What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

reddroverr

Probably some NYC'ers loudly complained.

Consumer Reports had something on this as well. Their mileage was even lower than the new standards for small cars, and about the same for larger cars. Don't ask me how and where they were driving the compacts.!?

I noticed an xD on the street. Not wild about it in person.

andre1969

I just checked the new revised ratings for my 2000 Intrepid 2.7. It had been 20/29. It's now 18/27. I think the worst I ever got out of it was maybe 17.8. And that was in the wintertime, running on that oxygenated junk that tends to lower your fuel economy, and mainly just driving back and forth to work...a commute so short that the car probably would never get a chance to fully warm up!

I checked its economy yesterday on a trip that was mostly highway, 2 people on board, speeds probably averaging around 65 with occasional jaunts up to 75. Also had the a/c on max. Even though it wasn't that hot yesterday, it's starting to fail, so putting it on max was the only way to get anything out of it! I figure I got about 28.5 mpg on that tank. And that's with a car that has 134,000 miles on it, was last tuned up at 51,000 (guess I'll find out if those spark plugs really ARE good for 100K!), and is probably no longer operating at peak performance.

As for Consumer Reports, I've often wondered how they've driven their cars. I remember an old test where they got something like 14 city/30 highway out of a 1984 Caprice with a 305 V-8. I think the EPA rating for the 1985 version was around 17/24. My grandparents got about 29 mpg out of their similar 1985 LeSabre on one leg of a trip, but that was a fluke. Flat desert driving early in the year, mild weather, not running the a/c, and back when we still had the 55 mph speed limit, which would have put Granddad at maybe 55-60.

Maybe CR puts their gentle testers in the big cars, and their Speed Racer wannabes in the compact? :confuse:

lilengineerboy

As for Consumer Reports, I've often wondered how they've driven their cars. I remember an old test where they got something like 14 city/30 highway out of a 1984 Caprice with a 305 V-8. I think the EPA rating for the 1985 version was around 17/24. My grandparents got about 29 mpg out of their similar 1985 LeSabre on one leg of a trip, but that was a fluke. Flat desert driving early in the year, mild weather, not running the a/c, and back when we still had the 55 mph speed limit, which would have put Granddad at maybe 55-60.

I got better mileage with the 454 Suburban towing a boat than with a 350 Suburban towing a boat so there must be some type of interaction with load and power output. The 454 didn't seem to care what it was tugging but the 350 had my foot on the floor a lot.

ttai

Everyone calm down. The 10% ethanol reduces the mileage of your cars. I think the EPA factored that in.

nippononly

:-P

Beginning with the '08 MY the EPA numbers will become largely irrelevant for me, as I will consistently exceed the highway number in ALL uses from now on. I guess if I use the highway rating as some sort of a basement number, it will at least provide some basis for comparison.

Up until now the EPA rating has served the half of all drivers that drive similar to me, I guess, and now it will begin to serve the other half (the leadfoots and 2-mile commuters; my commute is a whopping 5 miles after all) instead.

I believe the '08 Matrix (exactly the same as the '07 Matrix) is now rated at 27/33 for the stick. I personally have never gotten less than 34 mpg on ANY tank in mine, and that's just cruising around the suburbs and with the engine still fairly green and not fully broken in.

The Yaris, which is currently the most fuel-efficient 50-state model sold except hybrids, is only going to be rated at a paltry 31/37 under the new system. People are going to have to really TRY if they want to get their running mileage under 37 mpg, I think. Even the leadfoots at the magazines who track test the cars all day long pulled 36 mpg in their Yaris.

robertsmx

Up until now the EPA rating has served the half of all drivers that drive similar to me, I guess, and now it will begin to serve the other half (the leadfoots and 2-mile commuters; my commute is a whopping 5 miles after all) instead.

Not quite. This leadfooted driver has managed to meet or beat the old EPA numbers in most cars. Here are the two cars I drive...
98 Accord (Old EPA: 23/30, combined 26; New EPA: 20/28, combined: 22). I get 26 mpg (32-33 mpg at 75 mph).
06 TL (Old EPA: 20/29, combined 23; New EPA: 18/26, combined: 21). I get 24 mpg (32-33 mpg at 75 mph).

My combined driving involves 50-50 city/hwy mix, with an average speed in mid to upper 30s.

In fact, when I avoid leadfooted starts, and reduce braking (by anticipating lights), the combined mileage in TL easily goes up to 26 mpg.

The new EPA standard is simply a joke. Going forward, its usefulness to me would be to simply add 10% to their combined mileage rating as I will expect to meet or beat that.

qbrozen

Going forward, its usefulness to me would be to simply add 10% to their combined mileage rating as I will expect to meet or beat that.

Now you know how most other people have been using it. (only they used to subtract, not add)

I have NO idea what the big deal was, nor do I know what the big deal currently is. Do you folks also throw your hands up in the air in disgust when your money market returns more money than estimated?

lilengineerboy

I have always been able to beat the EPA estimates also. I avoid super fast starts and try to anticipate braking (one of my co-workers calls the brakes the garbage can because it takes the momentum and energy and throws it away).
I just think its funny that instead of having estimates as a goal, the EPA just lowered their standards to meet expectation. How very American.

british_rover

I just think its funny that instead of having estimates as a goal, the EPA just lowered their standards to meet expectation. How very American.

Yup...

Oh that test is too hard so lets just change the standards to meet our expectations. :mad: :confuse: :sick:

andre1969

I guess this EPA thing is the automotive equivalent of "No Child Lef Behind". :sick:

I haven't been keeping up, but have they also adjusted the future EPA/CAFE regs? I thought they were going to become more stringent in a couple years? If so, since the EPA ratings of all vehicles just got reduced, doesn't that mean that the automakers will have to strive that much harder to reach the new standard once it goes into effect?

Or will the CAFE requirements still use the raw, unadjusted EPA laboratory results?

british_rover

I don't think the CAFE requirements have anything to do with the EPA numbers.

ateixeira

It's the other way around, CAFE uses the older, unadjusted EPA numbers from the 80s (or even 70s) to calculate their numbers.

CAFE is bunk. You can't average 2 cars to get an average MPG anyway.

Example, take one car that gets 20mpg, another gets 30mpg. CAFE calculates they get a combined 25mpg.

Not true - they actually average 24mpg.

Why? Because the less efficient vehicle uses more fuel. Assuming they drive the same distance, the efficient car uses less fuel. So a weighted average comes to 24mpg.

If you give each car 10 gallons then yes, you would average 25mpg. But ask both to drive 100 miles and they will average 24mpg.

british_rover

Yeah exactly what I said CAFE and EPA MPG don't have anything to do with each other.

nippononly

"I have NO idea what the big deal was, nor do I know what the big deal currently is"

Well, ONE of the attractions of the little cars is their great gas mileage. From now on that advantage will not be as visible as before, as all the ratings get compressed into a narrower range.

For instance, the Yaris and Corolla are rated very similarly already, and for '08 will be virtually identical. However, in real-world use as reported by Edmunds posters, there is a good 10-15% difference between the two, as ther majority of Yaris drivers report average mileage to be 40 mpg or better, whereas, Corolla numbers seem to run around 34 or 35.

Just one example of many, The Chevy line looks even worse: the 4-cylinder Malibu looks almost as fuel-efficient as the Aveo with its tiny little engine. I am sure real-world use would find you a 20% gas savings in the Aveo, but the EPA sure aint going to tell you that...

Aim low, achieve low. :sick:

robertsmx

Do you folks also throw your hands up in the air in disgust when your money market returns more money than estimated?

I wouldn't invest if someone advertised lower returns. Don't know about you, but I prefer to know things in advance and accurately. Surprises have their place, not everywhere.

Besides, I'm amazed that there are drivers who couldn't meet (much less beat) the old standards in most cars when I could even with my driving style. And 27 mpg in 1998 Accord on highway? Ridiculous. Whats wrong with these people? I average 26 mpg in mixed driving (50-50), with a lead foot. I will beat any EPA driver, not only on the test circuit but also in observed fuel economy. Guaranteed.

qbrozen

I wouldn't invest if someone advertised lower returns.

They are just advertising average returns. Same with mileage. Everyone's driving habits and driving locations, just like their investment portfolios, are different.

Yet folks who invest poorly whine they get too little in return. This is the first, however, I've heard those who invest wisely complaining they get better than average. Go figure.

nippononly

Well I'm a fan of the little cars. And they won't succeed without good sales volume. And one of the things that draws in buyers, which has now been compromised, is the high fuel efficiency they can advertise.

british_rover

This reminds me of my freshman year physics class.

The physics department was on probation for failing more then 2/3s of their students in X consecutive semesters. I think the semester before they went on probation they failed 75 percent of the students from the intro class.

Instead of changing how the teach the classes they just instituted the most massive curve I have ever seen.

A raw score of 25-35 would get you a passing grade. The tests were multiple choice with only 15-20 questions total so get five or six right and you had a passing grade. This went on for a couple of more semesters after I finished the class and then they gutted the department and made it better. It was still pretty bad but not nearly as bad as it was.

robertsmx

They are just advertising average returns. Same with mileage. Everyone's driving habits and driving locations, just like their investment portfolios, are different.

Whose average? All they seem to have done is taken 10% off of previous rating. And yes, I know everybody drives differently, and I would really question anybody who doesn't abuse his/her car the way I do and fails to meet the old standard. Perhaps they need a lesson or two on conservation of oil. Would these be the people that are leaving their cars out idling for 5 minutes to help the car?

If I am beating EPA rating on a really bad traffic day, fighting thru traffic jams, something is seriously wrong with the system. No ifs or buts about it. And their "ground breaking" formula is harsher on cars that return better fuel economy. Ridiculous.

qbrozen

If I am beating EPA rating on a really bad traffic day, fighting thru traffic jams, something is seriously wrong with the system.

And yet millions of others get below the old averages without any of those hinderances. Go figure. That's what averages are all about.

robertsmx

Averages? Somehow EPA figured out that people were getting 10% worse fuel economy than they were quoting. Was there a study involved to this number?

Mr_Shiftright

CR just gave the Yaris a very high reliability rating, also the Fit.

qbrozen

Do they study anything they do? ;b

Anyway, what's with this 10% number that is getting tossed around? They actually changed their testing procedures. I assume maybe they found the new testing adjusted the numbers by 10% and adjusted their old estimates accordingly? Doesn't sound completely haphazzard or nonrelevant to me.(?)

nippononly

They didn't change anything except the average speed at which they run the highway portion. What they DID is devise a new formula for computing EPA fuel economy ratings which incorporates the results of other tests that EPA was already requiring the automakers to perform. This included load tests under full acceleration and with A/C running. This is nothing more than a bunch of bogus, recomputed numbers that wind up providing the consumer with less information.

qbrozen

They didn't change anything except the average speed at which they run the highway portion.

Not according to their website. They have added 3 new portions to the test.

nippononly

Again, those portions were already being run, they just weren't incorporated into the EPA ratings 2007 and before. They have made the way they come up with the ratings more complex by using a mathematical formula to apply to the results of those other tests. But they haven't necessarily made the ratings any better or more accurate. To my mind they have made them worse.

qbrozen

Well, whatever the method, the point was that they didn't just haphazzardly slap a 10% penalty on every car. They actually recalculated with testing procedures.

As I keep saying again and again and again ... someone will always complain. Its inevitable.

nippononly

No it wasn't haphazard, just misguided and ill-informed.

robertsmx

I wasn’t aware that millions other drive like maniacs, going from 0 to 60 to 70 to 80 to 0 in a span of just one minute and probably less than a mile. Perhaps EPA found a way to include stop light drag racers.

Even more amusing is the average speed of this high speed procedure, where the average speed is 48 mph, no better than the highway procedure that already existed. For me, high speed driving involves brisk acceleration up a ramp, sustained speeds of 65-80 mph for extended periods and slowing down to an exit to a stop. Highway speed would generally involve similar acceleration either from a stop light, or rolling start to 50-60 mph, with a few lights to stop at. And of course, city driving would typically involve 30-40 mph runs with stop lights about half mile apart with 75% of them that make you stop for 30-45 seconds. And of course, then I get to see something like this:



90 miles later, I expect to put $42 worth of fuel (14 gallons) in my Acura TL, reset the trip computer and continue poking fun at EPA. I could probably do 28-30 mpg if I used a few hypermiling techniques and didn't have to go thru 3-4 mile long traffic jams every evening and wasn't the first out of the gates every time light turned green.

BTW, that 10% deduction is haphazard. Unless EPA has actually tested a 1998 Accord to see 20/27 mpg, all they have really done is taken 10% off. Just because a car A shows 10% drop with new ratings doesn’t mean a car C would too.

oregonboy

Is there an echo in here?

Is there an echo in here?

james

james

robertsmx

What are you talking about? :P

Just call it...
a poor job at cut and paste after having to refresh the connection

a poor job at cut and paste after having to refresh the connection

andre1969

and here my opinion of the EPA was dashed on the rocks. I looked up my '85 Silverado, and my naive little mind actually thought they dug up the 9 or 10 different configurations of Chevy C/K10 pickup available that year and re-tested them! :P

Wow, could you imagine if they actually went back and tried to re-test every vehicle configuration they've ever reported! www.fueleconomy.gov only goes back to 1985, which was when they first started adjusting their estimates downward. Somewhere on that site though, you can download the stats for 1978-84. I think my '79 New Yorker is just listed at 13. Which I guess is an average of 55% city/45% highway?

helpmefindacar

Have you had any problems with yours?

boaz47

One of the major problems of sub compacts. Well it isn't the cars problem but one of perceived content. I just happened to decide I was in the market for another car so I have been hitting the sites and lots to see just what is out there. I was interested in getting something small but I wanted to look at AWD or 4WD so that moves me from sub compact to compact and compact crossovers. Once that move is made it is simply just too easy to get pulled into the more is better idea. Subaru makes some of the most desirable small awd vehicles out there but they don't offer the best fuel mileage to start with and they are not the least expensive. So for about the same price you start getting into Jeep Patriot and Compass, Toyota Rav4 and Honda CR-V. Once that leap is made you might even start thinking that a V-6 isn't all that bad and sooner or later the smaller vehicles simply don't seem worth it. It is easy to start feeling you can afford to exchange a little fuel mileage for a bit more room and soon mid sized crossovers seem like a deal. I started looking at Subaru and have moved to Rav4 and CR-V and Patriot. It seems like I am getting more for my money and I get a bit more room. Today I found myself looking at a Murano and a Pacifica and I never intended to go that big but they are so much nicer inside than Subarus and other compact AWD it is hard not to seriously consider them.

ttai

live on your credit card do ya? a murano is a 30k car. i don't get the logic. i don't even capitalize.

snakeweasel

I was interested in getting something small but I wanted to look at AWD or 4WD so that moves me from sub compact to compact and compact crossovers.

Two questions. First is do you really need AWD or 4WD?

Second have you looked at the Suzuki SX4 starts at $15K with AWD, gas mileage could be better but it is AWD.

boaz47

Yes I looked. But as you said fuel mileage wasn't all that good. The best so far is the Rav-4. But the Patriot gets pretty good mileage for it's size. And that got me to looking at a bit larger car. And no I don't plan on financing it. So right now the leading considerations are the Rav-4, Patriot, and the CR-V. The Subaru isn't off of the table but still they aren't dealing much within 50 to 75 miles of my house. But once you get to Subaru prices then larger vehicles enter the compitition. And yes the Pacifica and Murano were far more costly I wouldn't have looked at them at all if the smaller cars were clearly a better deal. We had been looking at the Forester and the Outback and the sticker on those two are just north of 21k. I could get a deal on a Pacifica in base trim for about 5k more. Not that 5k is something to to overlook but the room and features sure are tempting. I looked at the Zook but it is rather vanilla inside.

I am not sure I need AWD I will admit. I have lived in the mountains for 19 years now and I have only "needed" anything more than FWD a very few times. Studded tires or spyder spikes have done me for many of those years. However my wife has decided that we might need to take a few more vacations and Colorado and Northern New Mexico have been mentioned as a destination. I might have been happy with the ZTS but she wants more room. If it weren't for the AWD thing I was thinking about the Mazda5.

Oh well, I still have till November or so and then everyone will want to unload all of their 2007s at a discount. with cars sales as slow as they are I should do pretty good by then. I know I shouldn't have tried any of the bigger vehicles before I tried the SX4 but if you have been in one but it is pretty vanilla compared to a Rav4 or a CR-V. Shoot one dealer had a blowout on a Element. I just couldn't repress my gag reflex long enough to take a look and drive it. Besides my wife and Dog would never ride in it anyway. But at least I asked about it. I just thought it would be easier to find a small crossover than it is turning out to be. But thanks for the suggestions.

stevecebu

I am not sure I need AWD I will admit. I have lived in the mountains for 19 years now and I have only "needed" anything more than FWD a very few times. Studded tires or spyder spikes have done me for many of those years. However my wife has decided that we might need to take a few more vacations and Colorado and Northern New Mexico have been mentioned as a destination. I might have been happy with the ZTS but she wants more room. If it weren't for the AWD thing I was thinking about the Mazda5.

What about the Mazdaspeed 6? It's AWD and supposedly much nicer than a Subaru. But it's a 4 door sedan and no new model of it for 2008.
If you really need AWD then it's probably best to check out the various types because most AWD's don't really work very well.

ateixeira

Check fitzmall.com for Forester pricing, ask local dealers if they will match that price.

We are seeing people get Forester X Premiums for under $21k, that's a good deal considering you get heated seats/mirrors, a 6CD changer, and the biggest moonroof in the segment.

A similar CR-V or RAV4 will cost thousands more. A Patriot might match the price but good luck on resale. I considered a Cherokee Sport back in 1998, but when I sold my Forester this year it was worth $1000 more than a GRAND Cherokee. Just don't count on getting anything back for it, i.e. drive it in to the ground.

The interior will go upscale with the 09 redesign, but so will prices.

Murano costs quite a bit more and will use more fuel, in fact the Tribeca is more comparable.

If fuel cost is such a big issue, though, how did the Murano even enter the conversation? The price difference would pay for all your fuel for years.

daysailer

I suppose that the size/price creep that you describe may occur IF one considers $/lbm or $/cubic ft to be relevant measures of vehicle value. But is more always better? How will the vehicle be used and how much space do you really need? Is it worth the incremental price and operating cost, however small, for capacity that may be rarely (if ever) used? Other things equal, it will always require more energy to move more mass or push a larger shape through the air.

My gripe is that because there seems to be a prevalent "bigger is better" mentality, it is difficult to find high quality products (not only vehicles) in smaller sizes.

Mr_Shiftright

That's true, but the MINI has defied that trend...it's small, very high quality, and rather pricey, but people don't seem to mind at all paying up to $30K for one.

Not sure that's something that automakers could pull off very often though.

ateixeira

Good example, but doesn't Mini sell about 20k cars per year? Toyota sells that many Camrys in a month, maybe less.

Other examples are the A3 and the new Volvo C30.

In this country, though? Good luck...

Mr_Shiftright

Well all trends start small, right? I have to say, never in my life, except at the MINI dealer, have I seen customers waiting patiently in line to speak to a salesperson.

ateixeira

Lines, really?

That's strange.

It might be a case of small demand, extremely small supply.

daysailer

Although the Mini is a good performing small car, from what I have read its repair/reliability record is not suggestive of "high quality". Much less expensive Japanese cars are arguably of higher quality.

Even the Mini has been "improved" by growing larger and it has never been a light-weight.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh I meant build quality. You're talking reliability issues, which is a whole other thing (at least in my vocabulary I mean). Buyers have always been known to give up some reliability for build quality and fun an style and prestige, otherwise the charts between reliability ratings and sales would be identical, but they are far from it.

daysailer

Ah yes, I ignored the American superficial concept of quality, i.e. to place highest value on appearance rather than integrity. What was I thinking?

texases

One more - the Mazda 3 has been doing well, and is a step above the normal econobox. Then there's it's sibling the Volvo S40, even more $$ for the same size.

ateixeira

Mazda3 is a good example, but I'm not sure it's really "premium". Just a nice compact.

In terms of volume, the big sellers are dead in the middle of each segment, i.e. very mainstream (Corolla, Civic).

stever

"The Verve is classified as a B-segment car, one of the fastest-growing segments in the automobile business around the world. B-cars are big sellers in emerging markets, where they're all that new buyers can afford. They are gaining popularity in mature markets like the U.S., where the Honda Fit has been a huge hit. Ford currently has no competitor in this segment for the U.S., but the company's analysis shows small-car sales will boom."

CEO Alan Mulally Puts His Stamp on Ford's Future