Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Yes a diesel locomotive will kill everyone in a Smart car....okay....
but if you asked me to choose between taking a head on in a 65 pickup or a fully equipped and air bagged 2006 sub-compact, I'd probably choose the subcompact....due to 'secondary collision' forces and not enjoying a steering wheel in my chest.
But if the collision were a rear-ender, with the pickup up front, I might think that over before making a choice.
If that's the case how do you explain their consistently poor showing in reliability
surveys?
Let's face it--the reason they offer such long warranties is the poor reputation they developed in their early years.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
This is narrow thinking. Miatas are MUCH smaller, yet they cost more than midsize sedans. Why? Because they have other advantages that compensate for the lack of space/size. Many subcompacts have some of these advantages too.
What you are really saying is exactly how the automakers have treated this segment in the U.S.: the only reason to buy a subcompact is because you are just plain too poor to afford a "real" car. The vast majority of people just cannot get beyond "bigger is better".
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I remember back in the 80's, Car and Driver or somebody was commenting about how much seats have improved. They were saying that with some of the better cars, you could ride for several hours without aching, but it wasn't that long ago that you were lucky to get a "half hour seat"!
Well, ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the Three Minute Seat! That's about how long it took me to start aching when I drove that little bucking pony from the Toyota dealer back home.
I honestly don't see how ANYBODY could get comfortable in this car. The steering wheel is actually just about perfect for me, just the right distance from me to grasp comfortably with my arms. But I need the seat to go back about 4 inches more. However, if they made the seat move back that far, there's no way I'd be able to reach the steering wheel! I'd imagine that most shorter drivers would be fine with the legroom, but then it seems to me they'd have to lean forward for the steering wheel. If you're built like an ape, with long arms and short legs, this car is perfect.
I'm also surprised that there haven't been any sudden acceleration claims with the Corolla, a'la the Audi 5000, because it IS possible to hit the accelerator and the brake at the same time! I also have to hit the brake at an angle, because otherwise my knee would wedge underneath the steering wheel...and that's with the steering wheel adjusted all the way up!
As for the ride, the car definitely does that bucking thing, or the "see-saw" thing, or whatever you want to call it. Those of you who are used to these little things may not notice it, but it's there. Now, I'm not saying that bigger cars are better...any big old Mopar with leaf springs would be much more proficient at axle hop on certain surfaces, and there's a spot in the road on the way home that if I hit it at the right speed with my Silverado, I could probably throw my back out! But then, those are also vehicles that were designed eons ago...compare it to any semi-competent larger car, and it's just not going to compete. Just like the old adage of "there's no replacement for displacement", sometimes a good old fashioned longer wheelbase can work wonders, compared to technology. In fact, notice that BMW's have long wheelbases, so there must be something to it. Even the tiny 3-Series has a Camry-sized wheelbase.
As for refinement, well I'm just used to bigger engines, so whether it says "Toyota", "Kohler", or "Briggs and Stratton" on the engine shroud, it's a moot point...if it's a tiny engine it's still going to sound crude and thrashy compared to even the mildest V-8, and even many V-6es. Now I'll add this sucker also has 103,000 miles on it. I'll also say it sounds better than the Mopar 2.4 in the Stratus I drove a few years ago. That's not saying much, though. It's like, do you want to try piercing your nipple with the little steak knife or the big steak knife...it's still torture! :P
Lessee, what else? Acceleration wasn't bad, I'll give it that. I think 0-60 on something like this is around 9.5 seconds, the same as my Intrepid. And at 60 mph, it's only pulling around 2200 rpm, so it's not a little buzzbox. There's something about the steering though, that makes me think of a bumper car. Hard to describe, but it just doesn't seem even or smooth. It's like when you're turning it, some angles require much more effort than others. And that's something I noticed on the car years ago, so it's not just an old age thing.
Now oddly, I think the front passenger seat of this car is very comfy. A year or so ago, I remember us riding down to see my Mom, about an hour away, and I rode over there. I didn't have any complaints at all...as a passenger. But as a driver, placement of the pedals and the dead pedal just kills it for me.
Now, overall, I don't think this Corolla is a bad car, for what it is. But for someone raised on big cars and pickup trucks, these things still have a long, long way to go. Now, maybe if my Dad had a 510 instead of a GTO when I was a kid, and if Mom handed me down a 1980 Accord intstead of a 1980 Malibu as my first car, and maybe if Granddad had bought an Isuzu PUP instead of an '85 Silverado, I might feel differently. And if I weren't 6'3" I might feel differently. But all this Corolla stresses to me is that, unless these little cars really improve A LOT, the smallest thing you're going to get me into is an Altima or Accord!
Sometimes, bigger IS better. Of course, YMMV!
Andre, glad you said this. I've had two rental Corollas last year (think they were '04 and '05 though). I thought the quality of the driver's seats and the plastics on the dash, etc., were very good, but the positioning was all wrong. No matter how I fooled with the seat, either my feet were too far from the pedals, or my arms too far from the wheel. Reaching the console controls and radio was a bite.
As for refinement, well I'm just used to bigger engines, so whether it says "Toyota", "Kohler", or "Briggs and Stratton" on the engine shroud, it's a moot point...if it's a tiny engine it's still going to sound crude and thrashy compared to even the mildest V-8, and even many V-6es. Now I'll add this sucker also has 103,000 miles on it. I'll also say it sounds better than the Mopar 2.4 in the Stratus I drove a few years ago.
I liked the little 4. My problem with the drive train was not the engine but the tranny. Both had the five speed auto. A good point, I suppose. But both always seemed to be in the wrong gear when I had to accelerate.
There's something about the steering though, that makes me think of a bumper car. Hard to describe, but it just doesn't seem even or smooth. It's like when you're turning it, some angles require much more effort than others. And that's something I noticed on the car years ago, so it's not just an old age thing.
I thought the ride and handling was good for a FWD with all season tires. I agree the steering feel was somewhat disconnected from what was happening.
And if I weren't 6'3" I might feel differently.
Yeah. I am just under 6' and I thought the roof was pretty close to my noggin.
On the plus side, did you check out the trunk? Pretty big for a small car.
I know GM also takes a lot of flak for its turn signals, which feel like they'd break off in your hand. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal was about this Corolla's stalk. It still feels dirt-cheap, but is just different in the way that it moves. Okay, so it feels higher-quality than the stalk in my '79 NYer, I'll give it that much! :P But it doesn't feel any sturdier than any GM vehicle I've ever owned. Oh, and the window cranks are about as cheap as it gets.
Oddly, I thought headroom on this Corolla was pretty good, but then I tended to slouch a bit while driving it, because otherwise the top of the windshield frame cut off my vision. Visibility sucked, though. The roof pillars are thick, and with it being a little car they're all closer together, plus closer to me, so they just block more of the view. I can understand why my uncle didn't even see that deer that did $4822 worth of damage to his car until he actually hit it! The headrests seemed to block vision pretty badly, too.
Again though, I don't think a lot of these complaints are really faults with the car itself, but just that I'm not used to it. If I'd been the one driving this car for 103,000 miles instead of my uncle, I probably would've gotten used to it by now, and then if you put me behind the wheel of something like a 2000 Intrepid, or any of the old mastodons I have a propensity toward, I'd probably think they suck.
And yeah, I'll say the trunk is pretty decent for a car like this, but my uncle has so much junk in it that it's hard to tell! It also has a pretty decent back seat, which I'd say is above-average for a car this size.
I know others will disagree with me, but I think one of the roomiest small cars around is the Neon! I can fit just fine in the front seat...it just has that same Mopar feel that most of my old mastodons had. But, even with the front seat all the way back, I can still get in back and sit without my knees digging into the seatback. Heck, I can't even do that with most midsized cars, and even some larger ones like the Impala can't even do this trick for me!
Are they up to a 5-speed automatic in the Corolla now? My uncle's only has a 4-speed. At least, I think it's a 4-speed. Actually only has 3 positions... "D", "2" and "1". I don't think I've seen a car in ages though where you could actually select all 4 gears. You could in my grandma's '85 LeSabre and my Mom's '86 Monte. Maybe you can in my uncle's '97 Silverado too, but you can't in my Intrepid. I don't think you can in my buddy's '04 Crown Vic, either.
I think if Toyota would take a Neon and reverse-engineer it, keep the things that are good about it and improve the things that aren't, they'd really have a damn fine automobile on their hands. And one I'd actually consider. But as it is, it seems that small cars either end up being fairly high quality, but they don't fit me, or they suck, but fit me like a glove. Whassupwitdat?! :confuse:
If your most important qualities are reliability and fuel economy, the Corolla is tough to beat. If ride comfort, handling, quick acceleration or other aspects are more important, you should probably look elsewhere.
Yeah. It looked nice. But did not feel any better. As we agree above, it could have been laid out better. In fact, I just checked out Edmunds quick review and see the awkward driver position is a point they make as well.
I know GM also takes a lot of flak for its turn signals, which feel like they'd break off in your hand. Honestly, I don't see what the big deal was about this Corolla's stalk. It still feels dirt-cheap, but is just different in the way that it moves. Okay, so it feels higher-quality than the stalk in my '79 NYer, I'll give it that much! But it doesn't feel any sturdier than any GM vehicle I've ever owned. Oh, and the window cranks are about as cheap as it gets.
GM is slowly getting better with the look of its switches. I always thought they put things where they should be for the driver. Maybe not quite as well as pre-I-drive BMW, but better than most. I do not know why GM could never make the switches look or feel better.
I know others will disagree with me, but I think one of the roomiest small cars around is the Neon! I can fit just fine in the front seat...it just has that same Mopar feel that most of my old mastodons had. But, even with the front seat all the way back, I can still get in back and sit without my knees digging into the seatback.
I have not driven a Neon but sat in one at the auto show. It did seem pretty roomy. Chrysler stayed away from the tall seat position Toyota went for in the Corolla. Oddly, while the latter is meant to be more comfortable, I find it less so.
The Caliber seems to go for the tall position. I like the look of it. I am not certain whether Dodge will let anyone sit in it in Chicago. I am worried the Caliber is going to be as awkward to sit in as the Corolla and Vibe/Matrix. Designers need to figure out small cars are not SUVs. Stop trying to make the driver feel like they are in SUVs.
Are they up to a 5-speed automatic in the Corolla now?
Yup, the new one has five speed auto (believe top of the line now has 6 speed option). Last summer I was in San Diego (where I rented a Corolla) then took the Amtrak up to LA, (where I rented a Stratus). The Stratus sounded and shifted like a semi compared to the Corolla, but it was always in the right gear when I needed it.
But as it is, it seems that small cars either end up being fairly high quality, but they don't fit me, or they suck, but fit me like a glove. Whassupwitdat?!
Like whether you put tomatoes in the fruit of vegetable drawer. One of life's big mysteries.
Actually. I like the DRIVE of the Corolla. The seat and position is not bad and represents an improvement on past Toyotas. What I can't deal with is the contortion act that I need to do to get into the car. That is, I have to go in butt first and swing my legs which is unacceptable to me.
It is the ONLY compact that I have had problems getting into.
I got comfortable in it very easily, pedals included (and I'm sensitive to pedal position since my Sentra sucks in that respect).
In a stickshift car, I want the brake and throttle pedals to be right next to each other so I can heel-toe and left-foot-brake easily. It's probably the opposite of what many other drivers want.
Can't really put my finger on it, other than to echo Andre's comment about there not being enough seat travel. In addition, this "S" model had a sunroof, and my head was brushing the headliner - not uncomfortable, mind you, just noticable.
OTOH, I've also sat behind the wheel of a Scion xA, and found it to be better suited for me - though it didn't have a sunroof, which I suspect makes a difference.
Haven't looked at Corolla but wonder about the rough surfaced, soft-looking plastics. Do they catch and hold crud and look worse after 5 years than a smoother surface that can be wiped by a wet cloth to clean? I've seen some cars with nice looking soft dashboards with cracks, uneven color, and shrinking away from edges when parking next to them.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Corolla has been widely criticized for a problematic driver's seating position that could have easily been cured by a telescoping wheel, which it does not have. Since the new Civic has one, I suppose Corolla will probably have one when the redesign arrives next year. I am less bothered by the issue in question, but that is because I drive stick, which puts the driver a little closer to the pedals so as to be able to fully depress the clutch. I did have an automatic once as a loaner from my Toyota dealer, and there I had to stretch out my arms to reach the wheel once I got myself positioned for the pedals.
Sufficient seat travel is sometimes a problem with the subcompact cars. I am OK in my Echo with the seat fully pushed back, but I am only 5'10". I wonder how someone who was 6'4" would feel - probably not that happy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Compare it to the '06 Scion xA. Both have DOHC 1.5 engines and 5 speed manuals. The Mazda is about 100 lbs heavier. The Scion has 11 more hp and 5 more lb-ft of torque. The Scion has 15 inch tires, the Mazda 13 inch. The Mazda is 20 inches longer and with a 10 inch longer wheelbase and is a compact car. The Scion is 4 inches taller. The EPA numbers for the Scion are 32/37 and for the Mazda, 31/39.
Against the '06 Toyota Corolla, which is closer in size to the Mazda, the EPA numbers are also very close. 32/41 for the Corolla with a bigger and more powerful 1.8 liter engine. Same holds true for the '06 Honda Civic with EPA ratings of 30/38 with the 5 spd. manual 1.8 Liter.
So it seems that car companies have boosted performance on small cars by increasing engine displacement and tire size while holding fuel economy at the same level. They have also held prices about the same over 10 years.
I guess all the fuel efficiency effort of late has been with hybrids and diesels.
For instance, a 1991 Civic with the bigger 1.6 (100 hp IIRC) 4-cylinder and 4-speed automatic is only rated at 24/29. At least now I don't feel so bad about getting "only" 29 mpg on average with the rental I had...at least that's about what it was supposed to get! But now, fast forward to today's cars. I know my uncle's '03 Corolla is EPA-rated at 29/38. I'd call that a pretty big jump, as it gets the same economy on the city cycle that the '91 Civic did on the highway cycle!
And his Corolla is a lot faster. I kinda liked that '91 Civic, but it was dog-slow. I was relieved to turn it back in and get behind the wheel of a car with some power...a 1969 Dart with a slant six! That doesn't say much for the Civic's power.
And now it looks like for '06, the Honda Civic is up to 30/40 with the automatic, and 30/38 with the stick. Just for comparison, the economy model of the Civic, with a 4-speed stick, got 33/37 back in 1991. Of course, you could always go with the real miserly version of the CRX, which was rated at 49/52! :surprise:
Can you suggest a larger car than say a Scion xA with ABS, air bags, CD, AC and XM radio that gets over 30 mpg and has Toyota quality for $14,000 total (less tax and license). Or larger than a base PT Cruiser comparably equipped for less than $15,000.
To tell the truth I doubt if the average buyer would be interested in anything much smaller than a Focus unless it was a lot less expensive. I'll ask you this, have you driven the Rio? If so were you impressed? If that was my choice of a first car and I was sill in school I might be interested. But once I got a job and started thinking about a family it would be game over. Sub compacts will be a hard sell for anyone thinking about getting married, having kids and getting a house. It isn't that we haven't seen them before. We have but to keep people coming back to the dealers the sub compacts first become compacts and later seem to grow to mid sized. When given the option of buying sub compacts after the fuel lines in the 70s it didn't take long for Americans to move to SUVs and light trucks. I believe, and you can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as if we as a culture feel that bigger is better to the point of buying bigger as soon as we can afford it. I can't think of any manufacturer that can rely on their small cars to keep them afloat can you?
By the way, there are a few dealers here in san Bernardino county offering new Base PT Cruisers for $9899.00. That comes with power windows, air, a Cd changer and a lot of cargo capacity. Aren't discounts great? The last is something you can't get with a sub compact. That is 6k less than I paid for my PT in 2002.
Just for conversation sake how do you think marketing has effected the attitude of the mainstream consumer to cause them to favor mid sized cars over compacts?
For me, all I really need as far as options is A/C and cruise. The rest of the stuff I couldn't care less about. Offer me this car that gets 40+ MPG, that'll last for at least 200K with nothing more than scheduled maintenance, for $10K. I don't think that's asking too much.
I think the marketing favors the mid size cars because of rebates and discount financing.
No I wouldn't buy a Rio either but there are some very competent cars in the $13K--$15K class.
I'd imagine the market for these are not families of course, or Americans desperate to go "upscale" but rather young buyers (first-timers), retirees on fixed income, or people who need a good economical second car for commuting.
Wait til the next gas crunch, and you'll see these car flying out the showroom door. There's a waiting list on the xA so they can't be selling too badly.
A $10,000 car that last 200K, is comfortable to drive,has usable space, with no repairs, and well-equipped? Yep, that's asking too much.
Shifty's right; today it's unrealistic, but in a few years, just such a car may be exported from, perhaps, China. In the meantime, the best solution for someone with a $10K budget is a good used vehicle. With proper maintenance, gentle usage, and a little luck, a 1-3 year old used subcompact with 20,000-30,000 miles on the odometer may go another 200,000. This reminds me of GM's CEO Roger Smith's famous (or infamous) response in the late '70s/early '80s, to a reporter's question of what's GM's answer to the low price imports. His answer: A used Buick. Well, maybe Roger wasn't entirely wrong, since you can buy a low mileage used Century pretty cheaply nowadays. Of course, driving that puppy 200,000 miles would qualify one for sainthood. Can you imagine what 200,000 miles of bobbing and weaving would do to the psyche?
of course, had I bought a more expensive car, these numbers go all to hell...I disciplined myself to a $15K budget and over 30 mpg to make this "work" for me.
This is not strictly true. They are dropping the Echo name only, to go with the same name the car has in the rest of the world, which is Yaris. The Echo was just the last-gen Yaris, with a different name for the States. And in some places, Yaris is Toyota's best-selling car.
The xA, a Yaris with a different body style glued on, has been increasing in sales, to the point where despite being a many-years-old model in its original market (Japan), it is on waiting lists here in the U.S.
"Bigger is better" is a powerful slogan to put in advertising in America. People in the U.S. will always take the maximum amount of size they can get with the money they have, usually foregoing other considerations of what their needs really are, or what operating costs will be.
I don't know WHY "Bigger is better" is such an intoxicating slogan for the masses here, but it often trumps common sense, it seems to me.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And using those numbers as a baseline, the Echo will actually pay for itself. Which is not to make any larger point in particular, but certainly the math wouldn't have added up buying a used Buick or following some of the other suggestions I have seen here put forth by people who can't imagine buying a small car.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It takes a long time to pay off the cost of a replacement where you trade in. The same goes for refinancing. Years ago when everyone was refinancing and paying lots of money in fees to get a lower interest rate by 1.5-2 percent, I ran the spreadsheet tos how that they'd have been better off just putting the gob of money for expenses of refi into their principal over 2 or 3 months and they'd come out the same in total costs over the rest of the loan.
My 98 Buick can have substantial repair parts before the cost of a new one overtakes it-despite 35 mpg in a smaller, lighter car.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And small cars are less safe, any way you cut it, both in multi-vehicle and single-vehicle crashes. So I'd rather have a midsize car for commuting (13 miles one way, most of it on a 4-lane divided 55-mph highway). One side of this highway is the "old" side, where the road follows the lay of the land, has little or no shoulders, and has huge trees growing right near the roadside.
Right now I use my '98 Nissan Frontier, which gets 26 mpg in this kind of driving. So I use a gallon a day. It's the basic 2wd, regular cab model with a 4-cylinder and 5-speed manual. I have only 53K miles on it.
But soon, my younger son, who left grad school in Calif and is now living with us, will go back to NYC (sans car). Then I'll have the '04 Camry we gave him for CA. This has side airbags, and I plan to use it instead of the truck most days. (I'll still keep the truck because it's great for hauling mulch and for taking yard debris to the landfill.) The Camry should get better mileage, maybe 30 mpg even.
This claim about small cars being more manueverable so they can better avoid crashes doesn't hold up in the real world. If anything, small cars are more involved in crashes, if you look at insurance statistics. Example: late model 4-door cars --
http://www.iihs.org/brochures/ictl/ictl_4dr.html
Notice that not only is the injury frequency greater, but so are collision claims.
Moreover, I highly doubt that any Chevy Aveo has better performance stats than the '04 Camry LE 4-cylinder I'll soon be using - braking distance, slalom time, skid pad g's, and 0-60 mph. A Miata, yes, but not an Aveo, Rio, Accent, etc.
There are so many different ways to keep your auto costs as low as possible. Most of us regulars have our own way that seems to work for us.
But I still like the Fiat 500. (g)
And that is only IF the gas never rises above $2.50/gallon. Anyone here wanna bet on that???
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If people are looking for one car however can the sub compact be that car? I don't think we in this country are ready for that nor do I feel we are that bad off yet.
Prior to the Trep, I drove an '89 Gran Fury police interceptor that, on average, probably would've gotten around 12 mpg in my mostly local driving. The Intrepid I figure has probably averaged around 21 mpg over the 113,000 miles I've had it. As for fuel prices, I just picked an average of $1.80 per gallon (87 octane) for the Intrepid and $2.00 (93) for the Gran Fury.
Interestingly though, if I had bought a car that could average 40 mpg back then, running 87 octane, it would've saved me maybe another $4100.
Here's the math...
1989 Gran Fury: 113000 miles/12 mpg=9416 gallons * $2gal = $18,832.
2000 Intrepid: 113000 miles/21 mpg=5136 gallons * $1.80gal = $9,244.
2000 Theoretical: 113000 miles/40 mpg= 2825 gallons * 1.80gal = $5,085.
Now the extra $4100 is no small chunk of change, but still kinda pales compared to that initial $9600. BTW, was there anything made in 2000 that would have even made 40 mpg in mostly local driving? My uncle's '03 Corolla does mainly 34-38 in mostly highway driving. Maybe a Jetta Diesel?
The CEO of GM Daewoo is trying to sell GM North America on the idea of bringing the Daewoo Spark to the U.S. - an even smaller car than the Aveo. He sees lots of potential for sales of cars this small in the next few years. I wonder what he knows that others don't. I read a quick interview with someone at Ford who said he expects sales in the B-segment to grow steadily over the next few years, and that Ford is committed to bringing a car in this segment to the U.S., hopefully in about three years.
Of course, three years is a long time. What happened to talk of the Fiesta coming sooner?
boaz: the xA kind of pulled the rug out from under the Echo. Compared to Echo's paltry couple thousand units, the 30,000 or so xA sales are huge - I guess in their B-cars people prefer hatchbacks to sedans, eh? More cargo space and a more versatile interior. And then, of course, the xA cost less comparably equipped. Toyota is going to great pains to ensure that same price disparity does not happen again with the Yaris. And they will emphasize production of the sedan over the hatch.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As for "risk", this is dependent on so many factors that, to me, betting on car safety by picking one particular car is like betting $20 on the nose of a horse. It's no more reliable than that.
Besides, one could turn the argument around---if we removed all the SUVs, the "killers" are off the road and small cars are automatically safer. I'm not serious but you see how loosey-goosey the argument about large=safe really is.
I look at it this way. My subcompact with front and side air bags replacing one of my heavy, powerful, old-fashioned cars with no bags.
So, maybe I am not statistically as safe as someone in a Range Rover with a push bar made out of railroad rails; but I am safer than I was, and not as likely to flip in a soft shoulder as the Rover.
I could almost guarantee you that I'd notice a difference. For one thing, I'm guessing that these 28 mpg cars Jlawrence is referring to are Cutlass Cieras and the like. Bigger, more comfortable, roomier, better isolation from the road, more sound insulation, etc. Plus, the Ciera probably has a taller profile tire, which is going to soften the ride.
One problem with small cars is that the passenger cabin basically sits on top of the rear axle, just like in the old horse and buggy days. The closer the wheels are to the passenger cabin, the harder it is to isolate road noise, vibrations, bumps, etc.
Now the xA might handle better and be more maneuverable, but one thing small cars have never been able to do is emulate the ride of a bigger car. Of course, depending on what you're really after, that's not necessarily a bad thing!
One exception might be the BMW 3-series, but has the weight and wheelbase of a much larger car, wrapped up in a compact-sized body.
Out of curiosity, I might go up to the Toyo dealer my uncle bought his Corolla from and drive an xA, just to see. I kinda like the tC. They had a couple of purple ones sitting in front of the showroom that looked kinda nice.
I wonder if the xA would have a better driving position than the Corolla? That, really, is my biggest complaint about the Corolla. I can actually deal with the ride, noise, etc, although I'd still say it's inferior in those regards to a bigger car. But then, that's what sound systems are for...just crank it up and drown out any annoying noises you might hear!
In fact, I actually prefer the seating position of our Focus to that of the Saturn L300 that my daughter is currently driving, for the same reason.
Maybe it is a plot by madison avenue? Might the real answer be that the manufacturers can't make the profit off of a micro car?
Also, I'd imagine that if there were no Civic, Corolla, etc (or at least, if that size class of car ceased to exist) that sales of smaller models like the Echo, xA, Aveo, etc, would take off. Nobody who really wants what a small car like an Echo, xA, Aveo etc have to offer would be satisfied with something the size of an Accord or Camry, but for plenty of buyers, the Civic and Corolla fit the bill.
Think of how long it took Americans to wean themselves from huge gas guzzling land yachts. It took almost 20 years for Japan and Germany to kick the door in.
Free TV basically sucks because it is free. All you have to endure to get it is commercials. You want better, you pay more.
Cars are inefficient because gasoline is cheap, credit is cheap, roads in some areas aren't crowded, air quality is good. If those things are in place for you, you aren't buying a subcompact. But if gasoline is suddenly not cheap for you, if credit gets tight, and if you live in a congested area and your air smells bad, your tastes will change right quick.
You can see the problems facing the marketing of subcompacts right here on this board. Some people genuinely believe they are a torment to drive; some believe they aren't safe; some are unaware say, that a Scion xA is the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid for sale in America at the moment. Some may not care!
I agree with you...the marketplace itself will settle the issue, and I think the subcompact car is going to be a big deal in America because nothing...NOTHING...is actually getting better for the American motorist EXCEPT the cars themselves...but driving conditions, regulations, operating costs, are all getting worse and worse.
Call it "vehicular darwinism" if you will....
For a long time, hatchbacks have been seen as cheap and crappy, despite the proliferation of crossovers, many of which are just raised hatchbacks.
With the fresh wave of subcompacts, they will be fighting a double stigma: they are small, AND they are hatchbacks (for the most part).
As for comparative rides, well, despite the huge amount of ad money devoted to "sportiness" in every automaker's line-up, what a lot of people prefer is a serene, slightly-land-yacht type of feel to their ride. Why do you think Toyota can sell so many Camrys, and Buick can sell so many cars? For those people, I would have to agree they probably would be less than totally happy in a sportier ride like the xA.
But the xA does not speak for all subcompacts or anything. That is just one way to tune a car's suspension.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)