What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

crimsona

On the other hand, extra airbags are also useless for the vast majority of drivers. At least, the ones that don't get into accidents on a regular basis.

Heck a person would probably get more use out of AWD than curtain airbags, yet few call that a gimmick.

If a side airbag saves you once, it's done its job. AWD could be the same.

snakeweasel

First off airbags are mandatory, secondly I have never known anyone say "If it weren't for that AWD I would be dead right now". That alone makes a big difference.

Lets put it this way, for the vast majority of drivers when they use AWD 99.99% of the time a FWD can would have been more that adequate. For the vast majority of drivers when airbags have deployed I doubt that very many times not having airbags would have been more than adequate.

Your comparison is a bit absurd.

crimsona

Frankly, I've never heard anybody say the side curtain airbag saved them from certain death either (which were the ones I pointed to originally 'extra' 'curtain')

Many manufacturers sure treat it like a gimmick - anybody would be hard pressed to find a Yaris or Corolla equipped with that option.

snakeweasel

Lets be honest here shall we, what is more likely to save you from certain death or severe injury? Side curtain airbags or AWD? My guess would be side curtain airbags multiple times over.

bobw3

If you look at cars with AWD that only come on when there's slippage, I wonder how many times it helps? I don't have AWD because I really don't need it where I live, but I used to live more in snow country where I've gone around a corner and slid, or hit a slippery spot on the highway, or any number of times where AWD would have helped. Especially for people not as used to driving in the snow.

Of course some people will say that if you just drive carefully and slow down FWD or RWD is good enough, but I know that just accelerating from a red light on slippery surfaces I've had tires spin and the car slides a little as it moves forward, and I've seen the same from other cars around me.

So I think it would be pretty good to have but for me not really a necessity. Maybe it would be better in my case just to buy some snow tires for the couple of winter months, but for the cost of buying the tires and mounting them every year it might be cheaper to go with an AWD car?

plekto

They've always been high on content and low on fluff.

More often than not being high on content means being high on fluff.

That would be Toyota and Mercedes lately. Overpriced.

Also, the Swift was the first *econobox* with ABS as an option. GM and others had it years earlier but only on their top-end models.

The thing that's good about the Suzuki AWD is that you can manually lock it into 4x4 mode. Ie - doesn't think for you, stays on all the time. Try driving a SUV on gravel roads(half of the midwest is farming communities and gravel/dirt roads) or get into some mud or whatever. Or just get off the side of the road on pea gravel.

Click(4x4) - oh look - it got right out first try. Switch back to 2wd mode. Just like on a big SUV just without the low-end gearing for rock-crawling. It's a pretty nice feature once you've gotten used to it. Just talk to anyone who has owned a 4x4 truck.

snakeweasel

I don't have AWD because I really don't need it where I live, but I used to live more in snow country

I have been driving in snow country since 1978 and I can honestly say that in all that time AWD would have helped me just a couple of times. Even driving around in the mess that was '79 in a RWD car I had no issues except one.

but I know that just accelerating from a red light on slippery surfaces I've had tires spin and the car slides a little as it moves forward, and I've seen the same from other cars around me.

I have also seen AWD/4WD cars do the same, if you don't have traction you don't have traction. Funny thing is drive around here after a bad winters storm and count the number of AWD/4WD cars in the ditch.

andre1969

that the biggest advantage of AWD/4WD is that it helps you get un-stuck after you've wiped out? And it might help you get going a bit more quickly on slick surfaces than RWD or FWD will. However, I always thought that when it came to having to stop and handle in bad weather, things like your tires, weight balance, traction control, driving skills, etc were the most important, not which wheels the power was going to.

boaz47

You make some valid points. But then you are talking closer to the subject line of this forum. It is hard to debate with a cheer leader talking on a different tack. But AWD and Weight do detract from the very reason most have posted in here of what they want a sub compact for. And getting back to those guidelines we see fuel mileage is one consideration most sub compact supporters tout as a reason to get a sub compact. If we look at that as a criteria and dispose with the pom poms and color brochures we see that there are whole batches of cars less expensive, better handling in in some cases better equipped for the average driver than a SX4. From the American side you can get a Focus in coupe hatch or sedan as low as 13.7 and Ford is offering up to 2k incentives so maybe as low as 11K gets you a better handling car that can be had with cruise control which we already know gets used more often by most of us. Plus you get better fuel mileage with the Focus and it is PZEV, 26 to 32 MPG. You can also get a bigger engine if you want a sportier Focus and the better fuel mileage comes with a manual for those who want fuel mileage and a manual. You also could have a Cobalt for 12.2K to 12.9 and with an incentive. It also can be had with cruise control and gets better fuel mileage, 25-34 MPG. But you don't like American machinery? The parent company of Kia offers two cars with better fuel mileage and at a better price than the SX4. The Accent starting at 10.4K to 14.9, 28-36 MPG and the Elantra Starting at 14K, 24-32 MPG. If you want to compare Japanese to Japanese We could go Mazda3 Starting at 13.7 for a basic sedan and we already know how they handle, 28-35 MPG. The Honda Civic speaks for itself and gets 30-38MPG. The Corolla starts at 14.2 and gets 32-41 MPG

If we get back to the cars we have been discussing the Fit gets 31-38MPG starting at 13.8K. The Versa gets 28-36 starting at 12.5k and Two of the Scions the xA starting at 12.7K gets 31-38 and the xB starts at 14.0 but gets 30-32. I personally would have to be hit over the head to get a xB but that is just me. Even the Yaris starts at 11k and gets 34-39MPG. So looking at things from the perspective of the discussion line you can see AWD adds both cost and takes away from fuel mileage. Not to toss cold water on someones enthusiasm.

british_rover

However, I always thought that when it came to having to stop and handle in bad weather, things like your tires, weight balance, traction control, driving skills, etc were the most important, not which wheels the power was going to.

They are...

R&T or C&D did a test where they took a FWD sedan with top notch snow tires to a road course and did a lap. Then they did the same lap with a 4wd SUV with all season tires.

The sedan was several seconds faster then the SUV.

snakeweasel

You're right on that. Thats why I think you see so many AWD/4WD vehicles in the ditch in real bad weather as people with AWD/4WD are over confident with their and their cars ability.

snakeweasel

and the Elantra Starting at 14K, 24-32 MPG

Just to be fair the Elantra has been revamped for 2007 and might cost a little bit more and scuttlebutt has 3-4 MPG increase in fuel economy.

boaz47

I'll accept that, but still the point was sub compacts and fuel mileage. While you didn't start the drift it got started and sort of wanted to get us back on track. At least we didn't have to hear about the new super car from Brazil or where ever it is, the Obvio? It takes weeks to get the confetti off of your keyboard when that subject enters the room.

wale_bate1

Sorry, but that's just silly.

Let's us just try a slick track comparison between a FWD sedan and AWD sedan otherwise comparably equipped.

My observation is that in slick conditions, it's always some schmoe in a 4X4, whether truck or car-based, that's the first to end up in a ditch. AWD/4WD either to blame, or just not really helpful at all? Not on your fireless cooker; moron at the wheel of a vehicle not meant to be driven the way he/she was driving it. Many people have an absurd, unwarranted sense of invulnerability in an AWD/4WD vehicle, and behave thusly.

I'm not a huge fan of AWD for the average Joe - I don't think it's necessary at all for most people, from strict transportation and/or safety aspects. But you can bet dollars to doughnuts I'd rather have AWD over FWD from an "enthusiastic" application standpoint, and RWD (way) over AWD from same.

iluvmysephia1

it seems plekto knows what he's talking about with the 2007 Suzuki SX4. He also knows what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Hours and hours and hours of research has yielded the fruitage of knowledge. Knowledge like the information I state below. It's not a Roswell mystery.

It is really pretty simple...$14,999 price, gobs and gobs and gobs of standard features(no I'm not going to list them all over again)and snake's so-called "subjective" looks(yeah, right, and a Mercedes is supposedly a good looking rig)and the ability to put the crossover into 2WD(FWD) for optimum ghastly mileage, AWD-Lock for instant 4WD(and yes, there have been no less than 4 times my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4 has gotten me out of a situation by using it's 4WD...worked like a champ instantly for me and pulled me out of a slippery situation)...and once the Japanese/Italian mixture accels up to 36 mph the powertrain automatically goes into AWD-Auto for all-weather driving situations.

And those 4 situations I was not "looking" to get into slippery-stuck situations-they occurred twice just trying to get out of my driveway in Missouri where there is a slight incline...the Sportsman's 4WD gripped the ice like a champ and I was out...in 2WD(RWD)the small SUV's Hankook(with plenty of good tread on them, too)tires were not able to get me out of my driveway...the wheels just spun and spun and spun.

So, yes, I want 4WD in the 2007 Suzuki SX4, AWD-Lock. AWD-Auto I have never had in an automobile so using it will be something new to engage in rainy, near-snowy type conditions. Those situations do come up and I want to have a rig that helps in those situations. Simple and true confession.

To get gobs of airbags, 4-wheels discs, ABS with EBD, a ghastly trip-aahhh-toh-meter is cool, remote keyless entry w/panic button, AM/FM/CD/MP3 stereo w/4 speaker sound, cool silver bumper guard-plates(I like that!), roof rails, a dealer-installed $129.95 armrest(oh, yes, this pup is absolutely necessary), tire pressure monitoring system, daytime running lights, air conditioning, 16-inch alloy wheels, fender flares and power windows/locks and mirrors with the afore-mentioned drivetrain capabilites make this car the best bargain on the market in any class.

Mr_Shiftright

I bet you could make a good statistical case that AWD causes more accidents than it prevents.

Ever read "Freakonomics"? It's a great book about how actual statistics and perceptions often clash. There are a few freakonomic facts about cars, one being that baby seats don't seem to make babies safer...it's being in the back of the car that makes them safer.

I would have opted for AWD in the xA if it a) were not too much more costly as an option and b) if it only cost 10% in fuel mileage. I can use it for ski season and winter travel...but really a set of snows and or chains and I'm fine....the car would high-center before it'd get stuck probably. Basically, one has to know how to drive in snow, as in "lots of experience" kind of knowing.

SUZUKI --Two good reasons not to buy one? a) slim service and b) horrible resale. Those cars take a brutal beating in value after a few years. You'd have to drive one into the ground to justify buying a new one. And they are always "dualed" or worse with a larger brand of car dealer, which means of course you get 10 qualfied Chevy mechanics and one guy named Eddie who they punish by sending to Suzuki school.

Check out Kelley Blue Book suggested retail prices to get the picture here:

2005 Scion: List price 12995 Current retail 13300

2005 Suzuki: List price 13994 Current retail 11450

BAM! one year and you're $3,000 in the hole with the Suzuki already--you paid more and you get less back.

boaz47

You have to be careful with facts. State too many and you will get a reference to Seahawks, Foghat or some other not relative things. Some people only can buy glasses in Rose tint.

snakeweasel

I bet you could make a good statistical case that AWD causes more accidents than it prevents.

I wouldn't make that argument. I would make the argument that many people get a false sense of security with an AWD vehicle when driving in bad weather. Because of that they drive beyond their and their vehicles abilities in bad weather, causing more accidents. Its not the AWD but the drivers that abuse of it.

I would have opted for AWD

So would I if the overall extra cost is nominal. IMHO it isn't.

Mr_Shiftright

Good way to phrase it--so then we might be able to make the statistical argument that AWD vehicles have more accidents than the exact same car without AWD. I'm not saying it's true but it might be, due to driver's undue reliance on it.

SUZUKI AERIO AWD -- looks like they nick you $2,000 extra for AWD, and Kelley Blue Book gives you a $500 add-on for it, over a FWD, if you sell the car in one year.

A Suzuki AWD would be the perfect car to buy used from an auto auction when it was 2-3 years old. You could get one for 1/2 MSRP I bet.

daysailer

appears in the Nov issue of Road&Track, which I received yesterday. They say the engine "runs out of breath" at 4K rpm.

An asthmatic engine and antiquated "live" axle suspension would keep it off my list, particularly since I don't need the weight and complexity of 4WD on the paved flatlands of VA.

boaz47

I have done the same thing with a Used car. Often AWD gains nothing in resale or re-buying in that case. I got a used Subaru and it was one of the best snow cars I ever had. Because I already had a few seasons of mountain snow driving under my belt it made a pretty big difference in my confidence level. But it is still ground clearance and skill that make the difference. Plus I live where I can slip on a set of studded tires. However anything over 5 inches of snow and you are out of luck with most AWD sedans. Once the pumpkin starts to leave a trail in the snow you are close to stuck, AWD or not. And without good snow tires ice will stop you on a hill with or without AWD. And almost all AWD drive cars have open differentials. Open diffs mean you are never in AWD unless it is dry and you have traction to all 4 wheels. If one tire starts to slip all the torque is simply applied to the other wheel. The wheel that is stuck simply refuses to spin and you can be down to two wheel drive on one side of the car. beats one wheel drive but you are still stuck.

w9cw

FWIW . . . I paid $13,750 OTD, which included the sales tax (6.75% in IL), doc ($55.39), title, and license fees ($143.00 T&L) for a 2006 Elantra GLS 4-door sedan in December 2005. Mileage has been in the mid-20's in town, and typically around 31 to 32MPG (best was 35MPG) on the highway. This is with the 4 speed automatic.

iluvmysephia1

we know you don't like the 2007 Suzuki SX4. What else useful do you know? Why is the focus entirely on this car? Because I, iluvmysephia1, like the car?

What would you buy, snake? A rather drab 2007 Hyundai Elantra? Come on. I told you what I want.

Now you tell us what you want. Let's see if all the regulars here like what you like. Come on.

It'll be fun. As if it really matters what everyone else likes, anyway.

Resale values are a moot point to me. If they were top Husky to me I would have bought a 2006 Scion xA long ago. I am thankful Suzuki and Fiat engineers toiled quietly on this rig and have come up with a nice, well-thought out package for sale at a very reasonable price. If you pay lower up front you'll come out ahead in the long run, anyway.

backy has gone through this one ad naseum over on the Hyundai boards. To only pay $14,999 and get years of usage out of a rig will treat you well. If I was paying say, $21,999(like I would when buying an ugly Subaru, I would lose money). Subaru's hold their value, you say. Not to justify spending that much on one.

If what I stated above is a Roswell mystery feel free to question it and we'll dice it up into a year-by-year cost analysis. snake would be glad to help-he's an accountant. Pay less for your car and you can't expect it to hold it's value-unless it's a Toyota/Scion.

The thing that makes this Suzuki proposition do-able though, is it's intial low price. With lots of TLC and reasonable miles-driven-per year I will be doing fine after 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, ad naseum.

Like I say, if it's mysterious or a very bad idea, let me know the exact reason. To say that Suzuki mechanicals are crap is a broad, sweeping generalization that doesn't ring true as an explanation to not buy a car. Suzuki engineering is steady, sound and true.

I remember all the naysayers when I bought my 1999 Kia Sephia. Then my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4.

Where am I now with them? I have an excellent Kia Sportage 4x4 with 121,090 miles on it and it's worth $4,100 right now. Has the Sephia or Sportage 4x4 been difficult to maintain, or expensive? Ha-ha bless you as the Knarles Barkley dude rings out when she states that she's always in control.

I have detailed out my great experience with my Sportage, right down to getting 102,000 miles out of it's OEM Hankook tires. It has yet to blow out a single light bulb. I have carefully stuck to it's maintenance schedule and it has treated me very well. Inexpensive to maintain.

And Kia scores low on quality reports. Suzuki, too, eh? Would this stop me from buying one? No, why would it? I have experience with cars the naysayers have pooped publicly upon and it has come out well for me, both from an enthusiast's point of view and financially.

Bring on the 2007 Suzuki SX4!

lilengineerboy

Hmm so something small and nimble with good tires out handled something big and ungainly with crummy tires... riveting.
Oh wait, thats the same thing that happens every day on a clear dry road.
Take an Audi with AWD and snow tires and compare it to a front track Audi with snow tires. If you are going to compare an '87 Yugo and a Ferrari, I bet I can predict the winner too.
Its amazing what happens when physics isn't required in high school anymore.

lilengineerboy

Good way to phrase it--so then we might be able to make the statistical argument that AWD vehicles have more accidents than the exact same car without AWD. I'm not saying it's true but it might be, due to driver's undue reliance on it.

I think the same could be said for ABS, DSC, etc. Drivers have a tendency to use up a percieved safty cushion. For examle, ABS is interesting because it changed the type of crash that occurs. There was an increase in single car drive-off-road crashes and a reduction of rear end collisions (because people could steer to avoid the car in front). I'm okay with that, if the guy behind me isnt paying attention, I would rather him take out a shrub than nail me in the backside.

british_rover

Yeah I know this test was very old. It was conducted back in the mid 90s when the SUV craze was just starting.

Proper tires are going to be more important in poor traction conditions then almost any other factor. Tires area always the most significant factor.

daysailer

Actually, second most significant. The Driver is most significant since there is some level of incompetance that can render any vehicle technology inefective - unless the car is driverless.

snakeweasel

Mine is a 2000 Elantra wagon which I bought new right when the 2001's were coming out. Forgot what I paid for it but it wasn't that much. With the 4 speed auto I have been getting around 23 city (mostly heavy suburban traffic) and been able to get 32-33 highway (doing about 70 MPH).

andre1969

I remember a few years back, a buddy of mine who had recently bought a used 1995 Mercury Grand Marquis, called me in a panic during a snowstorm from a gas station payphone. This was in the "old days" before cell phones were a dime a dozen. He was only a few miles away from me, and said he was worried that his car was making some really weird noises and felt weird, and he didn't know what it was.

So I drove out to meet him, and we drove around. Turns out those weird noises and the odd sensation in the brakes and steering were his ABS and traction control working overtime trying to keep his crazy butt out of the ditch! This was his first time driving the car in bad weather, and since it didn't spin out as easily as the '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan he'd replaced it with, he simply drove faster! He scared the hell out of me!

I wonder if this type of phenomenon might actually cause accidents to be worse that they otherwise might have been? With his '82 Cutlass, it would've started to spin and slide and feel unstable at a lower speed, so he would've been scared to go any faster. But since this Grand Marquis felt more stable and wasn't giving him warning signs, such as spinning, sliding, etc, he just drove it like he would on a normal, dry day, much faster than he should have. So instead of spinning out and getting scared and backing off at a low speed, I have a feeling that with this car it would encourage him to go faster than he really should, so when it did start to lose control, instead of scaring him a bit to back off, it could already be too late.

I'm sure there are a lot of people that just take these safety advances and end up pushing them to the margin, to the point that they're no better off than if they had been driving a vehicle without those advances, but with a little more care and at a more reasonable speed.

andre1969

isn't exactly at the head of the pack when it comes to fuel economy, when you compare it to a Corolla or Civic. But at the same time it's also a larger, roomier car. And what you lose in fuel economy, I'm sure you make up for in purchase price savings. Although come resale time you might feel a pinch. I'll be curious to see how the 2007 Elantra stacks up.

nortsr1

"and it's worth $4,100.00 right now". You keep saying that...but WHAT have they offered you on the KIA with 121,090 miles??? Let's get the whole story when you actually purchase the Suzuki and what they give you for trade-in!!!!! You keep quoting KBB...not the Real World Trade-in Values or Auction prices!!!! A 15,000 vehicle is exactly that...a $15,000 vehicle.

tsgeisel

"Why is the focus entirely on this [the new suzuki] car?"

Because it's the only car anyone is actually talking about buying *now*. It's one of the few cars that I've seen anyone talk about with any enthusiasm here on the board. So I'm not minding this discussion.

For the record, if anyone is *really* interested in retail value in the sub-compact category, it begins and ends with the Mini. Those things are nearly bullet-proof depreciation-wise.

snakeweasel

Why is the focus entirely on this car?

You tell me, your the one posting the SX4 commercials. I am just trying to give some balance there.

What would you buy, snake?

Don't know, but most likely won't be a 2007 anything. I am hoping my next car purchase won't be until 2009 or 2010. Until then I will continue to drive my Elantra wagon which has more space, gets better gas mileage and has gone through 6 Midwest winters without getting stuck or running off the road.

Come on. I told you what I want.

Yes but you keep on with the Suzuki commercials. Man by what you write you swear it was the second coming.

Let's see if all the regulars here like what you like.

Basically I don't care if they do or don't. But most here seem to agree that AWD is rather meaningless to most drivers and that it seems to be a marketing gimmick. Plus many agree that the mileage leaves much to be desired.

Resale values are a moot point to me.

Seeing you are trading in a car that 1.) you owe money on and 2.) has considerable life left in it you should give it some consideration.

Subaru's hold their value, you say. Not to justify spending that much on one.

Well that would depend on how much difference is there between the purchase price and the resale value of each one. Secondly I would trust a Subaru on the Top of the World Highway, but I wouldn't trust a Suzuki.

The thing that makes this Suzuki proposition do-able though,...

True but the same can be said for other cars that are just as capable, cost less, have more space and get better mileage.

To say that Suzuki mechanicals are crap is a broad, sweeping generalization that doesn't ring true as an explanation to not buy a car.

For one thing I didn't say that. For another thing the fact that Suzuki dealerships and qualified mechanics are few and far between makes buying one questionable.

Mr_Shiftright

Yeah well wait until the used MINIS fall out of warranty and their reputation catches up with them. But you're right, their resale is very very good right now.

SUZUKI--okay, trade in on a 2004 Aerio AWD wagon is now about $8,500---so that's 1/2 of MSRP in 2 years. Interestingly, private party retail is only $9,800

Not so good.

TOYOTA Matrix -- 2004 base model AWD--List price 17.6K trade in $11.7K, so that's 67% of MSRP after two years. But private party retail is $13,000.

If you have a used car with private party and wholesale very close together, this is usually indicative of a market value dropping so fast that wholesalers don't want 'em as they can't buy them cheap enough from owners (too big of a hit for owners to sell off their loan) in order to make a decent markup.

I could see buying a Suzuki if, and only if you a) pay cash, no financing, and b) keep the car a long, long time.

Otherwise, you would do better financially to buy a more expensive and more popular car.

rorr

"Ever read "Freakonomics"? It's a great book about how actual statistics and perceptions often clash. There are a few freakonomic facts about cars, one being that baby seats don't seem to make babies safer...it's being in the back of the car that makes them safer."

Actually, I think "Freakonomics" is a good book to show that with selective use of statistics, you can 'prove' all sorts of crazy stuff.

Regarding cars and baby seats: why not compare the stats of kids in the back seat IN the infant seats vs. kids in the back seat NOT IN infant seats? That way, you eliminate the whole "back seat" portion of the discussion.....but then that wouldn't make for a very interesting stat in the book....

british_rover

I don't know if that is going to be the case with the MINI. The engine is pretty simple and is basicly very similar to the dodge neon motor. Many of the parts are even interchangable. They aren't that hard to work on except in some areas where clearance is just very tight.

MINIs are more simple then a normal BMW and those are much more scary out of warranty.

Mr_Shiftright

Well it's not "proving" something, it's just illuminating interesting correlations by statistics. It's not saying that it IS, but asking why it is the way it appears to be--that was my take, anyway. His questions only pose other questions I thought--that's why I liked it.

Remember when Camaros were thought to be the world's deadliest car? Well it was "true" as far as it went (more deaths per incident in that car than any other) but the reasons were of course very complex.

daysailer

"Actually, I think "Freakonomics" is a good book to show that with selective use of statistics, you can 'prove' all sorts of crazy stuff."

Sounds like the story of Ralph Nader's Career.

Who has had his own issues with the small car industry .(to acknowledge the topic)

boaz47

This would never have been an issue if it weren't for the band wagon snake mentioned. We can be talking about go carts and two stroke engines verses four stroke and you will here the brass band start up and the room fills with songs of praise for some totally different subject about a vehicle that comes is some new sounding form of red and offers a free cigarette lighter and cloth seats for free. You can even have a spare tire and technology only thirty years old. All that for only a few thousand dollars more than what you are driving and getting lower fuel mileage. That praise alone doesn't make the vehicle a bad vehicle in the class of vehicle it was designed to compete with only it falls way out of bounds considering the subject.

Snake is correct in that he didn't start the debate on the SX4. He simply pointed out the shortcomings compared to the subject at hand. Everyone of us understands the logic of facts be hanged, "I want what I want no matter how it stacks up to what you are talking about." That is fine as long as we realize that such reasoning opens us up to remarks of caution from others in the forum about possible better choices. That and the fact that what a basket ball player, foot ball player or musician might say or do doesn't matter much when it comes to selecting a sub compact.

daysailer

you're getting dangerously close to suggesting that it's a good idea to think for yourself. Such heresy will undermine the fundamentals of marketing and wreak havoc with the automobile industry.

boaz47

I know. I had to go down and splash cold water on my face.

Maybe it shouldn't bother me but when someone inserts what sounds for all the world like a car commercial or sales brochure that any of us could read or hear on TV. And then indicate that the choice for such a vehicle is more valid that anyone elses even if the statistics show doubt on that position sounds more like trying to reason with a teenage boy looking for his first car. I guess I just need to chill.

rorr

I guess I need to read the book. Because it SOUNDS as though the author is just having fun with statistics and picking/choosing odd combinations PURELY to make the reader go "hmmm, that's odd".

I'm all for people questioning statistics since (as apparently the Freakonomics book points out) statistics can be used to show almost anything, providing you phrase the question in just the right way. I just think the author picked a bad example (child seats).

andre1969

about there being 3 different types of lies? Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics?

snakeweasel

Yep. I had a statistics professor that said statistically everyone has one..... well use your imagination on that one.

andre1969

I must not have been a very good liar in college, because it took me two tries to get through statistics!

So what is it that statistically everyone has...an opinion? :shades:

nippononly

in an entirely different direction, who thinks VW should go to the trouble of bringing its Polo to the States?

It has been an on-again, off-again proposition. Considering the 2-door Rabbit stickers at $14,995, maybe it is now off again permanently.

I dunno, though, I kinda like the idea of a mini-VW in the States. I have seen them in border areas in the south (they are on sale in Mexico, where they are the best-selling small car I believe), and I like the look. They are not handlers like the Mini, but they also cost a lot less and have almost as much power.

Slap the currently standard VW 4/50 b-to-b and 5/60 powertrain warranties on it and sell it for $12,995 with all the usual stuff (heck, how about an $11,995 stripped version?), and I would be going in for a test drive.

It would need much better fuel economy than the Rabbit though. I would hope it would do a lot better with its lesser weight and smaller engine.

british_rover

I failed my Engineering stats class but passed my Poli Sci one.

Hmhh what does that tell you???

snakeweasel

So what is it that statistically everyone has...an opinion?

Well its statistically everyone has one of. But in reality half the people have two. You figure that out. :shades:

michaellno

At the $11-13K price point, I think they could move 30,000 to 50,000 a year.

What engine would you suggest? 1.4? 1.6? I think the new breed of FSI engines put out decent HP numbers and would probably get 30-40MPG on the EPA cycle.

Would give Yaris, Fit and Versa a run for their money, I would think. Much like folks buy Rabbits and Jettas for their "German-ness", I could see a slew of college aged kids buying the Polo as an alternative to the aforementioned Japanese offerings for the same reason!

Heck, VW could do a cross promotion with Ralph Lauren.

(ouch)

Seriously, choice is good. GM should bring over the Corsa, Ford the Fiesta, etc.

rorr

"Well its statistically everyone has one of. But in reality half the people have two."

HAH!

I just got it; and a perfect example of how statistics can be REAL misleading......