What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

hwyhobo

are an abomination. Cars with manual transmissions - a shift above the rest.

Nonsense. I've driven stick most of my life, but there are vehicles better suited for automatics, period. Nothing wrong with either if it's properly implemented. Transmission is a tool, like a hammer. Use the right tool for the right job.

snakeweasel

You still have plenty of foot action with an auto. For instance you have to keep your foot on the brake to prevent creeping.

Not nearly as much foot action.

The clutch doesn't bother me on my 45 minute commute. I really did on a 10 hour road trip that should have taken 5 hours, though.

It does bother me. But of course I live in the middle of a metropolitan area of just under 10 million people. There are two traffic lights I go through that have 1/2 mile or longer backups to (one actually backs up well over a mile 2-3 times a months). Of course the best thing to do is just get it in first and just slowly creep forward, but that leaves a large gap between you and the car in front of you that usually gets occupied by at least one car (many times 2 or 3). That will slow you down even more.

snakeweasel

I just prefer to live somewhere with a reasonable commute and traffic doesn't suck. How people put up with that I have no idea.

Because thats where the jobs are. I could live downstate where traffic is real light. But up here where the traffic stinks during rush hour I can make twice as much.

andre1969

they just don't go back to pushbuttons for automatic trannies, like what Chrysler used back in the 50's and early 60's. The pod was small and out of the way, and the buttons were very responsive.

I guess the pod would get kinda cluttered nowadays with buttons for park, reverse, neutral, and 5-6 forward gears. My DeSoto just has reverse, Neutral, Drive, 1, and 2

ateixeira

You actually should get a bicycle, then. Or take public transportation. :P

When I'm creeping along in my Miata, I actually leave it in first, in gear, and just use the accelerator to creep along slowly, leaving a bit of space in front of me.

-juice

snakeweasel

Or take public transportation.

Take what? Whats public transportation?

Actually in the city and very close suburbs public transportation is great and from getting from the burbs into the city our commuter service can't be beat. But going from one suburb to another forget it.

I actually leave it in first, in gear, and just use the accelerator to creep along slowly, leaving a bit of space in front of me.

I don't know where you are but around her you leave enough space for someone to get it someone will get it. Then what back off from that person so someone else can get it and so on?

lilengineerboy

You actually should get a bicycle, then. Or take public transportation.
Actually, this is the first time in my life I couldn't ride my bike to work. Its most unfortunate. Even in the bay area, when I changed jobs I moved closer.

andre1969

You actually should get a bicycle, then. Or take public transportation.

No thanks, I'd prefer to LIVE, thank you very much! :surprise:

snakeweasel

@#&$* I wish I said that. :shades:

redmaxx

You still have plenty of foot action with an auto. For instance you have to keep your foot on the brake to prevent creeping.

No I don't, that's what neutral is for.

redmaxx

You actually should get a bicycle, then. Or take public transportation.

Then it would take me 2-3 hours to get to work. Or never if i go the public transportation route. Public transportation sucks here in Phoenix. And for those that live outside the area (like I do), it's nonexistent.

redmaxx

I don't think they'd work on a lot of smaller cars these days anyway, because the moment you put them into a low gear they'd dig into your leg. Would a column shifter be harder to engineer into a car where the whole column clunks up and down, compared to having a stationary column and only having the wheel and a few inches of the column pivot?

Best of both worlds: Auto tranny with paddle shifters and a HUD to display speed and current gear and transmission mode (fully automatic, semi-automatic or fully manual). :shades:

lilengineerboy

paddle shifters and a HUD to display speed and current gear and transmission mode (fully automatic, semi-automatic or fully manual).
Its closer than you think :shades:

plekto

I never had a problem with rush hour traffic. In my old Mercedes, it was a cinch. The last one I shifted maybe 3-4 times. The trick is to find a car with a decent sized engine and lots of low-end torque. Something that can happily go from 10-40mph in second gear.

If your car can do this, a traffic jam becomes leaving it in second and forgetting about it.

snakeweasel

If your car can do this, a traffic jam becomes leaving it in second and forgetting about it.

Never be able to do that in my daily commute. To much time either at a complete stop or it moves swiftly. If you try that nice and steady thing you would have to leave plenty of room between you and the car in front of you and that means people will merge in front of you.

fintail

I'd hate to have to manage a 4-on-the-tree in traffic. It would just get tedious. Sometimes I would love a manual, but the realities of dense traffic always win. I have enough to concentrate on (while not losing my mind with the way people drive around here) to make sure I'm in the right gear for take-off.

"In my old Mercedes, it was a cinch."

Was? Did something happen to the 230S?

Mr_Shiftright

I don't find a stick shift any bother in traffic...one develops techniques after a while to make it almost transparent---again, with the right kind of clutch and shifter. Aside from smooth action and a good pivot point, a car with a very low first gear is great...I can just let mine idle in first and it creeps along. But with a "bear" clutch, it sucks, I agree. Worst of all would be a high commpression, high HP engine mated to a stiff clutch.

plekto

Yeah, it blew the headgasket. So I have to pull the engine apart and rebuild the top-end. It'll be back on the road to be sure - just in a couple of months.

My Volvo 240 had a good transmission, so it was 2nd-3rd back and forth in a traffic jam. Super easy. Top-end in third was 70mph, so it had no problem. A Celica drives simmilarly, for a more modern comparison. Effortless to drive, and honestly, who cares if someone gets in front of you 95% of the time? If I need to be in that much of a hurry/get over quickly, I can go through the gears. It's really no problem. Fair compensation for climbing hills well and going through twisties quickly.

Now, my Dodge Colt I had several cars back... Yeah - a disaster in traffic. Too little power, miserably short gearing, and a clutch that was reminiscent of a VW Bug. Total chore to drive.

fintail

Oh, that's a shame. Was there any warning?

Years ago my fintail had a gasket leak, but it was leaking onto the outside of the engine, it was weird. I got some of that sealent you run through a hot coolant system, then flush, and it seems to have stopped it.

john500

Those "bear trap" clutches are long gone (unless you are driving a pre ~ 1980 vehicle) and have all been replaced with hydraulic assist clutches. I still remember my first driving lesson on a 9 year old 1979 Ford pickup with a 3 speed column shifter. The clutch tension was so high that I could actually feel my left thigh muscle flex at each shift. Hydraulic clutches successfully eliminated the repetitive stress disorder known as "Clutch knee".

lilengineerboy

Those "bear trap" clutches are long gone (unless you are driving a pre ~ 1980 vehicle) and have all been replaced with hydraulic assist clutches. I still remember my first driving lesson on a 9 year old 1979 Ford pickup with a 3 speed column shifter. The clutch tension was so high that I could actually feel my left thigh muscle flex at each shift. Hydraulic clutches successfully eliminated the repetitive stress disorder known as "Clutch knee".

At least from the OEM side. I have been driving around some modified Mustangs and DSMs with aftermarket clutches that have resulted in an enlarged left calve. Good times though, just not on the 405 :sick:

w9cw

Not true, as the 1990 Honda Civic I owned did not use hydraulic clutch actuation. It was a diaphragm-spring operated clutch without any hydraulic assist. On the other hand, European cars have generally always used a hydraulically-operated clutch.

british_rover

My MINI didn't have a hydraulic clutch either.

plekto

Often times the problem is the spring itself. A replacement with less tension usually solves the problem.

british_rover

Oh I never had any problems with that clutch it was one of the most forgiving I ever had. In a pinch you could start that car off in second gear with only slightly more throttle then normal and it was almost impossible to stall out in first.

Mr_Shiftright

It's not just the tension of the clutch, but the angle of the pedal and where it grabs. Imagine a manual tire pump where you have to go the full extension for each pump and where your elbow angle is awkward. That gets tiring.

Also on a high compression engine, you let up abruptly on the gas in first gear and your head bounces forward like a wobbly.

daysailer

do NOT "assist"! There is no energy input to the system other than the drivers foot. They are often smoother in engagement than other mechanical linkage because they are immune to changes in relative position between the driveline and pedal stand.

Mr_Shiftright

It's kind of a mechanical ratio....so much travel of the hydraulic piston on one end gives you so much travel at the other end (less of course). It would be nice if every time you moved your hydraulic jack lever one foot your car would go up one foot, but no dice.

daysailer

ALL clutch linkages provide mechanical advantage which ultimately is a function of the difference between pedal stoke and pressure plate movement, regardless whether the intervening elements are hydraulic pistons, levers or both.

Mr_Shiftright

Took my longest subcompact trip yesterday...285 miles. It was fine, no problems with comfort...made one pit stop. It seems more comfortable than my Alfa for long trips but not nearly as cushy as the Porsche 928. The Alfa has that "right calf crush" problem.

stickguy

What, are you people getting soft? Afraid to drive a modern 110hp car out of the neighborhood?

back in the day, I had small cars, and routinely drove long distances in them. NY to NC in a big loop, in the summer, in a 1985 Dodge Colt (5 speed, no AC), and we lived to tell the tale!

Now, this was putting out IIRC a whopping 68 HP, and yes I did have to downshift to 4th (sometimes third) to pull a long hill. But if you were willing to rev it, no problems merging into traffic.

Not sure, but if I had to guess, I think it weighed ~2,200lbs.

man, when we bought the 1986 323 (4 door, 5 speed, 82 HP and AC!) it was like we died and went to luxury car heaven! Nice trip car too, cruised along just fine, good mpg, etc. Still probably weighed less than a fit.

Mr_Shiftright

Some of us are "drivin' fools" and some ain't.

michaellno

I'm with you .. in the late summer of 1986, a buddy and I drove my 1985 Honda Accord (85HP, but with AC and Cruise) on a 3 week trip that took me from California to Michigan and back.

This was, admittedly, back when all the interstates had a posted 55MPH speed limit, which was broken often -- especially on I-40 and in AZ and NM and I-10 in AZ. I don't recall having any problems keeping up with traffic, and our best mileage was just over 43MPG. Like stick said, we probably had to downshift a few times to get over the Continental Divide in NM and through the other passes out west.

Two of us, two golf bags and luggage fit just fine - in fact, on the return trip we were able to rearrange everything so that the front passenger seat would recline fully. Total distance driven was probably 5000-5500 miles.

daysailer

I have always been more comfortable in a small, responsive vehicle than in the ponderous behemoths of the highway.

And regarding transmissions, I find an automatic to be more suitable to highway driving than any venue with varying speeds BECAUSE there is less need to shift. for commuting in traffic or local driving (and, of course, back road or mountain driving), a manual transmission is essential.

boaz47

Maybe we have gotten weaker over the years. I once drove an Austen Healey Sprite to San Francisco from Orange County. If I had the same car today I would haul it to San Francisco and drive it while there. I bet I didn’t have 4 inches of travel on my shocks and I could feel every rain groove till the split on I five heading out towards Palmdale. I don’t know if Shifty’s Alfa was more comfortable than my 124 Spyder but I sure looked forward to fuel stops on one trip to Phoenix. My longest small car trip was in a Carmen Ghia from Riverside to Seattle and back, with a toddler none the less. Given a choice today I would rather not make the same trip in the same cars. I would think Shifty’s xA would be more comfortable than any I just mentioned. But it would be my first choice in a road car. Numb butt sets in a lot faster than it did when I was 20 something.

daysailer

now than they did in my 20s, and I franky don't know how comfortable I would be in that MGB I drove then. Even then, the hot footwell due to the exhaust close below was an issue in my preferred barefoot mode. But, in spite of the many modern large cars I have spent many mile in for business (or perhaps because of?), and in spite of my age, I've not developed a yearning for land-whales.

Mr_Shiftright

MGBs are pretty spacious but of course they ride like a dog cart. Not bad on a smooth highway though.

I haven't found long distance driving in a car much more difficult than when I was young but I did find LD motorcycle trips too punishing for the older body.

nippononly

what's up with everyone's comfort zones? :-)

LD trips in my Echo have been very easy, sometimes covering 600 miles in a single day. It's not too noisy, and the ride is pretty comfortable. Add to that a cabin where I have stretch-out room and a comfortable seat, a good stereo, and effective A/C, and it's no prob at all.

In fact, all the areas I just mentioned were weaknesses of long-distance travel in the RSX I had before. It had tons of road noise, a ride over our crappy pavement that rapidly made one feel pounded-on after any significant number of miles, and no stretch-out space, since it had that cockpit-style sporty cabin layout. And the $199 Pioneer in my Echo is a MUCH better stereo than the factory stereo in the RSX was.

Sure, the Echo might be outclassed by something like a Camry for LD travel, I can concede that, but the Echo is (a) much better for me than the Camry for all the other driving I do, and (b) by no means some torture chamber for long distance travel.

All that, and 46-50 mpg at interstate cruising speeds - it's a winner! :-)

stickguy

Well, old Sprites, Ghias, etc. are a different animal than a modern sub compact sedan/hatch like an Xa, yaris, etc.

Although I do remember my sister driving with a friend from near NYC up though Vermont in a Fiat 850 spyder. Talk about a small, weak car!

A similar trip to school in my crapped out '75 Corolla with well north of 100K was a peice of cake compared to that go cart.

boaz47

I understand the new cars are better. The point was as kids we would at least try to drive what we had. As we get older we at least think twice and maybe decide to fly.

Given the choice of riding in a BMW 7 series or a Mini Cooper from LA to Seattle there is now no question what most of us would prefer. ( I didn't say all of us.) They may both be BMWs but there is just something to be said for a big heavy powerful car on long road trips.

daysailer

than their counterparts of 40+ years past, even Buicks. But some generalizations still hold true. I didn't enjoy driving large cars of the 60's on highways (or anywhere else) because they tended to be ponderous and wallowy with terrible ergonomics - much worse than typical of the small cars of the day. The differences then were largely cultural, since small cars were almost universally European (or British) and large cars were domestic (excepting the odd Mercedes, Rolls or Jaguar). Those lines are blurred today and we find some wallowy smaller cars such as the Prius and a few taut large cars (e.g BMW) but there ARE NO really small cars. Pity.

Mr_Shiftright

I'd like the BMW in between LA and Seattle on a freeway but I'd like the Mini once we got near any major city or twisty coast road.

I've hustled my friends 750iL around corners, and it'll do it just fine but it's kind of like doing the polka with a very graceful hippo.

plekto

- Cost to fix. A typical clutch-job costs $250 plus hard parts. An automatc is $800, except that you can't find anyone who actually rebuilds them. They just replace them, so the cost isn't $250 plus parts like it used to be. It's $1800-$3000. The fancy 5-speed computerized Toyota transmission, for instance - $3000.

- But there's another gremlin with an automatic. When it dies, it DIES. The last three I had that died gave me less than three minutes warning. Good, Good... BRICK ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD. A manual will give you days or weeks of warning. Enough to easily get to a shop on your own.

- The manual is also immune to problems with the car itself. With these new automatics, some of them won't even shift into gear or even neutral with a dead battery. No computers, nothing happening. With older ones, it's nearly as bad because you still can't push-start the car in a pinch - then drive right to mechanic. this is why scientists so to school. Because if their computers/ calculators die on them, they need to know how to do it manually in a pinch.

- One more strike for automatics is when you finally get the towtruck there. You can't tow it on the ground. This also is bad for moving or if you have a RV and want to tow it for any reason. With most cars being FWD, you can't unhook the driveshaft, either.
****
Now, to be honest, most of these are maintainence/emergency issues. So let's get down to driving:

- Let's say you are in the mountains. You have the car in gear and it's wound up to 4000rpm as you go over the top of a small rise. Ahead of you is a slight downhill length of road as it cuts back in towards the mountain, followed by another uphill curve. All of this within 500ft or so. (fairly typical where they build roads into the sides of mountains/hills - a nice zig-zag up a hill. The automatic instantly goes up a gear or two(maybe even into overdrive) the second you let of fthe gas. Because you don't want to enter the next turn going 50mph, you have no real choice. What you get is: REV... coast(upshift into overdrive)... downshift two gears(accompyaning *thunk* likely)... REV...

The manual, you just leave it in third. When you top the rise, you let off the gas and it winds down 500rpm. Then you tap the gas 2-3 seconds later and off you go. The engine has plenty of engine braking as well, so keeping control is easy.

- Driving in snow/mud/etc. Unless your automatic has a manual "Winter" mode where it locks out first gear AND you can lock it into 2nd manually, you're hosed. See, with a manual, you leave it in second and you get one torque-curve to deal with. Everything is predictable and straightforward. Now, the automatic? This is one of the largest reasons people end up on the side of the road. Either they can't lock out first or they can't lock out overdrive. What happens is that when you shift gears, you have a sudden change in torque and engine rpms. On dry this is fine, but on snow or ice, that twitch is all it takes for inexperienced drivers to start sliding. Or worse yet, everything is fine and then it goes into overdrive at 35-40mph and your torque is gone. Essentially you have the snow capability of someone in the rain who is hydroplaning. Only if you either A:Manually shift down out of overdrive or B: hit the brakes to slow down so it drops out of overdrive will it shift down a gear.

A gets your engine racing and the entire car lurches hard as the thing revs to 4000rpm sudenly.
B starts you sliding unless you are skilled enough.
C (hitting the gas harder to downshift) works until you go off the road the second you try to steer(obvious bonehead move - why it's not really a choice)

There is a direct correlation to the number of people having problems in snow and the number of peope driving automatics. We used to never have the number of accidents in winter as we do now, even adjusted for population, when people drove more manuals. In Europe, where 80%+ of cars are manuals, they rarely have problems sliding around.(of course, they drive in it every year and learn early how to take snow seriously).

With a manual, I've never had a single problem in snow. Big, small, FWD, RWD... all easy to handle once you figure it out - because there's no surprizes or trying to out-think you.

wale_bate1

Most new manumatics can be operated to replicate most of the advantages of a three pedal manual. Soft starts, second gear starts, gear selection, gear retention, etc., etc. Hell, I drove a Turbo Hydra-matic mated to a 425 all over the Tahoe basin and managed never to lose it.

Blame the drivers, not the trannys. Personally, I believe the link is cell phones and drive-throughs, not sticks with the letter "D".

Ultimate control in a dual-clutch auto-manual (DSG or other) can even be superior to a pedal-car in some aspects.

The line is blurred and will continue to fade. I sympathize with all my three-pedalled brethren and their ever-shrinking pool from which to fish (I believe in their joy and their need to express it), but the future looks not backward, other than in the practice of law...

nippononly

I love these comments, thank goodness there are still people out there that love manuals as much as me, but shouldn't they be over in the "future of the manual transmission" thread? Just wondering.

And as for shifty:
"I've hustled my friends 750iL around corners, and it'll do it just fine but it's kind of like doing the polka with a very graceful hippo."

That is the PERFECT mental image for how I feel about driving large cars, even supposedly SPORTY large cars! There's very little enjoyment in polkaing with a hippo.

tsgeisel

In the last 20 years I've driven in snow maybe 5 times. At most. And my mountain driving has also been generally restricted - a few CA coastal hills, but nothing especially strenuous in the way you mention.

So I will see your driving conditions and raise you "Driving in San Francisco", where they put stop signs on 5% grade (or more) uphill streets. Where my automatic rolls back a tiny bit, if I'm a tiny bit slow transferring foot from gas to break.

I like my automatic.

Now, cruise control - that quickly turns the driving experience into a video game.

bobw3

In Europe, manuals are dominant because the engines are generally smaller, which requires a manual to get some power from them. Insurance is based on engine size, gas is expensive, so engines are small. Plus the traffic doesn't move as gradually as in America, where generally people are driving on the highway within 10-20mph of each other. In Europe, you're either on a two lane road trying to pass so you need max power, or your on a four lane road driving 75mph (converted) as you're passing a truck going 40mph and up behind you comes a car doing 140mph, as compared to America where we complain about the slow guy who's doing 60mph and the crazy driver doing 80mph. Since American driving is much more relaxed and smooth, we have big engines for our big cars, and we love convenience, autos are here to stay, and for 95% of our driving (and 95% of drivers), an auto is all you need and safer. When reacting to an emergency situation, the less you need to think about (i.e. shifting) the better. But the manual is fun on twisty mountain roads!

Mr_Shiftright

Sometimes an automatic suits the personality of a car, and sometimes it neither hurts or harms it, and sometimes it really kills it.

I think with a subcompact a manual transmission makes a lot of different to one's driving experience and pleasure.

plekto

The thing about "manumatics", though, is that all it is is a fancy version of a floor mounted automatic with everything in a single straight line.(old Volvos and a few others had this).

All of the problems and cost still apply, and unless it has a winter mode to lock out first gear, it's hard(er) to deal with in snow. But it does drive about the same - which is a definite plus.

boaz47

Sub Compacts have a place. But they are neither sporty or quick or nimble as some have indicated. They are a smaller target, can't debate that. They are not superior in stopping for the reasons Shifty mentioned. So what does it all boil down to? What percentage of the market do any of us believe they may capture? First they are already heavier than we are used to. They are bigger than what many of us consider a sub compact. So what do we really have to compare sub compacts to? For the most part they are simply underpowered compacts. From what I have seen they can almost be considered cute. Not attractive and not likely to win any beauty contests or awards but maybe functional. I am sorta getting used to the fit, xB and Aveo Hatchback. But they will always seem like a second car or entry car to me. Not a vehicle for a family with 2.5 kids. So unless just about everyone wants to start with a sub compact it is just too easy to see people going for the next step or even two up for long term ownership. Not that everyone will need a bigger car but because Americans hardly ever want the plain basic anything.