That even the best large cars are but "graceful Hippos".
I was reminded of that this morning as I drove my Wife's TL (my Miata tire picked up a lag bolt last evening). The TL is quite comfortable and has good power but if I had to drive it daily I'd definitely need counseling (or scotch or something). It is a "graceful Hippo", to be sure.
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.
Eh, analogies are a dime a dozen. It could also be argued that there are graceful big cars that are akin to dancing with Lynda Carter, while many small cars are more like trying to bop around with Danny DeVito :P
As a family man with one child, I'm looking at either a Fit or Versa as my commute car, and alternate car for road trips and other driving where we don't need a months worth of luggage. I like the Fit/Versa small size, high roof, big back seat and hatchback style: - easier putting kids in carseat with the high roof and big backseat...easier that in Civic, Corolla, Accord and Camry, and easier than in the taller SUVs - the large rear seat in comparison with Corolla, Civic class - the large trunk area with the hatchback style - the small size for leaving more space in my garage for other things - and the cost and mpg are good too, but they're not at the top of my list of reasons for liking the Fit/Versa
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.
All the manumatics I have driven (the few that I have) allow you to start off in second gear and seen a lot more responsive than manually shifting an automatic. Like in an automatic if I shift from 3rd to 4th and the tranny is not at the point where it would normally shift from 3rd to 4th while in drive it won't. But a manumatic will unless it would result in to low an RPM.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Maybe that is why a Versa is so much bigger and more powerful than the sub compacts we are used to?
I was pretty impressed with the back seat of the Versa when I sat in one awhile back. I thought it was more comfortable and roomier than the Maxima they also had on the showroom floor.
I've heard complaints that the Versa isn't so hot with regards to trunk space, but even there I thought it was decent. My only real complaint was up front, where I thought legroom was a bit scanty and the steering wheel too low, even in the most upright position.
But alas, the driver's seat is the most important seat in the car, and as much as I like a roomy car with a big backseat and good trunk space, it's useless to me if I can't get comfy in it.
If they could find a way to make the steering wheel tilt up further, it might be viable for me.
Point one: the torque converter (bain of daysailer's existence IIRC) delivers a soft interface for launch and control in sloppy conditions (a success aspect of Jim Hall's 2-speed and 6-speed automatic Chaparrals) that allows the user to focus soley on application of accelerator.
Point two: the existing and upcoming generations of dual-clutch automatic manuals (George Carlin fodder fer sure) allow not only quicker shifts with no noticeable lapse in power or control, but are also as efficient as their manual counterparts, and offer gear selection control.
A good DSG and a subcompact are legitimate inferences, says I, more especially as their application broadens and and costs come down.
Point three: I had to have the Turbo-Hydra-matic overhauled, it's true. Cost me $975 back in 1983 (a small fortune to me then). Of course the odometer read 321,000 miles at the time...
Point three: I had to have the Turbo-Hydra-matic overhauled, it's true. Cost me $975 back in 1983 (a small fortune to me then). Of course the odometer read 321,000 miles at the time...
Good Lord, that sounds like a small fortune even today! FWIW I've had two trannies rebuilt. The first was a THM350, back in 1993 and it was around $675. At that time though it seemed like a small fortune though! I had a Torqueflite 998A (heavier-duty lockup torque converter version of the 904) rebuilt in 1997 for around $650.
Maybe labor rates are just cheaper around these parts though?
That's who did it, in Vallejo, CA, in 1983. Stopped on my way to Chico to pay the toll at the Carquinez booth ($.45) and never got moving again until the Cal-Trans wrecker buddy-bumpered me out of the way. AAA towed to the nearest shop (see above), and next day I was back on my way to school.
I know it is just me but at least some cars like the Mazda3 and your old RSX could dance. I have been on too many mountain roads not to admire those abilities first hand. Most sub compacts attempt to dance but they lack the legs to pull it off. (isn't anthropomorphism fun?) Yes my friend you are correct. It is all about personal preferences. For me, and no one needs to feel the way I do, it is the ability to push you back in the seat when coming out of a tight uphill turn and maintaining some speed going into that same turn. With the exception of a Mini cooper every sub compact I have been in, and no, I haven't been in a Echo in those conditions, but I have been in a xA and while we could come into a turn with most Accords we would simply get left behind coming out of the turn and there was simply nothing we could do to keep up. I know it is my own perception but knowing that even if I wring every bit of ability my vehicle possesses I am simply keeping up with people who can easily out pace me if they want to. It is easy to shrug it off and say, that's Ok, and they had a Porsche, Corvette, BMW because that isn't the average car. It is just harder to take when a girl in her mom's G6 or worse yet Avalon pulls away from you coming out of a turn while drinking a soda.
I fully realize Nippon that it is the fuel mileage you desire. I can respect that. If I only had to drive down hill everywhere one of these relatively heavy 108 HP subcompacts might seem more interesting. But with the Focus, Cobalt and Mazda3 so easy to find at discounted prices it is just so easy to see myself in one. But my commute is a lot shorter than yours.
out of corners, or anywhere else, is a desirable quality and is my greatest reservation about the Fit and its ilk. 109hp would be ok in a 2000lbm car, much less so @ 2500lbm! But if I cannot have power AND responsive handling, I'd sooner forsake power.
It's all in the gearshift and brakes really, if you want to come in slow and go out fast. This can even be done in a car with 45 HP and 750cc....but 1st gear synchro and a manual transmission would be minimal requirements. On the flip side, too much power only messes you up in a turn if you aren't skillful. The midget might bog in a turn but Big Foot ends up in a ditch.
And I must respectfaully disagree...subcompacts can be very sporty and agile. They have size and weight on their side. True, not all will be sporty or agile, but some of them are at the very least agile cars that you can toss around quite nicely. Iwouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't mustn't drive a car that wasn't at least some FUN. I'd die like a bachelor's house plant.
Yeah, I guess sometimes they just have you over a barrel and you need to git'er done! I really lucked out with both of my automatic tranny failures. The first one was really prolonged, and gave me plenty of warning, so my mechanic, who really didn't like to play with transmissions, recommended a place just down the street, and they rebuilt my '82 Cutlass for about $675.
With my '79 Newport, as luck would have it it lost all range of motion about a half-mile from another local transmission shop, the place I deal with nowadays for tranny work. And how's this for coincidence? The guys at this tranny shop asked me how much I paid for the car. When I told them I paid $250 for it, they said that if I had come by their place about 5 months ago, they would've given it to me! Turns out they had this car in their shop before, and when they told the previous owner that it needed a new tranny, he didn't want to put any more money into it, so he just gave it to them, and they ended up hauling it to the junkyard, where I saw it and bought it!
To be as one with the machine may be a cliche, but it does capture the essential difference between cars that I enjoy driving and those that are tolerable. In "oneness", the driver seems to interact directly with the driving environment while otherwise, he merely initates a sequence of events that the machine completes. The differences can be subtle, perhaps only perceptual, but there ARE differences.
Absolutely. There are powerful cars I hate to drive, and meager horsepower ones that I love to drive---there are so many factors and varieties in what we call a "car", that one never quite knows what the experience will be like.
A car "on paper" is SO different from the same car in real life.
Maybe, but we do have choices besides no power and some power. Look at the skid pad numbers on the sub compacts we are talking about. Sure a Echo can feel responsive, but at the cost of being at its limit way before a Miata. Feeling responsive has to be backed up with the numbers. (well, it doesn't have to be for some I realize.) We talk about responsiveness as if we are afraid that if we had an additional 50HP it would be too much to handle. But if we do enjoy that , one with the machine is purely emotional if your oneness doesn't result in something tangible, like coming out of a corner with that Mazda3 next to you and you held the turn on the outside. I don't think having another 50 HP would bother me one bit, in fact I often go to some expense to increase the HP on my on vehicles. I thought my first Prelude,1997, was pretty good but the stock 105 HP on that 2500 Lb car was a bit weak. The 135 HP Si. But my Second Prelude had another 60 HP more than a 90 SI. And even with the additional 450 Lbs it was a better performing car.
As for Nippons contention and to a degree daysailors that all I would have needed was a smaller lighter car? They made a Del sol in 97 that a friend of mine decided to get. In every real world measured respect the Prelude was a better car. I am sure the Del Sol might have felt nimble and quick, my 90 prelude did as well. But it was still a dog compared to the 97. So while I to a degree understand the “feeling” part of sub compacts I have had a 105 HP car about the weight of a Echo or xA and I can’t see them even today as being better than my old prelude. I know the 127HP Del Sol wasn’t. It takes more than the idea of nimble and good handling. It takes more than the feeling. (well, let me restate, it doesn’t take more for some to them the feeling is enough.) For me, and maybe me alone it takes the numbers. It is all fine and good to talk about feeling like one with the machine as long as you aren’t looking at the disappearing tail lights of your best friends P-5 from the driver’s seat of your xA. Yes, I know that I have an overly simplified point of view on this.
But believe it or not I understand what the three of you are saying. I have just never felt it.
Well, if we think about this a bit more, feeling responsive doesn't have to have anything to do with numbers. A Bugeye Sprite puts up lousy numbers, but you'd be hard pressed to find a more fun car to drive. We are talking about "feel", not facts.
I drove an automatic C4 Corvette the other day and practically fell asleep. Its numbers would annihilate an xA but I'd never switch one for the other as a daily driver...well maybe on a sunny day I would but that's just a function of the top going down.
No, an xA isn't better than your Prelude but both can be fun to drive, and equally so. As for 'disappearing tail lights" I mean really, what's the difference between 0-60 in 7.0 seconds or 8.8 seconds on city streets? Practically useless.
to varying degrees in some very different vehicles including my Miata, '66 MGB, '72 BMW 2002tii, and even the 79hp '84 Civic. But I have never "felt it" in a large car, power notwithstanding. Of Course, more power is better and a fit with 150hp or so would be a great idea (and certainly within Honda's ability from 1.5L), but alas, we must choose from what is available.
My '89 Gran Fury had great road feel and felt very responsive. It was an ex police car though, and not your typical highway cruiser. Oh, but wait, it wasn't a big car either. If you trace it back to its origins, it was actually a COMPACT! :shades:
My '68 Dart had good road feel too, once the power steering pump broke. But again, there ya go...another COMPACT.
Yeah but it's all relative. If I drove your cars like I drive mine, those old chassis would totally freak out and I'd have to change my underwear. No matter how stiff the suspension, 2 tons is still two tons, police car or not, and the laws of physics will multiply the problems as the speed goes up. A really good pro driver can hustle any big car through turns (look at any movie "chase scene") faster they we can dream of, but those guys are all arms and elbows and they are working hard in the cockpit. What a person can do in an '89 Fury with two legs and two arms, a good driver in a Miata can do with their figertips I think.
Which is why they don't use Miatas in chase scenes...no muss, no fuss....
Oh that made me smile. Part of it may be what I grew up with. Shifty has a point because I did have a Sprite. But no it wasn't a joy to drive because you had to drive it perfectly to make it perform. In auto cross you could get a lot out of it as long as the turns had enough radius so you didn't start to slide. Sliding tires caused a loss of power that little 949 cc just couldn't take no matter what gear you tried to grab. Don't slide you say? Good idea but without power you had to try and keep quite a head of steam going into the turns and you didn't have the punch to get that steam if you tried get it in a short straight. I got better times when I moved up to the 124 Fiat. The Fiat would do perfect 4 wheel drifts but the Prelude was way more forgiving.
As for a Grand Fury? I got a chance to try and Autocross a Dodge Challenger back in the 70s. What a hoot. But even then this same debate went on. We could get a car with a 383 or for a while we could get a 426. Who in their right mind given the choice wanted the 383?
Yeah but it's all relative. If I drove your cars like I drive mine, those old chassis would totally freak out and I'd have to change my underwear.
I dunno Shifty, keep in mind I delivered pizzas for 5 years! :P
And two tons might be two tons, but an '89 Gran Fury ain't. It's about 3500 pounds. What's that, about what a BMW 3-series or IS350 weighs these days?
And if you want to talk about movies and chase scenes, I think Bullit was a good example of what a larger car can do. The Charger in that chase scene was mostly stock, whereas the Mustang had to be built up considerably.
Now in the movie "Looker", where a Porshe 928 couldn't outrun a Mark IV, that might've been pushing it a bit. But on a crowded city street where you really can't get away because of traffic, I guess it's plausible.
I dunno; how much extra weight did the 426 put on the nose?
According to the stats I've seen, the 426 Hemi was 765 pounds. In comparison, the "B" big-block (350/361/383/400) was 620-630 pounds while the "RB" big-block (a different 383, 413/426W/440) was 670 pounds. So, about 135-145 pounds for the engine. But then I'm sure they had to beef up the car in other ways to handle that extra power, so I'm sure the weight of the car went up by more than that.
I remember the base weight of my '68 Dart was something like 2895 pounds with a V-8, whereas the Slant Six was 2710 pounds. But here's the kicker...the slant six only weighed 50 pounds less than the Mopar smallblock! (475 pounds vs 525). So another 135 pounds went into the car somewhere to handle the extra power. Some of it went into the brakes (10" drums vs 9") And I'm guessing the exhaust and manifolds would've added more weight. I dunno if parts of the suspension were beefed up, but I know the ball joints and control arms were the same, as I swapped them between my wrecked '69 slant 6 and my '68 318.
In the case of the 426 versus the 383 though, I think there was more to it than just weight. The 426 was essentially a street-legal race engine. It only liked to be driven at one speed...fast. It also liked to go out of tune on a regular basis, didn't like to loaf along, etc. The 383, or 440 for that matter, were engines that were easier to live with on a day-to-day basis.
The '70-74 Challenger/Barracuda were also designed from the get-go to be able to take a big-block. While they were compact cars, unlike the traditional ponycar they were based on intermediates instead of compacts. I've heard with a compact car like the Dart or the '67-69 Barracuda, you're really better off with the 340 than you are with the 383, 440, or Hemi. The 383 and 440 add enough weight that they affect handling and don't do THAT much for performance. And while the Hemi is absolutely brutal in an A-body, it's only good for a straight line. Don't even think about trying to make a turn!
That was never the question. The Hemi was the motor. The only other alternative for any kind of bragging rights was the 440 wedge. Anything else was just an engine. These were pretty much stop light cars and once the go pedal was hit the weight headed for the trunk. Just to say you had a 426 was enough to cause women to flirt and men to pat you on the back and buy you a beer. In fact the very word Hemi is a selling point even today. Very few remember the 383.
Perception is a powerful force in the US. Sub Compacts have the perception of beginners cars or at least budget cars and fair or not that perception is played to the hilt. even by other compacts. That is one of the reasons the Versa has hit on the "auto-claustrophobia" commercial. They claim to be different from the rest and will solve that small car perception.
is not a feature I seek in a vehicle, optional or otherwise, all I ask is that a car be small, low mass, responsive, good dynamic abilities, reasonably quick and be reasonably priced.
Yes, the most difficult car to find. There are two young men working for me, at least one did and the other does, that may have a solution. The are brothers and they have managed to get their hands on two CRXs. Both are in the shop now as they get prepped for new Honda B20As. Those little puppies should be right down your alley. By the time they get done they will have less than 15k invested and the cars should strike fear in the hearts of SRT drivers everywhere. One is even a right hand drive.
there are big-car people and small-car people (and never the twain shall meet! ;-)), I am becoming convinced by this little chat that there are "big-engine people" and "small-engine people". I think some people won't care how quick or fast through a road course any particular car is, they will only care that it has 105 hp or 125 hp, or whatever. Or that it "only" has 4 cylinders instead of 8 or more. Those people will consider it inferior even if testing proves it is faster or quicker through the corners.
For me, it's what daysailer says - if forced to choose between power and handling (as one almost ALWAYS is under, say, the $40K price point), I will take handling every time. I like efficient and agile as characteristics. Not everyone will appreciate these nuances.
But I tell you what, teenagers with sodas and cell phones driving their mom's Accord are not running away from me in the Echo. The Echo is so light it is moderately quick even off the line. And in actual instrumented testing, my Echo and most of the currently new subs run 0-60 in 8.5-9.0 seconds, as fast as most family sedans and minivans, etc. Not that it matters all that much, as we all know that none of the average Joes out there in their family cars can drive well enough to mimic those numbers anyway.
Bottom line: it comes down to the same old American hang-up: bigger is better. By the same token, more powerful is better. To which I respond as I always do: not necessarily, not necessarily.
edit...and boaz, your commute is shorter than 5 miles each way? That's not the impression I got from your comments. But it would have to be in order to be shorter than mine. :-) I do a ton of OTHER driving besides work, which is why I wanted a car that was super-frugal with gas.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I agree!.. Neither cylinder count nor displacment have ever been my measure of a vehicle. Power (or more accurately power/mass) is important, to a point, but 100hp/ton is adequate for a daily driver and keeps the economics within reason. I've never owned a car with more than 6 cylinders, most have been 4cyl. The most powerful car I've owned is ~135hp/ton, but I'd rather drive the Miata @103hp/ton.
ow many actually bought the 426? a few hundred? the hemi name has endured, though.
According to www.allpar.com, there were 10,904 street Hemis built between 1966 and 1971. In addition to that, there were 896 race Hemis built between 1964 and 1968.
So it really wasn't a very common engine. I think I read somewhere that the Hemi option was something like $800 back in those days. I know a Hemi Dart, offered only in 1968, was $4000. That might not sound like much when you figure that my '68 Dart MSRP'ed for around $3300 and my '69 GT, which only had a slant six, was around $3600! But in the case of the Dart it was a race only package and not street legal. No air conditioning, no power steering, no radio. Front seats came out of the A100 van, as they were lighter than a Dart bench or Dart buckets. No back seat. Stationary rear windows, and front windows that slid up and down like school bus windows.
You can still get a crate Hemi from Mopar performance. I think it's about $10,000. And with some doing, it can be forced into a PT Cruiser! :surprise:
Oh, and just to throw some fuel on the pushrod versus OHC fire, there were two DOHC 426 Hemis built!
gargantuan, cast-iron V8s may be a tad off track in a subcompact thread.
The subcompact that would seem closest to my wishes is the Mini, but I just can't get past its unreasonable mass. How can a 146" car have 2700lbm? Is it a front to dispose of depleted uranium? Add to that its boom-box interior styling, out of place instrument binacle and spotty reliability and I just don't think that I could live with it. Pity!
they say the new model has dropped like 75 pounds. And added 5 hp or something as well, of course. And improved fuel economy. And with the engines now sourced from PSA and no longer built in Brazil, I can't help but think reliability will improve.
I can't figure out why someone thought it would be a good idea in the new model to put the radio display in the speedo, though. :confuse:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Probably the same reason why a BMW 3-series coupe, which comes in at a tidy 180", is a relatively porky 3351 pounds. They make 'em beefier these days to hold up better in accidents, and to have tighter, stiffer, more rattle-free bodies than in days past.
They're also making them wider these days, too. For intance, said BMW is 70.2" wide, which is about as wide as one of my Darts, or my old '80 Malibu or '82 Cutlass Supreme. 20 years ago, your typical 180" long car was probably only about 2500-2600 pounds, but it was also flimsier and a couple inches narrower.
Cars today often have a longer wheelbase and less front and rear overhang than in days past. For instance, a 1985 BMW 3-series was still about 175" long, only 5" shorter, but its wheelbase was around 101", whereas they're around 109" today. It might be rated a subcompact by the EPA and have compact exterior dimensions, but think of it as a midsized car with no overhang. That's essentially what it's built like.
Even the Mini has a relatively long wheelbase, of 97.1". Back in the day, many cars with a wheelbase that long would've been around 170-175" long. Think 1985 Accord, 1985 Stanza, late 80's Shadow/Sundance, etc. And at 66.5", the Mini's really not so "mini" in width.
They're taller too. The Mini is 55.4" tall. Just for comparison, I think my 2000 Intrepid is 55.9" tall. My '57 DeSoto is 55.5" tall. The longest car I own, a 1979 New Yorker, is only 54.5" tall. 20 years ago, most small cars were a couple inches shorter, although nowadays the Mini IS considered low-slung in comparison to what's out there these days! Still, with that added height comes added weight.
I'm sure that if they found a way to get a Mini down to, say, 1800 pounds, and keep its current dimensions, the car would either be so flimsy and miserable to drive, not to mention a deathtrap if you run into anything larger than a kid on a tricycle, or it would be so expensive due to all the hi-tech alloys and such that it would be economically infeasible to produce.
A lot of the bloat is simply lazy engineering: the unibody is stiffened by just adding more metal all around, rather than redesigning sections to improve stiffness without extra mass. Getting a highway-spec Mini down to 1800 pounds may not be feasible, but 2200 pounds is certainly attainable.
If a Porsche 928 raced a Mark IV is real life, the Porsche owner would not only finish first, but have time for a nice lunch before the Lincoln arrives. Ditto a Charger. :P
In this case, Hollywood picked one of the fiercest handling cars in the world to diss. They should have used a BMW Bavaria or something, which is kind of a German Buick.
You know, it comes down to this:
If some aliens came and conquered the earth and made us all drive cars no bigger than today's subcompacts, we'd all do just fine---just like families do all over the rest of the world.
A lot of the bloat is simply lazy engineering: the unibody is stiffened by just adding more metal all around, rather than redesigning sections to improve stiffness without extra mass.
Really?! They STILL build cars that way? I know back in the 50's and 60's they'd often beef things up in a hasty fashion, making things heavier than they really needed to be if they'd only been designed right in the first place. This was one reason why Chevy's smallblock V-8, which was famous for having low reciprocating mass, was actually a bit of a boat anchor when it came to total mass. Something like 575 pounds. The way it was originally designed, it was too fragile, so they just added more metal to the block in a haphazard fashion.
And in the early days of unibody cars, sometimes if they weren't engineered the right way, they'd end up being heavier than a similar-sized body-on-frame car.
It does seem like smaller cars have porked up, weight-wise, than larger cars have over the years. For instance, my Intrepid is about 3400 pounds. My '89 Gran Fury, which was about the same size but had a V-8, was about 3500. Most late 60's intermediates were about the same size overall (200-205"), and if they had a smallblock V-8, probably weighed about the same.
But if you took something that's the same overall length as a Mini from, say, 1989 and 1969, I'm sure it would've weighed a lot less than the 2500-2700 pounds a Mini weighs.
You also have to consider sprung and unsprung weight...a modern car can weigh the same as an old one but because of how it is engineered, it will handle much better. Even things like lighter wheels makes a huge difference in handling.
If a Porsche 928 raced a Mark IV is real life, the Porsche owner would not only finish first, but have time for a nice lunch before the Lincoln arrives.
Umm, not if you throw in enough red lights, traffic, etc. No matter how fast your car is, you can only go as fast as the traffic in front of you! Something akin to a cartoon I saw years ago in an issue of Playboy. Don't worry, it's clean enough to repeat here...
basically, it had two guys sitting in a car that was drawn to look like a Ferrari, Lambo, etc. It was stuck in bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic, ground to a standstill. The driver had a big grin on his face, talking to his passenger. "This baby can do 0-60 in 7 seconds flat!"
You also have to consider sprung and unsprung weight...a modern car can weigh the same as an old one but because of how it is engineered, it will handle much better. Even things like lighter wheels makes a huge difference in handling.
I'm not talking about handling though...simply offering some suggestions as to why cars are so heavy today. Let's face it, for all of our fond memories of these old cars, big and small, fast and slow, etc, if the manufacturers still made them the same way today they'd be out of business!
As for handling though, it's all about balance. If the wheels and tires are too big, performance suffers, but if they're too small, performance suffers as well. There's no magic catch-all right size when it comes to wheels and tires. They really need to be balanced for the car in question.
But there are a number of CURRENT cars that are larger than the Mini yet have lower mass including the Scion XB and perhaps even the Versa! There must be pork in there somewhere. Perhaps the Mini was adapted from a larger platform? (I don't know its origins). Regarding cost, the Mini is ALREADY more costly, so why isn't it employing more structurally efficient design and/or material?
Yep, that's why a Saturn Aura weighs over 3600 pounds. Part of the Mini's problem is that it was designed by Germans, who are notorious for building needlessly heavy cars. Sadly, weight is about the last thing most car designers pay attention to unless there is a fuel economy crisis or the head engineer is a disciple of Colin Chapman.
Yep, that's why a Saturn Aura weighs over 3600 pounds.
I think one reason the Aura weighs so much is that it's on a longer version of that platform. 112.3" wheelbase. The G6 is on that same wheelbase, and is also over 3500 pounds if you pick the right trim level. The Malibu, in contrast, is on a 106.3" wheelbase and in LT guise with the 3.5 is "only" 3315 pounds. It's not much shorter though. However, it does seem that if two cars are the same length but one has a shorter wheelbase, it'll usually be lighter, because more of the "meat" of the car tends to be between the axles.
Still, 3600 pounds for an Aura does sound pretty porky. I think my '76 LeMans is only about 3800 pounds. It's actually on a slightly shorter wheelbase though, at 112".
I think cars today have pretty much gained back all the weight they lost in downsizing back in the late 70's, and then some. The smallest cars never did downsize, as you can only make a car so small, but they've been porking up anyway!
That small car people, as Nippon defines them, are being forced into heavier bigger cars. The Versa is not all that small. Nor is the earlier mentioned Caliber. The crux of the matter always comes back to our not being satisfied with having just enough of anything. I admit I am as guilty as the next guy, I expect new and improved to be more of something. It doesn't matter if it is tooth paste. Yes we were once satisfied with a VW and 60 HP but that just won't fly in todays market place. As the cars get heavier they will get more HP. It has been like this longer than most of us have been able to post about it on a computer. Sub Compacts will be sub compacts in word only and I will be very much surprised in they aren't bigger and more powerful by their third generation if they make it that far.
Many a decade ago Saturday Night Live had a short film of one guy running out of a building in NYC and getting into a cab. Someone chasing him got into the cab behind them and said follow that car. The whole chase scene was the two cabs lock in a gridlock not moving.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Comments
I was reminded of that this morning as I drove my Wife's TL (my Miata tire picked up a lag bolt last evening). The TL is quite comfortable and has good power but if I had to drive it daily I'd definitely need counseling (or scotch or something). It is a "graceful Hippo", to be sure.
Eh, analogies are a dime a dozen. It could also be argued that there are graceful big cars that are akin to dancing with Lynda Carter, while many small cars are more like trying to bop around with Danny DeVito :P
- easier putting kids in carseat with the high roof and big backseat...easier that in Civic, Corolla, Accord and Camry, and easier than in the taller SUVs
- the large rear seat in comparison with Corolla, Civic class
- the large trunk area with the hatchback style
- the small size for leaving more space in my garage for other things
- and the cost and mpg are good too, but they're not at the top of my list of reasons for liking the Fit/Versa
All the manumatics I have driven (the few that I have) allow you to start off in second gear and seen a lot more responsive than manually shifting an automatic. Like in an automatic if I shift from 3rd to 4th and the tranny is not at the point where it would normally shift from 3rd to 4th while in drive it won't. But a manumatic will unless it would result in to low an RPM.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
And you could argue your Lynda Carter/Danny Devito thing all you wanted, but you wouldn't convince me.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I was pretty impressed with the back seat of the Versa when I sat in one awhile back. I thought it was more comfortable and roomier than the Maxima they also had on the showroom floor.
I've heard complaints that the Versa isn't so hot with regards to trunk space, but even there I thought it was decent. My only real complaint was up front, where I thought legroom was a bit scanty and the steering wheel too low, even in the most upright position.
But alas, the driver's seat is the most important seat in the car, and as much as I like a roomy car with a big backseat and good trunk space, it's useless to me if I can't get comfy in it.
If they could find a way to make the steering wheel tilt up further, it might be viable for me.
Point two: the existing and upcoming generations of dual-clutch automatic manuals (George Carlin fodder fer sure) allow not only quicker shifts with no noticeable lapse in power or control, but are also as efficient as their manual counterparts, and offer gear selection control.
A good DSG and a subcompact are legitimate inferences, says I, more especially as their application broadens and and costs come down.
Point three: I had to have the Turbo-Hydra-matic overhauled, it's true. Cost me $975 back in 1983 (a small fortune to me then). Of course the odometer read 321,000 miles at the time...
Good Lord, that sounds like a small fortune even today! FWIW I've had two trannies rebuilt. The first was a THM350, back in 1993 and it was around $675. At that time though it seemed like a small fortune though! I had a Torqueflite 998A (heavier-duty lockup torque converter version of the 904) rebuilt in 1997 for around $650.
Maybe labor rates are just cheaper around these parts though?
That's who did it, in Vallejo, CA, in 1983. Stopped on my way to Chico to pay the toll at the Carquinez booth ($.45) and never got moving again until the Cal-Trans wrecker buddy-bumpered me out of the way. AAA towed to the nearest shop (see above), and next day I was back on my way to school.
I never shopped rates, IOW...
I fully realize Nippon that it is the fuel mileage you desire. I can respect that. If I only had to drive down hill everywhere one of these relatively heavy 108 HP subcompacts might seem more interesting. But with the Focus, Cobalt and Mazda3 so easy to find at discounted prices it is just so easy to see myself in one. But my commute is a lot shorter than yours.
And I must respectfaully disagree...subcompacts can be very sporty and agile. They have size and weight on their side. True, not all will be sporty or agile, but some of them are at the very least agile cars that you can toss around quite nicely. Iwouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't mustn't drive a car that wasn't at least some FUN. I'd die like a bachelor's house plant.
Yeah, I guess sometimes they just have you over a barrel and you need to git'er done! I really lucked out with both of my automatic tranny failures. The first one was really prolonged, and gave me plenty of warning, so my mechanic, who really didn't like to play with transmissions, recommended a place just down the street, and they rebuilt my '82 Cutlass for about $675.
With my '79 Newport, as luck would have it it lost all range of motion about a half-mile from another local transmission shop, the place I deal with nowadays for tranny work. And how's this for coincidence? The guys at this tranny shop asked me how much I paid for the car. When I told them I paid $250 for it, they said that if I had come by their place about 5 months ago, they would've given it to me! Turns out they had this car in their shop before, and when they told the previous owner that it needed a new tranny, he didn't want to put any more money into it, so he just gave it to them, and they ended up hauling it to the junkyard, where I saw it and bought it!
A car "on paper" is SO different from the same car in real life.
As for Nippons contention and to a degree daysailors that all I would have needed was a smaller lighter car? They made a Del sol in 97 that a friend of mine decided to get. In every real world measured respect the Prelude was a better car. I am sure the Del Sol might have felt nimble and quick, my 90 prelude did as well. But it was still a dog compared to the 97. So while I to a degree understand the “feeling” part of sub compacts I have had a 105 HP car about the weight of a Echo or xA and I can’t see them even today as being better than my old prelude. I know the 127HP Del Sol wasn’t. It takes more than the idea of nimble and good handling. It takes more than the feeling. (well, let me restate, it doesn’t take more for some to them the feeling is enough.) For me, and maybe me alone it takes the numbers. It is all fine and good to talk about feeling like one with the machine as long as you aren’t looking at the disappearing tail lights of your best friends P-5 from the driver’s seat of your xA. Yes, I know that I have an overly simplified point of view on this.
But believe it or not I understand what the three of you are saying. I have just never felt it.
I drove an automatic C4 Corvette the other day and practically fell asleep. Its numbers would annihilate an xA but I'd never switch one for the other as a daily driver...well maybe on a sunny day I would but that's just a function of the top going down.
No, an xA isn't better than your Prelude but both can be fun to drive, and equally so. As for 'disappearing tail lights" I mean really, what's the difference between 0-60 in 7.0 seconds or 8.8 seconds on city streets? Practically useless.
My '68 Dart had good road feel too, once the power steering pump broke. But again, there ya go...another COMPACT.
Which is why they don't use Miatas in chase scenes...no muss, no fuss....
As for a Grand Fury? I got a chance to try and Autocross a Dodge Challenger back in the 70s. What a hoot. But even then this same debate went on. We could get a car with a 383 or for a while we could get a 426. Who in their right mind given the choice wanted the 383?
I dunno Shifty, keep in mind I delivered pizzas for 5 years! :P
And two tons might be two tons, but an '89 Gran Fury ain't. It's about 3500 pounds. What's that, about what a BMW 3-series or IS350 weighs these days?
And if you want to talk about movies and chase scenes, I think Bullit was a good example of what a larger car can do. The Charger in that chase scene was mostly stock, whereas the Mustang had to be built up considerably.
Now in the movie "Looker", where a Porshe 928 couldn't outrun a Mark IV, that might've been pushing it a bit. But on a crowded city street where you really can't get away because of traffic, I guess it's plausible.
I dunno; how much extra weight did the 426 put on the nose?
According to the stats I've seen, the 426 Hemi was 765 pounds. In comparison, the "B" big-block (350/361/383/400) was 620-630 pounds while the "RB" big-block (a different 383, 413/426W/440) was 670 pounds. So, about 135-145 pounds for the engine. But then I'm sure they had to beef up the car in other ways to handle that extra power, so I'm sure the weight of the car went up by more than that.
I remember the base weight of my '68 Dart was something like 2895 pounds with a V-8, whereas the Slant Six was 2710 pounds. But here's the kicker...the slant six only weighed 50 pounds less than the Mopar smallblock! (475 pounds vs 525). So another 135 pounds went into the car somewhere to handle the extra power. Some of it went into the brakes (10" drums vs 9") And I'm guessing the exhaust and manifolds would've added more weight. I dunno if parts of the suspension were beefed up, but I know the ball joints and control arms were the same, as I swapped them between my wrecked '69 slant 6 and my '68 318.
In the case of the 426 versus the 383 though, I think there was more to it than just weight. The 426 was essentially a street-legal race engine. It only liked to be driven at one speed...fast. It also liked to go out of tune on a regular basis, didn't like to loaf along, etc. The 383, or 440 for that matter, were engines that were easier to live with on a day-to-day basis.
The '70-74 Challenger/Barracuda were also designed from the get-go to be able to take a big-block. While they were compact cars, unlike the traditional ponycar they were based on intermediates instead of compacts. I've heard with a compact car like the Dart or the '67-69 Barracuda, you're really better off with the 340 than you are with the 383, 440, or Hemi. The 383 and 440 add enough weight that they affect handling and don't do THAT much for performance. And while the Hemi is absolutely brutal in an A-body, it's only good for a straight line. Don't even think about trying to make a turn!
Perception is a powerful force in the US. Sub Compacts have the perception of beginners cars or at least budget cars and fair or not that perception is played to the hilt. even by other compacts. That is one of the reasons the Versa has hit on the "auto-claustrophobia" commercial. They claim to be different from the rest and will solve that small car perception.
For me, it's what daysailer says - if forced to choose between power and handling (as one almost ALWAYS is under, say, the $40K price point), I will take handling every time. I like efficient and agile as characteristics. Not everyone will appreciate these nuances.
But I tell you what, teenagers with sodas and cell phones driving their mom's Accord are not running away from me in the Echo. The Echo is so light it is moderately quick even off the line. And in actual instrumented testing, my Echo and most of the currently new subs run 0-60 in 8.5-9.0 seconds, as fast as most family sedans and minivans, etc. Not that it matters all that much, as we all know that none of the average Joes out there in their family cars can drive well enough to mimic those numbers anyway.
Bottom line: it comes down to the same old American hang-up: bigger is better. By the same token, more powerful is better. To which I respond as I always do: not necessarily, not necessarily.
edit...and boaz, your commute is shorter than 5 miles each way? That's not the impression I got from your comments. But it would have to be in order to be shorter than mine. :-)
I do a ton of OTHER driving besides work, which is why I wanted a car that was super-frugal with gas.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
According to www.allpar.com, there were 10,904 street Hemis built between 1966 and 1971. In addition to that, there were 896 race Hemis built between 1964 and 1968.
So it really wasn't a very common engine. I think I read somewhere that the Hemi option was something like $800 back in those days. I know a Hemi Dart, offered only in 1968, was $4000. That might not sound like much when you figure that my '68 Dart MSRP'ed for around $3300 and my '69 GT, which only had a slant six, was around $3600! But in the case of the Dart it was a race only package and not street legal. No air conditioning, no power steering, no radio. Front seats came out of the A100 van, as they were lighter than a Dart bench or Dart buckets. No back seat. Stationary rear windows, and front windows that slid up and down like school bus windows.
You can still get a crate Hemi from Mopar performance. I think it's about $10,000. And with some doing, it can be forced into a PT Cruiser! :surprise:
Oh, and just to throw some fuel on the pushrod versus OHC fire, there were two DOHC 426 Hemis built!
The subcompact that would seem closest to my wishes is the Mini, but I just can't get past its unreasonable mass. How can a 146" car have 2700lbm? Is it a front to dispose of depleted uranium? Add to that its boom-box interior styling, out of place instrument binacle and spotty reliability and I just don't think that I could live with it. Pity!
I can't figure out why someone thought it would be a good idea in the new model to put the radio display in the speedo, though. :confuse:
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Probably the same reason why a BMW 3-series coupe, which comes in at a tidy 180", is a relatively porky 3351 pounds. They make 'em beefier these days to hold up better in accidents, and to have tighter, stiffer, more rattle-free bodies than in days past.
They're also making them wider these days, too. For intance, said BMW is 70.2" wide, which is about as wide as one of my Darts, or my old '80 Malibu or '82 Cutlass Supreme. 20 years ago, your typical 180" long car was probably only about 2500-2600 pounds, but it was also flimsier and a couple inches narrower.
Cars today often have a longer wheelbase and less front and rear overhang than in days past. For instance, a 1985 BMW 3-series was still about 175" long, only 5" shorter, but its wheelbase was around 101", whereas they're around 109" today. It might be rated a subcompact by the EPA and have compact exterior dimensions, but think of it as a midsized car with no overhang. That's essentially what it's built like.
Even the Mini has a relatively long wheelbase, of 97.1". Back in the day, many cars with a wheelbase that long would've been around 170-175" long. Think 1985 Accord, 1985 Stanza, late 80's Shadow/Sundance, etc. And at 66.5", the Mini's really not so "mini" in width.
They're taller too. The Mini is 55.4" tall. Just for comparison, I think my 2000 Intrepid is 55.9" tall. My '57 DeSoto is 55.5" tall. The longest car I own, a 1979 New Yorker, is only 54.5" tall. 20 years ago, most small cars were a couple inches shorter, although nowadays the Mini IS considered low-slung in comparison to what's out there these days! Still, with that added height comes added weight.
I'm sure that if they found a way to get a Mini down to, say, 1800 pounds, and keep its current dimensions, the car would either be so flimsy and miserable to drive, not to mention a deathtrap if you run into anything larger than a kid on a tricycle, or it would be so expensive due to all the hi-tech alloys and such that it would be economically infeasible to produce.
In this case, Hollywood picked one of the fiercest handling cars in the world to diss. They should have used a BMW Bavaria or something, which is kind of a German Buick.
You know, it comes down to this:
If some aliens came and conquered the earth and made us all drive cars no bigger than today's subcompacts, we'd all do just fine---just like families do all over the rest of the world.
Really?! They STILL build cars that way? I know back in the 50's and 60's they'd often beef things up in a hasty fashion, making things heavier than they really needed to be if they'd only been designed right in the first place. This was one reason why Chevy's smallblock V-8, which was famous for having low reciprocating mass, was actually a bit of a boat anchor when it came to total mass. Something like 575 pounds. The way it was originally designed, it was too fragile, so they just added more metal to the block in a haphazard fashion.
And in the early days of unibody cars, sometimes if they weren't engineered the right way, they'd end up being heavier than a similar-sized body-on-frame car.
It does seem like smaller cars have porked up, weight-wise, than larger cars have over the years. For instance, my Intrepid is about 3400 pounds. My '89 Gran Fury, which was about the same size but had a V-8, was about 3500. Most late 60's intermediates were about the same size overall (200-205"), and if they had a smallblock V-8, probably weighed about the same.
But if you took something that's the same overall length as a Mini from, say, 1989 and 1969, I'm sure it would've weighed a lot less than the 2500-2700 pounds a Mini weighs.
Umm, not if you throw in enough red lights, traffic, etc. No matter how fast your car is, you can only go as fast as the traffic in front of you! Something akin to a cartoon I saw years ago in an issue of Playboy. Don't worry, it's clean enough to repeat here...
basically, it had two guys sitting in a car that was drawn to look like a Ferrari, Lambo, etc. It was stuck in bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic, ground to a standstill. The driver had a big grin on his face, talking to his passenger. "This baby can do 0-60 in 7 seconds flat!"
I'm not talking about handling though...simply offering some suggestions as to why cars are so heavy today. Let's face it, for all of our fond memories of these old cars, big and small, fast and slow, etc, if the manufacturers still made them the same way today they'd be out of business!
As for handling though, it's all about balance. If the wheels and tires are too big, performance suffers, but if they're too small, performance suffers as well. There's no magic catch-all right size when it comes to wheels and tires. They really need to be balanced for the car in question.
Yep, that's why a Saturn Aura weighs over 3600 pounds. Part of the Mini's problem is that it was designed by Germans, who are notorious for building needlessly heavy cars. Sadly, weight is about the last thing most car designers pay attention to unless there is a fuel economy crisis or the head engineer is a disciple of Colin Chapman.
Because they stuck the spedometer way over in the middle of the dash where the radio would normally be.
I think one reason the Aura weighs so much is that it's on a longer version of that platform. 112.3" wheelbase. The G6 is on that same wheelbase, and is also over 3500 pounds if you pick the right trim level. The Malibu, in contrast, is on a 106.3" wheelbase and in LT guise with the 3.5 is "only" 3315 pounds. It's not much shorter though. However, it does seem that if two cars are the same length but one has a shorter wheelbase, it'll usually be lighter, because more of the "meat" of the car tends to be between the axles.
Still, 3600 pounds for an Aura does sound pretty porky. I think my '76 LeMans is only about 3800 pounds. It's actually on a slightly shorter wheelbase though, at 112".
I think cars today have pretty much gained back all the weight they lost in downsizing back in the late 70's, and then some. The smallest cars never did downsize, as you can only make a car so small, but they've been porking up anyway!
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D