What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Mr_Shiftright

But those values are due to rarity more than HP. You can't compare a '69 Boss with what...1,500 cars made...to a '69 Mustang coupe where they made a couple gazillion.

I must respectfully disagree...the 289 Cobra is a far more fun and pleasant car to drive...the 427 is an unruly beast that designed itself out of practicality. I hate driving it but it proves the point...more HP doesn't make a better car necessarily. There is a "sweet spot" for every car that should not be exceeded.

But you're right...making a new model smaller and with less HP seems suicidal. I can't think of anybody who did this voluntarily...unless the govmint forced them.

iluvmysephia1

yeah, actually I have test-driven the 2006 Scion xA in 5-speed form, Polar White in color. The audio controls built into the steering wheel were very cool, I kept hitting the search when I wanted volume, though, and vice versa. I liked the acceleration and the handling. The little subcompact was quite fun to drive. To get all that equipment, neat quirky body styling and great resale value is probably all the evidence I need to figure out what car I'll get next.

No, I didn't experience the "short seat" deal that IIRC some test-drivers of the new 2006 Hyundai Sonta were also experiencing. I brought along my 25 y/o son for the test drive. He sat in the back seat of the xA behind me. I asked him how the comfort level was with leg room, etc., and he quickly responded with a tip 'o the Sonics cap with "good!"

Shifting was reasonably smooth but, ya gotta remember, I am currently driving a 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4 with a 5-speed manual tranny. Shifting in th Sportage is truck-like, yet very, very easy to do and I've never had a problem with synchronization at all. Very solid setup in the Sportsman, gentlemen.

I have seen two xA's so far in SE Arizona and enjoyed the experience both times. Both times I stared at them until they left my view, much like Jack Nicholson staring down the ref's as Ray Allen sneaks another jumper up and in for a much-deserved Sonics V over L.A. at the Staples Center.

andre1969

a '65 Mustang is worth more than a '73 isn't because it's smaller. It's because the '73 sucked! :P

BTW, if you just took a generic, nothing-special 1965 289 convertible and a generic, nothing special 1973 302 convertible, in similar condition, how big of a price discrepancy would there be.

Or to use another example...what about a '65 Barracuda 273 hardtop versus a '73 Barracuda 318 hardtop?

As for making cars smaller and lower-hp, the domestics started this for awhile in the early 60's. It wasn't the cheapest cars so much that got smaller...Fords, and Chevies only got bigger. But standard-sized Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks, Mercuries, and Chryslers all got a bit smaller around that timeframe. Plymouth and Dodge actually tried to do away with bigger cars altogether in 1962, although it didn't work. The 1961 Cadillac was smaller than the 1960. The 1961 Lincoln was also smaller than the overblown '58-60. I doubt it was much lighter, though.

They also started cutting hp a bit around that timeframe, as well. A 1960 361-2bbl put out 295 hp, but was cut to 265 for 1961. And many of those overblown, overpowered Mercury and Edsel engines were phased out in favor of smaller, less powerful Ford units. I think Buick and Olds started putting smaller, weaker engines in their entry-level big cars as well in the early 60's.

This wasn't in response to anything that the government was forcing them to do, though, and it's doubtful that these slightly smaller big cars were much more economical. Merely reacting to a changing market and economy, one that for the time being, made smaller, downscale Buicks, Chryslers, Mercurys, Oldsmobiles, and other former middle-priced brands more viable. It would only be a matter of time though, before we demanded them to be bigger and more powerful again.

iluvmysephia1

could come up with a small car like the '62 Chevy Nova, or a new world order facsimile, I'd go test drive the thing and consider a purchase. That car had some serious body design character to it and, as I age, I appreciate those 60's Chevy's and Ford's and Mopar products more and more.

Your '68 Dodge Dart is a fine looking machine as well.

I remember my Mom had a '68 Buick LeSabre. That car had a big-block 400 c.i. V8 and all you had to do was touch the accelerator pedal and OOOMMPPPFFF!!! you were off like a lark. That car was quiet inside, too, for all of it's power.

It is truly miralce that I didn't roll that car or at least get pulled over by a cop in it. At least one, but never was I pulled over in it. I was in my teens and speeding was...well...you know...allowed.

andre1969

could come up with a small car like the '62 Chevy Nova, or a new world order facsimile, I'd go test drive the thing and consider a purchase.

I always thought those old 60's Chevy II/Novas were cool looking cars, too. My favorites were the '66-67. I always thought the Falcon looked cheap in comparison (although I kinda liked the hardtop they offered around '62-63) and the Darts and Valiants were just goofy looking, until their 1967 redesign. I guess the current Malibu could be considered roughly their modern-day replacement, but the Malibu just doesn't have the same style or flair to it. Although when it comes to cars roughly the Malibu's size these days, I don't think there's really anything that truly grabs my attention and gets me lusty for it. I do like the Altima though, and from what little I've seen of it, the Aura might be interesting. I think the Mazda6 looks okay, but it's too small inside for my tastes.

Mr_Shiftright

65 Mustang GT convertible would bring close to (but not quite) double the price of a 73 Mustang convertible. You're right, the 71-73s did suck...they were fat and overblown.

boaz47

You know, I have heard people say that the 289 was better than the 427 before. But looking at all the reproductions it is had to tell how many people feel that way. I have heard the same thing about the old 240Z. People have said it was the best Z of the bunch and once again I don't know how true that is. It may be that the 289 Cobra and the 240Z were the kind of car that a better than average driver could get 100 percent out of and it felt better than a car that was more than 100 percent of what they could handle. My old Sprite was that way. I could drive it 100 percent on an Auto cross and hardly ever get myself in to much trouble. The first time I tried the same thing in a friends 68 Vette I was way over my head and way over in time. I believe the Sprite might have been more fun in that regard. But was it a better car? My Fiat spyder could be tossed into a corner and give me a perfect 4 wheel drift almost every time. It did seem like a blast to drive. But fun or not I had a very hard time keeping up with more powerful cars in my class. The Sprite was fun because that class topped out at 1000 CCs. It was very competitive till the coopers hit our shores. I discovered early that the 914s were a true indicator of more being better. I worked the pit for a friend with his 914. In our group there were three or four drivers that were about equal. they all started with 1.7s. Once one of them bought a 1.8 he almost always beat the other 1.7s. Then the guy I was working for got a 2.0 and the game changed again. The 2.0 was a lot better than the 1.8 and the results proved it. Until someone got a 914-6 2.0. Game set and match as they say. You know if I didn't hate working on German cars so much I almost miss the 914? But germans "have a habit" of making everything way to complicated or hard to reach.

I wonder if I could find another 124 spyder? Or maybe a Spyder Veloche? No, I have settled down.

nippononly

no question about it, the original 240Z was the best of the Z cars. I liked the first 280Z a little more - it had EFI. I had a '75 for years until it was stolen. But all the revisions of the Z line just gave the car higher thresholds and lower driver involvement. Driving the 350Z today is like being in a claustrophobic little speed capsule - yes it is much faster than those original cars, but the road is way too remote nowadays...

The smallest, lowest-powered Z cars were definitely the best. Bigger is not always better!

boaz47

The question you bring up is, what quantitativly makes one a better car? Is it smoothness, quietness, handling, power to weight or what? when you get to the point where the vehicle has given you all you can get from it what is left but more power, better tires and suspension? I could beat a 240Z with my Camaro but I couldn't do the same to a 300Z. Isn't the idea of a Sports, or Sporty, car to be the best in its class? Or will people be satisfied with fly weights after seeing a heavy weight boxing match?

Mr_Shiftright

Unless you enjoy steering with the gas pedal, the 289 is definitely the better car. Most people who install a 427 end up not using the car very much...there's too much power and too much PUSH for enjoyable everyday driving. What are you going to do, go down the street and shred the tires off the rim at stoplights in a blaze of flame and black oily smoke? Crazy. And big blocks with high compression are a chore on city streets....you apply the gas and your head jerks back, you let off the gas and your head bobs forward.

john500

That probably varies per person. For me, handling is weighted first followed by "smoothness" (comfortable ride). The car should have an excellent turning ratio, which is typically higher in a smaller car. Power should be 0-60 mph in about 7 seconds with a ~ 15 s quarter mile. More importantly with regard to power is the absence of air intake restriction and the ability to take a beating (i.e. driving above 5,000 rpm a lot). The power should pull all the way up to the red-line and not feel like a brick wall after 4,000 rpm. Additionally, there should be no lag in response. Although the current Mazda Miata is too low to the ground for me and now lags due to the turbo, the previous generation is probably closest to the ideal. It's about having fun going where you are going, not being the first one there. Why would I want to get to work first?

boaz47

kick a 289 Cobra out of their garage but the 427 seems more in line with what Shelby wanted. After all his new Cobra is designed a lot closer to the 427 than the 289. And I have driven a Sunbeam Alpine and Tiger back to back and no amount of talking will convince me the Alpine was more fun. It is easy to find comparisons if we try. The Mustang comes with a 6 and a V-8. The Camaro came with both. No way is the smaller power plant as much fun, or should I say, exciting.

logic1

I had a first AND second generation Miata.

The second Gen was a rocket up to around 4k and after that was not much to write home about.

The second Gen was overpriced and overwrought compared to gen 1. Mazda has still not recaptured the magic of the NA Miata, imo.

Mr_Shiftright

Shelby's intentions aren't always good ideas. The 289 was perfect IMO, absolutely perfect. The Tiger is a chore---steer with the gas pedal, gops of engine heat breaking over you, no leg room---it's sort of an abortion really.

And of course there's always the old race car driver's lament...."if you're a bad driver with 200 HP, you're going to be REALLY bad with 400". :P

logic1

."if you're a bad driver with 200 HP, you're going to be REALLY bad with 400".

Yeah. Gets real easy to lose the back end with that kind of power.

boaz47

well, you have a point. But if you are a pretty good driver and you have reached the limits of your ride? The Tiger was a chore, as was the MK 3000, TR-6, MG-GT. The Alpine was a dog even compared to my 124 and only a generous dollop of HP did the Sunbeam strike fear in the hearts of club racers anywhere. People rarely lament giving up a Alpine but most remember the Tiger.

Getting back on track, the same things happens when we think back on cars we wish we still had. How many look back on their entry level sub compact like they do over their first performance car? If we are honest, not many. I have been to lots of car guy gatherings and when we are talking about cars we loved I don't remember anyone coming up with, oh man, if I still had my Metropolitan.

nippononly

Oh man, if only I still had my Tercel! Man, I loved that car!

Satisfied? :-P

(I have never been the owner of a Tercel, except once, for a few weeks)

You know what car I actually DO miss, and you will just laugh, and you won't believe me, but for six months or so I had an early 90s Daihatsu Charade, and I commuted to work in it. It was gloriously basic and fuel efficient. Its gas mileage kicked butt over anything available today except the hybrids, and runs neck and neck with those. Mine was the 4-cyl hatchback. Subcompact? Oh YES it was! IIRC, it was one of those cars that still had 12" rims. Maayyybe they were 13"ers, but certainly no bigger than that. :-)

andre1969

that I kinda liked the '91 Civic rental car I had out in California years ago. Now to be honest, I really was happy to get back behind the wheel of my '69 Dart GT when I got home, but that Civic did at least give me a newfound respect for small cars.

And it's not a subcompact, but more of a cute-ute, but in a twisted way I sorta miss the '98 Tracker convertible my buddy had. It was crude, slow, not all that comfortable, and noisy, but the sucker did have personality. The '06 Xterra he has now just seems kinda generic in comparison.

snakeweasel

"if you're a bad driver with 200 HP, you're going to be REALLY bad with 400".

Really bad or really dead.

Mr_Shiftright

Case in point: Go read the Hemmings Motor News ads for used Vipers and then count how many are being sold damaged---it's a riot!

I think subcompacts only need to reach a certain "plateau" of performance...surely, 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds and a comfortable highway rpm is MORE than enough to satisfy anyone in this price range.

You wait, you're gonna see turbo Scions and Fits with a 6 speed and then all hell will break loose in how the market is being driven these days.

The "Black Book" people did a recent study in which they monitored resale values in all market segments and related them statistically to rising gas prices. Their question to the computer was: "Are gas prices driving the resale pricing structure today"?

Answer? Sorta Kinda. DEFINITELY they saw, in the last two years, an upward trend in resale value for gas saving low priced cars, and a corresponding drop in resale value for gas-guzzling SUVs...but no real effect on the middle of the market yet...your bread and butter compact and mid-size and sports sedans.

So I'm thinkin' that if the subcompacts ramp up their performance and comfort levels without a huge increase in price or huge drop in fuel mileage(that is, as they become increasingly COMPETENT), they will raise hell with the next niche level, the $20K--$30K range cars.

snakeweasel

I think subcompacts only need to reach a certain "plateau" of performance...surely, 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds and a comfortable highway rpm is MORE than enough to satisfy anyone in this price range.

I would think that 7.5 is a little quick

You wait, you're gonna see turbo Scions and Fits with a 6 speed

Do you remember the Dodge Omni GLH (Goes Like Heck)? That was a turbo charged beast that was a blast to drive.

rorr

"Unless you enjoy steering with the gas pedal, the 289 is definitely the better car. Most people who install a 427 end up not using the car very much..."

I can personally attest to this. My cousin has built several ERA Cobra replicas (and has owned 2). After starting with a 427SC clone (first with a 428 Cobrajet and then with a 427), he moved on to a 289FIA clone.

He liked the 289 a LOT better. And the interesting thing is that at virtually every road course he was on, he had better lap times with the 289 than he did with the 427. His explanation was that the 289 was a MUCH more forgiving car to drive and it was MUCH easier to approach the limits of the car.

And now he vintage races a '66 Shelby GT350H; and seems to like it the best of all....

Mr_Shiftright

GLH -- yep, quick little car...unfortunately, totally biodegradable with the build quality of an Italian TV dinner tray.

Maybe you're right, 7.5 is a bit quick. Let's say 8.0 for the ideal subcompact.

nippononly

8.0 is MORE than adequate. Remember, the roads are getting MORE crowded, not less. ;-)

gogogodzilla

Noooo!!!!

The bare minimum is 0-60 in 6.9 seconds.

Like the VW GTI!

:P

wale_bate1

5.7 is better. Just is.

Turbo an xA for me. Please...

Kirstie_H

A large local newspaper is looking to interview 18-25 year olds on what type of car they are looking to purchase. Please send an e-mail to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Friday, August 18, 2006 by 2:30 PM PT/5:30 PM ET containing your daytime contact information.

snakeweasel

5.3 is even better.

There is no replacement for displacement.

But seriously you cannot go any faster than the guy in front of you.

qbrozen

There is no replacement for displacement.

oh come now. You don't really believe that old addage in this day and age, do you?

british_rover

I hope not. There are plenty of ways to get around displacment.

Variable valve timing
Supercharger
variable nozzel turbocharger or sequintial turbocharger
variable camshaft phasing
multiple valves
pent roof combustion chamber

etc etc

I hate to bring SUVs back into this but the Range Rover has the most profound example of this in my recent memory.

2002 HSE Range Rover had a 4.6 litre V8 and made 222 hp and 300 lb-ft of torque.

2003 Range Rover HSE had a 4.4 liter V8 that made 282 hp and I think 335 lb-ft of torque.

The 2006 Range Rover has a 4.4 liter V8 that makes 305 hp and 325 lb-ft of torque.

qbrozen

I was also thinking to just lighten the car! Lotus Exige is a wonderful example of how effective this can be.

british_rover

Yup who needs 250 hp when your car only weighs 1,800 lbs.

I sat in the Lotus Elise that our Volvo dealer had but I never got a chance to drive it.

I was so upset that my shoulders, back and legs are too wide to fit in the car. I would have to get a custom seat made to drive the car for more then 5 minutes.

andre1969

I'd say even 9-10 seconds is adequate. But it has to be a REAL 9-10 seconds, not an MT or C&D 9-10 seconds, which would equate to a "real world" 10-11 or more.

Does anybody know what the 0-60 time would have been on a 1991 Honda Civic 4-door, automatic, with the V-tec engine? I think this was the one that had 100 hp. I'd imagine that it would be quicker than 14 seconds, right? Reason I pick 14 seconds is because at the time I had a 1969 Dart GT with a slant six and automatic. I remember reading an old Consumer Reports where they tested a '68 Dart 225 slant six/automatic and got 0-60 in 14 seconds. However, that Dart would walk that Civic like a dog.

I also had a buddy with a 1989 or so (one of the final) Plymouth Horizons, which had a 2.2 4-cyl/automatic and no air conditioning. Lightweight car, no a/c drag, and a fairly large, powerful engine for its small size. Yet my Dart would blow it away, too. But I'd like to think that something like that Horizon could do 0-60 in quicker than 14 seconds!

Maybe it's possible that Consumer Reports just didn't know how to drive cars back then?

FWIW, I think my '85 Silverado will do 0-60 in about 12 seconds. And my '76 LeMans and '79 NYer are around 11-12. However, even with those leisurely acceleration times, the biggest thing holding me back on highway merge ramps is rarely the car's power, but the buffoon in front of me who can't figure out where the gas pedal is! :surprise:

snakeweasel

I hope not. There are plenty of ways to get around displacment.

Well first off you can improve the performance of a large displace ment engine using the same technology.

Secondly that technology does make the engine more complicated and therefor more prone to breakdowns and more expensive to fix.

british_rover

Maybe it's possible that Consumer Reports just didn't know how to drive cars back then?


Have you read CR lately they still don't know how to drive cars.

qbrozen

Well first off you can improve the performance of a large displace ment engine using the same technology.

At some point you will inevitably exceed the limitations of the car's handling and traction. There is a balance that "there is no replacement for displacement" does not take into account. If I get 1000 hp out of a twin turbo 3 liter I6 or 1500 hp out of a supercharged 5.7, the car is undriveable either way. And most likely would still get spanked around the track by a 1.8 liter powered Lotus.

snakeweasel

I also had a buddy with a 1989 or so (one of the final) Plymouth Horizons, which had a 2.2 4-cyl/automatic and no air conditioning. Lightweight car, no a/c drag, and a fairly large, powerful engine for its small size. Yet my Dart would blow it away, too. But I'd like to think that something like that Horizon could do 0-60 in quicker than 14 seconds!

My Omni (same thing as the Horizon) would do 0-60 in about 7 seconds (give or take a few tenths) with the turbo charged 2.2 so I would think that the non turbo charged 2.2 should do much better than 14 seconds.

the biggest thing holding me back on highway merge ramps is rarely the car's power, but the buffoon in front of me who can't figure out where the gas pedal is!

That I agree with, most times the 134 HP engine in the Elantra will get me to highway speeds before the merge. When I can't its usually because of a really short ramp or someone who won't get up to speed.

british_rover

Large displacments cause other problems too.

Chrysler does not offer the MDS system on the large displacment Hemis because the system does not work well with all of that rotating mass.

andre1969

That I agree with, most times the 134 HP engine in the Elantra will get me to highway speeds before the merge.

For something not all that heavy like an Elantra, I'd think 134 hp would be more than adequate. To use a comparison, I had a 1979 Newport that only had 135 hp! Consumer Reports tested a 1979 St. Regis and got 0-60 in something like 15.9 seconds! However, I put a stopwatch to my Newport, and even with over 230,000 miles on the clock, it would do it in about 12. I'll confess though that I played around with the timing a little and it needed to run premium fuel to do it.

With my buddy's Horizon, I wonder if maybe its 3-speed automatic tranny was geared too loafy or something? When you consider that my Dart had at least 700-800 pounds on it, yet only like 14 more hp, plus the drag of a/c and power steering (his Horizon didn't even have that), it just doesn't seem to add up. Now I'd imagine that the slant six had about 50 more ft-lb of torque than the 2.2 (maybe 185 ft-lb versus 135?), but I'd think that would still be offset by the Dart's greater weight.

Oh, for another lame-o 0-60 time...we timed my buddy's '80 Accord from 0-60 a few times. Best time he got was about 26 seconds. It had an automatic, which I know hampered it more than it would a bigger car, especially back then. It also had a/c. And we had three people on board. IIRC, Consumer Reports would usually get these things from 0-60 in about 15 seconds, with a stick.

I remember we timed my Dart once and got like 17.9 seconds, but that was with 4 people on board, and I started off making a right turn from a traffic light, which no doubt hurt a bit, too.

snakeweasel

Oh, for another lame-o 0-60 time...we timed my buddy's '80 Accord from 0-60 a few times. Best time he got was about 26 seconds.

Thats really slow, even for a 4 banger of that era thats slow. Now I am working on a '38 Zephyr, that thing has about 50-55 seconds 0-60 speed.

qbrozen

heck, i think you should be proud it can reach 60.

bumpy

Does anybody know what the 0-60 time would have been on a 1991 Honda Civic 4-door, automatic, with the V-tec engine?

The only thing that had VTEC in 1991 was the NSX. Anyway, this page claims that a '91 Civic EX had a 9.7 second 0-60. The Dart should be a LOT faster than 14 seconds.

Mr_Shiftright

I USED TO think that displacement was not the only way to get HP but WAS the only way to get real low end torque; however, having recently driven my friend's Mitsubishi EVO, that he has breathed on somewhat, I was totally amazed. This little engine hauls like a V8 from the get-go. I have no idea if it will blow up like a hand grenade in 20,000 miles but it is truly impressive what 4 cylinder engines are doing these days. The way he has it set up, *any* car he meets on the street should fear him.

Hey, how 'bout an EVO powered Scion xA? :P

andre1969

Oh yeah, I've seen that page before. As for the '91 Civic rental I had, I looked up some specs and it looks like it had a 108 hp 1.6 4-cyl. I do remember it was a larger optional engine. I could've sworn that it said "V-tec" on the valve cover, but maybe it said something else (not just "Honda" :P ).

Would that 9.7 Honda EX have been a stick, most likely? Because there's NO WAY this '91 I had did 0-60 in 9.7 seconds! My Intrepid only does 0-60 in about 9.5.

bumpy

1.6L and 108hp makes it a Civic Si which should have done 0-60 in the high 8s, but not if you shifted at 2500 rpm.

Here's your '91 Si valve cover.

chrisducati

Try timing a zero to sixty run in a 1967 VW micro bus! Now that was slow. :shades:

andre1969

maybe my memory's just getting fuzzy with this Honda Civic I had. For some reason I kept thinking it had 100 hp and was a 1.6. But looking up specs, it looks like the Civic sedan either had a 92 hp 1.5 (DX/LX) or a 108 hp 1.6 (EX), at least according to Edmund's.

Doing a little research on Edmunds, it looks like the rental I had wasn't an EX, though. They list the EX as having power windows and locks, which mine didn't have so it must've just been an LX. Would Honda have offered the larger 4-cyl as an option on the LX, though?

Seeing those Honda valve covers side-by side like that almost makes me want to ask when Honda started making Hemi V-8's :shades:

bumpy

Would Honda have offered the larger 4-cyl as an option on the LX, though?

No. Japanese makes didn't do that mix-and-match stuff. If you wanted the 1.6L, you bought the trim that had the 1.6L.

Seeing those Honda valve covers side-by side like that almost makes me want to ask when Honda started making Hemi V-8's

There is this:

rorr

"There is this:"

Those Honda engineers are truely a master of packaging. Who else would have thought of placing a roof storage box in the place of an intake...?

poncho167

CR test driving cars? I would never trust that.