What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

andre1969

that they make something that could get 50 mpg in my type of driving, I think I'll try to find a way to yank out its engine and fit it into my '79 New Yorker! It probably wouldn't get 50 mpg in a car that weighs 3800+ lb, but I'm sure it would still be fairly economical, and be in a car that would be comfy for me to drive! :shades:

jlawrence01

My hypothetical answer would be as follows (my computer dumped the prior response):

1) I would not dump my 26 mpg vehicle until the car wore out. I would not want to incur sales tax expense, much higher insurance (currently full coverage for $350 per year), and all the fun "other expenses" of buying new.

2) I like subcompacts as a general rule - when I can crawl into them comfortably.

3) I would find a way to cut my driving from 15k to 9k or in my current case 9k to 6k. This would be accomplished by:

- increased walking
- consolidation of trips
- more telecommuting
- public transportation

4) I would not buy a "high mileage" vehicle until such time as I am seeing 50 mpg from reputable sources. For example, some people are saying they get 55-60 mpg from their Honda Civic/ Toyota Prius but my friends who were in the first wave to buy them are getting perhaps 10-15% better gas mileage than their counterparts.

garandman

yeah, yeah, okay, but the question was *hypothetical* with the parameters I gave. This is imaginary, so I'd like to know your answer to the question. Once again, if you don't mind playing with this:

You drive 15K a year with a car getting 20 mpg. Would you trade for a subcompact getting 50 mpg? Gas price is presumed $5 a gallon.

50 mpg is just around the corner, so the question isn't so far fetched, and I'd bet the overall lumped average of every passenger/light truck vehicle in America is about 20 mpg. Close enough!

No, because my lottery winnings would more than cover it. And my wife Angelina Jolie would prefer something hyridish.

Sorry to be so far fetched but the above are equally likely to your scenario.

If you said, "What if you moved to Canada while owning an Explorer," you'd have one getting well under 20mpg in a country already paying $4 per gallon or so.

Mr_Shiftright

I don't understand what is so far fetched, sorry. If a person traded in an old Tahoe for a Prius, this is just about what would happen, from 20 mpg to 50 mpg. And gas at $5 a gallon is certainly possible.

NEW SUBCOMPACT vs. What You Drive:

If you are calculating what you save per month vs. buying a new car per month, you have to take into account your equity. Yes, you'll pay $250 a month for the new subcompact car but in fact you'll be getting back about $85 a month in equity after the loan is over. So you're saving $208/month in gas and spending $165 a month to do that, plus you get a new car and a warranty---this presuming you calculate it over 5 years.

Then after the car is paid off, it's of course very advantageous.

Looks like to me it's basically a "break-even deal"...you're trading an old car for a new one with no more monthly expense, even with sales tax and extra insurance thrown in.

Not great but not bad.

brightness04

Probably not. I have two cars that are fully paid for (both getting better than 20mpg, btw, and I drive less than 30k a year on the two combined, but I know you are talking about hypothetical), with very low excise tax rate. Getting a new car would mean much higher excise tax. Besides, I have a kid, car seat and baby stroller(s) to contend with. So a premature trade is probably out of question.

As for replacement down the road when it's time to replace one of them, while subcompacts may get 50mpg at some point, by then compacts will get just as high, and midsize will be close behind at 40+mpg. Today, the ratio is Fit at 38mpg, Civic at 40mpg, and Accord at 34mpg, all highways (as most of 15k per anum per car driving probably involves). So it's half a gallon difference at most per 100 miles, or some 75 gallons over 15k miles. Gas price would have to be $33 per gallon to save $2500 over a 15k mile year . . . well . . . you get the picture. As fuel mileage improve for all cars due to drive train technology advance, the incremental benefit of subcompacts for fuel savings get even smaller.

brightness04

You might be double-couting. I'm not sure what that $85/mo is, and how that co-exists with the "very advantageous after the car is paid off" in the same analysis. A five year old subcompact, out of warranty, may not be worth much at all.

BTW, Prius is not a subcompact. It's actually quite tempting . . . although $250/mo is not quite enough to pay off a Prius in five years.

boaz47

To tell the truth your hypothetical question almost broaches the question. Does something have to happen to entice people into sub compacts? If so why aren't they enticing in themselves? if the price of gas goes up and if they tax the engine size and if they hold your first born hostage and if they put a gun to your head would we consider a sub compact? The answer is sure. But what happens when those conditions go away? That is the real question. Are we as a society willing to live with just what we need and not move up to what we want? History doesn't support that assumption.

andre1969

Are we as a society willing to live with just what we need and not move up to what we want? History doesn't support that assumption.

Have you also noticed that after every economical/political turmoil the creates a backlash against larger cars, that once things settle down, the cars actually end up getting BIGGER than they were before whatever turmoil sent us running and screaming to little cars?

Back in 1958 we had a serious recession. Domestic sales dropped by about a third, from roughly 6 million units to around 4.2 million. The only domestic brand to score a gain in sales was Rambler. Suddenly, a whole spate of compacts was rushed into the market for 1960, and the biggest cars were gradually starting to pull back from their excess.

But it wasn't long before the economy was booming again. Cars started getting big again. By 1971 a Chevy Impala was longer than just about any 1957 car short of a Lincoln, Imperial, or some of the longer Cadillacs. A 1973 midsized Chevy was about as long as just about any full-sized Chevy from the first half of the 60's. And a compact Nova was about as long as a '57 Chevy.

Then we had oil embargo number one, and the consequences of it. Within a few years domestic cars were put on a dramatic weight-shedding program, while all-new, smaller models came out. Then we got hit with the second fuel crunch, which prompted downsizing even further.

Suddenly, the fuel started flowing again and prices came down. People wanted their big vehicles again, but the government found ways to encourage the manufacturers not to build big cars. So what happened? People flocked to trucks! So now we have compact SUVs that weigh as many full-sized 70's cars, "minivans" that ain't so mini anymore, and pickups that are longer than anything to ever come out of the 50's, or 70's for that matter.

Now we're in another downturn, where people are flocking to small cars again, and bigger vehicles aren't selling so hot. If and when it clears this time, I shudder to think how big the next round of large vehicles will be! Maybe the International CXT will become the norm? :P

boaz47

I have not only noticed the shifts and swings I have lived through them. It is the attitude of the consumer far more than the practicality of the vehicle that matters. I am willing to contest Shifty's contention that driving is fun. I am willing to admit it can be fun or at least novel. But it isn't long before you have reached the limits of the vehicle and you start wishing for more. It happens with all sized car I agree but there is always so much more that can be added to an entry level small car to make it better. You have two ways of fixing what is lacking in small cars. Do like Shifty and improve the power or suspension yourself or look for a factory car that already does that. And today there are many manufacturers will to do just that.

I fully expect the small cars to flourish for a time, much like rye grass. Then after people get used to whatever gas gets to they will start looking at what they want once more and like every time in the past sub compacts will be relegated to a small niche. Just how I see it.

stickguy

One thing about sub compacts is that it takes a long time for the trend to shift. Most people aren't in a position to dump their current ride, so it's not like you can overnight move 1 million drivers out of Explorers and into Fits!

Over time, they will continue to do well, since IMO people are realizing that gas probably isn't getting cheaper again. That, and the new batch of Subs are much better cars than some of the old ones.

Maybe too many people remember when real small cars were often crappy to drive, and their only redeeming value was MPG. Well, today's models actually seem to be good as cars too, although not as small as true sub compacts used to be.

So maybe what's wrong with them is preconceived notions, since it takes a long time to change perceptions, or "common knowledge".

andre1969

One thing about sub compacts is that it takes a long time for the trend to shift. Most people aren't in a position to dump their current ride, so it's not like you can overnight move 1 million drivers out of Explorers and into Fits!

Actually in the past times of crisis, the market DID shift, almost overnight. At least, in automotive terms. Look at how quickly in 1974 compacts and subcompacts suddenly became the in thing, while most big cars and even many midsized cars saw sales wither to a fraction of what they had been.

In 1979, the most popular domestic was the full-sized Chevy (by then they combined Caprice/Impala sales and just called it "Chevrolet", but for some reason they didn't do that with, say a Catalina and Bonneville) I think that year the Caprice/Impala sold about 600-650,000 units. In 1980, when things started to turn, the most popular car was the Citation, with over 800,000 sold. As for the Caprice/Impala? It slipped to around 250-300,000. That's a pretty drastic shift. Now granted, the Citation came out in April of 1979, so it had an extra long run. But that's still a remarkable shift in the market.

I think one reason that the market isn't shifting so quickly this time is that we're not afraid of running out of fuel. That was the big fear back during the first two fuel crises. While we griped about the high prices, the simple fact that they could run out before you got to the gas station was a bigger fear. And with the political turmoil back then, I'm sure that put a lot of fear into people.

But today, we've been living with turmoil in the Middle East for ages. Anybody who's under 30 or so has never known life to be any different. And we've been told that we're going to run out of oil "anytime now" over and over again that we're just not paying that much attention anymore. In many ways, we've become hardened to it.

Also, while subcompacts do continue to improve, the other cars aren't standing still either. Back in the day the only way you'd get high mileage out of a subcompact would be to get a stick and forgo the air conditioning. A buddy of mine in college had a 1980 Accord hatchback with both. It could probably get good economy if you babied it, but I'd say the way he drove he averaged about 20/25. Just for comparison, the '80 Malibu I was driving at the time probably did around 16/22. Back then, when gasoline was often under a buck a gallon, those differences really didn't add up to a whole lot, but it seemed like it to us college kids!

Anyway, nowadays something like a 4-cyl/automatic Accord can get 24/34, and that type of car pretty much fills the shoes of my old Malibu. So going from 16/22 (now that's what I got out of it, I'm sure its EPA rating was higher) to 24/34 is pretty significant

Today a Civic with the automatic is rated at 30/40. That's also a big jump from the 20/25 my buddy got with his Accord (again, I'm sure its EPA rating was higher). However, when you compare the Accord's mileage to the Civics, in that case the Civic isn't such a huge jump.

And as fuel economy improves, the differences between cars actually becomes less important, because of diminishing returns. Going from a car that gets 15 mpg to one that gets 20, versus going from one that gets 30 to one that gets 40 is the same savings as a percentage. However, in terms of actual gas and money saved, it's much less significant.

crimsona

I think the moment companies start to remove content is when the stigma of a sub is going to come back. At the moment, with subs offering MORE features than the compact member of the family, (Sentra vs Versa), it is showing consumers that being small doesn't mean losing features (Honda, take note).

If anything, manufacturers will be adding more than removing features, since the competition is doing so as well. I'd expect the xA, xB and Fit to offer more things in the next iteration just to keep up with the other companies

brightness04

Content is by definition a luxury (i.e. not necessity). While there is always a niche market for luxury subcompacts, witness the European makes and roadsters over the decades, it's just a relatively small market segment.

snakeweasel

Content is by definition a luxury (i.e. not necessity).

That would depend on your definition of the word "Luxury". I will leave it at that to avoid a long argument as to what constitutes a luxury.

andre1969

decontenting means simply taking away something that was once standard. In the 70's for example, when they quit making the back windows roll down on 2-door cars, and even some 4-door cars, that was an example of decontenting.

Back then I don't think anybody considered a roll-down rear window to be a luxury. It was mainly part of a fully functioning automobile, and expected. And when it was taken away in many people's minds it made the car seem cheaper. It was also an underhanded way of forcing people to order air conditioning.

Sometimes safety features get ditched in decontenting, too. IIRC, abs used to be standard in the Dodge Intrepid ES, and most GM cars had it standard. But eventually, Dodge made it optional on the Intrepid ES. And I think many GM cars started making it optional as well.

But yeah, what consitutes luxury is going to vary from person to person.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm of the suspicion that the year 2006 is presenting conditions to the automobile industry that have no historical precedent.

I think fuel prices will become punishing and never retreat and that competition in traffic and parking will continue to grind at us.

So I believe there are forces at work which will compel people to act in their own self-interest irrespective of government interference or questions of morality or ecology.

Does this mean we'll all be in Smart cars? Of course not. But fuel efficiency and "reasonable" size will favor survival I think...maybe not to subcompact standards but to a different standard than we have now.

nippononly

to see if compact cars become the dominant class for sales in my lifetime in the U.S. Right now midsizers outsell them, but not by an insurmountable margin. If gas prices continue to go up from here, I figure we could see many or most buyers downsize one notch within a 10-12 year timeframe. Same is true if we continue to see the shift of population to urban areas, with the increase in congestion that will cause.

I like that idea personally, because maybe the attitude of most carmakers that compacts are just supposed to be cheaper versions of their midsize cars will change, and we will get compact cars with better content as a result. Which will also trickle down to subs hopefully, to better mirror what they already offer in every country outside the U.S.

And hey, if compacts DO become the dominant car class, subcompact sales are going to explode - compacts outsell them like 4:1 right now. Manufacturers had better be ready! :-)

brightness04

Agree with a big part of what your latest post said. Cars are actually getting more volumetricly efficient over the years. Even the much hated big SUV's in its heydays could not compare to the flat pancake cars coming out of Detroit in the 60's in terms of the street and parking space they take up. As the traffic and parking space become crowded, the foot print of cars with decent volume (midsize and compacts besides subcompacts) get smaller . . . often rising in height.

Likewise, high fuel price may just drive the market towards fuel efficiency (e.g. midsize Prius getting 50mpg, compact Civic getting 40mpg), not necessarily subcompacts per se.

"This time it's different" are four the most damaging words in the business of future-predicting :-) 2006 may prove to be a tough year for motorists but I doubt it's worse than 1972/3. Oil price will probably retreat in the next couple years just like the late 70's price retreat (before another leg up like in the early 80's, then a dramatic downward trend on the other side of the cycle); we are about 7 years into the cycle, time for a short respite. The current price is quite a bit above the cost of making oil from coal, not sustainable until general inflation catches up.

crimsona

Sure, if Civics keep growing, by 2020 they will be the size of the last gen Accord (sounds familiar...)

Right now the Corolla is already the best selling car in Japan - the Fit unseated it for all of one year. It could happen here, but would probably take a while.

nippononly

"The current price is quite a bit above the cost of making oil from coal"

Do we have the infrastructure in place to make oil from coal in the volumes we need? I am curious. I was unaware this possibility existed before I read your remark.

All the oil analysts say we are on the downslope of oil availability, which is why the price is so high. If that is true we will not see the historic up/down cycles of oil prices any longer.

We just (less than two weeks ago) saw the completion of the Turkish pipeline by the BP consortium that will carry 1 million barrels of oil per day, and that didn't do anything to reduce oil futures.

Rapidly increasing number of global buyers + gradually declining supply of oil (which is increasingly difficult to get at) = steadily increasing oil prices.

Mr_Shiftright

yeah but 1973 was an artificial shortage, whereas even the most conservative economist today knows that the supply is running down literally. It is a unique situation if you think about it. Added to that we have some monstrous emerging nations competing for that limited supply---another unique situation in terms of energy use.

We also have a somewhat ratty highway infrastructure that shows no signs of reviving itself---still great by most world standards but not as good as we once were.

I think folks who insist that everything is cyclical are both right and wrong. They are right in terms of short time spans or business cycles but their long range thinking might be way off in predicting cycles quite unlike anything they have ever seen.

I'm sure every man in Britain thought the Empire was inviolate in 1914 and very few thought Britain would be a second rate power in a mere 31 years.

So you know, you never know. (you may quote me). :P

brightness04

I don't think there is a carmakers' conspiracy to decontent small cars. If carmakers can sell motorcycles for higher price than Rolls-Royce, they'd have no qualms about making motorcycles . . . some venerated sporting brands' sell-out to make SUV's at the peak of the SUV mania (e.g. BMW and Porsche) attested to just souless/"unconsciounable" the industry is; or better yet, the soul of the free enterprise is answering market demand.

The reality is that it cost very little extra to make a bigger car compared to a smaller one, if both have to be equipped to comparable levels . . . while the consumers are willing to shell out substantially more money for the bigger car. That's why even the domestics with their high legacy labor cost and historically not especially brilliant management could still make oodles of money on big cars/SUV's.

When the land gets lean and table is turned around, when consumers demand lower price (inflation adjusted) to entice themselves into smaller cars, the carmakers have no choice but to decontent because shrinking in size alone doesn't save much money. The fancy subsystems don't change in price at all, and the labor cost doesn't go down either if parts count stay the same. The drive to reduce parts count makes decontenting mighting enticing ;-)

wale_bate1

"I like that idea personally, because maybe the attitude of most carmakers that compacts are just supposed to be cheaper versions of their midsize cars will change, and we will get compact cars with better content as a result. Which will also trickle down to subs hopefully, to better mirror what they already offer in every country outside the U.S."

I raise a glass to Nippon once again.

snakeweasel

A glass of what I might ask?

brightness04

1973 oil embargo was a charade; the oil just got trans-shipped via a third country . . . I mean seriously, if our sworn enenmy in the Cold War and the Iranian mullahs at the height of their revolution did not stop oil shipment (remember, Carter banned it, but some American set up Swiss account to trans-ship the stuff because the mullahs were perfectly willing to sell to us despite their daily denouncement), what would?! Absolutely nothing.

The real cause of oil price jump in 1973 was the closing of gold window by Nixon causing inflation; oil shock was predicted by some clueful economists when the gold window was closed, and before there was Yom Kippur conflict (ie. the subsquent embargo). Monetary inflation is the same reason driving the current oil price jump (nobody is predicting the world running out of gold, silver, copper, zinc and uranium, but they all have run up just as much if not more in price). Oil supply running down has been predicted since the 1870's, yes, 1870s, a whole century before the 1970's. Part of the reason for WWII was a scramble for oil, which was supposed to be running out.

The predicative power of cyclical theory is actually in the long term . . . long enough of a time horizon that another generation of gullibles are borne and grown up to commit the same follies that the previous generation did . . . its short term predicative power is actually limited.

BTW, if Brits imperial management were so sure about its own position in 1914, it would not have embarked on a battleship building panic in 1906, or formed entente with France and Russia, or formed alliance with Japan in 1902, just so that it could withdraw capital ships to home waters. In any case, not sure how it relates to our discussion here.

snakeweasel

BTW, if Brits imperial management were so sure about its own position in 1914, it would not have embarked on a battleship building panic in 1906,

Ok it is off topic but I will address this just this once. Britain has been and still is dependent of open sea lanes. Add that to a world wide empire separated by vast oceans Britain needed a strong modern fleet. The build up about 1906 was a modernization of an already strong navy spurred by (then) current events.

Also All Britain was doing with France, England and Japan was forming alliances to put themselves in a (hopefully) better position, countries do this all the time. And the alliance with Japan benefited Japan far more than England.

If you want to talk more about this e-mail me.

Now back to your regually scheduled rants.

brightness04

Precisely, the Anglo-Japanese alliance benefitted the Japan far more than England. So why did British Empire entier into such an arrangement? Because it could no longer afford to deploy substantial capital ship fleets on the other side of the globe. . . in other words, it was no longer so sure about its global dominance, with both US and Germany economicly having surpassed itself and Russia rapidly catching up. The two-navy standard that was the bedrock of Britanian rule of the waves was no longer economicly sustainable. That's why it had to end "splendid isolation." By 1902, Britain had not been in alliance with any other country for well over two generations . . . if you can run the shop all by yourself, you don't need a partner to split profits ;-)

snakeweasel

As I said lets take this to e-mail

wale_bate1

Whatever's appropriate to the occasion, or whatever's handy!

snakeweasel

Ok as long as its not milk.

wale_bate1

Considering we're toasting Nippon's outstanding sensibilities, nothing shy of Veuve Clicquot for starters, but a Comtes de Champagne will require outside funding at this time...

snakeweasel

Wine???? Thats for.... well you know. Give me a good cask strength Kentucky Bourbon any day, that will put hair on your chest.

wale_bate1

That'll work just fine for me too. Nothing short of Maker's Mark, then, and you pick the other end of the spectrum!

Me, I'll take Myers on the rocks, thank you. Oh just keep tipping, I'll tell you when to stop... :shades:

wale_bate1

Kenstyle has a package for you (disregard any silly decals please):




I prefer this grille too:


Now, just massage that little 1.5L up a few ponies and lb-ft. and I can overlook the FWD.

I like that rather a lot. I like the lower stance too. Heck I've always like the car, just want the juiced up stuff they can swing in Japan. Very versatile little mover.

growwise

"I think fuel prices will become punishing and never retreat and that competition in traffic and parking will continue to grind at us. "

You missed out a key ingredient which is (drumroll please) INSURANCE!! tada.. I pay 230 bucks every month. It has come down recently. I used to pay 380 a month before. All of this is daylight robbery of canadian insurance companies. :mad: No wonder people in Toronto cannot afford decent cars. :sick: I dont mind paying for a good car and gas. Its the bloody insurance and ridiculous downtown parking that I have problem with.

Mr_Shiftright

There you go...new grille for a BMW 7 Series...one gazillion dollars; new grille for Honda Fit, $19.95.

Well not quite but you know what I mean...

I just can't help but think that there are multiple issues pecking away at CAR SIZE these days that were not *all* in place simultaneously at any other time in the automotive age.

If you're going to tell me that Detroit has shown itself capable of long-range planning I'm going to spit coffee all over my keyboard.

I heard (but have not yet verified) that Honda regularly holds seminars on a futuristic model where they don't even MAKE cars anymore. Now that's pretty long range.

brightness04

Is insurance for Subcompacts actually less than that for Compacts? It's reasonable to expect that insurance for Mini and A3 are much higher than that for Corolla and Civic. How about the plebian varieties?

I doubt meetings on how to turn Honda into a saki or Jilin (beer) maker are all that productive ;-) On the other hand, Toyota does have a venture into personal aircrafts. Poor domestics, until they find a solution for current workers, they are not politically allowed to transform into non-carmaking companies.

crimsona

For me, I was quoted $3400 CAD per year for a Civic (comprehensive), whereas I pay $3,000 CAD for my Fit currently. This was one factor, albeit not one I researched heavily as you need to call in for a quote every time since BC does not have online quotes

boaz47

or may not even be an issue. Where I live Trucks are less expensive to insure. Maybe Nipon can tell us about the bay area but pound for pound we get a better deal on trucks because they are easier to fix and tend to be in less accidents. My insurance agent informed me that any car that is popular with the highest accident prone members of our driving society will pay more than a less popular vehicle. That was one of the reasons I got a Mazda rather than a Ranger. Exactly the same truck but less to insure because you didn't see that many in high school parking lots. Don't know about other areas however.

It will be interesting to see as the year goes on what happens in this market. I know even if it flops and we return to mid sized cars Nippon will continue to pull for the little guy. He won't change. If they had more soup I might be interested myself. I like the Mini Cooper S, I don't care for the Mini standard. I like the tC and if the xA had the same motor as the tC I would like it as well. We have a neighbor that just got a Versa. White and from the back it looks a bit too egg like to me. But other than that it isn't a bad looking car. I hope and pray it outsells the xB and that the iligitment child of the aztec designer that designed it is put next to the Honda element designer and their fingers are smashed. As long as whatever is next in the evolution of car buying is something that looks good and not something that looks like it was designed with an Etch-a-sketch I might not grit my teeth if I had to consider one. The biggest problem I have with many of the Sub Compacts I have seen is to get the room they need on the inside they have to almost forget style on the outside.

Still, unless price is our main concern right now, today there isn't much other than novality that recommends a Sub Compact to us. Unless you want to be the smallest kid on the block you get nothing special in a Sub Compact. It almost has a single purpose. Getting you from point A to point B. Not in style, not in comfort, not with the very best fuel mileage and with dealer discounts on the next size up not necessarily in price.

Shifty you are right in saying it isn't a moral decission. Or even a practical decission. People have their reasons for buying whatever they buy. But in truth when two men get together to talk over the fence about their new car it is a lot easier for one to feel as if he got the best deal if he got a discounted Accord or even a Civic for the same price as a Fit. Doesn't matter if he only uses the extra room or the extra HP once in a blue moon. It is that one time when the blue moon strikes that he can look over at the Fit driver sitting at stop light at the bottom of a long on ramp and smile. Sub Compact drivers still face the looks that cousin It gets getting out of his car on the Adams family Movie. Having people look at your car and say, it soooo cute, just doesn't cut it.

I'm not trying to make a judgment call here, I have just listened to so many people talking about why they bought their Accord, Camry, Altima, Impala, whatever. The practicality is there for a sub compact. The passion is not now nor do I believe ever will be there.

Picture some of our most popular car comercials. They are designed to creat passion and desire for a vehicle. BMW running down a mountain road with a BMW motorcycle and at a light the Biker says, lets do it again. Subaru tearing down a damp mountain road. Mustang burning up a Parking lot. Even a Caliber foiling a cute Ferrie showing there is nothing cute about the Caliber. Are they all true images? Nope, but they stir the soul. Sub Compacts represent economy. No passion practicality. No desire, necessity. That is a very hard image to overcome. Mini Coopers can, but it takes 150 to 170 HP and better than 20K to do it.

growwise

Insurance industry is one of the largest ripoff industries. They charge you thousands of dollars for nothing. Even those who crash and burn eventually pay more than they ever got out of their insurance. So, its not like your money is helping others.

"Sub Compacts represent economy. No passion practicality. No desire, necessity. That is a very hard image to overcome"

Ofcourse, the advantage of subcompacts are mainly in congested cities like Toronto, New York city etc. Everybody in Texas can ignore subcompacts. :P

Small cars are not necessarily cheap cars. TSX is euro accord which is smaller than North American Accord. Yet TSX is more refined and DESIRABLE.

The desire is to show that you are smarter than the next guy. While the next guy is driving his gas guzzling truck doing a burn out and paying out the gazoo, you smirk knowing you did the smart thing (cheaper to buy, cheaper to own, It is the in-thing so you know you are cool :shades: )

SUVs are so yesterday and are not cool. They are for people who genuinely need them (i.e. huge family and back roads so no minivan) or those who are insecure.

Being economical and putting some money back in your pocket is one thing but as a lifestyle choice it is more inline with efficiency of swedish furniture at IKEA in a condominium.

Honda Fit will do 99.9% of what I need so downsizing is not a bad idea at all. I can rent something for the remaining 0.1% time when I need larger vehicle. Renting a vehicle once in a while helps you with the craving for a new car.

iluvmysephia1

and white in color even. That is my favorite color for an xA but Black Cherry Pearl is a close second place.

Sweet! I would want to at least get nice wheels like that one has, they make the little car look so much more complete.

Shifty, have you ever felt like you were putting your anti-lock brakes on your Scion xA to use? I see that Scion installs anti-lock brakes as standard equipment on every xA.

boaz47

So in the case you just mentioned, A Fit, are you still doing OK if you get less fuel mileage than a Toyota Corolla? I will simply use the federal fuel economy site as reference, fit has a combined fuel average useage of 35 and the Corolla has an average of 36. Is it still as desirable? Isn't the point to save fuel? If it is fuel useage can you still smirk? How about if you are sitting next to a Jetta TDI with a combined average of 38? Isn't this the problem? If you advocate for fuel useage as being economical don't you go for the best fuel usage vehicle? If you can justify any other reason isn't it simple preference? If it is cost to buy we could include, and I shudder to include it with these other cars, a Kia Rio? It has a combined average of 33 so fuel useage isn't the top of the list there either. If it is performance you can't even list the better options you have over cars like the Fit. So is it economy? Is it fuel mileage? Is it performance? If we compare apples to apples can we look at Scion? The best selling Scion is the tC. came out last but out sold the other two by quite a bit. Combined average fuel mileage is 25. The next best selling Scion is the xB with a combined average of 31. The slowest selling Scion is the smallest, the xA and it gets a combined average of 34. These numbers are found at the federal government fuel economy site www.fueleconomy.gov.

The question simply becomes are people ready to change their buying habits? Toyota thought they were with the Echo and that flopped. Replace by the Yaris some might say? And yet the Yaris seems to be headed the same way as the Echo and it gets ever so slightly "less" fuel mileage.

The question is, can the sub compact ever become the "average" consumers vehicle of choice? It seems as if as of today, they still fall a bit short. Not to make a small joke at their expense.

andre1969

I'm not sure, but I think when they look at insurance rates they look at two things...

1) The potential liability of YOU (your age, sex, driving record, where you live, how much you drive per year, etc)

2) The potential liability of YOUR CAR (how expensive it was to buy, how expensive it is to repair how much damage can it potentially inflict, does it have airbags, side curtains, abs, theft deterrent, how often other drivers of that type of car have a claim, is it considered significantly more dangerous than other cars, etc)

I don't think a bigger car will necessarily be cheaper to insure, 100% of the time, nor will a smaller car necessarily be more expensive. However, if it's a small, fast, sporty car that has a high incident record and is a known death trap, then you'll pay more. And I think sometimes they might actually charge more for big, heavy vehicles that have a high incidence record of inflicting damage. It's one thing for your car to protect you, and keep the costs to your insurer down. However, if people are going out in their Hummers and smearing occupants of smaller cars on a regular basis in accidents where it's the Hummer driver's fault, that's still going to raise the costs to the insurer.

Interestingly, if you have liability-only insurance, I've found out that the car itself has no bearing on the insurance rate. For example, here's a cross section of some liability-only vehicles I've had in my time...

1980 Malibu 229
1982 Cutlass Supreme 231
1979 Newport 318
1979 New Yorker 360
1976 LeMans 350
1969 Bonneville 400
1985 Silverado 305
1969 Dodge Dart 225
1968 Dodge Dart 318
1967 Catalina convertible 400

Now while none of them would be considered a small car, there's still an awful lot of range in there, from a 3000 pound Dart or Malibu on up to the Bonneville, which weighed about 4500 pounds. Big difference in size too, as the Malibu was about the length of a current Accord, while the Bonneville was about the length of an Expedition. Also a big difference in power. The Malibu and Cutlass could barely get out of their own way, while the V-8 Dart was definitely enough to stir up some trouble. And the Bonneville, well it's scary that something that big could be that fast. And I'm sure anybody would figure a convertible would be more dangerous than a closed car, no matter how big and heavy it is. And the pickup has those notorious saddle tanks, plus it's big and heavy with bumpers that scoff at government mandates, so it'll blow if it gets t-boned hard enough, but would also hurt any car that ran into its front or rear. And being a truck, it's not going to play fair with the side impact protection of any car that's out there.

But for all these variations, they never had an effect on liability insurance. Which I think is a bit odd, because even if you don't have comprehensive and collision, the car you drive can still have an enormous bearing on the insurance company's risk.

Also, interestingly, the Intrepid doesn't score particularly well in crash testing, and for awhile was a commonly stolen car. I think it actually hit #1 one year. But my insurance for it was always pretty cheap. Started off at around $550 per year, went up to $800 when I moved to a "riskier" county, but now is back down to about $500 per year, with full coverage, because I'm in an "old" 35-39 age bracket now.

If I were to get a smaller car, I don't think it would raise my insurance rates too much. It might simply because it's newer and more expensive, but I don't think size would have much to do with it.

brightness04

The desire is to show that you are smarter than the next guy.

The feeling across the fence is mutual ;-) You may end up second best if you let yourself blinded by the SUV strawman and fail to realize that a Civic is cheaper to buy and burns less gas than a Fit.

deserth8r

Insurance industry is one of the largest ripoff industries. They charge you thousands of dollars for nothing. Even those who crash and burn eventually pay more than they ever got out of their insurance. So, its not like your money is helping others.

I really dont see insurance as a rip off. Yes you could drive your whole life, and never file a claim, but I still do not believe it is wasted money.

In the same line of thinking, if crime rates were low where you live and there were never fires, would you not want a police force or a fire department? Insurance falls into these same lines, it is paying for what could potentially happen.

Mr_Shiftright

Brakes are really good on the xA, excellent stopping distance IMO. I had to put the car right on its toes at 75 mph when someone decided it would be a good idea to cross perpendicular to traffic going both ways on the 4-lane Hwy 17 to Santa Cruz. I had the impression that there was a momentarily collective consciousness among all of us on the road to detain the driver and lynch him.

Cer_razy people out there!

Somebody in the xA topic posted that they got rear ended by a Harley at extremely high speed and deflected into a guard rail with no injury or roll over (to the car's driver I mean). That's encouraging. I'd imagine a Harley weighs about the same as an xA (just kidding you Harley owners )

gagrice

If I were to get a smaller car, I don't think it would raise my insurance rates too much

My 2005 Passat Wagon was $1200 per year. My 2005 GMC Sierra PU truck is $800 per year. One of the reasons I sold the Passat when it was legal in CA. The only thing more expensive driving a PU truck over a car is gas. That is not the biggest expense in a vehicle. Financing, insurance and Depreciation are the biggest expenses for the average vehicle owner. Keeping a vehicle for as long as possible is more cost effective than trading down to a small car to save a few bucks worth of gas.

Mr_Shiftright

Absolutely....makes no sense to trade in a perfectly good car getting 25 mpg for a new one getting 40 mpg; however, if the "old" car was not in good shape and starting to break down frequently and the new one saved gas and was cheaper to insure, that might be very tempting these days.

A friend drove my car prior to purchasing a new car, but still found mine "too small" so she bought a new Corolla. She's still operating under the more linear reasoning of "more size=more safety".

It's going to take a lot of safety marketing to get over that buyer perception, and maybe all that marketing expense isn't worth it, to promote smaller cars which may not be all that profitable.

So the "safety hurdle" may turn out to be the most formidable of all forms of resistance to smaller cars, at least in America.

Personally I don't feel my odds are any better in a Corolla than a Honda Fit...the line is too fine.

andre1969

Personally I don't feel my odds are any better in a Corolla than a Honda Fit...the line is too fine.

I dunno if I'd feel any safer in a Corolla than a Fit either. On one hand, I think the Corolla's about 20 inches longer, so there's more crush space in there somewhere. But on the other hand I think they both weigh about the same, so if you're of the "road-hugging" weight preference, it's a wash there.

I guess it would just come down to which one I felt most comfortable driving. If the smaller car had a better driving position that made me more comfy, I'd feel more confident in it and less vulnerable. And often it just boils down to "feel". One car can actually be bigger than another car, yet feel smaller and/or more nimble.

explorerx4

just wait until you have a claim that is not just a fender bender. then maybe that insurance will seem cheap.
to be clear, i don't wish that one anyone.