What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

bumpy

for broadening the subcompact market is to offer versions that have the same power-to-weight ratios as their larger brethren. The Yaris is about the equivalent of a 4-cylinder Camry, but there is no equivalent to a V6 Camry (3461 lbs, 268 hp). A Yaris with the 1.8L VVTL-i from the late Celica (~180 hp) would do that.

andre1969

to try and match up torque-to-weight ratios rather than hp-to-weight?

One reason a lot of big-car people don't like little cars is because, by and large, they still have problems breaking the old stereotypes of being loud, buzzy, and thrashy.

While it's true that performance is much improved in these subcompacts, compared to days gone by, you usually have to stomp the hell out of them to get that power, and while that might be music to some people's ears, to me it has all the intrigue of a gas-powered weed whacker.

I wonder if they put slightly larger, torquier engines in some of these small cars, that might keep the screaming and the revs down, and make them feel like bigger cars than they really are.

Now sure, maybe that would kill some of the advantages of having a small car, but what they could do is just make a smaller engine standard and a larger, torquier engine optional, to make them more widely appealing.

How does the Nissan Sentra make out with the 2.5 from the Altima? I've driven an Altima 4-cyl at highway speeds, and I thought it sounded like a very quiet car. Now I'm sure the Sentra SE-R is geared more aggressively, and probably has the required tuned exhaust for more racket, so it's probably not very quiet or fuel efficient (although I'm sure it's fun to stomp on it), but they could still take a larger 4-cyl from a bigger car and set it up so that it still gives good performance AND fuel economy.

If they took something like a Camry 2.4 and put it in a Yaris, xA, xB, etc, that might be kinda what I'm thinking of. But gear it a bit better so it doesn't guzzle like it does in the tC!

Mr_Shiftright

If you put a big 4 in these smaller cars, you will lose considerable fuel economy and raise the price, thereby negating two of the Yaris, xA, xB's most appealing characteristics. What you are describing sounds to me at least like a Mazda3 more or less, which prices out about $4,500 over the xA and which delivers 20% fewer miles per gallon. And for all that you gain only .5 to one second off the xA (and of course, more interior room and as you say a more comfortable cruising RPM).

All enviable improvements but at what price?

bumpy

From a torque standpoint, the 2.4 from the base Camry would give the Yaris proportional numbers to the V6 Camry.

The Sentra SE-R is buckets of fun, and a real handful of torque steer from the ultra-long-stroke (100 mm) QR25DE. The VQ25DE (2.5L V6) would have been a better choice for both the Spec-V and the base Altima.

andre1969

how taking a larger 4-cyl from a larger car and putting it in a lighter one really doesn't improve the fuel economy much. But then, I guess it's just all about balance and that "sweet spot". You could pull a 440 out of an Imperial and throw it in a RWD Colt, and I doubt if you'd see much of a mileage improvement there, either. I'd imagine acceleration might improve a few ticks, though. :shades:

nippononly

slap a turbo on these little cars, using an engine of equal displacement to the NA base engine, and watch the fun-o-meter rise! :-)

All while hanging onto most of your fuel economy. And there is certainly plenty of aftermarket help out there if what you want to do is make your small car faster. Including from the manufacturer oftentimes - in Toyota's case, TRD makes a lot of go-fast stuff for Toyota's smallest models.

robertsmx

I wonder if it would be better to try and match up torque-to-weight ratios rather than hp-to-weight?

You can't do that, because torque depends on gearing. What you could consider, however, is calculated g's which will take into account overall gearing and torque, and the total weight of the vehicle.

I did a quick calc at peak torque (in first and in sixth gear), assuming 175 lb as the weight of the driver, and 15% drivetrain loss for Civic Si (2877 lb, 139 lb-ft, P215/45/R17) and Accord Coupe V6/6MT (3303 lb, 211 lb-ft, P215/50/R17).

Civic Si: 0.59g (first); 0.12g (sixth)
Accord V6: 0.62g (first); 0.12g (sixth)

Despite of a big difference in peak torque, the "g's" aren't much different.

The formula I used...
(0.85 * Torque * Overall Gear Ratio * 24)/(Total Weight * Wheel Diameter in inch)

Where "0.85" is a factor considering 15% drivetrain loss, and "24" is simply for conversion.

boaz47

Now you are talking the kids i know. Slap a turbo and a new motor from a Japan spec Civic type R in a fit and you might have something worth smiling at. LOL

But here is another point. They didn't have come up with an incentive for people to move from the econo boxes of the 60s and 70s. In fact they did their dead level best to discourage people from buying high powered big cars. Yes even with the help of the government people migrated from small cars to large SUVs and pickup trucks. I watched every year as the so called voices of reason declared the SUV and Full sized truck fad dead. The only problem is market share kept getting bigger until SUVs and Trucks make up 50 percent of the market. People simply opened their wallet and voted with their paycheck the kind of vehicle they preferred. Large medium or even small SUVs and trucks still hold a lions share of the market, even with the price of gas. These vehicles were niche vehicles at the best when sub compacts were in full swing. No one gave tax breaks to the manufacturers so they would build more SUVs and Trucks and yet, the top two selling vehicles in the US are the F-series Ford and the Full sized GM pickups. And not by a little but by a lot.

I have been working with the American public for a very long time. I have discovered that it is a lot easier to sell someone on getting the next new camcord with an extra 50 HP and a smoother ride than it is to sell the smaller Civrolla with 50 less hp than last year for the same price. Your Echo is a good example. It was a sales flop even if it did everything it was supposed to do. Of the three Scions the 160 hp tC out sells the xA and xB with their fuel sipping 108 hp powerplants, and it has been out for less time. I will be greatly surprised to see the sub compacts like the Fit and Yaris enjoying the popularity they do in Japan. I think the best they can hope for is to be accepted and not grow any bigger for the first two generations.

It will be interesting to see if they can change the American buying preferences. But even you mentioned it in a earlier post when you stated that people look at sub compacts as economy cars. When you say you have one their first thought is, what would you like to move up to?

nippononly

most of those trends you mention were spurred by CAFE loopholes that promoted the expansion of the SUV/large truck segments, combined with profit motive that comes from making juicy money on all those big vehicles.

If mainstream automakers could figure out how to make good profits on small cars (like Mini does), this would be a no-brainer, and you would see a resurgence in smaller cars. In large part, the American consumer is led around by the nose by the automakers.

Honda has always made good profits on small cars, and it is very likely that the Fit will continue that trend for quite some time. Ford, OTOH, doesn't, and neither does GM. They almost have to continue making large cars and trucks and promoting them heavily in the hopes of making it through the next decade.

Ultimately, that is what will decide the future of subcompacts. Mini Coopers are desirable, have prestige, are not "an excuse for a car" the way you imply (correctly) that some subcompact cars are considered to be. There are many ways to build good subcompact cars that would be viewed as the Mini is by folks out there. Scion has continued that trend, although with its aggressively youthful marketing, driving one is considered by the public to be not so much prestigious as cool and hip - bottom line, also acceptable just like the Mini, but in a slightly different way. Not a way that pleases older buyers perhaps.

Now we need more small-car flavors, cars that are deemed to be worthy and not just cheap. The Ford Fiesta is that, were they to bring it here, the new Rio/Accent just might be considered to be that (time will tell, but they have the looks and the quality for the most part, I think), and there are lots of other subcompacts and minis out there in the world, not currently sold here, that would also fit that bill.

harrychezt

We have a Scion tC/automatic. had it since sept 04. We are well over 30+ years old at our house. As for the xB? The youngest person I have seen driving one looked to be 35-40 years old, and a few looked to be in their 50's.
When I took our tC in for minor tune up, the people looking at the xB were middle-aged men!
I do know of one 23 year old who has a tC, and one at the local college has a light blue one.

As for MPG: the tC got over 32+ MPG last tank of gas, with automatic, and 65MPH travelling.
if ya do a lot of 55MPH travelling, you can hit 34MPG.

the xB gets what, 34-36? 108HP?

2MPG "loss" is not a big difference, to us, any ways, to get more HP.

And yes, it has been reported on the news, what you said about trends, and larger vehicles, and huge profits(and they do not have the same safety regs as cars, either, for trucks, so they spend less cash, correct, to build a truck versus a car? That is what I had heard on tv news before).

Used to be in the late 70's, people who could not afford a new car got a truck, instead, as they were cheaper(less expensive) transportation.

Take Care/Not Offense.

boaz47

Everything, that is being said tends to be true. But who looked for these loopholes and why did the buying public flock to those loopholes? The question that has to be answered before anyone will turn to sub compacts is why have people preferred size and power over small and fuel efficient. The trend and history cannot be denied in this country. People want the most for their money and bigger offers more. It costs the manufacturer as much to make a small car as it does a mid sized car, give or take a few percentage points and people simply aren't willing to pay more for less vehicle. At least if we look at the buying patterns over that past 60 years or so.

Could you see the Echo as your only car? Even a fit? You live in the same state as I do when you look out of your window on your daily commute what do you see? The road to mainstream in the US is different than it might be in any other country, except maybe Australia. Even the Scion faithful are following in microcosm the trend I see in the US. The xA is the slowest seller. The bigger, and yet uglier xB sells about twice as well, and the bit bigger and more powerful tC is maybe another 33 percent better in sales than the xB. This is a fairly current trend and example in consumer buying preferences and how is it leading us to a different conclusion than the one we have seen in the mainstream over the last 30 years?

You may see a change because of fuel prices. we saw a change in the 70s during the last gas crunch. But what happens when things level out? That will be the test of sub compact acceptance.

snakeweasel

most of those trends you mention were spurred by CAFE loopholes that promoted the expansion of the SUV/large truck segments, combined with profit motive that comes from making juicy money on all those big vehicles.

While that might be an incentive for the manufacturer to build them they still can't sell them unless the public wants them.

If mainstream automakers could figure out how to make good profits on small cars (like Mini does), this would be a no-brainer, and you would see a resurgence in smaller cars.

Apparently it isn't a no-brainer. Sure they could figure out a way to make make profits on small cars but if people don't buy them they don't buy them. It all comes down to what people want to buy.

Mini Coopers are desirable, have prestige, are not "an excuse for a car"

Oh I don't know, I know plenty of people you would have to pay for them to drive one. Plus if its not an excuse for a car what is it an excuse for. Face it the mini cooper is to small and over priced.

andre1969

that you're not seeing such a big shift towards smaller cars this time around is because one key factor is missing, compared to the first two fuel crises. Gasoline is still in plentiful supply. Back in late 1973, not only did the fuel get expensive, it stopped flowing so easily. It was rationed. Gas stations ran out and closed down. It wasn't the price of gas so much that led people to fuel-sipping cars, but the rarity of it.

Same with the crisis around '80-83, although that one may not have been quite as bad when it came to scarcity. We also got hit with a recession around that time, and all these rumors and scares of $3.00 per gallon gas, which we WOULD ultimately see, but not until 2005. I'm too young to really remember the '73-74 scare, but I do remember the early 80's. My Mom went from a '75 LeMans with a 350 to an '80 Malibu with a 229. My grandparents had a '76 GMC crew cab and a '72 Impala, but picked up a used '72 LUV and later an '81 Dodge D-50 to do most of their local running around, and then the Impala gave way to an '82 Malibu wagon with the 229.

I remember gas stations closing down quite often, and it being damned near impossible to find an open gas station on Sunday. I don't remember if they rationed it though.

So back then, if you used more gasoline, there were more consequences than just a higher price. You actually ran the risk or running out and being stranded! Nowadays, we just grumble and pay the price.

I don't see truly tiny cars like the Echo, FIT, Yaris, etc ever becoming more than niche cars. They would serve many people well as solo commuters, and make a great spare car. Heck, as much as I complain about interior comfort and ride, I could even put up with one on my 3 1/2 mile commute to work. But for a family that doesn't have the money to spring for a spare car, chances are they're just not going to suffice.

If gas prices stay too high, I could see a boom in fuel-efficient midsized cars, like the 4-cyl Camry and Accord. And maybe the larger small cars, like the Corolla and Civic. And yeah, stuff like the Yaris, FIT, etc will see improved sales in times of fuel crisis, but I don't think that market will ever get bigger than, say, the Corolla/Civic sized car, or the Altima/Accord/Camry size which truly is the heart of the market.

I would like to see the subcompact market outgrow the full-sized SUV market, though. :P

harrychezt

where 2 start ? OK. I was also kind of young for the first oil shortages, but I recall in 74, they were telling people to turn out lights when you leave the room, even if only for a few minutes(to save on power), and lowered speed limits on highways to 55, for examples.
Indiana even went as far as having a no-spring forward, or back, to(they said) save money, because it would be light outside earlier if you did not "Fall" back with the time, and thus, save $$$$, by not needing as many lights on(something like this. Indiana , just this year, finally, adopted the time changes).

In 1979, there was some fuel shortages I recall, in the Summer.
Stations closed at 5pm on Sundays(where they used to be open for 24 hours).
Weekdays, they closed from midnight to 6 am.

Anyhow, for us, we like smaller cars, or nothing larger than say the "old" (last generation) Sonata.

Smaller cars are more fun, especially on back roads, with all the curves, etc.

I do not care for the size of the smaller hatch-yaris,etc.

The Yaris sedan is 169 + inches total length, as is the one Versa, Reno(that is over 14+ feet total length. Acceptable size. Our tC is around 174 inches, or 14.5 feet).

My mom used to own a 73 Impala, until 79...then "down sized" to a Buick Regal V6(she said it was "small", and "slow", versus her old V8's she had driven all of her life, but did it for the better MPG).

It does appear as if the college kids drive smaller/ mid sized cars, and of course, the civic, cobalt,maybe an HHR (yes, a youth owns one! I only saw "old guys", like myself, checking them out at 2 different autoshows this year).

Take care/Not Offense

wonderwall

I agree with you on smaller cars, though an Elantra is just about the biggest car I will drive. After I totalled my Mazda Protege 5, I had to drive a Kia Optima rental car and in addition to being a poor handler, it was too bulky. An Accord or Camry feels just as bad. The only mid-sized car I've felt comfortable driving is a Mazda 6. I am 5'7 or 5'8 and weigh 135 lbs, so a big car just feels like a monster to me. My first car in 1992 was a 1969 Volkswagen Beetle and I've since had a 1989 Toyota Corolla, a 1997 Mazda Protege, a 1997 Volkswagen Jetta and a 2003 Mazda Protege 5.

Admittedly, my wife & I are childless, unless you count our mini-dachshund, but I don't see the necessity in having a minivan or SUV once children are born. Before my parent's divorce in the 1980s, they drove a 1982 Chevrolet Chevette and a 1985 Mazda 626 2 door and we got around fine.

If the automakers could face reality, they'd pull SUVs and minivans and give people roomy and efficient station wagons with diesel or hybrid engines. But alas I live in LaLa Land...

andre1969

at the auto show, and was pleasantly surprised at how roomy it was inside. I'd still prefer something bigger though, and something Camry/Accord/Altima-sized is probably about as small as I'd comfortably want to go.

I don't have kids and I'm single, but nowadays don't kids tend to require car seats and all sorts of other accessories? I could see how an SUV or minivan would be much more convenient to get a car seat in and out of, and throw a playpen in the back for a trip to grandma's or whatever. With the exception of hatchbacks, most cars these days just aren't as versatile as they used to be. Even if the actual volume of the trunk is generous, the actual trunk opening is usually relatively small and awkwardly shaped. And those convenient struts that free up trunk space actually serve to help make the opening smaller.

As for all these SUVs and minivans, well you can thank CAFE for that. A Caprice wagon that could get 17/26 was considered a bad thing, bringing down car averages, but a Suburban rated at 15/20 or whatever (I know the '07's are better) is viable. :confuse:

1racefan

I saw an Elantra parked next to a previous generation Accord ('01-'02 model maybe??) recently in a parking lot. They appeared to be very similar in size just from the naked eye.

wonderwall

yep, the sticker on my Elantra said that the EPA classifies it as a Mid-sized car. But with this car and my prior car-- a 2003 Mazda PR5-- I could fit TONS of stuff in it. I can carry a Xmas tree with the hatch closed.

nippononly

"Could you see the Echo as your only car?"

It's so funny you should pose that question, because I was just saying to a friend yesterday that if gas prices stay this high for a year, I will probably just sell my truck, which would make me a one-car fellow with only the Echo.

Alas, with my desire for variety and CCB-itis, I would probably pick up a second car to have for fun, most likely a hatchback of some kind. But instead of being a truck in which I only average 20 mpg or so, in future it would be a hatchback CAR making 30 mpg or more.

At present, I am using the Echo almost exclusively - it fits my friends when I need to give them a ride, it has strong A/C, a good stereo, and a comfortable ride, and it gets 40 to the gallon. heck, with these gas prices, it was the Echo I used for a trip to San Diego earlier this year - a trip of about 1200 miles there and back. So, could I live with it as my only car? Yeah, I could, and would just rent a 4WD for ski trips. For now, I am going to keep the Runner as I love going offroad, but it's expensive enough with the gas that I haven't made it out there in a few weeks.

carlisimo

"Could you see the Echo as your only car? Even a fit?"

Plenty of people live that way. Even some families do, though most of them would probably take a larger car if someone gave it to them. There are some who wouldn't. Maybe they live in urban areas, or maybe they're just skinny. It's really not that hard! I grew up that way and I turned out perfectly normal .

nippononly

Hey, here's an article someone else linked in a different thread, but it's sure pertinent here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060502/bs_nm/autos_sales_dc

To wit, that Yaris, Fit, and Caliber (if Caliber counts - it is kinda bigger than subcompact, but has been compared to the new wave of subs in several recent magazine articles) are selling in extraordinary numbers and actually boosting their manufacturers' bottom lines. In fact, they talk about there being more than 6000 Yarii sold in the first month! That's a pretty good pace. :-)

boaz47

many of us grew up with one car. But now by choise. When I was a kid you could have three kids and two adults in a car and take a trip across the state while towing a trailer. Not today. With a sub compact you simply can't pull much of anything. And with child seat laws you can not get three car seats in a sub compact. So for a family you have to leave someone at home, the spouse or a kid. As a second car you might have a point. Plus to be honest I don't get where some are saying the sub compacts are so good for a fun drive down a twisting road. I live in the mountains remember? I have yet to see a sub compact other than a Mini that can stay with my PT let alone the ZTS going up or down the mountain. looking at Car and driver with their skid pad and slalom numbers I wouldn't give the xA a very high fun factor either. Nippon's Echo is anything but nimble as well. At least on paper it isn't a road warrior. So other than fuel mileage what do we get for our money? Fuel mileage maybe but not comfort, not handling and surely not versatility. If you have a hobby that takes more room than going to a coffee shop there isn't much hauling capacity in a Sub Compact as well.

nippononly

Now boaz, I know you buy into the stereotype of these little cars, but really, when you mention my own car, you must know you tempt me to look up the numbers, surely?

So, courtesy of Car and Driver, here are some of the pertinent numbers.

0-60: Echo in 8.5 secs, and hey! PT Cruiser in 8.5 secs.

Likewise the 1/4-mile: 16.7 secs at 82 mph, identical showings in both.

street start 5-60: here the PT gains a tenth on the Echo - 8.9 seconds for the PT, 9.0 for the Echo.

So the Echo will have no trouble keeping up with a stock PT Cruiser no matter where it might roam.

But what about the turns, you say? OK, let's have at them:

skidpad: 0.78g for the PT, 0.77 for the Echo. There isn't going to be much twisting and turning you can do to get away from the Echo, even if the Echo will probably produce more body roll in the process.

Noisy and uncomfortable in the Echo? I can't provide numbers for "comfort", but I will say it is notably more comfortable than my last ride, the RSX. Pavement here in California has, as you know, crumbled away to garbage in the neglectful 90s and now 00s too, and potholes disturb the occupants of the Echo a whole lot less than the folks in the RSX, that's for sure.

Oh, but wait, I did think of one numerical measure of comfort - noise in decibels. So I looked that one up:

70 decibels at 70 mph in the PT, 71 decibels in the Echo. Again, the PT is far from running away with the show there.

But I did observe one other statistic that you DID already make mention of: the PT got really bad gas mileage in C&D's road test, 17 mpg in fact, while the Echo got 35. Not too bad, mainly the inevitable perk of low weight that the Echo provides.

And BTW, the Echo is really quite nimble, but unfortunately Toyota omitted a rear sway bar so the driver gets the inaccurate impression that it isn't. It will hang in there through tight fast maneuvering, as long as you don't mind a bit of swaying from side to side. It has never surprised me yet, and as you might imagine, I drive it more aggressively than perhaps some might that were strictly shooting for great gas mileage. And of course, for the nominal price of a rear sway, you could take advantage of its natural handling abilities (again, because of having such low weight) without bobbing back and forth like a weeble! :-P

From what I hear, the xA has solved much of that problem with the Echo/Yaris chassis, and certainly the new Yaris is much more tied down in feel than my Echo is.

andre1969

Was it mainly the ride and lack of isolation what caused the RSX to be uncomfortable or the seating position? I've never actually driven one, but I thought the ones I sat in were pretty comfy...up front at least.

As for performance, I noticed Boaz mentioned mountain driving. Could it be possible that the PT Cruiser has enough torque to compensate for its added weight, that might make it perform better in hilly driving? Or at least, you don't have to put your foot into it as much?

I know with my cars, my Intrepid will outperform my '76 LeMans or '79 NYer on level ground. But throw in a full load of passengers and/or do some mountain driving, and the Intrepid is going to struggle to keep up, while those torquier cars practically drift up the grades.

Also, one thing that might give a bad impression of the Echo is that a lot of them (at least I've seen alot) got sold with automatic transmissions. IIRC, the automatic version could barely get out of its own way, but the stick shift could be a little hell-cat. So you might actually see a lot of them out on the roads holding up traffic, but those might be the automatic tranny models. Or simply someone trying to hyper-mile?

nippononly

well, I think you're right about one thing, especially right now - people driving Echos (and many other models) are often trying to save gas, and therefore the fact that they aren't passing everything on the mountain is simply because they are trying not to WASTE it. But you are also correct that the stats I provided were for 5-speed sticks in both cases, and the auto-Echos are bound to be slower. I would think that the auto-PTs were slower too. The Echo's engine is a pretty torquey little sucker.

The RSX wasn't punishing over potholes, but rises in the road weren't well-controlled - the whole back end would fly up in the air with what felt like no damping at all. And of course, the ride was very firm and noisy - certainly the Echo makes a better highway cruiser than the RSX.

boaz47

But my friend Nippon, the major complaint by car and driver on the PT is lack of power with the stock motor. Now someone mentioned nimble in regard to your kind of car and yet it is even slower than the PT that is constantly mentioned as low on power. Mine might be a bit different with a drop of 2.5 inches a Cat back and cold air and wide low profile tires but still calling a echo fun to drive in the twisties is a stretch isn't it? Or are we saying the PT is a canyon burner? If the PT is underpowered then the Echo and the xA and for sure the xB are even slower. Whatever the percentage you can't have it both ways. Look at even edmunds. The comment for the PT is, underpowered with the stock engine. Yet the Echo, xA and xB have even less power. So tell me again how these new sub compacts can be fun to drive? And I can't even begin to catch my wife's ZTS with the PT in the twisties even if I do have better top end. We already admitted that you get better fuel mileage. But you have less room and no towing capacity. In other words if the PT is considered sluggish how can the Echo or xA or Yaris be considered nimble/ Or is their another standard for sub compacts as far as fun to drive goes? I freely admit that I spent more money on my suspension with springs, struts, and a heavier sway bar, even if mine came standard with one. And the ride is not as compliant with 40 series tires as it was with 50 series tires. But still sporty is not the impression I get from the Echo, xA or heaven forbid the xB. Yes the ZTS is a slot car as was the P-5 in the mountains. The New Mazda3 is another car I would consider a good handling car. But not a sub compact. With the exception of the Mini. So I will concede fuel mileage. I will concede personal preference some have for small cars. But I just won't buy into the idea they are more comfortable than a mid sized car like a Accord or even a Camry.

While personal experience isn't normally accepted in the case of a debate like this, I have been on trips in a Civic and in a Buick and driving up I five to From Bakersfield to Sacramento and the Buick was a lot easier on the rear end and even the hands. It is just not credible to say these sub compacts handle well or are peppy if in the same breath we see they are slower than the edmunds quote, "Sluggish PT." Now if we were to amend the statement to say, good handling for a Sub Compact that I would accept.

I moved from a Big SUV to a Small Saturn SL-2 and the Saturn simply wasn't big enough so you know how I have to feel about a Sub Compact.

nippononly

somewhere along the way here I lost track of what we were originally saying, but you asked about "nimble", and yes the Echo is nimble. It is not a sporty car, and makes no claim to be, I don't think. There ARE sporty subcompacts, Echo just isn't one of them.

The P5 and the Mazda3 make a claim to being sporty - that is what they are TRYING to do with those models. The P5 has also been called "punishing" in ride quality by several magazines. For everything, there is a price.

The Echo and some of the other small cars are built to be commute cars, just as Corollas and Camrys are. No one car can be everything to everybody, that's a given.

And BTW, I believe the only reason we brought the PT into it is because you said the Echo couldn't even perform at its level, which was untrue. Or have I remembered it wrongly? Certainly, the base PT is nobody's idea of a sporty car either, least of all Chrysler's. It is a style-mobile with space for five and lots of interior versatility.

Now I am sure I don't have to remind you that most car magazines and Edmunds too will call anything short of a Corvette "underpowered" - needless to say their standards are not shared with the vast majority of the buying public in that regard, or else so many people wouldn't buy 4-cylinder Camrys and Ford Explorers each year (both models that are significantly SLOWER and have LOWER handling limits than the Echo, just to name two examples of very popular models). And what's the most popular model out there year after year? Why, the F-150 of course - not much in the way of sporty handling there! :-P

Anyway, I have lost track of my point, typical of me! :-)
Bottom line - you can't judge any class of vehicles by just one model in it. There are many flavors of subs, just as there are many flavors of crossovers like the PT, and of larger sedans, trucks, etc.

Mr_Shiftright

Exactly. I was looking over a friend's Geo Metro wagon and my xA looks and feels like a Range Rover compared to that thing.

ramo

Those spouses! Hope they all have great acceleration and are economical to drive.

carlisimo

I know 16.8 seconds to 62mph isn't everyone's cup of tea, but... 90mpg! (albeit in imperial gallons, and around a track, and in a car that's one size smaller than a Yaris)

http://www.worldcarfans.com/rsslink.cfm/article/2060503.002/toyota/toyota-aygo-w- ins-greenfleet-fuel-challenge

wonderwall

I may be laughed off the board, but that's a pretty slick looking car. I read that it's a joint venture between Toyota & Peugeot/Citroën and is being assembled in the Czech Republic. Peugeot & Citroën each have versions of the car as well. I'd love to have a car that size and that got that kind of mileage.

snakeweasel

Don't worry you won't be. I also think its pretty slick and hope that it gets into production for here. I just wonder what the real world results will be.

reddroverr

I think it is pretty cool too.
Here is an english site with info.
I would like my car to be able to take freeway hauls as well. I can live with a small cabin, just add a gear or something to make it cruise well on relatively flat freeways.

We don't get jack here. Bring it Toyota.

http://en.aygo.com/

nippononly

bring it on! Toyota has the money to test the waters on something like this, a size smaller than anything Americans are used to.

Look at how much they have dilly-dallied with the Smart - first it's coming, then it's not, then it is...

It's because Smart cars are so tiny.

I would buy a smaller car than the one I have now if it got great gas mileage and had comfortable driver's seat and freeway cruising behavior.

Mr_Shiftright

Having owned a car in the 16-17 second range during 0-60, I can say that there are times when it feels kind of dangerous. I had a non-turbo Mercedes 300 diesel, and there were times, just occasionally, say when you'd get stuck behind a break-down in the right lane....well there was just NO WAY you could accelerate back out into traffic. You could get trapped for a long time. Also merging was very dicey on freeways.

boaz47

we have the time to wait and see. Three new sub compacts have shown their faces. A successful launch is most often considered 100K units. That was the Tundra's target, and the Titan. The best chance the sub compact has had since the fuel crisis of the 70s is upon us. Then the free market truly worked because people flocked to econo boxes like they were going out of style. But once things leveled off what happened? I remember the first Accord and the first Civic. That we small and got pretty good gas mileage but they never sold in numbers like they do today with more power and more size. All we have to do is see how these new sub compacts are accepted by the middle class family. My guess is they will be lucky to see 10 percent of the market share. I could be wrong but edmunds expresses how I feel pretty well when you read their review of the Fit. Americans seem to embrace small cars when they are worried about the fuel supply but after things settle down we forget about them like last years runner up in the supper bowl. This time next year we will know if they are accepted or not.

reddroverr

Not sure. Here is a page with some info. The mpg is 61.4mpg not as ultra high that test run...but the 0-60 is 11.7.
I don't know if they are referencing english gallons..if that makes a difference.

High 50s sounds pretty good to me.

http://www.autozine.org/html/Toyota/Aygo.html

carlisimo

Boaz, you seem pretty convinced that if it doesn't work for a regular middle class family, it's not worth selling. It's a big country...

boaz47

I understand niche cars. I have one. But niche cars and simply that, niche. When the question is asked, "why aren't they accepted more?", I simply express why the average consumer moves away from them. I have been a car buff for some time and every time they have tried sub compacts here they have either failed or gotten bigger. So even as niche cars, something to date has kept them from being accepted. What for instance caused the Echo, designed right in the middle of the niche it was intended for, to miss sales projections every year and finally be cancelled? My contention is that the american buying public wants more for their money and they equate power or size as more. It is simply how I explain how SUVs went from almost nothing in the 70s to 50 percent market share by the end ot the 80s. No one had to give people an incentive they just picked a preference.

Do I believe we will always have small cars? Yes, but I also believe unless we have a very big chance of heart as a nation they will always be cars to move up from or down to but not aspire to as a sign of success or desire. I simply take the question of, "what is wrong with these small cars?", and apply it to the "average consumer." Not how I might personally feel about them. I liked the Metro and the Sprint. My liking them did not make them a success not profitable for a manufacturer to continue making. I don't see anything short of a national crisis changing my fellow Americans to the point of accepting them in the same way the Japanese and some Europeans do.

andre1969

the government and the automakers DID force the buying public into trucks and SUVs in the 80's. They did it through CAFE regulations that punished cars and favored trucks, so as the automakers kept downsizing their cars, or just flat-out eliminating their big ones, they also started making trucks in configurations that appealed to car buyers, such as more extended and double-cab models, 4-door SUVs, more luxurious, car-like interiors, etc.

Even today, something like a Dodge Magnum or PT Cruiser would bring down the passenger car CAFE averages. So Chrysler found a loophole to get them classified as SUVs, and as a result they actually bring the truck CAFE averages UP!

Boaz, I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, but SUVs have NEVER had 50% of the market. It's only been in the past few years that trucks as a whole have had more than 50% of the market. And that total includes pickups and vans, SUVs, minivans, and crossovers.

bumpy

What for instance caused the Echo, designed right in the middle of the niche it was intended for, to miss sales projections every year and finally be cancelled?

That one's easy. Toyota completely botched the presentation: the inexpensive Echos were missing really basic stuff like swaybars, the decently-optioned ones cost as much as a similarly-optioned Corolla, the suspension was far too soft for a small car, the styling was a bad hack job on the Echo hatchback that Toyota never offered in the US, and Toyota threw away the brand equity of the Tercel for no good reason. Even then, the Echo still sold decently around here until the Scion xA and xB became its de facto replacements.

Mr_Shiftright

I think you might be beating too hard on Metros and Sprints, which are the WORST possible example of a subcompact. The new generation of subcompacts are considerably more adept than those old tin cans.

stickguy

sat in one today at the Honda dealer. It was actually pretty comfy up front, and surprisingly roomy. i could see something like that, or a Versa, serving as my only car, since we have a minivan that handles trip duties. I just run my 2 kids around town and commute to work for the most part, and a Fit can certainly handle that!

The Versa seems like a less sporty alternative, but at least you can get it nicely equipped. The Fit needs an EX model with a moonroof and a few other goodies added.

stickguy

Before kids, I had cars that probably aren't any bigger than some of these sub compacts, and way less powerful!

a 1985 Dodge Colt with a whopping 68 HP, and an '85 Civic S with probably 80 something. Those things are tiny by today's standards. I think the COlt weighed about 2,200 pounds, and the CIvic might have been under a ton.

And yet, somehow I survived driving them on the highway!

210delray

I don't know if I would characterize the move to trucks as being "forced" in the 80s. Chrysler simply built a better mousetrap -- its original minivan was so much better suited to hauling people and cargo than the traditional station wagons, including the large battle cruisers still available at the time (think GM B bodies and Ford Crown Vic/Mercury Gr. Marquis).

The way I see it, SUVs became popular more for their look-at-me factor than their true utility. Almost anything an SUV does, a minivan can do better for normal onroad day-to-day schlepping. How many people tow serious loads or go off road?

Large sedans never stopped being produced throughout the 80s, 90s, and up till today. They may not have been as large as the elephantine monsters of the 70s, but they certainly could carry 5 people plus a lot of luggage in comfort.

wonderwall

to fit 5 people in my elantra without much complaint. i think this idea that people need more more more space is psychosomatic. how come europeans can make it without minivans and SUVs and we can't. the focus, the golf, etc. are considered family cars. i guess before we can start getting serious about oil & energy conservation, we must first tackle our problem with supersizing and our grease addiction.

mwqa

...but I think SUVs became really popular after O.J. Simpson's 'Bronco run'.

For those that don't remember, O.J.Simpson was a B movie star who was accused of murder. He ran from the police in a (Chevy?) Bronco and the subsequent car chase was caught on camera by one of those 'breaking news' helicopters, which also became very popular around that time.

Mr_Shiftright

Environment and economics often shape the design of a car. An American car in the 50s and 60s couldn't even SURVIVE in Europe. It would have gotten stuck in most city streets and required a crane to extract it. And only the wealthy could have afforded the gas and autobahn or mountain driving would have probably destroyed most American cars.

Now it seems the gap is closer, but the Euros are still a people used to LIMITS....Americans aren't really used to limits and don't take kindly to them. But as gas prices go up, and traffic and parking get worse and worse, the car designs will change. It's kind of like a "natural selection" for automobiles. Even if you "want" 600 HP and 20 feet of car, you'll just get more and more frustrated at being unable to enjoy it.

snakeweasel

to fit 5 people in my elantra without much complaint.

While my wife, daughter, son, SIL and myself can all fit in my Elantra with no problem I know 5 people my size won't.

iluvmysephia1

umm, we in the Pacific Northwest aren't forgetting last year's runner-up in the Super Bowl. You know that game that came out 21-10 in favor of the Steelers, the one that the Seahawks just couldn't seem to get fair officiating at?

Yeah, that one. :mad:

Oh, and as far as what's wrong with these new subcompacts,
not all that much IMO. They're getting beefier, stronger and more ample every year. Not to mention pretty good looking. Time for the new Chevy Aveo to appear and join the party, too.