What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

boaz47

You have to take Luvs enthusiasm with a grain of Salt. He like Kias as well. So dependability isn't on the top of his list according to any automotive surveys.

boaz47

I have noticed a slight move away from belts and towards chains myself. I think the hope was that a belt would be quieter but a chain seems to be less likely to slip or jump a notch.

snakeweasel

I just don't understand some peoples distaste for an automatic tranny. An auto can be the better choice in some situations. Sure a manual is great fun and very responsive on a open road, but they tend to be a liability in heavy rush hour traffic. Which is the reason I avoid driving the Caddy to work.

Mr_Shiftright

My two cents on that is that a manual transmission, especially in a subcompact, outweighs the advantages of an automatic...in this way:

1. Control of the car...with the manual and a tachometer, I can optimize the driving experience and rid myself of *most* of the unpleasant aspects of coupling a 1.5 or 1.6 engine to an automatic transmission (gears hunting on steep hills, less engine braking downhill, no push starts, less versatility in snow)

2. Performance -- while the paper stats don't show a big diff between 0-60 times on a manually equipped vs. an automatic subcompact, in fact to GET the best 0-60, the testers use the automatic in an unnatural way (often shifting it manually), giving the buyer the wrong impression of what THEY will experience. Thge manual transmission, if coupled to a small high revving and eager engine, can be a lot of fun.

3. Expense -- if you wipe out an automatic transmission and it's not under warranty, that's very expensive. On a subcompact over 5 years old, it might mean the wrecking yard.
It's pretty difficult to destroy a standard transmission..near impossible...at worst, you buy a clutch which is less than half the cost of an AT overhaul.

jlawrence01

It's pretty difficult to destroy a standard transmission..near impossible...at worst, you buy a clutch which is less than half the cost of an AT overhaul.

It is also prety darn hard to screw up an AT ... although some people insist on switching gears while the vehicle is in motion.

bumpy

no push starts

You can't push start a modern car with a manual either. Putting it in gear and shoving won't make the computer fire off the coilpacks and injectors.

snakeweasel

While I will give you the expense (even though I have taken many an auto tranny past 150k with no issues) the first two points are pretty much meaningless in heavy rush hour traffic. I mean performance isn't an issue when you have a half mile plus backup to a traffic light and it takes three or more cycles to go through. Then when you get through it it is slow moving bumper to bumper traffic.

Plus it is hard to "optimized" driving experience in heavy rush hour traffic that you are lucky to get over 35 MPH.

I am telling you, in my daily commute a standard transmission is a nightmare and a huge liability.

plekto

You can't push start a modern car with a manual either. Putting it in gear and shoving won't make the computer fire off the coilpacks and injectors.
****
This is true for about half of the cars, currently, and is what I consider a true manual transmission - no computer overrides, lock-outs, or other silliness.

Audi, Mercedes, most of GM, half of Ford, Volvo, Saab... Your're right - no manual push-starts. But a few still do work the old way.

daysailer

It never occurred to me that the infuriating trend to automate everything would eliminate such a fundamental ability. What does one do when a starter fails or a battery is too weak to drive it? Does everyone carry spares or have AAA insurance? My Miata battery is on its last legs as we speak - I park at the top of a hill.

snakeweasel

My Miata battery is on its last legs as we speak - I park at the top of a hill.

Here is a tip, buy a new battery.

daysailer

One is on order.

wale_bate1

Ditto to what snakeweasel said.

I've had a AAA membership since I started driving. Plenty of perks other than jump starts and local towing...

john500

Are you sure about this?

I've push started a 2000 Saturn SW2 twice after two battery failures. Even with the battery dead, there was still enough charge to fire the initial few times and then the generator kicks in. The spark still comes from the battery or generator whether a computer controls the timing or a gear connected to the (crank or cam, can't remember which) via a distributor. If you have the ignition key, then wouldn't the chip in the key be considered an override? It confirms that the pusher is the owner.

I haven't had the opportunity or need to push start cars since that one.

daysailer

What I find most wrong is that the "subcompacts" are all too heavy! IMO, the Honda fit is perhaps the best of the bunch yet it has more than 500lb more mass than the '84 Honda Civic that I once had, has an engine of the same displacement, has similar suspension and brake design and achieves no better fuel economy, even IF it achieves its EPA estimates. The Fit is a tad quicker than the Civic and is does have more amenities, but hardly 500lb worth. No doubt its "magic seat" and higher profile allow it to swallow more stuff, but given its meager power/mass, that stuff must be rather lightweight. The old Civic would readily envelope a couple of bycles or a lawnmower, so is there any real gain?

I expected more progress in 22 years.

logic1

I imagine an engineering analysis would show most of the extra weight is due to safety and air pollution improvements in the newer vehicle.

Technology exists to make the Fit (and all other cars) lighter. Replace metal with aluminum, carbon fibre and titanium wherever possible.

Carbon fibre is not easily recycled, however. The cost of replacing steel with any of the alternatives would put the price of the FIT over that of a BMW 3 Series as well.

wale_bate1

I dunno DS, doesn't that 500+lbs equate to an increase of something like 15-20%?

So it has greater capacity, runs a bit quicker, has more safety equipment and a few more amenities, and does it all with the same displacement and relative economy. What's not to be impressed with? :confuse:

daysailer

is a slug in the context of the 2006 vehicle population. It's a matter of swimming WITH the fish.

andre1969

it might depend on the manufacturer. I helped a guy push start a Maxima a couple weeks ago. It was an older one, but now I'm drawing a blank as to whether it was the '89-94 style or the '95-99.

Once upon a time you could push-start automatic transmission cars too. I think it had something to do with where the transmission pump was. If it was mounted in the back then you could push-start it, but if it was somewhere else you couldn't. The owner's manual of my '57 DeSoto has a section on push-starting it. I think you have to get it up to about 15 mph. This guy's Maxima was able to fire up at oh, I guess about 4 mph.

nippononly

I don't know about that, I will bet at least half is due to the extra metal required to make the car much more resistant to bending and torsion. Which is great, if only we were all racing our Honda Fits and Civics. Which 99.9% of owners, of course, are not.

But what daysailer said is also very pertinent - despite the very low weight of 80s Civics, most (including the SI) were significantly slower to 60 mph than today's Fit, which is due to gearing them faster today. Just an unfortunate consequence of the horsepower wars that have waged in the industry since time immemorial (and continue today), which have made all the cars on the road much faster and forced subcompact manufacturers to keep up at least modestly.

logic1

I don't know about that, I will bet at least half is due to the extra metal required to make the car much more resistant to bending and torsion.

Maybe. I am no engineer. I would think the same engineering leading to improvements to bending and torsion helps improve safety as well.

Alonged with improved ride and handling, stiffer cars are more quiet and have a more refined ride, something most drivers in 2006 would not be willing to give up.

thegraduate

I'm late to the debate (or discussion, rather) about the new Suzuki SX4. I struggle to figure out if people would buy this thing over a Fit or even a Toyota Matrix unless they need AWD when going purely on the power/economy standpoint. Am I the only one to notice the rather sad economy numbers? If I were to downsize cars for economy, I couldn't go to this one. My midsize 166 horsepower Accord gets 6 MPG better than this vehicle (I drive a lot of hwy, and actually average closer to 39 MPG on trips when I'm careful with the throttle).

The economy is terrible when compared to Fit (33-38MPG or a Matrix(30-36MPG). The only car I see that is comparable to (or as bad) as the SX4 economy-wise is the Dodge Caliber, which still offers more power with its low economy.

I'm not condemning the car, because frankly, i don't know enough about it yet. I'm not trying to pick a battle here, either, but someone debating what I have to say won't hurt my feelings, I promise. I'm looking for the "why" factor for buying this car, other than AWD on a $16k car. I live in the South, so AWD would be moot to me. What can this car offer me that another vehicle can't (besides AWD, I don't want/need it)...

Just curious.

tsgeisel

I really like the Aerio when I first saw it - and then I drove it.

So while I'm inclined to like the SX4 on general principles, the real test is in the driving.

snakeweasel

Am I the only one to notice the rather sad economy numbers?

Nope, and i wouldn't seriously consider the car myself. It really offers nothing over a lot of the competition except for the AWD which is needed only once in a blue moon.

boaz47

That has been a valid point since the beginning of this discussion. To make the Sub Compacts run as quick or almost as quick as the compacts and mid sized cars they have to be geared lower if they have a small motor. The Fit suffers lower fuel mileage as a result. We have noticed it is rated lower than the Corolla in MPG. In fact both the Yaris and the Fit don't seem to gain anything from having a smaller motor on the highway over the Civic or Corolla. They have the small motor and less weight and still aren't big mileage kings compared to the Civic and Corolla. In fact on the highway the Yaris loses 1 MPG to the Corolla and the Fit breaks even with the civic and Both the Corolla and Civic have bigger motors and more weight. Not much to recommend down sizing from a Compact?

while it isn't on topic I have to wonder about bump starts as well. Both of my manuals are 2001s or better and neither can be started unless the clutch pedal is on the floor. Even if I had the key to bump start you have to let the clutch pedal up far enough to engage the pressure plate. Once my clutch is off the floor the ignition won't engage the starter. Is bump starting possible then. Even in neutral my clutch pedal must be on the floor and it simply will not start if the pedal is up.

logic1

I like the looks of the SX4, but agree, the mpgs are not where they should be.

For the price, I would just as soon get the PZEV Rabbit. MPGs still not great. But the VW will no doubt ride and handle better.

british_rover

You can get the slick DSG tranny in the Rabbit as well and probably next year get a TDI.

boaz47

Plus if you get a VW you can develop a close personal relationship with you service department. You might even have the privelage of getting to know your mechanic by his first name, or her first name to be PC. After owning three VWs I almost forgot that Americans had a W in the alphabet. "Ve con get Juor part in ont aboout tree days. Vee hoop you like your Veee Dobblehoo.

snakeweasel

Ok, you're crazy.

Darn how did I miss that the first go around?

logic1

Agreed, VW has a well deserved quality glitch rep.

Suzuki does not have that much better a rep, however.

Maybe best of all worlds would be if the forth coming Saturn Astra ships to the US with the neat little 1.8 common rail diesel GM offers in the EU (and other markets as well).

Assuming we get the hatch and it has adequate filtering on the diesel exhaust, of course.

british_rover

My sister had good luck with her 99 VW and that was supposed to be a bad year.

You just lucked out and get three bad ones.

thegraduate

Hahaha, I was wondering who would get to that joke first!

I may not be crazy, I'm just fanatical about getting the most efficiency possible for the size/power of a vehicle.

I'm THRILLED with my 30 MPG average in my Accord EX I-4(lots of economy for the power (166 hp and 24/34 MPG), size (3,200 lbs), and price point (Mine was approx $22,000 - $1,800 below sticker...not great, but the 06 had JUST come out)).

boaz47

well, According to JD powers I am not alone. If it weren't for Kia, VW would be down on the bottom almost all by themselves.

It doesn't matter what diesel they might bring over for Saturn I won't see it. In california we would have to revolt and string up every member of CARB by the neck and toss every tree hugger in the state in the ocean before we will see a new diesel car for sale here.

logic1

It doesn't matter what diesel they might bring over for Saturn I won't see it. In california we would have to revolt and string up every member of CARB by the neck and toss every tree hugger in the state in the ocean before we will see a new diesel car for sale here.



Seriously, US Greens' opposition to diesel has always confused me.

british_rover

It really makes no sense I mean modern diesels are nearly as clean as the gas equivelant and get much better gas mileage. Plus the engine itself lasts longer and in general require less maintence which means less waste over the life of the vehicle.

snakeweasel

In california we would have to revolt and string up every member of CARB by the neck and toss every tree hugger in the state in the ocean before we will see a new diesel car for sale here.

And now that state has just filed a lawsuit against automakers because of greenhouse gasses. If the worlds automakers had any guts they would stop shipping anything to California and force all those idiots to walk.

michaellno

It doesn't matter what diesel they might bring over for Saturn I won't see it. In california we would have to revolt and string up every member of CARB by the neck and toss every tree hugger in the state in the ocean before we will see a new diesel car for sale here.

And if that isn't bad enough, the State of California today filed suit against six leading auto manufacturers (GM, Ford, DC, Nissan, Toyota and Honda) for the greenhouse gases their cars, trucks and SUV's emit.

EDIT: Dang, snake beat me to the punch on that one.

british_rover

Yeah read that on left lane news about an hour ago. Soo stupid.

snakeweasel

EDIT: Dang, snake beat me to the punch on that one.

Oops sorry.

michaellno

S'ok, makes me glad I don't live in CA anymore.

Bringing the discussion back on topic ....

Why is it that in Europe, they refer to cars by letters - A, B, C, where A is subcompact (Yaris, etc.), B is compact (Focus, et al) and C is mid-sized (Mondeo, Passat), but in the US the lines between car sizes gets all fuzzy?

Some people use EPA interior volume, others use overall vehicle length. Smaller cars getting worse EPA (and real world) mileage than larger cars (SX4 vs. Accord being the most recently cited example, or, better yet, the Civic getting better highway MPG than the Fit).

Seems to me that the way they do it over there makes more sense.

Thoughts? Comments?

(now ducking....)

logic1

Greens everywhere else accept the diesel as the best compromise. Clearly, modern diesels are best at reducing C02. Gas may have a slight edge on particulate, but that is made up with, as you say, longer lasting and less maintenance.

Many US Greens cannot adapt. They took a stand. Won. And refuse to accept changing times and tech.

A subcompact with a small common rail diesel and decent filter would be the best compromise auto possible imo.

logic1

Why is it that in Europe, they refer to cars by letters - A, B, C, where A is subcompact (Yaris, etc.), B is compact (Focus, et al) and C is mid-sized (Mondeo, Passat), but in the US the lines between car sizes gets all fuzzy?

The EU is better at forcing one standard on its members.

US has fed using one standard, industry another, large states like Cali and NY still another. So you get a hodge podge.

EU category makes sense from pure idea of the auto follower. But when you start to think about the power the EU bureaucrats have over the people ...

boaz47

No kidding. But once we got CARB we got zilch in return. They don't answer to the people and so don't care what is best for the people of the state. A small compact diesel would be ideal for most of the small cars we have been talking about. Heck My F-250 Superduty gets better fuel mileage than a Tundra or a Titan all day long. In fact it gets better fuel mileage when it is loaded and the Tundra is empty. And the F-250 is a lot heavier to start with. Because we aren't looking for performance or acceleration in a Sub Compact or a truck diesels make a lot of practical sense. We are far more interested with particulants in this state than Europe however so as long as we have CARB we aren't going to see diesels anytime soon. It doesn't matter if they do get better mileage.

nippononly

has everyone forgotten that the federal standard has chased all the diesels out of the country for '07? It's not just California that's concerned here. I cheer on CARB's efforts, because even though they are sometimes misguided (!!), without them there would have been no progress at all beyond the initial federal clean air legislation. Anyone who was ever in San Bernardino or Riverside in the summer in the last 25 years would never wish that smog on their worst enemies. And now we have it appearing in Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, you name it.

Now the lawsuit against the Big 6 is brand new news, so I have to read more about that, but my first impression is that one will go in the column marked "Misguided efforts". But that's not CARB doing that one, that's the state attorney general.

And how about this for a compromise to get better fuel economy from smaller cars (instead of making diesels widespread): sell models or versions of models that go about as fast as Explorers and 4-cylinder Camrys, rather than making them go faster. Heck, let them go a little slower than those perennial favorites. Also, stop worrying about how ignorant people that won't downshift on the highway will respond, and give these cars properly tall overdrive gears for better highway fuel economy. Any car that can pull 35 mph in its top gear without lugging or bogging is geared too short. Give these cars a chance, manufacturers!

wale_bate1

CA can pave the way when the feds (one in particular) fumble. It's our calling.

explorerx4

cali lets hybrids with only a driver into the hov lanes.
makes no sense to me, they are most efficient in stop and go driving.

john500

Wasn't it Los Angeles that was in the news all the time in the late 1980's due to "smog"? Smog is primarily the result of excessive nitrogen oxides in the air. Read any general chemistry book. Although a diesel engine may produce 20-30 % better fuel economy than a gasoline engine, there are real reasons NOT to allow diesels in the LA area. Diesel engines produce FAR more nitrogen oxides than gasoline engines. This is another fact. Look at the temperature of combustion and the spontaneity of the reaction between nitrogen and oxygen at the combustion temperatures. I agree that diesels will and should increase in popularity, especially with the advent of the "gas to oil" technology coming soon, however, let's be real. They have no place in the California city of LA. This was probably one of the reasons for the establishment of the California Air Resources Board.

andre1969

is also just in a naturally "dirty" area. The winds come off the Pacific, but the mountains to the east keep the pollution in, so it just kind of builds up. You could wipe out mankind tomorrow and aliens could come down to Earth a few years hence and take some readings, and the LA area would still be "dirtier" than other areas.

I've heard the Houston area is also like that as well, because the air masses off the Gulf and the air masses from the Rockies collide, and kind of just sit there. In the spring time you get fun things like tornadoes, but other times of the year it just kind of holds the pollution in and lets it build up.

There's also an area in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, that's supposed to be one of the dirtiest areas in the country. It's up in an area called Brooklyn, or something like that. Basically as far as you can go in AA County without going into Baltimore. Supposedly it has something to do with wind currents, and the way the Patapsco River and the Chesapeake Bay water currents collide, and it just lets pollutants build up.

Anyway, this California thing certainly could set a precedent. If they're successful in suing the automakers for contributing to excessive greenhouse gases, who's next? Taco Bell? Cabbage farmers? That Golden Retriever that's always trying to hawk the Bush's Baked Beans recipe? :confuse:

boaz47

Some of the highest smog levels in the world are in China in places where there are no cars, diesels or otherwise. Smog isn't solely the by product of cars it is also the by product of industry. Plus while CARB limits our use of diesels it doesn't limit diesel busses, trains, and large trucks. The state has a massive diesel truck fleet. So while we will allow CARB to limit a 2.0 diesel in a passenger car they can buy a 20 ton truck that runs 8 solid hours a day every day of the week and burn high sulphur diesel to boot on tax payers money? I don't believe they are misguided like my friend Nippon, I think they are politically motivated. But I can be a skeptic.

None of this has much to do with sub compacts however. If people were even remotely interested in saving fuel and small cars they would be trying to get CARB to allow small diesels here like they have in other parts of the world. Just isn't going to happen. But perhaps the article I was reading this morning on synthetic jet fuel the air force is testing might lead to something. If we got some renewable fuel maybe the whole CARB thing would go away.

iluvmysephia1

doesn't get over 30 mpg, but I want a rig that will grip in some inclement weather sometimes. Like if I decide to drive the 32 mile road up to the top and down the ridge of the Pinalino Mountains here about 40 miles NE of me. If I should run into some mud or snow or ice. The locals here say that the snow is gone the next day if it snows here in the old wild, wild west. We're at about 4,200 feet though. Mt.Graham towers up at about 10,400 feet, with a beautiful alpine forest and even a rain forest to browse through. I want the SX4 for possible inclement weather and I want a rig that looks sharp. The SX4 foots that particular bill very, very well. It sits on an award winning chassis, the Suzuki Swift's chassis. This is not your uncle's hum-drum Honda or Toyota here. This is a real car, a car that is truly unique in that one can put the tranny in a separate locked 2WD(FWD)mode to maximize ghastly mileage. What is nice is that, at a touch of a button, a person can put their SX4 in AWD-Auto mode for better traction. 4-wheel disc brakes and ABS are standard. Plus a blevy of airbags to practice your own Jim Carrey 'Dumb and Dumber' routine at the airport.

"What's the matter, are we a little nervous?"
"Not to worry, I'm a really good driver. There are a lot of bad drivers out there."

The SX4 gets only 23 city and 28 highway. No, I agree those are not sterling numbers. I'm in the research phase, which could include a test-drive at any time. The ghastly mileage is fine for me, not even an issue with this padre from Seattle.

BTW-today my son and I took the Sportage 35 miles west to Benson, AZ, for the Sportage's 120,000 mile timing belt replacement. They replaced the timing belt and found another cracked belt so replaced it. While the Sportsman was being worked on we walked around Benson. Guess what kind of car I saw at one of Benson's ghastly stations? Yep, a 2007 Suzuki SX4 in automatic transmission and silver color. I hopped over to the lady and asked her about her new baby.

"How do ya like your new SX4?"

"I love it!", she exclaimed.

As I grilled her about the handsome new rig from Suzuki of Japan I had to ask here about her ghastly mileage so far.

"How's your ghastly mileage in this thing?"

"Umm...", she blurted out.

"What, have you figured it up yet?", I had to know.

She hadn't figured up an average yet and she was also in a hurry so I didn't hear how her running ghastly mileage was going. The SX4 does come with a ghastly-mpg-a-meter that keeps tabs for you! How awesome is that? And a great CD player to boot! Welcome to new technology!

The silver import was small.

"Looks small", I commented.

"Yeah, it is," she replied.

Apparently Suzuki has done a good job with keeping the SX4 quiet. A popular complaint is that some people have been unhappy with their Suzuki's level of noise in the cabin as they accelerate. I have read two new write-ups on the SX4 in which the noise issue has been addressed. Apparently it has-Suzuki has blotted out some of the engine buzz with this one.

Yeah, my close-up look revealed a sharp looking little import, with those nice wrap-around headlamps looking good fronting the metallic silver paint job.

"I'm a cowboy, on a steel horse I ride...".

Seeing this little pup in person did not dampen my enthusiasm for the 2007 Suzuki SX4 a bit.

After that appointment I hadn't had enough maintenace yet for the Sporty. I took her in for a rear diff.fluid dump and re-load, a manual tranny fluid dump and re-load and a 4WD front diff.fluid dump and re-load. Coolant is up to the top and strong. The battery is strong. Mileage is at 120, 330 miles. Getting up there but she's running like an absolute top. The Sportage 4x4 is a great rig and is running great, too. We're not trading anytime soon. I know that the Sportage would get max.dollar, though, if I wanted to trade it in a week from now. I will demand top dollar in trade or I won't be trading with that particular dealer. End of story, eh?

It's all subcompacts for this padre and they all come from either Japan or South Korea. The only other car of interest comes from Brazil and it isn't quite here yet. It's a car-crazy globe and this car nut is enjoying the fruits of an Asian on-slaught that is both fun and reassuring. I know that buying a Kia or a Suzuki or a Toyota or a Scion in subcompact form is not only a smart thing, it is a conservative thing. It conserves money and it doesn't pollute like these dorky pick-em-up TTTRRRUUUCCCKKKKKSSSS from Detroit. A lot of us have figured it out but a lot more of us will need to get with the program eventually.

Small is hip. Small is smart. Small is penny-wise. Small is cool and small rocks the house. Over. And out, car nuts. :shades:

snakeweasel

One question, how much is Suzuki paying you?