If you put a rear sway bar and better tires on that Echo, and dropped it 2 inches, it would handle very nicely. That's about $1,000 worth of stuff, not doing any of it yourself, labor included.
Grippy tires might reduce the mileage some what but if you can lower the car a little bit and put some lighter wheels and tires on it that would probably balance out.
If MINI made a turbo diesel I would order one tomorrow morning at 7 AM.
Nigel is awaiting your call. Federalizing it might be a tad tricky but not infeasible, and if you ask nicely BMW might do it for you in a year or three.
Why that's my PERFECT car....looks cool, fun to drive, not so fast so that I'll kill myself, great on gas, excellent resale....what's not to like? Oh right I can't tow my Swann 57 with it....
Diesel regulations will keep changing in the US to keep good european diesels out of the US.
I am not saying it is a conspiracy but it is damn close to it.
In order for the MINI D to come into the US there would have to be another car fairly similar to the MINI that used the same engine. Otherwise the cost for EPA certification could never be spread out over enough vehicles.
Side Note: My client with the SMART car came by yesterday. He actually has two of them, one silver and one blue/silver, so I asked him about gas mileage. He said no way he can get 60 mpg on the highway out of his SMARTs. He can get 50 mpg highway but that is the most he can do. He averages about 45 mpg since new on both of them.
well sheeoooot. I can (and have) pulled 50 mpg on the highway in my Echo (A/C off running a steady 65). One of the attractions of the Smart goes away for me...
Heck, I pulled 42 on the last fill-up, and that was in town (and a trip over to Rio Vista to see the lost whales, poor things). A running 45 isn't that impressive either.
But those are the OLD model - does the new model jump up substantially in fuel economy?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If you replace the stock one with tires/wheels of equal or less weight and keep them inflated, the mpg difference should be minimal, like you said. Remember the 'high mileage' tires that were coming out a few years ago? The makers/customers found that the small mpg improvement didn't compensate enough for the decrease in handling, so those type of tire are much less common now. Of course, you'll be replacing the stickier tires more often, but it can be worth it. One of the magazines just did that to a Subaru Forrester, and got a huge increase in handling with no loss in ride comfort.
You save wear and tear on your car - 1000+ miles round trip. But it has to be an inexpensive car - which means you need to reserve it about 7-8 weeks in advance.($30 a day or somesuch)
I hadn't heard that the new Smart would be any better- isn't it a little bigger? Also, going from 45 mpg to 60 is very hard to pay off - save 100 gal/year at 18000 miles/year = $300.
I dunno...maybe it's just ME but the Smart car strikes me as an absurd marketing concept. Well it's not just me---the car has lost money from the get-go, and this is in Europe where a)gasoline and b) space are much dearer than the USA could even dream of.
Microcars might have been great crawling through the bombed out rubble of Italy and Germany after WWII where gasoline was a black market commodity, but in 2007 America with 40 mpg subcompacts and turbo diesel 5 passenger cars right on the horizon?
For urban folks that hardly ever hit the highway, they make a statement much the same way the Prius does. I think Smart will sell quite a few on that basis alone. To many of the folks that wanted to make the Prius statement but couldn't afford the $22K opening price.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So I went and test-drove the new Smart yesterday(was in town on its big nationwide tour).
It was very nice inside. It felt exactly like a BMW Mini from the driver's POV - just the thing has two FEET behind you to the end of the rear bumper - so it's really odd. You feel like a normal small car, be it a Yaris, Fit, or Mini whien you are looking around, then you glance in the rear mirror and there's NOTHING BACK THERE. Takes some getting used to.
The new engine is smooth and whisper quiet - gobs more power than the old ones. But the exhaust is buzzy like a motorcycle and somehow sounds wrong(different pipe or muffler?) - The exhaust is louder than the engine, which is odd).
Areas that need improvement before it comes to the U.S.:
- Seat height adjuster. Superb seat, otherwise - amazing in fact, considering the price. Just one height. - Telescoping wheel. Or maybe I couldn't find the lever? - Exhaust is horribly loud. I know that it is short, but it needs about 20db less noise - it destroys the small and quiet image that the original had. - Wider rear view mirror. Optimally it would be wide enough to cover the massive blind spot on the passenger side. - Gear shift needs a plastic "gate" for shifting. When the car is turned off, there is no way to tell if it's actually in park or neutral, since the gear is displayed on the dash. - Much bigger gear notification display! Needs to be much brighter. Due to the joystick-like gear controller, you can't tell what the car is doing AT ALL when sun hits the display and it washes out. This goes hand in hand with the previous item - it needs to be reworked ASAP. Give us a normal setup like in a typical manumatic - with the row and the +/- area next to it off to the side.
Areas I liked: - Great visibility. You can tell where the corners are within inches after a few minutes of driving. - Fantastic space. When I put my seat in the proper position, it was 6 inches forward from the rearmost setting, so the rear cargo area was 2 feet long!. - Pleastic exterior panels. Love this feature - and they are swappable in a couple of hours for another color. Like old Saturns, but all around. No more mangled bumpers anymore - just replace the plastic parts and it's like a new paintjob! - Stereo is awesome. The door panels are tightly closed and attached with gaskets. The effect is that the speakers use the inside of the door panel acts like a big speaker box - moreso than most of the competition. As first I thought there was a small sub in the car. - Cute, tons of modifications and such. - Great Seat. - Very very quiet inside.
And lastly;
Areas that need to be fixed or it will tank in the U.S.: - The transmission is the worst thing I've driven.
Ever.
The electronics get SO in the way that it literally takes 2 whole seconds to shift while in manual mode. There's zero precision. It literally feels as bad as the worst CVT you've ever driven. Rubbery and vague.
Now, the engine is perfect. It revs and zips upwards and I have the accelerator down halfway and shift... And it revs A THOUSAND RPM HIGHER, almost hitting the rev limiter before it actually decides to actually shift. It's the first time ever that I've had so much lag in a transmission that it actually over-revs the engine on an upshift! It was literally: Shift - shift - SHIFT NOW ALREADY!"
Mercedes needs to take this transmission apart and figure out what in the world is wrong with it before they sell this in the U.S., because it's absolutely horrid. Far worse than the previous one, which, while rubbery, at least did shift when you told it to.
Fantastic car - but the transmission will make people literally think that they are driving a Yugo again. Instant sales killer for most peolpe.(and all I heard people talking about at the drive when I asked about what needed to be improved). I've been waiting for this car for five years and love it to death and even as a 100% loyal person/fan of it, the transmission even made ME not want to buy it like it is right now - not unless I can at least get a real manual gearbox or something.
Like test driving a Ferrari that smells like manure - lovely car but the smell ruins it. That transmission is the manure in the Smart that kills an otherwise "must-buy" car.
EDIT: Let me explain it a bit better :P The lag was so horrendous that by the time it shifted, I would have been shifting AGAIN into the next gear at full throttle in any other car. Rev.... lag lag lag - shift. This is 100% of the reason for it being slow. The car while in gear weighs so little that it leaps ahead like a Cooper S. Very quick. Zip.. lag lag lag... next gear.. zip! lag lag lag oh god shift already! Zip! lag lag - hitting the rev limiter wasting time...
And every time it did this, it revved right past its power band and LOST speed! Brand new car and it behaved EXACTLY like a dying clutch.
A proper 5 or 6 speed manual would increase the 0-60 times on this car by 4-5 seconds.
The electronics get SO in the way that it literally takes 2 whole seconds to shift while in manual mode.
Supposedly, the automanual box works a lot faster if you lift off the gas to take the load off the tranny when it shifts. Keeping your foot in it the whole time slows it down a bunch. The road tour is coming around here at the end of August, so I'll try it out then.
That didn't help, either. It was apallingly slow. I shouldn't have to manually let off the gas to tell it when it needs to shift. It should shift when I tell it to, period.
I'd rather have the first generation Mini's CVT in it, it was so awful. Okay, maybe not - lol - but I'd definately want a 5 speed true manual.
***dunno...maybe it's just ME but the Smart car strikes me as an absurd marketing concept. Well it's not just me---the car has lost money from the get-go, and this is in Europe where a)gasoline and b) space are much dearer than the USA could even dream of.***
Most of the people promoting the SMART car on this website have never driven a SMART car.
Well that's okay...I was just commenting on it from a marketing point of view....to me, it wouldn't matter if the engine and transmission worked perfectly....it's too small and it doesn't get good enough fuel mileage and it costs too much. Which is why it doesn't make money.
So you don't need to drive it to know those numbers, was my point.
There are plenty of road tests from the UK that warn potential buyers of shortcomings when driving one.
My spouse recently bought a '97 Geo Metro sedan, AT & AC. It gets 38 mpg plus, is noisy and uncomfortable. The Geo hatchback 5 speed (another vehicle) hovered around 48-49 all the time. The early to mid 90s Ford Escort sedan w/5 speed got 40 consistantly, and was very comfortable, but also noisy. These were all minimum price vehicles, very inexpensive to repair and maintain. Why go to the very expensive Prius or Smart to pick up a few MPG. The Prius of course is a very nice car, and I've not been exposed to a Smart, but most of the current "economy cars" are a step backwards if real economy is your desire.
My sisters 2006 Prius which is used mostly for commuting gets her 45-50 mpg 54was her best on a 2 day freeway jaunt. Replacing the transmission, if needed, would be $8000.
Why go to the very expensive Prius or Smart to pick up a few MPG.
While I will call the Prius expensive I wouldn't say its real expensive. The Smart on the other hand starts at around $12K, not many cars less than that these days.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Or for 12k I could get a 2 year old Civic and have a usable back seat, a great ride, functional air conditioning, and not have to worry about battery packs, while getting 40 mpg. Alternatively, I could get a VW TDI and do even better on the mileage. The Prius transmission thing doesn't bother me too much, enough cars have CVTs that I am not too concern.
Yeah but the Metro is a pile of un-introduced nasty little bolts compared to a modern subcompact. When you buy a modern subcompact, you are buying more than a few MPG over a Metro. You are buying an entirely new universe of comfort and convenience as well, loaded with options and very attractively priced.
The Prius is more about what they call now (new buzz word) "feel good marketing", and we'll be seeing more of that as time goes on and gas prices go up. The "feel good" product makes you feel good about buying it even though it's not justifiable in dollars and sense.
I had an '86 Chevy Sprint (before they named it Geo) and that thing was a tin can. My girlfriend (now wife) felt so unsafe in that thing she made me trade up.
Even a Kia Spectra puts that to shame nowadays. Cars have come a loooong way.
A 2006 Japanese subcompact is as well-built as an early 80s BMW 320 was back then...which isn't saying much, but.....it's light years ahead of those tinny old subcompacts.
back to 1958, chances are they'd tear it to shreds. It would get ragged on for the paper-thin sheetmetal, acres of plastics, and drab interior colors. The moment something broke on it, chances are it would be rendered useless because of the complexity of modern cars. And as much as we might like to complain about the roads and highways of today, they're light-years ahead of what they were back then. Much of America was unpaved back then, and much of what was paved would have still made short work of the fragile suspensions of today. Cars sit lower today, and don't have the cargo capacity (weight, not necessarily volume) that their 50's counterparts did, so your typical modern car of today is going to bottom out much easier than back in the day, making for all sorts of fun repairs underneath.
Then, add to the fact that with all the tighter tolerances that engines and other components are built to these days, the gasolines and oils and other fluids of yesteryear would probably ruin a modern car pretty quickly.
Finally, the second a modern car came into contact with one of those old late 50's behemoths, that would be the end of it. Whereas on an old car, you could get by with just banging the fender back out, tying the bumper to a tree and backing up to straighten it out, etc, most new cars would be reduced to a pile of rubbish. On the plus side though, the driver of the modern car would come out much better. Unless it's a mis-matched situation like a Kia Rio getting into a tangle with a '58 Imperial, perhaps.
Any owner of a 1958 American automobile can certainly brag without challenge on looks, and weight of steel and chrome, and sheer torque/power, but on build quality it's the pot calling the kettle black. You'd have to buy three 1958 cars to last as long as one Kia probably. Between rust and water leaks and quick-wearing engines, longevity was not '58s strong suit compared to the modern car.
Today, you can buy a subcompact and just change the oil, swap out tires and brake pads and turn the key for the next 150,000 miles.
Can you imagine putting a 5 year warranty on a 1958 Chevrolet?!!!
I'm not sure, but I think a lot of warranties were only 90 days/3000 miles back then! Chrysler first offered a 5/50 powertrain warranty starting with their 1962 models, in an attempt to woo back customers that got burned by the '57 models. However, back then, the powertrain was usually the LAST thing you had to worry about on a Chrysler product. Now rust, water leaks, trim pieces falling off, etc, that was a different story!
As for the longer warranties of today, I imagine that you can actually thank longer-term financing for that, as most lenders probably don't like the idea of you taking out a 4-7 year loan on something that only has a 1 year warranty! Back in the 50's, it's doubtful that most people financed a car for more than 24 months or so. Ford had a promotion called "$56 a month for a '56 Ford", but I have no idea what the interest rate was, how many months that was for, or the loan amount.
I have no idea what kind of terms auto loans had back then, because in those days, all my family members usually paid cash. Now that's not to say we were rich...just that my ancestors either bought used, or scrimped and saved until they could afford to buy it outright, borrow from another family member, or any combination thereof.
I do remember my Mom taking out a loan for her '86 Monte Carlo. It was a 48 month term, the APR was 2.9%, and the payment was about $272 per month. That was the first car she'd ever financed.
Even by 1985, warranties were pretty skimpy. Chrysler was on the rebound again, and back to offering a 5/50 powertrain warranty, 12/12K bumper-to-bumper, and 5 year rust-through. Mercedes had a comprehensive warranty that covered EVERYTHING, including body rust, for 4/50. BMW did a 3/36 bumper-to-bumper, body rust covered for 6 years.
Volvo did a 3/unlimited mileage bumper to bumper. Surface rust was covered for 3 years, body rust for 5 years, and structural rust for 6 years.
Cadillac was pretty bold on the new FWD DeVille/Fleetwood. 12/12k bumper to bumper, 4/50k for powertrain, major FWD components, front suspension, factory air (was there any other kind in a Caddy by this time? :confuse: ) and electrical systems, and body rust for 5/100K.
In contrast, the older RWD Brougham was 12/12K bumper to bumper, 24/24K major powertrain (36/50K on Diesels, YAY! ), and body rust was covered for 3 years.
In general, GM, Ford, Nissan, Honda, and Toyota did 12/12K for the entire car, 24/24K for powertrain, and 3 years for rust.
Now that I think about it, the warrany on my 2000 Intrepid wasn't really so hot. 3 years, 36K miles, bumper-to-bumper, but with a laundry list of things that weren't included in that "bumper to bumper". Some obvious things, like brake pads and rotors, but also more subtle things, like the seals around the doors, which tend to fail at 37 months/37K miles. :mad:
The diesel Chevette could probably get 50 mpg in the real world. The original EPA ratings were up around there for small gas cars in the early '80s before the formula was adjusted in 1985.
You'd have to buy three 1958 cars to last as long as one Kia probably. Between rust and water leaks and quick-wearing engines, longevity was not '58s strong suit compared to the modern car.
I can't vouch for 1958, but my '57 DeSoto is 50 years old this year. Get back to me in 150 years and show me a still-running 2007 Kia. :P
I hate when they make those kinds of comparisons, such as trying to compare an 80's Honda CRX to a modern Civic. One was a lightweight 2-seater that was tuned for fuel efficiency, while the other is (IMO at least) a comfy 4-seater. Back in 1985, I'd say that the closest equivalent to a 2007 Civic would be a Camry. The Accord of the time was noticeably smaller, especially inside. The Stanza seemed somewhat in between the two.
Anyway, while a CRX might have been EPA-rated at 52/57 (FWIW, there was a 45/50 version as well...maybe that was with California/high-altitude tuning?), a 1985 Toyota Camry, with the 2.0/4-speed auto was rated at 27/32. The most economical Accord automatic was 25/30. I think that was with the 3-bbl carb. There's another one listed on the EPA's website that was rated at 23/27 with the automatic. I guess that was the fuel injected model. The Nissan Stanza is showing two ratings, 23/26 and 24/28. Both of them 2.0/automatic. It was hampered by a 3-speed though, whereas the Accord and Camry had a 4-speed.
Anyway, fast forward to today. An automatic Civic is rated at 30/40. And it's notably quicker than any of those old cars. Judging from my old 1985 Consumer Guide, an Accord automatic with the more powerful engine would do 0-60 in about 11.5 seconds (remember, this is CG, not MT, C&D, etc...not gonna find any 3.9 second Catalina 2+2's here ) The Accord with the 3-bbl and the Stanza/Camry would be more like 13-14 seconds. What's a modern Civic with the automatic do it in? Maybe 8 seconds? 9 on a bad day?
Also, could you even get air conditioning in one of those 52/57 CRX'es? Often, those little cars that were tuned for economy back then forced you to forgo such frivolous things as air conditioning and power steering. Although I guess power steering may not be a necessity on such a lightweight car. Still, I drove a Dodge Colt once without it. I had no trouble with it, but it's not something that they're going to show an advertisement with a dolled-up housewife turning with her pinky!
As for bigger cars, like the current Accord, Camry, and Altima, if you really want to see how far fuel efficiency has come, compare them to something like a 1985 Bonneville, Gran Fury, or LTD/Marquis (the small, Fairmont-based one, not the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis). That's really the type of car they've become...a midsize. And in some cases, the upper end of the midsize bracket. Back in 1985, the Japanese had not even entered this market yet. At least, nothing they were offering here in the United States. The roomiest car they offered in 1985 was probably the Camry. The Cressida was bigger, but I don't think it was as space-efficient. And while the Maxima was about Camry-sized, again, it just didn't feel as roomy inside.
Absolutely right - apples and oranges. And that CRX was probably the high fuel efficiency stripper model with ultra high gearing and the smallest engine (was it the HF?). Friend of mine had one, loved the milage, but it was slow for it's weight, IIRC. Would hate to see what would happen in a wreck :sick:
But, the reason I didn't care about the warranty? I never used it.. That car never went back to the dealer for anything... Probably didn't have any repair of note, until around 70K miles.
The Ford? 9 trips to the dealer under that one year of warranty... By the time the car had 48K miles, it was pretty much worn out. (of course, I was 18 when I bought it.. might have been a factor.. ) Stickshift and no A/C on that one, either..
In the 80s, very few Hondas came with A/C stock, it was either dealer or port installed. No Civics came with AC, and I think only the Accord LX-I had it standard. Even in the 90s, I think you had to have an Accord LX or better to have AC from the factory. When car shopping in HS, I test drove a no AC no PS '87 Civic sedan, but that was the only car so equipped I'd seen. All the CRXs I looked at (HF/SI) and Civic (DX/SI) had AC. I also found that unless the front tires are flat, power steering is pretty unnecessary on those cars. I was in HS when a lot of the late 80s/early 90s cheap cars were around and I don't remember them being that terrible.
So a rock in your garden is 500 million years old...that doesn't prove anything other than it survived because rocks are very hard...but you restore your '57 Desoto for $100,00 to original factory standards in all materials, and put it up against a new Toyota in day to day driving, and your car will wear out faster mechanically and need far more service and maintenance.
It's not "your" car, it's any '58 car. They were inefficient, heavy, built poorly and kind of primitive. But they had style and heavy steel, that's true. That's why we like them. They aren't all made out of plastics and electronics, neither of which we can repair very well. Old cars "need" us, new cars don't.
Comments
Grippy tires might reduce the mileage some what but if you can lower the car a little bit and put some lighter wheels and tires on it that would probably balance out.
Nigel is awaiting your call. Federalizing it might be a tad tricky but not infeasible, and if you ask nicely BMW might do it for you in a year or three.
New MINI D combined potential of 60 mpg
Shifty
Sometimes I think the Europeans secretly resent Americans, and make us suffer accordingly in the cars they will let us have! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am not saying it is a conspiracy but it is damn close to it.
In order for the MINI D to come into the US there would have to be another car fairly similar to the MINI that used the same engine. Otherwise the cost for EPA certification could never be spread out over enough vehicles.
Side Note: My client with the SMART car came by yesterday. He actually has two of them, one silver and one blue/silver, so I asked him about gas mileage. He said no way he can get 60 mpg on the highway out of his SMARTs. He can get 50 mpg highway but that is the most he can do. He averages about 45 mpg since new on both of them.
Heck, I pulled 42 on the last fill-up, and that was in town (and a trip over to Rio Vista to see the lost whales, poor things). A running 45 isn't that impressive either.
But those are the OLD model - does the new model jump up substantially in fuel economy?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You save wear and tear on your car - 1000+ miles round trip. But it has to be an inexpensive car - which means you need to reserve it about 7-8 weeks in advance.($30 a day or somesuch)
Microcars might have been great crawling through the bombed out rubble of Italy and Germany after WWII where gasoline was a black market commodity, but in 2007 America with 40 mpg subcompacts and turbo diesel 5 passenger cars right on the horizon?
Smart = not so Smart IMO
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It was very nice inside. It felt exactly like a BMW Mini from the driver's POV - just the thing has two FEET behind you to the end of the rear bumper - so it's really odd. You feel like a normal small car, be it a Yaris, Fit, or Mini whien you are looking around, then you glance in the rear mirror and there's NOTHING BACK THERE. Takes some getting used to.
The new engine is smooth and whisper quiet - gobs more power than the old ones. But the exhaust is buzzy like a motorcycle and somehow sounds wrong(different pipe or muffler?) - The exhaust is louder than the engine, which is odd).
Areas that need improvement before it comes to the U.S.:
- Seat height adjuster. Superb seat, otherwise - amazing in fact, considering the price. Just one height.
- Telescoping wheel. Or maybe I couldn't find the lever?
- Exhaust is horribly loud. I know that it is short, but it needs about 20db less noise - it destroys the small and quiet image that the original had.
- Wider rear view mirror. Optimally it would be wide enough to cover the massive blind spot on the passenger side.
- Gear shift needs a plastic "gate" for shifting. When the car is turned off, there is no way to tell if it's actually in park or neutral, since the gear is displayed on the dash.
- Much bigger gear notification display! Needs to be much brighter. Due to the joystick-like gear controller, you can't tell what the car is doing AT ALL when sun hits the display and it washes out. This goes hand in hand with the previous item - it needs to be reworked ASAP. Give us a normal setup like in a typical manumatic - with the row and the +/- area next to it off to the side.
Areas I liked:
- Great visibility. You can tell where the corners are within inches after a few minutes of driving.
- Fantastic space. When I put my seat in the proper position, it was 6 inches forward from the rearmost setting, so the rear cargo area was 2 feet long!.
- Pleastic exterior panels. Love this feature - and they are swappable in a couple of hours for another color. Like old Saturns, but all around. No more mangled bumpers anymore - just replace the plastic parts and it's like a new paintjob!
- Stereo is awesome. The door panels are tightly closed and attached with gaskets. The effect is that the speakers use the inside of the door panel acts like a big speaker box - moreso than most of the competition. As first I thought there was a small sub in the car.
- Cute, tons of modifications and such.
- Great Seat.
- Very very quiet inside.
And lastly;
Areas that need to be fixed or it will tank in the U.S.:
- The transmission is the worst thing I've driven.
Ever.
The electronics get SO in the way that it literally takes 2 whole seconds to shift while in manual mode. There's zero precision. It literally feels as bad as the worst CVT you've ever driven. Rubbery and vague.
Now, the engine is perfect. It revs and zips upwards and I have the accelerator down halfway and shift... And it revs A THOUSAND RPM HIGHER, almost hitting the rev limiter before it actually decides to actually shift. It's the first time ever that I've had so much lag in a transmission that it actually over-revs the engine on an upshift! It was literally: Shift - shift - SHIFT NOW ALREADY!"
Mercedes needs to take this transmission apart and figure out what in the world is wrong with it before they sell this in the U.S., because it's absolutely horrid. Far worse than the previous one, which, while rubbery, at least did shift when you told it to.
Fantastic car - but the transmission will make people literally think that they are driving a Yugo again. Instant sales killer for most peolpe.(and all I heard people talking about at the drive when I asked about what needed to be improved). I've been waiting for this car for five years and love it to death and even as a 100% loyal person/fan of it, the transmission even made ME not want to buy it like it is right now - not unless I can at least get a real manual gearbox or something.
Like test driving a Ferrari that smells like manure - lovely car but the smell ruins it. That transmission is the manure in the Smart that kills an otherwise "must-buy" car.
EDIT:
Let me explain it a bit better :P
The lag was so horrendous that by the time it shifted, I would have been shifting AGAIN into the next gear at full throttle in any other car. Rev.... lag lag lag - shift. This is 100% of the reason for it being slow. The car while in gear weighs so little that it leaps ahead like a Cooper S. Very quick. Zip.. lag lag lag... next gear.. zip! lag lag lag oh god shift already! Zip! lag lag - hitting the rev limiter wasting time...
And every time it did this, it revved right past its power band and LOST speed! Brand new car and it behaved EXACTLY like a dying clutch.
A proper 5 or 6 speed manual would increase the 0-60 times on this car by 4-5 seconds.
Supposedly, the automanual box works a lot faster if you lift off the gas to take the load off the tranny when it shifts. Keeping your foot in it the whole time slows it down a bunch. The road tour is coming around here at the end of August, so I'll try it out then.
I'd rather have the first generation Mini's CVT in it, it was so awful. Okay, maybe not - lol - but I'd definately want a 5 speed true manual.
Most of the people promoting the SMART car on this website have never driven a SMART car.
Which is why it doesn't make money.
So you don't need to drive it to know those numbers, was my point.
There are plenty of road tests from the UK that warn potential buyers of shortcomings when driving one.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Why go to the very expensive Prius or Smart to pick up a few MPG. The Prius of course is a very nice car, and I've not been exposed to a Smart, but most of the current "economy cars" are a step backwards if real economy is your desire.
My sisters 2006 Prius which is used mostly for commuting gets her 45-50 mpg 54was her best on a 2 day freeway jaunt. Replacing the transmission, if needed, would be $8000.
While I will call the Prius expensive I wouldn't say its real expensive. The Smart on the other hand starts at around $12K, not many cars less than that these days.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The Prius transmission thing doesn't bother me too much, enough cars have CVTs that I am not too concern.
The Prius is more about what they call now (new buzz word) "feel good marketing", and we'll be seeing more of that as time goes on and gas prices go up. The "feel good" product makes you feel good about buying it even though it's not justifiable in dollars and sense.
Even a Kia Spectra puts that to shame nowadays. Cars have come a loooong way.
MrShiftright
Visiting Host
Car of the year? Heck, car of the century. :shades:
Shifty
Just Visiting.
Then, add to the fact that with all the tighter tolerances that engines and other components are built to these days, the gasolines and oils and other fluids of yesteryear would probably ruin a modern car pretty quickly.
Finally, the second a modern car came into contact with one of those old late 50's behemoths, that would be the end of it. Whereas on an old car, you could get by with just banging the fender back out, tying the bumper to a tree and backing up to straighten it out, etc, most new cars would be reduced to a pile of rubbish. On the plus side though, the driver of the modern car would come out much better. Unless it's a mis-matched situation like a Kia Rio getting into a tangle with a '58 Imperial, perhaps.
Today, you can buy a subcompact and just change the oil, swap out tires and brake pads and turn the key for the next 150,000 miles.
Can you imagine putting a 5 year warranty on a 1958 Chevrolet?!!!
As for the longer warranties of today, I imagine that you can actually thank longer-term financing for that, as most lenders probably don't like the idea of you taking out a 4-7 year loan on something that only has a 1 year warranty! Back in the 50's, it's doubtful that most people financed a car for more than 24 months or so. Ford had a promotion called "$56 a month for a '56 Ford", but I have no idea what the interest rate was, how many months that was for, or the loan amount.
I have no idea what kind of terms auto loans had back then, because in those days, all my family members usually paid cash. Now that's not to say we were rich...just that my ancestors either bought used, or scrimped and saved until they could afford to buy it outright, borrow from another family member, or any combination thereof.
I do remember my Mom taking out a loan for her '86 Monte Carlo. It was a 48 month term, the APR was 2.9%, and the payment was about $272 per month. That was the first car she'd ever financed.
mrShiftright
Visiting Host
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Volvo did a 3/unlimited mileage bumper to bumper. Surface rust was covered for 3 years, body rust for 5 years, and structural rust for 6 years.
Cadillac was pretty bold on the new FWD DeVille/Fleetwood. 12/12k bumper to bumper, 4/50k for powertrain, major FWD components, front suspension, factory air (was there any other kind in a Caddy by this time? :confuse: ) and electrical systems, and body rust for 5/100K.
In contrast, the older RWD Brougham was 12/12K bumper to bumper, 24/24K major powertrain (36/50K on Diesels, YAY!
In general, GM, Ford, Nissan, Honda, and Toyota did 12/12K for the entire car, 24/24K for powertrain, and 3 years for rust.
Now that I think about it, the warrany on my 2000 Intrepid wasn't really so hot. 3 years, 36K miles, bumper-to-bumper, but with a laundry list of things that weren't included in that "bumper to bumper". Some obvious things, like brake pads and rotors, but also more subtle things, like the seals around the doors, which tend to fail at 37 months/37K miles. :mad:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118055889115119023-search.html?KEYWORDS=high+mileage+cars&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month
The author claims that some of the small cars of 30+ years ago actually attained 50 mpg ... including the Chevrolet Chevette.
Mine never got beyond 30 mpg.
Somehow that never bothered me. I wonder why?
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I can't vouch for 1958, but my '57 DeSoto is 50 years old this year. Get back to me in 150 years and show me a still-running 2007 Kia. :P
Anyway, while a CRX might have been EPA-rated at 52/57 (FWIW, there was a 45/50 version as well...maybe that was with California/high-altitude tuning?), a 1985 Toyota Camry, with the 2.0/4-speed auto was rated at 27/32. The most economical Accord automatic was 25/30. I think that was with the 3-bbl carb. There's another one listed on the EPA's website that was rated at 23/27 with the automatic. I guess that was the fuel injected model. The Nissan Stanza is showing two ratings, 23/26 and 24/28. Both of them 2.0/automatic. It was hampered by a 3-speed though, whereas the Accord and Camry had a 4-speed.
Anyway, fast forward to today. An automatic Civic is rated at 30/40. And it's notably quicker than any of those old cars. Judging from my old 1985 Consumer Guide, an Accord automatic with the more powerful engine would do 0-60 in about 11.5 seconds (remember, this is CG, not MT, C&D, etc...not gonna find any 3.9 second Catalina 2+2's here
Also, could you even get air conditioning in one of those 52/57 CRX'es? Often, those little cars that were tuned for economy back then forced you to forgo such frivolous things as air conditioning and power steering. Although I guess power steering may not be a necessity on such a lightweight car. Still, I drove a Dodge Colt once without it. I had no trouble with it, but it's not something that they're going to show an advertisement with a dolled-up housewife turning with her pinky!
As for bigger cars, like the current Accord, Camry, and Altima, if you really want to see how far fuel efficiency has come, compare them to something like a 1985 Bonneville, Gran Fury, or LTD/Marquis (the small, Fairmont-based one, not the Crown Vic/Grand Marquis). That's really the type of car they've become...a midsize. And in some cases, the upper end of the midsize bracket. Back in 1985, the Japanese had not even entered this market yet. At least, nothing they were offering here in the United States. The roomiest car they offered in 1985 was probably the Camry. The Cressida was bigger, but I don't think it was as space-efficient. And while the Maxima was about Camry-sized, again, it just didn't feel as roomy inside.
james
Unfortunately, rust was a problem eventually...
But, the reason I didn't care about the warranty? I never used it.. That car never went back to the dealer for anything... Probably didn't have any repair of note, until around 70K miles.
The Ford? 9 trips to the dealer under that one year of warranty... By the time the car had 48K miles, it was pretty much worn out. (of course, I was 18 when I bought it.. might have been a factor..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
You could get 30 more HP in the DX model, I think it was, for $300.
Think about that - who wouldn't pay $10 per horsepower? For real gains, that is.
When car shopping in HS, I test drove a no AC no PS '87 Civic sedan, but that was the only car so equipped I'd seen. All the CRXs I looked at (HF/SI) and Civic (DX/SI) had AC. I also found that unless the front tires are flat, power steering is pretty unnecessary on those cars.
I was in HS when a lot of the late 80s/early 90s cheap cars were around and I don't remember them being that terrible.
It's not "your" car, it's any '58 car. They were inefficient, heavy, built poorly and kind of primitive. But they had style and heavy steel, that's true. That's why we like them. They aren't all made out of plastics and electronics, neither of which we can repair very well. Old cars "need" us, new cars don't.