What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

andre1969

I don't think the SMART has any more chance of being a "hit" in America than an Edsel would being a hit in Europe.

Ya never know. I once hit a '55 DeSoto. With a '57 DeSoto! Okay, so it wasn't in Europe, it was in Laurel, MD, but still, what are the chances?

andre1969

I imagine that little thing is closer in size to the old Mini than the new one. It's amazing how BIG the current Minis actually are. I mean, in my eye they're still little cars, but on the rare occasion that I see one of the original Mini's, I end up doing a double take at how tiny they really are! I think they share the same size tire as the front wheels on my lawn tractor. :surprise:

oregonboy

Ten inch wheels :surprise:

See lots of mini wheels HERE

andre1969

Well at least the Mini's wheels are the four-lug type, and not just held on by a cotter pin, like on my tractor! :P

Mr_Shiftright

I guess maybe some part of this "success" equation is getting past me. Help me out here.

If we have a car that red-inked all over the globe, and in countries with extremely high fuel prices and very tight metro areas, what ELSE exactly would make it a success here in America?

Or to make the question more interesting--have Americans ever completely fallen madly in love with a vehicle the Europe was rather indifferent about? If they did, why did they?

I can't think of one right off......

stever

Jeeps?

Interesting question to ponder....

snakeweasel

A MINI gets 40 mpg

How much of a tail wind do you have to have to get 40 MPG as you are coasting downhill in a Mini? Per the EPA estimates it gets 32 highway 23 city. The Altima Hybrid gets 33 highway and 35 city. Neither gets anywhere near 40 MPG.

if you ask me. Besides, the car's been a flop everywhere...well, not a complete flop, but a slow seller and a red ink bleeder.

You also have to remember that they used to have more than one car and who knows what the roadster did to their profitability.

IMO, that's not enough tools in the toolbox to get the job done.

Actually since it is expected to get much better mileage than a mini (32/23) and it will fit the bill for the vast majority of the drivers I see during any commute It is more than enough to get the job done.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah they get can 40, the base model I mean. And the S can get 35.

It's possible because 6th is a really high gear overdrive.

Here's some reviews from Carspace members on the MINI which I think amplifies why the Smart cannot compete against it. (not that this was Smart's intention necessarily).

Cooper S "Good performance, comfort and economy. I'm getting over 35 MPG lately. "

Cooper S: "Best fuel economy ever! I average 33.2mpg currently at 2240 miles."

Cooper S: "My husband is 6'4" and loves this car"

Cooper S: 'Finally, the car nets an astounding 35 mpg for me on the freeway"

Cooper S: "fits a family of 4 (kids are 5 and 3)."

Base Cooper: "Its fuel economy has been near 40 mpg highway."

Okay, I priced out a Smart Passion and a comparably equipped base MINI. I think the MINI is better equipped but for the sake of argument:

Smart -- $16,250
MINI -- $20,850

So $4,600 bucks difference.

Is the MINI 1/5th more car for the money?

PS: Both cars require premium fuel

british_rover

If the SMART was a diesel and slightly cheaper it would have a better chance.

Also it is rwd and a I bet a significant portion of the US populace has forgotten how to drive a RWD car. :surprise:

bumpy

That's why it has stability control and EBD. :P

Supposedly there is a Bluetec Smart in the works. The current diesel (carried over from the old car) is too slow and too dirty to sell here.

andre1969

Here's some reviews from Carspace members on the MINI which I think amplifies why the Smart cannot compete against it. (not that this was Smart's intention necessarily).
Here are the translations on that...

Cooper S "Good performance, comfort and economy. I'm getting over 35 MPG lately. " (i.e., "I drive like how old people have sex)

Cooper S: "Best fuel economy ever! I average 33.2mpg currently at 2240 miles." (i.e., "I like drafting tractor trailers")

Cooper S: "My husband is 6'4" and loves this car" (i.e., "My husband is a contortionist and picks up part time jobs when the circus comes into town")

Cooper S: 'Finally, the car nets an astounding 35 mpg for me on the freeway" (left lane camping is my passion)

Cooper S: "fits a family of 4 (kids are 5 and 3)." (2 choices here. Either "We're a family of pygmies" or "I'm Leslie. This is my husband Megan. Meet our 'kids' Fluffy and Rover". I'm sure others can think up more humorous thigs here)

Base Cooper: "Its fuel economy has been near 40 mpg highway."
("I'm afraid to pass that 1978 Cutlass with the 260 CID Diesel". Or maybe "I have 12 points on my license...thirteen and it's suspended!")

Sorry, couldn't resist. :P

british_rover

Bah you are so wrong. I did all of those things in my MINI more then once. I drove that car hard around town. I didn't upshift till I was above 4,500 rpms most of the time, chirped the tires when shifting into second a lot and sometimes when shifting into third. I still averaged in the high 20s around town.

snakeweasel

Yeah they get can 40, the base model I mean. And the S can get 35.

According to the EPA website its 32 highway.

According to the Smart Canadian website its supposed to get about 50 highway a bit more than 40 city.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah okay but I'm posting real people and those are EPA estimates. You gonna believe the gov'mint or your fellow Carspace members?

I think half the car should get twice the mileage :shades:

snakeweasel

Yeah okay but I'm posting real people and those are EPA estimates. You gonna believe the gov'mint or your fellow Carspace members?

Half of one six dozen of the other (before anyone tries to correct me I know its "Six of one, a half dozen of the other" But I like mixing these things up :shades: ).

That being said the EPA website does allow for people to enter their mileage for all to see and those that do are pretty close or below the EPA estimates.

I think half the car should get twice the mileage

I have seen the Mini up close and the Smart up close. The Mini is not twice as big as the Smart.

texases

I can't speak to the Mini's mileage, but the room's amazing - I'm 6'5" and fit fine. A better comparison to the Smart was in today's USA Today - they compared to the Yaris hatchback, same $$, more room, almost equal mileage. A Mini would be icing on that cake, for sure.

texases

Oh, yeah, the Yaris does 0-60 in 10.something, the Smart in 12.something. Easy choice to me

snakeweasel

Does it really matter in rush hour traffic?

qbrozen

Are you ALWAYS in rush hour traffic? If so, first, I'm sorry, and second, how can you be a car enthusiast?

british_rover

The way snake talks about his commute you would think he is driving through gridlock in Baghdad. :P

Mr_Shiftright

At least in Baghdad the attrition rate is in your favor (presuming you are not the one being attritted (is that a word?).

I've been checking around the Internet forums...MINI owners with the base 1.6L non-turbo are definitely posting 40 mpg HWY or close. This is no illusion seems to me.....or....(ominous music)....a conspiracy of thousands? Who is MINI paying off? Or is Smart taking a dive for Las Vegas gambling interests? Will we ever know? :shades:

british_rover

I could get 40 mpg in my S under ideal conditions but realistically it was a little less then that. When I was hauling butt between VA and CT a couple of times a month at 90 mph in the middle of the night I got in the mid to low 30s. At a more reasonable 65 or so I could get to 40 or even a bit better with good weather conditions.

boaz47

The biggest difference between your point of view and mine seems to be where you draw the line on size. I don't see any advantage to a Sub Compact over a Compact and so I draw the line at Compact. You can't see any advantage to a Smart car so you draw the line at Mini cooper, maybe even a Yaris.

The thing is the American consumer seems to feel the mid sized cars are just what they want and if they want a second car they most often go for a Compact. Manufacturers have discovered that one quick way to increase sales of their smallest cars is to add power or size. True it creates room for a whole new generation of Sub Compacts but the sub compact will most likely always be the orphan child of the automotive industry in north America.

I might agree with you however on one obvious point. I can't imagine having to drive a Smart car on a LA freeway at anytime other than commuter traffic. At 65 with a Ford F-150 behind you and a Slade in front even with a Camry on one side and an Accord on the other you might feel a real tightness in your lower body parts. Can you picture trying to zipper a Smart with traffic flowing at a posted speed limit?

ateixeira

Actually the fuel economy numbers surprised me, too, this in tests by enthusiast magazines.

It's so light, though, it had to be efficient.

I think the new Turbo is more efficient than the old S/C model, too.

snakeweasel

I would say that a great deal of my driving is in rush hour traffic. Even outside of rush hour traffic around here will severely limit your ability to accelerate fast.

kyfdx

Check out this editorial cartoon

ateixeira

True. Funny and sad at the same time.

boaz47

It was a funny cartoon. It seems to deal a bit with one of the reasons the US tends to be more resistant to Micro cars than Asia or even Europe. We seem to feel we need to carry more stuff with us even when we go out shopping to buy stuff.

I don't know much about some other states but the western states including California, Oregon and Washington it seems like everyone has Jet Skies, or Snow mobiles or Dirt bikes and Quads. You might add boats or many other hobbies that require something bigger than a sub compact to haul around. In fact I am not all that sure a Smart Car would be more practical than a street legal Quad. But then it doesn't rain much here so I might have a different perspective.

I noticed that in Asia many people are willing to ride on motorcycles and motorbikes as their daily form of transportation. In the US anything under 500cc is a dirt bike and hardly ever is used for daily transportation. There are some huge differences between what consumers in the US will do and people in other countries.

Mr_Shiftright

I think that with any functional object you can only downsize so much. With cell phones, there's a point at which the keys are too small, and nobody wants that phone; with a wristwatch, the dial gets too small and you can't read the time; with a laptop, the keyboard gets scrunched together and you can't touch-type.

Same with cars. There is an optimum "little" beyond which it just doesn't work as a useful item, and I think the Smart has crossed that line--whereas the MINI just reaches it and stops.

This is why only a small % of people buy Smarts. Its functionality is forever restricted by its size, and its size dooms it to a very very narrow niche market---the exact wrong thing for a small car, that needs to sell in LARGE numbers to make money (remember the VW Bug!).

jlawrence01

>>Same with cars. There is an optimum "little" beyond which it just doesn't work as a useful item, and I think the Smart has crossed that line--whereas the MINI just reaches it and stops. <<

My friend imported a Smart car last year and tools around town in it. Of course, he has a full sized van, a couple of sedans and a flock of microcars. The Smart car is interesting for driving around town, but what good is a car where you have no room for gymbags or groceries when you have two people in the car. Add a smal trunk, and it might ne doable.

Mr_Shiftright

Let's face it, a Smart functions more as a motor scooter with weather protection functions, than as a car. A scooter can carry 2 people at over 50 mph and with a luggage rack you can get 30-40 lbs of stuff on there. And park it anywhere.

Now of course a Smart is more comfortable and sturdy, but really it can't do anything more than a Vespa can do.

Mr_Shiftright

I posted this is in one of the "cost of gas" topics but it fits here, too.

Check out the chart, and then project both the cost of gasoline and the % of compact cars by the year 2020 (presuming the trends continue as they have from 2000 until Q1 2007).

ateixeira

You mentioned "park it anywhere" and I think that's the key.

I used to have a scooter. 2 of them, at different points in time, while in college.

Basically the appeal is it's quick, you can park 'em anywhere, smaller ones can even sneak onto bike racks near the door, as that cartoon mentions.

This is why I think tiny cars like this need help - be it free or reduced parking, special lanes, HOV lane access, ... something.

They have to be convenient the way scooters are, basically, in order to succeed.

texases

Yes, giving them perks like HOV access would help them, but to what purpose? Why should a 40 mpg Smart get it, and a 40 mpg Yaris not? That's the problem I have with the HOV access for hybrids, etc. We paid big $$ for those HOV lanes to reduce traffic density, not support alternate technologies.

ateixeira

It depends.

I favor offering perks to PZEVs overall, but you can get a Subaru Outback PZEV, so that may be too broad. You'd have traffic in the HOV lanes.

So we'd have to use more than just the PZEV criteria, maybe PZEV and size.

For instance, motorcycles can go on HOV lanes, and the argument is they occupy less space.

So then the question is - what is the size threshold for cars to get that same perk? Under 150" and PZEV, maybe? :confuse:

Any how, my point is the Smart will need perks like that to succeed. If they don't exist, it will be a fad at best, fail miserably at worst.

Scooters and mopeds under 49cc do not require registration, insurance, licensing, or regular parking spots. That's what makes them so convenient.

Mr_Shiftright

Well you could let the Smart park perpendicularly, like they do with motorcycles. You could allow two Smarts to a parking space I guess, or give them discounts in parking garages and on toll roads. In this way you aren't rewarding them for their gas mileage, which really kind of sucks given their size and weight, but rather for their size, which is an attribute in terms of traffic and parking (though not an attribute to the driver necessarily).

I agree, without incentive, the car is doomed.

boaz47

"I agree, without incentive, the car is doomed."

This gets to the real issue of this whole forum. If the car needs an incentive there must be something wrong with it at least in the eyes of the consumer. Mid sized cars didn't need an incentive even SUVs didn't need an incentive to be popular.

While your chart does show how Compacts have increased it didn't give us much insight into sub compacts unless you are indicating they are lumped into one class. But here is the thing, the American consumer has to be forced into considering small vehicles. There must be some financial threat or depression before people turn to what would seem to be a less desirable form of transportation. Otherwise why wouldn't a sub compact succeed in times of prosperity? Lets just say the economy tanks as predicted by the housing market, what happens to the sub compact if we pull out of the slump and enter another period of prosperity? Will sub compacts be put back on the back burner as they were after the gas shortages of the 70s?

To be honest I just don't ever expect the sub compact to ever be the success that the Civic and Corolla are now. I still contend that the US consumer considers those two cars as the lower end of practicality. Anything smaller will always be, "one of those little cars."

lilengineerboy

"I agree, without incentive, the car is doomed."

This gets to the real issue of this whole forum. If the car needs an incentive there must be something wrong with it at least in the eyes of the consumer. Mid sized cars didn't need an incentive even SUVs didn't need an incentive to be popular.

A few thoughts:
1. The Mini needs no incentives, nor does the Scion, Fit, or Yarus. The Smart lacks the capabilities of those vehicles while providing no added benefit in fuel economy, purchase price, or running expenses.
2. The rebates available on SUVs is somewhat counter to your argument that they don't need an incentive.

ateixeira

The half-price parking idea might help (a little).

They would require special spots, though. If two Smarts park in one spot, which one pays?

british_rover

And the biggest SUVS with GVWR over 6,000 lbs do have tax incentives from the feds for business use.

I sell a whole lot of Land Rovers to small business owners who take advantage of that accelerated tax depreciation.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes that's a very valid point. Probably most subcompacts will just move up along with compact sales. This makes logical sense, since we spoke of how cyclically, subcompacts turn into compacts, compacts become intermediates, and then new subcompacts are born. We've seen this already any number of times, the same phenomenon.

So I'd have to say that subcompacts are really a subgroup of compacts and will not really behave much differently from them in the sales graphs.

However, micro cars are really 2-passenger cars so they are distinctly different.

stever

Ok, they didn't say pitiful (I don't think - just saw the blurb, not the whole opinion).

steve_, "Has CAFE reached the end of its usefulness?" #351, 15 Nov 2007 11:48 am

If CAFE pops up for the light truck crowd, there's one less reason to cramp your style in a subcompact.

thegraduate

Maybe one buys the first hour, one buys the second hour?

boaz47

I disagree, at the height of SUV popularity no one was trying to figure out how to sell more SUVs. Even Porsche decide to build one because they were about the single fastest selling vehicle in the US. Only mid sized cars were even close. In fact at one point I believe the Explorer was outselling the Accord, something that is not likely to happen with a xA or Yaris in my lifetime. When the tC came out in the Scion line they didn't have to offer an incentive to tripple the sales of the xA in less than a year. They let is succeed or fail on its own.

I do realize that some people found a loop hole on large SUVs and got a tax break on them. More power to them. But it wasn't an agenda item to get people to buy them as a suggested incentive is for a Smart.

As for Scion, the xA was their only sub compact and their slowest seller The xD is a touch bigger and the xA is no more. The xD may still be a sub compact but it is now 300 pounds heavier than the car it replaced. It has 15 more ponies. The strange thing is it is 40 pounds heavier than a Civic sedan and gets worse fuel mileage despite the civic having more HP. But now while edmunds calls the Civic a compact the EPA is calling the Civic a sub compact. So maybe the only thing wrong with the new sub compacts is they used to be compacts. I have used teh Scion as an example of what happens to sub compacts before. They either get bigger, get more HP or both. Scion proves that point.

snakeweasel

Why should a 40 mpg Smart get it, and a 40 mpg Yaris not?

Because the Smart is supposed to get a combined 40 MPG and the Yaris is only rated at 36 MPG Highway.

Mr_Shiftright

It is interesting though that it was the size of the ENGINE that changed when the xA became the xD, not the size of the car.

Which to me proves once again that there is a level of smallness beyond which a car in America cannot go--in this case, smallness of the engine, at 1.5L.

I still don't know why a dinky little thing like a Smart with a tiny little engine can't get better fuel mileage. Could be that the technology is long in the tooth by this time.

snakeweasel

The Smart lacks the capabilities of those vehicles while providing no added benefit in fuel economy, purchase price, or running expenses.

I keep asking myself when do I really need more capacity than a Smart for my daily drive and I cannot think of it. Most cars I see commuting only have one person in it. Is it really better to have the extra capacity when its never going to be used?

Those cars you mentioned all have less fuel economy than they Smart is supposed to get.

Finally the Smart is supposed to come in lower than those cars.

I think the Smart makes the perfect second car for most people.

lilengineerboy

I keep asking myself when do I really need more capacity than a Smart for my daily drive and I cannot think of it.

Cool, then it sounds like a great option for you, and you have the added advantage of the novelty factor for the first little while. I need to pick up kids on my way home from work which means I need a back seat, and one that is capable of holding a bulky child seat. I also need to transport bicycles regularly, so I need a car that can carry things on its roof or on a hitch rack (meaning it needs a hitch). When I bring my bike to work it has to go inside the car, so that it can remain in my possession. This happens often. A 2 seater will not work for me, or I would have a Boxster.

Most cars I see commuting only have one person in it. Is it really better to have the extra capacity when its never going to be used?

I think there is very little, if any, real added cost to having additional utility. Given the choice of having an AM/FM radio or an AM/FM/CD for the same price, all other things equal I would probably opt for the latter, even if I don't listen to CDs too often. Also, you might not have seen what happend before they got on the freeway (dropping kids at school, wife at work, mistress at the corner, etc).

Those cars you mentioned all have less fuel economy than they Smart is supposed to get.

According to Edmunds, the Smart requires premium, so there goes the fuel savings. Also, the $9999 Aveo gets 37 hwy and undercuts the price by a couple of grand. Even if the Smart got 40, it would take a long time to pay for the difference, and you lose 2 seats.

Finally the Smart is supposed to come in lower than those cars.

Air conditioning and a radio are both optional on the base Smart, standard on the others. According to edmunds, the Smart doesn't even have power mirrors.

I think the Smart makes the perfect second car for most people.

I think the Smart is perfect for people who should've bought a Prius but now its too passe and doesn't show their true inner greenness.

boaz47

The hype on the LA news stations has indeed been on Hybrids. SUV hybrids. Now I realize there was some print on the Smart but the Photo OP with Arnold was with a Hybrid SUV and that is where the media was. I point this out to show that we are still a very long way from deciding that our society is ready to travel light enough for a micro car. I may have to grant Shifty that we might be ready for something smaller than I would like but it still seems to me the Civic size car is about as small as we ever go with any success. But then our view of success has changed. At one time questioned the success of the PT cruiser because it didn't challenge the Civic. But the Cruiser exceeded 100K units pretty consistently for quite a few years. I have noticed lately in many of these forums that 50K seems respectable. I don't know but to me for a sub compact to have any real impact it seems it would have to outsell a Corolla. When that happens or when the camera flashes are going off at the car shows with a Yaris and several high profile celebs in the foreground I will accept that the US consumer is willingly changing their preferences.

snakeweasel

I need to pick up kids on my way home from work which means I need a back seat, and one that is capable of holding a bulky child seat.

Then the question becomes, what about your wife? Does she also need to be picking up your kids?

The point being is that a lot of families with two cars don't need a back seat and the cargo area of a pickup in both cars.

Given the choice of having an AM/FM radio or an AM/FM/CD for the same price, all other things equal I would probably opt for the latter, even if I don't listen to CDs too often.

Bad example because you are not dealing with two equal things of the same price. The Smart costs less than most of the cars it is being compared to and gets better gas mileage. So you are trading more utility (which you may never use) for less mileage.

Also, the $9999 Aveo gets 37 hwy and undercuts the price by a couple of grand.

EPA estiments for the Aveo is 34 Highway, The Smart is supposed to come in more than 10 MPG more than that highway and is only about 1,500 less.