Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Ultimately, I think integrated HVAC systems with the vents built into the dash were the final demise of those fresh air intakes. You could still put it on the "vent" setting and get outside, non-conditioned air coming through the dash vents, but it just wasn't the same. Seemed hotter somehow, and the air pressure just wasn't as strong at highway speeds. Of course, you didn't get bees and crap coming in through the dash vents like you could with those big fresh air intakes, either! :P
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I have to find my 67 Mustang service manual I'm saving for when it's worth a $1000 to a Mustang owner and look it up.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Another thing that can be nice is a sunroof that opens up as well as back. Anything to get the air moving. I try not to run the AC unless it is 75-80+ outside.
GM cars had the best ones, at least in the large and intermediate cars, because they had their own little cranks, or with power windows, their own switches.
Cadillac Fleetwoods used to have power vent windows in the front and back, for a total of 4!
But I don't think they'll come back now. Too costly, and as far as most people are probably concerned, unnecessary.
I think Joe Schmoe is so used to just running the AC, that it indeed would not be worthwhile to bring back natural ventilation.
In the past, this was a weak area for subcompacts with their small engines, but I think it has improved a lot. I can barely tell when the A/C is running in my car.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, TVLand issued a retraction, but had to then throw in, how did Mr. Brady end up with a car that had both power windows and a crank? No doubt they got a lot of letters on that one, too, but they didn't bother to issue another retraction. They just dropped the whole thing from their "rewind moments" or whatever they called those skits.
As for the a/c and its drag on smaller engines, it may have gotten better, partly because the compressors are smaller and, sometimes, weaker than their forebears, but it's still there. Whether you notice it or not depends mainly on your past experiences. If you came from the typical subcompacts of days gone by, you're going to think of what an improvement it is, but if you're used to anything that's big and torquey (not necessarily high-hp) then you're going to think that these newer cars suck!
For instance, the a/c on my Intrepid feels like it puts a big drag on the car. More than any other car I've ever owned. One of my friends, who's interested in an Xterra, used to kinda like the RAV-4, until one of his co-workers mentioned how bad her mother's RAV got out on the highway when you turned on the a/c. Well, his '98 Tracker is like that, and he swore that's one thing he'll never put up with in another car again.
I was actually kinda surprised though, to hear the RAV 4 bogs down. Doesn't it use the Camry 2.4?
Also, here's a question I have about a/c compressors...nowadays, when you get a smaller car, do they size the compressor smaller as well? Back in the old days, I don't think they did that. For example, I had a 1969 Dart with a 225 slant six, a 1967 Newport with a 383, and have a 1968 Dart with a 318. All of them have air conditioning, and all of them looked like they used that same big, bulky V-2 compressor. And naturally, if they're all using the same components, it's going to bog down a 145 hp slant six much more than it will a 230 hp 318, while a 270 hp 383 would barely feel it.
With the older GM cars I've had, it also looks the same. The a/c in my '67 Catalina with its 400 looks like the same unit that's in my '76 LeMans with the 350, and even what was in my '80 Malibu with its little 229 or '82 Cutlass with its 231.
But then these days, would Toyota, for example, use a different compressor for something like an Echo or Yaris than they would in an Avalon?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Only since 2004. Prior to that it used a 142 lb-ft 2.0 with a high torque peak - I am not surprised you would feel the A/C in that car. The older models had an even less powerful engine, although those were mostly under 3000 pounds, so the A/C effect was probably about the same.
"But then these days, would Toyota, for example, use a different compressor for something like an Echo or Yaris than they would in an Avalon?
Yes, it certainly would. The capacity of the A/C system is based on the interior volume of the car. Early owners of the Echo (the 2000 model, and an occasional 2001) complained of weak A/C, which Toyota corrected fairly quickly. In this car, despite the smallish interior volume, a lot of the space is above your head, and I think it contributes to the car retaining heat - big greenhouse + high roof where the heat can gather = car needs more cold air than the interior volume might indicate.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I guess one reason that they could get by with just using the same a/c compressor back in the day is that in those days there really wasn't a huge spread between a compact and a full-sized car. For instance, today, according to the EPA, the Echo has 86 cubic feet of interior space, while the Avalon has 107. And even that really isn't a huge spread. The Avalon has 25% more interior room than the Echo, or the Echo has 20% less, depending on which way you want to look at it.
But back in, say, my Dart's era, I'd imagine a 4-door Dart had close to 100 cubic feet of interior volume. Maybe 92-95 feet for the hardtop. But I doubt if even going to something like an Imperial would put you much over 110 cubic feet. One reason those old cars seemed so big inside is because they often had a lot of shoulder room, and also things like wheel wells, dashboards, transmission humps, etc, didn't intrude in all that much. Also, most of them really weren't too generous in the height department back then, which may relate to that thing about having a lot of space over your head which makes the car retain heat.
I can remember a girlfriend that had a Mercury Monarch with a 6-cyl... She would flip the A/C off when she had to go up a big hill.. :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
The other thing that strikes me as strange is how on the one hand low price is a great advantage to getting a car like an xA and yet it is worth the extra 3 or 4 k over a Korean offering or Chevy depending on who you ask. B ut it isn't worth the extra 2 to 4 K to get a Civic over a xA or Echo replacement? Neither the Echo or the xA have been big sellers to date and at least we know the Civic has qualities the mainstream buyers accept. Even if it is no longer considered a sub compact. Will the sub Compacts get considerable better fuel mileage than a compact? Who knows? But even Nippon waited till a sub compact was used to buy one and if you are going to buy used in the first place why not get a better equipped used car by even Toyota or Honda, if dependability is your main concern?
The real truth is that there is very little chance that even if by some quirk of fate we are swarmed with a whole new batch of economy boxes like we had in the 60s and 70s that as soon as someone offers the new version of those car with extra horse power or room people will move on to the new more powerful model. It is human nature, or at least our nature in this country to want more than our neighbor has. I just am skeptical that we will change just because the Europeans and Japanese like micro cars. But I have been wrong before. I would have never predicted that SUVs and trucks would represent more than 50 percent of the automotive market in my lifetime. And I would never have predicted that the F series trucks would outsell the top two Sedans sold in the US combined. And the top two sedans are mid sized. I think the public has indicated a preference.
What's popular in Europe and Japan could become popular here, under circumstances similar to those there. High gas prices, high costs of living, and tight space. Urban areas, basically. It looks to me like they're rising in importance; people have always been leaving rural areas, and some people are getting sick of suburban sprawl.
Either way, a predominance of trucks and big cars doesn't mean companies should stop trying to build subcompacts. I don't know anyone in or just out of school who's buying a big pickup or SUV. Many will, but they're starting with something they can easily afford, and it better make a good impression on them for the brand's sake. And a lot of my peers will never be able to afford the cars that their parents did.
If you think they're irrelevant, tell Honda and Toyota that they shouldn't have bothered with the Civic and Corolla, way back when.
The wife and I drive smaller less expensive cars for our daily commute and have a much nicer car for special occasions. If we didn't have the Caddy for special occasions my wife might have a nice family sedan while I drove the economy car. Why have two larger cars if one will just be used for commuting?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I have a truck too - my 4Runner. But I don't drive it to work or into the city, it is a weekender. Saves me a heck of a lot of money (gas) and hassle (parking and whatnot).
The 40 mpg is notably better, but not vastly better, than what I would probably get in a Corolla. But the Civic and Corolla both have a turning radius at least a yard bigger than my Echo. Trying to make a U-turn on a tight city street? Don't want to go forward-back-forward to make it? Get the Echo. Try turning a Camry or Accord in a tight four-lane street sometime.
As for the money factor, sure you can buy a Scion xA, or for about $500 more you can buy a Civic DX. The difference in feature content is enormous. People are attached to feature content, which is why they will spend the $3-4K more than the totally stripped $10K Aveo to get an xA with all the features included.
But what you fundamentally don't get, and this is very common in America so you are far from alone on this (!!), is that some people won't go the extra $3-4K for the next-larger car because they are ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR a subcompact, and the advantages it offers. They are NOT just looking for the least expensive choice in transportation.
I understand that you and many others don't get this, and subs are certainly not the perfect vehicle for everyone - indeed there is no such vehicle. But they have their advantages, just as any other class does.
Now you have made the point many times that you just don't see them taking over as the dominant car class, and neither do I, and in fact I wasn't aware that that was the assertion in this thread. Americans carry needlessly large amounts of stuff with them wherever they go, which causes them oftentimes to lean towards buying a larger car than they really need.
I was looking at the just-announced Accent SE - here is a car that will give the xA a run for its money, I think. A sub-$15K sticker, which includes all the usual stuff plus leather-wrapped wheel and shifter, foglights, and moonroof. I like this, if only because we are nudging this car class towards having more premium choices. I only wish BMW would bring the 1-series hatch here. (he said wistfully)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have said they seem destined as second cars to me and even entry level but entry level indicates they are always going to be a started car you move up from.
As far as the Mini goes I believe the S is worth the extra money over the base model if for no other reason than performance. It is in this area sub compact traditionally fall short and I believe will always make them the slower sellers of any line, with the possible exception of the top of the line luxury models. I do not believe the mid sized cars have anything to fear in the market from sub compacts. And as of this date I have seen very few sub compacts stay as small as they were introduced as.
What do you believe the chances are that this time will be any different?
tC wouldn't qualify for anything but a sub compact car. May be borderline compact, but thats where all these other cars, we're talking about, reside.
(Post 419)
But notice that the subcompacts never go away, they always get replaced by something else. Individual models may change, but the class remains.
I wish the automakers would find some other way to make redesigned models sparkle in the public eye besides making them larger, but it is a powerful aphrodisiac for the American audience, much more effective than almost any other single thing except adding horsepower.
Using the argument that subcompacts all grow as they age to show that they must therefore have shortcomings that only growing could correct is a bit spurious - the same argument could be applied to almost any model in any class. All the compacts have grown so much that with the next generation they will be borderline midsize. Does that mean that compact cars, one of the most popular class of vehicles, are also irrelevant or have fundamental shortcomings? What about midsize cars? Many have those have grown to the point where with the next step they will cross the threshold to full-size - are midsize cars fundamentally flawed too, because they are not the very biggest roadgoing appliances we can possibly design?
Everyone has different needs for their vehicles. My argument has always been that more people than know it would be well-served by a subcompact car.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
However, another way of saying it is that the bigger cars weren't so bad to begin with, whereas subcompacts had a LONG way to go! :P
To sum up the topic in my opinion the thing wrong with the Sub Compacts is they lack status to ever capture the heart of the American mainstream. If that holds true they will always be viewed by the manufacturers as niche vehicles and not as profitable or worthy of their best efforts.
I have to say that the easiest compact to get into for me is still the Hyundai Accent.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
From all I have read in this forum it seems like people are ready to toss away driving pleasure for economy without even a wimper. While it might be fun to drive a low powered car to its limits it will still always be low powered. And if it isn't low powered much like the Cooper S then it isn't economy either.
Sure, sure, I hear what you are saying, and it is certainly the self-appointed role of car enthusiasts everywhere to be the defender of the car as "supreme sports experience". But lots of people experience "joy of driving" from other things too, like well-weighted, precise steering, for instance. Comfortable seats, a comfortable ride, and quietness in the cabin are the "joys of driving" that have put more than 5 million Camrys (literally, I read that in an article someplace) on the road, not to mention being the raison d'etre for Lexus.
A great stereo, perhaps a roof that goes down, provide lots of people with more "joy of driving" than raw power or road-hugging, super-tight suspension. Remember, not every car can be a sports car.
But in the subcompact range, there is room for all these different qualities - some comfortable, some sporty, some quiet, some with a great stereo (factory system with subwoofers, a gajillion watts, and CD changers are beginning to appear in a variety of models out there), some whatever. Perhaps even a convertible or two - the Mini comes that way right? So does the New Beetle, although that is a bigger car (but still for all practical purposes a two-seater, and certainly not a dedicated sports car).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Subcompacts of ten years ago, you wouldn't even bother trying to do this. But now you have a better platform.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You can replace "sub compact" with "full size" cars, and whatever you say would still apply. BTW, are sub compacts only those that are built with a utilitarian emphasis (and may or may not be oriented for all-out performance)? Nope.
xA = torsion beam = teh sux.
And ten years ago, when said subcompacts were brand new, they were saying the same thing about the crop of subcompacts that came ten years before. And ten years from now, they'll still be saying it about today's subs!
FWIW, the new Civic's wheelbase is 106.X inches, which is damned near midsized! Consider that a Chevy Celebrity, a midsized car, was on a tidy 104.9" wheelbase. A Dodge Dynasty was on a 104.3" wheelbase. The first Taurus rode a 106" wheelbase.
The long wheelbase in the new Civic is courtesy of its cab-forward design. As a matter of fact, the overall length of the 2006 Civic is fractionally less than the older model (so the new model has almost 4-inch less overhang than the old).
BTW, I actually saw a running Chevette today: 4-door, one of the newer models with the large eggcrate grille and larger taillights. It looked to be in decent condition even.
Of course we all know the Chevette is one of those cars that gave subcompacts a bad rep!
And I really enjoyed driving my "automatic four cylinder ultra reliable" '04 Camry from LA to VA this past December with my wife and son. (It was damaged by a hit-and-run driver in LA, but perfectly drivable, once we patched together the smashed left taillight). We stayed off the interstates as much as possible, and it was far more scenic and downright deserted in places (esp. Nevada).
Granted, if I were single, I'd get a manual transmission, but like most people, my wife prefers automatics now (though she can and does drive a stick - which my '98 Frontier has).
The second was nicer, a '73 Chevy Monte Carlo with a/c, 350 V8 (but only 140 hp!), 3-speed column-shift auto, power steering and brakes, but no cruise, no power windows, and only an AM radio. It did have radial tires, one of the first domestic cars to have them standard.
Remember, these cars also did not have rack-and-pinion steering or independent rear suspension. The '67 didn't even have front disk brakes!