What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

kyfdx

Preaching to the choir...

I will say this about no PS... It took two hands to park my '82 Accord...

Even though A/C was installed at the dealer, all of the cars were set up for it. It wasn't any different than the factory A/C..

I didn't have A/C, because I couldn't afford it.. I was 32 yrs old before getting a car with A/C, and it only had it, in theory..

lilengineerboy

I didn't have A/C, because I couldn't afford it.. I was 32 yrs old before getting a car with A/C, and it only had it, in theory..

Yeah I was in my late 20s before having 2 cars with working AC and it required a hand-me-down. Of course, now I am stuck with those to cars for eternity apparently. :P

andre1969

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.

Yeah, but some of that inefficient simplicity actually works in the car's favor as it ages, as there's less to go wrong with it as it ages. Probably the most complicated piece of "electronics" in a 1957-58 car is the radio, or perhaps the fuseable link setup (I dunno when they started putting fuse boxes in cars), but my DeSoto doesn't have one). In contrast, the typical modern car probably has a computer system that makes the Hubble Space Telescope look like Atari's Pong.

There's crap in a modern car that can fail and totally incapacitate the car, that didn't even exist in cars 50, 40, or even 20 years ago.

Old cars "need" us to maintain them and keep them running, but new cars "need" us to watch more closely for things like fluid leaks, overheating, and such. Overheat some old iron lump of a monster V-8, and you just let it cool down and try to limp it home. Try that on many modern cars, and you end up with an expensive, molten pile of mess (although I guess some of those limp-mode engines can alleviate this). Let your old iron lump of an engine sludge up, and it helps plug up any oil leaks! Try that on a newer engine, and you'll ruin it.

Now I'm not trying to make the case that an old car is superior in every respect than a new car. Just trying to even the playing field, show that each end of the spectrum has its pluses and minuses.

Mr_Shiftright

Well I hear you but aside from looks I can't really see any plusses on the side of old cars....new cars do everything better IMO. A new subcompact will outlast, out-accelerate, out-brake, out-turn just about any old 1958 car. In some cases, you can even carry the same amount of cargo...especially compared to say the old big coupes.

I suppose one could argue that old cars are easier to fix but that's sort of a negative, since I could say yeah but you don't have to fix a new car very often whereas you are always fixing old ones (if you use them daily).

On the other hand, the modern subcompact is a throw-away item. You drive it for 175K or so and then junk it. it's not something one will love and restore I don't think. It's more of an appliance and doesn't have the personality or character (or quirks or eccentricities) of older cars.

ateixeira

As late as the 80s, I remember having to crank the starter over and over and over again to get the engines to start.

With modern fuel injection we're totally spoiled. Three turns and I usually let the key go, expeting the engine to start.

british_rover

All of our new cars have auto start features where the engine keeps cranking till it starts the moment you turn the key.

I get so used to starting them that I forget to hold the key for other cars.

andre1969

I suppose one could argue that old cars are easier to fix but that's sort of a negative, since I could say yeah but you don't have to fix a new car very often whereas you are always fixing old ones (if you use them daily).

I wonder though, if a lot of the issues with trying to drive an old car on a regular basis come not so much from the fact that they build them better nowadays, but simply because the fact that old age is setting in.

For example, if I tried to drive my '57 DeSoto on a daily basis, I know things would wear out. But then again, it's also 50 years old! Often things just break from old age. However, I wonder how my DeSoto would have been when it was, say, a 7 year old used car? Would it have been much more troubleprone than a 7 year old used car today?

I kept pretty good records of my '68 Dart. I figure that over the 85,000 miles that I drove it, I probably put about $7600 into it. That doesn't include its $1700 purchase price, but includes tagging, titling, the initial inspection, registration, and all maintenance and repairs done to it. So basically, everything except for gas and insurance.

HOWEVER. I bought this car in 1992. It had 253,000 miles on it. Now, let's suppose we jump ahead in time to 2031, and dig up a 24 year old 2007 model year car with 253,000 miles on it. Would that car be able to make it another 85,000 miles as reliably, or as cheaply? Of course, you'd have to adjust for inflation to really make it equal out.

Now some things definitely would be cheaper. For example, that Dart went through front brakes every 10-15,000 miles, and rears every 15-20,000. In contrast, my Intrepid (only new car I really can use as a reference point) gets 30-40K out of the fronts and around 50K out of the rears. And some things seem to cancel out. A modern rotor will warp if you look at it the wrong way, but those old drums would score if you got sloppy and let the shoes wear down to the rivets. Modern rotors are pretty cheap too, whereas the old-style 1-piece rotors, or drums, are pretty expensive.

That Dart also went through tires pretty quickly, but that might've been more of a treadwear rating thing than the car itself. I think the most I ever got out of a set of tires on the Dart was 30,000, but my Intrepid had its EOM Eagle GAs worn down to racing slicks in about 30,000, as well. Belts/hoses/coolant flush was a 3/36K thing, whereas these days the belts are often a 60-80K think, while coolant is often 5/100K. They say you were supposed to change the spark plugs, cap, rotor, points, and condenser every 12,000 miles, but I let them go about 40,000 once. That's one area where they're really improved. The distributor is history, which takes away most of those tuneup parts, while spark plugs can often go 100,000 miles or more.

Mr_Shiftright

1958 is a long way from 1968. In 1958, you'd be lucky to get 100,000 miles out of an engine before it needed a rebuild. And of course, like you say, brakes, tires, shocks---all those things wore out at an alarming rate on 1958 cars...as well as rattles, water leaks, overheating from corrosion, and the usual massive rust issues in the late 50s cars.

A Dodge Dart is a lot more "modern", with an alternator, torsion bar suspension and possibly disk brakes up front, as well as tried and true automatics. Still it's a primitive car by modern standards.Even if you could resurrect a new one from the grave, it would be the rare person who could tolerate driving it every day.

People who extol the Dodge Dart would quickly realize that this is all nostalgia; in reality, it's hardly fit for modern times.

andre1969

With modern fuel injection we're totally spoiled. Three turns and I usually let the key go, expeting the engine to start.

Funny you'd mention that. I've found that whenever I drive my uncle's '03 Corolla, chances are it won't start for me on the first time. I think it's just a matter of what I'm used to, though. On my Intrepid, you just turn the key and the engine starts to catch almost immediately. I let off the key and it's firing right up. Even with my older carbureted cars, the moment I hear the engine starting to catch, let off the key and it does its thing. But with the Corolla, it's like you have to let the engine get further into its "catching mode", for lack of a better term, before letting off the key. Or else you just get "failure to launch", I guess.

I think Chryslers usually did have quicker starters, though. I've noticed that my old Mopars tend to fire up more quickly than my old GM cars.

andre1969

All of our new cars have auto start features where the engine keeps cranking till it starts the moment you turn the key.

I had a '69 Bonneville that would do that. Of course, it wasn't a feature, but a defect...stuck solenoid. You either prayed that you could get the car to fire up, or had to yank a battery cable while it was still cranking, which somehow would always "reset" the solenoid.

andre1969

Still it's a primitive car by modern standards.Even if you could resurrect a new one from the grave, it would be the rare person who could tolerate driving it every day.

And to think I drove mine halfway across the country!

A Dodge Dart is a lot more "modern", with an alternator, torsion bar suspension and possibly disk brakes up front, as well as tried and true automatics.

The '57 Mopars had a torsion bar suspension as well. In fact, some of components like the ball joints are the same component in a '57 DeSoto as they are in a '68 Dart! Which kind of scares me, since the DeSoto outweighs it by an easy half-ton. So the part's either overbuilt for the Dart, or under-built for the DeSoto! Disc brakes were something like a $23 option on the Dart in '68, but I've heard they were unreliable back then, and you were probably better off with the drums. Plus, disc brakes made power assist mandatory. And oddly, I could always get the all-disc brakes in my Intrepid to lock up more easily than I could the all-drum brakes in the Dart. Maybe because they were nonpower, gave better road feel, and easier to modulate? As for transmissions, that would be the Torqueflite, which came out in 1957, and Chrysler pretty much got right from the start. I'm sure it was improved by 1968, though. My DeSoto has the heavy-duty 727, whereas the Dart has the lightweight 904, which I think came out in 1960. As for alternators, is it that hard to convert an old generator car to an alternator?

stever

Try the three second trick to let the fuel injection system "prime" - turn the ignition on and wait two or three seconds and then see if it cranks immediately.

Making a daily driver out of an old car isn't all that safe. Like the restored Mustangs out there that act like Pinto's (link).

I keep thinking an old Bug would be fun to have but people keep dying in them when they get out in traffic. I'd sooner take my chances in a newer subcompact, and be glad I never got in a wreck in any of mine.

andre1969

Try the three second trick to let the fuel injection system "prime" - turn the ignition on and wait two or three seconds and then see if it cranks immediately.

I'll have to try that tomorrow...I'm borrowing my uncle's Corolla again to go up to Carlisle. I think the main thing is simply that I'm used to the Intrepid, where practically all you have to do is turn the key, let go almost immediately, and it fires up.

Making a daily driver out of an old car isn't all that safe. Like the restored Mustangs out there that act like Pinto's

Yeah, those earlier Mustangs always scared me, as did ANY Ford car with the "drop in" gas tank. I think it's just worse with the smaller old cars, because they're that much more fragile than the bigger ones. Back in the old days, they tended to cheap out on smaller cars compared to the big ones, and some of that corner-cutting could be downright dangerous.

Mr_Shiftright

Well gee Andre, EVERYBODY in 1968 drove 1968 cars across the country! :P

But you wouldn't do it now, or if you did, you'd be sorry. Back-breaking seats, engine and transmission heat and engine fumes wafting up from the floorboards, wind noise and rattles thanks to the blind people who built it, spongy bias ply tires, brakes that fade like the last horse you bet on, and a steering box that waits a few minutes before turning so that it's sure it got the right message.

stever

If the trick works, you'll have to give the credit to Juice (ateixeira). That's where I learned it.

british_rover

I do that all the time too. Seems to make the engine start easier and probably saves some wear on the starter.

ateixeira

On Subarus you can hear the fuel pump priming up when you turn the key to the ON position (not start).

Whirr.

Actually the way I learned was my buddy in his '72 Camaro SS. That fuel pump was LOUD. Aftermarket I'm sure. It would go.

WHOOOOOONK

Then he's start it. So I guess when I heard it on the Subaru I knew what it was.

andre1969

Well gee Andre, EVERYBODY in 1968 drove 1968 cars across the country! Well in 1968, my mother hadn't even met my father yet, so obviously I didn't do it in 1968. DUH!! :confuse: I did this in 1995, and by then I'd imagine the car had about 285,000 miles on it.

But you wouldn't do it now, or if you did, you'd be sorry. Back-breaking seats, engine and transmission heat and engine fumes wafting up from the floorboards, wind noise and rattles thanks to the blind people who built it, spongy bias ply tires, brakes that fade like the last horse you bet on, and a steering box that waits a few minutes before turning so that it's sure it got the right message

Okay now, a lot of that is exaggeration. The seats in that Dart were actually more comfortable for me than most modern cars! It's not that the seats themselves were better, but I could stretch out to a more comfortable position. I find most modern cars to be lacking in lower back support. They tend to put me into a slumping position. And if I can't stretch my legs out, my thighs are hanging above the seat cushion.

As for engine heat, well I think they used what? About a 160-170 degree thermostat back then? Cars run a lot hotter nowadays. They have to, because of the emissions controls. As for wind noise and rattles, that's what an aftermarket AM/FM stereo is for. I had radial tires on the car, 205/70/R14 up front and 225/70/R14 in back, so I have no idea how bad it would've been with bias ply. Brakes on that car were actually pretty good. They'd fade on a hot day if you slammed them on 4 or 5 times, but they were perfectly fine for everyday driving and would hold up in the occasional panic stop. Just don't do 4-5 panic stops in a row, but how often does that happen? And I never thought that car had bad steering response. It didn't provide much road feel (until the pump failed, at least), but it was quick enough to respond.

That was back in 1995 though, when I was 25. I'm 37 now, so I might not be as tolerant. Still, 2 years ago, I went 500 miles to pick up a '76 LeMans coupe. I found it very comfortable to drive on the way back. It was a lot more comfortable than my Intrepid, which starts to annoy me after about 45 minutes of driving. Or my uncle's Corolla, which takes more like 10 minutes. However, in this case it was a top-level Grand LeMans with a power seat, so I was able to get it adjusted to exactly the right position for me, whereas a nonpower seat might not be able to do that. I dunno if it had better padding/support, though. I know it has nicer vinyl than a base LeMans, but may not have any more padding.

andre1969

I'll have to try that trick on my Intrepid sometime, to see if I can hear the pump working. It just always started up quickly enough that I never had an issue.

I remember one problem I used to have with it though, back when it was new, is that sometimes it wouldn't go into gear. I discovered later that it was some kind of safety feature. I had a habit, especially when I delivered pizzas, of throwing the car into gear the instant the engine fired up. You know, right at that initial moment where the revs spike up before settling down. Well, my older cars would just go into gear, but the Intrepid had some safety thing in it that wouldn't allow it to engage until the engine settled back down. It wasn't a major thing...just wait a couple seconds before putting it into gear, but it was annoying when you weren't used to it!

I wonder if most cars are like that nowadays?

Mr_Shiftright

I just drove a '71 Dart about...oh...one month ago.

it was awful, truly. All the down side of an old car with none of the fun part IMO. I failed to see the allure in 1968, and I fail to see it now.

If it were a big block Mopar, well sure, all that smoke and noise made the sloppiness worth it....or a '68 MGB or Alfa---pure heaven.

But the allure of driving what is really a civilian taxi cab----er...I didn't "get it".

plekto

Better yet, take a look at a 1960s era Mercedes. Very modern, right down to crumple zones, shoulder belts, disc brakes... (Volvo copied almost everything Mercedes did back then, BTW - just for less money, so the real credit for safety and so on isn't theirs)

Wonderful cars to drive. So un-like a typical Ford or GM behemoth as well.

andre1969

I forget what year it was, but last year at the Hershey PA car show/swap meet, I sat in this Benz. For my comfort at least, I thought it was pretty awful. Seat didn't go back far enough, cushions were too small, center console got in the way, steering wheel was too big, etc. Simply put, I just didn't fit. Now to be honest, there was a first-gen Seville there too that I sat in, and I think it was intended to be a competitor to this size Benz. I didn't think it was much more comfortable.

I'd rank both the Benz and the Seville well below my Dart, in terms of seat comfort. For my body at least. However, that's going to vary from person to person, and no two people are built exactly the same. I've always held the belief that there are two basic components of driver comfort: seat design and room. No matter how well designed a seat may be, it's absolutely useless if the driver can't fit comfortably in the space provided.

Now there was an '80's S-class at the Spring Carlisle I sat in...this car. I thought it was comfortable, although the seat took a while to get used to. Instead of just over-stuffing a seat cushion to make it feel like a livingroom sofa, it felt like they over-stuffed a seat cushion and then slipped a board in, underneath the leather/M-B tex (I forget what it had) but above the padding. So if you rocked around, it felt like the whole board rocked with you, on top of that padding, instead of you just swishing around directly on the padding. It felt like it would be a good long-distance car.

Mr_Shiftright

Well I don't where you are coming from with this, but a car with supportive seating and great suspension is going to make a Dodge Dart feel like you're driving your mom's sofa to town.

The reason a car like a Dart or an old Cadillac is so utterly fatiguing is that you have no support for your body, and your back and leg muscles are constantly working to keep you steady.

Also at high speeds in cars like this you are basically out of control, but you don't know it because all your sensory data is cut off. You get to where you are going and you don't realize how lucky you are to have arrived safely.

Many Americans complained bitterly about the 60s Mercedes because they were used to soft pillowy rides and "dial a phone" steering and laughable braking that could give the false impression of working because they propelled you so easily through the windshield with just a touch of the toe.

But as time went on, Americans grew up and got very used to superior braking and handling, and they aren't going back now.

This is why a 60s Benz feels more modern, because it is competent. 60s American cars are fun to look at and great for burning rubber but they are incompetent in braking and handling...some are better than others of course, but none are really very good compared to even a 1990 Geo Prizm.

American cars back then weren't all bad. The automatics were much better than Benz or BMW and they were probably more reliable, too.

Simplicity DOES often lead to reliability, that is quite true and a good point you made.

lessachs

I grew up owning some of those "old cars": A 1960s Chevy Biscayne, a Ford Falcon, a mid-70s Dodge Dart along with a Chevy Citation and Chevy Celebrity in the 80s. In those days I accepted as a matter of course things like jerky transmissions, brake problems, overheated radiators and all kinds of rattles and stuff falling apart. The Japanese changed that. I bought my first Camry in 1986. I've owned a Camry ever since.

lilengineerboy

On those aforementioned Hondas, one of the 10yr/100k failures is the main relay, the relay that kicks on the fuel pump to pressurize the fuel system when you turn the key. No gas, no start.
I also remember in the Aerostar my mom test drove back in the day had a thing hanging from the mirror that said not to push the gas when starting the car.

texases

I had a '72 Duster all through college (after surviving a '65 Mustang that did burn up later with my bil driving), and did not like the Houston/Cincinnati commute I had to make 2-3 times/year. After 2 hrs it was time to stop and walk around. Went from that to the Recaro clones in a Scirocco - what a difference, great seats, never could understand why everyone didn't just copy them.

plekto

Or you could just get one of these:

http://www.globalcar.com/datasheet/BMW/1972BMW3.0CSi.htm

Nothing at all to complain about - 110% awesome.

For the younger crowd, that's a BMW 3.0 CSi. This was the forerunner to the famous M1/M series. If you ever get a chance to drive one, do it - it's every bit as wonderful as a Porsche 928.(another car everyone should experience at least once)

Of course, speaking of the 928, it first came out in... 1977(1978 for sale in the U.S. - a few months after Europe)! Even today, it feels as modern as any car - goes silly fast, and looks awesome doing it.

But my heart always loves the old Mercedes'. That one in the picture that was posted was a 1968-1973(iirc) 280SE. This was essentially a bit of a franken-cedes. Old styling but weird 1970s bits stuck on here and there. I really prefer this instead:

http://www.delest.nl/media/img/DCP_5769.JPG

The seats were filled with horsehair padding and had springs and so on in them. Properly re-done like new, they are superb. A lot of cars, though, have seats that look okay but are a squishy mess after 40+ years.

Btw - the car weighed 3000lbs! And maybe 10 lbs of that was plastic. It tells you something about how silly heavy cars these days are when something that feels like a metal tank when you drive it weighs hundreds of pounds less than a tiny econobox with paper-thin sheetmetal.

P.S.
http://www.cs-zone.com/model/BMW 3.0 CSL.htm
This was the race version of the car. Look at the silly HP to weight ratio. Oh - first car with ABS, too.

Specs:
3.0CSi 2985cc SOHC I6 efi 200bhp 140mph 7.5 sec -
3.0CSL(May '71) 2985cc SOHC I6 Carb 180bhp 132mph 8.0 sec -
3.0CSL(Aug '72) 3003cc SOHC I6 efi 200bhp 146mph 6.9 sec -
3.0CSL(Aug '73) 3153cc SOHC I6 efi 206bhp 137mph 6.8 sec 22 mpg
3.0CSL Group 2 Racer ('73) 3498cc SOHC I6 Mech Fuel Injection 370bhp 167mph 4.5 sec -
3.0CSL Group 2 Racer ('74) 3210cc DOHC I6 EFI (?) 480bhp 180mph - -
3.0CSL Group 4 Racer ('76) 3210cc DOHC I6 Turbo 750bhp 212mph - -

Mr_Shiftright

Moving to my summer digs, and stuffed the Scion xA with:

1 mountain bike, complete, front wheel, one pedal off.
4 boxes of books
air compressor
battery charger
two backpacks, stuffed
a clothes hamper
2 bike helmets
ukulele
2 blankets
computer
misc. detritus

(used the passenger seat, too)

Try THAT in a Dodge Dart! (no way without bungee cords for the trunk lid).

ateixeira

Gotta love a hatch.

ukulele, eh?

texases

You got me on the bike, but a my '72 Duster had a huge trunk, was able to get everything for college, inside, including stereo with 2 Advent speakers. My roomate with a Vega claimed his could hold more, never got around to proving him wrong.

Mr_Shiftright

I think singing "Tiny Bubbles" by Don Ho (RIP) would be appropriate for a subcompact topic don't you?

A 4-door hatch is about the most versatile vehicle configuration I can think of....you can haul about as much as a compact pickup (except in height of course), you can tow a small light trailer, you can carry 4 people, you can use a roof rack, you can park easily, you save $$ on gas, it's fun to drive up to maybe 300 miles a day, and, if designed right, can be reasonably attractive though not "sporty".

There's really no other config that does so many things as well, even if the 4-door hatch doesn't "excel" in any one thing.

Rather than calling them "cross overs" they are really "goes across" vehicles, in that they are multi-function.

Station wagons tried to do this but they were either too big and thirsty, or 2-door wagons, which severely limited their use.

british_rover

detritus

hahah you used detritus.

That is one of my favorite words.

texases

One other major plus for some of them - headroom. Why is there no 'normal' car with the headroom of an Xb? That is high on my next buy list because I can fit with my 6' 2" son in the seat behind me, no problem.

Mr_Shiftright

I'm also 6-2 and have plenty of headroom, which is good because I'm going to buy one of those airline travel seats, that you can inflate...my butt gets sore in those xA seats....they are okay but marginal for long trips...

What the xA needs is about 2" more legroom, but that's tough to do---I can see the design limitations...either the car starts to grow in the back or you have to lose rear legroom, which is already marginal. Then suddenly an xA becomes a Matrix which becomes a Ford Expedition and the 1.5L becomes 1.8L become 2.4L become 5.7L V8--LOL!

ROVER -- I also love the word "porcine" but haven't had the chance to use it yet.

british_rover

ROVER -- I also love the word "porcine" but haven't had the chance to use it yet.

You could use it to describe the previously mentioned expedition... :P

andre1969

You got me on the bike, but a my '72 Duster had a huge trunk, was able to get everything for college, inside, including stereo with 2 Advent speakers. My roomate with a Vega claimed his could hold more, never got around to proving him wrong.

While still on the Dart/Valiant "A"-body, the Duster's rear quarter area was substantially altered, and gave a much deeper trunk. IIRC, the Duster/Demon had a trunk capacity in the league of 19-20 cubic feet. That's actually in the league of some some full-sized cars of the era! The Darts and Valiants with the sloped-off rear end, which started in '70 for the Darts and the Valiant Scamp hardtop, and '74 for the Valiant sedan, only had about 15 cubic feet of trunk space, and it was pretty shallow. The '67-69 Dart, which had a more squared-off rump, had about 17 cubic feet, but again, it was shallow.

Comparing a sedan/hardtop like a Dart to a hatchback like a Scion for cargo capacity isn't really an apples-to-apples comparison, though. True, you might be able to get some larger, bulkier items in the hatchback due to its rear opening. But if you're loading a lot of smaller items, like boxes and such, the Dart would probably hold more. The Scion is rated at a maximum cargo capacity of 33 cubic feet, with the seat folded down. Seat up, it's 11.7, but utilizing that 11.7 means you're going to be packing the area behind the seat up to the ceiling.

Anyway, compare that to the 15-17 cubic foot trunk of a Dart/Valiant, or the 19-20 cubic foot of a Duster. But then, factor in the back seat space. Probably about 40 cubic feet or more in a Dart/Valiant sedan. Maybe 35 in a hardtop, and maybe 32 in a Duster/Demon (shorter wheelbase, all of it taken out in the back seat area). And for loading purposes, the passenger-side seat of a Mopar A-body is going to be much larger than the passenger side seat of an xA.

When I moved a few years ago, we brought the 32" tv set over in my roommate's 1998 Tracker. I didn't want to bounce it around in the truck, and it wouldn't fit in any of my cars, not even the largest. However, I don't take that for an instant to mean that my buddy's '98 Tracker convertible can automatically haul more than, say, my '79 New Yorker or '67 Catalina. Essentially it boils down to a 2-person vehicle that can hold a 32" tv, whereas the other two are about as 6-passenger as a car can get, and still end up with ~20 cubic foot trunks.

Another thing to keep in mind is cargo weight capacity. GVWR of a Scion xA is 3305 pounds. Curb weight is 2340. The spread (not necessarily the recommended weight limit though) is 965 pounds, which is actually quite impressive for something that small. However, the GVWR of your typical 70's Dart is around 4800 pounds. Even the 6-cyl models. Curb weight was more like 3000-3200 pounds for the 6-cyl models, so you're looking at a spread of 1600-1800 pounds. There are full-sized pickup trucks and SUVs out there that aren't built that rugged!

bprenderson

Guys,

I think if you have a porcine vehicle, filled with detritus, it may have a deleterious (my Fav) effect on the driver and passengers!

Bubba

kyfdx

Pretty big word for a guy named Bubba..

andre1969

Why is there no 'normal' car with the headroom of an Xb? That is high on my next buy list because I can fit with my 6' 2" son in the seat behind me, no problem.

I've sat in the xB, and it looks to me like they put more effort into the back seat than the front! It's also not really a car for design purposes, but a scaled-down minivan, so that's going to help out with headroom most likely. I felt it to be sorely lacking in front seat legroom, though.

Most sedans and coupes these days really don't have a flat roof. It used to be that you'd have a windshield rake, then a flat roof that would either slope off toward the back, or just drop straight down if they were going for that formal look. These days though, the roof is usually just an arc from the base of the A-pillar to the base of the C-pillar. Usually that puts peak headroom right over the driver (depending on where you have your seat located), but will often hurt headroom in the back seat.

**Edit: That was the first-gen xB I was referring to. Is the new model out yet?

texases

Mine (198 cid) took me through 6 yrs of college and a year of work, then my friend used it for another 2 years, only stopped when someone hit it on the street. I even towed a Uhaul with it cross country. Only significant problem was replacing the rear axle in the dorm parking lot (probably as a result of the U-Haul experiment ).

stever

A ukulele fits ok in a Scion xA unless you are one of Iz's cousins maybe. (You know the Green Rose Hula btw?).

Let's see y'all beat this:




My wife drove to Anchorage from Cali with the woman holding the cat in this rig back in 1979 or so, when the Alcan was mostly gravel.

That reminds me - check out the Vacation Travel Plans, Suggestions, Advice discussion and post some stories.

texases

Yep, sat it it 2 wks ago. Same good headroom, I didn't notice a problem with legroom. And funny you mention minivan styling - were you referring to the fact that Toyota used the small rwd Chevy van (Asto?) as styling inspiration for the first Xb?

Mr_Shiftright

Checking the oil must have been fun.

Probably the most inefficient use of space in the history of Automotive Design were those big late 1960s American coupes. You could push the front seat back so far that the driver couldn't even touch the pedals (gee, that's useful!), while the rear passenger broke his neck trying to scrunch under the severe drop in the roof line. The trunk was massive but shallow, which was great for hauling manhole covers but not an upright suitcase. In front, the engine was given lavish accomodations, including about 2 feet of dead space in front of the radiator which held---nothing.

Add a cast-iron V8 engine and automatic tranmsission weighing cumulatively about as much as a MINI Cooper, and enough width to seat seven children across but with seat belts for only two, and you have about the most useless car in the world.

At least if it were a convertible you could carry a Christmas tree....

andre1969

Probably the most inefficient use of space in the history of Automotive Design were those big late 1960s American coupes. You could push the front seat back so far that the driver couldn't even touch the pedals (gee, that's useful!), while the rear passenger broke his neck trying to scrunch under the severe drop in the roof line. The trunk was massive but shallow, which was great for hauling manhole covers but not an upright suitcase. In front, the engine was given lavish accomodations, including about 2 feet of dead space in front of the radiator which held---nothing.

Nah, the 70's were worse when it came to inefficiency. Now the closest thing I've had to a big, late 60's domestic coupe is my '67 Catalina convertible. It's about 215" long. Seat goes back pretty far, easily enough for me to be comfortable. I can also fit in the back seat, with the front seat all the way back. And with the top up, there's still plenty of headroom. Trunk space is reduced a bit by the space the top folds down into, but in those old-school cars, that was pretty much wasted area anyway, that raised spot over the rear axle that's far forward and hard to reach. The trunk itself is actually pretty deep.

Now for an interesting comparison between the 60's and 70's, and how inefficient they got, look at my '68 Dart compared to my '76 LeMans. The Dart's about 196" long, the LeMans is about 208". The Dart has a bigger trunk, about 17 cubic feet compared to maybe 15 for the LeMans. Legroom is an awkward comparison though. Since the LeMans has a power seat, I can adjust it to where I'm incredibly comfortable. In fact, I COULD adjust it to where I'd have to stretch to reach the pedals. Useless for my needs, but a taller driver would see the benefit. Anyway, when I put the seat to where I'm comfortable, I'd say it's better than the Dart, but then the back seat area is worse.

From a functional standpoint, I'd say the only advantage of the LeMans over the Dart is shoulder room. Something like 59.7" up front and 57.5" in the back, compared to around 56" front and back for the Dart. But it does come at a price, as you end up with a car that's about 6" wider, with 1.5-3.7" more shoulder room. Oh, and the trunk, while smaller, is deeper (vertical). I have a cooler that I keep beer and drinks in for when I go to the car shows. It'll fit in the LeMans, but not the Dart...it would have to go in the back seat. But it would have to fit in the back seat of an xA, too. It's not fitting in that little area in back, unless you put the seat down. :P

Oh yeah, speaking of Christmas trees...I brought one home in my Dart once. We had to tie down the trunk, but it fit.

qbrozen

Try THAT in a Dodge Dart! (no way without bungee cords for the trunk lid).

Depends on how resourceful you are. If it had a slant 6, maybe you could put the bike under the hood. ;b

Mr_Shiftright

Neither late 60s nor early 70s coupes are going to win medals for rational thought in their design.

Whatever you might think of their attractive style or formidable power, that's a poor excuse for a complete lack of design basics. It's like no one in Detroit even went to school for it.

kyfdx

I was thinking the same thing about a late-model Monte Carlo that went by me the other day...

94accord_lover

Let me put it to you this way, my grandpa is the extremely proud owner of an '06 HHR LS, and it has PLENTY of room! Seriously, I stand 6'2", I can't slide the driver's seat back all the way, it's too far from the pedals! My grandpa, who stands about 6' even, can adjust the driver's seat to where he is comfortable, and I (the 6'2" guy) can sit in the back with space between my knees and the seatback!! Lack of space? I think not! We go on day trips a lot, driving 300-400 miles a day just to go out to see what we can find. There is usually 3 or 4 of us that go, and we have no problem fitting us all comfortably in there. I went to Lowe's and got a glass shower door ( in the box), which probably stood close to 6'5", and put it into the HHR, NO problem! I simply opened the hatch, folded the rear seat, which folds down table-top flat, then folded the front passenger seat. It had to be angled, but it still fit with NO problem! There is lots of space under the front seats to put feet, and the vents cool down or warm up your toes ! My grandpa has hauled 7' boards in it, something he thought he could only do with a truck, which is exactly what he had before he traded it for the HHR. It is the ultimate road cruiser IMO, b/c he can ( and has several times before) top 36-37 m.p.g. with it. I love it, he loves it, and my dad is about to order an '08. Best vehicle to wear a bowtie since the Corvette.

ateixeira

I found it quite spacious, but I didn't like the high belt line and the chopped windows. Of course it would probably look goofy if the windows were taller.

If I put my kids in the back seat I'm not sure they'd be tall enough to see out of that thing.

Some of the materials are a bit cheap, but OK given the low price.

Mr_Shiftright

I shopped (and road tested) the HHR and while I liked some things about it very much, there were three things that deterred me from buying one: (and this is just me, so don't take it personally, okay?)

1. It struck me as very poor handling for its size. It felt like a big car trapped in the body of a little car.

2. GM makes it and it was a first year model and I became afraid, very afraid.

3. Reports of gas mileage weren't nearly as good as your report.

Glad it's worked out for you though!