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).
I remember the first time I saw a Mazda3 at the DC auto show, I thought it really raised the bar for quality when it came to small cars. I thought the thing would be a hit. The interior seemed like a definite step up in that class.
But in the end, I guess it wasn't enough to make the big boys like Toyota and Honda suddenly up the ante.
The new new MINI is about 2.5 inches longer then the new MINI and weighs thirty or so pounds less. I fully applaud engineers that can make a slightly longer vehicle weigh less and get better gas mileage with more standard features.
Oh and it gets better gas mileage too a lot better.
A base New New MINI weighs 274 lbs more then a base Yaris but gets about the same gas mileage with tons of standard safety equipment that is just not available on the Yaris. The MINI is as light weight as you can get a fully featured premium car full of safety features.
MINI Automobiles MINI USA reached a significant milestone in July: 200,000 MINIs have been sold in the U.S. since its launch in 2002. This is more than double the number of cars projected initially for the U.S. within this timeframe.
In July MINI USA reports sales of 4,069 automobiles, a strong increase of 15.3 percent, from the 3,528 cars sold in July 2006. Year-to-date, the division reports sales of 23,828 automobiles, an increase of 1.2 percent, compared to the 23,554 cars reported in the first seven months of 2006.
You have a good point. What I was saying is that once someone starts looking it is very easy to get caught up in the bigger is better idea. And if fuel mileage ever gets pushed back in the line of importance as it did when I heard AWD from the lips of my wife then the buying experience gets very interesting. Even if I understand Daysalors point.
Once I decided that maximum fuel mileage was less important than AWD I started looking at Subaru. Good AWD and reasonable reliability. However not as reliable as a Rav4 or a CR-V. The prices locally are close to the same and like I said I am not intending to finance this car because I am not looking for a monthly payment nor do I want to pay the insurance on a car that I might be upside on. Another story by the way.
Here was the point. Subaru has a lock in my area with one dealer close enough to not make a day trip out of a dealer visit. Toyota has several dealers as does Honda and Jeep has four. So because I can't get a sub compact in AWD and the Suzuki just doesn't look like it will hold up to much real world use I am looking at at least 21K for a small Car with AWD. Now the Patriot is bigger, looks to be a mid sized, and is listed 5k less than a Forester. I am willing to bet later in the year it will be listed as a blowout because of the slow cars sales so it might be an even better deal.
Understand when I post here I am more or less thinking out loud but that is often how you get the best advice.
Follow this progression if you will. When I decided to go with AWD or 4WD I gave up on maximum fuel economy and minimum cost. I should say I didn't give up on them but something moved in front of those two things in order of importance. The Jeep is easily 1K more vehicle than the Suzuki and it isn't 5k less than a Subaru. If the 5K isn't a problem then another 5k for the Pacifica and the extra comfort it provides isn't as great a stretch as it seamed when I was looking at 20k give or take in the first place.
As I said in the first place it isn't the small cars fault it is how easy it is to set two cars side by side and if the price is close getting the bigger car seems very prudent. Not because the smaller car won't meet my needs but because the bigger car can exceed my needs and provide capacity or comfort that I hadn't considered.
It is just isn't as easy as it was on paper before I started sitting in and driving the different cars. The only reason I even looked at the Murano is because the Nissan dealer next to the Jeep dealer had a 2007 Murano dealer demo for 25k and it was way nicer inside than either the Rav4 or the Forester. Like I said the perception of getting so much more for a so little more is hard to pass up. I just ordered 2000 window stickers from the printer because I could get 1000 for 500 Dollars or 2000 for 700. I know I can use the extra 1000 sooner or later. Tanks for listening to me thinking out loud.
It's very tall, I like that a lot actually. It shifts in to 5th at about 46mph with light throttle, and at that point it feels like it could get 40mpg, it's just not practical to go that slow!
Just over 40 mpg when driving at sane speeds. I would make the drive between Richmond, VA and Hartford, CT twice a month for several months back in the winter-spring of 2004-2005.
As long as I kept it around 70 I got a about 43 mpg according to the trip computer and it was always 2 mpg high. Every time I calculated the mileage by hand I found it the computer to be off by about two miles per gallon.
I had trips though were I averaged 80 mph with sprints well into the triple digit range and I still got in the mid to low 30 mpg range.
I was driving between 10:00 pm and 6:00 AM on I-81 in the middle of no where so there was no traffic to speak of.
What makes the Mini so heavy for it's size? it is 30 inches shorter than my Focus and weighs 30 pounds more? I just got back from a 600 mile weekend jaunt and I averaged 36 MPG with the cruise control set on 75 both ways. That was with the air running and about 40 miles of mountain roads going in and out of the Yosemity area.
So it takes 24,500 Nm to twist the chassis a single degree.
To put that in some perspective the nearly 6,000 lbs Range Rovers I sell have only 25,000 Nm/degree of torsional strength and I think the Range Rover has the strongest chassis currently available for a production vehicle.
Plus the MINI has tons of safety gear in place, lots of high end features that weigh a fair amount and the rear suspension is a complicated multi link that weighs much more then the torsion beam axle found in most little sub-compacts. I think the rear suspension in the MINI has now gone to all aluminum components to save extra weight and that is the main reason why the new new MINI weighs less then the old.
Sounds good. But I wonder how far we have come if in 1988 I was car pooling with a guy in his VW rabbit diesel getting close to 50 MPG and almost 20 years later a even smaller car, thought much more exciting car, is rated at 34 or 35 even if it can get 40? However I would never recommend the Rabbit to anyone as a real car.
Don't forget diameter of the wheel. It can also make a gear shorter or taller.
I took a trip from Dallas to Houston in my 2006 TL couple of weeks ago, with speed topping out above 80 mph (average speed from start to destination, including city roads: 73.5 mph onward, and 71 mph return). Total distance covered 695 miles, and got 29.1 mpg (included about 135 miles driven in city, some of it on freeway). My TL gets me 32 mpg at 72-73 mph. Around 80 mph it seems to drop to about 28 mpg. In mixed driving (50-50), with a light foot (but speed topping in excess of 70 mph), I easily average 26 mpg. The current tank is indicating 27 mpg (the trip computer is accurate to within 0.5 mpg or less).
I took the same road trip last weekend, this time in my 1998 Accord. On the way back, something amusing happened. I joined a caravan around 6.30 am on I-45, led by a black Dodge Charger State Patrol car. Speed went well beyond 80 at times. My average speed from a pump near George Bush International to my home (268 miles) was 78.8 mph, and my old Accord (180K plus miles) did its job, sipping 8.9 gallons for 30.1 mpg. The last time I averaged 75+ in a trip was from Dallas to Memphis (507 miles) couple of years ago, and I did that on a single tank in my Accord (about 32 mpg). The distance was covered in 6 hours, 45 minutes (included a 7-9 minute stop).
Don't forget diameter of the wheel. It can also make a gear shorter or taller.
Yeah I was just thinking about that actually. The MINI had fairly small tires 195/55/R16s IIRC so not sure how that compares to the tires on a Sienna but I assume they are quite a bit larger.
A larger diameter wheel makes the gear ratio go down numerically so that would make the Sienna final drive even taller.
I wish BMW would hurry up and add these features to the MINI...
Have you guys seen the new MINI Clubman yet. Just about launched in UK. It's a MINI with an estate car, (wagon ?), back featuring two, vertically-split, rear doors. Gives a lot more useable space and looks pretty funky. The really idiosyncratic feature is the addition of another passenger door - albeit a mini-sized one, (sorry) - on the right hand side of the car; rather like the rear doors on a Mazda RX-8. Even UK cars will have the door on this side so anyone stepping out does so into the traffic. :lemon: BMW have said they now realise this might be a mistake, but re-engineering the fuel-filler, (on the other side of the car), is a no no. This mini door will be fine for EU and USA, though.
The diesel Mini not sold here gets around 60 US mpg, while toting around an extra quarter-ton of vehicle and being a few inches longer and wider.
I'd also imagine that the Diesel Mini is a lot more powerful, and faster, than an old Rabbit Diesel. More emissions controls, so it probably runs a lot cleaner, too.
Also, I wonder if that old Rabbit Boaz refers to has a/c? I imagine the Mini would have it standard?
Yes I think it might have had air. we worked swing shift at the time so I don't remember that well. But I did get to drive it once. It was the most underpowered car I have ever driven. Far worse than my 66 Bug. I believe it had 50HP and 50 pounds feet torque.
If 50 mpg is the reward for driving an old VW Diesel, it's not nearly enough for me to endure that torture. That car was so slow it was dangerous. My friend owned one, finally put a turbo on it, and it promptly blew up....oh well, nice try.
Any idea how the Clubman price compares to the base and S models?
"The MINI is as light weight as you can get a fully featured premium car full of safety features."
Yes, and isn't that the real shame! I too applaud the reduction in mass, however modest, but not the increase in size. How much more mass might have been saved if the size were unchanged? I too like the Mini, except for its interior reminiscent of a child's "boom-box" and misplaced instrument binacle, but at double the mass of its namesake, it's still porky.
Oh now I get it. It's a VW squareback all over again!
A supercharged xB? Hmm....seems like after you add that, plus beefing up the car to handle the extra power, that's going to raise MSRP right into some vicious competition. One of the real appeals of Scion has always been value---you got a lot for your money. Now xBs are creeping up in price already, with lower MPG, so with a SC I could see this car right smack in the highly competitive "crossover" market. And the idea of a supercharged Corolla engine---that might not be the right unit. So I dunno, I'd have to think about this some more. :confuse:
The new new MINI is 1.7 percent longer then the old one. I mean come on how much can you be into nit picking if you are going to complain about that.
The wheel base and track are exactly the same so I bet the reason for the increased length is mostly European pedestrian crash test nonsense. Oh and the new MINI picked up half an inch of rear leg room and one extra cubic feet of luggage room.
As for the MINI being larger then the mini well of course it is. You can't make a modern car that small anymore. I have driven original minis and while they are great cars they are frightening to drive on modern roads. The little 998 or so CC engines can't really keep up with modern traffic.
I think the MINI as it stands now is the smallest car you can sell in the US to a wide audience. Sure the SMART car will be smaller but it is not going to sell 40,000 units a year. I bet next year with the Clubman out MINI does over 50,000 units.
I thought about replacing my Miata with a Cooper convertible, but the back seat is nearly uninhabitable and even for kids the back rest is bolt upright and the side sills are so high they can't see out.
Are they still making xB's, or did the xD replace it? I guess if nothing else, the xD really makes the xB look pretty!
While the xD is bigger on the outside, does that actually translate to more interior room, or is Toyota starting to learn how to build them like the Big Three did back in the 70's? :P
There is a new xB, and of course the old xB, your basic box.
Okay, Gotcha...guess I was getting the new xB confused with the xD. And looking at the specs of the xD, yeah, it does seem like Toyota's learning how to build 'em like GM did in the 70's. Looks like it chunked up quite a bit, although overall length is barely up. Turning circle shot up from 34.8 to 37.1 feet. Just for reference, an Intrepid can do it in 37.6 and even some old 80's GM full-sizers could do it in 38-39.
Legroom up front shrunk from an already ungodly 41.3 inches to 40.3! Looks like cargo capacity dropped, from 11.7 to 10.5 cubic feet, although when you put the back seat down, you jump to 36, compared to 33 with the xA. And it's downright obscene that something that small would weigh 2625 pounds.
The newer ones both have much bigger blind spots, but they also have bigger engines. Before both had 1.5 liters, now the xD has a 1.7 and the xB has a 2.4.
Scion is an example of my origional position. They may introduce small sub compacts but one they get a toehold they first get a bit more power and then a bit bigger till, like the Accord, they are much bigger than when introduced. That is simply the American way of things. In deference to daysailer small and light simply has no where to go but bigger and heavier, or at least bigger or heavier.
Turning circle shot up from 34.8 to 37.1 feet. Just for reference, an Intrepid can do it in 37.6 and even some old 80's GM full-sizers could do it in 38-39.
The Chevy HHR (thats the retro looking one, right?) had the most phenomenal turning circle of any car I've driven in recent times. I think the only car that could best it was the '83 k-car wagon.
The Chevy HHR (thats the retro looking one, right?) had the most phenomenal turning circle of any car I've driven in recent times. I think the only car that could best it was the '83 k-car wagon.
Oddly enough, Edmunds lists the HHR's turning circle at 36 feet. I guess though, if the steering is responsive enough and the vehicle just FEELS nimble enough, turning circles can seem deceptive? For instance, the 2007 Accord SE V-6 has a turning circle of 39.6 feet, but it's still going to feel a lot more nimble than, say, a 1985 Caprice with a 38-39 foot turning circle. For one thing, the Accord would take a quick U-turm more flat than the Caprice, which would wallow more, and that wallowing would probably make the car feel like it's taking a wider turn.
I've also noticed that, the closer you sit to the drive wheels of a vehicle, when you take a sharp turn, the faster it feels like you're turning. Because well, I guess your body IS moving more quickly. My pickup probably has some ridiculous turning circle like 45 feet, but in a quick turn, especially with its flat bench seats, if I had a passenger who wasn't wearing their seatbelt, it would be extremely easy to throw them against the door or in my lap, depending on which way I'm turning.
FWIW though, I'd imagine that 36 feet is still pretty nimble for something that size.
Comments
In terms of volume, the big sellers are dead in the middle of each segment, i.e. very mainstream (Corolla, Civic).
I remember the first time I saw a Mazda3 at the DC auto show, I thought it really raised the bar for quality when it came to small cars. I thought the thing would be a hit. The interior seemed like a definite step up in that class.
But in the end, I guess it wasn't enough to make the big boys like Toyota and Honda suddenly up the ante.
Oh and it gets better gas mileage too a lot better.
A base New New MINI weighs 274 lbs more then a base Yaris but gets about the same gas mileage with tons of standard safety equipment that is just not available on the Yaris. The MINI is as light weight as you can get a fully featured premium car full of safety features.
2006 MINI vs 2007 MINI Vs Yaris
As for MINI sales...
MINI Automobiles
MINI USA reached a significant milestone in July: 200,000 MINIs have been sold in the U.S. since its launch in 2002. This is more than double the number of cars projected initially for the U.S. within this timeframe.
In July MINI USA reports sales of 4,069 automobiles, a strong increase of 15.3 percent, from the 3,528 cars sold in July 2006. Year-to-date, the division reports sales of 23,828 automobiles, an increase of 1.2 percent, compared to the 23,554 cars reported in the first seven months of 2006.
http://www.bmwusa.com/news/news.htm?article=352
Thats a lot more then 20,000 a year. They will probably do about 40,000 this year assuming no supply problems.
Once I decided that maximum fuel mileage was less important than AWD I started looking at Subaru. Good AWD and reasonable reliability. However not as reliable as a Rav4 or a CR-V. The prices locally are close to the same and like I said I am not intending to finance this car because I am not looking for a monthly payment nor do I want to pay the insurance on a car that I might be upside on. Another story by the way.
Here was the point. Subaru has a lock in my area with one dealer close enough to not make a day trip out of a dealer visit. Toyota has several dealers as does Honda and Jeep has four. So because I can't get a sub compact in AWD and the Suzuki just doesn't look like it will hold up to much real world use I am looking at at least 21K for a small Car with AWD. Now the Patriot is bigger, looks to be a mid sized, and is listed 5k less than a Forester. I am willing to bet later in the year it will be listed as a blowout because of the slow cars sales so it might be an even better deal.
Understand when I post here I am more or less thinking out loud but that is often how you get the best advice.
Follow this progression if you will. When I decided to go with AWD or 4WD I gave up on maximum fuel economy and minimum cost. I should say I didn't give up on them but something moved in front of those two things in order of importance. The Jeep is easily 1K more vehicle than the Suzuki and it isn't 5k less than a Subaru. If the 5K isn't a problem then another 5k for the Pacifica and the extra comfort it provides isn't as great a stretch as it seamed when I was looking at 20k give or take in the first place.
As I said in the first place it isn't the small cars fault it is how easy it is to set two cars side by side and if the price is close getting the bigger car seems very prudent. Not because the smaller car won't meet my needs but because the bigger car can exceed my needs and provide capacity or comfort that I hadn't considered.
It is just isn't as easy as it was on paper before I started sitting in and driving the different cars. The only reason I even looked at the Murano is because the Nissan dealer next to the Jeep dealer had a 2007 Murano dealer demo for 25k and it was way nicer inside than either the Rav4 or the Forester. Like I said the perception of getting so much more for a so little more is hard to pass up. I just ordered 2000 window stickers from the printer because I could get 1000 for 500 Dollars or 2000 for 700. I know I can use the extra 1000 sooner or later. Tanks for listening to me thinking out loud.
I could get the instantaneous gas mileage into the high 50s to low 60s for several minutes at a time.
Of course we shouldn't be too surprised given the size. I got 30.6mpg in my minivan on a trip this weekend.
The Sienna has a 5 speed auto in it now right?
At 70 mph I was turning over 3,000 rpms.
It's very tall, I like that a lot actually. It shifts in to 5th at about 46mph with light throttle, and at that point it feels like it could get 40mpg, it's just not practical to go that slow!
So, no interest in the Verve at all?
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z12604/default.aspx
4th is about direct drive and 5th is overdriven.
6th gear plus the final drive in my MINI was 2.97:1 and your Sienna 5th gear plus final drive is 2.33:1.
Much more of a highway cruiser.
As long as I kept it around 70 I got a about 43 mpg according to the trip computer and it was always 2 mpg high. Every time I calculated the mileage by hand I found it the computer to be off by about two miles per gallon.
I had trips though were I averaged 80 mph with sprints well into the triple digit range and I still got in the mid to low 30 mpg range.
I was driving between 10:00 pm and 6:00 AM on I-81 in the middle of no where so there was no traffic to speak of.
I like the Mazda2 as well.
Looks two generations more modern than the "new" Focus.
Isn't it just a renamed EU Fiesta? Not much to get excited about until and unless it shows up here.
24,500 Nm/degree.
So it takes 24,500 Nm to twist the chassis a single degree.
To put that in some perspective the nearly 6,000 lbs Range Rovers I sell have only 25,000 Nm/degree of torsional strength and I think the Range Rover has the strongest chassis currently available for a production vehicle.
Plus the MINI has tons of safety gear in place, lots of high end features that weigh a fair amount and the rear suspension is a complicated multi link that weighs much more then the torsion beam axle found in most little sub-compacts. I think the rear suspension in the MINI has now gone to all aluminum components to save extra weight and that is the main reason why the new new MINI weighs less then the old.
That claim may not be as important as it seems. It is for the big Rovers.
I took a trip from Dallas to Houston in my 2006 TL couple of weeks ago, with speed topping out above 80 mph (average speed from start to destination, including city roads: 73.5 mph onward, and 71 mph return). Total distance covered 695 miles, and got 29.1 mpg (included about 135 miles driven in city, some of it on freeway). My TL gets me 32 mpg at 72-73 mph. Around 80 mph it seems to drop to about 28 mpg. In mixed driving (50-50), with a light foot (but speed topping in excess of 70 mph), I easily average 26 mpg. The current tank is indicating 27 mpg (the trip computer is accurate to within 0.5 mpg or less).
I took the same road trip last weekend, this time in my 1998 Accord. On the way back, something amusing happened. I joined a caravan around 6.30 am on I-45, led by a black Dodge Charger State Patrol car. Speed went well beyond 80 at times. My average speed from a pump near George Bush International to my home (268 miles) was 78.8 mph, and my old Accord (180K plus miles) did its job, sipping 8.9 gallons for 30.1 mpg. The last time I averaged 75+ in a trip was from Dallas to Memphis (507 miles) couple of years ago, and I did that on a single tank in my Accord (about 32 mpg). The distance was covered in 6 hours, 45 minutes (included a 7-9 minute stop).
Yeah I was just thinking about that actually. The MINI had fairly small tires 195/55/R16s IIRC so not sure how that compares to the tires on a Sienna but I assume they are quite a bit larger.
A larger diameter wheel makes the gear ratio go down numerically so that would make the Sienna final drive even taller.
I wish BMW would hurry up and add these features to the MINI...
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/09/04/i-car-i-drives-start-stop-equipped-mini/
The diesel Mini not sold here gets around 60 US mpg, while toting around an extra quarter-ton of vehicle and being a few inches longer and wider.
It just might.
I can fit plywood flat on the floor and still close the hatch.
Go here for a look at the Clubman.
www.mini.co.uk/
link title
Exterior width of the MINI is 66.3 inches and the height is 55.4 inches. How wide and tall is the back door of your sienna?
I'd also imagine that the Diesel Mini is a lot more powerful, and faster, than an old Rabbit Diesel. More emissions controls, so it probably runs a lot cleaner, too.
Also, I wonder if that old Rabbit Boaz refers to has a/c? I imagine the Mini would have it standard?
Any idea how the Clubman price compares to the base and S models?
Yes, and isn't that the real shame! I too applaud the reduction in mass, however modest, but not the increase in size. How much more mass might have been saved if the size were unchanged? I too like the Mini, except for its interior reminiscent of a child's "boom-box" and misplaced instrument binacle, but at double the mass of its namesake, it's still porky.
A supercharged xB? Hmm....seems like after you add that, plus beefing up the car to handle the extra power, that's going to raise MSRP right into some vicious competition. One of the real appeals of Scion has always been value---you got a lot for your money. Now xBs are creeping up in price already, with lower MPG, so with a SC I could see this car right smack in the highly competitive "crossover" market. And the idea of a supercharged Corolla engine---that might not be the right unit. So I dunno, I'd have to think about this some more. :confuse:
The wheel base and track are exactly the same so I bet the reason for the increased length is mostly European pedestrian crash test nonsense. Oh and the new MINI picked up half an inch of rear leg room and one extra cubic feet of luggage room.
As for the MINI being larger then the mini well of course it is. You can't make a modern car that small anymore. I have driven original minis and while they are great cars they are frightening to drive on modern roads. The little 998 or so CC engines can't really keep up with modern traffic.
I think the MINI as it stands now is the smallest car you can sell in the US to a wide audience. Sure the SMART car will be smaller but it is not going to sell 40,000 units a year. I bet next year with the Clubman out MINI does over 50,000 units.
I know everyone says you can squeeze in back there, but only if the front seats are moved WAY forward. Even with the stretch it's a 2+2 at best.
While the xD is bigger on the outside, does that actually translate to more interior room, or is Toyota starting to learn how to build them like the Big Three did back in the 70's? :P
There is a new xB, and of course the old xB, your basic box.
Thing is, boxy shapes are practical. Head and leg room in the back seat of the xB are phenomenal.
There is a new xB, and of course the old xB, your basic box.
Okay, Gotcha...guess I was getting the new xB confused with the xD. And looking at the specs of the xD, yeah, it does seem like Toyota's learning how to build 'em like GM did in the 70's. Looks like it chunked up quite a bit, although overall length is barely up. Turning circle shot up from 34.8 to 37.1 feet. Just for reference, an Intrepid can do it in 37.6 and even some old 80's GM full-sizers could do it in 38-39.
Legroom up front shrunk from an already ungodly 41.3 inches to 40.3! Looks like cargo capacity dropped, from 11.7 to 10.5 cubic feet, although when you put the back seat down, you jump to 36, compared to 33 with the xA. And it's downright obscene that something that small would weigh 2625 pounds.
The Chevy HHR (thats the retro looking one, right?) had the most phenomenal turning circle of any car I've driven in recent times. I think the only car that could best it was the '83 k-car wagon.
Oddly enough, Edmunds lists the HHR's turning circle at 36 feet. I guess though, if the steering is responsive enough and the vehicle just FEELS nimble enough, turning circles can seem deceptive? For instance, the 2007 Accord SE V-6 has a turning circle of 39.6 feet, but it's still going to feel a lot more nimble than, say, a 1985 Caprice with a 38-39 foot turning circle. For one thing, the Accord would take a quick U-turm more flat than the Caprice, which would wallow more, and that wallowing would probably make the car feel like it's taking a wider turn.
I've also noticed that, the closer you sit to the drive wheels of a vehicle, when you take a sharp turn, the faster it feels like you're turning. Because well, I guess your body IS moving more quickly. My pickup probably has some ridiculous turning circle like 45 feet, but in a quick turn, especially with its flat bench seats, if I had a passenger who wasn't wearing their seatbelt, it would be extremely easy to throw them against the door or in my lap, depending on which way I'm turning.
FWIW though, I'd imagine that 36 feet is still pretty nimble for something that size.
It has a funky camber rear suspension set up because of the air suspension.