What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

johnnyvj

I think an AT and 110HP is a deadly combination.

Wouldn't the paddle shifters compensate somehwat? They're pretty darn quick... boom-boom and I'm down two gears.

Mr_Shiftright

I've never seen paddle shifters on a subcompact, but yes, aggressive and fearless use of the automatic shift lever would help. This is how I survived for two years in a Mercedes diesel.

andre1969

too-tall overdrive gears are very hard for small engines to "pull", and can really stress an engine internally.

yeah, I can understand that fully in smaller engines, or even larger engines that are still over-matched because they're in way too big of a car.

But what about something like, say, an Accord or Maxima? I guess I was thinking of a Maxima when I asked about making the top gear taller, because a buddy of mine used to have a '95 with a stick shift, and it always irritated him that at highway speeds it revved a bit higher than an automatic version would.

I can understand putting a shorter axle ratio for the manual in something like this, because it would really take advantage of the engine's power. But still, couldn't they compensate in the end by just making the ratio of the top gear a bit taller? So that, once you multiply top gear by the differential ratio, you'd end up with the same overall effective ratio as the automatic?

bumpy

That's pretty much what Nissan did with the Versa manual, though it does introduce packaging difficulties to have *too* tall an overdrive in a small transaxle. Mazda had to use two final gears in the MSP6 to achieve a low cruising ratio without clobbering the turbo spool in the lower gears.

Mr_Shiftright

I really don't like a "too tall" 5th gear...it's too tall when you hit a slight grade and yet 4th is too "tight" for normal highway cruising. So you are always shifting back and forth for each hill or if you decelerate behind a truck. At least on mine, when it's in 5th it stays in 5th just about all the time on the highway, hill or not. Yeah, it's a bit "tight" at 75-80 mph, but at least I'm not rowing the gearshift around all day. I'd rather the gears be optimized to the small engine than compromised for a teeny weensy bit better fuel mileage.

lilengineerboy

I think the EPA ratings are somewhat whimsical. I don't think most people drive like the drivers on the EPA test circuit. I think when people drive like they normally do, the decrement in fuel economy is less with a manual. What I mean is if you drive an automatic like a BOOH (bat out of he11)you rated 32 mpg may drop to 22 or 23 since the converter never gets to lock up. With a stick, what you get is pretty much what you get, so that 30 mpg is still roughly 30 mpg.
I got 33 mpg @ just under 80 mph from Cincy to D-town up 75 in a '05 Legacy stick. That is well over its rated mpg.

boaz47

a read all of these posts we see one of the big problems with the Sub Compacts is no one can agree on what they need or what will make them acceptable. Some want more power, some want more room, some want better pricing. Very few people, with the possible exception of Shifty, seem to be looking for a low powered, simple little car. And even if they are most aren't looking for one as a primary car. Even Nippon showed a twinkle at the idea of a Fit SI and that leads back to my origional contention about them needing more power. We can't even seem to agree on what a sub compact is. We keep moving back to Calibers, even Civics and Corollas. Sum so called sub compacts seem to have the virtue of having more room, like the Versa. Are they still sub compacts? I simply can't get away from the idea that sub compacts are only viable alternatives if fuel prices or low cost is the main objective. Both are good reasons to be interested in a sub compact but are they important enough to make them a increasing feature on the American highway? Through all of this discussion it still seems as if the success of the sub compacts has to be linked to a continuing failure in the American economy. I wonder how many believe sub compacts would still be interesting is fuel prices started to fall or the economy started to climb? Yes I know some people are willing to make a statement by getting a sub compact. I just question if there is enough interest to cause the manufacturers any concern in the mid sized and light truck segment? This is where the heart of the market is and where the most profit seems to be made. I can't see micro or sub cars making much of an impact at least here in the US. They have been in europe a lot longer than here and still they haven't become the dominate force in car sales there. A force I will admit but not one that comes to mind to many people that consider themselves better off than entry level. Even in the inner parts of London I saw 30 Accord sized cars to evey smart car. I believe I saw as many 5 series BMWs and a MBs as I did Smart cars, well to tell the truth I believe I saw more BMWs. It isn't like they haven't had time to get used to small cars or that the fuel prices aren't high enough. Something must be holding the sub compact back even in a Country that has them and allows them on the M-25.

Mr_Shiftright

But my car isn't "low powered" nor simple...I wouldn't have bought it if it were. It's well equipped and nobody's tailgating me, not even on the Highways of Death here in California.

boaz47

I only meant, from your statements earlier you advocate a simple low powered vehicle. Although a 109 HP xA doesn't seem high powered to me. But then 150 or 180 HP PTs don't seem high powered to me either. But early on I stated that if these new breeds of sub compacts are introduced here it will little or no time before they get bigger and have more HP. The interest in a Fit SI my Nippon is only an example of what it would take to make the entry level sub compact take a back seat in the public's eye in little or no time. I have even read statements here that claim that only the Cooper s is worth the price of admission to that small car. Something drives us for more than what most sub compacts offer.

johnnyvj

The problem, Boaz, is that high gas prices, unlike in the past, look like they're here to stay for the long-term, for a variety of reasons.

Under those circumstances, subcompacts will be popular, whether or not they'd be everyone's first choice if only things were different at the pump.

So its almost a moot argument of whether or not they need 'a little something something' more to make it in the US marketplace... seems like they're gonna make it no matter what, as things stand and are likely to stand for some years to come.

snakeweasel

I am strongly considering an inexpensive low powered car that gets good mileage for my next car. It will be mainly used for commutting between home and work on very congested roads so no need for power of gadgets.

explorerx4

sounds just like my focus zts. maybe giving up some comfort. too many goodies to list.

beantown

I think an AT and 110HP is a deadly combination.

I'd disagree. My '97 Corolla has a 1.6 liter, 3 speed automatic transmission with maybe 90-95 horsepower (the official pre-SAE numbers in 97 had it at 100 hp....so I'm guessing at what it actually is). It has never put me in danger and always accelerates well and predictably (incidentally, without any deadly hesitation issues that many the more powerful 5-speed automatic transmissions seem to be plagued with in the newer Toyotas). I've even gotten the car up to around 120 once (speedo only goes to 110), so despite the small engine, it still puts out more power than anyone realistically needs for a compact sedan.

snakeweasel

I whole heartedly agree with you, the wifes daily drive is a 100-110 HP with a 4 speed auto. Its pretty nimble, while it will win few races it always accelerates well and without any hesitation.

kyfdx

Maybe I'm missing something.. What is the FIT Sport missing, other than a moonroof?

I'd go look myself, but the dealers around here are constantly out of stock..

johnnyvj

Rear discs would be nice too, along with the missing dead pedal and seat height adjuster that everyone kvetches about (with reason)...

Telescoping steering column I'd like too. Too bad they don't make an 'EX' Fit Sport...

kyfdx

It sort of reminds me of the 1st-gen CR-V.. No sunroof, drum brakes in the back, etc, even with the EX package...

While I like and want those things, sometimes the entire package is too good to pass up... While I now have a 2nd-gen CR-V EX that has those items, I think I could give them up for the right car.. and, the FIT might just be it...

Really, compared to the 1st-gen CR-V, the only thing missing is AWD.. It has comparable room and hauling abilities, and probably gets 10 MPG more in real-world driving...

nippononly

keep coming in that Honda is readying a hybrid Fit for the '08 model year, to be followed shortly thereafter by a hybrid CRV. Latest I saw was Automobile mag.

Give me the hybrid with a moonroof and all the equipment of the Sport (a dead pedal would be nice too), and I'm there! :-)

Oh yeah, and don't price it any higher than the Civic hybrid. Better yet, price it $1000 lower. :-)

Mr_Shiftright

Well you're right the '97 Corolla ain't so bad, but keep in mind that with 109 HP my lighter car with manual transmission is a full two seconds faster 0-60 than the '97 automatic Corolla. That's a substantial advantage to me.

Mini Cooper -- well hell yes, at the prices they charge for the MINI, and for the small-ness of the car, buying the "S" model makes a lot of sense, as it is really the only thing you are getting for $10K more than a Honda Fit---really good performance. THe MINI isn't giving you room or great mileage, so without that kick in the pants from the S, I'd personally find the base car somewhat overpriced for what you get--although they are insufferably cute and for some folks, style is very very important---so I'm not knocking the wisdom of paying for aesthetics per se. I would have bought an S if I had the money to spare at that time.

harrychezt

wellll....
ya might consider the new 3 door Accent, read it starts between 10-11K. 34-36(?) MPG, 110HP.

If ya want to wait 2 months or so, the new Elantra is coming out, starting Under 14K, topping out at around 17K(for leather, sunroof, you name it).
The one we drove for 10 days(rental) a few years ago got 33-37MPG hwy, and 31-33 in town.

If not, go check out the Versa, etc...
Or buy a used Civic,or Corolla, or whatever.

If ya want to give one a test drive, check out the Aveo, under 10K.
take care/not offense.

johnnyvj

Another annoying thing... in Japan, the base Fit doesn't have super-ugly wheel covers like it does in the US. Why not just give us the Japanese wheel covers? Not beauties, but they're ok, at least:

http://www.honda.co.jp/Fit/

snakeweasel

As for the Accent, she who must be obeyed has one and its a fun little car to drive.

As for the Elantra, driving a wagon right now and loving it. Will drive it until the wheels fall off then I will put the wheels on and drive it some more.

The Versa is definitely on the list, but that may or may not change after I look at it.

The Aveo is also on the list but not as strong, but then again that may or may not change after I look at it.

But then again I may just win the lottery and buy a Bugatti.

Mr_Shiftright

anybody was wondering if you can stuff a mens' large size mountain bike INTO rather than ONTO a Scion xA without disassembly of bike or car, the answer is YES! (requires taking front wheel off bike however).

andre1969

anybody was wondering if you can stuff a mens' large size mountain bike INTO rather than ONTO a Scion xA without disassembly of bike or car, the answer is YES! (requires taking front wheel off bike however).

I threw a bike in the trunk of my '89 Gran Fury once, a car that doesn't have a very big trunk to begin with, but with a full-sized copcar spare on a 15x7 rim, is even worse! It fit in there fine with one little exception. I couldn't close the trunk lid! :P

crimsona

Piece of cake in the Honda Fit. Just throw it into tall mode, take off the front wheel, spin the handle bars so they go parellel with the rest of the body, throw in bike.

boaz47

my ideas on this subject now that I have seen or looked at the specifications on what we are trying to call sub compacts. The Mini Cooper still gets my vote for being too small. Unless you get the "S" it is also a bit week. However all of the ones we started talking about, the Fit Versa and Yaris are almost as Big as my wife's Focus or a Civic which is where I have always felt the buying public draws the line. The is simply compact car territory. The only place the cars we have been talking about seem to skimp on a traditional compact might be shoulder room and HP. The Versa comes pretty close in both of those respects. So the Versa seems to be right at compact size.

I don't know what the origional sub compact class car is supposed to be but all of the cars we have seen introduced are bigger than a Cooper. We should define sub compact before we can debate their merits. Having just come back from England I would consider a Smart car a sub compact. A old Mini is a Sub compact and the new Mini is just barely a sub compact. The early CVCC and maybe even the first Accords qualify. My very old NSU Prince qualified but short of that I haven't seen any new sub compact sized cars in this bunch.

Mr_Shiftright

you cheated with the handlebars! :P

What's "tall mode"? Like one of those Alaskan campers with hydraulic roof? (just kidding).

Reason I'm posting this is to combat two misconceptions about *some* of these subcompacts....they do in fact have adequate room and power. By "adequate" I guess I mean you don't feel "thwarted" when you have to do something requiring power or room. It may not be an overwhelming amount of either room or power, but it seems like more than enough to do the job for 95% of us.

I even tested it on the "highway ramp of death" near my house--this is a sharp-turn entry onto Highway 101 with a very short entrance ramp and a very steep uphill from the get-go. What I do is keep the car "on the cam", take the turn smartly and floor it.....no problemo....

WHAT'S A SUBCOMPACT?

Most all magazines and websites seem to lump subcompacts into the 160-inch range, give or take a few inches. This seems reasonable. I'd cut it off at 165 inches if I were King.

The MINI doesn't really count as a category because no other car commonly sold in America is that small right now, at about 144 inches. So it would seem weird to have one car for a whole class called "subcompact".

nippononly

5 people in a Fit or a Yaris. Pretty much impossible. I don't know what their manufacturers say about their passenger capacity - 4 people or 5 - but 5 is no-go in my book. To me, that is part of the definition of the subcompact. Subcompacts are skinny. Between the lack of hip room and the in-sloping, intruding roofline, you can't put a fifth adult in the middle.

Compact cars will seat 5 people without too much hulla-balloo at least for short trips.

And yes, length is another defining characteristic. If I were king, the Smart ForTwo would get a new category when it arrives: microcar, or something like that. It's up to everyone else as to whether Mini is then a microcar or a subcompact, but my vote would be sub. It has a proper back seat just like the Yaris hatch does, where two adults can sit in more comfort than one might think.

jlawrence01

My friend just purchased a Smart Car in Vancouver, sent it to LA for retrofiting for the US market and now is driving around Chicago in the vehicle.

Averaged 50 mpg on the drive between LA and Chicago.

The vehicle is good for getting a lot of comments but the reviews are pretty mixed.

I would call the Smart Car a microcar.

andre1969

at one time, I used to have a rough rule of thumb for size classes. Here goes...

Subcompact: Less than 175"
Compact: 175-185"
Midsize: 185-205"
Full-size: 205"+

If nothing else, I think the only reason I came up with these categories is because at the time, that's about what the cars on the market fell into at the time. Cars at the larger end of the subcompact range, such as the Honda Accord or Chevy Cavalier, came in at around 175" or less. Meanwhile, cars like the Mazda 626, Nissan Stanza, Ford Tempo, Aries/Reliant K, GM's N-bodies, the Citation and Toyota Camry fell into the 175-185" category.

By the mid 80's, all of the "old school" sized compacts had been phased out. However, what was considered a midsized car had a wide range, as there were many newer, more space-efficient models mixed in with older designs that dated back to the 70's. On the smaller end you had cars like the Plymouth Caravelle/Dodge 600 and Toyota Cressida, which were just over 185". Then you had the Celebrity and its ilk, which were around 190". The small LTD/Marquis were around 196", and the remaining GM RWD intermediates were around 196-200". At the upper range you had the old Mopar holdovers, the Gran Fury, Diplomat, and 5th Avenue, which were pushing 205". Nobody considered GM's newly shrunken FWD C- and H-bodies to be full-sized at the time, even if they were by EPA interior measurements. And your typical traditional full-sizer ran from around 210" for a Crown Vic on up to around 221 for a Brougham.

Nowadays though, with cars being taller, sometimes you can end up with a shorter car that could have more useable room than a longer car that's not as tall. One thing that shocked me is that the new Civic is still classified as a subcompact! I thought it was pretty roomy inside. It's one of the few small cars where I can actually fit fine up front, but then without moving the front seat, also fit in the back. So in theory, you could get four 6'3" guys like myself in the car without too much complaining, unless they slouch or something. Sadly, there are some mid- and even supposedly full-sized cars where you couldn't do that!

Yet a Cobalt, which I find roomy up front but horribly cramped in the back, is rated as a compact. I'm convinced those EPA interior measurements are just indexes that are calculated by using the published headroom, shoulder room, and legroom dimensions. And sometimes I think the way they take those measurements is a bit whacked.

I do think that one criteria for a full-sized car is that it should be able to seat three people across in the back seat with ease. Consumer Reports once stated that you needed at least 57" of shoulder room to do that. However, the way the EPA does interior volume, a car could be narrow but tall, giving good headroom, but no shoulder room, and still be classed as a full-sized car. One blatant example of this is the Ford Taurus. When it got restyled for 2000, it technically became a full-sized car. Mainly because that restyle added about 3-4 inches of rear headroom, whereever they take the measurement. However, the car was no wider than before, so it's not like 3 people would fit back there any more comfortably. And they took that headroom measurement at the highest point of the ceiling I'm sure. However, when I'm sitting in the back seat of a Taurus I have to lean in a bit, otherwise my head hits the ceiling. If you put three people back there, the center passenger might be okay on headroom, but the outer passenger would have to lean in.

For similar reasons, I can't accept the Hyundai Sonata as being a full-sized car. The wheel wells cut too far into the back seat. That doesn't affect shoulder room, but it does affect butt-space! :surprise:

Mr_Shiftright

The Smart Car is 1/2 of a Honda Fit or Scion xA, and unless it costs 1/2 the price, it's going to stagger in the USA IMO unless it is dirt cheap. I mean, how many former Citroen and Suzuki Swift owners are there out there to sell to? However, I may eat my words because there are a lot of Americans who enjoy being part of a friendly freak show.

I agree, 5 passengers in a Fit or Yaris is not truth in advertising. It's do-able, but yeah well........

boaz47

So by your measurements only the Fit is a sub compact? The Yaris and the Versa are over 165 inches. But narrow and tall they are. It is the narrow part I object to. If I am by myself it doesn't seem claustrophobic but if my 6'2" son happens to be sitting in the seat next to me and he can't reach into the back seats without touching me it seems too narrow to me. I would be willing to say I am typical American in my desire for my space. I find economy class in a plane to be crowded and business class to only be slightly better. I have never felt good about my own personal car feeling like a commercial passenger vehicle. Personal preference I know but there it is. Compacts give us just about the minimum amount of shoulder space we as Americans seems to be willing to put up with for any reasonable period of time.

It is easy to see what the best selling cars Americans buy is. We simply look at the market reports and see that Americans prefer 4 doors, cars that seat 5 and automatic transmissions. This is not a judgment call simply easy to read preferences by market research. My question would be how do what ever we decide to call sub compacts stack up to those preferences? How well do any of us believe a 109 HP 4 door automatic Yaris would stack up to a Corolla given the limited price differences? You may pay a bit more for the Corolla, or maybe a Civic or most likely not pay more for a Sentra but if you opt for the Yaris you get fewer ponies, less shoulder room and 106 hp to move the 4 door ideal consumer car down the road with an automatic. My sister had a B-210 with an automatic and you had to make an appointment to get on the freeway and merge at traffic speed unless it was a very steep down hill. I remember the early 1200 and 1300 cc VWs and people waved at you on every long hill with one digit waves. It isn't that the American public hasn't been given a chance to warm up to low HP small cars, we have. It is just that it is so easy to own slightly larger cars with more HP without a big gas penalty. That may be why 4 door, automatic Sedans out sell every other car out there.

But some may say selling a larger cars hasn't provided any more sales than small cars. I believe you are correct, small cars and full sized cars are a niche market here in the good old US. Two reasons I believe that doesn't keep the manufacturers from looking at full sized cars. People have a choice between a full sized car and a SUV. Not as common in other parts of the world. And large cars don't cost much more in labor than a small car and yet they can charge more for them so the profit per unit has to be greater. I have to wonder if that is ever going to change?

snakeweasel

Not sure about you but I would call taking off the front wheel disassembling the bike.

Thats what I like about my Elantra station wagon, I can fold down the back seat and fit in the tamden bike (for me and the misses). :shades:

snakeweasel

I think the Smart might make it as a second car used for commuting. I am seriously considering it.

iluvmysephia1

looking for in a car. If you want good gas mileage and don't need to carry a lot of people a subcompact works well. Also, a subcompact gets good gas mileage.

It's true, a larger compact or a mid-size Malibu may propel you down the road and get even better mileage than your favorite compact but some people don't need or want the larger body of the Mailbu. They may like the smaller body designs(Aveo, Fit, Yaris, Rio5, Versa, etc.). I like the nice variety coming out lately in subcompacts and the relatively low entry price of these rigs.

To me, the Yaris is priced competitively at around $14,750. There was one selling locally here in 5-speeds, side curtain airbags, competent stereo, heavy duty heater, air conditioning, etc for $14,650. That's a fair price, considering that you will get good resale value out of the car and you have a handsome little sedan to cruise around in. Small and economical, 34 mpg city, 40 mpg highway.

I am one who will just wait on his engine until it gets me up a big hill. People that can't wait for their Budweiser can just go around me, eh? There'll always be another stoplight up ahead for them, right?

Mr_Shiftright

somehow I don't think 5 seconds of work is "disassembling" but technically you may be right about that. I was figuring that if it doesn't take a tool and it doesn't take time then it's really more like "folding" something. Fair enough?

I can't even see a Smart car as a commuter unless very tight parking with parking perks is part of your equation. It's a lot of money for a very tiny piece of car.

How much is $24,000 Canadian dollars anyway?

reddroverr

Lordy...Canada to LA for retrofit to Chicago..that car must have cost a fortune. Well, relative to what it is actually worth.

british_rover

One of my car collector customers bought a Smart car up in Vermont a couple of months ago.

Bought the Smart car in the morning and drove down to my dealership to pick up another Land Rover in the same day.

fintail

24K CDN = around 21.5K US. Not cheap

Mr_Shiftright

Egads, that's Mini Cooper S money!!

What am I missing here with the Smart, other than freak show value (which is worth something I admit).

snakeweasel

How much is $24,000 Canadian dollars anyway?

I think they start at well under $20 K canadian.

According to the German website they start ar 9,450 Euros which converts to just under 12,100 USD.

I can see the smart as a commuter car with gas in the $3.25 range at it getting 50 MPG city.

Mr_Shiftright

But why would you drive that dinky car to get 50 mpg (maybe) when you could drive a Yaris or Fit or xA and probably get 40?

The optioned Smart is supposed to cost $24K Canadian, is my understanding--that higher priced car would have the about the same stuff a Honda Fit would have on it, for instance.

You know, if this were a 100HP turbo diesel roadster selling for $20K, well that's something else all together.

crimsona

Not comparing the right things:
A fit sport auto costs 25k CAD after taxes in most provinces. It's not out of question. Cooper S STARTS at 30,600 CAD, after 14% sales tax, you're looking at least 35k CAD.

jlawrence01

What am I missing here with the Smart, other than freak show value (which is worth something I admit).

The man collects microcars and has been looking for a Smartcar for years ...

Is it really any different thna the people who have a lot full of Corvettes or some type of muscle cars??

oldguymitfit

I solved the bike problem. Went to the local bike shop and bought a Dahon Speed folding bike. My friend bought one also. We took both of them on vacation with us. When we found a spot we thought we'd like to ride, we popped the bikes out and took a spin. They unfold in less than a minute. One fit behind the back seat and the other we put behind the driver's seat (with the rear 60% seat in tall mode. We were able to the the other rear seat in normal mode, so we could carry a passenger.

bumpy

I think the $24k Canadian is for the fully-optioned cabriolet. The regular fortwos with the usual stuff would be maybe $14-16k US, and the diesel version gets more like 70 mpg. At that point, you'd basically be trading space and a back seat (Fit, Yaris, Accent, etc.) for mpg and lightness (the fortwo weighs about 1600 pounds versus 2400 or so for most subcompacts). Also, it's mid-engine RWD. Try finding that at your Honda or Toyota dealer. If I had the choice, I'd take the Brabus Roadster-Coupe, though.

snakeweasel

But why would you drive that dinky car to get 50 mpg (maybe) when you could drive a Yaris or Fit or xA and probably get 40?

That 50 MPG is city driving according to the Canadian website (4.6 liters per 100 kilometers) so compare that to the low 30's that the Fit and Yaris gets. On the Highway its supposed to be in the low 60's MPG. So it gets 50-60& better fuel economy.

andre1969

But why would you drive that dinky car to get 50 mpg (maybe) when you could drive a Yaris or Fit or xA and probably get 40?

Isn't that kinda like saying why drive a dinky car (meaning a Yaris/Fit/xA) to get 40 mpg (maybe) when you could drive an Accord or Camry and probably get 30?

It's all relative, I guess. :P

iluvmysephia1

lineup of cars(two cars)is coming soon.

For $14,000 Obvio! is selling the subcompact 828/2, which is vitually loaded with electronic equipment. It's a rolling Bill Gates smorgasbord with every contraption under the sun available to you from your cabin seat.

Obvio! advertises good safety too, with an elliptical force distribution system that evidently distributes out force of impact away from you upon crashing.

No clutch pedal available on this one, though. It will use a paddle shifter that is right at your fingertips. IIRC 0-60 mph times were something like 0-60 in 8.7 seconds or Gary Payton jumpers to that affect.

BTW, I don't know about you guys, but I was sure happy to see GP get his NBA title ring. Gary Payton and Michael Jordan are the two top guards in NBA history and finally Gary has a title ring. It is most deserved. Aye to go, Gary!

fintail

Somehow I trust Brazilian freakshow cars no more than I trust Chinese cars. No thanks...they'll really have to prove themselves.