Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
And in the case of the Civic LX, the curb weight is 2685 pounds, for a difference of 250 pounds. And the invoice is $15,288, for a difference of JUST ABOUT $2000.
Note: your second attempt still misses the mark slightly :-P, as I believe you must have pulled up the numbers for the 2-door Civic coupe. I think comparing the 4-door version to the 4-door Fit is the most appropriate comparison, don't you? ;-)
For comparison purposes, I would go somewhere in between the 4-door Civic DX and 4-door Civic LX (but closer to the LX by a goodly margin), as the Civic LX is slightly better equipped than the base Fit, and has the larger rims of the Civic EX (but steelies, instead of alloys on the EX).
If you could get a Fit anywhere near as stripped as the pathetic, sells-by-the-dozens-each-year Civic DX, your original comparison would have been a lot more valid. Just my humble opinion, of course. :-)
The hatch is good for all sorts of things that a sedan with a fold-down rear seat isn't, because of all the configurability. In this regard, of course, the Fit excels, thanks to that magic seat that Honda is so proud of.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Besides, economically things are getting worse for most Americans...slowly but surely...and whereas in the "flaunt it baby" 80s and 90s a few hundred bucks here and a few hundred bucks there didn't matter.....now it's starting to matter.
Practically everybody in the US who isn't infirm or underage or living in Manhattan needs a car. I don't think new drivers coming into the market are going to want dad's and mom's old gas guzzler, and when the households working multiple jobs for $10/hr (probably 30% of Americans) finally scrapes up enough for a down payment on a new car, it's not going to be a big or expensive one, obviously.
As for BIG CARS, even those are being much more intelligently designed (and they'd better be). The complete lunacy of those 1970s gigantic coupes (how DID they design so little space in such a HUGE car???) are gone forever. You'll never see such cars again.
The Kia Rio5, Kia Rio LX sedan (MT for both, of course), the Kia Spectra5, the Kia Spectra SX, the Honda Fit, the Toyota Yaris sedan, the Scion xA and the Dodge Caliber base sedan/wagon/crossover/hatch-mobile are all competing for our next rig. All are fairly small and I think that all of them would give us trouble-free performance. Contrary to a lot of the babble spewed forth throughout the years, buying a new Kia doesn't chain you to your dealer's service department for your Kia's first 4 years. Might you have to go in to get some things fixed or a recall done here or there? Yep, but that is true with all rigs from all carmakers. In my experience the 10 year, 100,000 mile Long-Haul Warranty has been a great Warranty to have, one that has covered any and all flaws or troubles that have come up in my two Kia's.
Oh, one reason I have had good success with each of my Kia's, possibly too, is that I believe in car maintenance regularly. I believe it pays for itself thousands of dollars and thousands of times over.
Nuff said, Sam Elliott. Enjoy your small rigs out there.
When's that pair of Obvio's hittin' American shores again? Late 2007 for one of the new Brazilian rigs coming here for sure. Small Chinese cars? They're coming! And when is the new Chevrolet Aveo 4-door sedan built by Daewoo...I...I mean GM Daewoo Auto & Technology Company of South Korea arriving here? BTW, Chevy will build the same hatchback as we've always seen but will go with a new 4-door sedan design for 2007. I like early looks at it, but those looks are from a distance. It's coming soon to a Chevy dealer near you.
Finally, who knows if Dodge is gonna build that eeency, weeency, little Dodge Hornet? :surprise:
It's important to think out of the box here, right? Speaking of boxes, nippononly, when is the new-gen Scion xB/t2b formula coming to America? The new xB will be the concept t2b we saw at Auto Shows? Chime in with your box news reports, please.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The answer to that one is actually pretty simple. Most cars, even big ones, are built to fit the driver of the most common denonimator. And that tends to be the 5'11" male driver of around 175-180 or so pounds.
Also keep in mind that low-slung was in vogue back then, and if you can't sit all scrunched and upright, like you do in modern cars, you had no choice but to make more stretch-out room as you lowered the height of the car. Cars back then also tended to have an underside that was designed to be a more reasonable height, so you didn't bottom out every time you pulled into a driveway or went over a speed bump.
While it's easy to point at some 230" Mark V and laugh at how space-inefficient it is, you do have to consider ALL dimensions.
I'd imagine that if, instead of just thinking of interior volume to overall length, another measurement was taken of interior volume compared to exterior volume (which would take height into account), some of those old cars wouldn't seem so bad.
Also, in the 70's cars were still designed more by stylists than they are today. The function followed the form, which isn't necessarily a good thing, but at least made for some more interesting, unique designs. Plus, size was still equated with prestige, so even if a Mark V or Eldorado didn't have much more useable volume inside than a Dodge Dart to justify its 2+feet of additional length and 1500+ pounds additional weight, it still HAD to have that additional bulk to justify its 2X+ price! Nowadays most cars are "styled" about as much as you could consider drawing with a marker on an egg or a shoebox could be. The canvas upon which to draw is much more constrained, so to speak.
And yeah, we'll never see such cars again, because their role has been filled by the SUV. Even though a big SUV is more versatile than some big old 70's coupe, many of them will never see that versatility put into use.
The main thrust we have been discussing is what is wrong with these sub compacts? Wrong as in what keeps them from becoming sales leaders? If that is the question, then what do they bring to the table other than price and fuel mileage? And if fuel mileage isn't the best what is left? what is the point? Other than someone just wanting the smallest vehicle they can drive? For practicality a heavier car tends to ride better and more power lets you cruise at a lower RPM. If the fuel mileage is the same why get the smaller car? For the mainstream consumer how do you convince them less is more? With the tradition we have in the US that will be a very hard sell. And if the compitition offers another 20 hp with the same fuel mileage aren't we headed for the same result we have today with the bigger, more powerful Accord? Didn't the buying public already reject the smaller less power Accord to finally make the new size one of the best sellers ever? Do you in all honesty believe the Sub Compact will replace the mid sized car as the number one seller in you life time? Do you think it will be a successful for the manufacturers as the Mini Van was and then the SUV? I don't but then, I am a skeptic when people start talking about people realizing they only "need" a Sub Compact when they can afford a Mid sized car. Just my view of course.
Not "replace" by any means, but it's going to eat into that market in a big way. There's no reason to "move up" to a Honda Civic from today's subcompacts. You might as well just skip over them into the Camry/Accord market. The subcompacts are cheaper to buy, more fun as a rule and make better use of space. A Honda Civic is useless to me--I can't stuff tall boxes or a disassembled bicycle in it, but I can do that with an xA.
A comparably equipped Civic would cost me thousands of dollars more, and it's two feet longer...and what do I get for those thousands of dollars and two extra feet? Less headroom, one inch more legroom, 35 more HP but pushing 300 lbs more weight. And the same luggage space with all seats up, and almost 2/3 less luggage space if you compare to the xA with the back seats down.
So why on earth would I buy a Honda Civic? It's an obsolete concept in 2006 if you ask me.
I think the "subcompact" is now the "compact" and the next step up from an xA is into an Acccord/Camry size car, if you REALLY want to notice any difference.
What would I get for those thousands of dollars and two extra feet? A car I can fit in comfortably, instead of one that I can't! That's the clincher right there. Plus one that's bound to ride better, accelerate better, gets better highway fuel economy, can seat adults behind me, etc.
It's all in what your needs are. From my perspective, it's these really tiny things that are obsolete, because you can get a bigger, more comfortable, better performing car that gets the same or better fuel economy.
However, it would be nice if they'd make more versatile versions of the Civic, rather than just the sedan and coupe isn't there a 2-door hatch, too?). But the moment they tried to make a 5-door hatch/wagon out of it, then they'd get the bright idea to go ahead and just make a crossover out of it, and then they'd have to make the CR-V bigger!
Isn't there still a pretty big jump to go from a Civic to an Accord, in price? Plus, there you're adding about another 10-12" in length, no more real interior room for 4 passengers (although it would be better for 5) and a slightly larger trunk. And then you get notably worse economy. For instance, the 4-cyl/auto would drop from 30/40 to something like 24/34.
People that size should be in Accord size cars, not Civics, since they aren't really solving their problems/needs by grabbing fractional inches here or there.
With an Accord, you get a whopping 6 inches more shoulder room, good for the wider bodies....but even in an Accord, you don't get any more appreciable leg room than in an xA...a measly .4 of a inch...AND.. you get LESS headroom!
If an xA is uncomfortable to you, it makes no sense that a Civic would be really comfortable for you either, in real life, on the road. The numbers don't suggest this. An Accord however, suggests a more expansive cabin, width-wise, that should make life a lot more cushy for you.
Legroom is typically measured from the base of the accelerator pedal to some point on the driver's seat. It speaks nothing of how much the dead pedal might get in the way, or the steering wheel, or the lower part of the dash, center console, etc. It also gives you no indication of whether the steering wheel might be offset, which makes for a horrible driving position IMO. Some BMW's do this, like the 6-series. So does the Tacoma. And it's not necessarily limited to smaller vehicles either. One thing I didn't like about the '91-96 GM B-bodies was the offset of the steering wheel. It's like they made the passenger cabin wider, and made you sit a bit closer to the outer edge of the car, but left the steering wheel in the same spot, so you'd have to actually reach a bit further with your left arm.
Also, keep in mind that one 6'2" person isn't going to fit the same as another 6'2" person. One might have a longer torso, while another might have longer legs. And are you sure you're REALLY 6'2", Shifty? Maybe you last got measured decades ago and shrunk in your old age? It does happen, you know! :P As for me, I'm 36, and I hope that at that age, I've done all the growing I'm going to!
All I can say is that I go by experience when I judge whether I can fit in a car or not. Not by what some manufacturer's published measurements say. Hell, the next thing you know, they're going to try to start convincing us that Sonatas and Azera and Impalas are full-sized cars! Oh wait, they're already trying that.
As for the Civic, I've only sat in them in auto shows, but I can fit fine up front, with the seat all the way back. And even leaving that seat where it's at, I can still fit in the back fairly comfortably. With something like the xA, I feel cramped up front. It's kinda like sitting in a pre-1973 Chevy pickup truck, nice and high, too close to the cowl, with no room to stretch out. And it's tighter in the back seat than a Civic, too.
IMO, the Civic is VERY space-efficient for such a small car. The only other small car where you could get 4 people my size in is the Neon.
But yeah, in the end, I'd probably end up getting something Accord-sized than either a Civic or xB. Or more specifically, Altima-sized.
Now I'm not on a crusade here to exterminate the subcompact, or damn it to eternal hell or anything. I'm just saying that they don't make sense for everybody out there. Myself included.
In a car that only seats two people across, the actual shoulder room measurement really isn't critical. It has more to do with placement and size of the armrests, shape of the seats, center console, position of the steering wheel, etc.
I have shifty beat in size and I have enough head and leg room in the xA, the problem I have is not enough room to the side. My left arm is pressed between the door and my body if I try to put it down to my side. That is something I hate in a car.
Hell, the next thing you know, they're going to try to start convincing us that Sonatas and Azera and Impalas are full-sized cars! Oh wait, they're already trying that.
In reality thats the Government saying that. And FWIW the Azera has some pretty roomy back seats.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I have tons of headroom in a fit, but I couldn't get comfortable in a 2001 version of the TL. Just an example.
The width can be an issue. That's one reason I got the Accord instead of a Civic, so I wouldn't be bumping shoulders with my wife! Quite a bit more back seat room too.
I do agree with Shifty that the biggest issue with compacts is the insistance on a 4 door sedan body style. A hatch (5 door please) makes much more sense on a car the size of a Sentra or Civic.
I thought the Euro 5 door Civic was very slick, too bad they didn't bring that one over.
The Fit, for passengers, has a surprising amount of usable, comfortable, room. Of course, with the back seats in use, not a ton of cargo room, but you can only do so much with 160"!
My personal favorite in the small car area now is the Versa. I'm really interested in seeing that one in person.
Oh, and they do need to resolve the highway MPG issue, basically make them less buzzy. Some of these cars rev too high on the highway. I know they need it for performance, but if you are willing to drive such a small car, you should be willing to downshift now and then!
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
However, "traditional" full-sized cars usually had 110 cubic feet or more of interior and trunks that were 20+ cubic feet. So these "so called" full-sized cars they're pushing today simply don't feel it. And one reason for that is shoulder room. Many of these cars today get their interior volume from headroom or legroom measurements, at some spot where the manufacturer chose to measure it. However, shoulder room is what really counts when it comes to 3-across seating. And a seat that's high off the ground, in a tall passenger cabin, could actually be LESS useful than a lower seat in a more low-slung passenger cabin. The reason being that the taller seat could push your head up into the ceiling.
I've been in the Azera, and it seemed decent, but I wouldn't call it full-sized. And the Sonata is a fake-out, because they push the back seat really far back, where you're sitting more over the rear axle. That gives you good legroom and shoulder room, but then the wheel wells really cut in, effectively making it a comfy 4-seater.
This is also a trick they did with the '06 Xterra. I can fit in the back seat of it with legroom to spare. And it has something like 58+ inches of shoulder room, so at quick glance it feels pretty spacious. But the wheel wells cut in so much that you wouldn't want 3 across back there for very long.
Truth be told though, there really aren't many cars these days that can seat 3 across. Even the few that have the shoulder room for it often don't have the contouring for it. Or the sides curve in too much. Or the rear wheel wells cut in too much. Or some other issue.
The seat position matters a lot. In many cars I just keep reclining the seatback until I have headroom. If you really like to sit upright or have short arms, this might not work.
I also have found that some cars that I remember being pretty roomy inside in the past suddenly don't seem quite as spacious. For example, when Honda restyled the Accord for '06, did they really change anything on the interior? I swear the back seat feels a bit tighter than the '03-05 did.
I recently sat in a '78-79 Pontiac LeMans coupe at a swap meet. I used to own an almost-identical Malibu, and later on a similar Monte Carlo and Cutlass Supreme. Sitting in that LeMans though, these things didn't seem as roomy as I remembered! Still roomy enough for me, but hardly vast.
Like I have said, each vehicle has a different fit. I have always been very comfortable in the Hyundai Elantra, Hyundai Accent, and the Ford Focus. I am confortable once I am inside the Toyota Corolla but getting in the car is difficult.
The Buick Skylark is very uncomfortable to me. The Infiniti that we used to have in the fleet was fairly uncomfortable on my left leg.
Is it really THAT important to have a comfortable back seat when most people commute alone?
As I have said, I would like a subcompact as soon as I find one that I am fairly comfortable in. The new entries do nothing for me.
I have to admit that the Versa is a nice looking car and at a pretty decent price. If I can just get past one little thing (renault) then I would be a definite contender. I am also looking forward to seeing this one in person (first Nissan in a while for me).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It looks like you will get a bunch of car from Nissan for only $12,500. 6-speed namual tranny, too.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
But they'd damn well better exist, because there ARE people who can't get comfortable in a large vehicle. Put me in a car designed for tall drivers, and I'm looking UP out of the car (actually just look at all the even littler ladies strugging to see over their SUVs' dashboards).
Tall people have already convinced Mazda to make the new Miata uncomfortable for me (I need the seat to go higher). But height-adjustable seats only work so well, because they throw off your leg angles. All in all, there is no one-size fits all car and I think it would be detrimental if automakers tried to make them that way.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
He was saying how they have been begging Nissan for a vehicle with entry level pricing for a couple of years now.
He also remarked about the interior room of the Versa when they went to see it. Said they had a 6'2" driver with 6'2" passenger sitting in the rear seat directly behind him quite comfortably.
I wish they had had it on the floor instead of up on a platform at the Philly show. I really wanted to crawl around in it!
Echo was also the first car where they attempted to raise the roof to increase interior volume and make it feel less intimidated by big trucks. While this accomplished its purpose admirably, and also gave the car easy-sit seating and a high POV down the road, they didn't build the suspension to compensate for the higher COG, with the result it has less than confidence-inspiring handling (although it has higher limits than the seat of the pants impression might lead you to believe).
Point is, these two traits are what sunk Echo sales, and NEITHER is endemic to subcompacts or hatchbacks.
The '02-'05 SI? It wasn't because of the size that it didn't sell well. The SI before it (and now the one after it) are/were raging successes, and both are tiny little coupes. It was because the SI was VERY pricey for the low stock power and handling limits. Had it been a $1000 premium over the EX, as it should have been, they would have sold every one they could build.
And as for the "5% of the market" remark, bear in mind that minivan makers fight it out tooth and nail for a share of that 6% of the market (minivans steady at 1 million a year, the U.S. market nearing or just over 17 million a year). The top three models are considered to be highly successful for their respective makers, yes, and well worth the trouble.
Scion: I could offer reasons for the model sales mix, but I suspect it would not convince: tC is Toyota's ONLY sport coupe right now, heck, its only coupe AT ALL this year except the old man's Solara. No wonder it sells well, best of all the Scions. The xB is truly out there in styling, the first of its kind, and oddniks love it precisely for that reason. By contrast, the xA is not precedent-setting. It is a five-door hatchback, and we have had plenty of those on the market in the past and now. But remember that despite its being the lowest seller of the Scion triplets, it still sells in good numbers, especially for a 7-year-old model (as the JDM ist is).
Look, it outsells Accent and Rio, despite its age:
http://www.aicautosite.com/editoria/asmr/svcoupe.asp
And hey, I just noticed they sold well over 6000 Yarii just in April - if it holds that pace it will outsell all the Scion models, and make 75,000 a year?! Wow.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Okay, I've just measured myself LOL! 6'2 & 1/4", 209 lbs (oops!) 33" inseam. I hope you'll have my suit ready by the end of the week!
I can't even DRIVE a BMW 3-Series---that feels very cramped to me.
The trick with the xA for tall 'uns is to tilt the seatback back just a little and raise the tilt wheel up. Perfect!
Entry/Exit are GREAT in the xA.
Manufacturers don't seem to know whether to make the cars as cheaply as possible to appeal to the entry level crowd, or make them at a higher cost point, to appeal to buyers wanting high quality, SMALL cars (and who are willing to pay for it).
The message is very confused.
Six months ago, my wife came home from a business trip complaining about the car she got from Enterprise. My wife NEVER complains about cars so I was surprised. "WE WILL NEVER BUY AN ECHO."
Her complaint was that none of the controls or displays was where she expecetd them to be,
My complaint when I last drove the vehicle was that the car sounded tinny. That is when I slammed the door, it really sounded kind of cheap.
I think it also didn't help that a lot of older people ended up buying Echos because of how easy they are to get into and out of, and a lot of younger people started associating them with the blue-haired, bingo-playing crowd. The Corolla really seemed to be falling into that rut as well, until the 2003 model came out and revitalized it.
Right now we have a bit of Corolla/Yaris price crossover again, but this time there is no price crossover in comparably equipped cars, which is nice. The center gauges remain. But again, neither of those is an endemic problem associated with subcompacts. Toyota planned the pricing better this time, and when the new Corolla comes out next year, the days of ANY price crossover between the two models will be gone. Honda has also planned this right, and I suppose Nissan will be careful about that too.
Me, I feel that since the current crop of these smallest cars are mostly hatchbacks (except the Yaris, of course, which will be 80% sedans), it is OK if they cross over a little bit in price with the compact 4-door sedans from the same manufacturer. Hatchback and sedan buyers belong to different groups looking for different things, I believe, without a lot of overlap between the two groups.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The main thing that bothered me about it was the lack of a temperature gauge! Call me paranoid, but I just feel safer with a temp gauge, especially in a modern, expensive-to-repair aluminum-engined car. If it was some old beefy iron-block engine I probably wouldn't care, although one reason I tended to prefer Chryslers is that most of them traditionally had a standard temp gauge.
And yeah, the interior was pretty plasticky, but for that price point I wasn't expecting materials by Fredericks of Tijuana or something that would be showcased in "Cathouses of the Glorious South" :shades:
IIRC though, in 2002 a lot of cars seemed to start getting cheaper in the interior department. The Camry and Altima seemed a bit more plasticky and spartan than the preceding models. And Chrysler cheapened the Intrepid's interior that year too.
The Fit also - no temp gauge. Most of the small GM cars now - no gauge, although in those cases if the car has the driver info computer display you can scroll through it until you find a readout for engine temp.
There are others too, but I have forgotten them now. IIRC, however, not all are small or entry-level cars, in fact there was a new Mercedes I pointed out to fintail that doesn't have a temp gauge either. Was it the new ML? I think so, but I can't recall exactly.
All these cars without a gauge have idiot lights that flash if the engine gets hot, then stay on if you don't stop and the engine overheats.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think the revolution has begun....we'll see how the fickle American public goes here.....
Anyone heard of any plans that Dodge will bring the Mini-Fighter Hornet to the U.S.? It's being planned for Europe for sure, big surprise, huh? They may be waiting for response from Americans at car shows, etc., before deciding on building it for the American market.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Even if you add up the mods I did ($1,200) it still works out pretty well for me over say, the course of 5 years. I get to drive a new car for less per month than an old one.
The math partly works out because I do so much driving, so YMMV. What I like is the light feeling of the clutch, the whole car in fact. It is much easier to drive around town than my truck, taking parking and all into account.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Which Civic could you get for $13,327? Don't tell me base Fit doesn't offer anything more than Civic DX.
1) what are the chances of finding one with the MTX and no dealer profit adders?
2) Still two years of payments on my Sentra...I hate paying car payments and will probably keep it after payoff and run it til it dies
On the other hand
1) Its a hatchback
2) No negative equity in the Sentra
3) Fit has a lot of safety features the Sentra doesn't
I'm still up in the air....
Funny, but interior dimensions of an xA in particular are better than a new Corolla and comparable to a Camry and Prius. Perception is everything with these cars. The same reviewers that say they are cramped in an xA say interior room in a Camry and Prius is more than adequate. I often question how many of these folks actually get inside these cars.
HUH?! I don't see how ANYONE would believe an xA is comparable to a Camry or Prius in interior room! Actually, I'd expect someone who's 5'9" to have less issue with a smaller car, and possibly feel a bit "lost" in something bigger.
Now an xA isn't bad for what it is, a subcompact. But it's still a subcompact car. I'll admit that I think the driving position is marginally better than an '03-06 Corolla. At least for me it is. The Corolla has no legroom for the driver, but with the seat back has an incredible reach to the steering wheel. And the tilt wheel doesn't go up enough to get out of the way, so I have to watch it when I go for the brake pedal, or I'll hit my knee on it.
The xA also has no legroom, but at least moves the steering wheel a bit closer so you don't have to reach as far for it. It's definitely smaller inside than a Corolla. It's narrower, less room in the back seat, and less cargo area. However, being a hatchback it's a bit more versatile than a Corolla.
As for a Prius? Well, I'm 6'3", and have no trouble fitting behind the wheel of one. And further, I can fit in the back. You could get 4 people my size in a Prius. Now it's not wide enough for 3 across in the back, but it's a roomy 4-seater. Supposedly the Prius has a 16 cubic foot trunk, but I question that. I've had cars with a 15-16 cubic foot trunk, and they seemed much bigger to me.
Next up is the Camry. As long as it has a power driver's seat, I can get comfy in the front seat. It's just a bit snug in the back for my tastes though, as my knees brush the seatback. The '02-06 had a 17 cubic foot trunk, but I hear the '07 is more like 14.
One thing I always question is some of these measurements they publish, especially legroom and headroom. I've been in cars that have less published legroom, yet feel roomier than some cars with more published legroom. And in some cars, I'll hit my head on the rear window/roof in the back seat, yet they have a more generous measurement than some cars where I have room to spare.
In a nutshell, don't take these published measurements as the gospel. Go SIT in the cars first, to make sure they actually FIT you! :P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As for the American consumer, he/she buys what he/she is trained to buy. The market is not "free", since the selection is skewed and the emphasis varies from product to product. If you could make five times the profit on Product A than product B, guess which product gets fivee times the marketing dollars?
I don't see how Toyota makes any money on the xA at all. I can only assume they are going after market share, as is Honda with the Fit, by snaring the future buyers of tomorrow into "brand equity". Today's xA buyer is tomorrow's Matrix buyer and perhaps later on a Highlander Hybrid buyer.
But for some companies' entry level subcompacts, the experience told them "never again for this brand".
Would any sane person who bought the Daewoo-based 1988-1994 Pontiac Le Mans ever buy a Pontiac in 1995? Very doubtful.
The "subs" have come a long way in ten years.
And sometimes, adding in a feature might not really add that much to the cost. Way back in 1981, Chrysler tried to save money by making the rear windows on the 4-door K-cars stationary. The window itself didn't roll down, but the little quarter window in the door flipped out. It didn't go over very well with the public, and halfway through the 1982 model year, Chrysler started making the rear windows roll down, and making the little flip out window stationary. It turned out that making the rear windows roll didn't add any more to the manufacturing cost than making them stationary.
Too bad GM didn't learn that lesson with their RWD intermediates. However, in GM's case, they hollowed out the door panels, recessing the armrests, so there was just no place for the window to roll down into. So GM would have had to redesign the interior trim on the door panel, design a bolt-on armrest, and possibly modify the door itself. The big difference back then was that GM was so big it could cut corners like this and we'd still buy them. Or if we didn't buy these cars specifically, GM still had something else that we most likely would buy. Chrysler didn't have that luxury.
If Toyota is selling the xA at a loss in the hopes of building up brand loyalty, more power to 'em, as that is a good way to go. The only problem though, from what I see at least, is these xA's are mainly getting snatched up by retirees and commuters and housewives who just want a cheap economy knockabout to run into the ground. Chances are, when it gets worn out, they're just going to buy another cheap knockabout, instead of moving up the ladder to somethning more profitable.
I have no doubt that making the xA, stick or automatic as the only factory options except side curtain airbags, is cheap enough for Toyota to be making a decent profit on it despite its low price.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
There have always been two schools of thought on this. One has been that Detroit, and other makers, have always tried to cram these mammoth, gas-guzzling dinosaurs down our throats. The other is that we demanded they build the damned things! The reality, I suspect, is somewhere in the middle.
I don't miss the temperature gauge. Cars with modern electronics does not have a real temperature gauge, anyway. The software controlling the instrument cluster is programmed to allow it to gradually increase as the engine warms up to operating temperature, but so long as the coolant temperature stays within a certain range, say, 170-220, the gauge is going to read top dead center (190 degrees). It only goes up once the temperature is out of range, and then, it typically goes all the way to the peg on the meter. Since a gauge like this has very little usefulness, I have no issue with its absence.
Y'know, I thought I was the only person who ever noticed this. Thank you, THANK YOU, Corvette! ;-) Actually, I've noticed it about most Toyota 4-cylinder engines. Now I'm used to bigger engines, so truthfully most 4-cylinders don't sound so hot to me. I'd almost rather hear an underpowered 20-30 year old 305, a Mopar 360 that lost its muffler, or some old Pontiac mill or a "real" Hemi than your typical 4-cyl. But IMO, there's just something coarse sounding about the Toyota 4-cylinders. The one in my uncle's '03 Corolla sounds Briggs & Stratton-ish to me, I heard a Rav4 the other day, and really paid attention to it, and thought it sounded pretty crude, and I probably hear a Camry starting up about every 5 minutes in the parking lot. But then Hondas don't bother me.
Could it be because Hondas still use timing belts, while Toyotas use chains? Nissan's 2.5 4-cyl sounds a bit rough to me as well, another engine that uses a chain.
Now with the exception of an '88 LeBaron I once had, every single car I've ever owned has used a timing chain. I wonder if there's just something inherent about a 4-cylinder engine that makes use of a timing chain, verus a belt, that much more noticeable than it would in a 6- or 8-cyl engine?
I liked the look of them, and might have ended up with one, but I didn't like the raised seat - it almost made me feel like I was driving a truck.