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
I don't expect them to overtake, ever. Subcompacts, in comparison to a mid-size car are:
- Noisy
- Overly small, creating an uncomfortable driving experience
- Not enough storage. This is not about too much junk as it is simply not being able to haul four people and their groceries at once.
- Weak, very weak. I have a Pontiac Vibe, which is not even a subcompact. It struggles with four people and a load in the back. I cannot imagine the stress on the driveline if I did this regularly.
- Less safe. It's simple physics. All the airbags in the world aren't going to protect you like a mid-size if an SUV slams into you.
Sprawl in our larger cities is slowing down, as people become aware of its negative effects.
Which ones? Here in the Phoenix area we are building out further and further. It is now 80 miles from edge to edge.
Sorry, I will never buy a sub-compact for the reasons above.
- Noisy
My MINI was always quiet.
- Overly small, creating an uncomfortable driving experience
Was one of the most comfortable cars I ever drove. For several months I drove it twice a month from VA to CT a nearly 10 hour drive.
- Not enough storage. This is not about too much junk as it is simply not being able to haul four people and their groceries at once.
Seriously how often are you hauling four full size adults and all the groceries for those four adults at one time in a vehicle? I even did carry four adults in the MINI on a couple of ocasions. Including one four hour trip from CT to VT.
- Weak, very weak. I have a Pontiac Vibe, which is not even a subcompact. It struggles with four people and a load in the back. I cannot imagine the stress on the driveline if I did this regularly.
Do you have the base, base model with the 115 hp motor? The Vibe is basicly a Matrix which is basicly a Corolla. Now i have not driven a Vibe ever but I have driven plenty of corollas and they always seem to have plenty of power.
- Less safe. It's simple physics. All the airbags in the world aren't going to protect you like a mid-size if an SUV slams into you.
If a good sized SUV hits your car in the side it is not going to matter if you are in a midsize or a compact or a sub-compact you are pretty much screwed as the bumper will be level with your head.
My MINI was always quiet.
OK, one subcompact that is quiet to one person. I have good hearing and the Aveo was noisier at 55 MPH than the Impala at 75 MPH.
Was one of the most comfortable cars I ever drove. For several months I drove it twice a month from VA to CT a nearly 10 hour drive.
For you, but subcompacts always have smaller seats with less cushioning. I've tried sitting in them, it doesn't work for taller (hence, larger) people.
Seriously how often are you hauling four full size adults and all the groceries for those four adults at one time in a vehicle? I even did carry four adults in the MINI on a couple of ocasions. Including one four hour trip from CT to VT.
Often enough. Probably once a month. In fact, I just had to transport my parents home when their car broke down. Would have been impossible in a subcompact.
Do you have the base, base model with the 115 hp motor? The Vibe is basicly a Matrix which is basicly a Corolla. Now i have not driven a Vibe ever but I have driven plenty of corollas and they always seem to have plenty of power.
Yes, they do when you are the only person in them. Plus the Vibe is bigger an heavier than the Corolla. Adds up fast for that little motor.
If a good sized SUV hits your car in the side it is not going to matter if you are in a midsize or a compact or a sub-compact you are pretty much screwed as the bumper will be level with your head.
No, it does matter. The frame of a mid-size car is larger and you are sitting further away from the edge of the car. All of that can make the difference between death and injury if the SUV driver is slowing down. In other words, the mid-size will have a larger range of speeds where you could survive a side-impact compared to a subcompact. But beyond that, you're at greater risk in all types of accidents.
6' 2" with size 18 shoes. My knee hits the steering wheel of every subcompact and compact car out there. Can't even drive an Accord. Stupid designers don't make the steering wheel go high enough.
Anyone who sits behind me as I'm driving finds they have plenty of leg room. And since I like to drape an arm over the passenger seat, any front seat passengers always need to adjust the seat back.
Also the Aveo is about the worst Sub-compact you can pick to compare noise problems too as it is basicly a Daewoo.
Roadsters are the same way - why would anyone want to pay $25k for a new Miata, anyway? (He asked hypothetically.)
The MSRP of a Aveo is 14,215 with all the options.
A base MINI with lots more equipment and Cruise control is 18,400 MSRP and that includes the fablous BMW leatherette.
Ah, now I get it, it's a MINI. Everyone should love it?
Minis on the other hand are at least still at MSRP, if not moreso.
Ok...a quick comparison check - the 2006 Mini with cruise control needs a package. That ups the base price to about $19k. The equivilant on the Aveo has a TMV price of about $14k. Both with Manual transmission.
The Aveo is longer, taller and lighter, and I'm not sure I trust Edmunds with it's listing of a 16ft turning radius. But, anyway, the "ton of stuff" you're loading in the back is also the case with an Aveo.
Now, I'm not even close to saying that the Mini isn't a better car, but what I am saying is that with the Mini what you're paying for is the design and the feel of it. And better tires, and a larger engine. But the engine isn't all *that* much larger.
People are buying Aveos because they need *a* car. People are buying Minis because of The Italian Job, I mean, because they need *that* car.
My personal preference is passenger cabin volume.
104 cu ft: fullsize
There's actually more to it than just passenger cabin volume. It's where that volume is that counts, IMO at least. For example, the 1996-1999 Taurus was a midsize, EPA-rated at 101 cubic feet of interior volume and 16 cubic feet of trunk space. When they restyled it a bit for 2000, it technically became a full-size! 105 cubic feet of interior volume and 17 cubic feet of trunk. However, all of the interior volume increase came because of the slightly revised rear part of the roof, which was taller. IIRC it bumped headroom back there from something like 36.9" to 40.7". And the slightly higher, less sloping deck was enough to increase the trunk volume.
Still, no other dimension changed. Not shoulder room or legroom. front seat headroom might have increased a bit as well, but I can't remember. So in my book all you have here is a midsized car with a bubble in the center of the roof that lets it pad the EPA ratings. There's no more shoulder room for better 3-across seating. And no more legroom for a more big-car feel. And the sides of the car still curve in just as bad, which puts my head into the C-pillar trim unless I lean inward. Maybe the center passenger might not have to duck anymore, because he'd be sitting under the peak of the "bubble", but that's about it.
One guideline I always had for a full-sized car was shoulder room. IMO, a full-sizer should have at least 60". In the past, most of them did, although there were exceptions. I don't think the 1959-64 Chevies were quite 60", and I know the '58 wasn't. And I'm sure there were intermediates that broke the 60" barrier. My '76 LeMans, according to the specs I've seen, has 59.7" of front shoulder room. And GM's midsizers were the smallest of the big three back then, even BEFORE downsizing!
As for the Elantra, I've sat in them at auto shows, and found them to be suprisingly roomy. I'd consider them to be a roomy 4-seater. Midsized in every dimension except shoulder room. But good legroom, both front and rear. The Prius is that way too, and is classified as a midsize. Oddly though, the new Civic is still classified as a subcompact, yet I'd consider it to be a roomy 4-seater. At least, I can fit fine up front, and also in the back seat with the front all the way back.
To be fair tough, there has always been overlap in some regards between the various size classes. For example a '68 Dodge Dart sedan, a compact for the time, has more front and rear legroom than a '68 Impala, a full-sized car! The Impala was wider though and had a bigger trunk. So you could probably actually get four bigger people in a Dart better than you could an Impala, but if you needed to get 5 or 6 people in, the Impala was a better bet.
SubCompact soccer.
That also gives you steering wheel controls for the radio.
As for the Corolla, Sentra, xA, xB, Echo, Yaris, and Focus (I know I'm lumping subcompacts and compacts togethere here, but as far as I'm concerned they're all little cars) I find the seating position to be substandard. Now if you LIKE a cozy seating position, that's one thing. But I like to stretch out. I also don't like being able to hit the tiny gas pedal and the tiny brake pedal at the same time with my size 12 foot. Or the way I have to twist my leg at a contorted angle to go from the gas pedal to the brake, because the steering column doesn't raise up high enough.
The Versa is a bit better up front. Still a bit short in legroom, but at least the steering wheel can be tilted higher. And the Versa's pretty big in the back seat.
Now cars like the Civic, Cobalt, Neon, Mazda3, Elantra, and Calibre, I'm okay with the legroom up front.
Little cars tend to use smaller, narrower seats though, and if you're used to the overstuffed Lazy-boy class seats of your great-grandfather's Oldsmobile, then yeah, they're going to be inadequate. Honestly, I find most small car seats to be too narrow and thinly padded. And I'm NOT fat! I'm not even big-boned! :P Also, the base cushions are often too short and too low, so they don't provide good thigh support, although to be fair I get that with bigger cars too. And even though they tend to make car seats higher these days, if the firewall is still too close I'm not going to be able to stretch out and it's still not going to provide adequate thigh support.
As for noise, small cars are most likely going to be noisier because their engines are smaller and higher-revving, and they're not going to have as much insulation as a bigger, heavier car. And if you're used to the sound of a bigger engine, especially a V-8, most 4-bangers are going to sound like crap to you. Or, at best, Briggs and Stratton-ish! Your typical small car sounds more annoying to me than my '85 Silverado, and that's AFTER I put the Dodge Dart air cleaner top on it (makes it suck down more air). Heck, last night the muffler fell off the damn thing, and I'm surprised that it's still nice and quiet! I can't figure that out, because when the muffler came off my '79 New Yorker, it got so loud and grumbly that people came out of the woodwork to ask me if it had a 440 or a Hemi in it!
Now that I think about it, I really can't remember the Aveo or Fit either. I do remember being impressed that the Aveo was as big inside as it was. Still, that doesn't mean it was BIG inside. Just surprising for its tiny external dimensions.
As for storage and such, I think this is actually one area where subcompacts excel. At least hatchback styles. No subcompact hatchback could carry as many adults and as much luggage at the same time as a larger car could. For instance, last year I went to Florida for a week with two friends in my 2000 Intrepid. We had the trunk packed to the gills and still had one or two items that we had to throw into the back seat. In that situation even a slightly smaller car wouldn't have cut it, because the slightest reduction in trunk space would have meant more luggage in the back seat.
But on the flip side, I remember when I moved a few years back, we got a 32" tube tv into the back of a '98 Tracker. I'd imagine that it would also fit in the back of something like an xA without too much trouble. But there is no way my Intrepid would've been able to carry it, unless I strapped it to the roof I guess.
As for safety, all things else being equal, in a crash the lighter car always loses. However, accidents are simply too random and chaotic...too many variables. In one instance an Excursion might hit a Yaris and just smear it across the interstate. But in another instance, who knows? The Yaris might get a corner under it just right and make the Excursion flip it. And once it's on its roof it's just like a turtle. Or a blonde. :P
Yeah, but at least a subcompact can maneuver underneath an 18 wheeler. At least they can on the "Fast and the Furious" :P
I can't speak for the mutants out there, but for anyone that wears up to XL, it is the best feel you can get... in any vehicle..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
there are BIG CAR people....
...and there are small car people....
....and never the twain shall meet.
The reason to pay extra for the Mini is precisely BECAUSE you don't get a whole lot of car. What you do get is the most tossable, instantly fun car to drive anywhere on the planet. All the pavement bruisers like the M5s, Z06s, and CTS-Vs of the world may have higher limits on paper and finish the track a little quicker, but none of them can provide the intimate experience you have bonding with the Mini when you drive it. All the others just make the road remote.
And as for EPA classes, are they really relevant at all any more? As manufacturers make the roofs higher and higher, providing NO additional passenger room but yet pumping up the interior volume figure they can advertise, the classes become kind of meaningless. I get the sense that even though there has been a lot of squabbling over the details, at least 90% of the posters know what we are talking about when we say "subcompacts". Mini, xA, Yaris, Aveo, Accent, Fit, yes. Caliber, Focus, Elantra, no. With no hard-edged, perfectly defined dividing line between the classes.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Like I said, the Aveo is right on target pricewise, the MINI is out there. But still, I have not found one where my knee isn't either rubbing or crammed into the steering wheel. It has everything to do with size 18 shoes and leg length.
I found it has MORE room in the driver's seat than a Monte Carlo.
Oh come on, get real!
Drive 5000 mi/month in CT in an Aveo, mostly on Rt. 15 and I-95 with the big rigs. I just don't worry about it! Driving defensively is worth more than all the crumple zones and airbags you can stuff in any car.
As far as room goes, I'm 6'4" and 250 lbs. and have no trouble at all with the Aveo inside. I pop in and out with more ease than many full-size cars and have never felt cramped -- can't say that for even a Lincoln Town Car!
The brake pedal being so far to the right and close to the gas pedal DOES stink, though.
Preferably, driver and passenger.. If they were delivering papers on a rural route, so much the better..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
But does it also baffle you that not all 6'2" 210 pound people are built and proportioned exactly the same? Some might have broader shoulders, skinnier butts, longer legs, longer torsos, shorter arms, or simply might not be limber enough to bend into some of the positions pictures in the kama sutra. :P There's this guy at work who's about my height and weight (6'3", 190-200 lb), but maybe a bit more torso and neck (makes me think of the necks of those heat rays in "War of the Worlds") and a bit shorter in the legs. He drives a Ford Focus. I can't even fit comfortably in a Ford Focus. It's all headroom and no legroom. He doesn't understand why I can't fit in it, but to me the answer is glaringly obvious.
As for the xA versus the Monte Carlo, it's kind of the same thing. The Monte's seat is lower and goes back further from the pedals than the xA. But at the same time the roof is lower so there's not as much headroom. I'm fine in the Monte, because I can just drive with the seat reclined a bit and still reach the steering wheel fine.
However, with the xA the firewall, and therefore the pedals, are simply too close for my comfort. And the steering wheel doesn't adjust up high enough. Now yeah, I can fit in one. But am I comfortable? Not for very long. Some people might like a cramped driving position, but I like to stretch out. Is that baffling? Now I can sit at my desk with my lower legs vertical and not stretched out. However, my chair cushion is also like 20 inches off the floor. And my feet are flat on the floor, and not having to operate any pedals, which would take a few inches away. An xA's seat cushion is not 20" off the floor.
Now my '85 Silverado actually has a somewhat similar position, as the firewall and the pedals aren't that far away. However, its seat is also higher up than the Yaris, and angled more at the front to give better thigh support. The steering wheel is also mounted higher, so when I put it in a position that's comfy to me, it's out of the way of my knee for when I have to go for the brake. My buddy's 2006 Xterra is also similar, except that there's not quite as much legroom, the seat's not quite as high, and it's flatter. And the steering wheel is still at a decent angle. It's a somewhat tight driving position for my tastes, but I can deal with it.
FWIW though, if I drive my 2000 Intrepid on longer trips, I tend to drive barefoot because it's not overly generous in the legroom department either. Taking the sole of the shoe away gives me about an inch more legroom and makes all the difference in the world.
Honestly I just don't see what's so baffling here. :confuse: It has nothing to do with anyone being a freak or amazon or anything. Simply the fact that people come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and comfort levels.
I got you beat on the size issue and I have usually don't have a problem fitting in most subcompacts. Most of the time the only real issue I have is that there is no elbow room on the left side, but thats only in a few. My wifes Accent and my Elantra both have plenty of room for me.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I was mildly pleased with the interior room of the Mini. Plenty of head room, plenty of leg room but no elbow room to the left.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
That was a law, simply because thats the only way it wouldn't get blown off the road by a light breeze.
Ducking and running
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm of the long torso/short leg build, with size 11 feet (32" inseam), and I could barely get my legs in, and had to drive with them "splayed" so the non-tilt (what an idiotic idea) steering wheel would clear my thighs.
It was like driving a bumper car at the amusement park!
For normal small cars, I usually fit fine, at least in ones with a higher roof. I do notice the close in door, but the biggest drawback in most is the small seats. I like a large, long bottom cushion (the one in my Accord is great) for thigh support, and you don't get that in many small cars.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Size 18 shoe? Well, gee, we can't use you for market focus now can we--LOL!!!
ANDRE: I don't think it would matter if you were 6' 2" or 6' 4"...there is plenty of room in my car for anyone to drive it short of a REALLY out-size individual who would have trouble in any car. I am genuinely baffled by any complaint that it's "tight" in there...at my 34" inseam, legs don't get much longer than that, and I could wear a straw hat, too.
The ONLY area where I totally agree with you, is if the person were very very broad in the shoulders, as he would probably scrunch on the left side door. And yes, if I had one more inch of seat travel backwards, I would like that.
I find cars like a Miata or BMW 3 Series much more confining. The only Bimmer I start to be comfortable in is a 5 series.
Again, Shifty, you're making the assumption that because YOU fit and are comfortable, that ANYONE could. You're totally ignoring the fact that some people prefer a different position where they can stretch out, and you just can't do that. Also, like I said, I have a 35" inseam...one inch longer. When it comes to interior space, often an inch is all it takes to go from perfectly fine to intolerable. If Car A has 42" of legroom and Car B has 41", it's not like Car B is still 97.6% as comfortable as Car A. That inch reduction can be enough to make taller drivers have to sit at an uncomfortable angle, or it might make their leg muscles cramp up more quickly.
Can I fit in a Yaris or xA? Yes. Do I like it? No. Am I comfortable? HELL no!
Now I've been in the older Miata, but honestly can't remember how it felt. I sat in the newer one at the auto show, and it felt a bit claustrophobic because of the big center console that made the footwell more narrow, and the fairly high doorsills and low seating position and thick A-pillars made it feel confining. But I had enough legroom, and it didn't feel bad overall.
The BMW 3-series has a non-existent back seat once you put the front all the way back, but I think it's okay up front. But yeah, the 5-series is better. Now the 6-series is awful IMO. The steering wheel is off-center from the driver's seat, and worse, it's angled so that you have to reach your left arm further than your right.
Well look Andre, let's face it---your body type is outside the bell curve so we can't use you as a yardstick for how most buyers might find the comfort level of the new generation of subcompacts. You (and even I to some extent) are larger than most people, and auto designers don't make cars for the 5%, but rather for the 95%. You wouldn't be very comfortable in the vast majority of cars made sounds like.
In the case of redmaxx, he even took a stricter stance than you did, implying (if I read him right) that it was physically impossible for him to drive an Aveo....so he might be even further outside the bell curve in body type than you or me.
Personally, I could drive an Aveo if I had to. I probably wouldn't like it, but I could drive it. And I could drive a Yaris, xA, etc. I just wouldn't be comfortable. That was always my point. I never did say I was the epitome of mainstream America!
But in the end it's really more about driving position than overall size. I had a 1991 Civic rental car years ago, and it was okay. Not as comfortable to me as my '69 Dart, but it wasn't bad. I know I put over 1000 miles on it in the week I had it, so if it really was a torture chamber, I wouldn't have been able to put up with it that long. It did feel good to get back home though, and stretch out behind the wheel of my Dart!
A buddy of mine had an '80 Accord hatchback which I drove plenty of times. It was small and narrow, but still had enough legroom. They simply sacrificed the backseat and allowed the front seat to go back further. Both of these cars had a lower driving position than your typical modern subcompact, but the footwells just seemed deeper, and the pedals further away, so I could stretch out further.
To use another example, I have two roommates. One of them is about 5'10" and the other's about 6'1" or 6'2". They've both driven my 2000 Intrepid, which just has manual fore-aft adjustments and the recline, no power assists. When I drive it, I have the seat back as far as it will go and wish it went back about another inch. When my buddy who's ~6'1" drives it, he moves it up a couple inches. And when my friend who's only 5'10" drives it, sometimes he puts it about where the other guy does, but sometimes he leaves it all the way back.
Daysailer, didn't you mention once awhile back about having a 1969 Catalina, or renting one once, or something like that, and not finding it especially spacious? I had a '69 Bonneville, a larger car but same-sized interior, and to me it felt fine. Chrysler products from that era felt roomier to me, but it still fit me fine. Now it was a 4-door hardtop, which probably has less headroom than a 4-door sedan.
Truthfully though it didn't feel like it had any more legroom up front than my '68 Dart, although the steering wheel was smaller and positioned better. And the footwell area was wider, and the tranny hump was smaller and narrower, as it had a longer hood so less of the transmission had to be tucked under the passenger cabin.
Anyway though, I guess the world don't move to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you may not be right for some. :P
I had two Peterbilt tractors out back last week for test drives for our OTR drivers!
Seriously, I have had TOO many cases where the driver has not been comfortable in the seat or with some aspect of the vehicle and then they want to replace the vehicle in 24 rather than 48 months.
Personally, I find little correlation between the size of the vehicle and the comfortable. The late 1990's Buick Skylark was extremely uncomfortable and the 2000 era Hyundai Accent was uncomfortable.
I will admit that I have one heckuva time getting into the most recent crop of subcompacts and compacts - Fit, Yaris, etc. After driving the Corolla a week, I finally found a way to get into the vehicle (other than granny style).
Would you guys consider the xB to be subcompact? That I can drive. For short distances and uncomfortably, but I can drive it.
Now rear legroom on the xB is 38". That's well into midsized territory, and even on par with some fullsizers. Where the xB gets much of its interior volume is height. ~46". Usually cars are around 37-39", and 40" is usually considered generous. Now this dimension is great if you do a lot of hauling or are tall AND wear a cowboy hat. But for many people it's just going to be wasted space. For instance, if the ceiling is a couple inches above my head already, adding another 4-5 inches isn't going to do me much good unless I plan on sitting on a phone book or two.
Of course not....his inseam is only 35" :P
Which brings up an observation - I've got a 36" inseam and have no problem with legroom in either a Corolla or xA. I haven't personally tried an Aveo (or a Yaris). The only time I have a problem in my Celica is if I plop into the seat after my wife has driven it..... :surprise:
The thing that I can't stand is that when I have my seat back for leg comfort, usually it's a real reach to the steering wheel. Of course, I perfected the art of driving with my knees YEARS ago....
Perhaps it's like the person who moves from a one bedroom apartment into a studio. He/she has plenty of head room, leg room, light, heat, etc., but feels "confined".
There's none of this "Oh, you just THINK the seat doesn't go back far enough" or "you just THINK your leg is cramping up" about it. :P
Just look at all the various positions that people feel 'comfortable' when they drive. I've seen folks sitting with the chest 15" from the steering wheel and I've seen folks driving with their seat reclined back at 45 deg. And it's not because that's where they HAVE to sit. That happens to be the way THAT person feels the most 'comfort'.
I'm not saying that your discomfort is in your head. I AM saying that we all feel 'comfort' differently. Some folks prefer soft cushions on their seats. Some prefer firmer. Some like pronounced side bolsters and a snug feeling. Others hate it. Seat comfort itself is HIGHLY subjective even if you completely disregard leg/shoulder/and elbow room.
Some folks LIKE the 'comfort' of resting their leg against a console. Other folks simply can't STAND resting their leg against a console. No one is saying that if a car has 'X' amount of legroom and you have a certain inseem, you MUST be comfortable.
Regarding the cramping; sounds like a potassium diffenciency. Have you tried banannas?
It's real to you, and is ACTUALLY real, but only you are experiencing it and I might not.
This is why we have to take "test drives" in magazines with a grain of salt...the views are the subjective views of the reviewer, more or less. Of course, if he says the car has two doors and not four, that's more objective.
I guess we could say that complaints of "comfort" are more subjective than complaints of "visibility".