What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

logic1

Shoot I could put a Blitz turbo kit and handling mods on a Fit or xA and have enough money left over for a posh vacation or two before I ate up 24K total. And I'd probably have a more reliable and useful car than can still run with the wolves...well, with the terriers maybe....

Except that they referenced the Focu SVT, when the Mini first came out, many of the Edmunds' testers said pretty much the same.

The Mini definitely is not cheap. But I like the interior quality, radio and drive characteristics.

I lived with a Miata for a while. If I decide to leave the carless life, I think I could live with the Mini, provided the tailgate bike rack performed well. I otherwise am not one to pack a lot of stuff, or people, into cars when I drive.

tsgeisel

And let's not even talk about the Mini Convertable. I've seen glove compartments with more apparent trunk space than one of those, and the back seat, even with the top up appears to be more of a wink and and a nudge to not being a roadster than anything else.

british_rover

I have shoulders like a linebacker and I never noticed a problem with the shoulder room. I was probably to busy heel and toe downshifting and chirping the tires on first through fourth gear.

jlawrence01

I really liked the MINI but the price for the S model and the quite-a-bit-less-than-stellar reliability records scared me off. I had no intention of taking a $24,000 crap shoot on reliability AND getting a car that was fairly lame for carrying anything bigger than a cat and a cantaloupe.

That was my question about the Smart Car which has a poor reputation for quality in Canada.
link title

To which my friend answered ... "of course it is going to be expensive to maintain ... it's a Mercedes."

It is bad enough to spend that kind of money and then throw on more repair expenses.

snakeweasel

To which my friend answered ... "of course it is going to be expensive to maintain ... it's a Mercedes."

Of course the reply would be "No it shouldn't, its a Chrysler". :P

graphicguy

Shifty...I don't know, but during my business travels outside the U.S., these SMARTS seem to be mighty popular. I've seen them all over South America and Europe. Just recently, I saw a bunch of them driving around Auburn Hills, MI. That's understandable given Chrysler's operations there.

Don't know why Chrysler can't bring them here and make money on them unless they cost more to develop than they're letting on.

People I've talked to that drive them seem to love them.

In any event, I believe they're on their way here.

crimsona

All the SMART dealerships I've seen in Vancouver are attached to Benz dealerships. Of course, I've only seen two...

logic1

They are on the way here. Daimler has confirmed that.

On the other hand, Daimler has not made a dime on Smart's to date. Rather, Smart has lost Daimler in the area of One Billion Dollars.

Daimler was thinking of closing the Smart facility. Apparently under French law Daimler would have to pay a significant fine for doing so at least for a few years.

We shall see if exporting Smarts to the US turn its fortunes around. Otherwise, perhaps those people you know who love the Smarts might agree to send a few hundred to Daimler to keep the Smart factory going

jlawrence01

I *thought* that I would see a lot of Smarts in Victoria last summer. However, I saw a plethora of older econocars and perhaps three Smarts.

Personally, I would rather import a Peugeot 206 from Mexico. It is more car for less money.

Mr_Shiftright

I thought Smart was bleeding money worldwide. I think the product will tank big time in America. The Japanese are going to eat them for breakfast.

Yeah, that little Peugeot turbo diesel would be a hit over here! It's a GREAT little car. But Peugeot would never invest in a dealer network in America, so forget that.

logic1

I thought Smart was bleeding money worldwide. I think the product will tank big time in America.

Correct. Smart has been a big money loser for Daimler. Daimler would have shut down operations were it not for French labor laws (believe Daimler can be penalized for closing through another 5 or 6 years or so)

Daimler is hoping the US market goes for the Smart like it did the Mini, paying full price for 20k or more units a year. I don't see it happening.

imidazol97

Maybe a few thousand more viewings of the obnoxious Dr. Z commercials for DC will help sell the Smart. Not.

Mr_Shiftright

Well maybe, although the Smart is only an 8 foot car....$3,000 a foot is Lexus money.

I guess it all depends on price point. If the Smart 4-door can sell for close to the Kia or Hyundai, it has a chance, but if a Smart is going head to head with a MINI, lotsa luck charlie....

I read somewhere that since 1998 Smart has sold 630,000 cars in 36 countries. Not too bad really, but that is a global number over 8 years...not exactly catching fire around the world as god's gift to the energy crisis....

jlawrence01

If I were in the market, I would not hesitate buying a microcar for commuting. But I am NOT willing to pay Lexus type money for either the Smart or the MINI for that matter.

I am going to drive the Smart in a week or so.

Mr_Shiftright

Do report back to us!!

beantown

I spent 6 months in Europe about 5 years ago....I saw less than 10 Smart cars. Considering the price of gas over there, that certainly tells me something about the perception of these cars. If they're not selling like hotcakes over there, they don't stand a chance over here.....even if the price of U.S. gas went up to $5 a gallon.

logic1

Similar to my experience.

Curiously, I saw more Smarts (and rented one) in Italy than France where they are made.

Not too curious after contemplation. Many Italian cities have the twin evils of very narrow streets and almost scary mass transit. French cities have their share of narrow streets. But mass transit is pretty good in the big cities.

I think some Italians see the Smart as a step up from a scooter. Problem is, Daimler needs to sell them for a whole lot more than a decent scooter fetches.

Mr_Shiftright

I think scaling the size of a car is like scaling the size of a house. You can make them smaller and yet very appealing and functional (and even beautiful--see www.tumbleweedhouses.com), all through intelligent design, but you can reach a point of TOO SMALL....or TOO LARGE for that matter....where functionality just isn't working anymore....a too-small keyboard, a too-small toothbrush, etc.

Sooooo...where am I going with this?

Here====> if something starts to lose functionality because you've scaled it way down, be it car or house, then you have to compensate on the PRICE.....

When is a car "too small" to be a workable car?

Henry Ford made a small rugged economical high quality car, but he sold it for $260. At that price, people who could never own anything else found it very appealing.

boaz47

It seems strange to hear you voicing some of the same sentiments about the Smart as I have with most true sub compacts. However looking at the cars we are calling sub compact now seems like we are simply re-defining another type of Compact, the tall narrow compact.

It seems that you have just drawn the line of too small a bit lower than I do. I see anything smaller than my wife's Focus as too small. Before I got the Focus I thought anything smaller than my PT was too small. before the Pt I knew most things were smaller than my Ram Charger and I knew my Saturn SL-2 was too small for anything but daily commuting. It was no fun with four adults and just slightly better with two children in the back. At least it seemed small when those two kids both had car seats. It wasn't as bad once they could be belted in without a seat.

snakeweasel

Well after seeing a Smart in our parking lot at work a multiple number of times I finally saw it being driven. Had a nice talk with the driver who loves it. Its a gasser and he says he is getting 60+ MPG combined and it rides like his BMW. He says he has had it up to 80 MPH with no handling issues but he did say that strong winds do affect it. He is a big guy, around 6'1" or 2" and looks comfortable in it.

He has left it open for letting me test drive it, if I take him up I will let you know.

logic1

I am not surprised the fellow fits well. The Smart has good occupant space.

I am surprised about the BMW comparison. I liked the Smart driving at city speeds. I did not feel comfortable at highway speeds. It was skittish and did not feel planted the way a BMW does.

My Smart experience dates back to '02. Maybe there have been suspension upgrades since then. Still, no upgraded suspension can make up for the small wheel base.

snakeweasel

Where did you drive your Smart? This is a newer one plus its been modified by Zap. Also since it has been decades since I have been in a BMW I would have no reference to the ride of one (remember he said ride not handling) or of the Smart for that matter, so I would have to take his word for it.

I am thinking I should take up his offer for a spin.

logic1

Roma and then down to Napoli and the Amalfi Coast.

I rented a fourtwo. The documents were in Italian, so I did not spend much time with them. I think it was an '01 model.

Definitely not modified, but still well appointed all things considered.

I liked it in Roma and Napoli. I sort of liked it, but again was white knuckling, on the highway between the two cities. Given US highways are larger and far more common than in Italy, I worry that most in the US would just as soon get a hybrid or larger but still fuel efficient alternative.

andre1969

really technologically advanced or complex about a SMART that justifies its relatively high price? Or is it just because of some kind of inefficiency with dealing with the French and their labor laws?

british_rover

I am betting on the French.

snakeweasel

I would just blame the French. But we don't know what the prices will be here when the Smart arrives, it is all just guess work.

andre1969

I kinda like that mentality...blame it on the French! Just like they did in "DeathRace 2000" :shades:

Kirstie_H

But let's at least give them credit for french fries, french bread, french braids, and french toast.

Maybe they're counting on the novelty factor to sell at a relatively high price, à la (<--intentionally franco-friendly) the MINI?

snakeweasel

Or we could just pull a "south Park" and blame Canada.

logic1

Well, Smart does have some gee-whiz features, like allowing the buyer to mix and match panels and interior components. From an asthetic point of view, the Smart concept is as close to build to suit as anything out there in the Auto world.

On the other hand, I don't think there is anything overly special about the platform or engines. And BMW allows a fair deal of customization with their apparently profitable Minis.

I think doing biz in France is expensive. I expect there are more cultural issues between German management and French labor than one would ever find with a US or Japanese transplant facility.

carlisimo

"But let's at least give them credit for french fries, french bread, french braids, and french toast. "

I forgot which, but one or two of those are Belgian in origin.

Anyway, France does make some affordable and stylish cars and their people buy them. The smaller Peugeots, Citroens, and Renaults are (very recently) catching up in build quality while retaining their great styling and suspensions (in Peugeot and Citroen's cases), and safety and practicality (Renault, who's styling is love/hate but is certainly innovative).

I suspect the smart was designed by M-B engineers not used to designing inexpensive cars.

Mr_Shiftright

That's because I'm driving a subcompact every day and you aren't (yet :P ) . So I get a first hand look at the complaints about space and power and what seems valid and what doesn't.

Quite frankly, had I relied on what I read in the various forums on the web, and not done a test ride, I would not have bought one.

Seeing (driving?) is believing. "This is not your father's subcompact" to paraphrase an unsuccessful ad campaign.

Smart rides like a BMW? Now that would defy the laws of physics...or at least the laws of wheelbase.

reddroverr

Sure looks like you could get racked up if you were hit from behind in that two seater.

http://www.zapworld.com/cars/images/smartcarb.jpg">

british_rover

This video was on Leftlanenews a while ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02eghIfyHP0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eleftlanenews%- 2Ecom%2F2006%2F06%2F12%2Fvideo%2Dmercedes%2Ds%2Dclass%2Dvs%2Dsmart%2F

boaz47

To a degree you are correct. I have been in a ECHO like Nippons and while I like and respect him I will have to disagree that his ECHO rides like a Accord, Camry, or even a Civic or Corolla. The Riverside Freeway from the 60 to the 73 is notorious for expansion joints and that dreaded thump thump thump that accompanies them. In a short wheel base car, even our old Jeep TJ you got a lot of forward and then rearward movement. It isn't noticeable in an Accord, slightly more so in my wife's Focus and every bit as bad as the Jeep in the Echo. The last time I tried it was just a few weeks ago. And yes I did wear a Graucho nose and glasses so no one would know I was in the car. Now the xA is an Echo with a better looking body. I will admit I have my doubts about a Smart riding like a BMW having just tried the latter in a Big BMW heading to Vegas. It was hard not to fall asleep in the BMW I am sure at 80 to 90, the average speed on the Freeway to State line, the Smart would be a hand full. But tell the truth. What would it be like in the xA? I bet the Echo is marginally better than our old Zuke. Better but not much.

Mr_Shiftright

xA is fine at 80 mph but it can get marginally dicey with a real good gust blowing---but then, people in vans like a Quest or Sienna will feel the same. It's a metro and inter-metro car at its best, but you know, with the satellite radio, the AC on and a cold drink, it would be a hell of a lot better going cross country than some of the pieces of junk we had to drive in the 1980s. I've done 300-400 mile stints and have no complaints. I'm really glad I added some suspension mods. Cheap easy improvements. I could now dance around an Echo.

But a BMW it ain't. You're right. Wheelbase limitations simply does not allow the car to do certain things or avoid certain things. For Autocross, short wheelbase is great. For California highways, not so great. You have to be realistic about what you're driving.

andre1969

at the Mopar Nationals in Carlisle, PA, someone was actually selling a 1989 Plymouth Horizon! Oddly, considering how far cars have supposedly come since then, this thing actually looked luxurious inside compared to many small cars of today! The fabric on the seats was a higher quality and padding and detail on the door panels would actually put many modern higher-priced cars to shame. They've learned to put hard plastic in places on these modern cars that they wouldn't have dreamed of doing back then!

Now they've come a long way since then with engines and transmissions. This thing had a 96 or so hp 2.2 with a 3-speed automatic. A buddy of mine back in college had one, and my '69 Dart, which outweighed it by about 700+ pounds, had the added drag of air conditioning and power steering, and once you did the gross-to-net conversion really only had like 14 more horsepower, would still blow it away!

I know your typical small car of today would easily beat this thing from a stoplight, and get better fuel economy while doing it. However, I doubt that most new small cars would be any more comfortable. Now something like a Civic or Corolla would, but remember, those are much bigger cars these days, and an '89 Horizon is really closer to an xA, Echo, Yaris, Fit, or Aveo these days. This car had nicely contoured front seats that were well-padded and good side bolstering. Now I'd probably complain about legroom in this car, but I'd do that in most small cars, so that's a wash.

Now one area I'd say that smaller cars these days have definitely improved in is the back seat. The Horizon's rear seat is narrow and flat, and sits pretty far back between the wheel wells. The backrest is also very flat, and doesn't extend fully to the sides of the car. It's designed to be folded flat for cargo area, but as for a seating surface it's about as good as putting a thin cushion on a picnic table bench.

snakeweasel

Back in the 80's I had an Omni (Dodges Horizon), it was actually a pretty fun car to drive. You're right it was nice inside. I also had the GLH which was the turbo version they made for a short time. That thing had some pickup.

I miss that car.

michaellno

When we owned our New Beetle, we only did one road trip with it ... to Fort Collins, about a 90-100 mile drive. Of course, our NB didn't have cruise, so the heavy throttle spring got a bit tiresome. We pretty much used it for commuting.

I did a trip from CA to Michigan after I graduated college. At the time, I owned an '85 Honda Accord LX hatchback, which had both AC and cruise. Best tank was something around 43MPG (downhill and downwind in NM, I believe). That car was pretty comfortable.

In '93, I moved from CA to Colorado and did the drive in my '91 Nissan Sentra SE. No air or cruise at all, so it was a bit more work.

I can't imagine someone going coast to coast in an xA, Yaris, Fit or the like unless they absolutely had to.

andre1969

Back in college, a friend of mine had a 1980 Honda Accord hatchback. That car was actually pretty comfortable up front, IMO. It wasn't something that you could pile 3-4 big people into, and 0-60 came up in something like 26-30 seconds, but for 1-2 people it wasn't bad. It was narrow inside, but I thought it had good legroom. Better than that upright 60's pickup truck seating style that many new small cars today, like the Corolla, Yaris, etc have. This Accord was much better suited to a driver with long legs, like me.

Also, while it took a long time to get up there, it was pretty smooth and quiet at 80 mph. Fuel economy wasn't a strong point. I'd say it got about 25 mpg on the highway, but I'm sure the 3-speed automatic hampered it somewhat, and the fact that I can comment about its ride at 80 mph shows what kind of driving style was used on it!

I had a 91 Civic 4-door for a rental in California once, and as small as that car was, I thought it made a decent solo commuter. Again, it had more legroom up front, so I could stretch out better than in your typical small car of today. I think I averaged about 29 mpg during the time I had that car. Mostly highway driving, no a/c use. But I also broke 100 mph a couple of times.

Funny, but in a lot of ways, that '91 Civic seemed a lot better than many of the small cars of today. Nice fabrics, lots of soft-touch plastics, etc. It was also light blue with a dark blue interior, which seemed classier than the generic grays and puttys and beiges they use today. And I don't know how durable it would've been. The dash looked like that kind of padded material that tends to crack, as did the vinyl on the upper parts of the door panels. Sometimes the things that are nice and pretty and upscale looking when new just don't hold up that well in the long run.

nippononly

the nice thing about the Echo is that the suspension is designed to soak up all the road's imperfections and potholes. It does that with perfect composure, transmitting little of the impact inside, and without noise or thrumming in the structure the way some cars do. I have driven my friend's Accord frequently, and that car (4-cyl EX) with its firmer suspension will transmit more of the bump inside on bad potholes and the like.

You are right of course - the laws of wheelbase do catch up with the Echo on expansion joints (there really aren't any around where I live except on some of the bridges, where the hippety-hop is noticeable), what with its very short 93 inches.

This is a car I would not hesitate to drive across the country, but given the choice of this or a cheap rental on a Taurus, I might take the Taurus. I would never OWN a car like the Taurus for a daily driver however, because its fuel economy sucks. Midsize cars in general are some of your best options out there for smoothing out the pavement on an interstate highway trip, but there isn't a one (excepting the new Camry hybrid, and it remains to be seen what mileage it would actually achieve on a long highway trip) that meets my admittedly high standards for fuel economy on a daily basis. And most would be disadvantageous in other ways too - try piloting a Camry around S.F. Chinatown, and you will quickly wish you had a smaller car.

snakeweasel

the nice thing about the Echo is that the suspension is designed to soak up all the road's imperfections and potholes.

Oh yeah? Well the pot holes here are designed to soak up Echos, and xB's and Fits and Camrys and Accords and Hummers and semi's and aircraft carriers and small planets.

nippononly

I will put my potholes up against your potholes ANY DAY OF THE WEEK! The roads around here are mostly beyond deplorable. Occasionally huge chunks of the highway just fall out and they have to close the freeway for the rest of the day to make emergency repairs. Meanwhile traffic backs up into oblivion. It's been well over a decade since that highway got resurfacing. And if you think the highway is bad, try some of the surface streets! The people responsible for the roads around here should all be summarily fired.

logic1

Friend of mine in college had a Plymouth Horizon. This one had the Mitsubishi 1.6 (or was it 1.9?) litre 4.

3 of us took that pup from UofI ChampaignUrbana to Arizona one Spring break and then to Northern California the next.

College students accept a lot of things adults scoff at. I cannot remember any real problem with the car though.

snakeweasel

Ok lets go for it. We are far enough north to get lots of freezing weather but south enough that it thaws out a lot. We can get several freeze/thaw cycles in a single week. Add that to the heavy traffic it takes its toll. When I was in high school we had a road near us called Golf Rd, everyone called it gopher hole road. The road we lived on we called Vietnam road, this was during the war and the road had so many potholes it was reminiscent of a bombed out road).

And I am still waiting for a car to fall through the skyway.

snakeweasel

Friend of mine in college had a Plymouth Horizon. This one had the Mitsubishi 1.6 (or was it 1.9?) litre 4.

IIRC it was a 1.6 liter VW engine.

logic1

IIRC it was a 1.6 liter VW engine.

You know your Plymouths. Thanks. it was a fun little car.

My college car was a then 19 year old '66 Chevrolet Biscayne with the straight 6 and the 'three on the tree' manual. For whatever reason, the other guys didn't want to take that on our extended back road trips out West

snakeweasel

I don't know my plymouths at all. I had a Dodge Omni Goes Like Heck back in the mid 80's and I know a little something about the Omni and they had the 1.6 liter VW engine. I suspect since the Horizon was a clone of the Omni it would be the same engine.

It was a fun little car. I really miss that car.

logic1

Believe you are right about the Horizon/Omni. The Plymouth was just a base Omni with some Plymouth decorations.

I remember the GLH. That was cool little car. Too bad Chrysler strayed away from the franchise. The Neon never caught on.

w9cw

FWIW, Chrysler used the Simca 1100 (1204 here in the USA) as a reference or benchmark for the Dodge Omni design. The 1970 Simca 1204, now that was an interesting car - far ahead of its time. Transverse 4-cylinder engine placement, front wheel drive, torsion bar suspension on all wheels, very long suspension travel in the French tradition which made for a comfortable ride, decent handling, over 35MPG, hatchback, long wheelbase for its size, et. al. Chrysler and Chrysler-France never really knew how to market the car.