What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

snakeweasel

What, no grand reopening specials?

Ok may I ask the participants here if their perception of compacts and subcompacts have changed over the years (or decades for some of us geezers) and if so how?

Mr_Shiftright

I heard on the radio today that "small cars" this year accounted for the highest percentage of new cars sales since 1977.

So I think there is definitely a trend in this direction once again. The article stated (sorry, didn't catch the source---one of the big business magazines) that (paraphrasing) "the image of small cars being slow, dangerous and poorly built" is changing rapidly.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS:

I noticed a BIG article in the SF Chronicle about "governmental hypocrites" who talk about emissions and fuel economy but drive big SUVS. They printed their photos, the cars they drive and the mileage they get. I LOVED IT!

So here's an example of media shaping the image of the small and/or fuel efficient car as being socially responsible.

ALSO--noticed a big two-page Honda ad that used the word "Environmentology" to describe the company's philosophy.

So someone is gambling big bucks (I'd imagine Honda must spend...what...50 million a year on advertising?) on marketing "green". The car in the ad was, of course, the Accord Hybrid....or maybe the civic....

fintail

Personally, I think small cars are cooler (in a 'neat' way rather than performance) than they have been in a long time. So much 80s stuff was so tinny, poorly equipped, and underpowered...small cars are pretty much real cars today.

I would love to see those 'environmental hypocrites' photos.

Green marketing is set to explode, I don't think we've seen anything yet. I wonder how they can spin it for diesels.

snakeweasel

I heard on the radio today that "small cars" this year accounted for the highest percentage of new cars sales since 1977.

Do you think that gas running up to $3.00 a gallon and more had something to do with that?

So someone is gambling big bucks (I'd imagine Honda must spend...what...50 million a year on advertising?)

According to their annual report filled with the SEC

"Advertising expenses for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2006 were ¥239,332 million, ¥246,997 million and ¥287,901 million,"

Currently there are 117.329 Yen to the dollar, and these are world wide figure.

logic1

So here's an example of media shaping the image of the small and/or fuel efficient car as being socially responsible.

ALSO--noticed a big two-page Honda ad that used the word "Environmentology" to describe the company's philosophy.

So someone is gambling big bucks (I'd imagine Honda must spend...what...50 million a year on advertising?) on marketing "green". The car in the ad was, of course, the Accord Hybrid....or maybe the civic....

This is a real bugaboo of mine.

Subcompacts are arguably more green than SUVs. Of course, assuming people have to drive, wouldn't it be for more green if seven neighbors pooled for one Suburban than if they all bought seven Fits?

Long and short, big or little, cars are not green. Car companies advertising themselves as environmental saviors are helping to continue a gross public misconception.

snakeweasel

I would love to see those 'environmental hypocrites' photos.

I think this is the article link title

imidazol97

This is one of the excuses given by the politicians:

"I would admit that I should get a better mileage car," Chan said. "But I mainly looked at the crash-test factors. I drive every day from Oakland to Sacramento, and I see these horrific accidents on I-80."

bumpy

I don't think my perceptions ever changed. The stuff I remember riding around in when I was growing up were a Plymouth Horizon, Dodge Aries wagon, Ford Pinto, Isuzu diesel pickup, Mitsubishi Colt Vista wagon, and a Toyota Corolla. The Citation I got for my first car had an excess of interior space and rode like the ponderous barge it was. I don't know how people put up with riding around in gymnasium-sized cars where the passenger window and glovebox are in another zip code.

andre1969

I heard on the radio today that "small cars" this year accounted for the highest percentage of new cars sales since 1977.

I dunno if that's much to brag about, as 1977 was the year that big cars (well, in downsized form anyway) came back with a vengeance and people were trying to pretend that the first fuel crisis never happened.

I do like the article exposing the gov't hypocrites for what they are, though. They really should practice what they preach. They really would get a lot more respect from the public if they would do that. I'm guessing that the lawyers and politicians in CA that are trying to sue the automakers for dirtying up the atmosphere aren't exactly driving Priuses or riding their bikes to work, are they? :P

Kirstie_H

If anyone wants to ensure that this discussion gets permanently closed, please use the phrase "government hypocrites," or the like, a few more times.

daysailer

but the market offerings certainly have! I expect a "subcompact" to be not only small, but lightweight, so that they may be quick and nimble when powered by a small and fuel frugal engine. Subcompacts of my youth were WELL under 2000lb, many under 1500lb. Today we have "Mini's" that weigh DOUBLE their namesake and it's rare to find a vehicle under 2500lb (with 4 wheels). 3000lb VW rabbits?! PULLLEEEEEZ!

Mr_Shiftright

oh that phrase was a quote from a newspaper article...sorry ....it was about government people touting fuel efficent small cars and hybrids but who drive big cars themselves....

But really we should be talking about the cars THEMSELVES, and what role they are fulfilling...

SUBCOMPACT DIESELS and "Environmentology" ---that's going to be a tricky bit of marketing. Americans do NOT have a kindly attitude about diesels as the Europeans do.

diesel = dirty is engrained in the American pysche...and whether the diesel resides in a big car or a small one doesn't seem to matter.

RE: HIGH GAS PRICES SPURRING SUBCOMPACT SALES?

Oh, absolutely --the connection is indisputable and I fear permanent.

boaz47

Ahh, yes, the perceptions have changed. What exactly is a small car one might ask to one reporting that small cars have accounted for a larger portion of sales? Are we talking Corollas, Mazda3, Focus, Civics, Cobalts? Or does a Accord, Altima account for small cars sales to that same reporter compared to a SUV? How have Sub- compacts done compared to those same Compacts and mid sized cars? The Nissan Versa is advertising trying to remold peoples ideas far more effectively than a new article. A new term has hit our collective conscienceness. Auto claustrophobia and they give image to the word in their commercial. So like daysailer says sub compact is "just" a word used to describe an alternative to a SUV or Accord when used in this forum. The Mini is bigger than a old Mini, the xA is bigger than a CVCC was even. The xA and Fit may both be bigger than the origional Accord. Sub Compact?

rockylee

Could we see a return from subcompacts to Megacabs, Shifty ?

Rocky

snakeweasel

Could we see a return from subcompacts to Megacabs, Shifty ?

You mean something like this:

rockylee

ROTF !!!! No, you silly goose. I was referring to something a hair smaller. :P

Rocky

snakeweasel

ROTF !!!! No, you silly goose. I was referring to something a hair smaller.

Oh you mean one of these:

rockylee

Oh brother. :P Snake, you are quite the comedian today.

Rocky

snakeweasel

The first one is the CXT and it is huge. The second one is the RXT and while it is huge it is a hair smaller than the CXT (GVW of 25,999lbs for the CXT and 25,500lbs for the RXT).

They also have the MXT which at 14,000lbs GVW it is significantly smaller.

Now back to your regularly scheduled rant.

Mr_Shiftright

how "size is relative" but ONLY TO A POINT....yes, an Altima is a "small car" compared to a Lincoln Town Car but a Smart isn't a small car compared to a MINI...that's pushing "small car" too far, a reducio ad absurdum I think.

I'm not sure what the sales figures include but I'd guess they mean Corolla size on down, something like that.

snakeweasel

Hey no fair, mine actually exist.

But hey since this is about subcompacts what about this:

[deleted images because for some reason they are not working but they can be found here]

nippononly

Your post causes me to have two different thoughts:

1. Most of the subcompacts we are referring to commonly here (the Korean duo, Fit, Yaris, xA) are in fact under 2500 pounds. Some, not by much, and none are the lightweights their predecessors were, but they are still light enough to be fairly tossable and fun to drive.

2. I think with something lke this, you have to consider the context of the whole market. If your choice is a 3600-pound Camry V-6 or Saturn Aura (both of which were not offered back in the day you are referring to, but their 4-cylinder counterparts were around 2700 pounds, at 3200-3400 pounds today) or a 3000-pound Caliber or Cobalt, aren't the 2200-2400-pound subcompacts looking pretty darn good by comparison?

Mr_Shiftright

What Has Changed Is This:

At one time, we used to say that a successful subcompact was "a very good car for the price".

Now we say "a very good car at ANY price".

All you're giving up these days with a subcompact, in any meaningful way that is, is size, inside and out. Some might say "power" but if a car runs strong all day at 80 mph, it doesn't have to tow a boat to qualify as adequate on power IMO.

boaz47

Our 1990 Accord was 2733 and the Civic Si I got my Son in 91 or so was 2291. The Civic was called a compact. The xA is 2340 and the Fit is 2471. I call that a bit Fat not PHAT. :P

kato1

i agree todays subcompacts are much more solid cars with much more structural integrity than in the past. the extra bulk has come at a cost: fuel efficiency.

for the size of a yaris, i was stunned that the mpg ratings were nothing special. the fit, xa, and hyundai/kia entries into the market are even more disappointing. the best chevy can do is 35 mpg, and chryslers best effort is a caliber, which is lucky to hit 30 mpg.

id say the overall driving experience has improved dramatically over years past in terms of driving comfort, interior cabin noise, and overall solid feel (with the exception of,imo, a couple of 5 speed entries that rev at ridiculously high rpms at highway speed, causing too much noise and overall unpleasant feel to the experience-fit and scion xa. for me, 3000 rpms is my threshhold at which a car feels tedious over longer periods of driving, and these two cars in 5 speed versions are well on their way to 4k rpms at 70 mph.

boaz47

If you read Edmunds pros and Cons on these offerings they also say such things as , handles well, "For and economy car". Isn't that a bit like say, he jumps pretty high for a fat man? And Edmunds doesn't praise the handling of the Versa at all.

phinneas519

Regarding the American psyche's perception of diesel, I beg to differ. While it is true that some are rather "strong odored" at times, it's not quite the same thing. Also, with Honda's innovation (I'm not the biggest Honda fan, but credit where credit is due) in their diesel engine, I see the American view of diesels making a turning point - not to mention MB's diesel as well. In any case, don't assume that everyone lived through the big diesel scare.

Yes, when I was in high school some years ago, I knew people who drove loud, stinky, cloud-producing Mercedes diesel sedans, but I understand that those are very old vehicles. Anyone who has traded in their logic for an old pair of sneakers would assume that diesel technology hasn't advanced a bit and diesel vehicles are altogether the same now as they were "back then." As I said, I'm not a big Honda fan, but I would strongly consider buying a Honda diesel if or when it becomes available. The benefits over a hybrid are numerous, no the least of which being price.

nippononly

But boaz, you didn't read what I wrote. I KNOW those cars like the Accord were 2700 pounds back in the day. And BTW, 1990 is SERIOUSLY back in the day at this point!

Your Accord today is more than 3200 pounds for the lowest trim, 4-cyl manual shift. And 3400 pounds for the 4-cyl with all the whoop-de-whoos and an automatic. As are all the other midsizers - in fact, some are hundreds of pounds more.

So you can be disappointed at 2300-pound subcompacts if you want, but then you have to be REALLY disappointed at 3400-pound midsize sedans with 4-cylinder engines. The old days are well and truly GONE.

As for the weight issue, I think automakers should put every penny of R&D for the next couple of car cycles into weight reduction rather than power increases.

wale_bate1

"As for the weight issue, I think automakers should put every penny of R&D for the next couple of car cycles into weight reduction rather than power increases..."

Same thing! ;-)

Agreed. I wonder where those savings will come from over the next ten years or so.

stickguy

is a good example of what is "wrong" with the current class of (often porky) subcompacts. Or rather, why the alternatices are so attractive.

Yeah, it is up to about 3250 lbs. (EX-L 4 cyl stick). Bt it also has EPA ratings of 26/34, gets a solid 25 putting around town, and 34-35 straight highway, along with a comfy quiet ride, lots of goodies, plenty of room, etc. No, not as tossable as a Fit, but it still drives nicely, and is still a relatively managable size.

Plus, you can get strong deals on cars in the size range.

Put it all together, and many folks just decide that the mid-size (or Compact CIvic/Corolla) offers more bang for their buck, and mileage good enough to make them happy.

The other thing IMO besides creeping obesity is gearing on the manual trannys. It makes them buzzier, and takes away some of the mileage advantage.

Still, I prefer more compact cars. If I needed a new one today, I would probably look for something like a Versa.

Oh, that's my other gribe. Plenty of people can afford to pay more, but still want a small car, but want some toys/luxo items. Not everyone is on a tight budget and wants a strippo model.

And finally, make seats the adjust 8 ways please, even if it is manual. THe last Proteges had great seats with seperate front and rear adjustments. The 3 went to a ratchet lift, so I just can't get a comfortable cushion angle (the main reasno I didn't buy one).

OK, the soapbox is now free!

explorerx4

differences between back in the day of light cars and today is that there is a lot more safety equipment and safety built into the basic design.
also, current engines produce much less pollution than 15-20 years ago.
i use my focus (not a sub compact) as a commuter, for the most part. it is pretty good on gas.
funny thing is though, since it is better on gas than my suv, we try to drive it more. there are 4 of us. if it was a little bigger we would drive it more, since we would be more comfortable. a bigger car, probably less gas mileage.

kapbot

In the early '80's, I bought a used '79 Corrola. It had the 1.1 liter/5 speed. It was light, had power nothing except brakes, and couldn't get out of it's own way. As many others have pointed out, the drivetrain could/would outlive the body. My next small car was a 80 something Tercel my Dad bought. It had a 1400CC engine that, again, couldn't get out of it's own way. Again, the drivetrain by far outlasted the body.
Since the Tercel, I owned only American Iron. '64 Econoline Pickup, :mad: , '80 Cordoba, '97, '00', & 02 Dodge Dakotas, and now an '07 Saturn Ion.
Anyway, the only way to get me into a subcompact is for the vehicle to have the "normal" range of options. I will not buy a small car if the only configuration available is "stripper".
The gas mileage in the Ion is at least as good as either Toyota, and it has the power too.
I do realize that I am comparing 20 yr. old technology with what is available today, but I feel it answers some of the problems of why small cars don't sell better than they do, in this country.

bobw3

The simple answer is that compared to other countries we have cheap gas (even at $3/gal it's still cheap in comparison), big wide roads, and communities with houses with big driveways to park the big cars...again, as compared to most of the rest of the world. Plus in many countries, insurance rates are based on the engine size. So there are lots of reasons why the US will always drive bigger cars than the rest of the world, which is also why many of the luxury features on a European Focus for example, don't come on an American Focus. The European Focus is considered a full-size car so people will pay for the extra options, while here in Ameica, most people buy smaller cars because of cost. If they can afford more they'll buy bigger and so there isn't the demand for luxury features on the small economy cars. This is changing though, and many of the smaller cars are getting the same featurs as the bigger ones. But on the other hand, the manufacture makes more profit on the bigger cars, so they don't want to put too many options on the smaller cars, otherwise people, who realize they don't need the extra space, may not buy the bigger car...hence less profit for the manufacture. So if every possible luxury feature can be found on the Corolla...why buy a Lexux?

nippononly

more to a Lexus than just a bunch of gee-whiz features.

snakeweasel

Other than the name (read snob appeal) name one.

british_rover

I would have a hard time naming one and I have sold a ton of them.

snakeweasel

I would have a hard time naming one and I have sold a ton of them

You do realize that selling just one means you sold more than a ton of them. :P

british_rover

Soo not funny. Only I am allowed to make puns like that.

I just looked through my records and looks like I have sold 34 Lexus vehicles of various types.

None of them realy impressed me that much. But.. Back on topic.

I can't wait to see the new hatch from Volvo the C30. It looks pretty cool and I think will be a good addition to the compact/near sub-compact market.

snakeweasel

I can't wait to see the new hatch from Volvo the C30. It looks pretty cool and I think will be a good addition to the compact/near sub-compact market.

I agree, as long as they can keep the price at a reasonable level. Plus I hope they bring in the diesel.

boaz47

Name one? A cool looking emblem and a nice dealership. Thats two. :P

snakeweasel

I said other than snob appeal (oops I mean the name).

boaz47

darn, I thought nice seating at the dealership and expresso machines would do.

Mr_Shiftright

very reliable, but a snore to drive.

I'm not a bit convinced that American attitudes toward diesels is in any way approaching a love affair...perhaps we have improved from outright hostility to them to benign apathy.

Diesels still need to overcome two GIANT obstacles: a) the fuel stinks...IT STINKS...and there's no way around that (yet) and b) where I live, diesel is .40 cents to .50 cents more than regular gas (in northern California).

So, cleaner more aromatic fuel, and lower price, and diesels will have their day. Don't do either, and you can forgetaboutit. One slipped hose or leaky filler pipe in a diesel car and you have to abandon it for two weeks.

40 - 50 cents per gallon more for fuel cannot be overcome by fuel mileage advantages that might exist over equivalent gas engines I don't think.

boaz47

That cost difference has always puzzled me. I remember when diesel was much less expensive than gas. Living in Southern California I know it still should be. People in Chula Vista and Imperial Beach pop into mexico to fill up all the time. But the thing that is hard to understand is that diesel take less processing to begin with so what drives the price up?

But stink it does. Not as much as it used to but filling the tank shouldn't be done if you are planning on a nice dinner with friends. When my F-250 was still at home, before my son moved to Texas and took the truck, my wife refused to wash my cloths that I had on when filling the truck in the same load as the other cloths. She said the smell would stay with the cloths.

Mr_Shiftright

One reason I ditched my diesel was the rise in price. I had an older diesel of course, and was willing to put up with the disadvantages of older diesel tech in exchange for great fuel mileage, great range and lower fuel prices. But once the price jumped to 20% over regular, and once the new generation of subcompacts came out, the handwriting was on the wall for me. If I had a new-ish VW TDI, I might have stuck with it however.

I didn't mind the stink. I had those handi-wipes, which I used not only on my fueling hand (or I used those plastic gloves they dispense at diesel pumps), but also to wipe the soles of my shoes.

I tried some Bio100 fuel and that was great...no odor to speak of...but that was even MORE expensive than regular diesel, so that was no solution for me.

I'd buy a VW TDI once the new diesel fuels are in place.

kyfdx

Does the smell have anything to do with sulfur? Will the ULSD be any less smelly ( ), once it arrives?

british_rover

I think that is part of the problem yes but not all of it.

snakeweasel

I'm not a bit convinced that American attitudes toward diesels is in any way approaching a love affair...perhaps we have improved from outright hostility to them to benign apathy.

I think the segment that would be the prime market for diesel really has no set attitude about it yet. I do think that diesel could make up to 20-30% of the market if the manufacturers really offered it as a reasonable option.

40 - 50 cents per gallon more for fuel cannot be overcome by fuel mileage advantages that might exist over equivalent gas engines I don't think.

Actually it can, a diesel of the same size will provide 30% or more fuel efficentcy. I was looking ot the Volvo website and it appears that the C30 with the 1.6 liter diesel (109 hp) gets 35% better highway mileage than the 1.6 liter gasser (100 hp) and 50% better city driving. That will more than offset the 15% higher price in diesel (that we have here).

british_rover

Just announced...

C30 to come to US

Its a little porky at 3,200 lbs but I guess it is a Volvo so no way around that.

stickguy

price varies due to (drum roll please..) supply and demand! The supply side comes from the fact that a barrel of oil gets split up into components. I forget the exact %s, but something like 20% is diesel (and I think fuel oil), 70% gasoline, and the rest other stuff or waste.

So, if you are cranking out lots of gas, you have a corrosponding amount of dielel raw material. THe price will depend on if anyone wants it (although it should cost less to refine, at least until the new low sulfer rules hit).

Weather comes into play too. More demand for heating oil in the winter, even more if it is extra cold.

Oh, and I really like the C30 too (you see the old P1800 ES in it), but that is porky for th esize. Better be built like a tank!