Mr. Shiftright wrote: "I know, I used to have one of those cars. They were great haulers (when they ran)."
I guess I'm lucky, but I do perform all of the maintenance on my daughter's '87 900S 3-door, and I mean all. Plus, my '85 900 4-door sedan still is in good shape. Neither has had anything done to the engines, nor transmissions. These two Classic SAABs just keep running like the Energizer Bunny. The only engine-related replacement her 16-valve has ever required is a new starter, water pump, and AMM (Air Mass Meter). Pushing 210K now and still running fine. BTW . . . the old 5-door hatchback was actually called a wagonback - and, there was a distinct reason for this because of its hauling capacity, and ease of loading.
Anyone know what the average age of subcompact buyers is?
Its not a case of what the average age of the driver but what percentage of 18-25 year olds are driving smaller cars.
I don't believe that subcompacts, as a class, are being driven by the group of drivers who are most aggressive and prone to higher accident rates.
Yeah you don't see many Civics souped up with all that aftermarket crap on them being raced trough traffic. You only see that type of stuff with cars like the Crown Vic.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
in the subcompact vs midsize fatalities equation has to be how many of these little cars are going out the door with all the modern safety features, including ABS and side airbags. Until very recently, the answer to that question has been "a LOT less than the average midsize sedan". That is now starting to change, and I think we will see them reach parity in the next few years.
For now, some models are still very hard to find with some of these options. Actually, it kind of disgusts me that the Yaris is so darn hard to find with ABS and side airbags, given the virtually identical xA is going out the door for the same money every day with ABS standard and side airbags a very common option.
Hey, I know we have agreed these are not subcompacts, but rather microcars, but I couldn't resist....anyone seen the initial info on the updated ForTwo that comes here in two years???
I can't speak for Tokyo traffic, but Hong Kong traffic crushes fuel economy. The Toyota Echo in Hong Kong gets approximately 21-22 MPG, and my father's E-class (circa 2001) gets maybe 12 MPG - if he's lucky. And people wonder why big engines don't sell well...
Actually, I have no problem with 84 hp in such a light car, in fact I wouldn't mind the NA engine at 71 hp or whatever it is. However, I made my remarks slightly tongue-in-cheek, knowing how some regulars here would respond to such a "low" amount of power. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My client that bought one of the SMART cars back in March came in Last Saturday. Very cool car and it reall attracted a crowd. I didn't get a chance to drive it but probably will maybe day.
Well, 84hp/ton is not a lot of power in 2006. Its only ~4% more than the '84 Civic which was at a time when the population of vehicles was much less powerful than today.
I hear you. Of course, in the time that has passed since the heyday of that '84 Civic, traffic in and around the cities (where 99% of these cars will be used) has gotten slower, not faster. A similar counterpoint could also be applied to the argument (sometimes made here! :-P) that subcompacts suffer from "insufficient" power.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My dad's Buick is the Ultra, though, with the 240HP supercharged engine and about a foot longer length. I used it as it's a seriously huge boat of a car. Over 3900lbs and it still "only" gets 27mpg highway(versus 29 for the normal Park Ave).
20/29 isn't bad for the big boat. The LeSabre was simmilar, maybe 21/29, IIRC, and they go for really cheap used. Depreciate like a rock.
So I stand by my original statement that younger people choose to drive small cars. They could just as easily drive something larger and be safer. I suspect, though, that most of it is their being sucked in my marketing. They want something *new* and hot looking/cute/etc and under 20K. Used and big for less money never enters their mind, probably because they never have thought about it/been exposed to the data.
Me? My sister and I have driven mostly large old Buicks and other GM cars. Cheap, big, and strong in a crash. I've gone European, though, lately(heh - 10 years is "lately"? - gosh time flies). Mercedes and Volvo are my top used picks now. Though... I did see a two year old CTS with the VVT 3.6 engine and stickshift for $17K the other day... Ugly as sin, but drove lovely. :confuse:
GM has a few surprizes lately. Not all are fleet fodder so it seems.
Shifty wrote: "There is a shop in Berkeley that totally rebuilds them for people, top to bottom...basically a "brand new-old" Saab 5 door. People love 'em . . ."
I'd like to know their name, even though it's a long way from central Illinois to Berkeley! I might just have one to R&R and keep for another 20 years until I start pushing up daisies.
there are plenty of other examples that cause me to question the contention that the New Sub Compacts are nimble as some describe them. They are not quick by any stretch of the imagination. The Versa for instance does 0-60 in 9.4 seconds, while that isn't bad it is slower than a Lincoln Navigator. That would be acceptable I suppose if it stopped quickly but no, it takes the versa 183 feet to stop from 70 MPH. The Land Rover Sport can haul itself down from the same 70 MPH in 165 or 168 feet depending on if you have the supercharged model or not. But some have said they can dodge quicker? The Versa pulls .77g before it squeals like a pig and even an Impala can get .81 Gs Shoot a fullsized Dodge Magnum pulls .79 Gs That tells us when the car will start to slide. And the Fit. Get the stick and you are a bit quicker 8.7 to 60, but you still pull Land Rover distance stops from 70 and a lane changing skid pad number of .79, no better than a Big Dodge Station wagon. And the Fit sport automatic is almost as slow as a Prius to 60 at 10.4, will run into the back of a Land Rover because it takes an additional 10 feet, 179 total to stop from 70. How in the world can we accept these examples as more than economy cars? Good economy cars admittedly, but they are nothing special in the nimble department. And we don't even want to get into the fact that a Yukon denali is quicker and stops shorter than a Scion xB. What does and xB weigh? 1/4 what a Yukon weighs? These are not the kind of cars daysaler has been talking about. A least I don't think they are.
By the way, what do you think they are going to replace the xA with? And do you predict that whatever it is will have more or less HP? I do see they are keeping the tC.
Yeah you don't see many Civics souped up with all that aftermarket crap on them being raced trough traffic.
I was being very specific about "subcompacts" since this is the topic after all. Civics are compacts, and yes, they seem to be the vehicle of choice for the under-25 crowd.
The question is: how many young people are buying the Fits, Accent/Rios, Versas or a Yaris? Not many, from what I can see.
I suppose that without hard data, it a matter of your point of view, but in the Mid Atlantic corridor that I frequent, traffic density has definitely increased but peak speeds have not decreased. Average speeds may have decreased but the peak/average ratio has INCREASED. The result is that there is MORE VARIATION in speed and the need to accelerate quickly all the more frequent while doing so in a population of cars that is more powerful, on average.
While Civics are well-known ricer and tuner cars, many of the people who buy them are also older. The same thing seems to be the case with the Fit at least. While many older people are buying the Fit, I have already seen (and know) quite a few Fits+ owners around Vancouver with cold air intakes, switched springs, 17 inch rims, spoon/mugen parts, etc
On the other side of the Civic, the Accord does not have that sort of aftermarket support, implying that the Accord is definitely not a car that is young people will buy.
theories aside, it's easier to just ask dealers directly and see what kind of demographics they've seen.
The question is: how many young people are buying the Fits, Accent/Rios, Versas or a Yaris? Not many, from what I can see. I live in a college town. The word you are looking for is SCION. The I love everything Honda crowd is getting into the Fit as well, there are a lot of them around here. The Accent/Rio are also big sellers, if I leave late for lunch I end up in the drive through the same time as all the high school kids and there is a line of the Accios. I don't know that anyone is buying the Yaris at all, because well, okay styling is subjective but I wouldn't want to be seen in that.
Well you know, "nimble" is a relative term. I have a stick shift car, and I know how to drive it, and I've added a sway bar and front strut bar...and I have no problem taking the left lane and keeping it. I suppose a Navigator could reve to 3000 prm, dump it into drive, smoke the tires and maybe beat me to the freeway entrace ramp, but it wouldn't be easy for him because in the first 100 feet I am ahead of him, until that locomotive gathers steam. My xA feels like about 0-60 in 8.8 or so. It's very nimble. I was just thinking about this yesterday as I was weaving through traffic in San Francisco. It's hard for instance, to charge on a downhill and then making a sweeping uphill left-hander in a Suburban...but it's a two finger exercise for me.
Weight matters, even if, on paper, the HP compensates in the same or better power to weight ratios. Weight and ride height really matters in handling.
I hope you have better brakes as well. the Yaris at about half the weight of a Chrysler 300c takes 4 extra feet to stop. The fit takes at least 7 extra feet to stop and the Versa 21 extra feet. That is the difference between feeling nimble and being nimble. The xB needs a bus to hit it head on to stop 32 two feet after a 300c has stopped. Whatever we do don't let them put brush guards on a xB or it might damage the licenses plate on the back of a 300c or a Land Rover or even a Buick Lucerne. Did you know that a Fit sport Automatic takes and extra foot to stop from 70 over a rolls Royce Phantom? That my friend is a long way from nimble. The Phantom also pulls an extra G in the corners. perception verses reality? :surprise: It isn't that these cars are out of the ball park when it comes to breaking and cornering. It is that even with their weight advantage they preform like sleds, no matter how they "feel". There is no reasonable explanation as to why if there is any form of equal quality in the parts a sub compact souldn't be able to stop better than a Dodge charger or Magnum. But the current crop doesn't start, stop or corner better that these two examples. Unless they are treated as economy cars and they get sub standard parts where it doesn't show.
I will bet ya those subcompacts are tested in the default factory configurations with the lousy, skimpy tires that the manufacturers put on them. I was amazed what happened when I changed my tires for better ones. It was like owning a completely different car. Therefore, upgrading the handling of your subcompact is not difficult. I know not everyone will do it, but we're talking here about folks like us who do care about such things.
I don't understand the cornering values. A Corvette ZO6 does 1 G cornering. I.e., if it weighs 3000 pounds then the side force on the four tires is 3000 pounds at maximum cornering speed. So the Phantom would be able to resist 6000 pounds of size thrust?
And new tires will help cars like the xB stop shorter than a cruise ship? The Fit is a small car and the Charger and magnum are not, and the Phantom even less so. Someone doesn't seem to care at corporate headquarters.
But the main reason for my post was the statement that small cars were nimble and so could avoid an accident. except the number one car accident in the US is a rear end accident and these small cars are not all that excellent at stopping.
Sorry, I should have said it pulls a extra .01 G. My bad. Still it resists loss of control in a quick maneuver like a lane change better than a Fit and a fit is small enough to almost "Fit" in the back seat. Tires may be a factor. But the darn thing doesn't weigh more than half of what a Rolls Royce weighs.
The only advantage I can see is the earlier statement that they are a smaller target.
Do you mean .1 G? But that's trivial. I believe the differences are in the tires. Remember a lighter car has less force pasting the tire to the road due to weight. The difference is probably unmeasurable in normal driving for normal circumstances. Car testers for the mags are fanatics and drive like 99.9% of us won't in their driving. They overlook the driving that 90% of us will do every day and the quality of the car for that driving experience.
Well "nimble" to me is how hard you have to work to get the car to do something....at 15,000 miles my brakes (according to Toyota) are hardly touched, which is the whole point...I don't need the brakes as much as those barges you mentioned and I don't have to be all elbows and knees trying to muscle them around corners. A Viper can put up great numbers on the track, but it's a beast to drive and you're really tired when you're done.
Again, while your arguments are impeccable and accurate, they are only "cars on paper". The real world of how the car 'feels' can be very different. I don't have to give up the left lane on the freeway and I don't have to give up the road on downhill mountain roads. So somehow, by some magic, the little subcompact's power and brakes are working just fine in the real world.
Who cares if a Rolls can go around a pylon faster. Who wants to work THAT hard and who wants to look that silly treating such a car in that manner?
If I added more power, I'd add more brakes. Right now, Toyota engineers got the balance just about right. I don't need Ferrari stopping power. Mine is a city car.
You know, you are right. I need to step back and realize that my expectations are tainted by my experiences and personal bias. I often equate cars and their technology with my motorcycle and sports cars experience. I often try to look at things from the general public and average driver and at times can be quite successful. But when it comes to things like brakes and cornering I just can't see why a 2500 pound vehicle can take as long as a 5000 pound vehicle to stop. It isn't like the technology isn't known to make a Fit stop shorter than a Magnum. When used to ride and raced motorcycles there were very few 250 cc bikes that couldn't out brake 500, 750 and 1000 cc bikes. They used the same breaks on 250 cc bikes as they did on 1000 cc bikes. It was also rare that a bigger heavier bike could out corner a light 250 cc bike. I remember how hard it was to try and out corner RD350s with mt 750 Kawasaki. Smaller and lighter always equated to better handling. A 250 was definitely nimble compared to a 1000cc bike. And it was absolutely quick compared to a Hog. But that isn't the way it is with cars.
You are correct however that for the average consumer feel is at least as important as reality. But dang, these small cars sure do not deliver in the performance area that they could deliver in. After all the Mini sure lives up to the sub Compact performance potential. But I slipped again didn't I?
any car to stop well if you put the proper sized brakes on it with good tires and the correct electronic support.
It is not cheap however...
Just look at the various Rovers they all stop from 60 mph in less then 120 feet and the superchaged ones do it in less then 115 feet on average. I have seen a couple of test of the SC Sport and Range Rover stopping from 60 mph in 110 feet or so.
All of these vehicles weigh nearly three tons empty. Throw in a passenger and a full tank of gas and you are over three tons.
No I said it doesn't make sense that a Magnum or Charger weighing twice what a Fit does should out corner or out brake a Fit, Versa or xB. That goes counter to what many have been posting about why small cars are nimble. Nimble is "not" slow to brake or timid about changing directions.
The point is it shouldn't cost any more to give a sub compact brakes that work as well as a car weighing twice as much. :confuse:
I assume both cars will lock up the brakes when the drive hits full pedal (disconnect the ABS systems temporarily for that test).
Then the only difference will be the characteristics of the tires rubbing on the pavement. Wide tires, narrow tires, hard tires, soft tires, siped tires, nonsiped tires..., all will be factors in how the baby handles braking.
As for the ability to corner in normal driving and brake in normal quick stop instances, that is more a characteristic of car and suspension and steering geometry and feel built into it than the lack of any "good" parts. I found my leSabre will corner very nicely (standard suspension) when I got tired of the tires I had on front and started driving it less gently. I'll bet people would say it's not capable just because C/D doesn't like it at full throttle and full cornering and full emergency brake application. BUT I don't drive that way 99.99% of the time.
Yes, you are correct. My point is that with sports cars and motorcycles brakes aren't something we see them typically skimping on. If you can get a 3 ton Rover to stop in 166 feet from 60 there is no reason a 2500 pound Fit should take more than 166 feet to stop from 70. Unless you decide sub compacts and their owners simply aren't worth it. Or more likely less likely to care.
The argument was presented however that while small car drivers are more likely to suffer injury in an accident with the larger vehicles they are forced to share the road with the have the advantage of being nimble enough to avoid such accidents. That simply doesn't hold water looking at the braking and lane changing ability for most sub compacts we are dealing with. The Cooper being the exception.
For a smaller lighter car to post numbers no better than cars twice their weight and in some case worse numbers indicates the manufacturers simply feel these small cars are not worth brakes that would be considered standard on larger cars. The expense to put brakes on the Rover and the Magnum is still there. But if they used brakes the quality of the Versa the stopping distance for the Rover would be about the same thing as a freight train.
From the very beginning it is the problem I have had with the sub compacts. They get whatever is left in the parts bin and someone has to make it work. They don't seem to design the parts for the car but rather use what parts they have to put together a car that is at the best average but most often below average compared to the industry standard. I can understand being below average in 0-60. An economy car designed for fuel mileage isn't designed for people that care about 0-60. But to not care about 60-0 seems a bit seems a bit strange to me. But like I said, the average consumer must not be concerned.
Motorcycles are always at the cutting edge of technology (well, except Harleys) and I always look to motorcycle design for the "future" of car technology.
I'm willing to accept some cost-cutting in a subcompact. I mean, you CAN'T build a $25,000 car for $12,500...that's not a reasonable expectation.
Besides, part of the fun of driving is learning where your vehicle is strong and where it is weak and developing your skills accordingly. I play to my car's strengths and nurse the weak points....I'm not, for instance going to brake late in turns on twisty roads and I'm not going to take the left lane climbing up a mountain pass....I am already programmed to downshift early and to charge up long hills with a good headstart and stay in the middle lanes.
The MINI is a great handling, braking car, and it costs exactly DOUBLE what my car costs...that's twelve thousand more dollars.
You know, I could make the xA a pretty fierce handler for that kind of money...way less in fact...I could install a turbo, hi-po tires and wheels, oversize front and rear disk brakes, lowering springs, performance shocks and still not be in the price of a MINI.
So sure, they cut costs for me, and I can tell where, too!
are a large part of the performance descrepancy. I'm amazed, for example, that Honda supplies the same width tire on the 2500lbm Fit as it did on the 1950lbm '84 Civic. For that reason alone, the Fit Sport is a required option, IMO, which gets you a just adequate tire size.
And Boaz, you appear to be posting skid pad "G" figures while referring to "a quick maneuver like a lane change". Skid pad testing is a measure of steady state lateral acceleration and is not indicative of transient response, as required by a lane change maneuver. A more appropriate comparison and a better measure of "nimble" is slalom time, but appropriate tires are still needed.
The argument was presented however that while small car drivers are more likely to suffer injury in an accident with the larger vehicles they are forced to share the road with the have the advantage of being nimble enough to avoid such accidents. That simply doesn't hold water looking at the braking and lane changing ability for most sub compacts we are dealing with.
From Edmunds Inside Line Reviews: Slalom (mph): Rover 58.1 Fit 67.5
I think the smaller (2.5ft shorter) and more agile Fit could avoid an accident much easier than the Rover, even if the Rover stops from 60mph-0 at 115ft vs 123ft for the Fit.
It's not rocket science to refit the capliers on most small cars to a nice set of three piston ones. Brakes are quite possibly the easiest component to upgrade on a car.
Oh - and the Fit out does the base Mini by a tiny margin in every handling test. It really DOES handle quite well. It's not a "S" by any stretch of the imagination, but it's worlds better than a Yaris.
Yes, I used to post Slalom times as well. Didn't matter because the feel seemed more important to most people. The numbers are simply there is show that the new Sub Compacts are anything but light and Nimble. But still the mantra of the Sub Compact person here has been light and nimble, and if your car starts to break free at .79gs it does it from skid pad or lane change when we are talking about avoiding accidents. I know I don't see the excuse of putting wheels, tires and brakes that are just the bare minimum on a car designed to haul young families and their kids. I am also willing to admit that I will sacrifice some fuel mileage for more brakes if that is what it takes. I will willingly give up 2 MPG to corner better and and additional 3 MPG to be able to out brake a car weighing twice as much as my car. That is just me. But I shouldn't have to give up fuel mileage to make a car that weighs 2500 pounds stop better than one weighing 5000 pounds should I? It my be a challenge to shifty because he knows his car is down on power, suspension and brakes but my question is why are Sub Compacts sub standard in areas other than power? I don't expect the average consumer to care one whit how their car performs. Just like I don't expect them to move from their mid sized cars to economy cars because they care about being responsible for fuel useage.
This has been the point all along. Other than being an economy car what does the sub compact have to offer the consumer "today". With that in mind can they over come the reputation as "econo boxes"? It is that econo box reputation that has kept them from being a success in the eyes of the general public to date. Yes, there are some small car people, but they seem to be willing to settle for less and the manufacturers are more than willing to offer less.
Like I said, it may be just me but there is something strange going on when I can get the same quality brakes on a small street bike as I can on a top of the line street bike but I am lucky to get average brakes on a Sub Compact. Maybe the figure all bike riders are more enthusiast than any sub compact driver and simply aren't willing to take left over technology. But then again, a bike is designed from the ground up. It looks like a sub compact is just slapped together. A perfect bean counter car. ( detect the air of cynicym in my typing.) :P
I think one could modify most subcompacts (major brands) to equal or exceed the handling and braking of a base MINI and most luxury sedans for about $1,500 tops. This would not require the owner to do any of the work himself either or jeopardize his warranty
And for an additional $4,000 or so, I think a subcompact could be modified to easily beat a base MINI in straight line performance....but would include violation of the warranty agreement.
The $$$ for performance hardly makes sense ($12,500 + $4,000 you are approaching base MINI prices) but the $1,500 expenditure makes a lot of sense.
Not even $1000 for a Fit. They do this in Japan and it's a little monster with upgraded swaybars, brakes, and tires. Very popular car to modify over there, now that the Civic has turned into a rather large Yuppie-mobile.
That would be fine shifty but would I be getting into the Honda SI price range, or at least within 2k of it. And that is 1 k more than a Mazda3 sport. With the SI I get 197 ponies to go with the brakes and suspension. I get 156 with the Mazda Sport and a car with even more potential. Plus with your options we could get a 2006 Nissan SE-R spec 5. Unless you like just small to start with it seems like a lot of work to come up to what you could have got new in the first place. Personally anything with a B20 has got to be better than anything with a, whatever they call the 1.5; Once again from my point of view only. I sure wouldn’t be as interested in a Fit as I would a Mazda3, Si or Spec V. Not at the same price.
The numbers are simply there is show that the new Sub Compacts are anything but light and Nimble.
I guess I'm confused. If the slalom speeds are higher and the car is lighter, how can you say that the car isn't lighter and more nimble??
From Edmunds Road Tests, here are the 60-0mph braking/slalom stats: Acura RDX 127/65 Ford Fusion 128/64 Honda Accord 130/65 Toyota Camry 124/60 Lexus IS 350 120/66 Audi A6 131/62 BMW 530xi 130/62 Infiniti M35 119/62 Dodge Magnum RT 130/61 Subaru Legacy GT 138/62
I think my Honda Fit at 123/67.5 does pretty well against these larger cars.
My point was that based on these figures, the Honda Fit (as a subcompact example) doesn't have inferior braking as compared with other larger vehicles. So from my perspective, if I can pay $16,500 for a Honda Fit with it's great handling, braking, performance, cargo space, quality, safety, and reliability, why spend thousands more for something with no added benefit? The Honda Fit meets my needs as my primary commuter car, our family backup car, and our weekend trip car.
i guess i better preface with 'imo'. it would be interesting to see the effect of driver/3 passengers in a vehicle as opposed to having just a driver for braking and other tests.
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
Comments
Some drivers are "squeezers" and get very good MPG, but driving like that would make me crazy.
I can put my foot right down the pedal into the grille and can't do worse than 32 mpg.
Nothing amazes me anymore.
I guess I'm lucky, but I do perform all of the maintenance on my daughter's '87 900S 3-door, and I mean all. Plus, my '85 900 4-door sedan still is in good shape. Neither has had anything done to the engines, nor transmissions. These two Classic SAABs just keep running like the Energizer Bunny. The only engine-related replacement her 16-valve has ever required is a new starter, water pump, and AMM (Air Mass Meter). Pushing 210K now and still running fine. BTW . . . the old 5-door hatchback was actually called a wagonback - and, there was a distinct reason for this because of its hauling capacity, and ease of loading.
Its not a case of what the average age of the driver but what percentage of 18-25 year olds are driving smaller cars.
I don't believe that subcompacts, as a class, are being driven by the group of drivers who are most aggressive and prone to higher accident rates.
Yeah you don't see many Civics souped up with all that aftermarket crap on them being raced trough traffic. You only see that type of stuff with cars like the Crown Vic.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
For now, some models are still very hard to find with some of these options. Actually, it kind of disgusts me that the Yaris is so darn hard to find with ABS and side airbags, given the virtually identical xA is going out the door for the same money every day with ABS standard and side airbags a very common option.
Hey, I know we have agreed these are not subcompacts, but rather microcars, but I couldn't resist....anyone seen the initial info on the updated ForTwo that comes here in two years???
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061110/FREE/61110002/1065/T- OC01ARCHIVE
84 hp turbo in a car that is under 2000 pounds. Well, it won't be a rocket, but then again.....
:-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=117484
Note the size of the sub 100 hp market in Japan.
I can't speak for Tokyo traffic, but Hong Kong traffic crushes fuel economy. The Toyota Echo in Hong Kong gets approximately 21-22 MPG, and my father's E-class (circa 2001) gets maybe 12 MPG - if he's lucky. And people wonder why big engines don't sell well...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And then there's Project Kimber.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
20/29 isn't bad for the big boat. The LeSabre was simmilar, maybe 21/29, IIRC, and they go for really cheap used. Depreciate like a rock.
So I stand by my original statement that younger people choose to drive small cars. They could just as easily drive something larger and be safer. I suspect, though, that most of it is their being sucked in my marketing. They want something *new* and hot looking/cute/etc and under 20K. Used and big for less money never enters their mind, probably because they never have thought about it/been exposed to the data.
Me? My sister and I have driven mostly large old Buicks and other GM cars. Cheap, big, and strong in a crash. I've gone European, though, lately(heh - 10 years is "lately"? - gosh time flies). Mercedes and Volvo are my top used picks now. Though... I did see a two year old CTS with the VVT 3.6 engine and stickshift for $17K the other day... Ugly as sin, but drove lovely. :confuse:
GM has a few surprizes lately. Not all are fleet fodder so it seems.
Yes, so you are loading into a totally flat surface with no liftover.
I'd like to know their name, even though it's a long way from central Illinois to Berkeley! I might just have one to R&R and keep for another 20 years until I start pushing up daisies.
By the way, what do you think they are going to replace the xA with? And do you predict that whatever it is will have more or less HP? I do see they are keeping the tC.
I was being very specific about "subcompacts" since this is the topic after all. Civics are compacts, and yes, they seem to be the vehicle of choice for the under-25 crowd.
The question is: how many young people are buying the Fits, Accent/Rios, Versas or a Yaris? Not many, from what I can see.
On the other side of the Civic, the Accord does not have that sort of aftermarket support, implying that the Accord is definitely not a car that is young people will buy.
theories aside, it's easier to just ask dealers directly and see what kind of demographics they've seen.
I live in a college town. The word you are looking for is SCION. The I love everything Honda crowd is getting into the Fit as well, there are a lot of them around here. The Accent/Rio are also big sellers, if I leave late for lunch I end up in the drive through the same time as all the high school kids and there is a line of the Accios.
I don't know that anyone is buying the Yaris at all, because well, okay styling is subjective but I wouldn't want to be seen in that.
Weight matters, even if, on paper, the HP compensates in the same or better power to weight ratios. Weight and ride height really matters in handling.
I will bet ya those subcompacts are tested in the default factory configurations with the lousy, skimpy tires that the manufacturers put on them. I was amazed what happened when I changed my tires for better ones. It was like owning a completely different car. Therefore, upgrading the handling of your subcompact is not difficult. I know not everyone will do it, but we're talking here about folks like us who do care about such things.
>The Phantom also pulls an extra G
I agree about tires making all the difference.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But the main reason for my post was the statement that small cars were nimble and so could avoid an accident. except the number one car accident in the US is a rear end accident and these small cars are not all that excellent at stopping.
The only advantage I can see is the earlier statement that they are a smaller target.
Car testers for the mags are fanatics and drive like 99.9% of us won't in their driving. They overlook the driving that 90% of us will do every day and the quality of the car for that driving experience.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Again, while your arguments are impeccable and accurate, they are only "cars on paper". The real world of how the car 'feels' can be very different. I don't have to give up the left lane on the freeway and I don't have to give up the road on downhill mountain roads. So somehow, by some magic, the little subcompact's power and brakes are working just fine in the real world.
Who cares if a Rolls can go around a pylon faster. Who wants to work THAT hard and who wants to look that silly treating such a car in that manner?
If I added more power, I'd add more brakes. Right now, Toyota engineers got the balance just about right. I don't need Ferrari stopping power. Mine is a city car.
You are correct however that for the average consumer feel is at least as important as reality. But dang, these small cars sure do not deliver in the performance area that they could deliver in. After all the Mini sure lives up to the sub Compact performance potential. But I slipped again didn't I?
What technology is that? Why should one car be capable of stopping more quickly than another car?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
A brick wall.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
IIRC your original post was asking if a Calibre can stop quicker than a Magnum. Are you kidding? Use a smiley face?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
It is not cheap however...
Just look at the various Rovers they all stop from 60 mph in less then 120 feet and the superchaged ones do it in less then 115 feet on average. I have seen a couple of test of the SC Sport and Range Rover stopping from 60 mph in 110 feet or so.
All of these vehicles weigh nearly three tons empty. Throw in a passenger and a full tank of gas and you are over three tons.
Range Rover Superchagedt
LR3
Sport Supercharged
The point is it shouldn't cost any more to give a sub compact brakes that work as well as a car weighing twice as much. :confuse:
You don't see a problem with that?
Then the only difference will be the characteristics of the tires rubbing on the pavement. Wide tires, narrow tires, hard tires, soft tires, siped tires, nonsiped tires..., all will be factors in how the baby handles braking.
As for the ability to corner in normal driving and brake in normal quick stop instances, that is more a characteristic of car and suspension and steering geometry and feel built into it than the lack of any "good" parts. I found my leSabre will corner very nicely (standard suspension) when I got tired of the tires I had on front and started driving it less gently. I'll bet people would say it's not capable just because C/D doesn't like it at full throttle and full cornering and full emergency brake application. BUT I don't drive that way 99.99% of the time.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
The argument was presented however that while small car drivers are more likely to suffer injury in an accident with the larger vehicles they are forced to share the road with the have the advantage of being nimble enough to avoid such accidents. That simply doesn't hold water looking at the braking and lane changing ability for most sub compacts we are dealing with. The Cooper being the exception.
For a smaller lighter car to post numbers no better than cars twice their weight and in some case worse numbers indicates the manufacturers simply feel these small cars are not worth brakes that would be considered standard on larger cars. The expense to put brakes on the Rover and the Magnum is still there. But if they used brakes the quality of the Versa the stopping distance for the Rover would be about the same thing as a freight train.
From the very beginning it is the problem I have had with the sub compacts. They get whatever is left in the parts bin and someone has to make it work. They don't seem to design the parts for the car but rather use what parts they have to put together a car that is at the best average but most often below average compared to the industry standard. I can understand being below average in 0-60. An economy car designed for fuel mileage isn't designed for people that care about 0-60. But to not care about 60-0 seems a bit seems a bit strange to me. But like I said, the average consumer must not be concerned.
I'm willing to accept some cost-cutting in a subcompact. I mean, you CAN'T build a $25,000 car for $12,500...that's not a reasonable expectation.
Besides, part of the fun of driving is learning where your vehicle is strong and where it is weak and developing your skills accordingly. I play to my car's strengths and nurse the weak points....I'm not, for instance going to brake late in turns on twisty roads and I'm not going to take the left lane climbing up a mountain pass....I am already programmed to downshift early and to charge up long hills with a good headstart and stay in the middle lanes.
The MINI is a great handling, braking car, and it costs exactly DOUBLE what my car costs...that's twelve thousand more dollars.
You know, I could make the xA a pretty fierce handler for that kind of money...way less in fact...I could install a turbo, hi-po tires and wheels, oversize front and rear disk brakes, lowering springs, performance shocks and still not be in the price of a MINI.
So sure, they cut costs for me, and I can tell where, too!
And Boaz, you appear to be posting skid pad "G" figures while referring to "a quick maneuver like a lane change". Skid pad testing is a measure of steady state lateral acceleration and is not indicative of transient response, as required by a lane change maneuver. A more appropriate comparison and a better measure of "nimble" is slalom time, but appropriate tires are still needed.
From Edmunds Inside Line Reviews:
Slalom (mph):
Rover 58.1
Fit 67.5
I think the smaller (2.5ft shorter) and more agile Fit could avoid an accident much easier than the Rover, even if the Rover stops from 60mph-0 at 115ft vs 123ft for the Fit.
Oh - and the Fit out does the base Mini by a tiny margin in every handling test. It really DOES handle quite well. It's not a "S" by any stretch of the imagination, but it's worlds better than a Yaris.
This has been the point all along. Other than being an economy car what does the sub compact have to offer the consumer "today". With that in mind can they over come the reputation as "econo boxes"? It is that econo box reputation that has kept them from being a success in the eyes of the general public to date. Yes, there are some small car people, but they seem to be willing to settle for less and the manufacturers are more than willing to offer less.
Like I said, it may be just me but there is something strange going on when I can get the same quality brakes on a small street bike as I can on a top of the line street bike but I am lucky to get average brakes on a Sub Compact. Maybe the figure all bike riders are more enthusiast than any sub compact driver and simply aren't willing to take left over technology. But then again, a bike is designed from the ground up. It looks like a sub compact is just slapped together. A perfect bean counter car. ( detect the air of cynicym in my typing.) :P
And for an additional $4,000 or so, I think a subcompact could be modified to easily beat a base MINI in straight line performance....but would include violation of the warranty agreement.
The $$$ for performance hardly makes sense ($12,500 + $4,000 you are approaching base MINI prices) but the $1,500 expenditure makes a lot of sense.
I guess I'm confused. If the slalom speeds are higher and the car is lighter, how can you say that the car isn't lighter and more nimble??
From Edmunds Road Tests, here are the 60-0mph braking/slalom stats:
Acura RDX 127/65
Ford Fusion 128/64
Honda Accord 130/65
Toyota Camry 124/60
Lexus IS 350 120/66
Audi A6 131/62
BMW 530xi 130/62
Infiniti M35 119/62
Dodge Magnum RT 130/61
Subaru Legacy GT 138/62
I think my Honda Fit at 123/67.5 does pretty well against these larger cars.