I am very excited about the Verve (verb? pronoun?) as well. I think if the styling doesn't get screwed up, that will be a winner.
I am a little concerned about the trend a lot of vehicles right now - the Mitsubishi included. Instead of a focus on driving and making the car fun to drive, it seems like the idea is to make the car fun to not drive. The in-vehicle systems like the crazy stereos and slushboxes things that take away from the driving experience. The fact that the gauges don't really tell you anything about the car, the pedals and steering don't do anything but send a signal for some computer to do something...the manufacturers are adding more and more gismos that have nothing to do with driving while they take more and more driving control from the driver.
A lot of what you say may be true. I just wonder how you would feel with 32 less HP for your commute?
Well seeing that when I drive it I rarely exceed 3K RPM's I think that dropping the HP that much won't have much of an effect on me except to wind up the engine when accelerating.
My friend Nippon defended the hybrids with the same fervor. But three cars later and he has still voted with his wallet for something different.
Just remember that defending something doesn't mean that you have to run out and buy one.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Power comes from two motors driven with electricity generated by passengers rowing back and forth with T-shaped handles. Rear passengers face backward and the car is directed by "body-steering."
I used to row a shell, so maybe I wouldn't get carsick in the backseat of this thing facing backwards. Someone call Barney Rubble and let's go for a ride!
I was at the old Ontario Race track when the First HPV managed to exceed the 55 MPH speed limit that was in effect at the time. The CHP was there to hand out a symbolic ticket. I thought it was pretty interesting but some of us got a chance to ride in some of the racing shells. I discovered that it was pretty hot when trying to get up to speed.
You are correct. I am coming at this from my own personal bias and that of the people that live in my community. And I am not a city dweller. If I were maybe 108hp wouldn't seem so bad. No hills to measure it against. Maybe that is why I didn't mind my old VW Bug when I lived in Orange County and first moved to Riverside. But after a while the longer drive to Riverside made me long for a few more ponies and trading the V-Dub for a D-50 was pretty exciting. Going from the D-50 to a D-100 was like night and day. But every little step up in power is almost addicting. Yes I know cheap gas made that easier to swallow. But it seems a little more power is almost always a selling point when selecting between two different cars. However that thinking seems to have effected the whole Scion line up this year wouldn't you say? They moved up in power with both of their entry level vehicles. I don't think they have a 108 Hp offering this year. This from Conservitive Toyota.
Ah, boaz. You continue to provoke my interest. :-)
While I have defended hybrids in the past, and still think they are at least keeping the trend towards more fuel-efficient vehicles alive, my main wish is for automakers to reduce the weight of their new cars DRASTICALLY. I'm talking half a ton or more in most cases.
I have followed your banter with snakeweasel with interest, and watched snake defend the Smart car. I have been very interested in th Smart car - I think it will be a better handler than my Echo in stock form, that's for sure. And I suspect it will match or exceed the fuel economy of all the new diesels coming in the next few years from Europe and Japan. Ah, but there's that trade-off: it's low-powered, and it only seats two.
I have considered the number of times I have had folks in the back seat of the Echo in the last couple of years, and realize it is more than I initially thought (including times I have had my nieces in there in their car seats, two at a time). I am not so sure a 2-seater would do it for me, but I think I could change my habits to incorporate a 2-seater as my commute car. Given that, I would be very interested in the Smart ForTwo if only it offered a manual, which it doesn't. That's also the reason I have never "put my money where my mouth is" and bought a hybrid. Honda had the Insight, 2 seats and $20K with a manual, and I passed. The old Civic Hybrid could be had with a stick, but only made the mileage I am making anyway in the Echo (for half the purchase price). So I passed again. Now hybrids make better mileage, and if they sold a manual shift, I would probably have bought one by now.
After all of that, let me just say that the 108 hp in the Echo is all it needs. That car weighs 2100 pounds. I regularly and easily pass on rural 2-lanes at 60+ mph, I regularly beat Yukons and Camrys off the line in the 0-60 sprint without even breaking a sweat, I have never wanted for power in that thing, and that includes passing minivans at 70 going up the Grapevine. I hear your arguments and am convinced of your convictions, but I think you may just be a little out of touch with your actual power needs after years of owning fast and/or powerful vehicles.
Footnote: my running average in the Echo stands at a hair below 41 mpg. Most Prius owners are reporting 45-48 mpg. So my insistence that I won't buy an automatic is only costing me maybe 13% in fuel costs by contrast with the car with the highest fuel economy currently available. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Oh I knew why you passed on Hybrids. And I know how you feel about SUVs. But like I pointed out Scion has decided that 108hp just isn't enough. It has to be because of consumer response. Like you I await the reviews of the Smart after it hits the highway. I just remember the complaints about the Insight even with the great fuel mileage it got. I could go back to some of our debates on the first generation Prius and you can remember how many defended it over the Insight because, "the Insight is only a two seater."
Have you ever driven a old Bug out on I-5 on a windy day when a 18 wheeler passes you and you get blown into the other lane? I know you keep pulling for small micro cars and maybe some day we will have city cars like they do in Japan. But I believe that process will take longer here in the West than it might in the East. A car like the Smart is absolutely a second car for a vast majority of the public. And traditionally single purpose cars are low volume cars in the US.
Like always we shall see once the consumer has spoken. But if the Smart is in the Red in countries that favor small cars I have to wonder how it will do better in the land of the F series pickup.
"And traditionally single purpose cars are low volume cars in the US."
Well, if Smart could sell as many ForTwos each year as Mazda sells Miatas, I'm sure they would be very pleased! :-)
And no, I am not trying to imply that the ForTwo is a sporty car, merely responding to the "single purpose" remark. Because the fact is, for the vast majority of us, solo-occupant commuting constitutes the majority of use for at least one car in our household...
And even though Toyota has decided that 108 hp just isn't enough for their Scion brand (and that 2500 pounds just isn't enough weight for their subcompact Scion cars :sick:), it has decided it IS enough for their smallest Toyota-branded car (Yaris, weighing in at 2300 pounds these days).
Of course, they are trying to sell Scions to kids, and one thing kids want is more power. Kids haven't yet had to deal with more practical matters like concern for their environment or gasoline and insurance bills. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
After all of that, let me just say that the 108 hp in the Echo is all it needs. That car weighs 2100 pounds. I regularly and easily pass on rural 2-lanes at 60+ mph, I regularly beat Yukons and Camrys off the line in the 0-60 sprint without even breaking a sweat, I have never wanted for power in that thing, and that includes passing minivans at 70 going up the Grapevine. I hear your arguments and am convinced of your convictions, but I think you may just be a little out of touch with your actual power needs after years of owning fast and/or powerful vehicles.
Very well said. I used to fall into the category you site: " a little out of touch with your actual power needs after years of owning fast cars".
Then when my daily driving changed to 90% city I decided to buy a Yaris 2dr. as my daily driver. First, because I was tired of wasting so much money on gas to sit in stop and go traffic in a larger car, and Second, because I've always liked small cars that are fun to drive and easy to park. Third & finally, because I had just come across the concept of "Hypermiling" and I'm always up for trying something new.
Now that I've been driving my Yaris for 4 months, I find that I'm having a great time. I'm continually amused at how little gas it uses ...
I'm very happy with my choice and find this car perfect for the needs I have. Nice ride, zippy performance, sporty loooking (2 doors, Alloy Wheels and Bright Red!) very short and fun to park.
I am not trying to imply that the ForTwo is a sporty car, merely responding to the "single purpose" remark.
I might suggest a counterpoint here.
The definition of "Sporty" has changed speaking for myself only. I used to view a car as sporty if had gobs of horsepower, handling, speed, braking, and a high price tag. However now that I have several cars that meet and in some cases beat that definition by a wide margin such as my Ferrari F50, I'm re framing how I look at "Sporty" as I find it's beginning to align itself more with "Fun".
Thus while my true high end sports cars are indeed blindingly fast and fun. I also find the Smart "sporty" as it's rather unusual looking and I'm sure they are fun to drive. Even if they have several drawbacks of significance.
After all every car is a compromise. So it's all in what's important to the individual consumer. I no longer believe a car has to be fast to be fun.
As as far as appearance is concerned, when I first saw a 2 dr Yaris I thought "what an ugly car", then it grew on me and I bought one of those "Ugly Cars" for myself. Ironically I found the "funky look" rather fun and different. As well as the other aspects of the car that caused me to select one for my daily driver.
Speaking for myself there is one other very significant bonus to owning a Yaris, and that's the fact that I have _not_ gotten a speeding ticket since I began driving it! Before long my tickets will have aged to the point where my premium will go back down to a far lower rate than I'm paying presently!
No worries about getting caught in my Yaris going 165mph.......
"Speaking for myself there is one other very significant bonus to owning a Yaris, and that's the fact that I have _not_ gotten a speeding ticket since I began driving it! "
You made me smile. But Nippon was more dogmatic than you. He bought a Echo which was universally described as homely. The car never made sales projection and slowly fell off to the point of being discontinued. Some will say simply replaced.
But as to Nippons contention that Mazda Miata sales figures will make the people selling the Smart happy? Not so sure because with all the sales they have made in Europe they are still in the red.
Of course, they are trying to sell Scions to kids, and one thing kids want is more power. Kids haven't yet had to deal with more practical matters like concern for their environment or gasoline and insurance bills.
Eh, this hasn't proven to be so much the case. Generally speaking, kids don't want to drive, kids want to do everything in the car but drive. Kids want big stereos etc, as long as the car reflects their personal style and goes from point A to point B they don't care. Hmm so an automatic transmission 1.5l Scion xB is slow when it has 4 people and band gear in it? You don't say...
Of course, there are a few kids that like cars and are looking for a driving experience. Unless they match an ethnic profile or their parents are making a decision for them, they don't by that type of vehicle.
The business model in the U.S. is, I believe, predicated on a sales volume of 20K per year or something? Surely Mazda sells that many Miatas in a year? I haven't checked lately.
Yaris is notably improved from Echo in a couple of key areas, including handling. It's a HECK of a lot more fun to drive a little car fast than drive a big car/truck/SUV fast (or slow, or in traffic, or in stop and go, or with stoplights every block, or...). :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I guess it depends on the type of Vehicle. When Toyota released the Tundra they were projecting a lot more than 20k a year. Even the Nissan Titan was not considered a success at 75k a year because it fell 25k below projection. Echo was projected to sell 50k a year and never made it. And it was considered a flop. I just can't see an entry level car like the Smart making much of a profit at 20k a year. Not that the Smart has ever made a profit from what I read.
It is a wait and see proposition. The people that created the Smart have shown stamina and maybe this will be their salvation. The economy is down however even with higher fuel prices people may have to take a hard look at having a second car. It isn't likely that something like the Smart will be a primary vehicle.
Hey Echo made 50K in its first year! It was just that after that it trended downwards pretty fast. :-/ In late 2003 Toyota made it order-only, and of course after that volume dropped to nothing, because dealers didn't have any in stock.
But I am pretty sure Penske said in an interview that they were set up to make a profit with 20K Smart sales per year. I am not 100% sure though.
Certainly there are many models on the market today that are profitable with 20K annual sales or less. Sales of 2-seaters are bound to be something of a niche, so automakers go into such a proposition with lower sales expectations. Indeed, Toyota's big mistake with the last MR2 was thinking they would ever get 50K annual sales (although I think Miata has made 50K once or twice). When it proved to be that it could not get anywhere near that number, they dropped it (again). It stinks that Toyota will keep the Land Cruiser in the line-up at 1K annual sales, but will drop MR2 and Celica once they drop below 50K (or never get 50K, in MR2's case).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You know the answer. Profit. There is very little profit in a small car like the Smart. I just remember that once the Echo fell to 20K they were talking of discontinuing it. It is a bit like the Baja. Didn't it sell more than 20k? But after the third year there were whispers that Subaru was going to can it.
Even I was surprised to see the Celica go. But you have to admit the last two generations were a bit strange. Didn't C&D or Motortrend have on of the last generations on the cover with the caption "send in the Clowns?" Or something like that? And yet the Eclipse keeps rolling along.
I do understand your contention that driving a small underpowered car can be fun. Sometimes you get to use all it has and when done well it is satisfying. But if you move up it is very easy to see the advantages with a bit more power and a bit bigger car. I had a Sprite and it was a joy most of the time. At least on a tight course. However even at Riverside Raceway, now a shopping mall, you couldn't outrun a VW Ghia.
To be honest you have always surprised me. You had a pocket rocket and ended up with the Echo. How you went from a RSX to a Echo has always surprised me but to each his own. Much like your reaction to my friend who traded the WRX for a Edge.
Even I was surprised to see the Celica go. But you have to admit the last two generations were a bit strange.
It was expensive, overpriced and redundent. If you wanted something sporty, the tC was there, and if you wanted something cushy, the Solara was there. Same with the Prelude - it morfed into the Honda Monte Carlo...I mean Accord Coupe. I think it was also in danger of getting spanked by the Civic SI of the day.
The Eclipse is the only 2 door Mitsubishi has - on a Chrysler shared platform. I think they lost their allure for me when they ceased production on the turbo AWD version.
I think "personal coupes" are kind of out of favor because they are as big and thirsty as a conventional sedan, don't offer any performance advantage, and make it miserable to get in and out of the rear seat.
my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS, but, and it is a big butt, I am increasingly getting more and more irritated that a relative handful of individuals can "future trade" up or down the remaining oil stocks left on this earth. Even if we do posess a decent chunk of oil left for refining for gasoline the next few decades, I am getting set to flick my ICE rig for one powered electrically. I don't even want hybrid power, I want total electrical power for my next rig.
So, a lot of these vehicles are smaller vehicles than ICE vehicles. Fits my bill nicely. Mitsubishi is working on a few micro and subcompact electrically-driven wheel machines as I type this out. Being at around 16,500 miles only on my '08 Lancer GTS, that leaves us with many years of ICE driving left and actually a good timing possibility for trading in on an EV in four to six years or so.
Today I read of an EV that powers itself up on solar energy. It has a top that has photovoltaic cells built in that gather energy up while driving and whilst being parked outside your place of business during the day, even. The wheels have all been designed to be propelled from juice from the 16 battery packs onboard and the regenerative forces from the photovoltaic solar cells. The car is only 3 feet and 6 inches high to get the best aerodynamic wind scope available. Charging would take place automatically upon driving and re-charge can be done the quickest with 4 leads plugged in to an electrical outlet or more slowly from one plug-in, but still would be accomplished within a few hours, say 4-6, not 8 hours or more. The thing I really like is that the car is designed to re-charge itself up while driving in the sun or even daytime skies. That's right-nightly re-charging will not be a necessary part of this car's driving operation! The owner of the patent is very, very serious about this project, will put it in to place, and is actively looking for a manufacturing company right now in China to build these cars for him. And what will have to follow is a good company to distribute the product, someone like ZAP here in America. 2008 is going to be a very active year for alternative energy automotive product production and for pre-sales work of all kinds. Lots of work involved and lots of planning going on intensely right now. This guy has every minute detail drawn out and planned and I would guess he has a good idea what kind of cuts he can give to a company to go in with him on this project and make a strong EV contender to distribute to key worldwide markets.
An early price discussed is "under $30,000," which sounds high but if the technology is sound as a pound and everything works right for your situation you would be freed from the futures trading insanity and oil sludge-over we are stuck in now. I talked to the owner of this patent earlier today online and he said that my desert, sunny environment would be an optimal setting to drive one of his cars in. I had a concern about the cold nights(18-25 degrees fairly often at night during Dec. and Jan. and the early part of Feb.) and he allayed those fears by telling me that the sunny parts of the day would more than make up for that potential hard-starting problem caused from the extreme cold temperature and the car's battery-regeneration process. It is one of the technological warning flags...too cold of a climate may make these cars a bad choice for you. So I gave him some average temp.'s in the extreme winter months and...it doesn't look like it will be a problem in my situation. There does remain much research to make, but, so far nothing has counted the car out yet for my driving situation.
There are now so many companies with this type of technology starting up that something compatable with our own set of realities ought to be available and purchasable within a reasonalbe amount of time. Something just clicked on like a lightbulb(sorry )a few months ago that this new technology must be embraced shortly. This vehicle I am looking at has strong crumple-zone crashworthiness that utilizes composite materials and dents up upon impact but does not crush in. Of course, the rest of the puzzle would have to be there regarding air bags and other protection, too, and it is. It is projects like this that I will follow now and if a domestic automakers or a foreign one(Mitsubishi, Kia) completes a more affordable EV they will quickly get my rapt attention as the next few years go by. Pollution created by the manufacture of EV's, unfortunately, is still more of a factor than I'd like. Those that minimize that will get the booby prize and perhaps my EV car purchase dollars next.
green with these solar-powered automobiles I'm researching right now. Not only will the stinky car smells be gone, but the endless oil changes will be gone as well as all of the other lubricants your current car needs changing every 15,000-30,000-60,000 miles. In fact, your first servicing would not be required on this solar-powered car until you reach 70,000 miles. Handling is said to be good and the car does not produce any noise when accelerating or when going full speed. Top speed IIRC was 110 mph. I'll re-check myself on that. The re-charging elements of this car make it very attractive to me, that was one of my check-offs when I first started getting interested in electrically-powered automobiles. Once I find something that will not fit for me and my driving needs with this solar car I will cross it off of my list and tell y'all why at the same time.
BTW-this car is called Stinger and when I asked him for a website to study up on the car further he told me that he would prefer to keep the complete list of all of the vehicle's specs to himself (I did get some of them and there's several specs there... I'll go back to the website I found them on today to dredge them up-he did post some very basic specs online yesterday) while he searches for a Chinese manufacturer. Then he'll put up the car's website. It won't be hard to remember for me because of the close name connection to the Dodge Hornet, also being manufactured by a Chinese carmaker, Chery Motors. In collaboration with Dodge, of course.
If a 42" tall vehicle seems a tad too low for you to get in and out of, you may also find that a reason to scratch this car off of your list. Not enough reason for me to scratch it off my list but it may indeed be for y'all.
Baja's sales goal was 20k per year but it never came close. I think it was more like 8k per year.
There should be a marketing class on what not to do. Subaru loaded it up for the launch with leather and moonroof standard, and it priced out at $25k, way too steep for such a small crew cab.
That moonroof also killed headroom, so you lost customers over 5'10" or so.
The rear seat was cramped, only fit 2 people, and the bed was also too small. The mid gate from the ST-X concept never made production, either.
A lower starting price, a real midgate, a longer wheelbase, and a decent sized bed may have saved it, but they seemed to make every mistake possible with it.
The thing is they didn't learn from their experience with the Brat. The Japanese do seem to hang in there longer with a concept that doesn't sell, as they did with the Echo and the Toyota Space vans. Nissan even stuck with the Pulser way longer than they should. But still you would have thought they would have taken their experience with the Brat to heart. The origional excuse for the 108 HP in the Scions was that they were designed for the young buyer and the 108 was less expensive to manufacture. Yet today the Scions have dropped the 108 Hp and gone with more power. Doesn't this tell us something?
" The Japanese do seem to hang in there longer with a concept that doesn't sell, as they did with the Echo and the Toyota Space vans"
Of course, the crucial difference is that the Baja was designed specifically for North American sales, whereas the Echo (Yaris) and Previa went right on selling very well in Japan and other global markets for Toyota.
The Japanese automakers must look across the water and chuckle (or stare in disbelief) at the fact the Americans are power-MAD.
And boaz: the RSX was a fantastic little car. For some reason, I went through a period of being obsessed with buying a new(er) 4Runner, so I traded it in. I regret it to this day. :-(
Ask yourself, if I wanted to go out today and replace the RSX with another new LIGHTWEIGHT, small-engined small coupe with superlative handling for low $20Ks or less, what could I buy? Seems to me like my choices can be counted on one hand, with the Civic SI coupe the leading contender (and pretty much no-one else in the game except the Mini Cooper).
Footnote: reduction in size and weight will be crucial to these new solar-powered cars that iluv is referencing, because every kilowatt is crucial in those applications and reducing weight contributes greatly to making the power go further. Perhaps they will lead the way into a further resurgence of subcompacts! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It was overpriced, but it certainly wasn't redundant. And the '00-'05 Celica had more sport in its pinky toe than tC has in its whole porky body...
The Celica may have been sportier and a better performer than the tC, but isn't the sporty 2+2 market pretty much dead these days? I'm guessing Toyota just saw that coming, and decided to ditch the Celica in favor of something more mass market.
isn't the sporty 2+2 market pretty much dead these days?
Dead? Not a chance. (Mustang, Civic Si, MINI, and porsche all prove that) Viable for a mass-produced high-volume seller? No.
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe the Celica sold like 7k-9k units its final year, hence the axe. Considering Ford can sell that many Mustangs between meals, it is obviously not the market that is a problem but the merchandise.
Are those all TECHNICALLY 2+2s? Maybe not, but they realistically fall into that category.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The '00 Celica was overpriced from the start, given its equipment levels and the performance numbers it could generate per dollar. Had they figured out a way to produce it in the United States (it is broadly based on the Corolla platform after all) and found the production capacity (it was only a 50-75K annual seller anyway), I am sure they could have continued it very profitably.
The reason the Celica's last year was only 7-9K (I also forget the exact number) was that Toyota quit shipping them over in, like, March. The year before it pulled 20K, but that wasn't good enough for Toyota.
On a general note, it's pretty disgusting if we as the market accept the notion that automakers can't build anything but trucks and SUVs profitably. That's a terrible direction for the industry.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yeah, I guess I was just thinking more in terms of the stereotypical low-slung Japanese style 2+2. Cars like the old 200/240SX, Celica, Supra (before it became a Corvette fighter), 300ZX (ditto), Honda Prelude, etc. Or even the old Corolla SR-5. Cars that tended to put style over practicality, and were somewhat space-inefficient.
I just never thought of stuff like the Mini, Civic SI, or Mustang, in quite that same category, although yeah, they're basically 2+2's. And semi-exotic stuff like Porsches and such are definitely niche market stuff.
Also, these days I guess you could put the Altima coupe into the 2+2 category. As big as it is, the EPA actually classifies it as a subcompact! :surprise:
"The Japanese automakers must look across the water and chuckle (or stare in disbelief) at the fact the Americans are power-MAD."
Well it is all in perspective. We look at Japan and wonder why in the world they won't stop killing whales and would pay $38.00 for a cantaloupe. To this day I don't understand why they don't let us sell them American Rice. :P
As far as EVs and Solar powered vehicles go, I am not holding my breath. When they had the EV-1 and Toyota had their fleet of Rav-4s EV running in New York I thought we might be on the right track. But till the pigs start flying again I believe we are stuck with hybrids just like Toyota and Honda told us 25 years ago when CARB mandated EVs. I believe in Plugin vehicles but the power is not free and if we can't build nukular power plants all we have to oil and coal generating plants and they tend to produce more pollution that cars. Geothermal shows promise but solar keeps falling on its face. The panels themselves cost a lot and are easily damaged.
Some of those cars were exciting. My Prelude was one of my all time favorite cars. I think I still would rather have a clean 300ZX over the new 350. But yes they were form over function. 180 degrees out from some of the new offerings from Japan. The cube, xB and such have no form. The RX-8 is a pour example of the last RX-7.
It was overpriced, but it certainly wasn't redundant. And the '00-'05 Celica had more sport in its pinky toe than tC has in its whole porky body...
yup yup so sporty it shared its drivetrain with a Pontiac Vibe. Toyota long walked away from the sport compact car market to embrace the "big stereo" compact car market.
Ask yourself, if I wanted to go out today and replace the RSX with another new LIGHTWEIGHT, small-engined small coupe with superlative handling for low $20Ks or less, what could I buy? Seems to me like my choices can be counted on one hand, ****
The top contender of course is the Porsche(though for mid 20s it would have to be used of course). Below that, though, my money is on the RX-8. Drives like a dream and handles very well. It's no BMW 2002Tii or 914 2.0, but it certainly is worlds better than the bloated crud out there.
Check your engineering. The base Celica GT shared its block but not its head (nor power rating) with the Vibe, the GT-S had nothing in common at all. And the Celica chassis, oh that Celica chassis...(of both trims)
plekto: Yeah, the RX-8 is the best value in a sport coupe out there under $30K new, I agree. But it guzzles gas worse than a Chevy big block, something I just won't abide in my sport coupe.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yeah, the RX-8 is the best value in a sport coupe out there under $30K new, I agree.
Do we get to count the 128 yet? ;b
when the RX8 came out, the only reason I didn't get one was because I didn't fit in it. Now that gas is where it is and its true consumption is better known, I'm glad for reason #1.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
For all the praise it has been receiving, the 128i is never going to have the superlative seat-of-the-pants handling experience that the RX8 provides. Not to mention, the 128 will weigh like a quarter ton more than the Mazda and cost thousands more with less equipment. And there is nothing in the automotive world quite like a rotary engine, another advantage the RX8 has over the BMW if you ask me. Too bad those rotaries are such gas pigs.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Nah, it's almost the same size (and clearly almost the same price too) as the 3-series.
Actually, I noticed that when I saw the 1-series at the DC and Philly auto shows. It looked a little trimmer than the 3-series, but it wasn't as small as I thought it would be.
For a mini-compact, you have to move "down" to stuff like the Jag XKR, Aston Martins, Porcshes, etc. :shades:
The RX-8 is a touch over 3,000 pounds itself while I'd guess that a 128i would come in around 3,200, same as the old IS300. Out of those three, I'd take the Lexus and try to lighten it up some (pulling the asphalt sheeting out of the floorpan would be a good start).
ya know, I'd have to look at the specs (which i can't do right now), but I'd find it odd to call the Honda Fit a subcompact and the 1-series not.
edit: well, ok, I looked. The 1-series is about 14 inches longer and 2 inches wider than a Fit. I'm definitely surprised by that. It is 4 inches lower, though.
It does bring up a question, though. What is a subcompact? I mean, what requirements are taken into account. I imagine the interior space of a Fit surpasses that of a 1-er and maybe even a 3-er. So is it footprint? If so, what are the measurements? Is it a particular square footage?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
and for the curious ... the 1-er is 10.5 inches shorter and 4 inches narrower than the 3-er. So about the same difference between a Fit and 1-er as a 1-er and 3-er.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
It does bring up a question, though. What is a subcompact? I mean, what requirements are taken into account. I imagine the interior space of a Fit surpasses that of a 1-er and maybe even a 3-er. So is it footprint? If so, what are the measurements? Is it a particular square footage?
According to the EPA, a car's size is determined by its interior volume. Exterior dimensions have nothing to do with it. As a result, it's possible to have a car from a smaller size class actually end up being physically larger than a car from a larger size class. The EPA's size class thresholds can be found here.
One of the most overblown examples of a midsized car was the 1977-79 Lincoln Continental Mark V. 120.4" wheelbase, something like 231" long overall, yet inside it had something like 100 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 17 cubic foot trunk, for a combined total of 117 cubic feet. By the EPA's definition, a midsized car has 110-119 cubic feet of combined passenger/trunk space.
**edit: Bumpy beat me to it, because I got too wordy, I guess. :P
Comments
I am a little concerned about the trend a lot of vehicles right now - the Mitsubishi included. Instead of a focus on driving and making the car fun to drive, it seems like the idea is to make the car fun to not drive. The in-vehicle systems like the crazy stereos and slushboxes things that take away from the driving experience. The fact that the gauges don't really tell you anything about the car, the pedals and steering don't do anything but send a signal for some computer to do something...the manufacturers are adding more and more gismos that have nothing to do with driving while they take more and more driving control from the driver.
I guess that makes some sense as we spend more and more of our "leisure time" stuck in traffic.
james
Well seeing that when I drive it I rarely exceed 3K RPM's I think that dropping the HP that much won't have much of an effect on me except to wind up the engine when accelerating.
My friend Nippon defended the hybrids with the same fervor. But three cars later and he has still voted with his wallet for something different.
Just remember that defending something doesn't mean that you have to run out and buy one.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
HumanCar To Launch on Earth Day (Inside Line)
I used to row a shell, so maybe I wouldn't get carsick in the backseat of this thing facing backwards. Someone call Barney Rubble and let's go for a ride!
While I have defended hybrids in the past, and still think they are at least keeping the trend towards more fuel-efficient vehicles alive, my main wish is for automakers to reduce the weight of their new cars DRASTICALLY. I'm talking half a ton or more in most cases.
I have followed your banter with snakeweasel with interest, and watched snake defend the Smart car. I have been very interested in th Smart car - I think it will be a better handler than my Echo in stock form, that's for sure. And I suspect it will match or exceed the fuel economy of all the new diesels coming in the next few years from Europe and Japan. Ah, but there's that trade-off: it's low-powered, and it only seats two.
I have considered the number of times I have had folks in the back seat of the Echo in the last couple of years, and realize it is more than I initially thought (including times I have had my nieces in there in their car seats, two at a time). I am not so sure a 2-seater would do it for me, but I think I could change my habits to incorporate a 2-seater as my commute car. Given that, I would be very interested in the Smart ForTwo if only it offered a manual, which it doesn't. That's also the reason I have never "put my money where my mouth is" and bought a hybrid. Honda had the Insight, 2 seats and $20K with a manual, and I passed. The old Civic Hybrid could be had with a stick, but only made the mileage I am making anyway in the Echo (for half the purchase price). So I passed again. Now hybrids make better mileage, and if they sold a manual shift, I would probably have bought one by now.
After all of that, let me just say that the 108 hp in the Echo is all it needs. That car weighs 2100 pounds. I regularly and easily pass on rural 2-lanes at 60+ mph, I regularly beat Yukons and Camrys off the line in the 0-60 sprint without even breaking a sweat, I have never wanted for power in that thing, and that includes passing minivans at 70 going up the Grapevine. I hear your arguments and am convinced of your convictions, but I think you may just be a little out of touch with your actual power needs after years of owning fast and/or powerful vehicles.
Footnote: my running average in the Echo stands at a hair below 41 mpg. Most Prius owners are reporting 45-48 mpg. So my insistence that I won't buy an automatic is only costing me maybe 13% in fuel costs by contrast with the car with the highest fuel economy currently available. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Have you ever driven a old Bug out on I-5 on a windy day when a 18 wheeler passes you and you get blown into the other lane? I know you keep pulling for small micro cars and maybe some day we will have city cars like they do in Japan. But I believe that process will take longer here in the West than it might in the East. A car like the Smart is absolutely a second car for a vast majority of the public. And traditionally single purpose cars are low volume cars in the US.
Like always we shall see once the consumer has spoken. But if the Smart is in the Red in countries that favor small cars I have to wonder how it will do better in the land of the F series pickup.
Well, if Smart could sell as many ForTwos each year as Mazda sells Miatas, I'm sure they would be very pleased! :-)
And no, I am not trying to imply that the ForTwo is a sporty car, merely responding to the "single purpose" remark. Because the fact is, for the vast majority of us, solo-occupant commuting constitutes the majority of use for at least one car in our household...
And even though Toyota has decided that 108 hp just isn't enough for their Scion brand (and that 2500 pounds just isn't enough weight for their subcompact Scion cars :sick:), it has decided it IS enough for their smallest Toyota-branded car (Yaris, weighing in at 2300 pounds these days).
Of course, they are trying to sell Scions to kids, and one thing kids want is more power. Kids haven't yet had to deal with more practical matters like concern for their environment or gasoline and insurance bills. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Very well said. I used to fall into the category you site: " a little out of touch with your actual power needs after years of owning fast cars".
Then when my daily driving changed to 90% city I decided to buy a Yaris 2dr. as my daily driver. First, because I was tired of wasting so much money on gas to sit in stop and go traffic in a larger car, and Second, because I've always liked small cars that are fun to drive and easy to park. Third & finally, because I had just come across the concept of "Hypermiling" and I'm always up for trying something new.
Now that I've been driving my Yaris for 4 months, I find that I'm having a great time. I'm continually amused at how little gas it uses ...
I'm very happy with my choice and find this car perfect for the needs I have. Nice ride, zippy performance, sporty loooking (2 doors, Alloy Wheels and Bright Red!) very short and fun to park.
I might suggest a counterpoint here.
The definition of "Sporty" has changed speaking for myself only. I used to view a car as sporty if had gobs of horsepower, handling, speed, braking, and a high price tag. However now that I have several cars that meet and in some cases beat that definition by a wide margin such as my Ferrari F50, I'm re framing how I look at "Sporty" as I find it's beginning to align itself more with "Fun".
Thus while my true high end sports cars are indeed blindingly fast and fun. I also find the Smart "sporty" as it's rather unusual looking and I'm sure they are fun to drive. Even if they have several drawbacks of significance.
After all every car is a compromise. So it's all in what's important to the individual consumer. I no longer believe a car has to be fast to be fun.
As as far as appearance is concerned, when I first saw a 2 dr Yaris I thought "what an ugly car", then it grew on me and I bought one of those "Ugly Cars" for myself. Ironically I found the "funky look" rather fun and different. As well as the other aspects of the car that caused me to select one for my daily driver.
Speaking for myself there is one other very significant bonus to owning a Yaris, and that's the fact that I have _not_ gotten a speeding ticket since I began driving it! Before long my tickets will have aged to the point where my premium will go back down to a far lower rate than I'm paying presently!
No worries about getting caught in my Yaris going 165mph.......
You made me smile. But Nippon was more dogmatic than you. He bought a Echo which was universally described as homely. The car never made sales projection and slowly fell off to the point of being discontinued. Some will say simply replaced.
But as to Nippons contention that Mazda Miata sales figures will make the people selling the Smart happy? Not so sure because with all the sales they have made in Europe they are still in the red.
Eh, this hasn't proven to be so much the case. Generally speaking, kids don't want to drive, kids want to do everything in the car but drive. Kids want big stereos etc, as long as the car reflects their personal style and goes from point A to point B they don't care. Hmm so an automatic transmission 1.5l Scion xB is slow when it has 4 people and band gear in it? You don't say...
Of course, there are a few kids that like cars and are looking for a driving experience. Unless they match an ethnic profile or their parents are making a decision for them, they don't by that type of vehicle.
Yaris is notably improved from Echo in a couple of key areas, including handling. It's a HECK of a lot more fun to drive a little car fast than drive a big car/truck/SUV fast (or slow, or in traffic, or in stop and go, or with stoplights every block, or...). :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It is a wait and see proposition. The people that created the Smart have shown stamina and maybe this will be their salvation. The economy is down however even with higher fuel prices people may have to take a hard look at having a second car. It isn't likely that something like the Smart will be a primary vehicle.
In late 2003 Toyota made it order-only, and of course after that volume dropped to nothing, because dealers didn't have any in stock.
But I am pretty sure Penske said in an interview that they were set up to make a profit with 20K Smart sales per year. I am not 100% sure though.
Certainly there are many models on the market today that are profitable with 20K annual sales or less. Sales of 2-seaters are bound to be something of a niche, so automakers go into such a proposition with lower sales expectations. Indeed, Toyota's big mistake with the last MR2 was thinking they would ever get 50K annual sales (although I think Miata has made 50K once or twice). When it proved to be that it could not get anywhere near that number, they dropped it (again). It stinks that Toyota will keep the Land Cruiser in the line-up at 1K annual sales, but will drop MR2 and Celica once they drop below 50K (or never get 50K, in MR2's case).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Even I was surprised to see the Celica go. But you have to admit the last two generations were a bit strange. Didn't C&D or Motortrend have on of the last generations on the cover with the caption "send in the Clowns?" Or something like that? And yet the Eclipse keeps rolling along.
I do understand your contention that driving a small underpowered car can be fun. Sometimes you get to use all it has and when done well it is satisfying. But if you move up it is very easy to see the advantages with a bit more power and a bit bigger car. I had a Sprite and it was a joy most of the time. At least on a tight course. However even at Riverside Raceway, now a shopping mall, you couldn't outrun a VW Ghia.
To be honest you have always surprised me. You had a pocket rocket and ended up with the Echo. How you went from a RSX to a Echo has always surprised me but to each his own. Much like your reaction to my friend who traded the WRX for a Edge.
It was expensive, overpriced and redundent. If you wanted something sporty, the tC was there, and if you wanted something cushy, the Solara was there. Same with the Prelude - it morfed into the Honda Monte Carlo...I mean Accord Coupe. I think it was also in danger of getting spanked by the Civic SI of the day.
The Eclipse is the only 2 door Mitsubishi has - on a Chrysler shared platform. I think they lost their allure for me when they ceased production on the turbo AWD version.
I think "personal coupes" are kind of out of favor because they are as big and thirsty as a conventional sedan, don't offer any performance advantage, and make it miserable to get in and out of the rear seat.
So, a lot of these vehicles are smaller vehicles than ICE vehicles. Fits my bill nicely. Mitsubishi is working on a few micro and subcompact electrically-driven wheel machines as I type this out. Being at around 16,500 miles only on my '08 Lancer GTS, that leaves us with many years of ICE driving left and actually a good timing possibility for trading in on an EV in four to six years or so.
Today I read of an EV that powers itself up on solar energy. It has a top that has photovoltaic cells built in that gather energy up while driving and whilst being parked outside your place of business during the day, even. The wheels have all been designed to be propelled from juice from the 16 battery packs onboard and the regenerative forces from the photovoltaic solar cells. The car is only 3 feet and 6 inches high to get the best aerodynamic wind scope available. Charging would take place automatically upon driving and re-charge can be done the quickest with 4 leads plugged in to an electrical outlet or more slowly from one plug-in, but still would be accomplished within a few hours, say 4-6, not 8 hours or more. The thing I really like is that the car is designed to re-charge itself up while driving in the sun or even daytime skies. That's right-nightly re-charging will not be a necessary part of this car's driving operation! The owner of the patent is very, very serious about this project, will put it in to place, and is actively looking for a manufacturing company right now in China to build these cars for him. And what will have to follow is a good company to distribute the product, someone like ZAP here in America. 2008 is going to be a very active year for alternative energy automotive product production and for pre-sales work of all kinds. Lots of work involved and lots of planning going on intensely right now. This guy has every minute detail drawn out and planned and I would guess he has a good idea what kind of cuts he can give to a company to go in with him on this project and make a strong EV contender to distribute to key worldwide markets.
An early price discussed is "under $30,000," which sounds high but if the technology is sound as a pound and everything works right for your situation you would be freed from the futures trading insanity and oil sludge-over we are stuck in now. I talked to the owner of this patent earlier today online and he said that my desert, sunny environment would be an optimal setting to drive one of his cars in. I had a concern about the cold nights(18-25 degrees fairly often at night during Dec. and Jan. and the early part of Feb.) and he allayed those fears by telling me that the sunny parts of the day would more than make up for that potential hard-starting problem caused from the extreme cold temperature and the car's battery-regeneration process. It is one of the technological warning flags...too cold of a climate may make these cars a bad choice for you. So I gave him some average temp.'s in the extreme winter months and...it doesn't look like it will be a problem in my situation. There does remain much research to make, but, so far nothing has counted the car out yet for my driving situation.
There are now so many companies with this type of technology starting up that something compatable with our own set of realities ought to be available and purchasable within a reasonalbe amount of time. Something just clicked on like a lightbulb(sorry
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
BTW-this car is called Stinger and when I asked him for a website to study up on the car further he told me that he would prefer to keep the complete list of all of the vehicle's specs to himself (I did get some of them and there's several specs there... I'll go back to the website I found them on today to dredge them up-he did post some very basic specs online yesterday) while he searches for a Chinese manufacturer. Then he'll put up the car's website. It won't be hard to remember for me because of the close name connection to the Dodge Hornet, also being manufactured by a Chinese carmaker, Chery Motors. In collaboration with Dodge, of course.
If a 42" tall vehicle seems a tad too low for you to get in and out of, you may also find that a reason to scratch this car off of your list. Not enough reason for me to scratch it off my list but it may indeed be for y'all.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
There should be a marketing class on what not to do. Subaru loaded it up for the launch with leather and moonroof standard, and it priced out at $25k, way too steep for such a small crew cab.
That moonroof also killed headroom, so you lost customers over 5'10" or so.
The rear seat was cramped, only fit 2 people, and the bed was also too small. The mid gate from the ST-X concept never made production, either.
A lower starting price, a real midgate, a longer wheelbase, and a decent sized bed may have saved it, but they seemed to make every mistake possible with it.
Of course, the crucial difference is that the Baja was designed specifically for North American sales, whereas the Echo (Yaris) and Previa went right on selling very well in Japan and other global markets for Toyota.
The Japanese automakers must look across the water and chuckle (or stare in disbelief) at the fact the Americans are power-MAD.
And boaz: the RSX was a fantastic little car. For some reason, I went through a period of being obsessed with buying a new(er) 4Runner, so I traded it in. I regret it to this day. :-(
Ask yourself, if I wanted to go out today and replace the RSX with another new LIGHTWEIGHT, small-engined small coupe with superlative handling for low $20Ks or less, what could I buy? Seems to me like my choices can be counted on one hand, with the Civic SI coupe the leading contender (and pretty much no-one else in the game except the Mini Cooper).
Footnote: reduction in size and weight will be crucial to these new solar-powered cars that iluv is referencing, because every kilowatt is crucial in those applications and reducing weight contributes greatly to making the power go further. Perhaps they will lead the way into a further resurgence of subcompacts! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It was expensive, overpriced and redundent. If you wanted something sporty, the tC was there..."
It was overpriced, but it certainly wasn't redundant. And the '00-'05 Celica had more sport in its pinky toe than tC has in its whole porky body...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Celica may have been sportier and a better performer than the tC, but isn't the sporty 2+2 market pretty much dead these days? I'm guessing Toyota just saw that coming, and decided to ditch the Celica in favor of something more mass market.
Dead? Not a chance. (Mustang, Civic Si, MINI, and porsche all prove that)
Viable for a mass-produced high-volume seller? No.
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe the Celica sold like 7k-9k units its final year, hence the axe. Considering Ford can sell that many Mustangs between meals, it is obviously not the market that is a problem but the merchandise.
Are those all TECHNICALLY 2+2s? Maybe not, but they realistically fall into that category.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The reason the Celica's last year was only 7-9K (I also forget the exact number) was that Toyota quit shipping them over in, like, March. The year before it pulled 20K, but that wasn't good enough for Toyota.
On a general note, it's pretty disgusting if we as the market accept the notion that automakers can't build anything but trucks and SUVs profitably. That's a terrible direction for the industry.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I just never thought of stuff like the Mini, Civic SI, or Mustang, in quite that same category, although yeah, they're basically 2+2's. And semi-exotic stuff like Porsches and such are definitely niche market stuff.
Also, these days I guess you could put the Altima coupe into the 2+2 category. As big as it is, the EPA actually classifies it as a subcompact! :surprise:
Well it is all in perspective. We look at Japan and wonder why in the world they won't stop killing whales and would pay $38.00 for a cantaloupe. To this day I don't understand why they don't let us sell them American Rice. :P
As far as EVs and Solar powered vehicles go, I am not holding my breath. When they had the EV-1 and Toyota had their fleet of Rav-4s EV running in New York I thought we might be on the right track. But till the pigs start flying again I believe we are stuck with hybrids just like Toyota and Honda told us 25 years ago when CARB mandated EVs. I believe in Plugin vehicles but the power is not free and if we can't build nukular power plants all we have to oil and coal generating plants and they tend to produce more pollution that cars. Geothermal shows promise but solar keeps falling on its face. The panels themselves cost a lot and are easily damaged.
yup yup so sporty it shared its drivetrain with a Pontiac Vibe. Toyota long walked away from the sport compact car market to embrace the "big stereo" compact car market.
****
The top contender of course is the Porsche(though for mid 20s it would have to be used of course). Below that, though, my money is on the RX-8. Drives like a dream and handles very well. It's no BMW 2002Tii or 914 2.0, but it certainly is worlds better than the bloated crud out there.
plekto: Yeah, the RX-8 is the best value in a sport coupe out there under $30K new, I agree. But it guzzles gas worse than a Chevy big block, something I just won't abide in my sport coupe.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Do we get to count the 128 yet? ;b
when the RX8 came out, the only reason I didn't get one was because I didn't fit in it. Now that gas is where it is and its true consumption is better known, I'm glad for reason #1.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Salesperson in Cleveland area says he just had someone back out... Only options are Sport, keyless start, heated seats, IPod hookup.. $38K MSRP..
Hmmmmm.... :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
$38k for a 135 doesn't sound bad. Most people were figuring dealer stock would consist of $40k+ units.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
you can say that again!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
As far as the rotary? Compared to a BMW straight-six, I'll take a big pass... they don't do much for me..
Might have been a good idea in 1971, when gas prices were under $0.40/gallon..
Anyway...the BMW thing was off-topic.. my bad...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I agree on preferring the bimmer 6, that's for sure!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Well the EPA rates the 3-series as a subcompact, so the 1-series might actually qualify as a mini-compact!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Actually, I noticed that when I saw the 1-series at the DC and Philly auto shows. It looked a little trimmer than the 3-series, but it wasn't as small as I thought it would be.
For a mini-compact, you have to move "down" to stuff like the Jag XKR, Aston Martins, Porcshes, etc. :shades:
But none of them are subcompacts.
edit: well, ok, I looked. The 1-series is about 14 inches longer and 2 inches wider than a Fit. I'm definitely surprised by that. It is 4 inches lower, though.
It does bring up a question, though. What is a subcompact? I mean, what requirements are taken into account. I imagine the interior space of a Fit surpasses that of a 1-er and maybe even a 3-er. So is it footprint? If so, what are the measurements? Is it a particular square footage?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#sizeclasses
According to the EPA, a car's size is determined by its interior volume. Exterior dimensions have nothing to do with it. As a result, it's possible to have a car from a smaller size class actually end up being physically larger than a car from a larger size class. The EPA's size class thresholds can be found here.
One of the most overblown examples of a midsized car was the 1977-79 Lincoln Continental Mark V. 120.4" wheelbase, something like 231" long overall, yet inside it had something like 100 cubic feet of passenger volume, and a 17 cubic foot trunk, for a combined total of 117 cubic feet. By the EPA's definition, a midsized car has 110-119 cubic feet of combined passenger/trunk space.
**edit: Bumpy beat me to it, because I got too wordy, I guess. :P
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S