What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

british_rover

Was the SI hatchback as hardcore as the UK Type R? I thought it was missing a good pit of horsepower and had a less aggressive suspension.

ateixeira

Ours was more tame, no doubt.

Still, Honda's high-revving engines are fun, you have to drive them a certain way to get the most out of them, and that's entertaining.

VW's low-boost turbo is almost better suited to everyday style normal driving.

lilengineerboy

Good point about many reliable cars being boring, but many aren't.

WRX and MazdaSpeed3 come to mind.

I'm not saying there aren't other choices, and I personally would go for a '02-05 WRX before going with a Jetta 1.8t or VR6, but part of that is I like the AWD in this climate. I do like VW because it is typically much easier to find a manual transmission than with a Toyota or something.

nippononly

The UK Type-R had the engine from the current SI, and a suspension to match. The problem with the last-gen SI was not the hatchback shape as much as the fact that it had been too watered down, I think.

There are plenty of small, fun, reliable cars available now. I sat in a Volvo C30 2.0 at the auto show this weekend, and I liked it a lot. With the larger tires and that turbo engine, it could be a real hoot to drive. I will have to try one out at a dealer. And I didn't think the shifter action deserved the damning with faint praise that it got in some of the reviews I read. It's not the greatest, but geez, try the shifter in more expensive cars including the 328i and the C300. Not too good either. I will take the Volvo's over either of those, with the $10K savings.

bumpy

Oh goodness no. The Si version was severely dumbed down for US consumption, but it was basically the same vehicle. Even came from the same plant. It was also the heaviest Civic of that generation. :sick: That Si wasn't so much a bad car, but it was shamed in every way by its predecessor.

boaz47

I thought the Hatch SI was a good test of the consumers acceptance of that design. It just didn't fly at that time. It is just unlikely that you will get a lot of effort from many of the companies to introduce all that much precision in a entry level hatch. When you have to face share holders it is hard to justify putting much into a car that will not return a lot in profits.

It just seems that to get room in a Sub Compact you have to go for function over form. There is only so much you can do to the design of most of these small cars and to get family sized space tall and rather smashed looking is about all you can do.

I do think there is a point that the manufacturers should look at however. If these new sub compacts are going to introduce first time and younger buyers to their particular brand they might want to consider the idea that the sub compact will be a new loss but could increase future sales of their normal cars. I know niche cars like the Mini could care less but is a sub compact was 8k instead of 14k it would make more sense.

lilengineerboy

I like that the Civic SI has a limited slip, that was what distinguished the Sentra SE-R from the rest of the class in the day.

ateixeira

Didn't it lack ABS? I may be referring to one generation earlier.

For me, the Civic Si never hit the sweet spot.

The older coupe looked great, but lacked ABS.

Then the hatch only came as a 2 door, and it looked more like a van than a sporty hatchback. I didn't like the shifter as a tree growing out of the dash, either.

The new ones come in a sedan, still no 5 door hatch (here in the US), and the engine requires premium fuel, despite a torque deficit compared to its peers.

I actually prefer the Euro 5 door with the turbo diesel. More practical, more efficient, still fun.

boaz47

I don't know what you see in that view of the Civic. Much like a donkey that isn't the best image of the animal. It might be a fine practical car but from my point of view only it may not be repulsive but it is not something I would like to see in my driveway.

On a side note did you notice that the Tahoe SUV hybrid got the green car of the year award at the LA auto show? It seems as if fuel mileage may be on the radar screen but people would still love to have their cake and eat it too.

ateixeira

Styling is subjective. I happen to like it, but that's not even what I'm talking about. Let's set that aside for a minute...

You have a practical 5 door shape, in a car that is quick and hyper-efficient.

That's what a compact car should be.

Yeah, saw that Tahoe award, but I also saw the MSRP and the latter surprised me more. $48 grand for starters, ouch. I'd get another van like mine, and have $23,000 left to buy fuel.

boaz47

Oh I realize that style is subjective. I have never liked the big rear end look like the one you posted. It is a bit of a shock compared to the rest of the car. But then I didn't like the Saab 900 or 9000 either and I hated the first Infinity J cars.

The point about the Tahoe was to show that if they can give the american consumer anything they consider reasonable as far as mileage goes they will look for something a bit bigger, given a choice. And this award was given by enthusiasts not just the general buying public.

ateixeira

We're split, then.

I like the Civic and the 900, but not the 9000 or the J30.

Let's see what sort of prices the Tahoe hybrids actually command.

boaz47

Yes we will have to wait and see. I haven't seen that many hybrids anyway. The Escape hybrid is supposed to be doing well but i don't see many of them. I do see a few prius now and then but you can almost dismiss them as reactionary cars. They are different enough to be easy to pick out so you react to them.

It is just when I see cars like Honda doing an imitation of an old pacer rear end I keep hearing Sir Mix-a-lot.

ateixeira

I'm in DC, so in this town of political correctness every 3rd car is a Prius, it seems. Hybrids are all over the place.

lilengineerboy

I do like the current Civic SI, I was thinking of the 91-94 Sentra SE-R/NX200/G20 vs the Civic SI of the era. I still like the 88-91 CRX SI the best; I think like the E36 M3, it was an automotive benchmark.

boaz47

The CRX is still sought after by boy racers in our area. I know of one or two available as we type. Many are being upgraded with bigger Honda engines and even some Integra powerplants. What I never understood is how Honda could have thought a Del Sol was a reasonable replacement for a CRX.

Mr_Shiftright

Thick with hybrids in my city, too.

nippononly

I know, wasn't that dumb of them? :confuse:

boaz47

Yes, what were they thinking? The CRX was the Pony car of its time. It was something enthusiasts could sink their teeth into and they replaced it with a car that had zero personality. All del sols should have just come from the factory in Pink. Put a B-20 in a CRX and everyone else will be playing catch up and know what a pocket rocket looks like.

ateixeira

A friend owns a Del Sol (how'd you know she was female? ) and there's no way I'd trade my Miata for one of those.

The Insight sort of resembled the old CRX, but didn't perform like one.

They had another concept recently that had the same look.

Maybe once the Smart arrives Honda will come out with another 2 seater. I just hope it's closer to the CRX than it is to the Insight.

lilengineerboy

Put a B-20 in a CRX and everyone else will be playing catch up and know what a pocket rocket looks like.

Did you mean a B16a (Early 90s Integra GSR and others) or a B18c (Later 90s Integra GSR)? Or a K20? I think that might be a lot of work. The B16a route I have done a couple of times, and its pretty much easy peazy, and a hoot when your done, especially if you get a donor car with an LSD in the trans already. Those two or three turns on the left side of Buttonwillow are so much more fun.

lilengineerboy

A friend owns a Del Sol (how'd you know she was female? ) and there's no way I'd trade my Miata for one of those.

The Insight sort of resembled the old CRX, but didn't perform like one.

They had another concept recently that had the same look.

Yeah I kind of think Honda peaked in the early 90s. The Accord of that time was fantastic relative to its competitors, the CRX and Civic SI were totally competent in the sport compact car arena, the HF versions got hybrid fuel economy numbers, and Acura was a great value for the Integra or Legend performance.

I am not saying they aren't great now, just that those cars were revolutionary, and now they are more evolutionary...a little bigger, a little more power, a little more efficient, but nothing that defines the class.

boaz47

if the market isn't too small for a two seater in most cases? When the Miata came out I remember there were several other two seat cars introduced within a few years. Now they are pretty much history and the Miata is still here.

Still it seems like we as a country aren't ready to give up our lifestyle all that much. It is like one of the leaders at VW said in an interview on one of these sites at Edmunds. Asking everyone to drive tiny cars is like asking them to live in tiny homes. The idea may seem fine but the aplication simply doesn't work.

british_rover

I have seen a couple of H22s in those year Civics and CRXs so I am sure someone has put a K20 in one by now.

bumpy

http://www.hondatuningmagazine.com/tech/0509ht_honda_crx_k20a_engine_swap/index.- html

Honda seems to have a penchant for occasionally taking a fantastic car and completely screwing it up for no good reason. The CRX turned into the Del Slow, the gen2 Legend became the utterly forgettable RL, the '99-01 Civic Si turned into the snailvan '02 Civic Si, and it looks like they're going to profane the NSX by turning it into some BMW M6 wannabe.

boaz47

"and it looks like they're going to profane the NSX by turning it into some BMW M6 wannabe."

There is only one Japanese sports car I would love to have. Just one and that is the NSX. What are they planning on doing to what might be the best exotic cars I have ever been in? I may be a devoted fan of the Z06 but I might be willing to take a NSX if I had the extra money to spend.

lilengineerboy

Actually, I loved the NSX. It drives like an Accord 80% of the time (which isn't inherently a bad thing) and 20% of the time it is an exotic car. It has Honda reliability, makes the same googoliy noise when you turn it on, and gets acceptable gas mileage and great reliability (especially compared to its Italian friends). It might be competent to a fault, it definitely doesn't have the soul of the Italians, but its is fun to drive and easy to hustle. My experience is mostly with the earlier ones, and the chassis felt like it could handle more power so I bet the later ones are even more of a hoot.
I drove a '87 Vette and then a '98 or '99 right after. Man, that was a well spent 10 years. Handling was easier (I couldn't tell if it was better but it was certainly easier), I could see better, power was more accessible, all of the creaking and groaning was gone. It was amazing.
I also liked the 300ZX, I think the 90s Z aged really really well.

bumpy

What are they planning on doing to what might be the best exotic cars I have ever been in?

They're going to put the name on some ugly front-engine V10 thing.

ateixeira

A few 2 seater ragtops failed. Geo Metro and Toyota MR2 come to mind.

But many others succeeded. Honda S2000. Porsche Boxster. BMW Z3/Z4. Mercedes SLK. Audi TT roadster. More recently, the Sky and Solistice.

Those are all still sold today.

Miata was sort of a proof of concept, that a well designed, fun 2 seater was marketable. I own one, and some Miataphiles say it saved the sports car from extinction.

Now, question is, will the Smart Roadster have the same success? The price is mighty close to the base Solistice and Miata, and I doubt it's nearly as fun.

We'll see.

bumpy

Now, question is, will the Smart Roadster have the same success?

You mean the fortwo Cabrio? The smart Roadster is dead, unless the Project Kimber thing ever works out.

Roadster:


Cabrio:


The Cabrio is a good $5-7k cheaper than a comparably-equipped Solstice or Miata, so I can see where it might bring some people in. The only drawback is that you have to manually unlatch the roof rails and stow them in the tailgate to get the full convertible experience.

guss

The Roadster looks downright huge when compared to the Cabrio.

ateixeira

Yes, Cabrio, thanks for the pics.

The Roadster is tiny, too. I barely could squeeze inside. Realistically it was too small for me to drive every day (I'm about 6' and barely fit in my Miata).

I wonder if the Cabrio actually has more leg room since it's so upright?

snakeweasel

But many others succeeded. Honda S2000. Porsche Boxster. BMW Z3/Z4. Mercedes SLK. Audi TT roadster. More recently, the Sky and Solistice.

Don't forget this:

Mr_Shiftright

At least you showed the attractive end of it!

texases

Just consider it the 'J. Lo' of roadsters :P

thegraduate

In the Vette's defense, you actually CAN get a lot of junk into its trunk!

ateixeira

Reminds me of the song My Humps by the Black Eyed Peas.

thegraduate

My tailgate, is better than yours...

boaz47

How easy it is to get excited about a 505 HP 470 lbft ot torque sports car or an NSX and how hard it is to get excited about a sub compact? As I have often said the image of sub compacts hurts their acceptance as much as anything else. Cars like the Mini cooper have found a way to get passed the concept of basic transportation and add a few beats to a persons pulse. But just about everything else we see can has to have the modifiers of, "it's all most people need", or "it will do for 90 percent of the time."

I understand the place for sub compacts I just don't think they will ever inspire us. They do make us feel more responsible I believe but that is more than likely on a different side of the brain than desire.

bumpy

How easy it is to get excited about a 505 HP 470 lbft ot torque sports car or an NSX and how hard it is to get excited about a sub compact?

Sounds like someone who has never heard of the Pulsar GTi-R. There are cars and trucks of all sizes that will never inspire us (Ford 500, anyone?). The vehicles that do inspire us are superlative in some way, whether that way be speed, handling, mileage, size, or something else.

andre1969

How easy it is to get excited about a 505 HP 470 lbft ot torque sports car or an NSX and how hard it is to get excited about a sub compact?

Well, if you go by EPA interior volume standards, the 505 hp NSX probably IS a subcompact! :P

boaz47

True I suppose. But even the language used to describe the benefits of a sub compact are less than inspiring. Beautiful, stylish, powerful, class leading comfort are not something you hear. Ask the average non enthusiast what comes to mind when you say sub compact and they more than likely will use words like, city car, second car, economy car, entry level car, first car. That is a image problem in our society. Saying, "well for me it doesn't matter" is much like that picture of the mouse giving the eagle the finger. It looks good on paper but we all know what happens a few seconds later.

texases

Good discussion on the SMART from editor Karl. Verdict: the transmission "sucks"...
SMART drive comments

Mr_Shiftright

Then how can you explain Wal-Mart?

If it's cheap enough and does the job, people will want it. The subcompact doesn't have to express sexiness or power, it has to express VALUE, IMO.

The MINI scored a stand-up triple. The exception proofs the rule in this case. It was attractive AND fast AND very well put together. That made it worth $26K.

nippononly

Call me crazy, boaz, but if you could offer me a loaded Mini Cooper S for about $28K or a base model Corvette for the same money, there's no question in my mind which I would choose. And it wouldn't be the 'Vette.

I have driven both, and there's no question in my mind at all. I just can't believe my good fortune that in addition to being a better choice for me, the Mini is also priced $20K less! :-)

And heck, the base Cooper is even less, by 4 or 5 thousand! These ARE good times!

boaz47

I never said there were not people that prefer less. I said the image is harder to sell to the consumer. I simply draw the line a bit higher than Shifty. He believes the bottom limit is about the size of a Yaris or xA and that the Smart is just too small. I think the Civic is about as small as the average consumer is willing to go and once you try to go smaller you enter that "basic transportation" zone that is a harder long term sell for the average consumer. History has proven time after time that when the economy is bad we get a flock of small cars and start to get used to them. But if things start to improve those same cars get more power or bigger and we have to wait for another down turn before they offer basic transportation again.

Compare a new mini cooper to the origional? What is the difference that is most obvious? Look up the new xB and besides giving it some curves what do you notice is the difference between it and the old one? Even the xA that was replaced with the xD. Once again what happened to the power? So simply from a three or four year evolution of the newest sub compacts what has been the result? As I mentioned early on in this forum what is wrong with the new sub compacts is they need more power or that need a bit more size. The first thing seems to be they are adding power.

Shifty, as for the Wal mart question. Wal mart is an easy sell. The dollar store is another question. They keep shutting down and have to reopen somewhere else.

Mr_Shiftright

boaz, you are pyschic! The dollar store in my neighborhood just shut down and moved somewhere else!

lilengineerboy

I simply draw the line a bit higher than Shifty. He believes the bottom limit is about the size of a Yaris or xA and that the Smart is just too small. I think the Civic is about as small as the average consumer is willing to go and once you try to go smaller you enter that "basic transportation" zone that is a harder long term sell for the average consumer.

I think its important to think about where "small cars" were and where they are now. I really didn't enjoy my seat time in a '77 Accord or '80 Civic, but by '84, the Civic wasn't such a bad place to be for basic transportation, especially compared to a Chevette or similar. By the 90s, the Civic was a nice vehicle with luxury amenities. Now we have choices like the Mazda3, which can be downright luxurious when outfitted with the touring package, or a Civic EX.

I think a lot of the stigma from small cars was brought about by Omni/Horizons, Rabbits, Corollas and Chevettes from the 70s/early 80s.

andre1969

By the 90s, the Civic was a nice vehicle with luxury amenities. Now we have choices like the Mazda3, which can be downright luxurious when outfitted with the touring package, or a Civic EX.

I had a 1991 Civic 4-door sedan for a rental ages ago. I found that thing to be quite comfy for such a small car. In fact, I thought it was more comfortable than many small cars are today! I might have to sit in one just to refresh my memory, but I seem to remember it having more fore-aft seat travel than a lot of cars today do. The seating position was more long and low, rather than today's trend of pickup-truck upright.

I think a lot of the stigma from small cars was brought about by Omni/Horizons, Rabbits, Corollas and Chevettes from the 70s/early 80s.

Unfortunately, I'd still have to put the current Corolla in this category. I've driven my uncle's '03 enough to know that, for my preferences at least, it's a miserable little thing to drive. Still, I'm sure if I had to compare it back-to-back with a Chevette, Gremlin, etc, it might just feel like a Lexus!

And oddly, it's not a bad little car to ride in. Passenger seat's not bad, and the back seat is pretty good for a small car. It's just the driver's seat that I can't stand.

Mr_Shiftright

My xA was light years ahead of a ten year old Corolla. it drives better, carries more cargo, is quieter at normal freeway speeds, has better visibility and just as powerful as just as economical.

Not quite as roomy in the passenger compartment though.