What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

andre1969

so I can't remember, but did the first-gen Voyager/Caravan have a third row seat? If so, I guess that would show right there that a small vehicle can be designed with three rows of seats. IIRC, the original Caravan/Voyager were only around 174 inches long. Shorter, actually, than the Aries/Reliant wagons.

Now that I think about it, when it comes to station wagons, did they ever offer a 3rd row in the Aries/Reliant wagons? I know once downsizing went into effect, with RWD cars, it was pretty much impossible to get a third row in anything smaller than a full-sized car, or a pre-downsized intermediate. The Aspen/Volare and Fairmont/Zephyr, both marketed as compacts, didn't have a third row seat. And the downsized Malibu/et al, marketed as a midsize (but really about the same size as a Fairmont or Volare), didn't offer one.

Once GM offered midsized FWD wagons, like the Celebrity, and Ford's Taurus, the domestics were able to get a 3rd row into a midsize wagon. I'm guessing the K-cars might have been too small for it, though?

kyfdx

I like the vehicle, but I don't want my teenager driving five of his friends around... Sounds like a recipe for disaster..

ateixeira

The original vans did have a 3rd row.

The only sliding door was on the passenger side, and you got a 2 seat bench in the 2nd row and a 3 seat bench in the 3rd row (I think you could swap them).

We've come a long way, baby.

british_rover

Not sure which Lexus hit them as it wasn't recognizable. Might have been a RX or a LS. It definetly wasn't a LX or GX as the Hood on the LR3 wasn't touched.

lilengineerboy

I like the vehicle, but I don't want my teenager driving five of his friends around... Sounds like a recipe for disaster..

I concur, thats just what I was thinking. I remember "dueling minivans" of friends in high school where a young, inexperienced driver would drive excessively with 6 passengers, raising the center of gravity and putting additional demand on vehicle dynamics while being distracted by those 6 passengers.

Mr_Shiftright

Yep insurance statistics suggest that a teenager WITH passengers is far more likely to have an accident then when driving alone.

texases

I don't want my teenager driving five of his friends around... Sounds like a recipe for disaster..

Yeah, I guess it'll have to be the Corvette... :P

qbrozen

I loved the idea of the mazda5. And the manual tranny would have made all the difference for me. I too hate the taillights, but what really did it in for me was the fact that, like many mazdas, they did not design it for tall people. My knees press up against the dash in the darned thing.

bumpy

Now that I think about it, when it comes to station wagons, did they ever offer a 3rd row in the Aries/Reliant wagons?

I don't think it was offered, but who knows. You could get a third row in the late-80s Colt Vista Wagon, which was noticeably smaller than a Honda Fit.

bobw3

http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/spec_Exterior.aspx?year=1988&make=Dodge&model=- Colt%20Vista%20Wagon&trimid=-1

Actually, the Colt Vista Wagon was 176" long and the Honda Fit is only 157" long, but it was smaller than the current Mazda5 at 181"

robertsmx

There have been rumors around Honda bringing Stream over to North America. The problem might be that Mazda5 sales are nothing but discouraging. But I also think that it may have to do with Mazda5’s style that has the stigma attached with a minivan with less utility and not much benefit in terms of fuel economy. Stream has more of a (Civic) wagon look to it.


A noticeable difference compared to Mazda5 is the rear doors, traditional car doors instead of sliding. The area between C and D pillars is more "hatchback" too (a similar design approach is used in CR-V).

Specifications (top model, FWD, Japanese market), compared to CR-V
Length: 180” (CR-V: 178”)
Wheelbase: 107.9” (CR-V: 103.1”)
Width: 66.7” (CR-V: 71.6”)
Track: 61.2” (CR-V: 61.6”)
Height: 57.8” (CR-V: 66.5”)
Weight: 3050 lb (CR-V: 3400 lb)

The biggest difference is in width (5” narrower) and height (9” lower). Ground clearance is 5.9”. But America will expect 2.4-liter engine at a minimum, which should be fine, given that with some weight gains, it will still weight about the same as, or less than, the new Accord, with fuel economy somewhere between Accord and CR-V (Perhaps 23-24 mpg city/31-32 mpg highway). And that won't be too bad either.

But as usual, Honda is taking its time. The current Stream is already a two year old design (launched with the new Civic). IMO, this would be the perfect subcompact of the van world.

michaellno

Is the Opel Zafira. Word has it that the new UAW contract signed with GM indicates that this will be built in a plant in Michigan in the next several years:

tiff_c

There have been rumors around Honda bringing Stream over to North America. The problem might be that Mazda5 sales are nothing but discouraging.

It might be nice if they put the new diesel in it.

robertsmx

I was going to put that too in the epic-sized post of mine, but I think Accord will get the top priority for an I-4 diesel and Odyssey/Pilot/Ridgeline for V6 diesel. Others will follow. And by that time, current Stream will be approaching redesign (much like Fit did, by the time it made to North America, even with a longer than usual 6-7 year run).

ateixeira

Mazda had very modest goals for the Mazda5. I think it was considered a moderate success, actually. It got little marketing support.

I considered one but thought it missed in a few areas:

* 3rd row too small
* too narrow overall
* lame center console design, no armrests or storage
* no 2nd row bench
* no power sliders
* no AWD

This year they added a 5th ratio to the automatic, but it has to compete with the cheaper Rondo, too, so expect sales to remain flat.

british_rover

Ariel Atom FTW!!!!!!!!





I think they make a single seat version.

ateixeira

Awesome, but that's basically an expensive quadricycle.

I'd still take one. :shades:

tiff_c

I was going to put that too in the epic-sized post of mine, but I think Accord will get the top priority for an I-4 diesel and Odyssey/Pilot/Ridgeline for V6 diesel.

That's fine by me but anytime Honda wants to sell me a Fit all they have to do is put a diesel in it and sell it for a fair price and I'm there!
SUV's and trucks hold no interest for me diesel or otherwise, they are just too big. Max size for me is a Mazdaspeed 3. Any bigger than that and it's a land yacht.
The Accord is just too big so diesel or not I wouldn't buy one, a Civic, possibly if they get some better and more comfortable seats! The 2009 Japanese Fit RS has awesome seats in it. That is very likely going to be my wifes next car unless the Scion xD works out. She hates the Civic since she can't see the nose or the trunk.
Diesel cars won't work for me this time around but after this car purchase for certain we will switch over to diesel for at least one car.

british_rover

Me too. They have a US distubitor now in Washington State I think.

iluvmysephia1

getting rid of cars, my family and I were just at the Grand Canyon a week and a half ago. You can drive in to the Park but you're encouraged to park and take a bus to any of the 8 viewpoints from the South Rim.

We parked at Yarapei Point(second available parking lot to grab)and took buses for hours and hours to different viewpoints. Everyone complied and took the buses but you're not required to take them. Just a lot easier for movement and less stress.

I see what all the stink is about as to the Grand Canyon. Prettiest site I've ever seen in nature and there are not enough superlatives out there to describe it's grandeur.

bobw3

I think for the Mazda5 it's more of the style thing with having the sliding door screaming practical, but then the rear tailights and side skirts screaming kid-car.

I think they should either lose the sliding doors, or make the style more conservative to match the sliding door/practical side. The Honda Stream would do better because of the regular doors and overall style.

The third row is better then what the Highlander, Rav4, or some of the other CUVs/SUVs have to offer. They've fixed the armrest problems for '08 as well.

In gereral these subcompacts and compact 3 row vehicles are styled more for the under 25 crowd, which can turn off the adult crowd.

It was the exterior styling of the Fit Sport model that almost prevented me from buying it because of the side skirts and rear roof spoiler. I couldn't get cruise control on the base Fit. But all of the practical benefits, quality, and economy won out. The Nissan Versa and Kia Rondo are styled more to the older crowd. I was ready to buy the Versa over the Fit because of the Fit's styling, but I couldn't get a Versa with the CVT transmission and anti-lock brakes, so that was a deal-breaker, since the Fit had all of the safety features standard.

lilengineerboy

I don't want my teenager driving five of his friends around... Sounds like a recipe for disaster..

Yeah, I guess it'll have to be the Corvette...

Actually my ex-gf's dad used to loan his MR2 for us to use on dates. I think this might have been for other reasons though, especially when I had my mom's mini-van :P

lilengineerboy

I think they should either lose the sliding doors, or make the style more conservative to match the sliding door/practical side. The Honda Stream would do better because of the regular doors and overall style.

Oh I am a big fan of sliding doors. That was a major shortcoming in the original MPV and Honda minivans. They had this huge conventional door, so in order to get the door open wide enough for ingress/egress, you had to park about 3 miles from the cars on either side. Sliding doors don't have that issue, and careless kids can't open a sliding door into my car!! :mad:

british_rover

Yup sliding doors on bigger cars are the way to go. Have you seen how huge the doors are on a R-Class? They are so long and heavy that I bet a small kid would have a hard time opening them and then when fully opended they stick out well past the lines of any parking space.

qbrozen

we just looked at one in the showroom for the first time this past weekend, as a matter of fact. I LOVED the rear doors on that thing. Although, I didn't think about the parking spot aspect. But the huge openings and just about 90 degree max swing makes getting a small kid in and out of a car seat look really really easy compared to our Pacifica. But, yeah, sliding doors would be nice. Too bad my wife sees sliding doors and says "yuck. i'm not driving a minivan!"

ateixeira

Powered sliders are great. Single best feature in my van. Love 'em.

Mazda5 offers power sliders, AWD, and a 7 seat model in Japan, but not here. Bummer.

I can understand they have to streamline to keep prices down, but if they're made that way for Japan...

british_rover

Drive an R-class if you get a chance it will just make you appreciate your Pacifica more. The Pacifica drives better and the interior of the R-class isn't that much better.

robertsmx

The Pacifica drives better and the interior of the R-class isn't that much better.

That doesn't sound good. I thought Pacifica is horrible (especially with that honey comb aluminum-looking painted plasic).

qbrozen

we thought the interior was alot nicer. And we have every option on our Pacifica (I think) except the wood on the doors and navigation. The leather in the Benz seemed to be a higher quality and it seemed to be roomier inside.

I would only look at a diesel R-class. And, really, the Pacifica's drivetrain is SOOO outdated and unrefined (at least ours is, I haven't tried the new 4 liter 6-spd combo). Well, if I ever get the chance, I will have to test it to really compare.

qbrozen

especially with that honey comb aluminum-looking painted plasic

hmmmm... can't think of what you are referring to. is that on the new model, too?

oh ... oops ... we are waaayyy off topic, huh? unless we want to discuss "what is wrong with these subcompacts" is that they don't offer much in the way of luxury ammenities. ;b

boaz47

The only real problem I have ever seen with the new sub compacts is they are just a bit too small and don't offer anything over a compact. That is the reason I believe they tend to mutate into Compacts in one or two generations, like Scion did.

But the real problem isn't performance it is image. Sub compacts just don't inspire a person. Yes they can be made to get good fuel mileage even if they all aren't the most fuel efficient vehicles in anyone's fleet. Some of them can be made to hold things like the xA did before they dropped it. But the Versa isn't a Sub Compact by Mini Cooper standards. In fact I am not sure it isn't a compact to begin with.

All you have to do is listen to many of the posts even in this forum and you see the image problem. People say things like, "we should be forced into re thinking our preferences." Or "we should tax people into re thinking their choices." Even such simple observations such as, "sub compacts will fit 90 percent of our needs." "if we outlawed SUVs and Crossovers people would see sub compacts in a different light." All indicate sub compacts as less than what we would select if we were totally free to choose.

Europe has had small cars for how many years now? How has their air quality improved? Has it helped their fuel prices? If they are paying 8 bucks a gallon and getting 35 MPG and we are getting 25 MPG and paying 3 bucks a gallon who is getting the better deal? China has hardly even started becoming a car society and there are places in China that have lower air quality than Dallas and maybe even LA. There are other reasons for that you might say, those reasons will not go away once they become a car society.

Small cars will not improve our quality of life or how much we enjoy it. That is not to say they don't have a place in our society. But motorcycles have a place and scooters and SUVs. It is just that sub compacts don't have an image that easily translates to advertising. Yes, they are cute. Yes they can be practical. Yes they may meet our basic needs. Yes they can be inexpensive. But when most Americans hear sub compact just ask yourself what image they have in their mind. How will that change? And yes I agree a financial depression could make them more attractive. But what happens if we don't fold up and become like Europe? What happens if we pull out of it?

What is one of the major pieces of transportation news on TV today, Airbus has just commissioned one of the largest planes ever for passenger service. Big news. When was the last time we heard abut a new single engine midget commuter plane? It is all about image. Good or bad.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't think it is within the power of automobiles to "improve" air quality; what cleaner cars HAVE done is maintain it and keep it from rapid deterioration. If Detroit had had their way in 1966, when they fought emissions laws in California like the crazed weasels they were, everyone in LA would probably be wearing oxygen masks by now.

Of course, one should point out that there is not necessarily a direct link between "cleaner" and "smaller".

snakeweasel

You also have to remember two points.

First is the law of diminishing returns, which would state that it becomes more expensive and harder to make a car cleaner and cleaner. Every advancement to make a car burn fuel cleaner will be harder, take longer and be more expensive than the last.

Second is that you can only make a car burn so clean and not any cleaner without changing the source of its power.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm a believer in the "entire design process" to create a solution, not just the engine. You remember when "just the engine" engineering created the monstrosities of the late 70s and early 80s in domestic cars. They bolted on emissions equipment to old engine designs and big heavy bodies, and the whole enterprise just didn't work. Then they went to just newer engines, and that didn't work very well either (but it was better). They they got "aero" and plastics and aluminum and full computer management and chopped *most* of the cars into 3/4 size. Now we're talkin'.

Even the BIG cars of today can carry more people and more cargo more comfortably than the absurd Nimitz-class coupes of the 70s and 80s.

colloquor

One of the reasons European air quality hasn't improved substantially is because they have lagged the USA on emissions control standards, especially with diesel engines - the most popular engine option in Europe.

I've driven primarily small or subcompact cars most of my life beginning in 1967, when small wasn't really "cool." It cost an average of about $3.25 to fill up the car's tank back in those days, and that's when there wasn't a gas war going on, when gas dropped to 12 to 15 cents a gallon!

Also, every fuel-efficient car I owned, whether European or Japanese, prior to 1979 had a displacement of 1.3L or less. Each were perfectly acceptable for highway or freeway use, cruising at 75 to 80MPH all day long while delivering 35+ MPG and carrying 4 people in comfort. Except for the tremendous improvement in safety features and improved corrosion resistance, I really wonder how far we've really come in car design. With proper maintenance, any of the subcompacts I owned easily hit 100K+ miles without any major powertrain maintenance.

As far as image, I could care less what image I portray to others. I'm secure in my own ego and character, and don't need a big fancy car or SUV to imply something that I'm not. I'd rather put a fixed amount of money per month into an investment rather than a car or lease payment.

The only thing that will move Americans to subcompacts or smaller cars is a HP tax, similar to the French CV system. But, you might as well try to take away American's guns than try to implement such a taxation system - it simply won't work without a revolution.

boaz47

"But, you might as well try to take away American's guns than try to implement such a taxation system - it simply won't work without a revolution."

You are correct on that score. Only a politician planning on retiring from office would even consider such a plan.

You are also correct that we have had small cars that could and would reach 40 MPG in the past. Flopped and dropped all on their own. Not the quality of some of our smaller cars today but same idea.

I would like to clarify my statement about image. It may have nothing to do with you as an individual it has more to do with advertising in America. I also had some early 1300s and 75 or 80 was with no hills and no head wind. And 0 to 60 could be measured with a sun dial.

If however we ever allow ourselves to try and tax what other like to drive out of existence we risk having our preferred vehicles taxed out of existence as well. Some could as easily suggest that we could save the American auto industry by setting such a high tariff on imports that they couldn't compete. Not fair some might say? Maybe but the same country you hold up as having a tax system that works to limit HP had a system that only allowed one import to be sold when three domestic cars were sold. They don't do that today but that doesn't mean they couldn't. The enemy you tax today may someday get a chance to tax you back.

By the way, what 1300 do you drive today?

sellaturcica

It's way too late to tax imports now that the major players all have factories set up here. A tariff on imports will just create more jobs for Southerners.

Mr_Shiftright

The foreign companies set up factories here because we threatened them with tariffs. I think that had the foreign automakers refused to cooperate we would have taxed them out of the country, because in the 1970s and early 80s the imports were beating up the American car makers so badly that death was imminent. We would have had to become a closed market in order to rescue our auto industry (much like France did and England didn't--you can see the consequences of each way it was played. The "free market" concept was disastrous).

I rather like the image of subcompacts. Given the rise in gasoline prices since I bought mine, I am regarded as a wise old owl for having anticipated the trend and getting a great bargain on a fantastic little car that is now larger and thousands more expensive. It's not like the Metro days, when subs exuded cheapness.

bobw3

I'm glad to see the bigger is better mentality hasn't left this forum! Otherwise, people trying to conserve and help the environment would have anything to do or anyone left to educate :P Some people won't be satisfied until a Hummer is considered a subcompact, houses have a minimum of 5000SqFt and the average person weighs 250lbs (not included the respirator everyone needs to wear when going outside)! It's sort of like me trying to convince my 2 year old that eating the 1/2 gallon of ice cream isn't good for her...no matter how hard I try she doesn't get it.

Mr_Shiftright

Well just like $6 a gallon gas will get someone out of their Hummer, the first year of Junior High will get your daughter out of the ice cream container. :P

There are economic incentives, and social ones, right?

It's hard to make a BIG country think small. This could take decades.

snakeweasel

A tariff on imports will just create more jobs for Southerners.

It would also hurt the domestic auto industry. Most, if not all, countries that adopted a free trade approach has prospered.

iluvmysephia1

as a Respiratory Therapist I'm standing by waiting for either nasty fires, worsening air pollution and/or chemical warfare and the need for respirators for going outside.

All of us working in the hospital I work in and all of the doctor's offices in the little town in SE Arizona I live in have been fitted with a respirator by my Manager.

This isn't one of those little respirators you can buy at Ace Hardware that has that little band holding it around your head. Although I don't know all of it's applications it's a tight fitting, full-head encompassing respirator that we have been fitted with that completely shuts out outside influences. It has a large, clear piece of plastic material covering your face.

Fortunately winds help a lot in at least carrying pollutants out of our immediate area. At least for the time being. But those people in So-Cal really had to be careful, as do all of us in regards to a possible chemical warfare attack.

rockylee

A tariff on imports will just create more jobs for Southerners.

I thought that would be a good thing ?

-Rocky

rockylee

It would also hurt the domestic auto industry.

How do you figure ? :confuse: I know a few others share your views but I, unions, Big 3, think the opposite of y'all. :surprise:

Most, if not all, countries that adopted a free trade approach has prospered.

Yeah they did for the short-term. However when your manufactoring base (a large sector of our economy) dry's up and the jobs being replaced are "McJobs" then it has a negative effect which the U.S. is experiencing today and their is plenty of evidence that supports my position.

-Rocky

Mr_Shiftright

There's really no such thing as "free trade". That's as mythological as....well...it's just not how the real world works. All trade is regulated and manipulated in some fashion as damage-control.

Literal free trade would be disastrous, as American car makers almost found out.

sellaturcica

No, there are either very productive manufacturing jobs, or value added jobs in finance, high tech, engineering etc... For people without much of an education, life gets harder, but it's been getting harder for a long time.

humblecoder

All this talk about free trade and globalization and how it impacts the Big 3 reminds of baseball for some reason. I think people have this outdated impression we as Americans should prefer American companies to succeed at the expensive of foreign companies. Unfortunately, the definition of an "American" company is very gray.

The reason why it reminds me of baseball is that, because of free agency, baseball players are no longer associated with one team. A player who plays for your arch-rival that you hate with a passion might someday be playing for your team. And when he does play for your team, you cheer for him as loudly as you booed when he was playing against you. I think it was Seinfeld who said that, in sports, you are basically "rooting for the laundry", since the players who wear the uniform come and go so easily.

The same idea applies to the auto industry. Most of the auto makers are "global companies". Historically, they might have been 100% based in one country or another, but that really isn't true anymore. American companies are building cars in Mexico, Europe, and Asia. Foreign companies are building cars in the US. Parts are sourced from multiple countries. Volvo owned by Ford. Chrysler formerly a conglomeration of a German and American company. Even the shareholders of these companies can hail from anywhere in the world! So what makes Ford more "American" than Honda? And why should Ford get "protection" while Honda gets booted from the marketplace through tariffs or whatever? Seems like we are just rooting for the nameplate here.

Just to bring it back "on topic", it seems like free trade is partially responsible for the subcompact movement. After all, it seems like it's the "foreign" makers who are spearheading the subcompact trend. The only domestic subcompact that I can think of off the top of my head is the Aveo, and even that is a Korean rebranding, I think.

boaz47

Not sure that we will ever start thinking small. Look at our homes. Even you admit sub compacts aren't likely to become the dominate player in American vehicles. I don't know about other places but in California a entry level home is getting any smaller. We do realize that vehicles are only part of the energy consumption in the US? You are correct that the world is how the world is. The most powerful countries use the most power and consume the most. That is just the way it is.

True as long as the economy is bad sub compacts have an advantage but to hold that advantage things have to stay bad or even get worse. If we recover small cars will become less attractive.

The economy is a two edge sword in reality. If it gets bad we are willing to make exceptions to survive. We will be getting an all new diesel fleet of heavy equipment in California over the next few years. But don't worry not one of the old diesels will be spewing any less particulants into the air, we are selling them to China and some third world nations.

Yes free trade is a hard not to crack but if it gets bad enough in the US I wouldn't expect the last superpower to sacrifice itself for the rest of the world. Whatever it takes to keep our lifestyle going we will support even if it means we have to leave some other economies hanging.

snakeweasel

How do you figure ?

Because competition forces a company to be better in order to continue to exist. To take customers away from another company you have to provide a better product, to keep your competetion from taking your customers you have to provide a better product.

If there is no competition then there is no incentive to produce a better product, their is also a very good probability of backsliding.

However when your manufacturing base (a large sector of our economy) dry's up and the jobs being replaced are "McJobs" then it has a negative effect which the U.S.

Believe what you want but there are still plenty of well paying jobs in this country. The shear fact that the US GDP makes up over 22% of the GWP says a lot. Real wages adjusted for inflation is up.

snakeweasel

Literal free trade would be disastrous, as American car makers almost found out.

Well the fact that they are now producing much much better cars, on par with just about anyone else, shows that free trade does work. Without foreign competition coming here the quality and offerings from US manufactures would not be at the levels they are now.