What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

crimsona

The USDM Honda Fit using a last-gen engine is using a chain. I'd expect the Civic to be chain as well. Beyond that, I won't even bother to speculate.

kyfdx

Accords and CR-Vs are using a chain now, as well...

Mr_Shiftright

Well now really a real "Hemi" sounds mostly like a threshing machine...a very LOUD threshing machine. I agree, though, Honda and BMW make a very smooth engines--they have that down.

I have to say I don't notice any coarseness or cheapness in the xA...it feels no different to me than most Japanese cars at twice the price. It is absurdly easy to drive. Ergonomics are top notch, clutch is like BUDDAH as they say in New York.

What is noticeable is modest handling qualities and a busy engine at 85 mph. You can tell they skimped on tires for sure. But the doors feel solid and the controls are nicely weighted. As for DUABILITY of materials....well, we'll have to wait and see about that.

I'm determined to make a real car out of it.

mwqa

What is noticeable is ... a busy engine at 85 mph.

So what do these subcompacts need to address this problem? More power? A mythical 6th gear?

Isn't the major problem with these cars how they run at highway speeds?

boaz47

More power would seem to obvious answer to me. After all is a heavier Civic and Corolla can get better fuel mileage than the lighter Fit it only stands to reason the limiting factor to most sub compacts at highway speeds is the power to cruise at higher speeds with taller gears. Power or torque are needed. And that is pretty much what I said in the very beginning. Sub Compacts almost always start out as basic transportation vehicles and end up as something more. And after a few years of power and size evolution, we have another rash of sub compacts hit our shores, as the solution that our cousins overseas have found. And we modify for our needs.

mwqa

So what's the ideal HP for a car the size and weight of a Versa/Yaris/Fit?

Some say these cars are already overpowered. :confuse:

andre1969

can be a tricky thing sometimes, because there are so many other variables.

For instance, my 2000 Intrepid has 200 hp and weighs about 3400-3500 lb, which gives it a power-to-weight ratio of about 17 lb/hp. A 2000 Impala with a 3.8 also has 200 hp, and weighs about the same, so its ratio is the same.

But the Impala with the 3.8 is good for 0-60 in about 8 seconds, and is EPA-rated around 20/30 I think. My Intrepid's only good for 0-60 in around 9.5, and is EPA-rated at 20/29. I'm sure torque, gearing, transmissions, as well as torque and hp across the entire rpm band as opposed to just peak numbers, all come into play.

I'm too lazy to look it up this morning, but I wonder if a FIT or Yaris actually has a worse torque-to-weight ratio than a Civic or Corolla? That would mean that the engines would have to rev faster, and might be able to deliver similar performance, but not nessarily similar fuel economy?

stickguy

People are spoiled these days. Soemthing as light as a Fit or yaris has plenty of power for their intended purpose, especially if yo get them (as God intended) with a stick shift, and actually use the lever occassionally.

My '85 Colt had a whopping 68 HP (maybe 2,100 lbs?). That was a little doggy pulling long hills though.

My '86 323 (maybe 2,300?) had 82 Hp and 92 lb/ft., and was actually pretty sprightly. Cruised along nicely on the highway, would do 75, plenty quick around town.

Heck, my '91 626 (about 2,800+?) only had 110/130 (so it was a little torquey), and that car was plenty quick. Got up to speed nicely, cruised happily at 70+, and even pulled well at highway speeds.

Again, the biggest issues with some of these small cars is they are geared real short. Either lenghten 5 th gear and let people downshift when needed, or just add a 6th cog like Nissan.

andre1969

who had a 1995 or so Maxima, telling me that he hated the way the stick shift pulled a higher rpm in top gear than the automatic did. Most people don't buy a stick shift Maxima for fuel economy, but this guy likes to hyper-mile, and could sometimes get high 30's out of his old Dynasty, and I think hits it pretty regularly with his '01.5 Passat.

One thing that's kind funny about small cars and people complaining about them being underpowered...I've noticed that since smaller cars tend to be louder, more buzzy, and have to rev more, they sound like they're going faster than they really are! One of my friends used to have a '98 Tracker with a 3-speed automatic, and it was usually pulling about 3500+ rpm just at 55 mph! Plus, with it being so lightweight and bouncy, it just made 55 seem fast. I think to get 3500 rpm out of most of the cars I've had, I'd have to hit about 100 mph, unless I made it downshift.

A lot of newer small cars actually are capable of keeping the rpms down at higher speeds, thanks to overdrive automatics and such. For instance, I don't think my uncle's '03 Corolla revs much higher out on the freeway than my Intrepid does. So maybe that's one reason people think alot of them are underpowered? A larger 6 or 8-cyl engine still often has a strong, muscular sound to it even when it's loafing, but in contrast maybe people don't feel like they're getting power out of a 4-cyl unless it's screaming?

boaz47

Whatever the reason, in the example Shifty was talking about, the sound and feel at high cruising speed can be assisted by lower RPMS at that speed. We have all driven cars that have an ideal cruising speed of 55 where engine and transmission seem to just feel right. I have had cars that this speed was 60 or 70. My old Camaro liked 70 and was turning about 2000 rpm, give or take, in overdrive doing it. If the same weight car has less HP or torque cruising at higher speeds will require more RPMs and that pushes the engine closer to red line where the noise and business starts to make itself felt. It seems only natural to ask for a bit more power to solve this problem. I don't know how else you can solve it.

snakeweasel

One thing that's kind funny about small cars and people complaining about them being underpowered...

I think it partially stems from some people expecting more race car like performance from them. You see a lot of kids getting these things, modifying the engine and exhaust and thinking they are hot until the blue haired lady in the V6 Camry leaves them in the dust. You buy that type of car for the economy not for racing.

One of my friends used to have a '98 Tracker with a 3-speed automatic, and it was usually pulling about 3500+ rpm just at 55 mph!

My sister bought a Miata when they first came out. I was surprised that in to gear it was pulling between 3000-3500 at 55MPH. But I think with todays cars with more than 3 speeds and/or overdrive solve that problem. My Elantra is only pulling about 2500 RPMs at 65 MPH. I would hate to see what the Caddy would be doing at 3500 RPM's.

Now if you can keep up with traffic that is accelerating at a moderate pace with little effort and can get up to a reasonable speed by the end of a normal on ramp then as far as I am concerned the car has adequet power.

boaz47

The problem is evident even when supporters of sub compacts speak of sub compacts. Nippon and Shifty make a great effort to avoid words that have become common when speaking about sub compacts. Words like, "entry level", "adequet", "for a sub compact', "considering", "what they are intended for", and even "economy". In a word what is wrong with sub compacts is perception and I just don't see that perception changing in the American mind. We may get to a point where we settle for or get used to the idea but it goes against the very grain of the American success attitude. Look at even the description and see if it doesn't conjure up a negative image. Some have tried to change the image and don't use the word Sub-compact much. But putting sub before compact sounds like sub-human, sub-par, sub-standard. Size and power do equate to a better image in the US. The status of a vehicle can be defined by what it is called. Sub-compact is less than compact. Compact is less than mid-sized and mid-sized sounds less than full sized. It may be all perception but it will be hard to get passed the language of description.

andre1969

if they came up with a word other than "subcompact", these smaller cars would have more respect with the masses? I wonder when the term was coined, anyway? I know once upon a time there were just "standard-sized" cars, and everything else. Where "standard" basically meant anything from a '57 Chevy or maybe a Studebaker on up, and something like a Rambler or smaller car would've been called a "compact". Would something like a Metropolitan have been called a "compact" or something else? I think way back in the old days, those tiny little American Austins and American Bantams were actually called "Midget-cars!"

I remember Consumer Reports doing a review of the 1960 compacts, and they said that the Corvair was technically a subcompact.

But "Sub-" does tend to conjure up inferior connotations. Right offhand I can't think of anything else that's any better though. "Mini-car" also sounds like something that you wouldn't take seriously, like it's still "less than" a "real" car. And I doubt that "Midget-car" would fly in today's PC environment! :P

snakeweasel

You're right its all perception, and fair or not perception creates its own reality. The language being used does promote that perception. But I have always held to what Bill Shaksphear once said, "a rose by another name". You can change the names and terminology and it will be just the same (at least for me it would be). Kind of like when "used" became "pre-owned".

snakeweasel

And I doubt that "Midget-car" would fly in today's PC environment!

Little people car?

mwqa

Just call them what they are called in the UK: a 'supermini'.

Or will that infringe on the Mini Cooper trademark?? :P

bumpy

if they came up with a word other than "subcompact", these smaller cars would have more respect with the masses?

"Supermini" seems to work well in Europe, but those are hatchbacks.

I still think the best way to improve the reputation of subcompacts is to offer high-power versions. The Si did a lot for the Civic in the '90s, and the original Sentra SE-R is still a sweet-riding icon. These days however, the only subcompact sold in the US with a performance option is the Mini Cooper S, and it seems to have largely avoided the 'econobox' stigma as a result. Bring over fun stuff like the Opel Corsa turbo or the Renault Clio V6.

carlisimo

Like those mini Snickers bars. Not that THOSE are fun at all, but fun-sized cars can be. Potentially. If they're made by a company that tries to build fun into them.

john500

If you believe there is a perception problem, why don't you go to a Toyota or Honda dealer and try to make your best deal on a Yaris or Fit or even one of the existing compact lines (Corolla or Civic) to rule out the "just came out" factor. Determine the percentage off of the MSRP that you get. Do the same thing with a large "status-based" car. I'd be very surprised if you get a better deal. The tides are changing. There is nothing wrong with riding around in a sub-compact car. It is an evolutionary leap in consciousness (one that Americans are just realizing) to realize that moving mass takes energy, energy costs either labor or money, and why move extra mass if you don't have to. Otherwise, why don't we all just gain 200 pounds of status fat on our bodies.

nippononly

Or the Suzuki Swift GT! :-) (I only wish that would come here)

For about half of all American drivers (or maybe a few more, eh?!) the perfect engine would be a huge displacement V-8 diesel making in excess of 500 lb-ft of torque at 1800 rpm. Yes, maybe it would only make 200 hp, but they would never have to rev it at all, and it would run along at maybe 1500 rpm at 70 mph. These folks hate to actually REV the huge, high-powered engines they paid so much money for, and many of these are the people you see merging onto the freeway at 45 because they're scared of the engine note above 3000 rpm.

More than that, America is the land of excess - excess food (supersize me), excess space (10,000 sq ft McMansions for families with one child), and excess car size and engine displacement. Some are proud of this as some kind of demonstration of American prowess, others are merely so attached to it they could never adjust to a new way of thinking.

For everyone else, cars like this new wave of small cars are just the ticket, much as they are to the rest of the not-so-insular-as-the-U.S. world. For these people, many of the excessive items listed above seem wasteful, polluting, and inefficient, not to mention less fun. The advantages of less weight in a car are many, but not everyone can appreciate them. "Oh well" for those that can't. :-/

I do think the new group of B-segment cars has a bright future for the remainder of the '00s. Beyond that, we have to see how urban trends and the price of gas change, not to mention what the future of diesel and hybrids is.

boaz47

Are you saying there isn't a perception problem? Are you telling us that sub Compacts have the same or better status in the US as a mid sized Accord or Camry. Do you think they will replace the F series trucks in our lifetime. Honestly you believe that America is about to take off on a sub-compact craze like they did with the Mini-Van, or the SUV? Are we talking those kinds of numbers?

Nippon,
I will be gone for three weeks, please remind me when I get back what the answer was to these questions. I am truly interested in hearing how the sub compact is going to be view as compared to the Accords and Camrys. I understand the statement but is this a new revolution in America? Or will this simply allow people to get a Sub compact because they simply offer more choices?

boaz47

That is the whole point isn't it? Will America change? We may be boosted by being the only superpower left standing. For as many years as any of us in here can remember size has mattered. You are so correct when you mention houses, cars, boats, food, entertainment, supermarkets, football stadiums,and even our race tracks.

We as a nation have always had an attitude of, we can do it if we try. We have a space program and a successful one because we believe we can. Our cousins don't. The former USSR did but they failed trying to keep up with this excessive attitude. We have more paved highways than anywhere else and we drive freely on them. To the average consumer the attitude of Europe and Asia is one of resignation or even failure to try to do better. Yes, I agree we are impressed with ourselves. Yes I agree we need to leave more for others. But I don't believe we are ready as a nation to accept we have to just yet. And because of that I have to leave the desire to make people change to you and Shifty. A positive attitude is the one you both possess. I only debate the effect on the rest of your neighbors. I respect your choice even if it would never work for me.

snakeweasel

I truly believe that with the current gas prices and the fact that they will most likely remain high and get higher you will see more and more sub compacts out there. With a two car family you might see the trend of one full or mid sized car and one compact or subcompact.

beantown

If we do see more subcompacts out there, it will have nothing to do with gas prices and everything to do with the fact that the selection has gotten better. If gas/oil prices were really that important to people, then we would all buy smaller houses. It's not happening....even though you'd save waaaaaay more money and fossil fuels by buying a smaller house than by buying a slightly smaller car.

snakeweasel

You are talking apples and oranges here. I really don't think you can compare the two in the way you do. First off it is far easier to make a home more energy efficent, along with far more ways to do it than with a car. Even something as simple as installing a programmable thermostat can greatly reduce home fuel bills. Add other things like more insulation and weather stripping can do a lot to reduce fuel consumption. About all you can do with a car is not to use a lead foot, keep the tires properly inflated and to keep the engine tuned.

Secondly a house is shelter and a car is transportation and people will act differently when it comes to their house than they would with their car because of that.

Finally I have a good size house and I still put more cash into my cars tank than I do into heating the home.

john500

Good angle. I see your point now - Can America change? That really depends on marketing (ie can a cultural pop icon convince the average person that it is cool to ride around in a small car) and market forces (what direction are the automakers trying to drive the market - fuel prices and availability) as Nippon indicated. Classism and one-upping your neighbor is such an intrinsic part of American life that it is hard to imagine US drivers as all nearly equivalent riding around in 1000-1500 lb cars (although maybe not if Honda brought back the CRX). I suppose it ulimately depends on whether the US wants to endure as a society or if the US wants to retain their excessive lifestyle and economically collapse.

iluvmysephia1

as the New World Order Honda CRX from 1988. My local Honda dealer has a metallic blue Fit(great color for one of these micro-auto's)but it's an automatic(what were they thinking there?)tranny, so I'm snubbing it, yes I am. But if ever Honda were to put out a new "CRX-Mobile" I think they have now done it with this Fit of theirs. It weighs 2,481 lbs, though.

No wonder these smaller cars aren't getting 50 mpg, look at their weight, dudes! :P

Mr_Shiftright

These little cars have PLENTY of power for modern roads, that's not what they need per se. I think if they gave these small cars a bit more of an overdrive in 5th, that's all they'd need to do. You don't want 6 gears on a 1.5 liter car---you'd be rowing it like a slot machine. My car really pulls 5th gear on the highway, so I know it could have more overdrive in 5th.

Right now, about 70 mph is perfect for noise level, power, etc.---basically indistinguishable from most 4 cylinder cars...but you start to bump it up and you get engine noise/fan noise.

Heck, even more sound insulation would do the trick. The engine is perfectly happy revving up. I'm sure it could sit at 4,000 rpm all day no sweat at 85 mph.

PERCEPTION: Perceptions DO change and they ARE changing. Some cars of the 70s are now laughably big and clumsy to the modern eye, whereas back then they were thought to be the paragon of "the safe heavy road car".

We don't know beforehand how perceptions will change (if we did we could sell that knowledge). It's perfectly possible that a large SUV or big 2006 4-door luxury car will seem absurd to people in ten years.

Intelligent design is a powerful influence, in housing, cars, you name it. It can be sexy, prestigious and affordable and doesn't have to be made of gold and silver. Ask IKEA about this.

johnnyvj

I agree, perceptions ARE indeed starting to change, and I think $3 gas is making small cars more fashionable.

All I know is, my next vehicle will be a small car (Fit or Versa), and if some behemoth gas-guzzling SUV pulls up next to me at a stop and the driver points and laughs, I'll just smile and ask him how much he enjoys his $80 fillups at the pump. :P

Even if perceptions don't change much more than they already have, buying cars for status purposes is ridiculous anyway. Anyone who'd have a lasting and markedly more favorable view of you based on what you drive is a shallow nitwit anyway, and not worthy of your time.

I say this as someone who comes from a fairly wealthy family, and who could raid the trust fund for cash for a 'status' car if I thought it at all important. I don't. :shades:

snakeweasel

PERCEPTION: Perceptions DO change and they ARE changing. Some cars of the 70s are now laughably big and clumsy to the modern eye,

Yep your right, I was in a 89 Mercury Grand Marquis and the thing seemed huge, it barely even fit in the parking space. the cars owner even mentioned that spaces are smaller now and many times she has trouble parking the thing.

sc00bs

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.

Here lies the problem, ones perception of what roomy is and is not. I do not like having people sit on top of me, or even near me in a car. I like the feeling of space around me. The smaller cars all have this feeling of being hugged, can't stand that.

I've been in cars that have less published legroom, yet feel roomier than some cars with more published legroom.

I have noticed that a lot. Even the type of seat material they use can make a difference in the way one sits in a vehicle. I was driving an Altima with leather seats and I fit in it well. When I got into a version with the cloth seats I just didn't fit the same and it was unpleasant (and I typically HATE pleather seats too).

To each his own, I just think that these tiny little cars like the FIT, Yaris, etc. are ick. By the way I drove into a dealership lot the other day in a Chevy Silverado 1500 with the long box. I believe it was one of those Scion hatchbacks and it was so small I think I could have literally fit in the back of the pickup truck. Even the salesman noticed how tiny that car is compared to a full sized truck. They were taking bets on if the car would actually fit in the back. Silly car salesmen, lol.

210delray

Standard cars, oh yes, how I remember! As if everything else was substandard. So your basic overweight Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth of the early-mid 70s (they didn't need model names -- you knew they were Impala/Caprice, LTD/Galaxie 500, and Fury) were supposedly "standard" cars. So-called intermediate cars (Chevelle, Torino, Satellite) just didn't quite measure up, although even these are huge (sizewise, not weightwise) by today's standards.

Snippet: When my late aunt's '59 Chevy "batwing" Bel Air was stolen and totaled by teenage "juvenile delinquents" in Wildwood NJ, her replacement rental was a '60 Corvair. She called it the Italian word for feces, you know, not a real car.

IIRC, this "standard" definition held up through the early 80s, when it was finally put out to pasture (after Chrysler stopped making "standard" cars).

But we could use the world definition of cars: sizes A, B, C, and D, with B=Fit, Yaris; C=Focus, Cobalt; and D=Malibu, Stratus, Camcord, Fusion. We of course don't get the tiny A cars, and I've never seen references to E or F classes, which obviously would be needed in the good old USA, and that's just for cars.

Food for thought: Is the US still number 1 in other than military might and size of the economy? And even if it is, how long do you think it will be before another country overtakes us, with China being the obvious 800-lb gorilla in the room?

PF_Flyer

About a year ago, I happened to see a 1966 Newport for sale and I stopped with my kids to show them what I learned to drive in. (I do miss that car...LOL)

My 12 year old's first reaction?

"Were the roads bigger then??"

:P

Mr_Shiftright

"how long do you think it will be before another country overtakes us, with China being the obvious 800-lb gorilla in the room? "

Some big time economists and institutes say about 25 years.

But whatever or whomever, still it seems obvious that the demand for fossil fuels around the globe is only going to increase. Cars will, of necessity, have to get smaller and more fuel-efficient--but perhaps not radically so. I for one don't expect ALL cars to be the size of sub-compacts.

Remember though, the lightest cars made in the world today are the safest (race cars). So who can say what new marvels of technology might "trickle down"?

carfanatic007

What is "ick"?

corvette

Yes, I lived with the 2.5-liter Altima for a couple of years, and the engine is harsh compared to the Accord. I think it's difficult to make large inline engines smooth (although this doesn't explain my impression of the Echo).

GM is upgrading the 2.8 liter four and 3.5 liter five in their small pickups to a 2.9 and 3.7 liters, respectively. It already sounds like a farm implement at times, and I can see the need for increased horsepower in, say, a 4x4 crew cab, but I speculate there will be NVH issues with these motors.

Mr_Shiftright

4 cylinder engines over 2.5 liters are asking for trouble with NVH--I suppose some complicated balancing system might work but at that point in cost and complexity you might as well just put in a V-6.

RE: INTERIOR ROOM-- there must be some mighty substantial people out there. I feel like I have acres of room in the xA. I'm still trying to get my mind around this 'cramped' complaint...I can readily understand the issues of engine noise and safety but this one is really strange to me. I'm sure I must be in the 80th to 90th percentile in height and weight.

I was thinking maybe what bothers some people is the unobstructed view out the windshield (no instrument panel) and the very low sill height on the doors. This might give the impression of sitting on top of the car rather than in it.

andre1969

I'm still trying to get my mind around this 'cramped' complaint.

What's not to understand, Shifty? All this means is that you're used to riding in a tiny little sardine can, and over time your mind has equated that to being what a proper car "should" be, and as a result have trouble accepting it when that criteria doesn't fall into what other people think a proper car "should" be.

We all have different mindsets and perspectives and needs, and all of our bodies are built different. Even two people of the same height could still have vastly different. And what you find to be comfortable, many others will simply find horribly cramped. Heck, some tall people might prefer to sleep curled up in a little ball, while some short people prefer the Jesus-pose...so who needs a bigger bed?

I can fit just fine in the back seat of my old '67 Catalina convertible, at the height of 6'3". But I have a friend who's only 5'7", and when he sits back there, he bangs the seatback, because he slouches. We're all different.

kyfdx

4 cylinder engines over 2.5 liters are asking for trouble with NVH--I suppose some complicated balancing system might work but at that point in cost and complexity you might as well just put in a V-6.

Didn't Porsche use a 3.0 litre 4-cylinder in the last 944 and 968 models? How did they get around this? (not that I remember those as being great engines..)

andre1969

usually flat-fours or "boxer engines" or whatever they call them? Maybe the vibration characteristics are different on one of those versus an inline-4?

stickguy

No, the big 4 in those models was inline. I never drove one, so no idea how wmooth it was.

I will say that the 2.4l 4 in my Sionc tC (basically the Camry engine) did seem pretty rough (non-smooth) for a Toyota especially. The engine in my Accord is vastly smoother, and in fact seems almost watch like in comparison.

lemmer

They paid Mitsubishi to allow them to use their balance shafts - probably something they had to develop for their big honkin' 4-cyl engines in the Starion.

Mr_Shiftright

I understand completely what you are saying but this doesn't seem to be a "perception" issue. I'm talking quantifiable data here.

Fer instance, I can clench my fist and put it on top of my head, and it just brushes the headliner. Also I have a 34" inseam on my pants, so you'd think anyone with LESS than a 34" inseam would have even more room than I do, right?

Shoulder to shoulder distance from my right shoulder to a passengers left shoulder is 8". Not exactly "spacious" but certainly not touching.

In the back seat, that's more of a problem for me. If I adjust the passenger front seat up to where my knees just MISS the dashboard (about one inch clearance), I can sit in the back seat without my knees touching the front seat.

With the driver's seat in the full back position, which I need, NO WAY I am comfortable behind the driver.

Maybe I have the xA Brougham Deville model or something, I dunno..... :P

Slouching is just a habit...you can't design cars to accomodate slouchers--LOL!

stemmelin

http://www2.nissan.co.jp/TIIDA/C11/0409/INTER/main1.html

andre1969

is kinda cool, but it also seems a bit large-ish to me, compared to something like an xA, Yaris, Fit, or Aveo. I'm guessing they're taking the next Sentra up a bit in size, because otherwise, this thing seems to me like it could be a direct replacement for it.

But then you never know, with Nissan. IMO they always seems to have a lot of product overlap, but rarely seem to suffer for it. For instance, I thought the '02 Altima would simply kill any Interest in the Maxima, but it hasn't. And with SUV's, I really can't tell much difference between an Xterra and a Pathfinder. I remember when my friend and I were looking at them on the sales lot, the only way I knew we had gone from the Xterras to the Pathfinders was when the first number on the windshield went from a "2" to a "3"!

stemmelin

I've seen the bashing of small cars in C/D mentioning
"Comparison Test Review: $15,000 Cheap Skates
2007 Dodge Caliber SE vs. 2007 Honda Fit Sport vs.
2006 Hyundai Accent GLS vs. 2006 Kia Rio5 SX vs.
2007 Nissan Versa 1.8SL vs. 2006 Suzuki Reno vs.
2007 Toyota Yaris S (May 2006)"..

Who knows.. in few years everybody will be able to drive V12 engine cars everywhere on this planet...

iluvmysephia1

wonderful little Kia Rio5, which finished 3rd out of 7 rigs in that 7-car comparo you mention there of C&D's. I actually bought that issue of C&D because those are seven of my favorite cars on the planet right now.

I hope Dodge does go ahead with the new Hornet that they're launching in Europe soon and make it available in the U.S. It looks to be a nice new Mini-fighter to me.

carlisimo

"Yes, I lived with the 2.5-liter Altima for a couple of years, and the engine is harsh compared to the Accord. I think it's difficult to make large inline engines smooth (although this doesn't explain my impression of the Echo)."

Yeah, I agree. But imo Nissan has never had great engine mounts either. The harshness may be due to the engine, but I think a lot of it is in the connections as well.

explorerx4

you can get a killer deal on a ford focus. check out the prices paid forum. tough for the 'new' models to beat it. you can get a loaded car for not a lot of money.

210delray

But the Focus was a disaster in the IIHS side impact test:

Focus side test

I can't imagine the optional side airbags (just for the driver and front passenger) would have helped all that much -- look at that skinny little B-pillar in the 2nd photo.