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
One of my buddies picked me up to go mtn biking in a VW P/U diesel. Given that its over 20 years old, it didn't do anything that bad. It felt like riding in a toy after getting used to driving around in the Accord.
As a young single guy, I liked the low seating position (I had a '99 Cougar and and even lower RX-7 before that) but now with a wife and kids, I found the upright seating position and taller body style to be much more practical and more useful for daily living of getting kids in/out, cargo space, and reaching around while inside the car. And with older folks, I know it's easier for them to get in/out of my Fit than in/out of our friends Accord because you're not dropping down so low.
So MPG isn't the only discussion topic when it comes to subcompacts. Compared to a compact or mid-sized car, there's often more cargo space, easier access, interior layout is more efficient, high roof, cost advantage, easier to maneuver in parking lots and tight streets, and they even give you more space in your garage. I can use the drop-down stairs from my garage ceiling while the Fit is in the garage with the door down because it's so short. So anyway, I just wanted to point out some of the other advantages...at least to me...beyond averaging in the 30s mpg and getting 40mpg on the highway.
Dang, that's a little too big (the picture AND the Ute).
james
I thought the concept had merit but it is simply harder to sell a small vehicle for the price of a bigger one.
However I will conceed that the Baja owners seem to be holding on to their vehicles. I thought after it was dropped from the Subaru line up the prices would drop like a rock and they haven't. Maybe the idea is to snap up the sub compacts as soon as they come out so you can have one before they start adding power or making them bigger?
Perhaps. I suppose I should have bought a few many years ago and put them in storage.
That is because you measure value based on size. A Honda Accord is roughly the same price as a Ford Crown Vitoria, which is a hotter seller? Not everyone shares that view.
The Baja had leather and a sunroof and a lot more creature comforts (and horsepower, depending on equipment) than the Taco. Also, if you are comparing crew-cab models, it was considerably cheaper.
It sounds like if you want a sub-compact you want something like a $8995 Chevy Aveo or Hyundai Accent, as opposed to 12-13k version that has door panels and a headliner.
The Corolla is a Compact and the Fit is a Sub compact. The base Corolla sells for 13k and the base Fit sells for 13K. The Corolla get 28-37 MPG and the Fit gets 28-34 MPG. The Fit has a smaller fuel tank and a shorter range. The Corolla has 126 hp to the Fits 109 and it still get better fuel mileage. And if needed the Corolla is rated to tow 1500 pounds and the Fit isn't rated to tow at all. What is the advantage?
Baja actually won JDPower's APEAL study for compact pickups. Then again, beating a 20 year old Ranger design can't be too hard.
I think people tend to value pickup trucks differently, though. For instance, I can see the value in an Accord, justifying the similar price to a Crown Vic. The Accord has a nicer interior, better fit/finish, better fuel economy, better performance (with the V-6), and is probably every bit as well-suited to carrying four big adults as a Crown Vic. The Crown Vic has more shoulder room, but a huge tranny/driveshaft hump that basically reduces it to a roomy 4-seater. I'd say if you need to tow a trailer, or routinely carry a lot of luggage, the Crown Vic would excel there, but that's about it.
But with pickup trucks, if I see a compact one and a full-sized one for the same price, I'm going full-sized, even if it's a more spartan truck. Chances are the bigger truck is going to be able to haul more, will have a bigger, roomier cab, etc. As for the Baja, while the leather and sunroof might have been nice, I just didn't see much use for the thing in general. The bed was too small, the back seat was too small, and the front seat was marginal, at best.
In its defense though, with having standard AWD, I guess that's one thing that justified the Baja's high price.
One of the things getting left out is how the vehicle is being used. In my lifetime, I have had to carry "4x8 sheets" about 6 times. In one of those cases, I needed something with more payload then a light duty 1/2 ton truck anyway.
If you look at how compact trucks are used typically (getting a high school or college kid to school/work and back, i.e. personal transportation), the need for a full size is limited.
If you look at "gentlemen's pick ups" like the El Camino or anything stepside with a short-bed, you realize the level of utility required by those users isn't the same as a home contractor, etc.
I don't even have a pickup and I've hauled them many more times than that. On the roof rack of my Forester, and inside my van nowadays.
Everything seems to come in that size. Drywall, plywood, waferboard, tile backing, paneling, you name it.
I've tried hauling stuff before having a pickup truck, such as strapping plywood and sheetrock to the roof of my grandma's '85 LeSabre or my '89 Gran Fury, bringing home a framed exterior door in the trunk of the Fury, and a 4' screen for a sliding glass door in the trunk of the LeSabre.
Real pain in the butt. SOOOO much easier to just throw that crap in the back of the pickup and be done with it!
That's just off the top of my head, for a house I've owned for the last 8 years.
I'm sure a lot of people share that view (and apply it to cars too), but I've never considered lb/$ or cc/$ as a criteria to buy cars. Smaller cars can be expensive, or cheaper, depending on what they are, regardless of size. Right? Now, if you're looking for a cheap pickup (or car) for basic stuff, then a Ranger or an Aveo would be it.
james
Perfect? No, but there is nothing (new) on the market that I would choose to replace it.
:shades: james
Well, I don't go off road much. That rig would be no fun on pavement and my truck would eat it alive without breaking a sweat. :shades:
(plus, I can load it from the side without using a step ladder) :P
james
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
we need to limit ourselves to something like this:
james
Baja vs Tacoma - one drives like a car (with AWD, no less), one drives very very trucky. Smaller turning radius on the Baja. Quieter ride on the Baja. More power for less money than the Tacoma. Baja also beat Tacoma's really crappy fuel economy. It was the Ridgeline of the car world. ;-)
Daimler is making a big push for the new Smart cars in the Bay Area - every time I turn around I am hearing a new ad or news piece about them. Lots of deposits have been laid down - I wonder how many will actually turn into purchases next spring...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
MODERATOR
Need help getting around? claires@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Tell everyone about your buying experience: Write a Dealer Review
Didn't the Justy have a CVT?
Edit: DAF was first to commercialize it in cars
Over 50MPG - WOW WOW CALL NOW
HAHAHAHAHA :P
I mean, how long is a Tacoma Crew Cab?
A mid-size car is, what, 180" in length? I bet that's a foot or two longer.
Compact would be under 180".
The Taco is a mid-sizer even by today's standards.
2008 Toyota Tacoma Crew Cab:
Specifications
Edmunds Type: Compact Truck
Where Built: United States
EPA Class: Standard Pickup Trucks
Exterior
Length: 208.1 in. Width: 74.6 in.
Height: 70.1 in. Wheel Base: 127.8 in.
Ground Clearance: 9.4 in. Curb Weight: 4055 lbs.
Gross Weight: 5350 lbs.
Try 28 inches :surprise:
(For what it's worth, my 1996 extra-cab is 199")
james
WOW :surprise:
It wouldn't fit in my garage.
212" long
78-79" wide
72" tall (maybe less, I can barely see over it if I stretch)
131.5" wb
~4200 lb
5600 lb GVWR
But before you think that small trucks have caught up to the big-uns, '08 equivalent to my truck (reg cab, 8' bed) is:
224.5" long
79.9" wide
73.5" tall
133" wb
~4600 lb
6400 lb GVWR
I dunno where the extra length went, though. I've sat in the '08, and it doesn't seem any bigger inside, nor does it seem to have any more storage area behind the seat. Maybe it has more protective bumpers that jut out further?
To date, I can't find ANY truck for sale in the U.S. with those three options. They either make you get a V6 or an automatic the second you get 4x4. The Mazda, fro instance, charges you six thousand dollars more for the V6 and 4x4 over the 4, which just kills the whole point.
The dashboard.
That might be some of it. However, if the length went up by a foot but wb only increased by 1.5", I guess that would indicate that most of the extra length got tacked on at the extremities. It seemed to me like the new truck had a bit more of a driveshaft/tranny hump intrusion than my '85. That tends to make the center seat section less useful, just as it did on cars when they started downsizing in the 70's.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Having lived with a subcompact for 2 years, I have to say that the most endearing qualities have little to do with gas mileage really. What is most appealing to me at this point is their agility and compact size for parking, getting through traffic, etc....combined with the fact that you can put a lot of stuff in them with the back seats down.
So, in my opinion, any SUCCESSFUL (sorry Mr. Smart) subcompact in America needs these three items as basics:
1. Ability to carry a lot with seats folded down.
2. Agility in traffic, easy to park (good visibility)
3. Fuel mileage at 30 mpg or higher.
If the "subcompact" lacks any one of these, chances for survival diminish.
Scion xA has all three, Smart has 2, some subs have only 1...their size.
And that version of the Taco comes ONLY in manual shift, no auto available there due to the weight, the 4WD, and the lower power of the base engine (159 hp).
I got 46 mpg on my last tank of gas in the Echo...I totally agree that fuel economy is FAR from the only reason to buy a subcompact, but sometimes it sure is a compelling one! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So tell me again why people prefer such big vehicles? Their usefullness apparently does not scale with their size and mass so it must be some perverse psychological motivation rather than practical considerations. I may never understand the American consumer!