What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

british_rover

hahah would look like a little mack truck. You would need to add smoke stacks too.

Mr_Shiftright

If the xA had a taller 5th gear, I'd put a blower on it in a red hot minute. But as it is, no way...all I'd have is gobs of power where I don't need it.

andre1969

the 2.5 liter cutoff being touted for 4-cylinder engines as well. Does there get to be a point with 6-cylinder engines where, once you get to a certain displacement, that you're better off going with a V-8?

Didn't Mazda make a little V-6 of around 1.8 or 2 liters? Is there any advantage to having a V-6 that small, versus a similar displacement 4-cyl?

boaz47

You are such an interesting person. You would add a Blower to get 160 HP but not a 2.4 to get 150? I would think the stress would be less on the 2.4? How do you think the demise of the xA as a model will work out? Anything they do to the xB will make me happy. It is a good design for a toaster or shoe box but it is one ugly puppy for a car. However if I were a young driver and had to haul my music gear and didn't want a SUV or Wagon the xB would be a cheep way to go. Musicians just don't care how they or their vehicles look.

michaellno

Didn't Mazda make a little V-6 of around 1.8 or 2 liters?

Yep, it was a 1.8L V6 and it was only offered in the MX-3 for a few years in the early to mid 90's.

I always thought that would be a good way to go .. even though that engine made "only" 130HP, it had to be a lot smoother and quieter than a 4 banger that made the same HP. But, I bet the mileage was worse.

british_rover

It was a lot worse.

One of my employees at UPS had one and although he said it was fun to drive and had good power the gas mileage was bad. I think he struggled to break 30 mph on the highway.

Mr_Shiftright

yeah, I'd prefer a low-boost supercharger on a high revving engine---best of both worlds, as I could have power when I needed it and fuel economy when I didn't. With the 2.4, you have all that nice torque but possible vibration issues and of course a good 10 mpg drop in fuel economy.

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see the point of turning a tiny car into a bit of gas hog. Besides, a blower kit is maybe $3,000--$4,000 bucks but I could never do an engine conversion for that.

With a 2.4 engine, an xA would have a higher MSRP, and at that point I'd buy something more cush for that money....in short, I'm willing to put up with an xA size car for that 35-40 mpg but not for 22 mpg....forget that...ker-razy!

Shoot..if I want to burn more gas, go real fast and have more problems, I'd buy a MINI Cooper S. (Geez, can you believe those little suckers, if highly optioned, can push $26K--$28K out the door?)

snakeweasel

(Geez, can you believe those little suckers, if highly optioned, can push $26K--$28K out the door?)

Push? They can exceed it. Heck that John Cooper Works kit alone can add $6K to a car that starts in the $20's (S version).

Sorry if I am going to pay that much for a car I want something I can fit into.

bumpy

Small V6s have smaller cylinder bores and shorter strokes versus a similar-displacement I4, so they can rev higher and freer with the lighter reciprocating mass (that is offset somewhat by having two extra sets of cylinder parts). The 2-liter, 200hp MIVEC V6 in the top-end Mitsubishi FTO redlined at 8000 rpm.

Apart from the old GMC V6, everyone seems to be content to build I6s or V8s once displacement gets past 4 liters. The 80s GM 4.3L was a chop-block 350 V8 rather than a true V6.

kyfdx

A JCW MINI at my local MINI dealer had $20K worth of add-ons, including the basic JCW package.. Stickered around $48K.. Lots of carbon-fiber... :surprise:

british_rover

The 3.8 liter Ford motor was the same thing just a chop block 302. They made a stroker version of that motor up to 4.2 liter for F-150s.

kyfdx

We were in Puerto Rico in 1992 on vacation... and those Mazda MX-3 were all over the place... You rarely saw one here at the time...

andre1969

a chopped version of the 302 block? I know it's not the same bore and stroke. If it was, it would have been a ~226 CID, and not a 232. Before they chopped the 350, Chevy chopped their 267 and 305 V-8's, coming up with a 200 CID (3.3) and 229 (3.8), respectively.

I know the Ford 3.8 was famous for blowing head gaskets. If it was just a chopped smallblock V-8, wouldn't the V-8 have been prone to it, as well?

Ford had an inline-6 in the older style F-150 that was a 4.9/300 CID. I think it was the same engine family as the old 250 that was used in the 70's, and the 240 before that, which I think debuted with the 1965 large cars.

snakeweasel

Stickered around $48K.. Lots of carbon-fiber...

:surprise: Indeed my friend :surprise: indeed.

There are so many other cars I would get with $48K

nippononly

is the only diesel that meets the MY '07 federal emissions regs, yes. It is 45 states only because of the urea-injection issue - has to be refilled with "AdBlue" at intervals. The EPA is still deciding if they will accept this approach, and for now it doesn't meet the California standard of 150K miles of emissions performance without intervention by the driver. Which is a standard the feds were prepared to adopt, which is why they are still thinking about it.

The new Jeep GC will also use a Mercedes diesel for '07, and that's the sum total of diesel offerings here I believe.

I went and eyeballed the SX4 last night - much better-looking than the Aerio SX, which is also still on the lot in droves. My first impression is that it has 10 hp less, and yet ALSO has a drop in fuel economy (the sticker says 24/30, BTW, not the 23/28 reported previously). That's not that great. It is a very small car - I wouldn't be surprised if it were smaller than the car it replaces. I figure it is about the length of an xA, but with a higher roof. The one that dealer had stickered at $22K after dealer add-ons and ADM of $1995. WAY overpriced at that price, methinks.

So is the SX4 a subcompact? I am not sure. It seems about the right size. How a car this small could weigh almost a ton and a half, even with the AWD it has, mystifies me. Seems overweight.

kyfdx

I think I could live with a loaded MINI Cooper S for around $26K...

british_rover

Mine basicly had all of the proper options for 24,500 and in VA with 3% sales tax I was OTD for under 25,500.

Options on mine were...

Sport package without Sport wheels because the 17 inch sport wheels weigh too much.

Premium package

Cold weather package.

You don't need anything else.

snakeweasel

The thing is I don't think you can get a loaded Cooper S for that much, even without the JCW kit.

kyfdx

I think you can.... yeah, if you want every single option, you'll be in the $28K-$30K range.... but, I think at $26K, you'll still be loaded... Sport, premium and leather....

Either way, an easy $20K under the JCW model that I saw...

snakeweasel

Every single option and you are above 30K in sticker and thats what I would consider loaded.

british_rover

I just built the MINI I would order now with the same sport package without sport wheels, premium package, cold weather package, convenience package, Limited Slip Diff, leatherate interior, and anthracite interior plus headliner.

MSRP is $25,450 with 6 percent CT sales tax it is at 26,977 so with new plates and reg you would be just over 27,000.

carlisimo

That sounds like a salesman's definition of loaded. But it wouldn't be a track car, which is what you're getting when you pay up the nose for a JCW Mini. For the money I'd get an Elise which really isn't all that different I guess.

Toyota's working on its 2nd gen smaller-than-Yaris Aygo model. That'll be pretty interesting!

british_rover

Yeah if you get the automatic and Nav which are both things you should not get as they ruin the car.

The only other things I would think about adding to my car are the english leather and piano black dash. That brings the MSRP up to $27,350

Even adding the Auto and Nav to that car puts you at 29,900.

qbrozen

I think I could live with a loaded MINI Cooper S for around $26K...

That's the problem from my perspective ... I couldn't live with it for $26k.

Every time I've been car shopping since the Mini came out (which is quite a few), I've looked at it, studied it, priced it, looked at financing, etc. It always came down to "how can I pay THIS much for THIS car??" I mean, there are faster options, bigger options, more comfy options, and on and on. If it didn't LOOK so darned good, it would never even be on my radar. So I'd be paying $26k for style. I've ultimately decided to pass each time.

british_rover

with just the Sport package and JCW is 29,100 or so.

kyfdx

I like the way it drives... In that price range, you'd have to get a WRX (too cheap inside) or Acura RSX to come anywhere close to it... If you can live with a 2-door hatchback, then I think it offers a lot..

If the hatchback thing doesn't work, it wouldn't matter what the price is...

tsgeisel

If I'm paying that much I'll just get a new Miata with the convertable hardtop package and a roll cage option.

Might even have more carrying capacity than the equivilant Mini convertable...

british_rover

The JCW package is really overpriced for what you get. For 6,000 dollars you don't really get much. Only 40 more hp and slightly different rear brakes plus LSD.

I would rather get a regular S with the sport package minus the sport wheels again to get the smaller 16 inch wheels. There are plenty of ways to pick up that 40 hp for less money then 6,000 dollars.

snakeweasel

Then isn't there also a sunroof and a few more smaller options?

Yeah if you get the automatic and Nav which are both things you should not get as they ruin the car.

Drive my daily commute in a manual and you will tear it out of your car before you get to your destination.

Even adding the Auto and Nav to that car puts you at 29,900

Then there is TTL, doc fees, dealer prep fees, mop and glow, radio station setting fee, tire air rotation fee, new car smell fee, and the just because we can fee.

british_rover

Premium package includes dual pane panoramic moonroof.

Other things in the premium package are, cruise control, trip computer(with avg mpg, avg mph, instantaneous mpg, outside temp, range extra trip odo), leather wrapped steering wheel controls for stereo, auto climate control with cabin air filter and I think that is it. Pretty good for a 1,400 dollar option.

Sport package includes, xenon lighs, fog lamps, 17 inch wheels(that you should not get as they weigh 52 lbs each) bonnet stripes, and Dynamic stablity control. It is also 1,400

Cold weather package is heated front seats, heated side view mirrors and heated washer jets. Only 300 dollars.

qbrozen

the hatchback thing isn't really the problem, for me.

Its that it doesn't accel in any area enough to justify the money.

If, for instance, the S handled like a go-cart AND did any ONE of the following, I could justify it:
Had the power to back the handling (read: 0-60 in 6 secs).
Could fit 4 adults comfortably.
Cost within $20k.
Matched the luxury feel of a car costing twice as much.

There's just one too many "buts" when trying to talk up the car, IMHO. "Oh, it handles great, BUT its not all that fast and its just OK on the inside and it cost as much as a loaded family V6 sedan."

Move one of those statement to BEFORE the but in that sentence, and it would overcome my practical side.

boaz47

I love the "idea" of a blower or Turbo and "believing" you will get better fuel mileage and have the extra power only when you absolutely needed it. But we enter into that false world of need verses want once again. Absolutely every turbo or Supercharged car I have ever driven or owned got worse fuel mileage than a straight breather. If you have that seat pushing burst of power at some magical RPM you tend to get into that power band a lot more than you planned. The theory is nice, the aplication isn't. And while a 2.4 might add to the MSRP of a xA it wouldn't have added 3 to 4k. Not paying a higher MSRP up front but then splashing down another 3k for a supercharger is only robbing Peter to pay Paul. And you can't just bolt on a Blower or Turbo. It takes engine work or you will see your dealer every bit as much as you would with a Cooper.

andre1969

Absolutely every turbo or Supercharged car I have ever driven or owned got worse fuel mileage than a straight breather.

I had a 1988 Chrysler LeBaron coupe, 2.2 Turbo I with 146 hp. It would break 30 mpg on the highway if you didn't push it too hard. My ex-wife could get that out of it at least, best I could do was around 28. The car probably weighed about 2800 pounds, so it was no lighweight. The real kicker though, is that it only had a THREE SPEED automatic! No overdrive gear!

0-60 was around 9.5 seconds, at least according to the Chrysler turbo models that my 1985 Consumer Guide tested. And the Turbo I didn't pick up any more hp in that timeframe, although they did make a Turbo II that had something like 174 hp and there was a Turbo III which I think made 224? Weird that Chrysler didn't just round their numbers up to the nearest 5 or 0 like most everybody else does.

Anyway, those numbers may not sound so great today. My Intrepid does 0-60 in about the same amount of time, gets about the same economy, yet weighs about 600-700 pounds more. But it also has a DOHC engine, a transmission with an overdrive gear, and I'm sure they made a few advances in the fuel injection between 1988 and 2000.

But to put it in perspective, the typical non-turbo 2.2 in something like that put out 96 hp, did 0-60 in about 13 seconds, and its fuel economy wasn't that much better. A turbo will guzzle some if you're constantly making use of the extra power, but at least it'll give you good economy if you feel like going gentle on it. Sure, it won't quite match the non-turbo version of a given motor in fuel economy, but then the non-turbo version wouldn't give you near as much performance when you want it, either. And moving to a bigger non-turbo engine with similar horsepower might have the power when you need it, but in many cases will burn more fuel in light-footed applications. Provided, of course, that the turbo has enough power to move the car without a turbo assist. If it's so underpowered otherwise that the turbo constantly has to kick in then yeah, you're going to guzzle.

FWIW, the '88 LeBaron automatic was EPA-rated at 23/28 with the 2.2 4-cyl, and 20/25 with the turbo. Maybe the EPA had their foot into it more than me or my ex-wife did? :P Interestingly, the 2.5, which only had 4 more hp than the 2.2, but a better torque curve, was also rated at 23/28.

Thinking back on it, that LeBaron was pretty well-laid out for a small car. Now I know some of you will laugh when I call it a "small" car, but with a wheelbase of around 100.3" and an overall length of around 180", it was pretty roomy up front, and had a useable back seat. I think trunk volume was about 13 cubic feet, but you could also fold down the back seat for long items. For having such a stubby wheelbase, I thought its proportioning was pretty good, too. In raw numbers it had a lot of overhang, but I guess it was slicked back enough to hide it pretty well. Style-wise, it was probably about the zenith of the K-car. We took it across the country for our honeymoon, to Washington State, and I did most of the driving. When you figure I don't like driving my uncle's Corolla after about 10 minutes, but I drove that thing across the country, that speaks pretty well of it. :shades:

boaz47

I have had the same experience. But like you it was only if my wife was driving or on the open highway. Once we moved to the mountains the game was over. Come out of a hard left or right to an uphill climb and the turbo kicks in. Nothing you can do with a Blower. It is always in.

kyfdx

0-60 in 6 seconds? Your standards are a little too high... The MINI Cooper S does 0-60 in 6.8 seconds... I think that is very, very fast.. I would never describe it as "not that fast".. Forgetting the numbers, it feels pretty fast in real life, also..

But, it is definitely a car that demands a few compromises... I would never get it as a convertible.. In that case, give me a Miata..

fitluver

Are you like 6 foot 9 and 325 lbs or something?

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.

Does that include a fit?

Thankfully, I am a good bit shorter then you and my shoes are smaller. (was just curious tho)

plekto

The advantage small 6 cylinder engines have is that they produce nice amounts of torque and power.

Of course, the reason you do it is to get a small inline 6 wedged in there. Tons of low-end grunt, beautiful top-end with no noticeable vibration, and pretty good gas mileage. 120 ft-lbs of torque and 160 HP out of a 4 cylinder versus 150ft-lbs and 160HP - it's a noticeable difference. And inline-6s are very reliable.

Mileage is pretty closely tied to displacement, though, so we're talking about a 2.0L I-6 or simmilar. Put a low-boost supercharger on it as well.

andre1969

normally a function of displacement, a long stroke, and long intake runners? If you had a 4-cyl, inline-6, V-6, and V-8 that were all the same displacement (yeah, that would be a heckuva big 4-cyl and a really tiny V-8!), presuming that they all had about a similar stroke, intake runners about the same length, and nothing drastically different about the intake, fuel delivery, and exhaust, wouldn't they most likely all produce about the same amount of torque?

qbrozen

Your standards are a little too high

yes ... yes they are.



My latest car is a 6-speed Accord, and its STILL not ideal to me. But, for the money, it meets a great deal of my standards.

iluvmysephia1

another subcompact has my attention these days. This time its the 2007 Suzuki SX4. It stands for Sport Crossover for 4 seasons of weather. Gentlemen, let me begin by saying that nobody else will sell you a rig(with its new i-AWD that operates with an easy console switch activated by you up there) that will enable you to drive in 2WD for maximum fuel economy(FWD), AWD-Auto(anytime driving with a slight nod to being optimum for driving in rainy weather, this ccontrols the drive power distribution ratio to the rear wheels from 0-50%, depending on available traction)and AWD-Lock(ice, mud, snow and dodging Sasquatch weather). Evidently the electronic coupler just in front of the rear differential will slip you into AWD-Auto automatically when you get up to 36 mph. When in AWD-Lock mode power is distributed to the rear wheels in the range of 30-50%.

This car has a 2.0 liter, 4-cylinder, 16-valve DOHC engine matched to a 5-speed manual transmission. YES!! No writing corporate to beg for a 5-speed tranny! For those who won't(or can't)row through gears there's a specially-tuned 4-speed automatic tranny also available. The 2.0L motor delivers 143 hp and 136 lb.-ft of torque and gets an estimated EPA fuel economy of 24 mpg/city and 30 mpg/highway with an automatic transmission.

The body and chassis of the SX4 come from the award-winning Suzuki Swift design that has helped SUzuki earn several industry awards worldwide, including many "Car of the Year" awards in both Europe and Asia. It has a stiff steel unibody and a well-managed chassis, fine-tuned in Europe to give good stability on the highway and good crisp, responsive handling and braking with a minimum of body roll. The rigidity continues up higher on the body as well and with reinforced suspension mounts allow the MacPherson struts up front and rear torsion beam suspension to work to the full. The car has a combination of a wide track and a large 16-inch wheel and tire(very, very nice-this increases stability inhandling for the little doll)help make the ride more comfortable. 4-wheel disc brakes are standard equipment, too.

Daytime running lights, 4-wheel disc brakes with ABS and electronic brake-force distribution(EBD)and a tire-pressure monitoring system(why this is a necessary thing? Ford's Exploder comes to mind, men)all come standard.

Also, the SX4 comes with 6 airbags standard equipment(use your imagination on this one-they're basically shielding you from every direction).

Ahh, yes, the body styling. Man, oh man, this is what caught my eye on this rig. Suzuki built this car along with Fiat, yes, it has Italian design influence. I always wanted a rig where designers sought to fuse the SUV with the passenger car and with this one they seem to have done it very, very nicely. Follow the body styling from those wonderful wrap-around headlights to the back of the car. Absolute wonderment in flow and pleasure-full design, it actually beckons from every nook and every little cranny. If you'll look at the triangle design of the windows at the A-Pillar you'll see evidence of this as the body line sinks right at that spot to fit that triangle in. So many carmakers don't take the time to design(humm...wonder who I might be thinking of here...GM? Ford? DCX? Honda? Subaru? There is such a lack of thoughtful design jobs out there that I don't have time nor do you to go over the litany of them in this post!)and, clearly, Fiat and Suzuki have taken all the time they need to design this one finely. Front and rear silver bumper cover plates, roof rails, it's wide track and strong fender design all add to the traction and performance dynamic for the SX4.

Let's go to another post to talk about the inside of the car a bit, K?

qbrozen

Can't even drive an Accord.

You ain't driving the right Accord. Try it with the 8-way power seat. I'm 6'5" and fit just fine. Could be your driving position, too. I NEVER have the steering wheel all the way up in any car I drive.

michaellno

I hate to rain on your parade, but the Suzuki website shows the EPA ratings for the SX4 to be 23/28 for both the manual and automatic transmissions.

Other than that, I too think the SX4 is a car that Suzuki should be able to sell easily.

snakeweasel

let me begin by saying that nobody else will sell you a rig...

To be honest for me Suzuki wouldn't be able to sell me that. To be perfectly honest it sounds complicated and hence be more prone to breakdowns and a higher possible of a costly repair. Mot to mention a higher acquisition price all for something that I may (I say again may) need once or twice a year.

andre1969

You ain't driving the right Accord. Try it with the 8-way power seat. I'm 6'5" and fit just fine. Could be your driving position, too. I NEVER have the steering wheel all the way up in any car I drive.

Power seats can go a long way toward making a car more comfortable, provided they have enough range in their travels. A few years back I was considering trading in my 2000 Intrepid for a used 2002 Intrepid R/T that was fully-loaded. It had a power driver's seat, and by the time I put it back, raised the front, and lowered the back a bit, it fit me just fine. My Intrepid just has a manual fore/aft adjustment, plus recline, and isn't as comfy.

The '02+ Camry was the same way. The first time I sat in one, I hated it. But it was a cheap model with manual adjust seats, and it didn't go back far enough for my tastes. The power seat models fit me just fine though.

I have to put the steering wheel all the way up on my uncle's '03 Corolla, otherwise my knee hits the steering wheel when I go for the brake. I wonder if a power seat Corolla would get me into a driving position that's more comfortable?

nippononly

is a big improvement on the Aerio SX, in terms of looks, IMO. The AWD system with a 'lock' mode is similar to many other systems (like that of the new RAV4, for instance), and I can't imagine that it would be more expensive to maintain and/or repair than other AWD systems. Power is better than the old Aerio, as are emissions. Beyond that, 23/28 is a totally sucky EPA rating for a small wagon/hatch, considering the much larger, higher, heavier RAV and CRV make the same mileage with an extra 20 hp to boot.

But if you are into the AWD, and that is your specific focus, well then it's not so bad. The mileage of all the AWD alternatives pretty much sucks too.

I was just reading another short piece on the new '07 Mini Cooper last night, and did anyone else notice that Mini is claiming the new model is lighter than the old one? Now THAT'S the kind of evolution that I call progress! :-)

iluvmysephia1

for a minute or two, we can see that the dash instruments and controls are logically and simply laid out. I was strongly considering the 2006 Scion xA but wasn't totally comfortable with their Toyota/Scion New World Order of Money Savings center guages. On the 2007 Suzuki SX4 the controls are where they should be. The center stack includes an AM/FM/CD/MP3 audio sytem with 4 speakers. The stereo is XM Satellite Radio capable. Customers who want their i-Pods in the car can get an interface from Suzuki dealers. Once its plugged in it works seamlessly through the radio and playlists and each song's information appears on the radio display.

The SX4 seats five. Both driver and passengers have comfort in seating and the car's smaller exterior provides an urban possibility for fun in turning and parking. I haven't test-driven one(yet)but that is a nice appeal-the SX4 will pull into and out of spots easily and it will handle well. I can use some noggin power and tell you that up front before even driving it. This is a little runabout that also has a little more than subcompact power available to you. 143 horses beats 108 or 125 or 130, eh? You have 90.0 cubic feet of interior space, similar to the Subaru Imprezza wagon and Audi A3. Door openings are wide and the rear features "theater-style" seating for passengers. I will have to check out what they mean by that. Wrap-around seating? Sitting higher up? Practical 60/40 split-folds on the seats back there and the back seats can tumble forward, too for maximum cargo carries. 9.5 cubic feet for luggage(humm...I'm not planning on packing my entire 5-piece WalMart cargo set full any time soon, so this is cool..hee-hee)and this room increases to 22.0 cubic feet with the rear seats folded forward. There are little cubby-storages located here and there inside as well and doors include large pockets and bottle holders for even more storage fun.

The SX4 comes in two trim levels, SX4 and SX4 Sport. The base model also offers a Convenience package that includes a leather-wrapped steering wheel with integrated audio controls and cruise control. Neither of these would I want or need, to be up front with ch'ya'all. I'm happy staring down at the stereo as I drive, invoking fear in upcoming drivers and my passengers inside...just kidding...what I mean is I can change my own stereo controls, dudes. All trims are available in automatic transmission or manual transmission and standard AWD. There is no extra charge for AWD, it comes standard for the $14,999 + $595 destination charge.

Along with the 6 airbags, 4-wheel disc brakes, ABS with EBD, tire pressure monitoring system(think Ford Exploder here), power windows/locks/mirrors, remote keyless entry, air conditioning, AM/FM/CD/MP3 audio system with 4-speakers, tilt-wheel, 16-inch alloy wheels, black roof rails, daytime running lights, fender flares and bumper cover plates all come standard. Oh, and here's something else that comes standard. A self-lubricating timing chain. Huh...kind of nice, really. That means that, conceivably one could go, oh, 100,000 miles without changing timing chains. Probably a lot more than that. Think about 150,000 miles, give or take a Matt Hasselback completion or two to Deion Branch and/or Darrell Jackson. Check my spelling on Darrell Jackson. I should know that. Daryl Jackson? Humm...really, really good receiver for Seattle's Seahawks. That team that was mercilessly ripped off by that referee from Pittsburgh in last year's Super Bowl. If ever a game was set up to have a particular team win it it was the 2006 Super Bowl. The fact that the NFL doesn't have the intelligence nor the footballs to check it out and fire the referees involved baffles me.

Anyhoo, back to the 2007 Suzuki SX4. It is now at your local Suzuki dealer. I checked one Tucson dealer yesterday and they have one, an automatic transmission! What? More people drive automatic tranny's? Pfft.

Back at ya later. I'm taking my 2001 Kia Sportage in for it's 120,000 mile timing belt changeover. If I have time I'll go get its differential fluid chaged out and its manual tranny fluid changed out and its battery posts cleaned off. It will be a full automotive day. Over. And out.

qbrozen

Power seats can go a long way toward making a car more comfortable

Exactly. Heck, I have not found a manually adjustable car seat that I COULD fit comfortably in. ... oh, wait, that's not true. The '02 WRX i tried on was pretty good.

Anyway, alot of these subcompacts (and compacts) would probably be good for me if they would just offer an 8-way power seat (or made their manual seats as accomodating). A car like the Mazda3 baffles me. I can get NAV, but I still can't get a seat that will adjust to my liking??!

snakeweasel

What? More people drive automatic tranny's? Pfft.

Yep more people drive automatic tranny's. FWIW my daily commute is bad enough add a manual tranny to that and you would shoot yourself within a week.

iluvmysephia1

Suzuki SX4's mpg, I will say this, about that. This is a L4 engine with 143 hp and 134 lbs.of ft.torque. It is a little bigger than most subcompact motors. Also, the SX4 weighs in at at about 2900 lbs. That is a little bit heavy but you have to weigh in all the driving dynamics. It runs on 16-inch tires and wheels and its "stance" says push me and pull me a bit, will you? You need some weight for that. You don't want your pretty rig getting blown about by Joe Trucker all the time, either. Need the weight, gentlemen. Need it like Sonic's basketball and Seahawk's football.

It's mpg numbers are fine with me. I bet I can do better than 23 city and 28 highway, anyway. I drive like an 80 y/o on NFL football and NBA basketball and MLB in the fall, men. I can squeeze out better than that. backy knows what I mean, you have to lift your foot off of the accelerator once and a while. Time it right. No, I don't always do that so well. But if I concentrate on it I could.

I probably get around 19 city and 24 freeway out of my '01 Kia Sportage 4x4. So this would be an improvement, gentlemen. Plus, it offers a lot more.

But, I digress. My '01 Sportage is a good rig. Parting with it is not an easy thing. May not even happen at all.

Hey, who thinks we might have a Mets-Yankees World Series?

snakeweasel-I live in the old Wild, Wild West, man, and I drive like your Grandfather. Or your neighbor's Ward Cleaver Grandfather. This 2007 Suzuki SX4 is made for a guy like me who lives in the middle of nowhere in SE Arizona. Rowing through the gears will fit my landscape like Gary Payton on the all-time best NBA guard's list. I put him over MJ overall. No one played 'D' like Gary Payton. Nobody. The thing is about Gary is that his drives to the hoop would leave defenders with that goofy look on their face. A lot like that look on Karl Malone's face. Or Dennis Rodman's. Ya know that look?

nippononly

"143 horses beats 108 or 125 or 130, eh?"

Yes, but iluv, 2800 pounds beats 2300 (Yaris) or 2440 (Fit), eh?! ;-)

The SX4 has a virtually identical power-to-weight ratio to my Echo. Which means the power should be adequate, but you can't just compare power ratings here, you have to also look at weight.

For $19K, you can get the AWD Impreza wagon, which has all the equipment of your loaded SX4 (with optional packages) and an extra 30 hp, with the same fuel economy rating (despite the fact that it is basically in "AWD-lock" all the time).

So the Suzuki certainly has its work cut out for it. It is not a runaway deal, if you take a long look around the market. What it is, is competitive without being rather odd-looking the way the Aerio SX was.

And more and more models are going back to timing chains, if you check that out as well. Certainly the Yaris has one, as did the Echo before it and the little Scions today, because they all had/have the same engine.