What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

boaz47

small sub compact car buyers are willing to assume, like the rest of us, that we aren't going to get into an accident? for a few MPG some might consider it worth it. My problem isn't with that assumption it is with what might be a sub compact. The Mini is and it is marketed to a limited number of people. The Fit, Yaris, and maybe the xA are only Sub compact in size by a very little bit. So they are bumping into the compact market almost from the outset. How can the future Sub Compact garner sales without getting bigger, making it a compact and making one less sub compact in the process? If the compacts are already getting sub compact mileage with an extra 20 to 30hp how will the new and improved new sub compact for the next generation do anything less than offer more HP to push then into Compact territory? That is the problem with being a bottom feeder. You grow or die. At least that has been the fate for the sub compact every time it has been introduced here for the last 30 years.

andre1969

to car safety versus anything else is that when you're in a car, you have some degree of control. If you're driving you can at least be on the lookout for potentially dangerous situations. Sure, you can't control every possible scenario, but you have more control in your own car than you do on a plane, train, bus, etc, where you're pretty much at the mercy of the driver/pilot/engineer. Basically just hope that on your next flight that if Dean Martin's too drunk to fly the thing and Howard Borden gets you lost, maybe George Kennedy can at least find some way to save you. :surprise:

Also, nobody's going to stab me while I'm driving my car. :P Now maybe if I was riding with my windows down and doors unlocked, just not paying attention to my surroundings, perhaps someone could come up to me at a traffic light and knife me.

logic1

Well, but you just had those sniper incidents in Indiana.

Plus you get the sickos throwing rocks and stuff from overpasses onto expressways.

Long and short, a lot more people pro rata die or are injured in cars than mass transit.

andre1969

Oh I know, statistically other forms of transportation are still safer than the private automobile. But I guess that people just like to feel in control, or at least the illusion that they're in control.

Funny you mention it, but every time I see a pedestrian on an overpass, I always keep an eye on them. You never know what they might do sometimes. Although I've never had someone drop something on me so that might just be paranoia on my part.

I did have a crackhead swing his open-palmed hand at the windshield of my Gran Fury once, on New Year's Eve ages ago while I was driving. I wonder how he felt the next morning when he came off his trip (or however long it takes to come down off a crack high)

logic1

but every time I see a pedestrian on an overpass, I always keep an eye on them. You never know what they might do sometimes. Although I've never had someone drop something on me so that might just be paranoia on my part.

I'll admit to feeling exactly the same every time I notice someone talking to themselves on the MTA.

It is a crazy world we live in.

But to get back to Mr. Shiftright's point, as a society (and not just in the US - everywhere people commute in cars) people almost completely ignore traffic mayhem, while at the same time putting huge emphasis on other dangers.

Not sure how this works psychologically. It definitely does pur the 'safety' objection to sub compacts in an interesting light, however.

Mr_Shiftright

It IS amazing isn't it, I mean psychologically....if say 44,000 Americans a year were thrown into a volocano, and another million or so mutilated, to satisfy the "GREAT GOD KALI" or something, we'd all be in an outrage demanding that this ghastly cult practice be stopped. But when 44,000 a year die in car wrecks, we don't even really stop to think about it.

nippononly

the Versa tonight - extensive interior inspection, short test drive. I dare anyone to try and tell me this car isn't as comfortable as their mid- or full-size . Lots of stretch-out space, a comfortable ride over bad pavement, plenty of power, all the features you have come to expect and then some, 6-speed manual, all for $15,9. AND it's small enough to park downtown in one of those short spaces. Now THAT'S value.

The joke will be on Honda, who just can't make Fits anywhere near fast enough to meet demand. A lot of those crestfallen potential customers will just walk across the street and buy a Versa, I would think.

Oh, and yup, fuel economy is not its strong suit - rated 30/34. Oh well. One strike.

john500

I expect people that can't get a Fit will buy a Civic and still get better fuel economy and power than a Versa. The Nissan Versa doesn't belong in the compact class.

Nissan Versa 2722 lbs 122 hp
Honda Fit 2432 lbs
Toyota Yaris 2293 lbs
Toyota Corolla 2530 lbs
Honda Civic 2593 lbs 140 hp
Chevy Cobalt 2991 lbs
Ford Focus 2627 lbs
Chevy Aveo 2343 lbs

data from latest model year, MT, Edmunds

boaz47

I too have had a close look at the Versa. And I agree it has more room than one would think. If you remember one of my earlier statements I mentioned that the Civic, Corolla, Sentra sized cars seemed to be about as small as any vehicle the American public would embrace fully. You do realize that between the Versa, Civic, Sentra and Corolla the Versa is the heaviest? It is shorter in Wheel base than only the Civic and is more narrow and tall than the other three. It also has more weight and less HP than the other three? It does make great use of the space it has but just cutting off overhang doesn't qualify as making it a sub compact to people that have seen sub compacts before. The old Mini was a sub compact. The Honda 600 was a sub compact. The old Accord might have been a sub compact. The Rio might rate as a sub compact but not a Versa. And Nissan must have realized what people wanted when they brought the Versa to the showroom. It is in fact a new compact and should slot right in with the other flock of successful compacts. A far larger market with more room for more cars. People looking for small cars just because they are small make up a much smaller market, no pun intended, and I have to wonder how many cars it will take to saturate the niche they will create for themselves? Europe, and Asia have sub compacts we have compacts, with the exception of the Mini. So I, for now at least, will stick with my origional contention and say, Civic, Sentra, Corolla sized cars are about the smallest sized cars Americans will embrace in any great numbers. But I will say this, if they managed to make sub Compacts a lot less expensive to buy, maybe 10k or less they could make major inroads to the compact market. But if the difference is 1 or 2k? There just isn't enough to cause people to switch in any great numbers. At least that is how I see it, and I have been wrong before.

jlawrence01

I am driving a Toyota Corolla this weekend ... $12 weekend day from Hertz.

What I don't understand is this. Wht is the Corolla classified as a compact vehicle and the Toyota Matrix classified as a subcompact when the latter seems to be so much larger.

crimsona

I don't think anybody is classifying a Matrix as a subcompact (like the Mazda 3 Sport)

jlawrence01

Automotive Fleet among others classifies it as a subcompact.

andre1969

that the Corolla isn't classified as a MIDSIZE by rental fleet standards! The last time I had a rental car, in 2001, I had a coupon that let me upgrade a size class. My company was getting me a midsized car, but I "upgraded" to "full-sized". Any guesses on what that "fullsized" car was? A Chevy Malibu! :surprise:

jlawrence01

Hertz Local Edition classifies the Corolla as a mid-sized vehicle. However, I gnenerally order an economy car and since the local shop never has a compact, I get a midsized vehicle.

Avis and Hertz are generally pretty predictable. Enterprise is the worst. They tried to sell me a Camry as a PREMIUM car.

And for the record. Even for a 2 day, $26 OTD rental. The first question that the Hertz manager asked was "next time, we'll deliver the car to you ..."

nippononly

back in the mists of time. The Monroney sticker said it was EPA-rated as a midsize. That's because it has an enormous amount of space behind the front seats if you put the back seats down. I would definitely say the passenger space is compact, not midsize. The Matrix, like many hatches, is rated bigger than it "feels" because of the larger cargo space.

boaz, you make some good points, and it is quite possible that Versa is more properly viewed as a compact car. But I bet if you put it side by side with a Fit, you wouldn't see much in the way of a size difference. They're both short in length and narrow. Versa will not seat five comfortably.

I do think potential Fit customers will be focused on buying a hatchback, and will look towards Versa and the Korean hatches before they will consider a Civic.

boaz47

Don't know my friend. I was sitting right next to the Versa in the parking lot at the post office talking to the owner of a new one. It was just as big as the Focus, remember I was parked right next to him, and taller. There is little or now hood however and no overhang to speak of. I don't know how wide it was but the inside room was a lot better than what I have seen in the fit. At least from the drivers point of view. An we saw what happened to the Civic Hatch so you might be right. Civic drivers rejected the hatch so hatch drivers might reject the Civic.

andre1969

the '06 Civic is rated as a subcompact by the EPA! I find it to be much more comfortable than the Corolla, which is rated as a compact, so that's one reason why I've always questioned the EPA's measurements and have stressed that no matter what a car is rated, you need to actually sit in it to see how it fits you. Plus, a car can have generous interior volume, but still have a bad seating position.

I think they should put certain qualifiers in some dimensions of cars, so that a car not only has to have so much interior volume, but also has to have at least so many inches of shoulder room. That would eliminate some of this BS of Hyundai Sonatas and Ford Tauruses being classified as midsized cars because of having a roof shaped so that where they take the measurement is ridiculously high.

I have trouble calling anything with less than 60 inches of shoulder room "full-sized". And maybe make a requirement that a midsized car need to have at least 56" of shoulder room.

I guess the way I always looked at it, a subcompact should have the shoulder room for two adults in the back. A compact should be able to hold two adults easily, or three for short trips and emergencies. A midsize should be able to hold three adults for a longer period of time, and with a full-size their shoulders shouldn't be overlapping, unless they're linebackers.

Mr_Shiftright

It's the rare passenger car of ANY size that holds three broad shouldered adults comfortably anymore. You'd need about 6 feet from one rear window to the other side. That's a whoppin' 72 inches wide. (I'm figurin' broad shouldered is a person 24 inches across at the shoulder.

andre1969

Well yeah...I think about the biggest a passenger car ever got inside was really only about 64-65 inches. I think the '71-76 Chevy Impala, Pontiac Catalina, and similar cars got that wide, and the '91-96 Caprice/Roadmaster/Fleetwood were close. The more luxurious versions of those 70's cars were actually a bit more skimpy on shoulder room, I think because those thickly padded door panels and pull straps deducted from the measurement.

I remember Consumer Reports once said that you needed at least 57 inches of shoulder room to comfortably seat three people across. I forget when they said it, but I think it was at a time when most, if not all midsized cars were more like 58-59" across inside, and your typical compact was 56" or less.

I think even a Ford F-250 and Excursion "only" has like 67-68" of shoulder room inside. I think my '85 Silverado has about 65".

imidazol97

I just measured out lowly LeSabre; 63, front; 62.5 rear. That's from glass to glass; subtract 2 inches for door to door. Guess that's why it's so nice to have a full front seat and full rear seat to haul people when a crowd is needed.

Mr_Shiftright

I guess I was being generous with room to all those broad shouldered bronze greek gods like myself

snakeweasel

I think you have one to many r's in that word just before "god". :shades:

andre1969

I'd always measure shoulder room on the doorpanel itself, at the point where the armrest bolts on. However, with some cars with recessed armrests or doorpanels that aren't perfectly vertical, I guess that's not too accurate.

Anyway, here are some measurement I can remember, off the top of my head...

1980 Malibu coupe: 57" up front, can't remember the back
1969 Dodge Dart hardtop: 56", front and rear
1957 DeSoto Firedome hardtop coupe: 61.5" front and rear
1982 Cutlass Supreme coupe/1986 Monte Coupe: 56" up front
1967 Catalina convertible: 62.5" front, ~56.5" in back at the part where the top mechanism cuts in
1979 Newport/New Yorker: 61" front and rear
1989 Gran Fury: 56" front and rear
2000 Intrepid: 60" up front, can't remember the rear. Its doorpanels are recessed just a bit.

My uncle had a 1981/early 1982 Plymouth Reliant sedan once. I remember measuring it and got something like 58"! I thought that was really shocking that it had that much room! Especially being that small on the outside, although those cars did have thin doors. I don't think I've ever seen a published measurement for the K-cars to be much over 56" in shoulder room though. So maybe they actually measure at the B-pillar or something?

growwise

New player for 07 - Suzuki SX4 (Aerio replacement)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=116341

tsgeisel

It's funny - they lowered the height, which likely will improve the handling, but that also reduced the amount of interior room (which felt cavernous in the Aerio).

But it doesn't look like a car for anyone who doesn't feel a need for 4WD - and somewhat of a slam dunk for people who might think they need it.

andre1969

I actually like that little Suzuki thingie! Makes me think of the revised Vitara, which I think is a handsome little rig. There's just something about the proportioning up front that I think is just right. The grille seems just the right size and so do the headlights. Often with little cars the grille is too small and headlights too big.

logic1

Definitely a looker.

Why AWD standard though? A super thrifty fwd base would have helped Suzuki with its elusive goal of uping US sales.

Still very nice. Worth a look.

nippononly

The 3-mode AWD does have a front-drive-only mode, which might improve mpgs a bit. But of course, even in FWD it is still lugging around the extra weight of the AWD system.

Matrix AWD rates about the same, I think, and it has slightly less power and slightly more weight.

Mr_Shiftright

Looks like a competitor to the Matrix, not the xA or Yaris. I dunno....25 mpg city and an $18K price tag, with only 8 inches more length than an xA....I'm not getting the selling point of this car unless its AWD.

If it were AWD and 30 mpg for $15,000, it'd sell like hot cakes.

turboshadow

I believe the SX4 will have AWD. It is basically the same car as the Fiat Sedici (sp?).

nippononly

Doesn't sound super spacious though. Sounds like a tweener between xA/Fit and Matrix. You can get it for $15K with the AWD, as all models have AWD from what I can tell. But $18K buys the model with the same equipment as the xA, and some additional niceties too.

It just sucks that the folks making AWD cars can't get the mileage up into a decent range. Makes you think though - if Subaru has had a tough time selling $18K Imprezas making 22/29 mpg and being as well equipped as this new Suzuki, what hope does Zuke have of this model being a hit?

I wonder: when the EPA tests a car with a 3-mode system like this, do they test it in AWD or FWD?

logic1

So maybe Suzuki is looking to cut into the market for the Matrix/Vibe? The pair have sold consistently, if not spectacularly.

They are long of tooth now. I think next year will be their sixth season.

GM and a few of the other companies are experimenting with hybrid type vehicles that would have small electric engines on all four wheels. Unless and until the research plays out, AWD will give up mpgs to FWD, owing to the additional weight.

I am not real sure why the auto makers are so hung up on AWD. Traction control provides all the extra grip most everyone needs at least 98% of the time.

Finally, in my opinion anyway, the SX4 is a whole lot better looking than the Impreza and the Aerio. That has to be worth some sales.

Mr_Shiftright

Economic Theory Appied to Subcompacts:

Some economists like to study the "power of incentives" in economic theory---how incentives make people do what they do.

The three basic kinds of incentive are a) economic b) social and c) moral.

I've been thinking that for the first time EVER in the American auto industry, these three incentives are lining up in favor of the subcompact.

Coming from my own experience, I offer this theory of the "three incentives" to my purchase.

a) economic incentive: Okay, I spend $1,200 a year less on gas compared to my old car, which is about 40% of my car payment. In addition, I don't have to repair my new car, worth another $80 a month or so, so we've acheived about 75% of my car payment

b) social: Given the high cost of gas, I am now viewed as somewhat clever for having purchased a thrifty car, and yet I am not penalized for being too spartan or poor because my car offers passengers the same basic amenities they are used to in their own higher priced cars---like AC, comfy seats, good stereo and enough room to feel like they are in a reasonably spacious environment. So I don't suffer a "social penalty"

c) moral: This is very arguable, but I could if I wished take the "moral" position that I'm burning 350 fewer gallons of fuel a year and well if everybody did the same, blah, blah, blah.

So, my argument is that with the three incentives operating in favor of the subcompact, one could basically predict statistically that the subcompact market will definitely expand, driven by these incentives for people to act a certain way.

DOWNSIDE: Sometimes economists can be too clever. It may be for instance, that these incentives are ALSO working on other classes of car; it may also be that these incentives are not relevant to other economic or social classes of people.

lhanson

Just checked at www.fueleconomy.gov for the latest list of ratings for 2007 model small cars and saw listings for Suzuki Swift and Pontiac Wave. Does this mean that they are going to be selling in the USA again. If so, it looks like Pontiac and Suzuki might actually have something that somebody might want.

snakeweasel

Don't know about the Swift, but I know the Wave is available in Canada and I don't think its coming south (or west if you're in AK) anytime soon.

shrinermonkey

Isn't the Wave just a rebadged Chevy Aveo, which is currently outclassed by almost ever other subcompact? So I guess GM hasn't kicked the badge engineering habit yet.

lhanson

I believe that the Chevy Aveo and the Pontiac Swift are both rebadged Suzuki Swifts. They may be outclassed by almost every other subcompact, but with a starting price of $8,000 (no ac, mt) they sure sell a bunch of them. Gas mileage is 27/37, not bad for a commuter car with a 3/36,000 warranty.

snakeweasel

I do believe they sticker at $9,430 and invoice at $8,900, so you could get one for under $11K OTD. Which is thousands less than most other subcompacts. Also I do think that it has a 5 year 60K mile power train warranty.

If you want inexpensive transportation for commuting thats the way to go, unless you live some place like Phoenix where its always way hot and you need A/C.

nippononly

is not a rebadged Suzuki Swift, it is a rebadged Daewoo (Kalos?).

logic1

Well, it cannot really be a rebadged Daewoo as there no longer is a Daewoo. Believe Daewoo intended to call it Kalos (which means beautiful in Greek by the way - talk about wishful thinking!)

The Aveo was in final design stage when GM and Suzuki bought the Daewoo assets. GM sells it as a Chevrolet in many markets, Daewoo in a few, and even Pontiac, it appears.

I do not think Suzuki sells the Aveo anywhere under any name, though it does sell some of the larger - and older - former Daewoo designs.

nippononly

A Daewoo by design is a Daewoo in my book. GM did not modify the Kalos as designed by Daewoo some 4-6 years ago before rebadging it Aveo in the States, and - you are correct - all sorts of Chevys and whatnot in the rest of the world.

The new '07 sedan (but not the 5-door) has been redesigned by the new GMDAT - mainly former Daewoo engineers working under the new GM umbrella - and will never be sold anywhere under the Daewoo brand. So the '07 Aveo sedan will not be a rebadged Kalos. My question is, why did they re-engineer the sedan but not the hatch?

andre1969

that the Suzuki Reno and the Chevy Aveo were at least somewhat related? Not just an obvious badge-engineering job, but based on the same platform, at least?

I belive the current Suzuki Reno/Forenza/Verona are essentially updates of what used to be the Daewoo Lanos/Nubira/Leganza?

logic1

But Daewoo no longer exists. To be rebadged suggests somewhere there is an actual Daewoo selling the product.

Daewoo from the day of acquisition on is nothing more than a brand name.

mainly former Daewoo engineers working under the new GM umbrella

Actually, so many former Daewoo engineers had gone on to find other work by the time the purchase went through, GM DAT had to basically build an the engineering department from scratch. They took a young guy from Holden and set him up as manager. I am certain most of the team are Korean nationals, however. Seems they are doing a good job.

I am not certain of this, but I think the Hatch was not re-engineered as GM already had the Corsa ready to launch.

This Corsa will have a very short life span (a la the current Rabbit/GTI). The next Corsa, which will be one design for all markets, Develping world, EU, and the US is already in process at GM DAT.

If gas prices stay their current course, I have a feeling the next Corsa will be GM's number one product, outselling even the Silverado.

bumpy

The existing Aveo (sedan and hatch) is sold in Canada as the Chevy Aveo, Pontiac Wave, and Suzuki Swift+. It is also sold in Mexico as the Pontiac G2, in Europe as the Chevy Kalos, and in Korea as the Daewoo Kalos. The next-gen sedan will be the Daewoo Gentra in Korea, the Holden Barina in Australia, and presumably will carry over the current names in other markets.

Suzuki also sells rebadged GMDATs in the US as the Forenza (Daewoo Lacetti) and the Verona (Daewoo Magnus). The Reno is a hatchback Verona Forenza, while the Aerio is a product of Suzuki proper.

andre1969

looks too small to be a hatchback Verona. IIRC the Verona's actually a small-ish midsize, whereas the Reno's a subcompact. Unless the thing I'm thinking of isn't called Reno, but something else?

bumpy

Reno:


Forenza:


Verona:


The Reno and Forenza have the same 102.4" wheelbase, but the Forenza is 10.6" longer (179.7" versus 169.1").

bumpy

this may be heading our way soon:

logic1

was not slated for the US.

Is it or isn't it?

And someone better doing something about the position of the steering wheel before bringing them over here

Mr_Shiftright

Gee those cars look incredibly bland to me.

british_rover

Definetly not driving excitement although possibly driving excrement.