Toyota was caught in a spot - old xB lacked most all safety gear, so major upgrade was mandatory to get reasonable crash ratings. Safety = weight, so up went the engine size. That said, they carried it too far with the larger size, they should have been able to do something slightly smaller, using the 1.8l. VW had the same problems with the GTI. The '83 was fun, light, but very poor in a crash. Every generation since has grown and gained weight.
The real question is why have the xD at any store that also sells the Matrix - identical in spec, price, fuel economy, emissions, you name it.
When the xA used to substitute for the Yaris 5-door in the U.S., you could sort of see the point. Although even then you just had to ask: why not just sell the Yaris 5-door in the U.S.? They already do in Canada...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"You keep whipping out the new Mini to make this point, when in fact the Mini is almost the worst example for your purposes: it gained like 20 pounds, and 2 inches at the front to meet the new pedestrian crash standards in Europe. "
I Was in Long beach last month visiting an old friend of mine that has three Mini Coopers. Not a new one mind you. He has two Mini Coupes and one clubman. The one Mini S is almost show quality. It cannot weigh more than 1500 to 1550 pounds. It has a 1300 CC engine sitting sideways including the radiator. The car is only about 80 to 90 inches long at best. The Clubman can't be much longer maybe 95 or a little better inches. I just looked up the new Mini and it list it as 2456 curb weight. That is closer to 1000 pounds heavier. and that little puppy is 145 inches long. And the Engine in the new Mini is 1600 cc. To me that is a lot bigger than the old mini. I think the wheel base of the new mini is as long as the whole Clubman is on the old mini. When I said we may have forgotten how much bigger the new mini is I should have said others may have forgotten. I just sat in an old mini last month.
As far as Scions go. If you remember I questioned the wisdom of Toyota trying to "capture" the youth market and telling the youth they were doing it. It looks like Scion is headed just where I thought they would. To the retirement communities to join the Echo as a in town commuter. The Kids moved on.
Now now boaz, Toyota just flubbed the model redesigns for xB/xD, that's all. It wasn't like the actual business model was a failure, in fact it seems to have worked better than even Toyota's own expectations. The problem as of 2007 is, if the product sucks, it doesn't matter how good the business model is.
As for Minis, gee whiz, I had no idea you meant the original Minis of 40 years ago. Come on boaz! Americans as a group are much much fatter than they were in the 60s! Only a tiny minority of them would still fit in the 60s-era Mini! The car had to grow just so Americans could get inside it, and indeed the very smallest cars on the market today are designed with 250-pound, 40-inch-waisted adult males in mind. With that design parameter, nothing could be that small any more, and not surprisingly nothing is.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have driven old minis and there is no way a car like that would succeed in the modern American automotive landscape. Even the Smart car is larger then the old mini was and I doubt it will do that well.
Also while the engine in the new MINI is only 300 cc more then the engine in the original mini it makes almost three times the horsepower with similar gas mileage. Most minis had the much smaller 997cc engine that made maybe 50 horsepower and earlier models had an even smaller 800 something cc engine.
Very few original minis had the hopped up cooper S engine and even those that did didn't come with the 1300cc engine standard. That 1300cc engine was an upgrade that come much later. Most either used a hopped up 997cc or a 1275cc engine.
I know one guy that has a real 1969 Mini Cooper S and another guy that has a clone. Neither car gets stellar gas mileage considering its size because the engine is frankly just not that efficient and the aerodynamics suck.
Scion, Honda fit, Nissan Versa? No thanks. I wouldn't be caught dead in one. In fact being dead is the only thing that would happen to me if I were to be in a collision with anything larger than a garbage can. I have had the unpleasentness of being carted around in a Honda fit and a Scion. Both were cramped tin cans with more rattles than a can with some loose change in it. I'll pass on those death mobiles.
The car had to grow just so Americans could get inside it, and indeed the very smallest cars on the market today are designed with 250-pound, 40-inch-waisted adult males in mind. With that design parameter, nothing could be that small any more, and not surprisingly nothing is.
I wonder if it would even be possible to make something as small as a 60's era Mini, today, and have it be street legal in the US? I guess it would be possible, but it just seems like it would be cost-prohibitive to make something that small with adequate crash protection, which would probably end up pricing it out of the market of most buyers.
I remember Larry Wilcox driving a Mini in the first season of "CHiPs". There was actually an episode where some guys were teasing him about it. He must have put on weight the second season, or he got a complex about it, because they had him switch to a jacked-up GMC Sierra 4wd!
I've never been in one of the original Mini's, but I've stood beside them. The roof comes up to about the level of my belly button. I just couldn't imagine fitting inside one, but some of my friends have told me that they're actually surprisingly roomy inside. Probably just pulling my leg, though.
The original Mini was indeed very small by today's standards but there is a surprising amount of room in there - your friends are not pulling your leg. Driving an old Cooper S is an experience guaranteed to make you smile............if you like driving that is. :shades:
The current Daihatsu Copen is pretty small, (Goggle it), and the G-Wizz is minute, (albeit electric and awful). New Fiat 500 is hardly a behemoth, either, and the Smart ForTwo ain't exactly big not to mention the new Tata offerings. There is a big world full of small(ish) cars outside the USA.............and big trucks too, yet we seem to survive side-by-side.
As for size = safety, (hinted at in a previous post), it's an old myth and not borne out by formal crash testing. The Chrysler Voyager / Grand Voyager is potentially lethal in a crash, (Euro NCAP 2 stars), whereas, for instance, an Audi A3 gets 4 stars as does the Toyota Yaris. Give me good design and modern materials over sheer bulk any day. The Fit, (Jazz), and MINI get 4 stars and the little Smart gets 3 stars. There are quite a number of small cars that achieve the maximum 5 stars under the same test regime; Renault Clio springs to mind. Can't give Nissan Versa number as we don't have it here; and I don't have a rating for the EU equiv - Nissan Note.
As for size = safety, (hinted at in a previous post), it's an old myth and not borne out by formal crash testing. The Chrysler Voyager / Grand Voyager is potentially lethal in a crash, (Euro NCAP 2 stars), whereas, for instance, an Audi A3 gets 4 stars as does the Toyota Yaris. Give me good design and modern materials over sheer bulk any day.
True, size doesn't always equal safety. However, I've always been a believer that it's easier to make a bigger car safer than it is a smaller car. And often, it just depends on the dynamics of the crash. If I was going to run into a bridge abutment at 35 mph, I'd rather do it in a Yaris than in my '85 Silverado. However, run the two into each other, and give me the Silverado. Just as long as that Yaris doesn't hit me in the saddle tank at 73 mph while I'm hauling fireworks. :P
Point of order here. By far the most common engine in the original Mini was 850cc, as launched. No, they weren't terribly refined, powerful or fuel efficient by today's standards but that was the technology available then.............carburretors and distributors rather than fuel injection and electronics. Economy wasn't really an issue and emissions weren't "invented".
However, in their day the original Mini's would show a clean pair of heels to many larger and more powerful cars on a decent driver's road due to their balance of power, weight and handling; something that seems to have been lost, although the Mazda MX-5 still seems to be in that sort of mould.
Someone smashed my Miata so I have a G5 rental car right now.
23.8 mpg, says the trip computer. I expect better given my van is getting 22mpg with a powerful V6.
Road noise is sort of high (mostly tire noise), the seat cushions are too short, visibility is poor due to wide pillars and odd, small traingular side mirrors, and the interior is full of hard plastics.
I guess at this price I should not expect too much, but at a minimum I'd want high 20s mpg. Let's see if it improves any.
The good? It's cute. The spoiler makes it pseudo-sporty looking (but the plastic wheel covers cancel that out). The headliner is made from a nice woven fabric instead of the peach fuzz that is all too common now. The trip computer has many more features than you would expect at this price point, too.
I should have it for a few more days, so let's see how it is to live with for a while.
"As for Minis, gee whiz, I had no idea you meant the original Minis of 40 years ago. Come on boaz! Americans as a group are much much fatter than they were in the 60s! Only a tiny minority of them would still fit in the 60s-era Mini!"
Yes my friend I go back a way with real small cars. Remember I had a 63 Sprite that I just loved. When the Mini came out I thought it made my Sprite look like a handling pig. Running Auto Cross against a Mini was almost useless. I had a few sporty cars back then. After the Sprite I decided to go for pony power and bought a 67 Camaro right off of the truck. I went back to small again with a 69 Ghia. My next sporty car was a 78 Fiat 124 Spyder and that was just about my last drop top. If you don't count my Pearl White 70 Chevy Impala with a jet black drop top, fast but not sporty. So my view of what they are calling a sub compact today may be slanted.
I took one out for a spin Saturday on what may end up being the windiest day of the year, and it handled fine. It didn't flip over or get run down or anything silly like that. I took it out on the interstate and it did have a slight wiggle on a grooved concrete section, but that's a function of the tire width which could be remedied with wider wheels. The crybabies and naysayers will have to find something else to dislike about it now.
It's cute on the outside, but honestly, besides a low price, I can't see a compelling reason to buy this car. I've seen base Cobalts for $10,999, so it's a good value, but I'd only drive something this cheap if I had to.
Even then, I think I'd choose a used car that was a bit nicer.
How did that thing feel, as far as front seat room goes? I haven't spent more than a couple minutes in a G5 or Cobalt, but have to say that up front at least, it felt like one of the roomiest small cars I've ever sat in. It's one of the few small cars where I put the seat all the way back, and didn't wish for more seat travel. Usually my problem with a small car is that, no matter how comfortable a seat may theoretically be, it's useless to me if legroom is so tight that I'm scrunched up, have no thigh support, with only my cheekbones touching the base cushion, and forced into a slouching position.
The VW Jetta also felt pretty comfy to me, but those aren't exactly little cars anymore!
I don't really see why anyone shopping for a new compact would choose a Cobalt or G5, unless they really had no money and needed basic transportation for cheap. While the Cobalt may have been a massive leap forward compared to the Cavalier it replaced, it doesn't compete with the rest of the market. GM screwed up by keeping the Cavalier alive for 10 years without an overhaul. By the time the Cobalt was released, the rest of the competition had already surpassed it.
Indeed, there is massive amounts of front leg room, way too much for my 6" of height. I can barely reach the pedals with the seat all the way back.
The coupe's doors are similarly long, too long in fact, to open them you need tons of space. I have to park in wide spots to make sure we can get out!
G5 rear leg room is tight. The kids asked me to move the seat forward. I would hope the sedan would be better in this regard.
Any how, it doesn't matter, the seats just aren't comfortable. They offer no thigh support and very little side support. The cushions are too short. The outer part of my knees rub hard surfaces on both sides. Both my elbows rest on unpadded surfaces.
I test drove a G6 convertible hard top, and to be honest, while not ideal, I thought that car was far better than the G5. The Malibu creams them both, so GM knows what it has to do.
To be honest, the G5 feels like a brand new 1990 model car. Seriously, it feels that far behind the times. The engine note sounds like a strangled mongoose gargling with milk.
From what I've read, the dynamics and interior are distinctively european, but the 1.8L isn't that great. It has to be revved to get the 138hp out of it, but lacks the willingness to rev of a Civic or similar rev-happy car.
G5 rear leg room is tight. The kids asked me to move the seat forward. I would hope the sedan would be better in this regard.
I've tried the sedan, and found its back seat to be extremely miserable. I'd rank the Civic and Corolla's back seats much better. However, the way I've always judged this was to put the front seat to where I'm comfortable (usually all the way back), and then try the back. Since the Cobalt's seat seemed to go back a lot further, that's going to cut more into the back seat space. I'd be curious to see how the Cobalt's back seat would compare to the Civic or Corolla if I only put its front seat back as far as it would go in those other two.
To be honest, I found the Fit's back seat more comfortable than the Civic's.
For me, it was a mixed bag. Legroom wise I'm actually fine with both. The Fit's seat was a little better, but there's something about the way the Civic's seatback is shaped, that I sort of straddle it with my legs, so it doesn't bother me. So technically the Civic's back seat is tighter in that the back of the front seat is closer to me, but since I can get it between my knees, it works, somehow.
The Fit's seat cushion is higher, which you think would be a good thing. However, it puts my head too close to the side of the car. Not the window so much as the C-pillar and top edge of the roofline. It forces me to lean inward. That's actually a common thing these days with cars though. I first noticed it with the 1986 Taurus, and it seems to have only gotten worse.
For front seat comfort though, I'd have to place the Civic above the Fit. There's just not enough room in the Fit for my long legs to be comfortable. Plus, I have to lean inward a bit there, too.
Funny thing about the '08 Corolla, is that it feels smaller inside to me than the '03-07! I wonder if part of it could be the high window sills giving it a more claustrophobic feeling. Still, the earlier model, in LE form at least, which had a couple extra seat adjustments over the CE level, seemed to have a bit more legroom. I remember being able to ratchet down the back part of the seat cushion, which felt like it helped with legroom. Probably didn't actually change the published measure, but lowering the back had sort of the same effect as raising the front, and that helped with my thigh support...which is non-existent in my uncle's '03.
I know there are so much better deals out there in a long run. I also know that people have their own choices and loves. This is America...we're free to make buy whatever we want.
First all, I used to own a '00 Mitsubishi Galant. Crashed it. Air bags went off got claimed as a lost. Then replace that for '95 Ford Probe. Very heavy, gas tank was 15-16 gallons. No ABS; might came with it but I don't think it wasn't working. Car was bought for 2,500. Transmission was leaking and the computer turned off the overdrive. That was my sign to dump it. Traded in for '06 Scion xA. Bought it because it was backed up by Toyota and very economical. But I had lot of scary personal issues with it. One being, couldn't accelerate to save my life due to lack of power. Two, semi drivers never noticed me and totally freaked me out. I personally believe this car was jinx. Then traded it in for Scion tC. More power, less gas mileage, more safety features like knee air bag, the doors weigh as much as one xA LOL I do have rattles but I'm used to them. I think its good car.
If I had to choose to be in accident with a Scion...I would pick a tC. (Knocking on wood)
I don't like Hondas (too common), VWs (not reliable), Minis (too much $$$ & too small. Not good deal at all), Nissans (Would go with 350Z or Altima if I want to buy 6 cylinder), '09 Toyotas (Adding too many safety standard features to price tag. Making a car 16k to 19k.) Don't get me started on GM, Dodge, and Ford.
Actually the "wiggle" on a grooved concrete freeway, is due more to tread pattern than tire width.
As a motorist, and motorcyclist, I can share that tire tread pattern is everything. If the tires have a straight ribbed design then they will follow the rain grooves, even in a much larger car. However if the tires have a cross pattern tread, they will not follow the rain grooves.
This is especially noticeable on cars like Corvettes, and other sports cars, however it's also present on full size sedans if they have a straight rib tread pattern. Believe me the difference is night and day.
Plus, sometimes a wider tire width can actually make handling worse in some situations. About 2 years ago, I put new tires on my '85 Silverado, which has 8" wide rims. The stock tires were 235/75/R15's. I went with a 255/70/R15. All of a sudden, I noticed that truck ruts on the highway tended to make its handling a bit squirrely. I guess with the narrower tires, it would settle down in those ruts a bit better, but the wider tires couldn't do that, so it would tend to wander more.
I, and many others, would second that statement re tread pattern. Here in U.K., probably across Europe also, the Volvo S60 is known for its "tramlining" on the factory-fit Pirelli P6000 tyres. A change to something like Continental Sport Contact 2 or Toyo Proxi's, in the same size, transforms it into the surefooted car it truly is.
well Honda makes nice little cars. But you couldn't be in much of a hurry if you bought a Fit. even Edmunds who like Hondas can't seem to sing the praises of the ,little engine.
One thing they comment on not once but twice is the lack of power. In their comparison with the xD edmunds says,
"Although we had VTEC-inspired expectations of extreme performance from the Fit Sport, our Honda hatch proved loath to accelerate without judicious rowing of the five-speed gearbox. This 16-valve DOHC inline-4's 109 hp and 105 pound-feet of torque aren't quite enough to move this 2,472-pound box smartly enough to make highway merges and passing maneuvers a matter of routine."
They liked the road manners of the xD better. but they found the Honda more nimble. However in their long term review of the Honda Fit sport they once again said.
"Chief Road Test Editor Chris Walton noted, "There is not much power but the shifter is awesome. I never came close to missing a shift."
Praise for the shifter but not for the motor.
As a basic transportation or commuting vehicle the Fit may have a place. It just seems better to have a bit more power and not need it than to not have the power and want it at some point. I may not like the xD but between the two getting a few more ponies and and bit better ride on the freeway would make the Scion a better option.
I have an 08 Honda Fit MT and simply don't understand those who say it doesn't have enough power. For me the main problem with it is not speeding because zipping along is fun. I can understand if you come to the Fit from something with a lot more power feeling you prefer that, but if you just honestly assess whether the Fit has enough power "to make highway merges and passing maneuvers a matter of routine," the fact is it does. Admittedly I haven't driven the AT.
I guess in the case of the Edmunds staff it might be because they have such a wide selection to compare. They weren't driving a Automatic either. They were talking about rowing your own gears.
a Fit with the stick shift should be able to do 0-60 in about 9.3 seconds. Not exactly Ferrari-esque, but more than adequate. FWIW, I think my 2000 Intrepid is only good for about 9.5 seconds, yet it has enough power for what I need it to do.
I think I saw around 11 seconds for the automatic Fit, though. That might be slow enough to aggravate some people. I've had a lot of cars that are only good for the 11-12 second range...1985 Silverado, 1985 LeSabre, 1976 LeMans, two 1979 New Yorkers. And even here, it's pretty rare that I come across a situation where I'd have to mash the pedal to the floor.
Now sometimes, little cars can feel slower than bigger cars of the same performance level, simply because you have to drive one differently. For instance, barely press the gas pedal of a Fit automatic, and it probably barely moves. But the same light touch in an old V-8 could make it lunge forward and throw you back in your seat. But then, mash the pedal all the way down on a Fit, and it might really open up, whereas the old V-8 already gave you most of what it's got earlier on, so putting the pedal to the floor really doesn't give you that much more.
"Now sometimes, little cars can feel slower than bigger cars of the same performance level, simply because you have to drive one differently."
Good point - I imagine you've got to rev that Fit to get performance, something many people don't like to do. Our Suburban does that 'lunge' off the line, but pretty well signs off by 50 mph.
Perhaps it's your setting, i.e. in the city that kind of power is fine. My mom drives hers in congested Recife, Brazil. Only on occasion does she make it to a highway.
I had a 91 Escort GT, which was a little lighter, and had 127hp and 114 lb-ft of torque, so it was quicker than the Fit. It felt fast in the city, but I remember taking a trip in the mountains with 4 people and it could not hold speed in 5th gear in a lot of places. Cruise control would actually cancel itself out, and give up, letting off the throttle completely. It was very...humbling.
So I'm sure a Fit would feel slow in that situation, too (highway, hilly, big payload).
To be fair it would be our small commuter car and nowadays it would not be the vehicle we'd even take on a trip like that.
... had a stick.. and only 126 HP.. Probably weighed 3300 lbs...
I'm sure the FIT is very peppy, compared to that.... and, I didn't mind the CR-V... You just have to be willing to wind it out... It's more fun that way...
really want to use cruise control on long steep uphills? It's a big gas waster under those conditions, and usually you want to be on the pedals anyway, because if it is steep you have to be going around trucks, RVs, and other slow road users.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
People that use cruise.. want to use it everywhere it is safe.. They really aren't worried about the gas mileage.... With most automatics, they will downshift anyway... It seems that manual drivers don't use cruise, as much..
I'm not a big fan of cruise... Although, when I start to get tired, I find that my speed tends to vary a little more.. I might use cruise, so that I can concentrate on direction and the roadway ahead, rather than my speedometer.. Of course, I have an automatic now..
"People that use cruise.. want to use it everywhere it is safe"
It's been quite a change from when cruise was rare (20+ years ago) to now. Now, you can tell the majority of people are using it, traffic travels in huge packs, cars all going similar speeds. Used to be a lot more variety in speeds, with constant changes at hills, curves, etc...
about cruise control is that it doesn't seem to work the same way with newer cars like it used to back in the day. With my Intrepid, it'll actually make the transmission downshift if it detects that you're picking up too much speed. I guess there's many situations where that would be a good thing, but I find it annoying. Instead of just coasting and picking up a bit of speed so I can clear the next hill better, it forces the car to slow down, and then it has to struggle more to get up the next hill.
None of my older cars ever did that. Now they would downshift on an up-grade if they had to. I dunno if something like my '79 New Yorker or '85 Silverado would, because they only have 3-speed automatics, and usually enough power to take a grade in top gear. But a car with a 4-speed overdrive, like the '85 LeSabre or '86 Monte I had, which didn't have much power in top gear, would downshift on a grade. IIRC, the owner's manuals for those early 4-speed overdrives told you not to use the cruise control in hilly/mountainous areas. I think they also recommended using Drive and not Overdrive. Probably because the ratios would get so long-legged that you'd pick up too much speed on the downgrades. Something like my LeSabre, which had a 2.73:1 rear, would've had an overall effective ratio of about 1.83 in overdrive (0.67:1).
I'm not a big fan of cruise... Although, when I start to get tired, I find that my speed tends to vary a little more.. I might use cruise, so that I can concentrate on direction and the roadway ahead, rather than my speedometer.. Of course, I have an automatic now..
I'm a big fan of Cruise for long boring highway runs which I have to drive a lot. Combined with all the cops out there generating revenue it's the smarter choice. I set it at 5 mph above and cruise. It's even better at night as there are less cars or almost no cars and lots of cops. I drive a manual :shades: and I haven't had any problems at all with cruise on hills. Our highways are pretty flat and it's all gradual until you go way up north. Nothing that's a problem. The cops are a problem and at 5 mph over they don't waste time with you. I do miss the old days of blasting down the freeway but sadly those days are gone.
Comments
I agree that the newer Scions are too "vanilla", i.e. they took half the character out of them.
3100 lbs is what a Forester weighs. With standard AWD. How 'bout some weight control?
That's a lot of vehicles under $20k, a pretty crowded lineup. Perhaps they thought a bigger xB would differentiate it more.
They were so non-traditional that I think the styling alone did that.
When the xA used to substitute for the Yaris 5-door in the U.S., you could sort of see the point. Although even then you just had to ask: why not just sell the Yaris 5-door in the U.S.? They already do in Canada...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I Was in Long beach last month visiting an old friend of mine that has three Mini Coopers. Not a new one mind you. He has two Mini Coupes and one clubman. The one Mini S is almost show quality. It cannot weigh more than 1500 to 1550 pounds. It has a 1300 CC engine sitting sideways including the radiator. The car is only about 80 to 90 inches long at best. The Clubman can't be much longer maybe 95 or a little better inches. I just looked up the new Mini and it list it as 2456 curb weight. That is closer to 1000 pounds heavier. and that little puppy is 145 inches long. And the Engine in the new Mini is 1600 cc. To me that is a lot bigger than the old mini. I think the wheel base of the new mini is as long as the whole Clubman is on the old mini. When I said we may have forgotten how much bigger the new mini is I should have said others may have forgotten. I just sat in an old mini last month.
As far as Scions go. If you remember I questioned the wisdom of Toyota trying to "capture" the youth market and telling the youth they were doing it. It looks like Scion is headed just where I thought they would. To the retirement communities to join the Echo as a in town commuter. The Kids moved on.
As for Minis, gee whiz, I had no idea you meant the original Minis of 40 years ago. Come on boaz! Americans as a group are much much fatter than they were in the 60s! Only a tiny minority of them would still fit in the 60s-era Mini! The car had to grow just so Americans could get inside it, and indeed the very smallest cars on the market today are designed with 250-pound, 40-inch-waisted adult males in mind. With that design parameter, nothing could be that small any more, and not surprisingly nothing is.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Smart car specs
Also while the engine in the new MINI is only 300 cc more then the engine in the original mini it makes almost three times the horsepower with similar gas mileage. Most minis had the much smaller 997cc engine that made maybe 50 horsepower and earlier models had an even smaller 800 something cc engine.
Very few original minis had the hopped up cooper S engine and even those that did didn't come with the 1300cc engine standard. That 1300cc engine was an upgrade that come much later. Most either used a hopped up 997cc or a 1275cc engine.
I know one guy that has a real 1969 Mini Cooper S and another guy that has a clone. Neither car gets stellar gas mileage considering its size because the engine is frankly just not that efficient and the aerodynamics suck.
That's because when you're old, you don't care what other people think of the car you drive.
Let me know if you need a lift in my minivan. :P
I wonder if it would even be possible to make something as small as a 60's era Mini, today, and have it be street legal in the US? I guess it would be possible, but it just seems like it would be cost-prohibitive to make something that small with adequate crash protection, which would probably end up pricing it out of the market of most buyers.
I remember Larry Wilcox driving a Mini in the first season of "CHiPs". There was actually an episode where some guys were teasing him about it. He must have put on weight the second season, or he got a complex about it, because they had him switch to a jacked-up GMC Sierra 4wd!
I've never been in one of the original Mini's, but I've stood beside them. The roof comes up to about the level of my belly button. I just couldn't imagine fitting inside one, but some of my friends have told me that they're actually surprisingly roomy inside. Probably just pulling my leg, though.
The current Daihatsu Copen is pretty small, (Goggle it), and the G-Wizz is minute, (albeit electric and awful). New Fiat 500 is hardly a behemoth, either, and the Smart ForTwo ain't exactly big not to mention the new Tata offerings. There is a big world full of small(ish) cars outside the USA.............and big trucks too, yet we seem to survive side-by-side.
As for size = safety, (hinted at in a previous post), it's an old myth and not borne out by formal crash testing. The Chrysler Voyager / Grand Voyager is potentially lethal in a crash, (Euro NCAP 2 stars), whereas, for instance, an Audi A3 gets 4 stars as does the Toyota Yaris. Give me good design and modern materials over sheer bulk any day. The Fit, (Jazz), and MINI get 4 stars and the little Smart gets 3 stars. There are quite a number of small cars that achieve the maximum 5 stars under the same test regime; Renault Clio springs to mind. Can't give Nissan Versa number as we don't have it here; and I don't have a rating for the EU equiv - Nissan Note.
O.K. end of almost rant.
True, size doesn't always equal safety. However, I've always been a believer that it's easier to make a bigger car safer than it is a smaller car. And often, it just depends on the dynamics of the crash. If I was going to run into a bridge abutment at 35 mph, I'd rather do it in a Yaris than in my '85 Silverado. However, run the two into each other, and give me the Silverado. Just as long as that Yaris doesn't hit me in the saddle tank at 73 mph while I'm hauling fireworks. :P
However, in their day the original Mini's would show a clean pair of heels to many larger and more powerful cars on a decent driver's road due to their balance of power, weight and handling; something that seems to have been lost, although the Mazda MX-5 still seems to be in that sort of mould.
23.8 mpg, says the trip computer. I expect better given my van is getting 22mpg with a powerful V6.
Road noise is sort of high (mostly tire noise), the seat cushions are too short, visibility is poor due to wide pillars and odd, small traingular side mirrors, and the interior is full of hard plastics.
I guess at this price I should not expect too much, but at a minimum I'd want high 20s mpg. Let's see if it improves any.
The good? It's cute. The spoiler makes it pseudo-sporty looking (but the plastic wheel covers cancel that out). The headliner is made from a nice woven fabric instead of the peach fuzz that is all too common now. The trip computer has many more features than you would expect at this price point, too.
I should have it for a few more days, so let's see how it is to live with for a while.
Yes my friend I go back a way with real small cars. Remember I had a 63 Sprite that I just loved. When the Mini came out I thought it made my Sprite look like a handling pig. Running Auto Cross against a Mini was almost useless. I had a few sporty cars back then. After the Sprite I decided to go for pony power and bought a 67 Camaro right off of the truck. I went back to small again with a 69 Ghia. My next sporty car was a 78 Fiat 124 Spyder and that was just about my last drop top. If you don't count my Pearl White 70 Chevy Impala with a jet black drop top, fast but not sporty. So my view of what they are calling a sub compact today may be slanted.
These seats are terrible.
The trunk does have nice articulating hinges, so it opens wide and no gooseneck hinges to crush your groceries.
Visbility is great to the front but poor to the rear.
I looked and prices are very low, around $13k or so for what I got, but I still think I'd prefer a base Fit.
I took one out for a spin Saturday on what may end up being the windiest day of the year, and it handled fine. It didn't flip over or get run down or anything silly like that. I took it out on the interstate and it did have a slight wiggle on a grooved concrete section, but that's a function of the tire width which could be remedied with wider wheels. The crybabies and naysayers will have to find something else to dislike about it now.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
It's cute on the outside, but honestly, besides a low price, I can't see a compelling reason to buy this car. I've seen base Cobalts for $10,999, so it's a good value, but I'd only drive something this cheap if I had to.
Even then, I think I'd choose a used car that was a bit nicer.
The VW Jetta also felt pretty comfy to me, but those aren't exactly little cars anymore!
Hard to get into and out of, poor seats, and totally uncomfortable. Fortunately, the rental was a OW to MDW and was only 50 miles long.
The coupe's doors are similarly long, too long in fact, to open them you need tons of space. I have to park in wide spots to make sure we can get out!
G5 rear leg room is tight. The kids asked me to move the seat forward. I would hope the sedan would be better in this regard.
Any how, it doesn't matter, the seats just aren't comfortable. They offer no thigh support and very little side support. The cushions are too short. The outer part of my knees rub hard surfaces on both sides. Both my elbows rest on unpadded surfaces.
I test drove a G6 convertible hard top, and to be honest, while not ideal, I thought that car was far better than the G5. The Malibu creams them both, so GM knows what it has to do.
To be honest, the G5 feels like a brand new 1990 model car. Seriously, it feels that far behind the times. The engine note sounds like a strangled mongoose gargling with milk.
I can honestly say I've never heard a mongoose strangled, much less a gargling one.
Most entertaining post of the week right there!
It's slow yet returns 21mpg? C'mon, now.
I sure hope the Astra is a *lot* better.
Maybe it'll be a fuel miser.
I've tried the sedan, and found its back seat to be extremely miserable. I'd rank the Civic and Corolla's back seats much better. However, the way I've always judged this was to put the front seat to where I'm comfortable (usually all the way back), and then try the back. Since the Cobalt's seat seemed to go back a lot further, that's going to cut more into the back seat space. I'd be curious to see how the Cobalt's back seat would compare to the Civic or Corolla if I only put its front seat back as far as it would go in those other two.
Haven't tried a Corolla lately. They did show the new one at the DC Auto Show. I sat in a Matrix and it felt tight.
In this price class I'd probably get a Fit. My mom owns one (though she's in Brazil).
For me, it was a mixed bag. Legroom wise I'm actually fine with both. The Fit's seat was a little better, but there's something about the way the Civic's seatback is shaped, that I sort of straddle it with my legs, so it doesn't bother me. So technically the Civic's back seat is tighter in that the back of the front seat is closer to me, but since I can get it between my knees, it works, somehow.
The Fit's seat cushion is higher, which you think would be a good thing. However, it puts my head too close to the side of the car. Not the window so much as the C-pillar and top edge of the roofline. It forces me to lean inward. That's actually a common thing these days with cars though. I first noticed it with the 1986 Taurus, and it seems to have only gotten worse.
For front seat comfort though, I'd have to place the Civic above the Fit. There's just not enough room in the Fit for my long legs to be comfortable. Plus, I have to lean inward a bit there, too.
Funny thing about the '08 Corolla, is that it feels smaller inside to me than the '03-07! I wonder if part of it could be the high window sills giving it a more claustrophobic feeling. Still, the earlier model, in LE form at least, which had a couple extra seat adjustments over the CE level, seemed to have a bit more legroom. I remember being able to ratchet down the back part of the seat cushion, which felt like it helped with legroom. Probably didn't actually change the published measure, but lowering the back had sort of the same effect as raising the front, and that helped with my thigh support...which is non-existent in my uncle's '03.
First all, I used to own a '00 Mitsubishi Galant. Crashed it. Air bags went off got claimed as a lost. Then replace that for '95 Ford Probe. Very heavy, gas tank was 15-16 gallons. No ABS; might came with it but I don't think it wasn't working. Car was bought for 2,500. Transmission was leaking and the computer turned off the overdrive. That was my sign to dump it. Traded in for '06 Scion xA. Bought it because it was backed up by Toyota and very economical. But I had lot of scary personal issues with it. One being, couldn't accelerate to save my life due to lack of power. Two, semi drivers never noticed me and totally freaked me out. I personally believe this car was jinx. Then traded it in for Scion tC. More power, less gas mileage, more safety features like knee air bag, the doors weigh as much as one xA LOL I do have rattles but I'm used to them. I think its good car.
If I had to choose to be in accident with a Scion...I would pick a tC. (Knocking on wood)
I don't like Hondas (too common), VWs (not reliable), Minis (too much $$$ & too small. Not good deal at all), Nissans (Would go with 350Z or Altima if I want to buy 6 cylinder), '09 Toyotas (Adding too many safety standard features to price tag. Making a car 16k to 19k.) Don't get me started on GM, Dodge, and Ford.
J.M.O.
As a motorist, and motorcyclist, I can share that tire tread pattern is everything. If the tires have a straight ribbed design then they will follow the rain grooves, even in a much larger car. However if the tires have a cross pattern tread, they will not follow the rain grooves.
This is especially noticeable on cars like Corvettes, and other sports cars, however it's also present on full size sedans if they have a straight rib tread pattern. Believe me the difference is night and day.
Cheers!
As stated; it's not just small cars that suffer.
One thing they comment on not once but twice is the lack of power. In their comparison with the xD edmunds says,
"Although we had VTEC-inspired expectations of extreme performance from the Fit Sport, our Honda hatch proved loath to accelerate without judicious rowing of the five-speed gearbox. This 16-valve DOHC inline-4's 109 hp and 105 pound-feet of torque aren't quite enough to move this 2,472-pound box smartly enough to make highway merges and passing maneuvers a matter of routine."
They liked the road manners of the xD better. but they found the Honda more nimble. However in their long term review of the Honda Fit sport they once again said.
"Chief Road Test Editor Chris Walton noted, "There is not much power but the shifter is awesome. I never came close to missing a shift."
Praise for the shifter but not for the motor.
As a basic transportation or commuting vehicle the Fit may have a place. It just seems better to have a bit more power and not need it than to not have the power and want it at some point. I may not like the xD but between the two getting a few more ponies and and bit better ride on the freeway would make the Scion a better option.
Yep, when they're coming out of a Ferrari 308, BMW M3 or X5 V8, and even an Accord v6, etc., a poor little 1.5l Fit's going to feel slow, regardless.
I think I saw around 11 seconds for the automatic Fit, though. That might be slow enough to aggravate some people. I've had a lot of cars that are only good for the 11-12 second range...1985 Silverado, 1985 LeSabre, 1976 LeMans, two 1979 New Yorkers. And even here, it's pretty rare that I come across a situation where I'd have to mash the pedal to the floor.
Now sometimes, little cars can feel slower than bigger cars of the same performance level, simply because you have to drive one differently. For instance, barely press the gas pedal of a Fit automatic, and it probably barely moves. But the same light touch in an old V-8 could make it lunge forward and throw you back in your seat. But then, mash the pedal all the way down on a Fit, and it might really open up, whereas the old V-8 already gave you most of what it's got earlier on, so putting the pedal to the floor really doesn't give you that much more.
Good point - I imagine you've got to rev that Fit to get performance, something many people don't like to do. Our Suburban does that 'lunge' off the line, but pretty well signs off by 50 mph.
I had a 91 Escort GT, which was a little lighter, and had 127hp and 114 lb-ft of torque, so it was quicker than the Fit. It felt fast in the city, but I remember taking a trip in the mountains with 4 people and it could not hold speed in 5th gear in a lot of places. Cruise control would actually cancel itself out, and give up, letting off the throttle completely. It was very...humbling.
So I'm sure a Fit would feel slow in that situation, too (highway, hilly, big payload).
To be fair it would be our small commuter car and nowadays it would not be the vehicle we'd even take on a trip like that.
I'm sure the FIT is very peppy, compared to that.... and, I didn't mind the CR-V... You just have to be willing to wind it out... It's more fun that way...
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)
I'm not a big fan of cruise... Although, when I start to get tired, I find that my speed tends to vary a little more.. I might use cruise, so that I can concentrate on direction and the roadway ahead, rather than my speedometer.. Of course, I have an automatic now..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
It's been quite a change from when cruise was rare (20+ years ago) to now. Now, you can tell the majority of people are using it, traffic travels in huge packs, cars all going similar speeds. Used to be a lot more variety in speeds, with constant changes at hills, curves, etc...
None of my older cars ever did that. Now they would downshift on an up-grade if they had to. I dunno if something like my '79 New Yorker or '85 Silverado would, because they only have 3-speed automatics, and usually enough power to take a grade in top gear. But a car with a 4-speed overdrive, like the '85 LeSabre or '86 Monte I had, which didn't have much power in top gear, would downshift on a grade. IIRC, the owner's manuals for those early 4-speed overdrives told you not to use the cruise control in hilly/mountainous areas. I think they also recommended using Drive and not Overdrive. Probably because the ratios would get so long-legged that you'd pick up too much speed on the downgrades. Something like my LeSabre, which had a 2.73:1 rear, would've had an overall effective ratio of about 1.83 in overdrive (0.67:1).
I'm a big fan of Cruise for long boring highway runs which I have to drive a lot. Combined with all the cops out there generating revenue it's the smarter choice. I set it at 5 mph above and cruise. It's even better at night as there are less cars or almost no cars and lots of cops. I drive a manual :shades: and I haven't had any problems at all with cruise on hills. Our highways are pretty flat and it's all gradual until you go way up north. Nothing that's a problem. The cops are a problem and at 5 mph over they don't waste time with you.
I do miss the old days of blasting down the freeway but sadly those days are gone.