What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

texases

$2.07 now in DFW...

kyfdx

$1.97-$2.03 in the Cincinnati area on Monday.. :P

thegraduate

$1.83 in Bartlesville, Oklahoma.

WOW.

For the record, Birmingham is averaging around $2.37 (per GasBuddy.com), which is actually ABOVE the national average. For as long as I can remember, gas here was always cheaper than average, until Hurricane Ike struck. It's actually $2.03 on the Gulf Coast of AL, where my parents live.

They couldn't be happier with their big V6 Taurus (avg 25 MPG) haha. They almost went with a Versa. Sure, prices will go back up, but hopefully not for a little while.

The Versa is still a big bargain at $11k.

nippononly

the interesting thing about the new base Versa is that they put in a smaller engine as part of making it cheaper. I would like to see this happen for all small models - the Fit/Jazz uses smaller engines in other parts of the world, so does the Aveo. And in the case of the Yaris Toyota appears to be getting ready to follow Nissan's lead, with a smaller engine among other changes designed to get cost down.

Me, I am all for it, as we might get a few cars with really superlative fuel economy again, without having to buy a hybrid to do better than 40 mpg....

thegraduate

The Versa is rated for 26/34 in 1.6L form, which is lower than the heavier, more comfortable, and more powerful Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic. Also, you mention having the other brands use smaller engined models; well, the 1.6L Versa is a bigger engine than the TOP model of Fit and Yaris. Just a bit of info that may have been overlooked.

nippononly

Oh yes certainly, the Versa is a poor example of what I was saying because its fuel economy is so utterly mediocre for a car its size. I was thinking that the Honda and the Toyota could have substantially better ratings than that - the Honda does much better on the European testing cycle with the smaller engine, and Toyota is aiming for a combined 40 mpg with the 1.3L Yaris, which would top everything powered only by gas today.

andre1969

Actually the Versa doesn't seem TOO bad, if you get the 1.8/CVT. The EPA has it pegged at 27/33 (29 combined). The Corolla 1.8/4-speed auto is 27/35 (30 combined) and the Civic 1.8/5-speed auto is 25/36 (29 combined).

I guess if you do a lot of highway driving, the Corolla or Civic are better choices, but the Versa looks like a good choice for local driving. The EPA website doesn't list a 1.6 Versa, at least not that I can find, but they do show a 1.8/4speed auto rated at 24/32...not very impressive.

ateixeira

I guess the other thing is the Versa isn't really a sub-compact - it's a compact.

Compared to the Aveo hatch (I looked this up) it is more than 2 FEET longer. Wow.

I've sat inside and even the back seat is roomy. It doesn't really feel small. In fact I wonder if it's actually roomier than the Sentra.

kyfdx

I agree about the interior of the Versa... A big step up from the Honda FIT..

However, I was unimpressed with the drive.... Even the six-speed was not that great..

(no offense to PF Flyer who has one, and likes it just fine).

texases

WSJ had a article yesterday about small car regrets. The point being that people who 'traded down' to save gas found themselves missing things...like electric windows and CD players! What a bunch of maroons! Just about any compact car can be equipped comfortably, it's like these people panicked. :sick:

ateixeira

Sounds like they just picked the wrong model.

stever

When you say big step up for the interior of the Versa, I know you mean the materials and such. But the rear seat makes a big box on the floor when you try to lay everything flat. The Fit and xD are better that way for those of us who carry junk more than we carry passengers.

My wife didn't like not being able to see the front edges of the Versa, but the MT one we tested did drive ok.

They still look pretty small to me but I guess having 5 doors rules them out of the sub-compact class.

andre1969

I've sat inside and even the back seat is roomy. It doesn't really feel small. In fact I wonder if it's actually roomier than the Sentra.

Overall it's not as big as the Sentra, although the Versa might have a bit more legroom in back. However, believe it or not, the EPA classifies the Sentra as an intermediate! I've sat in the Versa at the auto shows, and to me it feels like they managed to mate the front seat of a compact with the back seat of a midsize. The Sentra's a lot bigger up front. I think the back seat might be tighter, legroom-wise than the Versa, but I don't remember it feeling cramped.

However, the Sentra is still small for a midsized car...97 cubic feet of interior room and 13 cubic feet of trunk, for a combined total of 110. The range for an intermediate is 110-119. And most midsized cars tend to push the upper end of that range. The Accord, at 106/14, is actually classified as a full-sized car!

kyfdx

Yeah.. I didn't look into the utility of it... Just passenger seating and materials, as you noted..

I did end up with a sedan, and regret not paying the extra for a hatch, though.. Even though the wife has recently rectified that issue, by trading her convertible for an SUV, I still wish I had a hatch..

stever

Bob says the Versa still carries a ton of stuff even with the rear seat not folding flat, and some people build a box to make a flat surface back there.

We've always had sedans, wagons or vans, so a hatch would be a nice change.

nippononly

Hey, Jolie (akangl) is quoted in that article! Way to go! :-)

The only subcompacts without standard A/C were the Aveo before (that has ended now) and for '09 the Versa. Do you know how hard you had to search to find one actualy built without factory A/C?

Ditto a CD player - try finding a base Yaris without the factory CD. Dealers usually only bring them in for fleet orders.

Most subcompacts sold will have both. Now hand crank windows are easier to find, although you still have to search a bit. My point is that the woman in the article who traded an expensive Buick for an Aveo clearly had enough money to buy one with a CD player, she just didn't think before purchasing. Even an Aveo with the full power package should have been within reach of someone with a Buick budget.

As for those of us who like their cars basic, it gratifies me that we can still find a few where we can crank up the windows by hand if we so choose...

dbarclay

This is my first post, sorry if this has recently been discussed.

I just read the civic hybrid vs. Fit article on edmunds. I don't understand what is going on with fuel economy in these smaller cars. I recently sold a '99 civic ex 5-speed that got 40 mpg highway, and low to mid 30's mpg city over the span of 9 years. I believe the car had 127 hp. When I purchased the car, gas was 99 cents a gallon, and I don't recall any type of big push for better fuel economy in cars. That same year ('99)you could buy a civic HX rated at 45 mpg highway.

I would think that in 2008 we should be moving forward to better fuel economy, not backwards. Are the auto makers having to meet more strict emissions, thus cutting down on fuel economy, or is fuel economy still really not that big of a concern for the auto industry?

andre1969

I would think that in 2008 we should be moving forward to better fuel economy, not backwards. Are the auto makers having to meet more strict emissions, thus cutting down on fuel economy, or is fuel economy still really not that big of a concern for the auto industry?

I think if you compare similar-weight cars over the years, you'll find that fuel economy has improved. The problem though, is that cars keep growing, both in size and weight. And more safety features are getting added. Plus increasing emissions standards. And let's not forget the demand for power.

FWIW, the EPA has the 1999 Civic HX rated at 30/38 for the stick and 29/35 with the automatic. That's using the revised, lower estimates that they use on current cars. For comparison, the regular versions of the Civic were rated at 27/34 for the stick, 24/32 for the automatic.

The current 2009 Civic is rated at 26/34 for the stick, 25/36 for the automatic. So that's a pretty decent jump for the auto, about a wash for the stick. But the modern Civic is bigger, heavier, and more powerful than the 1999 was. As for the HX, didn't those cars have to do without amenities such as power steering and air conditioning, and also used skinnier tires and taller gearing? If so, that was probably just too much of a sacrifice for most buyers to deal with, so it wasn't popular enough for Honda to build a modern equivalent.

I wonder though, what kind of economy you could get out of a 2009 Civic if you could somehow custom-order one with no a/c or power steering, throw skinnier tires on it, and play around with the gearing?

nippononly

Are the auto makers having to meet more strict emissions, thus cutting down on fuel economy, or is fuel economy still really not that big of a concern for the auto industry?

Fuel economy hasn't been a big concern until two years ago, which is why the cars you have available today still reflect that old way of thinking.

And there's no guarantee that automakers will continue to prioritize it now, if gas prices drop down and stay low for the next few years.

And of course, a lot of older models that were very fuel-efficient were also quite slow by today's standards. My wish is that automakers would start to produce some slower cars again, because they could save a lot of gas if they did. Commuter cars don't need to do 0-60 in 7 seconds, or even 8 or 9.

Nissan has made a preliminary step in that direction by offering a 1.6L Versa for '09, with a lower base price. If Toyota does go ahead and follow suit with the 1.3L Yaris, we may see others follow suit. Rumor has it that Honda may be considering a similar step for the Fit.

dbarclay

I can't recall the specifics on the HX civic, as far as options.

I am sure the new civic hybrid, or non-hybrid are a safer, better car overall now than they were 10 years ago. But, I was just surprised to see a mix city/highway real world test of a hybrid version getting only 36 mpg, within a couple mpg of what I got out of a non hybrid model 10 years ago.

I luckily always got better mpg than listed for that civic. That is not the case with my wife's 02 corolla which has overall done a few mpg lower than the sticker estimate.

I wonder what happened to the Honda insight? With $4.00 gas prices a couple months ago, I am surprised it did not come back into production.

ateixeira

EPA changed the way it calculated the numbers, so they dropped across the board about 10% in 2006 IIRC.

They did it ealier, too. I forget when.

So we can't compare EPA numbers from the 1980s to today's numbers. They've been adjusted downward at least twice.

The other issue is mentioned above - the Sentra is now mid-sized, and the Accord is full-sized.

Today's Sentra is more efficient than Nissan's mid-sizer from a decade ago (Altima). Just like a full-size Accord 4 cylinder easily beats any full-sizer from the 90s.

kyfdx

The numbers changed (dropped) beginning with the 2008 models, I'm pretty sure..

stever

You can review the old and new EPA numbers side by side at fueleconomy.gov. At least for years between '85 and '07.

andre1969

EPA changed the way it calculated the numbers, so they dropped across the board about 10% in 2006 IIRC.

They did it ealier, too. I forget when.

The first time they adjusted the numbers was 1985. From 1978-84 they'd publish the raw numbers, although sometimes instead of giving you city/highway AND combined, they'd just show the combined number.

If you dig around on the EPA's website, there's a place where you can download data files that show you the raw, unadjusted numbers. My 2000 Intrepid, which was EPA-rated 20/29 when I bought it, and something like 18/27 by the new numbers, scored something like 24/38 in the raw, unadjusted numbers! The Impala, back when it used the 3.4 V-6, got 24/41!

My uncle's 2003 Corolla, with automatic, scored 32/48 in the raw numbers. Its window sticker said 30/38, and I guess it's dumbed down to 25/36 with the 2008 numbers.

Oh, and just for kicks, a Toyota Echo with the stick shift scored 39/54 in the raw numbers. Something for you to shoot for, Nippononly! :P

texases

Those EPA raw numbers sound something like the numbers from the European tests. Their Prius numbers are about 20% better than ours, for example.

nippononly

Oh, and just for kicks, a Toyota Echo with the stick shift scored 39/54 in the raw numbers. Something for you to shoot for, Nippononly!

Shoot, I can match or beat those, andre. In fact, in town I do so regularly, as my running average is 42 mpg, handily topping that 39 figure.

On all-highway trips, I have gotten into the low 50s on highways with an SL of 65 or less. Doing 70+ all day long with A/C running, it pulls only 46-49 mpg.

More power to the subcompacts! :-P

andre1969

Shoot, I can match or beat those, andre. In fact, in town I do so regularly, as my running average is 42 mpg, handily topping that 39 figure.

I shudder to think how slow I'd have to drive my Intrepid to get its raw figures of 24 city/38 highway. Probably so slow it would be dangerous! The best I ever got was around 32.5, averaging 55-60, occasionally getting up to 65 or so, and no a/c use.

I guess with a stick shift being more of a direct connection, it's easier to meet or beat the EPA estimates, even old raw numbers?

nippononly

I guess with a stick shift being more of a direct connection, it's easier to meet or beat the EPA estimates, even old raw numbers?

Oh yes, absolutely, and the smaller the engine, the more true that is, so it's particularly true for most subcompacts.

lilengineerboy

Yeah I saw that article and thought they were a bunch of idiots as well. They also mentioned driving in snow and bad weather as an issue, but I have found the cars in ditches are the SUVs and conversion vans, typically.

andre1969

I thought the story where the dude's wife, daughter, and 4 friends wanted to take a road trip but none of their cars were big enough, so he let them use his 1974 Imperial! Couldn't they have just rented a minivan? I doubt if that Imperial could get more than 15-16 mpg out on the highway unless you babied it. Heck, I'm lucky to see much more than that out of my '79 New Yorker, and it's downright dainty compared to that thing!

If fuel economy was such a concern, it seems to me that would be the way to go. Any minivan worth a darn should be able to get at least mid 20's on the highway, I'd imagine.

ateixeira

54 highway in the Echo? Yowsah. At what, 46mph? Downhill? While drafting?

dhectorg

I've had my ;09 fit sport manual for a couple weeks and have 2 tanks of gas behind me. i've decided to track my fuel economy for the life of the car, so i can see if it actually improves as the engine wears in.

anyway, my 1`st tank mileage was 34mpg with a 25% highway 75% city split. my 2nd tank turned in 36mpg with a 40% highway 60% city split.

any any case, i'm very please with these numbers and i believe they'll only improve. i'd like to get 40+ no matter what type of driving i'm doing. only time will tell if that's possible.

dg

ateixeira

I agree - those are some good numbers with a green engine.

boaz47

I still have a problem with sub compacts not getting better fuel mileage than they do. In 2002 I bought a Saturn SL and traded in my old Dodge RamCharger. After a few weeks I needed a second car to commute with so I could leave the SL home for my wife. I picked up a 95 or 96 SC-1 to drive daily. Now I will admit the car got more freeway miles than city driving but I could pull in 40 MPG fairly regularly. 36 was my average. The SL got closer to 32 average and sometimes when it didn't see the freeway it got 28. Now close to seven years later the cars are even smaller and still they are in the 30s. One of my cycling club friends has a Smart and he gets 40, half the car and the same mileage as my old Saturn. I can also remember many in these forums assuring us the Smart would get better mileage but the proof is in the numbers.

If I am going to give up comfort and utility then they are going to have to give me a better price and better fuel mileage.

andre1969

54 highway in the Echo? Yowsah. At what, 46mph? Downhill? While drafting?

Well, Nippononly claims he can meet or beat that, so I guess it's conceivable. I have a friend who used to have a 1990 Dodge Dynasty with the 3.3 V-6 and 4-speed automatic (the one infamous for early failure), then a 1995 Nissan Maxima with a 5-speed, and now he has a 2001.5 Passat with the V-6/stick. He claims he's been able to get upper 30's and even lower 40's on occasion, with all of them. I've ridden with him a few times, and he would drive so slow it would scare me! He'd also do stuff like turn off the car and let it coast. I guess it would be possible for those stick-shift cars to get that kind of economy if you try hypermiling. They were probably EPA rated around 29-30 highway anyway, which would probably mean raw numbers of around 38-40. I have no idea how he got the Die-Nasty to get that kind of economy though...it was only rated at 19/26.

He has a 2002 or so BMW 5-series, that he bought about a year ago. I rode with him last year on a trip, and he was getting around 31-32 mpg. Mostly highway driving, but he was getting a bit aggressive. It's a stick shift, and I think was rated around 21/30. So if you can actually get aggressive with a stick shift and still beat the EPA estimate, it really makes me wonder why the EPA tends to rate stickshift cars so low to begin with?

The only time I've really been able to beat the EPA estimates with an automatic transmission car is to drive it gently. And with my uncle's 2003 Corolla, that STILL didn't quite do the trick. It was EPA-rated at 38 highway, and I got 37.4. Okay, so maybe that's close enough, but doing the same type of old lady driving got my 29 mpg highway Intrepid up to about 32.5!

thegraduate

If you want to know a true difference, look at standardized testing numbers.

That Saturn SC-1 was rated 27/37 under the old system (23/33 now). You drove a lot of highway and got 36 MPG on average. Sounds like you got about what it was rated.

While you don't tell us whether or not the SL was the SOHC or the DOHC engine (or even if it was actually new), I'll assume it was the DOHC and a 2002. With an automatic, it is rated at 24/34 under the old system, 21/31 under the new system.

Those numbers (21/31) are the same as my 166hp 2006 Accord! I'd say things have certainly improved, with powerful midsize cars getting the same mileage that sub-130hp subcompacts were getting 6 or 7 years ago.

ateixeira

Yes, but you get diminishing returns.

They are smaller but they are still driving the same speeds. You can't get a tiny engine as tall as you can gear a big one. Look at the Corvette. 6th gear is something like 0.5:1. That's because the big, torquey engine can handle it without bogging down.

When you use a small engine 1.6l, or even 600cc, you can't really gear them that tall. They would bog down badly or perhaps even stall.

andre: my reaction was to the EPA's unadjusted numbers.

boaz47

I admitted I drove more highway miles and the sedan was the SL-2. My son still has a SL-1 and he has almost no real city driving but he still gets close to 40 MPG. So whatever the excuse is it is still had to accept a new sub compact that can't beat a 7 year old compact in mileage. Yes I know why but it doesn't make a person want to invest in the smaller car. And I knew people with Camrys and Corollas that got close to the same mileage as a SL-1.

( I will give you a break and not mention the WRC standings today.)

But I now understand why the Smart car has been in the red in Europe for just about day one. So many of these sub compacts just don't offer much more than smallness. And cars like the smart don't even offer low entry cost compared to established compacts.

nippononly

54 highway in the Echo? Yowsah. At what, 46mph? Downhill? While drafting?

54 highway of course was the number for the stick shift, NOT the automatic (big difference in the case of the Echo).

I managed 51 mpg in my Echo running around 63 mph steadily for almost 400 miles without A/C. I could EASILY see getting 54 mpg running at 55 mph all day long, although I doubt I would ever have the patience to do so.

stever

I agree that the Sma...er, smart car has a lot of competitors in Europe, many of which are priced cheaper.

Lots of Kas, Legiers, Kalos, Aixams, etc. to choose from over there. Harder for the smart to stand out and make a buck. Let me plug my photo album. :-)

boaz47

Interesting cars you have there.

explorerx4

it doesn't say how long the trip was, but even if the van got 25 mpg, you still have the cost of renting a vehicle and you better hope it doesn't have any problems.
if you took the train ride from dc to nyc, you might be tempted to rent a car for the return trip.

boaz47

By the way I once got a chance to drive a Morgan. You know what I found the most interesting things about it don't you?

stever

Wooden chassis?

Wild guess, since I don't anything about them other than what's on their web site.

boaz47

No, some of them we propane powered.

joshuag

I also had a Saturn SL 5-speed for many years, and I also noticed that it got between 33-40 mpg. My brother has a 2005 Saturn Ion and gets about the same mpg. I think the problem with cars getting the same mpg that they did 15 years ago comes down to the more and more crazy 'Cafe' standards and smog standards that actually make cars get worse gas mileage.

snakeweasel

I think the problem with cars getting the same mpg that they did 15 years ago comes down to the more and more crazy 'Cafe' standards and smog standards that actually make cars get worse gas mileage.

Not only that but you have to understand that there is the law of diminishing returns. Basically this states that every increase of 1 MPG takes more effort, better technology and costs more. Its easy to increase the fuel economy of an inefficient car but more difficult to increase the fuel economy of an efficient one.

boaz47

I agree completely. CAFE and CARB hove done more to hinder fuel mileage because the manufacturers didn't have to try to win over the consumer. They could quote the CAFE standards and thump their chests.

tifighter

what's wrong does NOT seem to be the price:
Price war

That accent seems like a pretty good deal...

boaz47

Now that is a move in the right direction for a sub compact. It points out the glaring problem with the Smart car and why it has been in the red for so many years.