Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Basically the skill you need most is to compensate for the lack of torque in a small displacement engine, whether it's 4, 6 or 8 cylinders. If each cylinder doesn't have large displacement, you are going to have low end torque issues.
Oh Brother! Can I get a witness?!? A-men!
"So of course I gave up the left lane..."
One of the few, the proud, the normal...
I always yield the left lane if I'm a beaten man or if I see a lunatic on his way to the graveyard.
:-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Rocky
It could cruise all day at 75 to 80MPH on the interstates, and was very good in town as well with fuel economy in excess of 30MPG with gas prices of less than 50 cents per gallon.
Was it underpowered - sure, but that was the acceptable trade off in those days for an economical vehicle. But, it served my wife and I well for over 10 years. And, merging on the interstates, or freeways, was not a problem, you just drove aggressively and used the entrance ramps as they were intended to be used. Oh, BTW, the MSRP was $2,032, and we bought it for $1,850.
The biggest problem with the car is not its lack of acceleration. It’s the short wheelbase that makes going through curves at high speeds dangerous.
Given enough time the car can cruise comfortably at 75 to 80. It does start to complain a bit at 80 with much higher engine noise, but it still it makes 80 when it has to. However going through turns at anything much over 60 miles an hour is not a good idea. With it’s short wheel base it is much too easy to loose control. Power isn’t quite as important as control.
-Loren
I know, that's bad!
-Loren
When I got my '89 Civic Si with 108hp, I thought I was in a real musclecar. It was fantastic. I loved those little cars and I would love to replace the Sentra, eventually, with a small hatchback.
Turboshadow
Yeah but I think its more to go after the new car from Ford called the Master card and the new car from Dodge called the American Express. :P
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well, there are these things called midsized cars, but here you're going to have small-car people still whining about them being too big while big-car people whine about them being too small!
I definitely agree about tires. I tend to get used cars so they are usually close to needing new tires, allowing the opportunity to upgrade.
My uncle had an early-year 1982 Reliant (the kind with the stationary rear windows...they went to roll-down later in the year) for a couple months. I drove it a few times. What a dog! I think when Consumer Reports tested these things they got 0-60 in about 15 seconds, but I think that's being generous! It had the feeling of being a bigger car than it was, though, which can sometimes make a car feel slower than it really is.
I do remember it being comfortable for such a small car though. Its wheelbase was only something like 100.3", which I think it about what a Yaris sedan is!
My parents had a '82 Plymouth Reliant that was grossly UNDERPOWERED and had the stationary windows.
I bought a '83 Plymouth Reliant and it was EXACTLY the opposite. I was getting to meet all a number of the Virginia State Police. Booked for doing a 72 in a 55 the first week I had the car. The trooper asked me what I had to say for myself. I told him that I was glad that I had slowed down before he clocked me ... Wow... that was a fun car to drive.
192k miles and a file drawer of repair receipts to prove it.
We live in a society that finds cars styled like the smart as objects for humor. There were at least two movies released in the last two years that used these cars for comic relief. One was the pink Panther. How many here believe that isn’t a problem for any new Metro type car?
Y'know, now that I think about it, I can think of at least three occurences where the Prius has been used as an object of ridicule in movies. It was portrayed in "South Park" as the "Pious". There was a disaster movie, "The Day After Tomorrow" or something like that, where one of the main characters, portrayed as something of a nerdy tree hugger, was driving around in a Prius that matched the stereotype. And just the other day I caught some movie where a mother traded in her Ranger Rover for a Prius and her kid started ragging on it.
If someone could make a midsized car today with dimensions and interior room close to the Dodge 600, I think I might consider it. IIRC it had a 103.3" wheelbase and was about 187" long overall. I think they weighed about 2800 pounds.
I guess externally, about the closest match to that would be a Chevy Malibu, Subaru Legacy, or Mazda6, all cars that IMO are on the low-end of the midsized spectrum. They all feel tighter somehow to me, though.
On the flip side though, I doubt if a Dodge 600 would pass today's safety standards, especially side impact standards, what with the K-car's thin doors and such.
But then, wer're off subcompacts again - sorry.
You could always swap out the wheels and tires for something better, but I imagine it would have a pretty serious effect on fuel economy.
The last I remember them being sold around here, I was buying gas for 97¢ a gallon, and no one really cared about the middle east. Times have changed.
Another problem with the Metro is that they were just outdated. Many of them were sold with the automatic transmission, which was just a 3-speed, and little engines really need more gears to make the most of their efficiency.
By the time you specified a 4-door Metro with an automatic transmission and air conditioning, most likely you were getting about the same highway mileage as an Impala or LeSabre! The only ones that got anywhere near 50 mpg were the 3-cyl hatchback with the stick shift and no a/c.
The fuel economy champs back in the day were extremely spartan little econoboxes, which is how they stayed very cheap. Subcompacts today are still less luxurious than their midsize brethren, of course, but hardly the spartan little affairs of 15 years ago. You can thank platform- and component-sharing for that state of affairs.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Actually, I think if you want to pick and choose the right subcompact, some of the older ones were actually nicer than many of the ones today! The 1991 Civic rental I had was a nice little car. It was slow, but had a nice interior, and IMO a better driving position than any subcompact of today. It had more of a big-car seating position, which wasn't terribly high off the ground, but seemed to have pretty good stretch-out room for my legs. The firewall wasn't too close for comfort like it is with most newer little cars. Unless my mind's playing tricks on me...that was a long time ago that I had that car! Still, I drove it for like 1700 miles and didn't complain about the room, while in contrast I don't like driving my uncle's '03 Corolla for more than maybe 10 minutes!
Also, that Civic was light blue with a dark blue interior, so that color might have made it feel a bit more upscale than the generic grays and puttys of today. And while that Civic had good front seat room, it came at the expense of the back seat. Many subcompact cars today have better back seats, but the driver's seat is still the most important.
I do carry back seat passengers fairly regularly, so while it's not my biggest criteria, I do at least like to take it into consideration. I almost always put the seat back as far as it will go when I drive, and I hate feeling someone's knees poking into my seatback!
It was a wagon, and had every option available at the time. It was very easy to drive, had the smallest turning circle of any car I have driven before or since, and had good brakes. I hated almost everything else about that car. I wonder how the turning circle of an xA or xB would compare.
It was replaced as the main vehicle by a Grand Voyager, which was just a great vehicle all the way around.
And it was one the few cars that I did not drive with the seat fully aft. I sold it to a girl who is (at least) 6'2" and long legged who said that she was amazed at the space.
I was curious about the turning circle of the Reliant, but couldn't find anyting online. About the closest I could find was a 1990 Shadow/Sundance, 97.1" wb, at 34 feet, or the 1990 Spirit/Acclaim, 103.3" wb, 37.6 feet.
I think the Aries/Reliant had a 100.3" wb. I'd imagine it was probably around 34-35 feet. FWIW, 37.6 feet isn't that impressive for somethint on a 103.3" wb. My Intrepid, on a 113" wb, has the same turning circle.
Often though, wheelbase doesn't determine your turning circle so much as how sharply your front wheels can turn. And often in small, narrow, transverse engine cars, there's just not a lot of room for the wheels to turn, so the turning circles aren't always at tight as you might think they'd be. Also, how thick your tires are and how much of an offset the wheels have would most likely play a role as well.
I made it to 100k in the first four years. We lived on the Virginia coast and my wife commuted 65 miles OW to work ...
Had five speeding tickets in five states in that vehicle.
The vehicle made it to 1994 when the steering rods rusted out. Terrible screeching noise on every turn.
Favorite car to drive but all the repairs ... I replaced the valve cover gasket at leat eight times and the CV boots ..
That was my last Chrysler product ... at least for a while.
If we are going to continue this dialog, I would like you to stipulate that we NOT include microcars like the Smart, which the Insight also is for all intents and purposes, as it has 2 seats and as much cargo room as a sports car - heck, the S2000 probably has MORE!
Microcars are NOT the same as subcompacts. If you check this out:
http://www.channel4.com/4car/gallery/gallery.jsp?id=408
You will discover some interesting information (to me anyway! :-)) about the Aygo. You will also discover they are calling it an "A-segment car", which is SMALLER than the B-segment cars I believe we are discussing here....
All I was trying to say when you responded, was that the subs of days past were offered for one purpose, maybe two: to offer superlative fuel economy at the expense of EVERYTHING ELSE, and perhaps also to provide the manufacturer with an entry-level model with rock-bottom pricing to attract some bottom feeder customers. Today's subs do no such thing - they are basically smaller and otherwise very similar siblings to each manufacturer's larger models. Oh yeah, and I will repeat my mantra - smaller size can be its own reward. :-)
edit: PS as much as I love the little Aygo, I would bet a great deal that Toyota will never bring such a car here, and even if they did they would strip it out so terribly to achieve some unrealistic price point (as they pretty much did with the U.S. version of the Yaris) that I wouldn't like it much in its North American trim.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My preference would be the 1600lbm Smart roadster with 100hp from a turbo 700cc engine, except that it has an automatic transmission - go figure.
Okay, what modern subcompacts are as massive or larger than THIS yesterday's compact? :P
Depends on your definition of sub-compact. Having been the owner of a new 1972 Gremlin, 1973 Beetle and a 1978 Pinto; none of the above could hold a candle to today's models in terms of safety, comfort, economy and roadhandling.
The Gremlin and Pinto were heavy, crude and never achieved greater than mid-20s for gas mileage. The Beetle was slow, unreliable, rust-prone and still didn't deliver the mileage of a modern sub-compact.
From Wikipedia:
A subcompact car is an automobile in a vehicle size class smaller than a compact car but larger than a city car (and known as superminis in Europe). Such cars usually have four or more seats and in North America, subcompacts are usually considered to be those cars that have a wheelbase of 2.54 metres (100 inches) or less or between 85 ft³ (2400 L) and 99 ft³ (2800 L) of interior volume (though popular usage of the term frequently ignores these boundaries).
Today numerous models of subcompacts are sold, including the Toyota Vitz (also sold as the Toyota Echo & Yaris), the Scion xA, the Kia Rio, the Chevrolet Aveo, and the Hyundai Accent.
There are so many variables in car accidents that size alone is no guarantee of greater safety I don't think. It all depends on what you hit and how you hit it and what safety equipment is on the car. It's not something I worry about since no car in the world is "safe".
I mean, whenever I see a Scion xA my eyes must follow it along it's path, until it leaves my sight. I still like the design of the car...it's so unique it's just cool!
First on my list is still the beautiful 2007 Suzuki SX4, but, the Scion xA is a car that will repel accidents..really, nobody would want to be the one that arrogantly bashes into a Scion xA. Seriously! :surprise:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The first line of defense is an agile vehicle with reasonable power that affords the ability to AVOID collision. If you define safety simply in terms of collision survival, the only safe car is one parked inside a concrete bunker.
No, the first line of defense is the DRIVER. No matter how agile, powerful, quick, or responsive a car is, all that stuff is useless or downright dangerous in the hands of a person that doesn't know how to use it. For instance, if you put someone behind the wheel of a car that has very quick steering and they're not used to it, put them in the wrong situation and they could easily overreact, swerving too far, losing control, hitting something that they might not otherwise, etc. Heck, I even noticed this when I'd alternate between a '68 Dart with broken power steering, which was a real arm builder, and an '82 Cutlass which had overboosted power steering. Basically, you couldn't drive one like the other.
As for a Miata versus an xA, I can think of one area where the Miata might be safer...crumple space. One factor (now before you all start nitpicking notice I said ONE factor, not the be-all-and-end-all factor) of vehicle safety is how far you sit back from the front of it. Essentially, the more car you have in front of you, the safer you might be.
This is one reason why pickup trucks, for all their bulk, tend not to do so well when you run them into something that's not likely to move. One day I had my '85 Silverado parked next to my uncle's '03 Corolla, and if you measure from the extreme front of the vehicle to where I would have the driver's seat positioned, the distance is the same.
Of course, the pickup probably has almost a Corolla's worth of weight packed up into that relatively small area, so if they hit something that's more easily moved, they might not fare so bad.
However, if the accident is serious enough, since you sit lower in a Miata and more straight-legged, a bad enough impact might do more leg damage to you than in the xA, which is more upright with a driving position akin to a mid-60's pickup, only without the school bus size steering wheel waiting to spear you!
Now that I think about it, didn't the kid in the "Nerdy White Boy" video drive a Prius? :P
SOUND OFF! Did you recently buy a car and MPG wasn't a big factor in the purchase decision? If so - here's your chance to tell the press why fuel economy isn't always the top priority.
Please respond to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than Wednesday, October 25, 2006 and provide your daytime contact info and a few words about your decision.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle