What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

british_rover

Unless they are trying to get a Samurai to flip over.

gogogodzilla

You mean a VW Bus will actually GO sixty MPH?

How'd you test it... on a downhill slope?

:P

lhanson

What does any of the last several pages discussion have to do with What is "wrong" with these NEW subcompacts?

boaz47

Adding a supercharger, turbo or more CCs is pretty much all it will take to improve the Sub Compact to my satisfaction. From Post one almost that has been my contention, or at least one of the big ones. That is the path they most often take anyway.

Mr_Shiftright

yeah all good stuff but then there goes the gas mileage, which was sort of the whole point of the subcompact. With a turbo, I'd probably lose 5-10 mpg. I mean who goes through the trouble of installing one and then doesn't put his foot in it?

boaz47

That has proven to be the case. It is also wy the insurance companies hit you up on a turbo. No free power my friend. It is easier to get passed the insurance company with a bigger engine than a turbo or Supercharger. Besides we already discovered that cars like the Fit don't get better fuel mileage than the Civic. And sure don't beat a Corolla. So if you are already in the hole why not boost it?

Bob

Karen_S

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 24, 2006 by 2:30 PM PT/5:30 PM ET containing your daytime contact information.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm quite happy with the balance between HP and gas mileage I'm getting in the xA right now. I drive it like I stole it and get a consistent 33.5 mpg. For speeds up to 80 mph, the car need not apologize to, or yield to, any car being driven normally (which is to say, abnormally) on California freeways.

More power wouldn't work for me because what I really need is higher gearing. The RPMs are too high at 75 mph.

If the xA had 6 gears and about 135HP it would be a killer car and a worthy opponent for the much more expensive MINI.

mazdaman3

That's one thing I really don't get about the automotive industry right now. The Corolla has 23 more hp and gets 4 better mpg on the highway than the Xa. Why not drop that drivetrain in the Xa and Yaris (presuming it fits) and see what we get. It should be more fun and economical. That's the only thing that really irritates me about my Miata, is the gearing. I feel like I need at least sixth and seventh gears to do any kind of highway cruising. I shift to 5th at about 45mph, and I wish I could shift to 6th at 55 and 7th at 65. As it is I’m at about 3500 rpm at 70. I don't know what that would do to performance or mileage, but it'd be interesting to find out. The way people shell out an extra couple thousand for hybrids, I would think someone would pay a little more for a couple more gears. Then again, how weird would it be to have seven gears?

nippononly

Six gears should be enough, seems to me. The problem is, even when they put six in, they don't make the sixth gear tall enough. It's like they're worried people won't downshift when they need to accelerate at highway speeds, and will lug the engine instead. Please! Downshifting is part of the fun!

Many current models suffer from the "sixth gear STILL isn't tall enough" syndrome. Check out the Versa: 120ish hp and only 2700 pounds to haul around, yet it can't do better than 34 mpg in sixth gear? The Miata is another very good example of this, as you mention.

british_rover

I don't remember what my 6th gear RPM at 70 mph was in the MINI. I think it was around 3,000 rpms and at the speed I was getting about 40 mpg with the AC off.

kyfdx

They just compress 2-5 closer together... The ratio of the sixth gear is the same as 5th in the old 5-speed transmissions...

I agree.. if you have six gears, give us a taller overdrive sixth...

snakeweasel

Then again, how weird would it be to have seven gears?

Thats way to many gears. I would think 6 would be the max I would want in a car and I think 5 would be just about right. The problem is not the number of gears but the gearing of each gear. They should be able to make a 5 speed where your doing 2500-3000 rpms at 70 MPH.

john500

Although only 5 speeds, the 2002-5 Honda Civic SI and 2002-5 Acura RSX base model represent the effect of rpm (gearing) on gas mileage. The cars had the same engine and weighed approximately the same (within 50 lbs or so), yet the RSX EPA mileage was 27-34 and the Civic SI EPA mileage was 26-30, later revised in 2004 to 26-31. I agree with Mr Shiftright that the final gear (5 or 6 or whatever) should be strictly for cruising. At 80 mph, the Civic SI revved at 4200 rpm in 5th gear (highest). The "engineering" explanation was that a high rpm would enable passing without downshifting (this was only slightly true). Some severe consequences are that engine life is likely shortened and there was a 10 % reduction in fuel economy.

Mr_Shiftright

I rather doubt the Corolla would, in the real world, do any better in fuel mileage than the xA for most people. But I do know someone who just bought an '06 Corolla and I'll ask her.

The Corolla might have a bigger engine but I'm pretty sure I could walk away from that '06 Corolla in 0-60 mph or so.
Tight gearing can help in some ways and hurt you in others.

It's all a compromise, after all.

british_rover

My sister just bought a 2006 Corolla as well so I will have to ask her how it is doing once she gets a few miles on it.

She wanted to buy a Prius because and I quote, "the gas mileage is like 10 more then my Bettle."

Yeah sure it is in ideal labratory conditions but I know I can get you a 2006 Corolla for a few hundred dollars behind invoice and no one is going to sell you a Prius for anything near the price of a corolla.

She ended up buying the corolla for about 300 dollars behind invoice and trading in the VW.

tsgeisel

As it is I’m at about 3500 rpm at 70.

Odd. My Elantra is at 3000 rmp at 80.

For what it's worth - I'm not sure how or if engine rpms compare well.

snakeweasel

Odd. My Elantra is at 3000 rmp at 80.

Would that be auto or stick? Also what year and body style? My 2000 Elantra wagon is slightly more than 75 MPH at 3000 rpm with the auto.

louiswei

Then again, how weird would it be to have seven gears?

The new Lexus LS460 has 8 gears.

tsgeisel

2005 GT Hatch, auto.

andre1969

my uncle says he's averaged about 34-38 mpg in mostly highway driving with his '03 Corolla automatic. However, while that's mostly highway driving, he does run into stop-and-go rush hour traffic jams from time to time.

Just as a reference point, he borrowed my 2000 Intrepid for about a week or so when his Corolla was in the body shop, and he averaged about 26-28 with that.

british_rover

Honda sold some cars in Japam with 7 speed manuals for a while at one point. They were never imported to the US though and I don't think they were imported anywhere else in the world either.

Mr_Shiftright

I've been reading the Corolla topic on real world gas mileage. It's quite interesting, the disparity in reports is pretty amazing for basically the same car. But if you eliminate the rare "lows" (lead foot? taxi driver?)the rare "highs" (cruise control, 55 mph all day) and the people prone to hyperbole (I get 48 mpg with the AC on!"), it seems that the majority of reports are shotgunning on the target around 34--38 mpg. Soooooo, I would hazard that MPG of a Corolla over an xA or Yaris is nominal...perhaps one could say 1-2 mpg. This is explainable with the gearing I think.

I never understood 6-speeds on big V8s...with all that torque, 5 speeds seem more than enough. I'm sure you could just throw away the first two gears in a new Corvette and you'd never notice.

Kirstie_H

A tv reporter seeks to interview sub-compact (Aveo, Fit, Versa, Yaris) drivers who live or work within 25 miles of Manhattan. Please send your daytime contact info, location and vehicle make/model to alex_cohen@businessweek.com and/or jfallon@edmunds.com no later than Tuesday, August 29, 2006.

andre1969

Are the same people who get 48 mpg with the a/c on with their Corolla the same ones that, 30 years ago, were claiming 36 mpg with their FeatherDusters and Dart Lites? :P About the best I ever got with my old '69 Dart was maybe 23, so I never figured how the same car, strangled with more emissions controls, could get 50% better economy. I don't care if it had an overdrive stick shift or not, that just seemed too good to be true.

That 23 mpg WAS with the ac on, though. :shades:

When you're dealing with mileage estimates like 34-38 mpg or so, I think 1-2 mpg is pretty iconsequential. Now when I was able to get my pickup from 12 mpg to 14, and even got up to ~15.6 on one tank, THAT was a big deal. But I wouldn't quibble over one car getting 34-38 and another getting 1-2 mpg better. It would boil down to whatever car I just happened to like better.

Mr_Shiftright

You bring up an intersting point relative to subcompacts.

Really gas mileage should be thought of in terms of GALLONAGE, mot MPG. If your big V-8 pickup went from 12 mpg to 18 mpg, that's a LOT of gallonage....but if your subcompact goes from 34 to 40 (same amount of increase) your gallonage increase isn't going to be very dramatic.

Sooooooo....the difference between a Corolla and a Yaris....or even a Corolla and a Prius, isn't such a big deal in the buying decision-----if you really THINK about it.

andre1969

Yeah, that "gallonage" thing is one reason why I've been reluctant to go to a more economical car than my 2000 Intrepid. Back when I bought the thing in late 1999, when gas was about $1.40 per gallon, I went from a Gran Fury that was lucky to get 13 mpg in local driving to the Intrepid, which was hard to make it get less than 20 (I've since learned how to make it guzzle more, though, especially in the wintertime when my 3.5 mile commute to work doesn't even get it fully warmed up)

It was easy for me to average about 3,000+ miles per month when I delivered pizzas. Heck, at my peak I was doing over 4,000. I figure at the time, switching from that Gran Fury to the Intrepid saved about $125-150 per month easily, just in fuel costs, which dropped from about $325-350 per month down to maybe $200-225. In gallonage, that was a drop from about 230 gallons to 150 per month.

To see another drop in "gallonage" like that, which would have taken it to 70 per month, I would've had to have gotten a car that averages about 42 mpg in brutal stop-and-go driving. In 2000 and even today, there aren't many cars that could do that on the highway, let alone around town.

Of course, gasoline isn't so cheap nowadays. Forget $1.40 for 87 and maybe $1.55 for hi-test, which that Gran Fury preferred. I figure if I still drove like that, today with regular being about $3.00 per gallon and premium being about $3.20, the Intrepid would cost me about $450 per month, with the Gran Fury being close to $750! Going down to something small that could get 30 mpg in that type of driving would get the fuel bill down to about $300 per month, which is a pretty significant drop.

But anyway, regardless of what I'm driving, crunching those numbers just makes me glad I don't do pizza delivery anymore!

boaz47

That is the problem in most cases. People are not thinking about fuel mileage comparing a Pickup to a Sub Compact they are looking at Pickup to pickup and mid sized to mid sized and then maybe sub compact to sub compact. So unless you are looking for a sub compact mileage isn't the biggest factor in your decission.

Just as an aside, I believe the biggest problem with sub compacts is they tend to be marketed to our fears while just about everything else is marketed to our wants. We cab dream about a larger more luxurious vehicle. We can dream about a rugged 4x4 even if we never use it. But Sub compacts tend to address the fear that we can't afford the gas bill or that we need to lower our expenses just to afford to live. Even the most staunch sub compact supporter often uses terms like, "all you need", "fits the bill 90 percent of the time". But Americans have always preferred over kill to just fulfilling our needs. Once they become numb to the fear of fuel cost or the "just buy what your minimum needs are." idea, the American buyer drifts back into getting the most for your money. If a Whopper and a JR Whopper both cost a dollar the American buying public will get the whopper 9 out of 10 times. It is even better if they toss in a large fries as well. Even if we don't "need" either of them.

nippononly

"I believe the biggest problem with sub compacts is they tend to be marketed to our fears while just about everything else is marketed to our wants."

Oh, boaz, we are going to HAVE to go head to head on this one! :-)

There is no more fear-driven purchase than the SUV. Fear of a bigger truck coming along and squashing the precious little kiddies. Fear of being squashed yourself. Fear that you won't be able to get that last truck-sized Costco multi-pack in the car because the trunk just isn't big enough.

C'mon, sub sales driven by fear? For a lot of people, gas prices and the gas-sipping habits of the little cars is just a bonus to the other reasons they chose the car.

kernick

A Mini Cooper or a Lotus Elise are examples of cool, desireable cars.

If you're buying a sub-compact to save money in any way, it is not likely to be a cool, fun car. You might as well hang the "economic-loser", "cheap", or "ECOnut" sign around your neck.

Mr_Shiftright

I think that WAS the case but my own personal experience has been that some subcompacts do elicit the "cool" response, definitely. I don't think I'd get comments about an Echo, but one does get them all the time about say a Scion xB or xA (mostly "is that a hybrid"? or "that's cute"!).

FEAR FACTOR: Oh yeah, I'm gonna wade in on that one, too. I think nothing sells fear better than a Volvo.

But you're right, subcompacts sell on "economic" fear----Volvos sell on physical fear.

Personally, I think the economic one is more real, as it affects far more people.

Nothing WRONG with "fear marketing" if the fears are justifiable. Gas COULD go to $5 a gallon (in a week, in a month!) but whether a Volvo is guaranteed to "save your life" is highly debatable.

imidazol97

<but whether a Volvo is guaranteed to "save your life" is highly debatable.

Unless you get one with the specially reinforced roof or other parts that they feature in the commercials!!! That was years ago, but the image still is there for me. Why did they have to fake it?

nippononly

Despite my personal bias (owning one), I must say I was never attracted to the Echo for its looks. It has delivered in every way I hoped it would though. And do you know, a number of people at work have asked me if it is a hybrid as well (it looks exactly like the first-gen Prius, IMO)? And several of the women think it looks cute. Me, I can't see what they're seeing, but I don't think it's ugly by any means. It's sorta cute if you look at the front from just the right angle. :-P

boaz47

Not the first time we disagreed. But the article posted earlier still pretty much sums up the historical position of the sub compact. When times and the economy are bad sub compacts do well. When they are good other factors take over. SUVs may or may not sell on fear but they do sell on desire not need. It has been most often the proponents of sub compacts that stress, "all we need", verses the get what you want or desire marketing ploy. Look back over this debate and tell me that isn't true. Do you believe Honda made the Accord into a mid sized car because of perceived need or because the people wanted more from the car? There is no debate as to how the car grew from its origional size. It is recorded fact.

You don't believe sub compacts are sold by scaring the consumer? I find that hard to believe after reading so many posts about how people should be taxed higher to get them out of big cars. Or how people should be given tax incentives to get smaller cars. If sub compacts could be sold on desire we could have an open market and people would buy what they wanted without such things as CAFE or CARB. But what happens is when we get scared because fuel prices go up we buy smaller cars. When the economy improves people buy bigger or more powerful cars. Has happened evey time a new sub compact has been introduced in the past. Yes, the Mini can be had as a fun sub compact. But to be desired it has to have a S on the back. Even Shifty can't see spending the extra cash for a mini without a S on it. The Sub Compact will be saddled with the economy tag or the entry level tag because of the limited prospective for making the profit per unit a larger car offers. What is wrong with that? Nothing, except sub compacts don't address our dreams or desires. They address practicality to the exclusion of desires. Not an American ideal. In my opinion and how I have seen it historically.

andre1969

mostly "is that a hybrid"? or "that's cute"!

I dunno if I'd consider "that's cute" to be a "cool" response. Now..."your car is awesome; I want you to take me, body and soul" is a "cool" response. :shades:

snakeweasel

Yes, the Mini can be had as a fun sub compact. But to be desired it has to have a S on the back. Even Shifty can't see spending the extra cash for a mini without a S on it.

When they first starting testing the Mini on the streets of Europe all they had was the S on the back, nothing else was on the car to identify it. When people saw it zipping around town everyone was heard saying "Look at that S car go". :P

british_rover

Without the supercharger the MINI is just a normal subcompact in the acceleration department it still has phenomonal handling in base or S form.

The S package just makes the MINI Cooper a sport sub compact. The other probablem with the base MINI Cooper is that the 5 speed manual was not nearly as nice as the 6 speed manual in the Cooper S. I think for 2007 the MINI Cooper will get a 6 speed and is getting a slightly more powerful base engine as well.

logic1

I am hoping this is just a matter of being too early, but on the Mini web site, you cannot get the next Gen Mini in white.

I liked the little guy all white. Some of the other colors shout look at me too much.

Black and the dark blue are conservative choices. But those two colors can be a real pain to keep clean.

british_rover

Hmhh I think there were two whites avaliable on the last gen MINI. A pepper white that had flecks of well basicly pepper in it and was kind of a cream color and then a regular pure white.

They might have stopped the pure white in the first year or so I don't remember.

My MINI was Chili Red with Black roof and mirrors.

british_rover

I just rebuilt my MINI the way I would order it now and my price jumped by 3,300 dollars compared to the 24,500 I paid two years ago.

Stupid LSD, english leather interior, and anthracite headliner.

logic1

Yeah, I really liked the pepper and cream color.

At least from the Mini site, it is not available next gen. Again, it is possible I am just jumping the gun and the color will be available when the car is.

Got nothing against your color choice if it works for you. The Mini looks nice no matter what color it is in (And I've seen some pretty wild promotional paint jobs!) I prefer fading into the background more when I am on the road.

Mr_Shiftright

I have to say that the MINI is one of the very few cars made today that looks good in any color.

Mr_Shiftright

I am not a fervent believer in the ability of cars to attract adoration...what attracts people is the window sticker, not the car.

snakeweasel

Not only that but the name stuck on the back. Take any generic car slap "Chevrolet" on the back and charge $18K for it and you won't get the same response if you slapped "BMW" on the back and charged $30K.

Mr_Shiftright

The lowly VW bug, back in the late 50s early 60s, enjoyed quite a bit of status...it was humble but unique, very well built (in comparison to domestics), parked anywhere, was great to maneuver in thick traffic, and simple to drive and fix. It was not thought of as a poor man's car but rather the 2nd car of an intelligent buyer. Part of that perception was due to briliant advertising.

It's true that the ebb and flow of subcompact popularity was, historically, tied to the price of energy...but now we all know that cheap energy is a thing of the past (at least in the next decade), so I think that cycle is not going to be repeated anytime soon.

And now, especially with global warming now pretty much a slam dunk scientific fact, we may see TWO influences on the proliferation of subcompacts---the aforementioned expensive energy, and also a crackdown by world governments on emissions of all types. This is turn may lead to new economic opportunities for automakers, as it did for say Honda and Toyota in the 1980s. And also battery makers and other industry related to emissions, alternative power, etc.

And since weight eats energy, I think we'll see cars shrinking in size up and down the line. True, the super-rich won't care and the poor will drive what's leftover from the past, but the vast majority of people will, I think, change their automotive tastes more and more to the smaller and more efficient model. This will be encouraged socially, legislatively (tax credits?) and economically, so the incentives are very strong.

andre1969

The lowly VW bug, back in the late 50s early 60s, enjoyed quite a bit of status...it was humble but unique, very well built (in comparison to domestics), parked anywhere, was great to maneuver in thick traffic, and simple to drive and fix. It was not thought of as a poor man's car but rather the 2nd car of an intelligent buyer. Part of that perception was due to briliant advertising.

Depends on what crowd you're talking to. Yeah, among the buyers of the things they might have enjoyed some status, but that's also kind of like taking a poll on the style of the Aztek, yet only polling Aztek owners!

Most people I knew used to rag on them. I don't think they really gained any type of status until after they quit making them. Then they kind of became the "anti-car", or "reverse-chic", or whatever you want to call it.

tsgeisel

Now that I'm seeing some around, they're still hideously ugly, but I'm not finding them as ugly as they used to be. In about 30 years, I may even find myself liking them.

I do like the dual opening back hatch, however. But, simply put, it's tough when you're on the trailing edge of design. The Aztek was a hard-line car when rounded corners started coming into fashion.

snakeweasel

it was humble but unique, very well built (in comparison to domestics), parked anywhere, was great to maneuver in thick traffic, and simple to drive and fix.

Yeah it was pretty Führeriffic.

All kidding aside, IIRC the main market for the bug was a subculture in this country.

And now, especially with global warming now pretty much a slam dunk scientific fact,

Nowhere near a slam dunk, unless you just follow junk science (I remember global cooling). But thats for a different website.

rorr

"Nowhere near a slam dunk, unless you just follow junk science (I remember global cooling). But thats for a different website."

Agreed.

Particularly when I've seen some interesting data concerning the widely-reported "low" pre-industrial age CO2 levels derived from ice-core analysis.

nippononly

as a group, car enthusiasts are less likely to believe in global warming (or at least PROFESS to believe in global warming) than the public at large, because the whole car culture runs counter to the aim of stopping it.

Scientists agree on it in peer-reviewed, published reports, why should we contradict that, eh?

If Dianne Feinstein (senator from CA) gets her way in next year's legislatiove session, we will see regulations requiring a 10 mpg increase in the entire fleet over the next decade and a half. That bodes well for smaller cars....

"Take what you will, leave the rest"

:-)