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
Making cars smaller is not the solution.
Rather the solution is getting away from cars altogether, or getting away from fossil fuels (and most here disagree with my belief hydrogen will be feasible in the future).
Maybe because it's not just "we" car enthusiasts who are contradicting it.
According to a petition being circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Technology, over 17,000 scientists in the U.S. alone dispute many if not most of the basic premises (it's occuring, it's caused primarily by man's activities, and it is harmful) of global warming.
These numbers include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists as well as 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization are chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
NOVA specials indicate that 99% of all legitimate scientists now believe GW to be a rock solid fact---where they disagree is about all the causes, and this is what science is now working to discover more about.
GW is real, but I agree with all of you, just hammering on cars is not going to solve the problem. Cars are only one source of C02, and there are so many other areas of C02 emissions that might prove far more beneficial to control.
Still, the whole GW idea is seeping into people's consciousness, and we can already see how it affects sales of hybrids, how cities like NYC are building these "green" skyscrapers, and how countries like Norway are experimenting with underground C02 storage technologies.
So I think the subcompact is going to ride this wave and do very well behind it.
I was watching some blurb on the History Channel or National Geographic or something like that, and I remember how they were going on about this lady who probably had hairier legs than I do, who started the crusade against CFC's back around the time The Empire Struck Back. Well now, gradually, the ozone hole over the antarctic is closing up, and they expect it to be complete by around 2070.
How much do you wanna bet that, by the time 2070 comes around, they're gonna say that it was a naturally occuring event, and had nothing to do with our love affair with hairspray and automotive air conditioning that actually blew cold? :P
You sound like a proud Dupont worker. As far as global warming, although engines contribute a lot of CO2, I believe simple population increases have contributed an even larger amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. On average, each person pumps out about 900 g of biochemical CO2 per day according to Wikipedia. Factor in deforestation (one of the few oxygen generation processes through photosynthesis) and livestock and you have a crisis.
I would wager that it is a naturally occurring event but that by 2070 (or sooner) it will start getting bigger again and Chicken Little will again be screaming about it.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Its a simple fact that the earth warms and cools over time. It is also known that it has been much warmer than it is now.
Factor in deforestation
I know that Illinois has far more trees than it had 200 years ago, many states can claim that.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now that energy price is going up again, an indication of smart money betting on weather/climate getting cold in the near future again . . . it would not surprise me to see the paid pipers change their tunes yet again on what exactly our sin is. "Repent! for the judgement day is nigh" has always a great headline seller . . . Faith in Global Warming, as a theory that blames human activity for global temperature rise, is more of a religion than science because it is simply not "falsifiable" . . .
I think world automakers better get on board with this ASAP, like Toyota and Honda have.
Well we'd better get back to SUBCOMPACTS in this topic or we'll get yelled at. And I"m supposed to be setting a good example
In all honesty do we believe the average consumer wants a smaller car or do we think they are being forced to look at smaller cars because of the economy? If it is the economy what do we believe will happen if the economy gets better? what has happened in the past when the same things have happened in the US. Remember the 70s? OMG we were going to be "out" of oil in 20 years max. We passed CAFE and even detroit started down sizing cars like crazy. We bought Nissans and other cars that were lucky to get 50k miles before the transmission fell out and the car rusted through the floor boards. People even paid money for cars like the B-210. And what happened when we discovered the sky wasn't falling? Sure the detroit mastodons were gone but in their place was mini vans, then SUVs and the sub compact was relegated to the bottom of the heap, again. SUB compacts still got better fuel mileage whe the gas prices were climbing in the 80s and 90s as SUV became the number one class of vehicle bought in the US. Honda made the Accord into a mid sized car, almost a full sized car and added a V-6 even when they boosted gas from 99cents to a buck and a quarter and finally a buck seventy five. Toyota did the same and Nissan added the Altima to save their corporate bacon just as we stared into the two and a quarter per gallon era. It wasn't the Sentra the made a profit for Nissan. It wasn't the Corolla that vaulted Toyota into the number two spot.
Sub Compacts just may be an answer for the time being but once we get used to whatever we have to get used to how many believe the Sub Compact will be the car of the future? I have my doubts. I just don't see my fellow Americans changing their spots even if it is good for them. I look at the new housing tracks here in Southern California and they look as if two or three families could live in them. One of the fastest growing areas near here is the High Desert and the reason is you can get a 3500 Sq.Ft. House for what you have to pay for a 1000 Sq. Ft house in LA county. And people are moving into them in droves. Would it be better to live in a smaller house and live closer to work? I think so. Is that what the majority of people seem to be doing? I think not. I have a feeling cars are about the same in most consumers eyes.
Ask yourself, are we a nation of excess? Maybe not you or me but everyone else?
Beats me how others can't make the same link. :surprise:
Ask yourself, are we a nation of excess? Maybe not you or me but everyone else?
As a Canadian I can answer that for you: Yes, you are! :P
Well in most major cities there are many sources of "smog" and with cars running cleaner than ever before cars contribute very little to that (percentage wise). IIRC I read some where that makeing a move like that would only result in a 2-3% reduction in the pollutants.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Not necessarily. A subcompact from even the mid-1990s had engine design that generated far more pollutants than a new SUV.
Even assuming the two engines are equal, carbon output is a function of how much gas is burned (C02 is not smog, by the way).
If I have a tuned XA, drive it like a nut and get 27 mpgs, I emit more carbon than the fellow in the VUE Greenline who drives carefully and gets 29 mpgs.
Of course not, but buying decisions never exist in a vacuum, not even for the wealthy. There are always forces acting upon the consumer and his habits. The idea that the consumer is "choosing" freely always strikes me as a bit too simplified a view of what's actually going on. It's like the term "free market"--of course there is no such thing.
Statistics show, for instance, that most Prius buyers are hardly "poor"--so their decision is based on something else.
I think the subcompact will occupy a niche like the Prius does....the Prius is now part of "feel good marketing" and the subcompact will become part of "intelligent car" marketing.
You watch.
As far as our fellow consumers being concerned with the environment? That tends to be lip service for the vast majority of us. It sounds socially correct but our buying patterns tell us we would rather someone else sacrifice for the common good. I am not trying to make a judgment call here I am simply pointing out what we see every day. SUVs didn't get to be a top seller because the consumer was worried about their buying decission on the environment or the amount of oil left in the ground. The Horse Powers wars even in the compact and mid sized cars didn't happen because the consumer was worried about what they could buy. It happened because as individuals we see ourselves are islands separated from everyone else. Something drastically will have to change before the American consumer is going to embrace the "buy only what you need" idea. I just see a big difference between people doing what they should be doing and people doing what they are doing.
I think another thing to consider is that cars have been so clean for decades now, you're simply not going to get them to get much cleaner, unless you go pure electric.
To say that an xA emits far less pollutants than an Excursion really isn't saying much, because the Excursion isn't polluting that much to begin with.
Most of the heavy groundwork for reduced emissions was laid down in the 70's and 80's. When we started going to unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, fuel injection, computers that could lean out the mixture, etc, that's when the biggest strides were made. Everything else since then, presuming the car is running properly, is just icing on the cake.
To use a rough example, running a typical early 70's car on leaded fuel might be the equivalent of having 5 garbage trucks dump their load on your lawn. If it was grossly out of tune it might be more like 15 or 20 garbage trucks dumping on your lawn.
But by the late 70's/early 80's, your typical car's pollution might have been more akin to one full-sized pickup dumping a load of garbage on your lawn.
Nowadays your typical car might be like the neighbor's cat relieving itself on your lawn, whereas the worst offending SUV's might be more akin to your neighbor's rottweiler doing the same. Yeah, having a rottweiler dump in your yard is a bit nastier than having a cat do it, but when you compare that to a pickup truck load of garbage, or a bunch of dumptrucks, it doesn't mean much. And trying to get cars to run much cleaner is like trying to put a band-aid on your neighbor's cat's butt the next time it comes into your yard so it can't fart!
I wish that our locality still actually TESTED OBD-II cars when it comes emissions time, instead of just plugging into the computer and reading the codes. I had my 2000 Intrepid tested the old fashioned way, on the treadmill, in 2002. In 2004 and 2006 they just did the computer scan. I remember the readout on the pollutants was so low that it was practically nil.
IIRC CO, for example, was something like 0.002 grams per mile. I guess if you want to off yourself you can't even use your car to poison you anymore, although I guess in a closed garage it could still burn off all the oxygen. My Grandma's '85 LeSabre had to go through the same treadmill test (versus the tailpipe test), and the LeSabre put out something like 1.5 grams per mile I think.
However, the state standard, for 2000 model year cars even, was something like 20 grams per mile (I'd have to dig up the old printout to actually verify though) So in this case, you could say the 1985 LeSabre put out 750 times more CO than the 2000 Intrepid. Sounds pretty scary when you put that spin on it, and makes you think cars have come a long way, baby. But then when you figure a car could put out 20 grams per mile and still pass by 2000 standards (the standards for 1985 were more lax, but the LeSabre would have passed by a wide margin even with the 2000 standards), it suddenly doesn't really matter. However, 20 grams per mile is only about 13 times more than 1.5 grams per mile, which doesn't sound nearly as impressive. Yet reducing pollutants by 18.5 grams for every mile you drive is much, much more significant than reducing pollutants by 1.498 grams per mile. And then working to try removing that final .002 grams per mile? Well you might as well try to hold in your next fart instead, because that's probably more damaging to the environment! :P
Today's Civic, Corolla & Sentra (1.8-2.0L) are as big as and are more powerful than Accord, Camry & Altima 15 years ago.
The day of cheap gas is definitely over. The day of even more expensive gas ($5/gallon ?) is coming. One, oil demand is getting out of hand because of exploding economies in China, India and elsewhere in Asia. Two, all the easy-to-get oil fields have already been dug, now the oil companies are getting to the harder oil fields, adding to the cost. Third, most oil producing countries (Middle East, Nigeria) are politically unstable, adding to the cost.
If anything, these 3 trends are gathering steam, or, eh gas all the time. And higher the gas price, the more trouble the big 3 are in.
I had a 1991 Civic rental ages ago, and I can guarantee you that I fit more comfortably in it than I do in a Yaris, xA, or Fit. The newer cars are taller, so they might be able to inflate the interior volumes so they look more impressive. But I could really stretch out in that '91 Civic. It definitely had a big-car seating position, when it came to legroom at least, where the xA, Yaris, Fit, etc are more akin to sitting in a 60's pickup. You sit up kinda high, but are too close to the cowl to really be able to stretch out.
There is no excuse for that since there are many small cars that are comfortable for me, especially since the Versa is not that small.
Why do Asian car manufacturers have such a hard time understanding that not all the buyers of some of their cars have short legs?
Wish I could remember the link.
I read an interesting article by an auto engineer a little while back. His premise was that as technologies such as ceramics and alloy metals improve, the ICE could be re-engineered to burn somewhat more hot, meaning more perfect combustion.
He did not think that ICE efficiency will improve all that much, however. He did mention improvements with tires, making cars lighter, better filters as out there as well.
All in all, he felt we are pretty much at the end of ICE perfection. If we are going to do markedly better, we either need to fine other means of propulsion or, more likely, more mass transit.
That is my Corolla bugaboo as well. I don't know why Japanese engineers don't work this out.
The GTI has plenty of leg room.
Of course, Motorweek is pretty "soft" on the cars it reviews, so take it with a grain---but still, they liked it. Minor complaints were lack of thigh support in the seats and the odd instrument panel. Plusses included fuel economy (they got 36 with the automatic) and very good handling and braking. No mention of legroom issues.
Living in the Chicago burbs I can tell you that there is more to buying small cars than just 'feel good marketing' and economy. For me, it's really a sense that larger, more expensive cars are just plain wasteful and vanilla. Even though I have 3 kids, 90+% of the time I'm by myself in the car. I bough a Versa because of the following combination of things: 1) car price; 2) ease of loading; 3) just enough space for 5; 4) and sporty appeal. That's it. Why pay 20 grand for a Camry with I can get all that I need for 15 grand?
Chicagoburbs
These small cars are designed for the markets where they're sold the most: Japan and other Asian markets. Unlike the NA Accord & Altima, which are designed specifically for the American market.
Much higher priced makes can be guilty of this too. For years, Ferrari was accused of having little legroom because of design for supposedly shorter legged Italians. The accusation was really made. The Italian leg bit, I have no idea whether it's true or not.
"Free market" is an idea, not necessarily a tangible aticle that one can hold in hand. In reality, Free Market is nothing more than Freedom in action, one inter-human interaction at a time. Often times, those saying that pure free market does not exist therefore . . . is really saying since pure freedom does not exist therefore let's all be slaves/serfs of the "wisemen" government.
Prius is not a subcompact. . . it's not even a compact . . . it's a midsize car, with a midsize price.
The "intelligent car" marketing is inherently elitist ;-)
The subcompacts may well open up the 3rd car market segment (beyond what the convertible roadsters already achieved) . . . so that everyone in the family can have 1 or 2 cars. Yes, it is an even higher standard of living, and potentially making everyone even more content with their lives (without having to car pool or even picking up kids after school) . . . However, that 3rd car will get bigger in the next economic upswing . . . and of course more metal and fuel goes into cars all along the way . . . not that I'm complaining.
As for Japanese cars and legroom, I think some of them are designed okay for taller drivers. Back in college a buddy of mine had a 1980 Accord hatchback. While yeah, it was small, it was at least designed so that a fairly tall person could drive it. They just sacrificed the back seat. I remember one time we drove it down to Busch Gardens in Willamsburg, about 3 hours away, and I was the one that did all the driving. As soon as we got out of MD, my buddy started whining about his leg hurting. Anyway, as much as I complain about being cramped in cars, if I could drive that little thing 3 hours down and 3 hours back, it couldn't have been THAT bad!
And the '91 Civic rental I had was pretty impressive up front, but again, they sacrificed the back seat. I put about 1700 miles on that car in the week I had it.
Toyota Camrys from the '83-86 and '87-91 generation were pretty roomy too. Again, at the sacrifice of the back seat.
Now my uncle's '03 Corolla has a pretty bad seating position for the driver, with inadequate legroom but then a steering wheel you have to over-extend to reach. And a couple years back, a friend of mine had a Sentra rental that was a pretty brutal place to have to ride in. I think the latest Civic is pretty comfy, though. So is the Mazda3. The Mazda3 follows the trend of some of those other cars I mentioned though, of sacrificing the back seat for front seat comfort.
With larger Japanese cars, I think the Accord and Altima are comfy up front. Even cheaper models without a power seat. But now the '02-06 Camry felt cramped to me in standard form, but with the power seat I could find a comfy position.
More then one time he has commented how well such a little car fits him.
Well, I took a quick look at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and compared the 2006 xA with the Ford Expedition 2WD (not even 4WD!) and came up with the following:
Annual Greenhouse Emissions: 5.4 tons vs. 11.7
EPA Pollution Scores (both LEV): 2 vs. 0
Annual Greenhouse Emissions give you an estimate of each vehicle's impact on climate change and include the three major greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles: carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane. EPA Pollution Scores reflects pollutants that cause health problems and smog. A score of 10 is best, 0 is worse.
Can't say I'm impressed with either the xA or the Expedition based these scores, in comparison to other cars on the market. At the very least, the EPA scores can be improved.
To satisfy my own curiosity, I compared the 2007 Honda Fit to the 2007 Mazda CX-7:
Annual Greenhouse Emissions: 5.3 tons vs. 8.9
EPA Pollution Scores (both LEV II): 6 vs. 6
Seems to me that the average subcompact spews out half the greenhouse emissions than those of a SUV. We are talking about TONS of pollutants in a world where EVERYONE will have at least one car, including billions of people in China and India.
The economics of running a larger car are somewhat less scary to me than the fear that everyone in the world will soon be driving an SUV to the corner grocery store.
11.7 tons vs 6.5 tons but...
Polution score
3 vs. 2.
I can say wholeheartedly that MOST of our Prius buyers have gas mileage a distant 3rd priority behind environmental friendliness and technology/trendiness.
It just doesn't make sense, even if they DIDN'T demand a premium (we're still at $1500 over MSRP) to purchase one on the primary motivation of saving $$$ in gas. That's just a pleasant after effect to buyers I think.
The Yaris on the other hand, is a true compact, very easy to park, fun to drive, ULEV-II, great on gas (within 8MPG of REAL mileage figures in my co-workers Prius), and HALF the price of a moderately equipped Prius.
I think once gas prices really do hit the fan (and they will... we've already been conditioned for $3.50 from $1.50 and it's taken less than 3 years to do it), we'll see a shift to true COMPACT cars.
As one reviewer put it when describing the Yaris/Compacts: "Finally we get to drive what the rest of the world does".
All things being equal, Everyone is pretty much right about Americans not WANTING to drive a compact (I do, but it's still a rarity)... instead, it will slowly become a necessity for those in the lower class, and seep into middle class eventually as gas climbs higher and higher.
It's nice to pretend it won't happen, but it will.
On a side note, I'm not nearly as concerned with emissions as I am mileage. If I put out a big black cloud everywhere I went but got 100MPG in a car I enjoyed driving, I'd be a happy camper :P ... well maybe not... but then again...
T
Well what I meant by free market not existing is that in reality, many many forms of commerce are regulated...you can operate freely WITHIN the regulations. Car buying operates within "regulations" of market forces, fear, price of gas, correct and wrong assumptions, etc. The car buyer is being manipulated just like the "free" market is being manipulated...that is, like crazy. It's not like some gazelle bounding in the forest.....
the ghg number is pretty much directly related to actual gas comsumption, though.
With the emissions test in Maryland at least, the carbon dioxide number is actually a MINIMUM! If your car doesn't put out at least XX grams per mile, it can be failed! If you're putting out a lot of CO2 and very little of the other pollutants, that's a sign you have a clean running engine.
Now again, too much CO2 is not a good thing. Still, it's considerably less damaging to the atmosphere and the Earth than the NOX, HC, and CO. As I recall, the CO2 level on my Intrepid that year it went on the treadmill test was something like 23 grams per mile. I think my Grandma's LeSabre was bout 48. I think CO2 basically is one of the emissions that's directly related to how much gasoline you burn. You can burn a lot of gasoline, but burn it cleanly, and only put out CO2. But you can also burn a smaller amount of gasoline, but not burn it cleanly, and put out less CO2, but more of the really noxious pollutants...CO, NOX, and HC.
I am sure we don't have the solution in our pocket but if we did I don't believe Americans will ever accept the less is more philosophy of the Asians or most other countries. They more than likely will learn to live with it. but it is not a natural emotion for Americans to embrace the simple life, unless it is on TV and has Paris Hilton.
But a second or third car as a commuter? That works very well as long as we don't have a vast move back to the cities. I fully know my perspective is regional. In southern California people have a second car to drive down the block to the 7/11. Am I guilty? Oh you bet and I know I will have to change. That change may include a smaller car even than the one I now drive, I hope not but it may. What I would be willing to buy, in a small car, is a pure EV if I could get at least 175 miles a charge and it was less than 40K. That in my opinion would be a real improvement. I have looked into them before and some of them are pretty ugly. My wife has often asked a question, why do fuel efficient cars have to be so ugly? Is it to keep us from buying them?
the report from my last emissions test(on a roller):
HC limit 60: 38
CO limit .32: .02
NOX limit 700: 176
i wonder how well it would do if it ever had a tuneup! :shades:
Until:
Oil reaches a point where it starts to directly impact the finances of the true middle class. Right now, even at $5 or $6 a gallon, us Americans in the majority still wouldn't have to alter our lifestyles dramatically.
There's a point though, where we would.
Not everyone of course. The market for $100,000 plus cars proves that, but I'm talking mainstream working-class America.
An EV will eventually be an option, but it will be a decade or more before it will be genuinely viable as a complete replacement for gasoline.
Economy cars are only ugly because it's your perception (and many others here I'll add
T
But anyway, if it's done right, the move to curb global warming needn't affect our lifestyles at all---that's just negative thinking...it could open up all kinds of new industries for us and once again re-invent the car. Emissions regulations are, turns out, the best thing that ever happened to the internal combustion engine, but man did Detroit howl about it at first. Now we have 400 HP Corvettes getting 26 mpg!
When the Scions came out I looked in absolute Horror at the xB and said a silent prayer for the success of the xA. I was very surprised that the xA was the loser in the acceptance race. But I was relieved when the tC gave both the xA and xB a drubbing in sales in less than its first year. I admit I am old school and I believe in curves and every now and then a wedge. But to be honest, the xA looks like a Matrix that was caught between a wall and a bull dozer. While the Matrix has a look that says it is longer than it looks and so gives the impression of maybe being sleek the xA, because of it smallness, looks tall and fat for its size. It looks way better than its blood brother the Echo but no where near as nice as a RSX. Do get me wrong, I know a lot of old retired people that love their echo because it does just what Nippon says. Is it because all of the good designers go to the more expensive cars and only the designers with pocket protectors get to design Sub Compacts, Hybrids, and EVs? The Tesla being the lone exception?
You may be right about one thing. To many of us the hatchback looks unfinished. Maybe a left over from the early hatches we had in America. They look like the designer left for coffee before they got to the back end and someone took their plans to the computer before they got back. Sub Compacts seem to have to be a form of hatch so maybe it is form following function and Americans have been raised differently. We have been able to waste space because we have space. we spend the first 60 years learning how to make aerodynamic vehicles and suddenly we see cars that look like they were designed by children with an etch-a-sketch, AKA the Element and xB. But from what the owners say, function is more important than design. If that was true why didn't the Aztec make it?
I don't know why Americans are so sure that Escalades are where it's at. I'll take a Kia Rio, Scion xA, Scion tC, BMW Mini-Cooper, how about this one-a 2008 Obvio! 828/2! Whoo-hoo!
Geronimo! Speaking of Geronimo, evidently my latest stomping grounds are where the West was played out, from Geronimo to Doc Holliday, shootouts at OK Corral's, etc. Not only was the west won around southern Arizona, but one can see stars and the entire Milky Way galaxy in all it's shining glory at night our here. My son and I just stare at the sky in wonderment. The U of Arizona has an observatory on top of nearby Mt.Graham (10,000+ feet) and so does the Vatican.
Popping back to cars, subcompacts to be sure, I do like the new Toyota Yaris' as well, though I would prefer the Yaris sedan. Not the Yaris S sedan, either. I'd prefer the base Yaris sedan and build onto it as required from the base model. That ghastly mpg of 34 city and 40 highway is agreeable to this padre. Ci?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Now tell me how you felt about traffic in Rome? Did you get a chance to drive or be driven in downtown Rome?
Andre, that's not because more CO2 emissions are a GOOD thing, it's because if they are too low it's a sign your exhaust is leaking, and the sniffer won't get a proper reading if the exhaust is leaking.
As subcompacts are evolving, they are "feeling" less cheap now than they used to, and I think that will continue to improve. That's important for sales to all the "point A to point B" people, who as we know are a good 80% of the market or more. That evolution, combined with the gradual destruction of the old myths that small is unsafe in the car world, will lead to many more subcompact sales to folks who really just want a car to commute to work and take the occasional trip on the weekends.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Here in Illinois they only use the sniffer on older cars. Newer cars they plug right into the on board computer and read the cars own computer.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Saw my first E85 gas station - in a small town near Decatur, IL. Farm Service brand. E85 was $2.55/gal vs. $2.85 for unleaded.
Remember though, that E85 burns quicker than gasoline, giving you about 75% of the mileage than does gasoline.
Gas has dropped here in Birmingham, much to our relief. I never thought I'd be happy to see $2.679 a gallon at Chevron!
TRAFFIC in Rome -- a tad off topic but it does relate to subcompacts in that I was constantly amazed at the inherent skill of Italian drivers and how they maneuver and survive. Americans in that same situation could not cope. The basic reason the Romans do cope are, I think, a) size of most of their cars allow them to play dodge 'em; b) there is little, perhaps NO road rage--it's a game and once someone has won, the game is over, no whining! Basically, I found that in Rome, if you "let someone in" with a friendly gesture, you have renounced your privilege to drive--you have bent your sword into a plowshare and this is disgusting to your opponent, who was so looking forward to duking it out with you----LOL! I was raised in Manhattan, so traffic to me is just a form of gladitorial combat. I enjoy it in a perverse sort of way...but not dreary freeway traffic...only densely urban traffic.
the xA -- I don't know either why the xA "lost out" to its homely cousin the xB. One of those automotive mysteries that I never foresaw or could have predicted. I've driven both and the xA is way more fun. I would only drive an xB wearing false nose and moustache.