What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

boaz47

Doesn’t it seem as if it all boils down to what do people want and how will manufacturers meet those needs? As long as we live in a society that is capitalistic in nature how can anyone hope that Sub Compacts will ever be more than entry level cars? Understand there is nothing wrong with entry level only that it is a stating point not the place most people want to be. For more years than most of us can imagine Sub Compacts have been viewed as basic transportation and once you had a few extra dollars you moved up from sub compacts. If the majority of people are buying mid sized cars, SUVs and light trucks there had to be a reason they are doing that. After all no one put a gun to their heads and made the F series truck or the GM Trucks the best selling vehicles by a large percentage for so many years. Everyone understands the feeling that they are charging us too much for cars today and everyone might even complain about it. It is just that people don’t want to give up their standards.

There are some that prefer small cars and some that prefer small light weight cars. The question is are there enough of them to make them viable in a market that considers a successful sales launch to be 150k units a year and hopes to make 300k units a year at some point? I agree with Nippon that some manufacturers have started to lower their standards and have designed cars for smaller markets. 50K units a year is now considered pretty good for a niche car. When the Echo was released they expected 50k units a year and it was considered a flop because it never reached it. Once it fell below 20K units a year they started talking about replacing it.

The deal is if they have a car selling to a niche market then the chances for success fall off proportionally as more manufacturers try to capture that market. Look at the two seat affordable Sports roadster market. Once Mazda re-introduced America to it several two seat roadsters hit the market. Once everyone that wanted a two seat roadster got their hands on one the sales dropped like a sinker. It looks like the Sub Compact has the same problem. It may be a bigger niche but will it be worth it for more than one or two manufacturers to contest?

daysailer

Boaz,

We seem to have encountered the fundamental difference in our perspectives again: You appear to accept popular trends as an indicator of rational thought wheras I will rail against illogical choices, however quixotic that may be in the face of mindless popularism.

To me, "popular wisdom" is an oxymoron.

qbrozen

yes, that's all true, but some go beyond 25%, so I think its still pretty close. Plus, I think of everything from invoice.

I'd offer up, for example, the Volvo S60. volvo has (or had) $7500 trunk money for september. On a base model with a $28,800 pricetag, that's 26% off invoice.

I agree, from the manufacturing standpoint, I'm sure there is more padding in the S60 than the SX4, but I think you may be surprised how cheaply cars can be made.

Mr_Shiftright

I must hop on a Boeing 747 and visit my Suzuki dealer soon! :P

qbrozen

ya lost me there, shifty.

Mr_Shiftright

there's not one close to me.

qbrozen

AH. And here I thought it was some sort of witty statement on recent events I was privy to. LOL.

Just where the heck do you live? I've got 47 suzuki dealers within 100 miles of me! WOW!!

Mr_Shiftright

Oh it's not that bad. I think there is one about 12 miles from me.

The SX 4 looks like any other compact SUV loaf of bread to me...I'd probably trip over one before I'd notice it. At least the Fit and xA have some style to them, like 'em or not.

Suzuki has a good niche though....cheapo AWD at $15K...there's really nothing out there in that slot. But at 164 inches or so, hardly "subcompact". And 24 mpg with an 11 gallon tank---you can just forget that--I'm completely turned off by that range limitation. BAD idea, Suzuki!

The xA gives me an easy 350 mile city range and 400+ if I'm on the highway and a potential 450 mile range maximum nail-biter.

No, I think I'd leap right over cars like the SX4 if I were "upgrading". Might be nice, though, for a young kid in a bad weather climate.

snakeweasel

Doesn’t it seem as if it all boils down to what do people want and how will manufacturers meet those needs?

No because it is rare for a manufacturer to meet all the needs of everyone. Since we are individuals our needs vary, but a model of car varies little from one car to another. The best a manufacturer can hope for is to meet more needs of a certain target market than the competition.

I agree with Nippon that some manufacturers have started to lower their standards and have designed cars for smaller markets. 50K units a year is now considered pretty good for a niche car.

Here is the thing, there are only so many new cars sold in a given year, with more and more models saturating the market it becomes harder and harder to hit that 150k mark you mentioned. IIRC there is something like 16 million new cars sold in the US each year. Looking at Edmunds list of makes on their new car there are 48 makes of cars. 16 million divided by 46 means the average make only sold 333,333 cars (yes some much more and some much less but you get my drift). So tell me with 48 makes offering a few hundred or more models how much room is there for 300k/yr sellers?

Once Mazda re-introduced America to it several two seat roadsters hit the market.

Actually there was the Alfa Romeo that was here long before the Miata came along.

snakeweasel

but I think you may be surprised how cheaply cars can be made.

I know how cheaply they can be made, thats why I know that there is more fat to cut on a $30K vehicle than there is on a $15K car. I really cannot see a 25% cut on a SX4 unless its a prior years model and its already March and the dealer just wants it off the lot.

boaz47

We have often had this difference my friend. While I might admire your spirit it seems a little like fighting a swift current or shouting against a thunder Storm. Time and time again I have seen these patterns in our buying habits as a society. With modern manufacturing and marketing practices some products even if desirable to some simply aren't profitable "enough" to produce. How many lightweight small cars can you shop for right at your finger tips? Now how many Accords can you hit with a rock with your eyes closed? Even in this discussion how dissapointed must you be with what even your fellow enthusiasts have been presenting as a sub compact? The problem as it see it is simple. They will sell you one small light weight car every ten or fifteen years for a minimal profit. They will sell Mr. and Mrs. average consumer three to six more profitable cars in the same period. Starting out with the fact that you are in the minority to start with it doesn't take a real bright bean counter to see how they will invest their money in R&D and production. But I admired the Man from La Mancha(SP)so feel free to rail away. I understand, even if I don't think it will do any good.

qbrozen

....cheapo AWD at $15K

i think you're right about that. Its just a matter of convincing folks that they wouldn't be better off spending $2k more for the Compass or $3k more for the Subie.

heck, is chrysler offering employee pricing on the compass yet? The prices may be even closer than I think.

boaz47

And where is the alfa today? You might be correct that we could divide the number of cars sold by the number of models offered if 3/4 of a million of those weren't F-series trucks. Another 3/4 might be GM trucks. 400,000 Camrys and 400,000 Accords. Do you see a trend here? 300,000 Corollas and Civics.

Where is it easier to focus your manufacturing dollar? On a product people are already buying or on one your are trying to introduce? Just take a step back and take a look at trucks. Remember compact trucks? Hard to isn't it? Even Toyota is making a bigger Compact truck today. And when they tried to introduce a new compact truck, smaller than the compitition, the Baja, what happened? So Ford and GM can easily sell 700,000 Pickups. Toyota and Ford can easily sell 200,000 mid sized trucks. But Subaru can't sell 50,000 small trucks or 20,000 for that matter? As a bean counter sitting at the management meeting and it is your turn to recommend where to spend money on marketing and R&D what do you think you would tell the CEO or CFO?

qbrozen

The compact trucks still offered WAY more utility than the Baja. The Baja failed because it was a design that tried too hard in too many areas while succeeding in none of them, and all at quite a high pricepoint.

lilengineerboy

I think the point is the high volume runners are going away. What is happening is a trend to make things more modular, developing platforms that can stretch and shrink to accomodate different body types and styles. This greatly reduces the development time of a vehicle. Many subsystems can be made modular as well to fit the needs of the particular style and market.
I think the trend will be to be able to make money with nitch market (50k units or less) vehicles. If you think about the olden days when Chevy would sell a million Malibus a year and Toyota was selling a Toyopet here and there, Toyota was still making money. DC is in a similar mode now, all of their cars are nitch vehicles. They have big RWD sedans, crossovers, retro-wagons, convertibles, and minivans. Many share the same platform stretch or shrunk to fit the needs of the body style.

daysailer

I have no qualms with the response of the "beancounters" - their actions are quite logical. My isuue is with the illogical behavior of the buying public that evokes those responses.

nortsr1

We are still waiting for you to get that $4900.00 trade-in on the SX4...buy you keep avoiding the real world!!!!

snakeweasel

if 3/4 of a million of those weren't F-series trucks. Another 3/4 might be GM trucks.

Huh? That makes 6/4. That can't be.

But you see my point, there are only so many models that can have 300K+ units sold in a year. So making a car that would be profitable with 50k units is the way to go these days.

Where is it easier to focus your manufacturing dollar? On a product people are already buying or on one your are trying to introduce?

It is said if you want to be rich don't sell what everyone else is selling. Either find a need and fill it or find a product and create a need.

As a bean counter sitting at the management meeting and it is your turn to recommend where to spend money on marketing and R&D what do you think you would tell the CEO or CFO?

I would tell them to put it in the most profitable vehicle. That might be the one we sell 300k units, it might be the one we sell 50k units. Truth be told as a bean counter I can make it either one.

Now as for that R&D goes it all eventually gets to every vehicle that the company makes.

boaz47

Well, that I understand. It isn't easy to explain how we got that way as a society either. The manufacturers and corporations are no less part of the problem. It is our very idea of success that drives us to want more than what we have. Honda started out as a company that offered small, light, dependable, affordable car company that offered the very vehicles you are so found of. In some parts of the world they still may be. However in the US honda now makes several SUVs and a Truck. They changed their small as introduced Accord into a mid sized car. I think the civic is bigger than the origional Accord. They are also not entry level, read not the most affordable. A few cheer their efforts when they try and introduce a new small light weight vehicle but in no time the company starts to remake that vehicle into a Civic or Accord because it is more profitable. So it is a chicken and egg thing.

The difference between you and I seems to be, you believe the trend can be stopped and I am more than doubtful.

boaz47

Yes, but as we have already discussed, sub compacts have a lower profit margin. And the consumer has already give you a clue as to what you can sell and make the most from.

The very idea of going smaller just seems to go against the American buying public psyche. We aren't buying smaller homes, at least not if you look at what they are building here in Southern California. Mid sized cars don't look to be falling off of the wave looking at sales predictions, so where is the room left for sub compacts to grow?

snakeweasel

Yes, but as we have already discussed, sub compacts have a lower profit margin. And the consumer has already give you a clue as to what you can sell and make the most from.

Well if you follow this thread back you will see that someone was saying that the SX4 would hit a price of $11,500 basing that it is 25% off of the sticker and other vehicles do sell for 25% off of sticker. My comment was there was a higher profit margin on those cars.

Now let me ask you, would you rather make $1,000 profit per car or $100 profit per car? Yes this is a trick question.

rorr

"Now let me ask you, would you rather make $1,000 profit per car or $100 profit per car? Yes this is a trick question."

Depends on how many of each car I can sell and how much effort goes into each sale......but that's just me.

iluvmysephia1

I never said that my '01 Kia Sportage 4x4 would get $4,900 in a dealer trade I said that it would get $4,195 in a dealer trade-in. There is a difference. My wife and I still owe on the Sportage 4x4(remember how much I said a week or so ago)so that also affects whether or not we will trade in. We owe much less than it's worth, so if it was entirely my decision I'd be in there dealing now and an unsatisfactory trade-in amount on the Sport would nix the SX4 deal as quickly as it would take me to head out their door.

Plus, the fact that the Sportsman is giving us flawless service also holds me up on trading for a 2007 Suzuki SX4. The SX4 is at the top of my list, though, and I would listen to offers. But actually trading, not yet.

Apparently you just don't know me here on Edmunds. I did this about the 2006 Rio LX sedan, 2006 Rio5 and the 2006 Scion xA.

The 2007 Suzuki SX4 is the closest thing to a real "fish on the line" since the 2006 Scion xA in Polar White and 5-speeds. My interest in the SX4 grows daily...just relax into it with me, nortsr1. No need to storm off into the fast lane.

Mr_Shiftright

The "American pysche" has the attention span of a cocker spaniel (what ever happened to cocker spaniels? You used to see them everywhere, and now, they are an endangered species).

It used to be you couldn't sell a "safe" car (ask Ford)

It used to be you couldn't sell a japanese car

And now BOTH are permanent, non-changing fixtures of the American pysche.

So I wouldn't be to quick to decide when things will shift dramatically again in some direction, and permanently, too.

If bigger were better to Americans, all Porsches would be huge, but they are small-ish, and as spartan as a monk's cell inside. All that for $80,000.

Go figure the American psyche.

boaz47

Just how small is a Porsche SUV and what was the non American demand for one? And a 911 is how much smaller than a Speedster? Does the new Boxter have more or less HP than the old Boxter?

I can't predict the direction we might go with reguards to the American size preferences. However history seems to be against any long term acceptance of super small cars. Maybe I should say , bigger is better to the majority of Americans?

This forum alone shows how we have come to see cars that would be considered compacts in 1980 are now being called Sub Compacts. What has changed?

If we even look at more recent events we can see a trend. The car that would save us all was the Prius. I read with interest the advocates for the new car. I said then my major objection was it's performance and size. No I was assured. It was perfect. Except the new and improved Prius is bigger and more powerful. Not a racer by any means but not the Slug it once was. If even the tree huggers want a bigger car with a few more ponies what do we believe everyone else "wants"?

highender

with respect to safety, in general, bigger is better. The NHTSA , IIHS, AAA, Fed Government Dept of Transportation, Geico Insurance company, Consumer Reports, etc...all suggest/advise/advocate that bigger is better.

And small cars have a way of evolving into something bigger with each incarnation....witness the Camry and its current size, compared to the one from 1994 ??

You are right, that Americans may embrace small cars as a knee jerk reaction to fuel prices, but once they have a choice that does not impact them economically, I think they will choose something larger....in general.

Of course, this refers to the general public, not the car enthusiasts , who buy for thrill and pizzaz of the car.

Mr_Shiftright

Intelligent design may stand all that big car business on its head. In some ways it already has begun to do that. Big vs. small is no longer about gas prices or safety. People will buy intelligently designed cars. They don't measure them with a tape measure when they buy them.

w9cw

I don't know, as I preferred small cars back in the '60s and early '70s when gas ranged from 25 cents to 50 cents a gallon. I've generally always bought cars based on MPG, when it was not the "in thing" to do.

In fact, I'm still driving small cars and frankly enjoy living beneath my means, rather than above it as most of my fellow Americans tend to do.

andre1969

This forum alone shows how we have come to see cars that would be considered compacts in 1980 are now being called Sub Compacts. What has changed?

Well, around the 1980 timeframe, cars like the Fairmont and Aspen/Volare were still considered compact cars! The Citation was emerging as what would soon be considered the new benchmark size of compact car. If you wanted a compact Japanese car in 1980 you had to shell out a lot of money for one of their premium models, like an 810 or Cressida.

The late 70's were kind of a muddled time in general for size classes though. In fact, from 1977-1979 Consumer Reports pretty much just gave up and classified cars as subcompact (Chevettes, Accords, Pintos, etc), compacts (Fairmonts, Aspens, Novas, the downsized Malibus, Diplomats, etc) and large cars (pre-downsized intermediates like the LTD-II, Coronet/Monaco, downsized big cars like the Caprice/Impala, and obsolete mastodons like the big New Yorkers, 1977-78 LTD/Marquis, etc).

In the late 70's and early 80's, it was also often that you had the same platform doubling as both a company's compact car and its midsize. For example, the Aspen/Volare was Chrysler's compact from 1976-80, but the identical-size LeBaron/Diplomat were passed off as the company's midsize car for 1979-81. Similarly, the Fairmont was Ford's compact from 1978-83, but the identical Granada was the midsize from 1981-82 and the small LTD from 1983-86.

I think one thing we're starting to see with vehicle sizes is a regression towards a mean. You just don't have the big wide spread of car sizes that you had back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. What's considered the mainstream of full-sized cars today, such as the Impala, Lucerne, 500, 300, Charger, and Avalon would barely have been compacts back in the 70's. And the dying breed of Crown Vic-sized cars would have been on the small end of the midsized spectrum. Yet on the other end, tiny little things like the Echo and Fit are certainly bigger than the Civics of the 70's, while a Yaris is probably bigger than a 70's Accord.

hwyhobo

Now that it appears Toyota will bring in Aygo, what will happen when people find out they can have the fuel efficiency of a Prius for half the price and without the liability of the hybrid powerplant component maintenance and replacement costs?

Or is Toyota going to cleverly cripple the efficiency of the European Aygo by putting a different engine in it?

boaz47

Well, my guess is that unless it is dirt cheep and they do something more than 1 liter and 67 HP it will not do well. But as a City car, something people have been talking about for years in the US, it might be worth a look. You could never hit the freeway with it and I wouldn't want to run up the mountain from the valley in one unless I had all day. Shoot my last motorcycle had more HP.

hwyhobo

With a stickshift there is absolutely no problem crossing the mountains in it. I am not sure where that myth came from that you have to have hundreds of HP just to get on a freeway. I drive subcompacts when I travel to Europe (frequently), and I am continuously amazed and amused at how spritely and brisk those things are.

I've recently driven a 1.2l VW Fox, and had no problems maneuvering through some serious highway traffic.

Some years back I drove a 74 HP hatchback from Austria, through Switzerland, Germany, and Italy (crossing the Alps back and forth). Not a moment of hesitation, and I have a picture to prove that you can maintain a stable 100 mph on the freeway.

In fact, I think the diesel engine in the Aygo makes only about 54 HP, and it would still go fine.

daysailer

It is our very idea of success that drives us to want more than what we have.

But why does an "intelligent" society adopt such superficial, even counterproductive, ideas of success. That quantity is a universal substitute for quality. Or that nothing has value if not seen and recognized by others.

It would appear that my views are not mainstream and I make no apologies for that. I even downsized my home a few years ago since our Daughter no longer lives with us. I enjoy the Increased liesure that decreased maintenance affords no matter how "unsuccessful" an image my smaller abode may convey, and my 2250lbm Miata is no different.

turboshadow

What??? Are they really bringing it to America? Where'd you see that?

I wouldn't mind having one of those. I love tiny hatchbacks.

boaz47

My skepticism aside I have done much like you. I have down Sized my personal fleet from 3 Vehicles to 1. I even kept the smallest of those vehicles, even if it isn't as small as a Miata. I have even shown interest in some cars much smaller than what we get here in the US. I have just watched my fellow Americans reject the idea of sub compacts so many times I have come to accept it as just the way things are. Like you I even down sized my House when I moved to the mountains. I may not live mainstream but I deal with the mainstream people every day and I will admit I don't understand the consumer drive any better than you. But exist it does. Maybe it is the credit card generation? Maybe it is how our children are exposed to consumerism while in school I don't know. But I just don't see the next generation or two turning from a new and more powerful game boy or faster computer or new multi featured cell phone and going back to a simpler life. I could be surprised but somehow I doubt it. Every year I watch the new car releases and look at the prices and see how many "crossovers" and bigger mid sized cars are offered and more powerful compacts and say to myself, not this year, again.

snakeweasel

Well looking at the specs on Toyotas UK site it is supposed to top out at 98 MPH and get to 62 MPH in 14.2 seconds. I would think that it would be OK for highway use.

daysailer

62mph in 14.2s would be downright scary on highways that I frequent. It is too far from the norm of contemporary vehicles. I have reservations about the Fit (and others) in the 9-10s range.

andre1969

62mph in 14.2s would be downright scary on highways that I frequent. It is too far from the norm of contemporary vehicles. I have reservations about the Fit (and others) in the 9-10s range.

I had a 1969 Dodge Dart GT with a slant six engine. Consumer Reports once did a test on a similar model and got 0-60 in about 14 seconds. I never had any issues with it, or fears when getting on the highway. Sometimes you'd just have to pace yourself a bit to jive up with the gaps in the traffic, but that's about it.

From my personal experience, it looks like for the most part all you need to do to get onto the highway is have a vehicle that can do 0-60 in under 20 seconds. Any faster and you're going up under the bumper of the daydreamer in front of you who wants to merge into 70 mph traffic at 45!

Now if you're USED to a car that consistently does 0-60 in 8 seconds and suddenly go to a car that can only do it in 14 but try to DRIVE it like you did your 8 second car, then yeah, you're going to kill yourself. It's all about adaptability.

snakeweasel

Oh to be honest I am not to sure about that. I live in Chicago and there are only a few places where I would be worried about accelerating that slow. Heck many times I enter an expressway accelerating slower than that because of some yahoo who is just to timid.

To be honest I get on most on ramps and not push my daily drive to hard and get to highway speeds easy enough.

While its not a Vette it should be ok for getting on the highway.

If you have reservations about a 0-60 in 9-10 seconds car getting on an expressway then you have awfully fast expressways or very short entrance ramps.

nippononly

they have doubts about a car with a 9-second 0-60? Egads! What is wrong with Americans?

Most of the freeway on-ramps I use around here are frequented by little old ladies (I live in a county with a relatively old population though, so YMMV) that never merge onto the freeway at more than 50 mph. And even if that weren't the case, any car that can get to 60 mph in 15 seconds or so can be going freeway speeds at the top of the ramp in most cases.

Americans get WAY TOO carried away with supersizing in every aspect of their lives.

snakeweasel

From my personal experience, it looks like for the most part all you need to do to get onto the highway is have a vehicle that can do 0-60 in under 20 seconds.

I agree with you on that. My window looks out over an on ramp for the Reagan Memorial Tollway and just for grits and shins I timed a couple of cars on the ramp. They too about 20-25 seconds to cover the entire ramp and entered the tollway at the speed of traffic. They also halfway up have to slow down for a toll booth (not stop as I presume they had transponders).

So I think the Aygo can get up to highway speeds on that ramp with little or no trouble.

daysailer

But times have changed, and the capability of the average car has increased substantially. In the early to mid 70s I had a BMW 2002tii that was rather quick for its day, even though it only managed about a 9s 0-60mph. Even my Datsun 510 at ~12s was adequate if driven hard.

Today, with even Camrys and Accords in the 7s, the roads are quite different. We operate in a different population of vehicles.

andre1969

But times have changed, and the capability of the average car has increased substantially. In the early to mid 70s I had a BMW 2002tii that was rather quick for its day, even though it only managed about a 9s 0-60mph. Even my Datsun 510 at ~12s was adequate if driven hard.

Yeah, but I had this Dart in the 90's, NOT the 70's! Right now most of the cars in my fleet (the ones that run at least) probably fall in the 9-12 second range. My Intrepid, '67 Catalina, '57 DeSoto, and '68 Dart 270 (when it was running) could all break 10 seconds, while my '79 NYer, '85 Silverado, and '76 LeMans are probably around the 11-12 second range.

In the late 1990's I drove a 1979 Chrysler Newport with a 318. 135 hp, tall 2.45:1 gearing, and about 3800 pounds worth of car. Doesn't sound like a winning combination. Consumer Reports tested an identical St. Regis and got 0-60 in a pathetic 15.9 seconds! I dunno what their problem was though, because I timed mine with a stopwatch once and got 0-60 in around 12-13. And that was with over 230,000 miles on the engine! Anyway, that was probably the last really slow daily driver I had, because I went from that to a 1986 Monte Carlo 305 V-8 and then to a 1989 Gran Fury police cruiser, and then my Intrepid. But I never had any problems with it when it came to merging onto highways and such. Heck, I even delivered pizzas in it for a year and a half and didn't even find its 220" length to be a problem. I think sometimes you small car drivers just forget how to drive bigger cars, and so you feel the need to attack that which you do not understand :P

A lot of the cars may be more capable these days, but the drivers certainly aren't, and only a small fraction of that capability is used. My roommate has a 2006 Xterra which I'd imagine is good for 0-60 in around 7 seconds. I've driven it plenty of times, and it's not like a whole magic new world of opportunity opens up because I'm going from a 12-second Silverado to a 7-second Xterra. If anything, I'd say there are situations where the pickup does BETTER! For one thing, if you're doing say 65 on the freeway and need to accelerate, the pickup is strong enough to do it instantly, in top gear, with no hesitation. The Xterra seems like it has to think for just a moment, almost like turbo lag, before downshifting and taking off.

Also, FWIW, most Accords, Camrys, and Altimas are still sold with 4-cyl/automatic combinations, which are probably good for about 9-10 seconds if you let Consumer Reports test them, although they'd be quicker if you let C&D or MT have at them.

You want horrible acceleration? Well back in college we timed my buddy's 1980 Accord from 0-60 a few times with a stopwatch. With 3 people on board, it took 26-30 seconds! I think its biggest shortcoming, however, was that it had an automatic transmission and back then, automatics tended to penalize smaller engines severely. I'm sure the extra weight of the two passengers had a pretty big impact as well. IIRC that car only had 72 hp, and probably weighed around 2000 pounds. The two extra passengers probably boosted the weight by about 350 pounds, so that was kinda like asking that same little engine to haul around a heavier car like an early 80's Stanza or Cavalier.

Mr_Shiftright

The Scion xA is perfectly fine for freeways, no problems whatsoever in any shape or form. A non-issue for any 9 second or under automobile IMO.

The only problem I could foresee with a 14 second car (having had a Mercedes diesel I know the drill)is when you get stuck in a right lane slowdown and you want to cut into the next lane....tricky....other than that, you just have to charge the on-ramps and the hills and you're fine.

I'd insist on a manual transmission for any 14 second car however, or some kind of paddle shifter or some such where you can hold a gear as long as you wish as often as you wish.

I'd have to say "the bigger the engine, the worse the driver" is probably statistically valid for American freeways but I have no idea how to prove it.

daysailer

My reservations are not to suggest that a vehicle can't be driven, rather that to operate in the low end of the range of capabilities of any population makes life much more difficult and I would not choose to do it if avoidable.

The fact that there are inatentive drivers obstructing the lane ahead is all the more reason for a competitive vehicle, lest you be stuck behind the daydreamers (and cell phone blatherers)

andre1969

I'd have to say "the bigger the engine, the worse the driver" is probably statistically valid for American freeways but I have no idea how to prove it.

Nah, I see people do all sorts of stupid things, regardless of the size or power of the car. In fact, often you get people in these little cars where you have to rev them to get the peak performance, and they just don't want to do it, and you get more of a public nuisance than you would if that person just had a bigger car with less peak performance, but where the gentlest tap of the gas pedal would at least get them up to more considerate speeds.

As for 14 second cars, keep in mind too that they're not all built the same so how they act at higher speeds, or with added weight, is going to vary from car to car. My '69 Dart GT was still pretty responsive at higher speeds, and even with a full load of college kids on board it didn't seem to slow it down much. I had a 1980 Malibu with a V-6 that was probably about as quick from 0-60, but ran out of breath much more quickly at higher speeds. And my '82 Cutlass Supreme, which was about as fast from 0-60, came in somewhere between the Dart and the Malibu at higher speeds.

hwyhobo

What??? Are they really bringing it to America? Where'd you see that?

Right here on Edmunds on "Featured Video". It is gone now, and I cannot find it. It said, "2008 Toyota Aygo".

I wouldn't mind having one of those. I love tiny hatchbacks.

So do I, despite my 6'3". They're maneuverable, delight to park, cute, and easy on the gas.

They're also a chick magnet. (Yeah, right! :P )

Mr_Shiftright

I see your point but with say a 9 second car, at least in my experience, I don't operate on the low end of the range of capabilities, but rather right up there on the high range of what other cars are doing on modern freeways. I don't feel handicapped at all. If anything, I'm pushing cars out of the way. I wish I had a snowplow attachment :P

With a 14 second car, yes, you are quite correct, you are on the low range with the blind, the deaf and the dumb, or if very skillful, the middle of the pack in terms of capabilities--you're not a habitual left laner.

In my version of reality, it goes like this: The less power you have, the more skill you need. The more skill you have, the more you can level the playing field TO A POINT. But once you have been stuck with a ridiculously small amount of horsepower (like say a old Fiat 500 or a 1979 MGB or a 1936 Chevy pickup truck), then no amount of skill can give you the advantage anymore on a freeway.

But 110HP in a light small car---no problem whatsoever. As for 67HP, I don't know. Might be okay, might not. I'd have to drive it to see what can be wrung out of it. If someone got an Aygo up to 92 mph, I think it would be fine for America.

rockylee

Shifty, that's a pretty good post pal. You had me chuckling throughout the post.

Rocky

andre1969

see your point but with say a 9 second car, at least in my experience, I don't operate on the low end of the range of capabilities, but rather right up there on the high range of what other cars are doing on modern freeways. I don't feel handicapped at all. If anything, I'm pushing cars out of the way. I wish I had a snowplow attachment

So basically it sounds like you're doing with your xA about the same as what I did with my Dart, Malibu, or Cutlass. Or my '79 Newport, which CR thought was a 15.9 second car! :P

A better corollary for power and skill might be The less power you have, the more skill you need TO BE A GOOD DRIVER. But alas, driver's licenses aren't handed out according to driving skill.