What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

thegreatoz

I'm probably showing my age, but when I was a kid...and before all the "anti-pollution" gear was installed, manufacturers of the big V8 engines said maximum fuel efficiency was achieved at 70 mph.

Years of weekend commuting to the NJ Shore on the Atlantic City Expressway, where the speed limit was 70, proved that to be true. 80+mph at night...or 50+mph in heavy traffic noticeably reduced gas mileage in my Ford Galaxie 500.

nippononly

"...and you'll not want to get a piddling 40-50 miles-per-whatever-unit of fuel."

Now that IS a refreshing perspective coming from a Suburban driver!

Personally I think 40 mpg is decent and 50 mpg is very good, FOR NOW. In five years 40 will be my new floor, and I will be looking to be making 50 mpg routinely, OR MORE. Preferably more. Automakers had better have something in the works.

And sadly, with the HUGE run-up in diesel prices, a run-up that has been much faster and much greater than the one in gas, it appears that diesels will NOT be the quick fix to our problems that I had hoped. It is good to have them anyway because of the fuel they conserve, but with prices so much higher than gas, they don't save any money vs a reasonably efficient gasser.

I really think it is time for all these small cars that exist globally to start offering at least one smaller-engine option like they have in other countries...

stever

Hmmm, I forgot about the mini-compact tires.

This is what triggered my mpg thoughts:

hpmctorque, "Will Narrower Tires With Wider Sidewalls Return, To Improve Fuel Economy?" #1, 4 Jun 2008 12:07 am

qbrozen

I hope so.

Of course, in that case, I wouldn't call it "compact."
After all, a compact car isn't merely narrow. ;P

british_rover

You are right it is not really compact just more narrow then the normal tires so it can fit under the rear of the vehicle without hanging down.

I think there are plenty of vehicles with larger more powerful engines that will have better MPG at 65+ but the LR3 is just not one of them. It's Cd is .41 in stock form with the air suspension at normal height and that is just not that great.

nippononly

"· Best-ever Honda Fit sales. Honda sold 8,205 Fit models, breaking the previous record of 6,835 set in April 2007. May sales were 47.4 percent higher than May 2007, causing year-to-date sales to soar by 61.5 percent."

http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/06/big-three-big-vehicles-taken-to-the-watershe- - - d-in-may.html#more

Good stuff, those little cars. ;-)

Edit...wow, Accent was up 89% too!

And..."Mini doesn't need much help right now: May sales rose 52 percent, and sales of the small, fuel-efficient, premium vehicles year-to-date are up 36 percent"

hudsonthedog

And then you add in the space needed for the calipers; maybe another inch to the radius which brings us to 13" (diameter) or so with an 11" disc. Add in the inside of the wheel of perhaps another inch or more...and the space between them. Now we're looking at 15"...minimum for that 11" disc.

hudsonthedog

I hate to throw cold water on this hot topic of small cars and fuel economy, but here in suburban Philadelphia, I filled my '07 Suburban Z71 with E85 for $2.89/gal yesterday and with the V8-V4 computer controlled engine, got 20.2 mph driving to Youngstown, Ohio on I-80 today. XM, NAV and AC running.

Driving the same trip (on the turnpike, though) in my 2000 Town & Country (also an E85 vehicle), I got over 22mpg calculated on paper...using my XM, GPS, and A/C....and hauling a vending machine at above legal speeds. There are better ways to travel than in an SUV.

thegraduate

Hey guys, I could use some advice over in the Versa Prices Paid Forum. Please follow the link if you are familiar with pricing here. My folks are interested in this car, and their dealer isn't communicating well.

Thanks a lot!

british_rover

I found this amusing...

smart fortwo VS. Triumph Street Triple
I've started seeing a few smart fortwos out on the road recently. I applaud their drivers for getting a cheap vehicle that suits their needs. Really, I do.

All the same, they are inferior vehicles. I mean, we can see that in the first sentence of this post. Not only does their name not require capital letters (always suspect), but it's impossible to talk about them in the plural.

But let's get down to hard facts. The smart fortwo seats two people. It's got 7.8 cubic feet of storage space (12 if you cram it to the roof). It weighs 1808 pounds and has a 3 cylinder, 70 horsepower motor that makes 68 ft. lb. of torque. Air conditioning, power steering and any stereo system are all options you have to pay extra for. The base model is $11,590. It does 0 - 60 in 12.8 seconds, or, about enough time to hard boil an egg. Gas mileage is around 30 - 40 miles per gallon. Top speed is 90 mph.

It has a lot of safety features, including a "tridion safety cell" to "ensure crash compatibility with larger passenger cars."

Crash compatibility!? Great interrobang! Also, "safety cell?" Cell?? Good Lord, they aren't even bothering to pretend cages are something else...

Also, what's "tridion"? Sounds like unobtanium to me.

Moving on, let's talk about the Triumph Street Triple. It also has a 3 cylinder motor. However, this motor is only 675cc, makes 107 horsepower and 51 ft. lb. of torque. It weighs 367 pounds, costs only $8,299 and comes stock with air conditioning in winter and heat in the summer. Stereo not required. Storage space is whatever you can figure out between various pieces of luggage, but I'm betting a rider could get 7.8 cubic feet of storage on there. Gas mileage is about the same as the fortwo. Zero to 60 MPH is 3 - 4 seconds, or, about enough time to realize you can't stop smiling. Top speed is high enough that it's kind of irrelevant, in terms of commuting.

The fortwo doesn't take up much parking space, but a motorcycle takes up even less. Plus, motorcycles get to use the HOV lane. The fortwo does not.

Both are able to carry two passengers in relative comfort. Your chances of scoring with your date (regardless of your gender) is a lot higher if you show up on a Triumph, however. See, a motorcycle says "Mystery and a hint of danger," where a smart car says "cheap and no style."

So, I'd say, get the Triumph.*

Incidentally, Lady Luck's Vespa GTS gets better gas mileage and has a better 0 - 60 time than the forwto as well. Storage is at a premium, but the style-o-meter is off the scale.

*Learn to ride before you actually get the Triumph.

http://pizzacrusade.blogspot.com/2008/06/smart-fortwo-vs-triumph-street-triple.h- tml

snakeweasel

It does 0 - 60 in 12.8 seconds,

Time how fast traffic gets to only 40MPH on a typical commute and you will find it is about 20 seconds so a Smart is more than fast enough for what its designed for.

Both are able to carry two passengers in relative comfort.

Yeah try riding the Triumph in 10 degree weather with a strong wind and lots of snow, or when there is freezing rain (or any rain for that matter).

Your chances of scoring with your date (regardless of your gender) is a lot higher if you show up on a Triumph, however.

Most people I know will laugh at you if you showed up in a Triumph. Plus it will rarely draw a crowd.

british_rover

I know you are a big Smart car fan but that article was really more tongue in cheek and you took it a bit too seriously.

As for your last comment you must not know many motorcycle fans as Hinckley Triumph has been making some of the best motorcycles on the market now for more then a decade. Ever since John Bloor brought Triumph back from the dead in the early 90s they have made top notch quality products.

explorerx4

try the same trip in a snow storm. actually, don't.

lilengineerboy

Time how fast traffic gets to only 40MPH on a typical commute and you will find it is about 20 seconds so a Smart is more than fast enough for what its designed for.

Man, commuting with traffic must suck. I would rather live closer to work and have a car I enjoy driving.

Yeah try riding the Triumph in 10 degree weather with a strong wind and lots of snow, or when there is freezing rain (or any rain for that matter).

Lets have someone in the For2 try the same thing and report back. The Edmunds videos show how much trouble it has with crosswinds.

Most people I know will laugh at you if you showed up in a Triumph. Plus it will rarely draw a crowd.

Not those in the know. And if they aren't in the know, the probably aren't worth dating anyway

bumpy

So, I'd say, get the Triumph.*

Yeah, except for that whole pesky not having a motorcycle license thing. At any rate, I prefer the best of both worlds.

snakeweasel

that article was really more tongue in cheek

So was my response.

As for your last comment you must not know many motorcycle fans

I know plenty, triumph is not high on their list.

british_rover

what is going on in here.

Oh I gotta question that I figure someone in here can answer. Where can you find the raw EPA numbers for a vehicle? I don't mean the 2007 and under numbers I mean the 1985 and under numbers that they use for the CAFE ratings.

bristol2

Maybe with sales of small cars up 30-40% everyone's figured out that there is nothing 'wrong' with these new subcompacts?

british_rover

Yeah maybe that is the case.

The reason I am trying to figure out what the raw EPA numbers are is because I assume that is what they use to figure out the tax credits on Hybrids and the new Clean diesel cars. Right now the TDI Jetta isn't on the tax credit list but I assume it will be once they update it sometime next quarter for the 2009 MY vehicles. I am just trying to see if I can get a round guess of what the tax credit will be now.

andre1969

I always went here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/FEG/download.shtml to look up those older numbers. You can actually see the raw numbers online (right column) up to 1996, but for 1997 and newer, you have to download the datafile (left column) and it load on your computer as a zip file. My Mac at work will always open it in Excel. Be warned, it's not all that easy to read, but the data's all there.

guss

The tax credit is based on new technologies, that is why the hybrids qualify and diesels do not, even though they may get better mileage.

The other criteria is how many of a particular model is sold. I think the reasoning is that once you reach a certain number sold , it is not new anymore.

british_rover

Clean diesels do count under the bill as advanced lean burn engine vehicles and would qualify for the credit. Up until the clean diesel TDI Jetta there were no diesels that met the tier 2 BIN 5 emissions requirement to qualify for the tax credit. The TDI jetta should qualify for the credit but I have no idea how much of a credit it will be. The current EPA test completely screws the Jetta and most likely will do the same too all small diesels. I believe the credit is based off the raw CAFE numbers though and not the EPA numbers.

nippononly

"For the first five months of the year, U.S. sales of the Fit were up 64.0 percent to 29,784 vehicles. And that's before the updated model even arrives."

"We had planned to sell between 30,000 and 40,000 and figured out very early that wasn't enough, so we increased production to 60,000. That still wasn't enough," Mendel said here last week"

So they will shoot for 80K annually in the U.S. when the model starts selling in October. Even then it may not be enough, but there's only so much they can do - they are pulling from a global well of Fit production that is only half a million or so, and is maxed out.

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080623/FREE/14228425/1528/n- ewsletter01

ateixeira

Convert existing truck lines for Fit production.

nippononly

Actually, I think they are already converting existing truck lines to build more Civics, another model they can't keep up with demand on. And since the Civic has the higher price tag of the two, it gets priority. :-(

They do plan to bring even more North American capacity for small-car production on-line in the next five years, I believe. For now, they are playing with the notion of sending Chinese-built Fits (already in production and currently being sent to Europe) to the U.S. Not sure if anyone would even notice, or if they would care. I suspect if they did notice they would care.

oregonboy

I noticed that Civics have higher EPA highway ratings than Fits :surprise:
I just wish that they made a Civic wagon or hatch for the US of A. :sick:
james

thegraduate

On the highway, yes. Higher torque-engine allows taller gearing.

Around town, the 1.5L Fit bests the heavier 1.8L Civic.

nippononly

Only in automatic. In stick shift the Fit has the upper hand. ;-)

And graduate is right - around town the Fit will do better regardless of transmission. And around town is where most people do most of their driving...

thegraduate

And graduate is right - around town the Fit will do better regardless of transmission. And around town is where most people do most of their driving...

Speak for yourself! Or, maybe I'm just not "most people." In today's world of urban sprawl, I'll bet people do a lot more highway driving than you might think.

lemmer

Highway driving in the urban sprawl around here usually equals lower speeds with stop and go traffic, which kind of negates the highway gain in MPG.

thegraduate

I think that's true for many places. Here though (Birmingham, AL), it constitutes 75-80 mph driving, bumper-to-bumper, with no way to safely go much slower.

lemmer

Hey! I'm in Birmingham. I was thinking more of HWY 280 or 31, or even coming up I65 into town. Your description sounds like I459.

thegraduate

It's a small world...

and I commute on I-59. I work in Homewood or at Valleydale, depending on whether or not I am at my internship, go to school at UAB, and live near Bessemer. I-59 is typically a fast mover at 5:00pm. Crowded, yes, but FAST! I avoid 65 and 280 like the plague.

In my head highway = interstate, no traffic lights.

I've found a couple of other subcompact people here in Birmingham as well; one is a regular in the Fit forum.

nippononly

Yes, point taken on the urban sprawl thing, but that's not the only factor: if ALL your driving is on the freeway at 75 mph, but your commute is 40 miles round trip, then that's about 7-9 cold starts you are doing for every tank of gas. If your commute is shorter than 40 RT, then that number of cold starts per tank goes up quickly. THAT'S where your city number comes in.

Now if your daily commute is 200 miles RT, and it's all on the freeway at 70 mph, well THEN you might do just as well in the Civic as in the Fit. But ask yourself if every trip you make is that commute....every cold start is bringing your fuel economy down.

thegreatoz

What is "urban sprawl"? Is it a bad thing?

thegraduate

Nippon is absolutely right about adding cold starts into the mix, although the Civic should still do at least as well if not better than the Fit in that kind of commuting, especially when speeds are 70 plus mph.

Urban sprawl
–(noun) the uncontrolled spread of urban development into neighboring regions.
from Dictionary.com

What is "urban sprawl"? Is it a bad thing?

It's bad in that it makes distances between one place and another further, increasing the amount of driving one must do. Los Angeles, California and Atlanta, Georgia, are two offenders that fall readily to mind, with home-to-work commutes that can routinely run in the 60-90 minute range.

nippononly

Urban sprawl is the process of a city expanding outward from its center with low density housing, rather than remaining compact in size and more densely populated.

And yes, in the context of super-high gas prices, it IS a bad thing, because it causes people to have to drive a lot more than they would otherwise need to, and we all know how much extra that is costing us these days....

nippononly

"Nippon is absolutely right about adding cold starts into the mix, although the Civic should still do at least as well if not better than the Fit in that kind of commuting, especially when speeds are 70 plus mph."

I also would suggest that most people do NOT have an all-freeway, zero-traffic commute. Obviously, only the individual can judge as to the nature of their own commute, but most people will do several miles per day at least of surface street driving with stoplights, and hardly anyone in the major metro areas is running at full speed on the freeway during commute hours....

thegraduate

I also would suggest that most people do NOT have an all-freeway, zero-traffic commute. Obviously, only the individual can judge as to the nature of their own commute, but most people will do several miles per day at least of surface street driving with stoplights, and hardly anyone in the major metro areas is running at full speed on the freeway during commute hours....

Of course.

The difference in highway mileage and city mileage is 2-3 mpg either direction; City in favor of the Fit, with Hwy in favor of the Civic; all I'm suggesting is that it would be a wash in that kind of driving, possibly in the Civic's favor if you have more interstate than urban traffic. Regarding your last statement, I must say that when I travel on Birmingham's I-59, it usually moves at the limit +15 unless you are in the city center, in which it typically slows to 20-30mph at rush hour, that's only for about a 2 mile stretch though, in my particular commute.

I do the same type of driving you mentioned (11 traffic lights in 4 miles of city) and 10 miles of 70 mph interstate between me and my office) in my 2006 Accord (listed at 24/34 then, now says 21/31) and I average 30 mpg.

nippononly

"The difference in highway mileage and city mileage is 2-3 mpg either direction; City in favor of the Fit, with Hwy in favor of the Civic;"

In stick shift, it's in the Fit's favor for city and a TIE for highway: 26/34 Civic, 28/34 for Fit. In the old numbers it even looked a little better for Fit: 33/38 vs 30/38 for Civic. ;-)

But yes, in automatic it's a couple points either way, neither model gets the clear advantage.

oregonboy

For my type of driving, (a lot of long-distance trips), I think that the Civic would be the more comfortable alternative. Too bad they don't offer it here as a 5-door. The Fit would get the nod for its utility, and I suspect lower insurance rates.

Personally, I would wait a year or so because I imagine that the auto manufacturers are scrambling now to bring out models tweaked for better fuel economy; things like: lighter, narrower wheel/tire combos, improved aero, taller gearing, and engine mods.

jamez

thegreatoz

Urban sprawl...thanks for the definition and description in relation to these crazy gas prices. Am I correct in assuming there's a difference between urban sprawl and "the suburbs"? Or are they the same, with just different names?

I saw a news story on line that said the high gas prices will result in the "end of suburban living." Would that be the same as "the end of urban sprawl"?

andre1969

Urban sprawl...thanks for the definition and description in relation to these crazy gas prices. Am I correct in assuming there's a difference between urban sprawl and "the suburbs"? Or are they the same, with just different names?

I always looked at a suburb as a place where people live, but it's not necessarily a self-sustaining city. For the most part, just residential areas, and some commercial areas like gas stations, grocery stores, maybe a mall or two, but by and large, its residents have to go elsewhere to find work.

When suburbs started popping up, they tended to be out a bit from the cities, where public transportation usually didn't go, or was limited. But as more and more land gets developed, and new suburbs pop up, they sort of all just run together, and that becomes urban sprawl. Just nothing but suburb after suburb, with very little open space to separate them.

There's another term popping up, called the "Exurbs", which I think is a suburb, but one that's way out on the fringe, and requires a long commute to find work. It's these Exurbs that are going to suffer the most. People are going to avoid them like a plague, and they might even be too far out for the gangs and other low-lifes to move into. They might just become ghost towns. Or heck, put up a wall around them and turn them into prison camps!

lilengineerboy

And graduate is right - around town the Fit will do better regardless of transmission. And around town is where most people do most of their driving...

According to gas buddy, my commute in the Accord (all highway) nets ~32-33 mpg (at slightly but not excessively extra-legal speeds) while the same commute in the Legacy wagon nets 29-30. Adding more city to the mix drops things considerably, with the Accord at 27-28 and the Subaru at 26-27. I think all city in the Legacy would be brutal.

snakeweasel

I saw a news story on line that said the high gas prices will result in the "end of suburban living.

I seriously doubt it, I live in the suburbs and work in them too. Its a 21 mile round trip. The vast majority of the people I know also work in the suburbs and have similar commutes (some longer some shorter).

The few people I know that work in the city take the train to and from work.

I also work with a few people that live in the city and commute to the burbs.

The high gas prices will not mean the end of the suburbs by any means.

stever

smart USA Delivers Its 10,000th fortwo Since January

Is it really a subcompact if you can fit 13 people in one?

nippononly

And they said Smart wouldn't sell any!

thegraduate

If they only sell one for every thirteen people who want them, they're in trouble! :P

podred

Is it really a subcompact if you can fit 13 people in one?

EPA's new size classifications allows 12 in a subcompact, your off by just one...

ateixeira

Bet they could squeeze 30 in a convertible if limbs can stick out.