seat time is mighty expensive. If you spend very little time in a subcompact, that seat time is far less expensive and far less painful, because you aren't in it very much.

Conversely, if you spend 6 hours a day in a car (and some people do), that subcompact seat room is inexpensive, BUT not a good decision for you, as "time" now works against you, not for you. Ditto the luxury car, where those 6 hours of seat time make the purchase worth it.

So without the TIME dimension, I think our discussion is not complete here.

boaz47

Thank goodness that was back on topic. But how does that equate to what most people get sub compacts for, commuting? There is a difference however between basic needs and comfort. We can put up with less space for a limited amount of time but we would prefer comfort. As far as renting things the problem is you have to follow other people rules and do not have the freedom of use you have with an object you own.

Mr_Shiftright

Even "comfort" has a time factor doesn't it? I mean, would you really need a Lazy-Boy lounger for a 30 minute airplane flight? Of course not.

Conversely, would a Business Class ticket to Tokyo make sense financially if getting a full night's sleep meant you didn't waste 48 hours recovering from jet lag? Maybe.

As for the rental vs. buying argument, in some cases it might not even apply. For the few times I ever buy a sheet of plywood, I don't have to rent a pickup---I could pay to have it delivered and it's still way cheaper than buying a truck. As for renting a 4X4 to go skiing, geez, I could have a van drive me up there 3-4 times a year and split the cost with other passengers.

So I don't think you can diss a subcompact or a luxury car without some heavy thinking on the Time Factor.

robertsmx

You've missed my point. I'm all for high efficiency vehicles but against taxes based on engine displacement or EPA fuel economy ratings. If additional taxes were to exist, it should be based on usage not on a static number or two. In fact, the purpose of such tax should be established. My support will be towards conservation, and the best way to do it is to discourage wastage... "if you don't need it, don't burn it".

And even if Escape Hybrid could get 38-40 mpg on highway, and low 30s in city, it still costs $10K more to begin with. Perhaps, we should begin with...
- What are the points of sub-compacts?

Sure, there are larger vehicles that might get similar fuel economy as subcompacts under certain conditions, but is that all you perceive subcompacts to be about?

What can the Escape do the Fit can't? You can get more room, a bit more than three inches of shoulder room in the front and five extra inches in the back. You can have the option of AWD and it is a cleaner running vehicle vehicle.

Emissions ratings are just as credible as EPA's fuel economy ratings. In other words... unreliable. Besides, I have seen a boatload of posts around how Prius isn't as clean as it is made out to be (around manufacturing processes). So, I'm assuming the same argument would apply here as well, right? That said, and if you want to go by ratings, which emissions rating do you consider a higher priority? Fit actually does better than Escape Hybrid in that regard. One could get a Fit with 5.9 ton/year (or 6.1 ton/year) "rating". Escape, under EPA processes, gets 6.1 ton/year. Now, smog forming emissions are a different story. But then, EPA doesn't tell us how they arrive at the number which is worse than the NHTSA safety rating system using "stars" (at least you can get more information around it).

But, if clean air and high fuel economy is top priority, I would go Civic Hybrid, or wait for hybrid based on next Fit, which is on its way out. It would not only obliterate fuel economy, I expect it Fit enough to be insight-ful.

BTW, there are things Fit can do, Escape can't. And I'm not talking handling. I've rented Escape enough to know it offers virtually nothing extra in terms of my needs. I won't haul more than four in anything but a full size car or a minivan (I find midsize SUVs to be incompetent in that regard as well, much less the smaller ones). And Fit offers greater flexibility inside, MUCH lower cost of ownership, about the same or higher fuel economy and performance. What it doesn't offer is perception of safety to those who are scared to get into something with smaller exterior dimensions (clearly, I'm not one of them).

we can get back to debating the reasons sub compacts have to be re-introduced every 15 years.

Not anymore. As a matter of fact that subcompact can do that tells us that they only have a brighter future (the rest of the world knows it better than we do). Now, do you think what was a fad in the mid-late 90s would make another splash? Now that was something we were leading the world with... supersize everything.

robertsmx

PZEV rating doesn't mean cleaner than everything else (AT-PZEV simply adds longer warranty, that I believe all hybrids have). Like I said in my post above, EPA's emissions rating system is just as flawed as NHTSA's safety rating system. In case of the safety rating (using "stars"), take side crash rating for example.

NHTSA measures three critical areas (head, chest and pelvic) but for some reason, doesn't use first and third in its rating. So, a car rated 5-stars (which does slightly better protecting chest area) isn't necessarily safer than another that has 4-stars (which excels in head and pelvic areas but does just a little poorly in thoracic). I keep wondering about the logic in this approach.

EPA's emissions testing is similar. It disregards GHG which is a big deal in Europe and several other countries, as a measure of pollution but EPA doesn't figure it in. Instead they go by a number system with absolutely no explanation for it (and that forms the basis for PZEV etc rating). Fit has a lower GHG rating (but it isn't counted in EPA's emissions rating) but a little higher particulate emissions (since Honda didn't sell a PZEV version, but if you compare the "numbers" from EPA, Fit does a LOT better than "LEV" Focus).

In fact, just look at these vehicles (all PZEV or AT-PZEV rated which uses the second number on a scale of 10):

2008 Escape Hybrid: 5.7 tons/year, 8/10
2008 Civic Hybrid: 4.4 tons/year, 9/10
2008 Accord V6: 8.3 tons/year, 9/10
2008 Accord I4: 7.7 tons/year, 9/10
2004 Focus I4: 7.3 tons/year, 8/10

Now, would you say the new Accord V6 is cleaner than Escape Hybrid? Both are PZEV/AT-PZEV rated but Accord has lower "dirty" emissions than Escape Hybrid.

boaz47

I don't know if the rest of the world knows any better than us but that isn't the point. In the US Sub compacts come, get more power, grow and have to be re-introduced every few years. Look at Scion. The were introduced right in the middle of the sub compact revolution and the xA is already replaced with a more powerful version. What happened to paying attention to the rest of the world? The Echo was supposed to introduce us to a new generation of sub compact buyers, flopped. Now we can wait and see it the Fit stays the same size and the same HP for more than three model years. I would be willing to say it will not. I have been to the government green vehicle site and the Fit is not one of the cleanest vehicles listed and whatever I might think of the government site it is the only thing we can use to compare apples to apples with. If Toyota decided the Scion had to make the xA bigger or more powerful to succeed in the US isn't it possible they have a better marketing and research department than we do? So Scion now has how many 108 HP sub compacts in the first two generations of US vehicles? None? And Scion released the bigger more powerful tC how many years after they released the xA and xB and it took only a year to out sell both? I am not talking compacts here. I have accepted compacts as a second choice for many americans and they sell not that far behind mid sized cars.

All we have to do is look at annual sales figures for Sub Compacts and for Compacts and mid sized car and it is easy to see what comes in third. You don't even have to believe the government numbers are bogus with that comparison.

Ask yourself this. In the top 10 best selling vehicles in the US is the Fit listed? If the answer is no then how far behind the Cobalt is it? If it were one of the top selling cars in Japan is it still and why isn't it in the US? It does no good to say they are here to stay if already some are talking of making them bigger or more powerful next upgrade as they did with the xA. To succeed as a class of car they have to overtake the buying habits of the market they are introduced in. Will Sub Compacts like the Yaris and Fit catch compacts like the Corolla and the Civic. I say not likely unless they get bigger and more powerful, and history seems to be on my side. (But that is just why I see things as I do.)

Mr_Shiftright

Don't know the answer to that---I guess Chevy can really push the units out. But having driven both the *base* Fit and *base* Cobalt, I can say the Fit is a much nicer car in every possible way. But Cobalt is cheaper to buy and goes out to rental fleets, so maybe that explains some of it?