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
A bad analogy since the nature of the beast of Computers will mean that unless you buy cutting edge technology and replace it a few months later you will not be able to find a new computer with less RAM, less hard drive and a slower clock.
Nope, but it will sell a lot better if it is the new and improved computer.
New and improved does not have to mean better performance. New and improved could be better mileage, better ride, nicer interior and more gadgets inside.
I really don't think people base their purchases on performance alone nor that it even is in the forefront in the decision making process for most people.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
With fuel at $3 a gallon, that's 666 gallons. A car with 20 mpg vs. a car with 35 mpg would produce that difference if they both drove @32K miles. That's quite reasonable. If you don't like the numbers, massage them a bit. That was just an example. You could say $1,200 difference - that's still quite a bit for most people. With $1,200 and the above two cars, it would be less than 19K miles.
What is you car (like Aygo) has a reported combined mpg of 61.4 (imperial gallons) on the gasoline engine, or 51.2 on US gallons. Oppose that to a a car with a combined 27 mpg, and you get 23,000 miles. I do not consider that extraordinary. Again, you can massage the numbers, but the idea is the same - sell the strengths, not the weaknesses. Also, since you will be selling to city folks mainly, use the city mpg. Then you will get your numbers even more easily. Example: 22 city mpg vs. Aygo 43 city mpg shows a difference in fuel cost of $1,200 after 18,000 miles.
Including my boss, I doubt that anyone of them has ever floored their car, except maybe to merge on the highway. None of them would ever be inclined to see how fast they can take a given corner. They just want the engine to start when they turn the key. Otherwise, the only consideration is looks and gas mileage, and not nessesarily in that order.
One guy I work with used to have a mammoth Dodge Ram crew cab. The only technical info he knew was it had a V-8, and it wasn't a Hemi.
I would wager, and this is just a guess, but with the subcompact buyers, safety and mpg are probably the biggest issues.
Its real easy to put performance above those things right now with gas prices down, but IMO, Americans tend to be short sighted at times.
Gas prices will be up again by the end of the year and probably back to post Katarina prices by next summer.
As someone said earlier the American buying public has a short memory. Should they be different? I don't know and it really doesn't matter how they should be. People vote with their wallets. The Accord,, Camry, Corolla, Civic, Mazda3, Focus all are a bit bigger, and have a few more ponies than they did in 2000. Even the Mini is supposed to be dropping its standard 115 HP motor and will offer a bigger motor in the next release. If Americans weren't buying the cars with more HP and better suspension why would the manufacturers be building them? If Americans didn't care about hp and performance why are so many manufacturers cautious about bringing over so many of their smaller less powerful offerings? New and Improved could mean just what you said. But it hasn't in the last 30 years and somebody has to be driving the weight, size and HP increases.
Quite reasonable? No it isn't, thats more than twice what a typical car is driven in a year. A more typical driver driving 15K a year will only save $886 per year in a 35 MPG car than a 20 MPG car.
Plus most people shopping for cars that will get 20 MPG are not cross shopping cars that get 35 MPG
Example: 22 city mpg vs. Aygo 43 city mpg shows a difference in fuel cost of $1,200 after 18,000 miles
Again the cars that will get 22 MPG city are not in the same class as a Aygo so a Aygo would not be a subsitute for them hence your example is flawed. A better comparison would be the Aygo that gets 43 MPG city against another car of its class that gets say 33 MPG city. With an average driver driving 15K a year the annual savings are a little over $300 a year (presuming $3 a gallon gas but since its now $2 a gallon lets say $200 a year).
Since most people will not spend $2,000 a year on fuel no car will save them $2,000 a year in fuel.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Ok, whatever. I have no intention in getting into "is, isn't" type of arguments. So it could be $1000, doesn't matter. The idea of selling the strengths instead of weaknesses is still the same.
Again the cars that will get 22 MPG city are not in the same class as a Aygo so a Aygo would not be a subsitute for them hence your example is flawed.
No, it isn't, and that's the idea - how to sell a subcompact vs. a compact. Of course it's in a different class. That's what we're talking about.
Why?? Because like any other product, companies like to have something they can say is new and improved (eg how many more ways can you improve toilet paper, yet every year there's a manufacture with a "new and improved" toilet paper). Plus market research...if you ask someone if they would rather have a more powerful or less powerful engine, people will generally say more powerful.
Is it true that mpg hasn't improved much? I don't know. It seems like full-sized cars of the 60s and 70s were getting in the mid-teens mpg, yet today we're in the mid 20s. And today's engines are buring a lot cleaner and producing a lot less emissions, so that is good. Plus they're a lot safer.
Well it DOES matter, because different people have different thresholds as to what they'll tolerate to save a buck or two. Keep in mind that most borderline full-sized cars can get close to 20 mpg in city driving. I've been able to get my Intrepid to dip down into the 18 mpg range in the winter months if I only drive it back and forth to work, which is about 3.5 miles each way and not really enough time for the car to warm up fully.
Other than maybe a Diesel VW or a couple of hybrids, I don't think there is such a thing as a car that gets an EPA rating of 35 in the city. The Corolla, a torture chamber if there ever was one, gets 30-32 in the city, depending on tranny. The Civic gets 30. I think stuff like the xA, Fit, and Yaris might be around 32-33.
For me, saving 886 a year going from a 20 mpg car to a mythical 35 mpg car simply isn't worth the aggravation to put up with 15,000 miles a year of torture just to save $70-80 per month. And that's at $3.00 per gallon!
Besides, like Boaz said, most subcompacts aren't much, if any more econmical than the better compact cars out there, so you're going to have to find some marketing gimmick other than fuel economy to pass off as a strength.
Low purchase price is a potential strength. For example, an xA or Yaris is going to have a cheaper purchase price than a similarly equipped Corolla, so if it still fits your needs, there's some incentive there.
For the time being, I'd imagine the typical Versa is going to be more expensive than the typical leftover Sentra, but the Sentra is pretty much the bottom feeder among compacts now that the Cavalier is gone...an old, obsolete leftover that dealers just want to clear out to make way for something more profitable.
Most of my brother's and sister's friends have smaller vehicles also, and most of my friends have small sports cars. There are a couple of outliers (2 Avalanches and 2 Pilots among my friends) but for the most part, small and relatively nimble is the trend.
Again, we are faced with the assumption that everyone would rather have a larger vehicle unless there was some compelling advantage to the smaller car such as price or fuel economy. This ignores the fact that for some of us, smaller size is ITSELF that compelling advantage.
Yes, but as previously discussed, again and again, YMMV. Or, the world don't move, to the beat of just one drum. What might be right for you, might not be right for some. :P
My old man has an '03 Regal, and I have yet to see a modern car billed as a subcompact or even a compact that I find to be AS comfortable! As for the LaCrosse, I don't think it's that bad up front, but the back seat of GM's W-bodies, IMO, is definitely compact when it comes to legroom. And I'm not talking published legroom, but rather how I fit in it.
I can speak from experience that an '03 Corolla is a torture chamber, for me at least. And I could tell just from sitting in the Versa that I wouldn't like it for very long. Same with the xA and the Yaris. I did kinda like the '06 Civic though. And the Cobalt and Mazda3 are comfortable to me, up front at least.
Last small car I drove that I was really comfortable in was a Dodge Dart! :shades:
Again, we are faced with the assumption that everyone would rather have a larger vehicle unless there was some compelling advantage to the smaller car such as price or fuel economy. This ignores the fact that for some of us, smaller size is ITSELF that compelling advantage.
I never made that assumption. All I said is that I'm not willing to put up with a torture chamber just to save $70-80 per month. If you find it comfortable, then have at it!
I guess in my case, I just don't notice the extra headroom because, truth be told, I'm usually fine for headroom in most cars. If the ceiling is 2-3 inches from the top of my head in my 2000 Intrepid, then punching it up to 5-6 inches is just wasted space.
What really makes a car feel big inside to me is shoulder room, legroom, generous window area, and a light interior color. I find that most cars actually have enough headroom for me, though. Although one of my friends has a '78 Mark V with a sunroof, and its ceiling is closer to the top of my head than most cars would be. It doesn't touch, but it's enough to make me aware of it.
Also, I don't think ALL small cars are torture chambers. But for me, there aren't that many that I find comfortable. Like I mentioned before, the Cobalt, Mazda3, and Civic feel comfy to me. And the Neon did, too. While these aren't subcompact cars, the ARE small cars. At least in my book.
http://www.slate.com/id/2151465/?GT1=8702
I just started reading it have not finished.
Well, at their peak, subcompacts like the Chevette and Escort were able to break 400,000 units. And I think the Pinto and Vega easily topped 300K units in their better years. Heck, I think even in the Pinto's final year, 1980, they moved about 165,000 of them.
And I think in some years, the old VW Bug broke 500,000 units per year.
I doubt if any subcompact will approach those numbers anytime soon, but the market is much more fragmented these days and there is more overlap with truck models than in the past. When it gets to the point that a subcompact is one of the top ten selling car nameplates, then I'll say they're definitely a dominant force.
According to www.aicautosite.com, in August 2006 the top ten selling cars were...
Camry
Corolla
Accord
Civic
Impala
Altima
Cobalt
G6
Focus
Fusion
So basically, 4 compacts, 5 intermediates, and one intermediate that they tried to massage into a full-sized car.
However, I guess you could say that subcompacts are a success, to a degree. After all, if they weren't, then we wouldn't have the choice in them that we do. And instead of having the automakers put some effort into them, we'd get half-baked leftovers from other countries, like the Yugo, Hyundai Excel, Chevette, etc.
BTW, how many Yarises have they sold so far this year? For some reason Autosite doesn't list the Yaris.
I like the author's POV though - that these are budget cars. Even though I would like to see subcompact cars break out of the "budget" mold, right now is sort of like their renaissance, so they have to start out at "budget" and move up, hopefully quickly. Many compacts have the same problem.
But the author understands these are not luxury cars and not sports cars, and appraises them as such.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Others in Japan have been doing this for a while already. Which means better future success for subcompacts, I think.
Oh, and BTW, you keep saying time and time again that the Echo never made projections, but in fact it did. 50K was the estimate, and it exceeded that for 2000 and 2001 and came very close to it in 2002. Then sales fell off, and Toyota made the decision to make it an order-only vehicle (dealers had to order it, it wouldn;t be routinely stocked), which of course killed sales almost completely.
Yaris will easily exceed the 50K projection in its first full year, it was well on its way at the six-month mark when Toyota corporate mentioned it in a press release.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think that if someone made a really good subcompact that didn't have too much overlap with a compact, it might have a good chance at selling. And I think that's one problem these days...too much overlap.
Back in the 1970's, there was a huge difference between a compact and a subcompact. A compact was a Dart, Valiant, Nova, Granada, etc, which very few people would cross-shop with a Chevette, Pinto, Vega, or the various Japanese cars of the time. And even in the early 80's, there was still a pretty big gap between something like a Citation, Fairmont, or Aries/Reliant, or 1983 Camry, and a Chevette, Escort, Omni/Horizon, or Corolla.
Nowadays though, the differences aren't nearly so vast.
As for the PT Cruiser, I think the main reason it was considered a success is that, while 150K or so sales per year isn't that phenomenal, it was still way ahead of their projections. Plus, Chrysler really didn't invest a whole lot up-front into it. It was a Neon platform with a Stratus engine and some snazzy sheetmetal.
It should also be pointed out that cars like the Accord and Civic didn't really hit the big-time in sales until well into the 80's, once they were noticeably larger than their 70's forebears. In 1985 in the United States, GM held 7 of the top ten selling car nameplates, while Ford held two. The one Japanese nameplate in that running was the Nissan Sentra.
In 1985, which was a resurgent time for big car sales, even in light of GM downsizing again, subcompacts were actually more prominent in the marketplace than they are today, for not only was the subcompact Sentra in the top ten, so was the Ford Escort. And the Accord, Civic, and Corolla, which were all still subcompacts in 1985, were still popular, if not quite top ten sales material yet.
And yes, I know the next words out of your mouth, and yes you would be correct - the Civic is more profitable for them, which is why when faced with a crunch, they opted to build more Civics at the expense of the Fit. Do I know you by now or what?! ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ford has a great subcompact to midsize platform on their hands in the form of the C1/EUCD platform.
Just off the top of my head it is used for the S40, V50, European Focus, Mazda3, C70, C30, XC50, New Land Rover LR2 and probably quiet a few more that I can't remember.
Didn't Toyota basically do the same thing with the Echo, once the '03 Corolla came out? When my uncle began his search for a new small car a few years back, the Echo was high on his list, but he had ruled out the previous-gen Corolla because it had a very poor, cramped driving position. At that time the Echo seemed like a better choice because it really did make good use of vertical height to come up with a fairly roomy small car, whereas the Corolla at that time was just the same old torture chamber formula of small car they'd been making for eons.
But then, the '03 Corolla came out early in the '02 calendar year, and the Echo just seemed to disappear immediately.
Oh, and just to make myself clear, yeah, I know I referred to my uncle's Corolla as a torture chamber too...but it's all relative. I'd still much rather drive his '03 Corolla (or an Echo) than the previous-gen Corolla! :shades:
Had Honda had the Fit in production when I was looking, coming off my selling my Civic ('96 DX hatch), I might have wound up with one. And I'd have probably bought a Civic hatch if they still made one.
But combined with it coming out when I just made a deal on a different car I liked, and family experience with the brand, I didn't stick with them. And now Hyundai kinda has my heart, although the next car I buy will likely be an impractical one, forcing me to a different auto maker - unless they come out with a convertable sometime soon...
You may have noticed, I specifically talked about Aygo which is supposed to arrive in the US some time next year. Yes, it does get 43 mpg city, and there is nothing mythical about it. You can drive it in Europe now.
As for the torture chamber, to each his own. I am 6'3", and I drive small cars regularly, no problem. In the past year the only car I was uncomfortable in to the point I couldn't drive it was Fiat Panda, due to the poor ergonomics of the center console.
Since I frequently drive crowded cities (and live in one), I find subcompacts to have huge advantages going beyond just fuel efficiency. Agility in city traffic and ability to park almost anywhere are important to me.
I'm getting a tow hitch (2") for a bike rack application however, to save the upholstery.
I've owned Honda 600s and Fiat 500s....can you spell
D-E-A-T-H T-R-A-P?....but, like most death traps, kinda fun. :P
Subcompacts are great for "right turn on red" squeezes, for parking where the fat boys cannot go, and for Chinatown alleyway shortcuts
:surprise:
Yup, the yen was getting big muscles and the dollar was in free-fall, and with the advent of the '03 model, Toyota starting building Corollas and Matrixes in Ontario in addition to NUMMI here in the Bay Area. So while profits on the Japanese-built Echo were getting tinier, the profits on the domestically-built Corolla were very stable. So they backed off on the Echo. Besides, by then they had established that Echo had totally failed in its mission to grab hip young 20-something buyers, and instead had grabbed tons of aged fixed-income types who wanted a reliable and well-built little Toyota with a tall seating position for not too many dollars. :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yeah, but let's see what happens once it's actually on sale IN the United States, and they find a way to muff it up in the federalization process. :P
Also, let me clarify on my torture chamber comments. I'm 6'3", 35" inseam. I could drive something like a Corolla, Yaris, xA, etc if I really had to. If I was out in the desert somewhere riding with a friend who had one and he suddenly keeled over dead then yeah, I'd be able to physically drive the thing to safety. I wouldn't starve out in the desert! But I just prefer a driving position where I can stretch out. Otherwise my legs start cramping up more quickly. And that's where most subcompacts, many compacts, and even an embarrasing number of mid- and even so-called full-sized cars fail me.
Another area the small cars really need to work on is the location of the steering wheel. It's usually far enough away, so it's not right up against your chest like how cars used to be back in the old days. But I've found too many small cars, like the Corolla, Versa, and xA have the steering wheel mounted too low, to the point that it would almost be better off if they just made it closer to the driver. If it was closer, then I'd be able to fit under it, but by positioning it further away, it puts it between my knees, forcing me to drive in a bowlegged position, and making it harder to reach the brake pedal. And even with the tilt adjustment, they just don't go up high enough.
That is MY problem. I cannot get into the dang blasted thing. Once I get in, I am OK.
My friend with the Smart Car came in this morning and wanted me to test drive his vehicle as that is supposedly NOT a problem. We will see.
I have the same problem yet I'm only 5'10" with 30" inseam. I suspect the difference is that you must drive with your knees bent in ANY car and move your whole leg to transition from throttle to brake. I expect to be straight legged in any car and use only my ankles for control, which is difficult with pedals at significantly different distances.
I am more worried about Toyota itself which may not want the Aygo to undermine the sales of the smoke-and-mirrors Prius, so they will shove a bigger engine in it and effectively kill the attractiveness of the Aygo. Then, of course, they will say that subcompacts don't sell in America and pull it off the market. :mad:
Another area the small cars really need to work on is the location of the steering wheel. It's usually far enough away, so it's not right up against your chest like how cars used to be back in the old days. But I've found too many small cars, like the Corolla, Versa, and xA have the steering wheel mounted too low
While I agree with your gripe, to me a much worse problem even is the distance between the steering wheel and the pedals. When you adjust the seat to where you can comfortably operate the pedals, you can no longer reach the steering wheel. Older cars usually (not always) had that distance greater because the cars, whether made in the US or Europe, were designed for those markets. Now, with the global markets and the imports, the parameters have changed. Also, the US demographics is changing. In California the average height (at least in my area) seems to be shrinking. It's kind of like trying to buy 36 inseam pants at a mass retailer. They don't even carry them anymore.
The "steering wheel too low" however, I don't get, because the wheel is adjustable. You can set it high up so it's like driving a bus, if you want (on the xA at least).
I'm 6-2", 34" inseam, and I can drive the xA all day long. Discomfort is not an issue for me. Perhaps one reason for this is that the clutch, gearshift and brake action is so easy that even with the legs not in a straight out position, there's no work involved. An xA seating position with say a Mustang clutch and shifter would be unpleasant.
Many cars these days have a really cheap adjustable steering wheel where you jerk on this plastic lever under the column and then you can kind of wrestle the whole column up or down, and then when you have it where you want it, lock it into place. Unfortunately, I've found that these types of columns tend to not adjust up high enough for me, so the steering wheel is still down between my knees.
With the other type of steering wheel adjustment, where there's a lever on the side of the column and only the wheel and a few inches of the column pivot, the column itself is usually mounted high enough that it's out of the way for me. And the steering wheel itself is afforded a much greater range of adjustment.
Last week, my wife finally received a new 2007 Chevy Impala to replace her 2004 Impala (company vehicle). I keep hitting my head on the frame when I am getting out of the vehicle. Never did that on the old one.
But sure, the chair-like seating position of the xA dictates that the higher adjustment would be necessary for a long-legged person who is exiting the vehicle. Not sure if brushing the wheel on exit is a deal-breaker for most buyers--certainly not for me. I could live with that a lot easier than say having my head bashing the side of the roof on a BMW 3-Series.
But yes, you're right, we all have our own particular sources of irritation about these kinds of things.
I haven't had enough experience with Impalas to really get used to one versus the other, but I did notice that the '06+ style seems like the back seat is tighter than the '00-05. Plus, I can hit my head on the back window of the '06+. I don't remember being able to do that with the '00-05.
Odd that they'd redesign the door openings, though. I thought the '06 was just a reskin of the '00-05, with a little structural jiggling done around the C-pillar area and a much nicer interior.
I agree though, that a lot of it can simply be what you're used to. I even notice that with my Intrepid. I don't drive it much anymore, as most of my driving is split up between my '85 Silverado (until it got rear-ended on Friday the 13th :mad: ) '79 New Yorker, and my roommate's '06 Xterra, and once in a blue moon, my '76 LeMans. When I go back to the Intrepid after driving those other vehicles, the thing feels cramped to me and a couple times I've questioned why I ever bought anything so tiny! :P
My friend with the Smart Car came in this morning and wanted me to test drive his vehicle as that is supposedly NOT a problem. We will see.
Same here. I even have that problem on the Accord. My leg and knee are squeezed by the dashboard and steering wheel.
I'm only 5'6" and I noticed that same issue with the xA myself. It wasn't a matter of a lack of legroom, but it certainly felt different and not a little bit uncomfortable.