What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

logic1 · August 2006

the xA -- I don't know either why the xA "lost out" to its homely cousin the xB. One of those automotive mysteries that I never foresaw or could have predicted. I've driven both and the xA is way more fun. I would only drive an xB wearing false nose and moustache.

Yeah, I am lost on that one as well.

The XA is actually a good looking little car. The XB is pretty ugly.

I also am surprised Toyota went with a 4 door sedan Yaris rather than three and five door hatches. Possibly the US market still strongly favor sedan autos and will only accept hatches when they look like little SUVs, what the XB looks like to me.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2006

I thought I saw the hatch also featured in the Motorweek roadtest?

Americans hate hatchbacks for some reason, and Europeans love them. Go figure. Even Honda abandoned its nice little hatchback configuration here in the US.

I guess the "hatchback syndrome" goes back to the gory and dreadful late 70s, early 80s, the Dark Age of the automobile, when whatever hatches were available were nasty little things, totally unsuitable for American driving conditions and needs/tastes.

But now the hatches are attractive packages of efficiency and good design, and still the prejudice lingers.

Perhaps it will slowly change, like the Americans' revulsion against FWD vehicles--that took years to overcome.

logic1 · August 2006

Maybe with time.

Smaller cars really need the hatch format.

The tight little trunks in the sedans are almost worthless.

On the other hand, drop all or part of the back seat in a hatch and you have a lot of nice practical storage space to work with.

And frankly, small cars look odd [to me at leas] in sedan format, whereas, taking the Mini and XA into account, the hatch can look pretty sharp.

crimsona · August 2006

Canadians like hatches too... not only a Europe thing. For every Yaris sedan I see up here, I've seen at least 3 or 4 hatches (split half/half between 3 door and 5-door)

Mr_Shiftright · August 2006

Tastes change. Remember when big oversized coupes were the thing in America? (well maybe you don't remember, it was the 60s, early 70s).

Now a really large coupe is a hard sell, even in a luxury car.

tjw1308 · August 2006

See, to me, the Mini isn't as attractive as the Yaris. The Yaris is pudgier, yet has a cleaner look to it.

Personal preference I suppose...

The xA sells EXTREMELY well when you look at it's production. We can't keep them in, and we even took an extra allocation. I think it's a mistake to look at sales numbers alone and decide that indicates demand/popularity. Was the TAURUS high in demand/popularity?

The Element and xB have been a HUGE success. Some people think they are hideous (myself included), but that's the APPEAL to a certain extent. The buyers of those vehicles don't mind being noticed and chuckle when people like you and I gawk at the boxiness.

If anything, I applaud Toyota and Honda for broadening the market. I've tired of the look of the tC already (I work for Toyota/Scion), and yet despite not liking it personally, the xB is still unique to me.

That's also what I like about the Yaris. There is a conservative element to the sedan, but for the hatch (which as we agree, has it's limits due to stigma), they took a chance and made it edgy.

Nothing worse than a plain hatch imho...

T

BTW: The Aztec was a failure because it was marketed all wrong by Pontiac. It's like when parents try to impress their kids by being "cool" and end up being worse than if they didn't try in the first place. If Pontiac had marketed it as "Butt Ugly" it probably would had sold quite well lol...

nippononly · August 2006

Don't forget, the cars are getting taller and taller with each successive generation. A short (in length) car with a tall roof and trunk line can have a pretty big box for a trunk. That is the case in my Echo, which fit my full-size cooler for a quick trip to the beach last week, much to my surprise. Generally speaking, I would say most people would be loath to load one of the subcompact hatchbacks high enough in the cargo area that they could fit more stuff in there than I could fit in the trunk of my sedan.

Having said that, my Echo (sedan) purchase was a pure desperation move when I couldn't find the right small hatch, because I much prefer the hatchback look and interior versatility. It will be my first and last sedan. :-<

tjw1308 · August 2006

Fair enough

. I wasn't trying to insinuate we are some how better off, just that Americans tend to indulge more, on the whole, than the rest of the world.

On a side note, better off or not, European gas prices most DEFINITELY impact the car's they deem likeable/driveable. There are of course other factors, but $6 a LITER of gas makes the Hummer a ridiculous proposition even if it DID fit down every street.

Let's put it this way: the American love of the SUV isn't strong enough to survive having to eat Top Ramen Noodles in order to afford the gas (for the average $40k median household of course). They may not WANT to, but people will make reasonable sacrifices in order to maintain lifestyle (i.e. fuel efficient cars when gas hits $5 plus per gallon... and it will

).

T

logic1 · August 2006

I guess it depends upon what you put in the trunk.

I tried to load a bike into my Dad's Echo and just could not get it to fit. If my Dad had a 3 door Focus or, now, Yaris, I could have lowered the back seat and laid it flat.

If you are loading luggage or groceries and the like, the difference would not be as critical.

Still, and as you appear to agree, hatches tend to be the more versatile design. And versatility becomes critical as small proportions do not allow wriggle room.

snakeweasel · August 2006

There are of course other factors, but $6 a LITER of gas makes the Hummer a ridiculous proposition even if it DID fit down every street.

Huh? $6 a liter? That comes to $22.71 a gallon. I don't think its that bad in Europe.

nippononly · August 2006

gas is a buck and a half a liter. And that STILL makes a Hummer an absurd proposition IMO. Heck, Hummers are absurd regardless of geography and gas prices! :-)

rorr · August 2006

"...just that Americans tend to indulge more, on the whole, than the rest of the world."

I think that statement has a lot of truth to it. However, to be fair, I think it is because Americans, on the whole, have the ABILITY to indulge themselves more than most others.

You yourself allude to this when discussing Europeans and gas prices. If their gas prices were suddenly cut in half (and some other rather onerous taxes revoked) I wouldn't be surprised if they 'indulged' themselves to driving more powerful and thirstier vehicles.

After all, 'indulging' oneself is definitely NOT solely an American trait....

Mr_Shiftright · August 2006

I think there's a big difference between the indulgence of a Lexus LS430 on the way to the long office commute, or the indulgence of a 400HP car on a long twisty country road, and the utter folly of driving a Hummer to the supermarket and back. In the first two cases, you are paying for and utilizing the vehicle's capabilities, but in the latter you are paying for nothing in return. DUM.

But really those examples are a kind of reducio in absurdum for an argument. Of course a fuel efficient car looks great against a Hummer, but we Americans don't all drive Hummers or anything close to them.

tjw1308 · August 2006

Well first, you are right, gas isn't quite $6.00 a Liter yet, but you're kidding yourself if you really believe it isn't headed that direction as fast as OPEC can get it there.

The point I was trying to make was that Europe/Etc. will be quicker to adapt because they have already seen higher gas prices, and face a limitless ceiling. With subsidation here in the States we aren't seeing the real picture. Keep in mind, I don't consider myself an environmentalist (nor would any of my friends/colleagues lol), just a realist in that there's only so much dino juice to horde.

Finally, while I realize we don't ALL drive Hummers, do the analogy service and count the number of sub-20MPG vehicles you see on the way home from work tonight. THAT'S absurd. Even more so when you consider probably over half of those are never fully utilized at all(off-road/towing/7 passenger/etc.).

Frankly a fuel efficient car looks great compared to HALF the stuff driving by my office right now.

It just happens to look INSANELY good next to a Hummer

:P

T

Mr_Shiftright · August 2006

well let's do the math then.

Hummer H2 vs. Yaris

Real world MPG

Hummer H2 12 mpg
Yaris 36 mpg

Annual mileage 15,000

Price of fuel, let's say $3.25

Yaris will burn $1,354 in fuel

Hummer will burn $4,062 in fuel

So the Yaris saves you $2,708 in fuel per year

If gas hits $5 a gallon, then it's

Yaris per year = $2.083

Hummer H2 per year = $6250 per year

wale_bate1 · August 2006

Not to mention the H2 is a sure sign of needing to compensate for something...

nippononly · August 2006

you rogue! :-P

Wow, do H2 owners really only average 12 mpg? Or was that number thrown out to make the math easier? Hmmm??

It is pretty funny to me though that my car and others like it get not a tiny fraction better gas mileage than the typical people-mover but whole integer multiples of the mpg of said cars and trucks. As in, the average Tahoe owner uses more than TWICE AS MUCH gas as me to do the same commute. And if they got the optional engine, then almost THREE TIMES as much gas.

british_rover · August 2006

I think 12 mpg is optimistic for the H2. It does weigh around 6,500 lbs and only has a 4 speed automatic so it doesn't even have a steel overdrive to help gas mileage. The GVWR of the H2 is over 8,500 lbs so it does not have a EPA mileage rating.

derfish · August 2006

I'm from Miami area, and don't know what this E85 is.
Could someone please let me in on it? I do veg oil in a converted diesel, and we call that and we call that d25 because it is 75 per cent WVO or waste vegetable oil.

thegraduate · August 2006

A fuel combination of 15% gasoline and 85% Ethanol. The small amount of gasoline is required to make the ehtanol volatile enough to fire. It's found mainly in the corn belt (I think); we don't have it here in Birmingham, AL.

bds92 · August 2006

There is nothing wrong with the sub-compacts. They're perfect for America's growing gas prices and need for high gas mileage.
You wish that they'd have more speed, but they will in time evolve into that. Toyota will be the first, mark my words.
Otherwise, nothing. Nothing.

crimsona · August 2006

I would have thought that Toyota be the last to increase power. They seem to be the most conservative - I'd see Honda to bump up the Fit's output with the refresh and Nissan's Versa is already pushing it higher (although it is fatter than a Civic with less power)

tjw1308 · August 2006

More than $300 a month if and when it hits 5$

That's an average 72 month car payment, up in smoke.

But they're so darn cool and all the rappers drive them!!!

LOL

Just wait until you come to me trying to trade it in because you can't afford it... talk about UPSIDE down!!! I'd say the average (financed) domestic SUV less than 3 years old has 10k in negative equity... YIKES... let's rap about that... :P

One thing thats ALWAYS overlooked about compact cars is the trade cycle they possess. You can trade out of them quickly, with almost no negative equity, and never be out of factory warranty...

Try THAT on a gas guzzler (SUV or not).

T

boaz47 · August 2006

lets be serious. Maybe many don't like SUVs, or Powerful sports cars, or big luxury cars but they aren't bought just because people want to explore their capabilities. All of us that have been married realize our wives could just as easily have bought a nice evening dress rather than a wedding dress they would use once and it cost more than our first car. Heck, that ring cost more than my first two cars. And diamonds are a false economy if there ever was one. For the average family man, average family in the US is 2.5 kids, a sub compacts simply won't work as a only car. In California if the family wanted to go anywhere that .5 kid would have to stay home because you can not get three car seats in a sub Compact.

The SUV replaced the big cars the tree huggers tried so hard to outlaw back in the late 60s and 70s. Well they got rid of the family wagon sure enough but did people flock to sub compacts? People could no longer get a full sized car or wagon so how did they react? Did they flock to compact cars? No they didn't they flocked to the mini van. It was pretty simple, sub compacts didn't meets the needs or wants of the American buying public. No one put a gun to anyone's head and made then buy mini vans. There is absolutely nothing cool about a mini van or sexy either. They became popular "despite" the objections of small car owners and gloom and doomers that told us we would be "out" of gas by 1990. The very same people that told us we would be out of oil in 1970 are now saying we will be out of oil again. And they are using the very same figures as they did in 1970. But low and behold as soon as the gas prices reached the point the oil companies wanted we had "no" fuel lines and no odd and even days. That all happened within weeks of the prices getting to where the oil companies wanted.

No one forced people into buying SUVs and no one forces them into making the SUV the vehicle of choice for a majority of drivers for a few years. And all this time people cold have decided to buy a Sub Compact, but they didn't. The Accord could have stayed a Sub Compact, but it didn't. People don't buy organic foods even if they are good for them, they buy Mickey Ds. Manufacturers know this and we do as well. people in Europe and Asia are no wiser than we are, if anything they are more compliant because they will tolerate more from their government than we will.

Freedom to buy what we want rather than what we simply need is almost a religion to our people. We consider it a right,even if it isn't. If you want people to drive small cars they have to feel small cars are worth driving. If you convince them that they need to drive small cars for the good of the nation, or mankind or what ever reason other than because they want one so bad they dream of them then as soon as whatever circumstance that cause the crisis that turned us on to small cars passes the manufacturers will start offering more power and more comfort in the small cars to the point they no longer represent the sub compact and become more like the mid sized cars we have fallen in love with. Just look at your automotive history. What made a 2000 Honda Prelude worth more than a 1995 Prelude? about 200 pounds and 65 HP. Not that way anymore? Not like that anymore? The 2007 camry is 155 pounds heavier than the 2006 and while it only has 4 more HP it doesn't have any less and it gets a bit better fuel mileage. And if we read Edmunds statistics we will see that for next year Nissan has decided to make the new Sentra bigger, heavier and a bit more powerful just to compete with other compacts.

we may see more small cars but will they be sub compacts as we know them or will they be Compacts that simply call themselves sub compacts because the compacts we now have will get bigger?

I grew up whe we had a lot of small car choices. I had a Sprite. I had a Early Civic. I had Fiat 124. I have had friends that had early Mini Coopers and they were a lot smaller than the new one. Those days simply seem to be gone and I have a hard time believing the new generation of buyers will be any better at buying only what they need than the last generation was. If anything some of us that are getting ready to retire might be the small cars best hope. Not the new consumer that gets a new Gameboy or XBOX ever year.

bds92 · August 2006

May I remind you, Lexus has already done it.

tjw1308 · August 2006

True

The problem isn't revoking the freedom to buy what we want. We will most likely keep that through at least our lifetime (one would hope).

The problem begins when gas prices finally make driving those vehicles as daily drivers no longer a viable option for a medium income family.

All of the analogies you give are great, however they all refer to items in to today's world that are not subject to HUGE (200%) price fluctuations over a matter of a few years. If diamonds or little black dresses tripled in cost over a three year span, sure, there'd still be a market for them, but it'd be foolish to think it would be the same KIND of market.

I'm just saying, as an industry insider I've seen it start to happen already. People who 5 years ago thought the Corolla/Camry were ridiculous options for them are trading in their 4Runners/Sequoias ON them. Suddenly their 2.5 kids fit just fine in a 5 passenger car. It's really quite amazing...

But that's the Camry/Corolla

The subcompacts might not be perfect for the 5 person family, I'll give you that, but the overwhelming trend in this country is for SMALLER families these days, and 4 people fit just fine even in my Yaris hatchback. All the excuses in the world, but 4 people fit just fine... Go figure

T

boaz47 · August 2006

Good points all. Practical in every way, Yet what is the most popular selling Toyota? Same small families and they aren't getting much smaller or at least aren't decreasing any faster than global warming. Sure the extream in big cars may suffer. When the economy gets tight the big guys always take a hit. It is the rebounding picture that interests me. When things get better what do the consumers do? And while 4 people fit just fine in a Yaris don't they fit even better in a Camry? I am sure 4 people would fit fine in a 900 square foot house but how many people opt for that?

I believe sub compacts have their place and I believe high fuel prices can assist them in selling to the consumer. I just don't see them as replacing the next two sizes up in my lifetime. And once again we have to define sub compact? It is a car "smaller" than a compact. Smaller than a Civic, Corolla, or Sentra. Those three seem to represent about the smallest cars the American consumer can show real interest in. Any car that size or bigger isn't a sub compact.

You may be right when you say the xA is selling OK but even you add a caveat, considering. The xA was supposed to be the bigger seller between the xA and xB. It isn't. The Echo was supposed to capture the young buyers, it flopped. The Baja was supposed to revitalize the small truck market, it fizzled. What for instance happened to the small compact truck market in the US? If you sell Toyotas you know quite well. The Tacoma is as close to a mid sized truck as it can get. And how many Tacomas do you sell compared to Yaris? Does anyone still make a compact truck? And who other than the American consumer killed the small trucks off?

john500 · August 2006

I agree with tjw1308's comments. Freedom involves being able to build what you want. Most Americans are too lazy, too poor and too uneducated to build what they want. Instead, consumers somehow view freedom as being able to buy what someone else has made. There will always be a loss of freedom and a concession when a commodity product is purchased.

Bottom line - Everything is relative. I've said it before. If I drive a 1000 pound go-kart, the consumer in a 6,000 pound SUV will suddenly feel safe and free in a 2500 pound Ford Focus because I will be the one getting creamed in an accident. Is being American eating one bite out of a cupcake and then throwing it away? Running the air conditioner with the windows open? Running water at all times even if it is not used? It is called waste and is a characteristic of pigs. Large SUV's were an ad-mans vision of profit sold psychologically to the US public. The net result is a product that is useless outside of the US market and provides little or no export benefit to the US. Then again, maybe everyone in the US is now so fat that heavy duty suspensions and 6,000 pound vehicles are required to lug them around.

nippononly · August 2006

You DO realize that an average of 2.5 kids means about ONE HALF of all families have 2 children or less, right? That's a whole HECK of a lot of families that would fit just fine in any subcompact.

Meanwhile, Civic and Corolla are on fire. This may be the first year in some time in which one of the top two selling cars comes from this pair, rather than being larger cars. Hmmm, see a trend towards smaller cars there? Hmmm....

Yaris is on fire too, just not quite as big a fire. But the average days in inventory is less than half the industry average, and it is selling at twice the rate Toyota had hoped. As for the Fit - sheesh! It has a 7-day supply nationwide, Honda can't even remotely keep up with demand. I stopped by the Honda dealer for parts last evening, they had one Fit in the middle of the lot with a big sign on it saying "special order now!". Wait lists are six months long.

Look at xA: here's a model that is AGES old - based on the 7-year-old JDM ist - and yet it sells better than many larger models that are much newer.

Have there ever been any subcompacts that have EVER sold this well in the history of the breed? I don't think so. This may be the year when subcompacts as a segment outsell other segments cherished by my worthy debators in their arguments, like large SUVs.

Oh, and SUVs were never "the vehicle of choice for a majority of drivers for a few years." They were never more than 25% or so of total sales. But your larger point is certainly relevant - America is the land of excess. Which is why subcompacts will secure their future only when they become superior in other ways, like build quality, handling, and the like. I think they are well on their way with the latest models.

lemmer · August 2006

This dead horse has been beaten again and again, but my family of four needs at least a midsize station wagon.

Mr_Shiftright · August 2006

Question for you if you don't mind:

In your estimation, what percentage of the time are all 4 members of your family in the car?

What I'm driving at is that for some families, they might find that all 4 of them are only in the car 10% of the total use time of the vehicle, and yet they have paid 100% more (double) for a mid-size wagon over say a Honda Fit.

Also, if a family were to be together only 5% of the time, and this 5-10% were only local driving, a Honda Fit would work fine for them. I take people around in the back of my xA all the time for 1/2 to one hour trips and I don't hear shreiks of horror and misery back there.

HUMMER H2 MPG: the figure of 12 mpg is taken from an actual test done by Car and Driver.

thegraduate · August 2006

What options are there for a midsize wagon now? For Freestyle? Mercedes E350 Wagon? I really don't know... the wagons went away, sadly. I have a feeling they'll be back soon. $38 to fill up my 4-cylinder Honda tells me that people will continue selling their SUVs.

lemmer · August 2006

Saturday and Sunday my little family of four stays together, so 2/7 of the time, in general.

Once or twice a month on average we take at least a 100 mile trip to visit family or friends. Several times a year, we take much longer trips in my wife's vehicle and it is fully packed to the roof in the back. About one week out of the month on average we have in-laws in town who travel with us to meals, entertainment, etc. raising the load to six people.

My wife takes one or two kids in the morning and almost always picks up both. Even on weekdays, the kids take up more than a subcompact backseat with their two substantial car seats, the first-grader's huge rolling backpack (purchased against my objections), the little one's diaper bag, napping mat, blanket, and on a regular basis extra diapers, wipes, and other stuff I am always forgetting. Not to mention that my wife usually has the front passenger area filled with her laptop and client files. She often goes clothes/household shopping at lunch and/or grocery shopping on the way home, so add that crap to the pile and we use up our Pilot pretty fully on a daily basis.

Before children I had a 300ZX and my wife had a two-door Integra, and that was plenty for us. I would love to get back close to that one day, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

lemmer · August 2006

We had a Passat wagon. It met our minimum requirements with careful planning, but we couldn't haul extra relatives, friends, etc. Oh yeah, I forgot that we almost always find an extra child belonging to someone else in our vehicle on weekends, so that's another car seat that fits best in a third row.

andre1969 · August 2006

I think small cars(even the MG Midget now)are the cars that are more handsome. Even cars from the 50's and 60's are better looking small, IMO. Take the '62 Chevy Nova SS for example. Economy but also power, if configured right. And how does it look? Well, simply spectacular.

Still, looks are subjective. I think a '62 Chevy II is a good looking car, yeah. But I'd much rather have a '62 Impala. And I think just about everything GM made in 1962 looks good. I think styling and proportioning often play a bigger role than just size. For instance, a '62 Chevy II/Nova is bigger than a Falcon or Corvair, but IMO is a much better looking car. And compact Mopars were in a world of their own back then, and really wouldn't recover from their acid trip until the 1967 redesign.

In the 50's, often they'd use the same roofline across several different cars. For instance, a 1955-57 Chevy and a 1955-57 Pontiac both use the same greenhouse. The Pontiacs rode a longer wheelbase and were longer overall though. I think the Chevies tended to have nicer details than the Pontiacs. There was some automotive critic that said the '55 Pontiac looked like it had been dropped on its face when it was born! That look carried over to 1956, and for '57 it just went ultra-glittery. The Chevies were pretty restrained in comparison. But I always thought the Pontiacs had nicer proportions, because the longer overall length just made them seem better balanced. In contrast, the shorter Chevies, with a shorter overall length but the same sized passenger area, just looked stubbier and ill-proportioned. It wasn't so bad on the hardtops and convertibles, which had a shorter passenger cabin, but it really showed up on 2- and 4-door sedans.

Another car where this showed up was the '57-59 Mopars. Hardtops were varied a bit, but the 4-door pillared roof was shared among Plymouth, Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler. On a 218+" DeSoto or Chrysler, riding a 126" wheelbase, it seemed well balanced, and even on a 214" Dodge riding a 122" wheelbase it didn't seem too out of proportion. But on a ~206" Plymouth riding a 118" wheelbase, the passenger cabin just seemed too big.

Now sometimes I do think a car can get TOO big. In the 70's, I started liking the 4-door versions of some cars better than the 2-doors, because the cars were so long that they really needed the larger 4-door passenger cabins to fill them out. This was especially evident with, say, the 1969-73 full-sized Mopars.

But in the end, I don't think the Chevy II looks good simply because of its size. It looks good because GM's stylists knew what they were doing!

wale_bate1 · August 2006

Outlaw, shmoutlaw.

You lived through the seventies, boaz; there was more social pressure to drop those monsters than legislative pressure, though lawing did come about. My pet peeve to this day is that light trucks were not and have not become part of the CAFE equation. They absolutely, necessarily should be.

But you couldn't give full-size cars away then, and the legislation was a very small part of it. Nobody wanted to be tarred with that ever-so-unhip "guzzler" brush. In high school I vividly recall the derision heaped on any poor slob who "suffered" the use of the family Gran Safari or Catalina rather than piloting a Celica or 510 (I rode a Peugot UO8 m'self!).

We're headed that way again; a time when few will want to be seen as so socially irresponsible or environmentally callous that they would skipper a full-size BOF SUV or it's ilk. Back to a time when the creme's Caddies and Jags got dropped like so many pop flies at ATT Park for Preludes and Accords. And again, bigger displacement "sports" cars will be overlooked (socially) because of the proportionately small numbers in daily service and also the cool factor, which, of course, beats SUV cool factor with a big ol' fat honkin' stick...

}-]

lemmer · August 2006

My neighbor is shopping for an Escalade. People with money don't generally care what gas costs or what people on message boards think. Societal pressure to downsize is virtually nill in the South.

wale_bate1 · August 2006

"My neighbor is shopping for an Escalade. People with money don't generally care what gas costs or what people on message boards think. Societal pressure to downsize is virtually nill in the South..."

That's today, lemmer. Tomorrow is another story. I well remember the physician's lot at Sequoia Hospital, where my father was Chief of Urology, going from Caddies, Lincolns, Jags and Benzes to Hondas, Toyotas, Datsuns and Fiats (of all things) in the course of a few years. Were there holdouts? You betcha! Many? Nope; maybe 10-15%.

Hint: it didn't have a whole lot to do with gas prices. Being stylish, or rather avoiding being unstylish, is all the pressure those with disposable need.

snakeweasel · August 2006

Societal pressure to downsize is virtually nill in the South.

Of course it isn't, how are earth are you going to put a gun rack on a Fit?

lemmer · August 2006

I don't know...in the late 70s and early '80s my Dad was driving a full-size Impala followed by a full-size Cutlass and my Mom had a Ford Truck with a big-block. My dad did eventually buy a Volvo diesel. I remember my neighbors at the time having big American cars and trucks with V8s. One family I knew had a Toyota truck and a Corolla but they were already highly suspect in the Atlanta suburbs as they were Democrats. When people here (now I am in suburban Birmingham) say they are going to get something small, they mean an Acura TL or a Lexus RX350.

lemmer · August 2006

I have a perspective derived from a Southern upbringing by Northern parents, and I can tell you that my New York relatives can hold their redneck best with anyone in Alabama.

british_rover · August 2006

Yup I see nearly as many confederate flags on jacked up trucks in this part of New England and New York as I did in VA.

grbeck · August 2006

But also remember that during the two gas crunches of the 1970s, availability, not just price, was a big concern.

In many areas there was literally NO GAS at any price! Under those conditions, a vehicle that sips gas becomes attractive to even the rich.

Today there is still plenty of gas, it just costs more. No doubt some people think it's impressive to be able to pay the higher gas prices (or, at least, LOOK like they can pay those higher gas prices, thanks to a credit card

).

wale_bate1 · August 2006

"But also remember that during the two gas crunches of the 1970s, availability, not just price, was a big concern..."

True too, Mr. Beck, but the availability issue was short-lived and the repercussions quite the opposite.

All y'all have short memories on the image factor I think! I still remember the Doonesbury strip where the roommate's boyfriend bought a new Electra 225 in baby blue, and the girlfriend damn near died of embarrassment and told him he should've bought a Gremlin!

Guzzling was not cool, I tell ya!

grbeck · August 2006

wale_bate1: All y'all have short memories on the image factor I think! I still remember the Doonesbury strip where the roommate's boyfriend bought a new Electra 225 in baby blue, and the girlfriend damn near died of embarrassment and told him he should've bought a Gremlin!

A Gremlin?! Sorry, but I can't let Mr. Trudeau live that one down.

I learned to drive on a 1973 Gremlin. It did save lots of gas - primarily because it didn't use much on the back of a tow truck or in the service bay. It spent LOTS of time in those places.

A Civic, a Corolla, or even a B210 - I could understand. Heck, even the Pinto had a better image - at least until the whole gas tank issue (if you'll pardon the expression) blew up.

wale_bate1 · August 2006

You humorectomy scar is showing G! Or at least your sarcasmotomy! That was the point, that even a Gremlin was more image than a Buick.

Gremlin: "Hey buddy, where's the rest of that car?"

boaz47 · August 2006

wale, The point is not that we were forced out of large cars. it is what happens when the pressure to look politically correct changes? People didn't go in mass towards Nissans and Hondas or Toyotas until Nissan, Honda and Toyota made Camrys, Accords and Altimas in the size people wanted. Drop the large detroit mastodons they did. But what did they move to? Mini vans, SUVs and now quad cab trucks. Will a sub compact ever sell like a F-series truck? In the US anyway? Does the American consumer care one whit about the european consumer? Do they care about the Asian consumer? I don't think they do. The F-series Fords are the best selling vehicles in the world and hardly any of them are sold in other countries. How did that happen? SUV and Light trucks got to over 50 percent of the market in this country. Do any of us see Americans willingly moving into a Sub Compact at anything even close to those numbers? While we may show open disdain in public for our consumption I haven't noticed contractors building smaller more affordable houses in Southern California over the last few years. The question remains the same, what happened to compact trucks? Gone, and no one cares one bit. Will SUVs and full sized trucks disappear? SUV don't have the cool factor? What reason is there for three Hummers then? Why did Porsche decide to make a SUV? How About BMW or MB making several SUVS? And how big are the current Sub Compacts? Are any of them much smaller than a Civic? If they hold such promise why do the manufacturers, who have access to all the studies on the buying habits of the American consumers, insist on only providing the compact or bigger cars? Why take years to release a sub compact to our markets and only months to release a new mid sized car? Because of long term preferences displayed by marketing trends that can be easily measured. How many years have they talked about bringing the smart car to our shores? How many crossover SUVs and AWD wagon-like cars have been imported in the same number of years?

Sub compacts will always have one flaw, they will be cars people can move up from. They may be perfect at what they do but they will not be something to aspire to. The middle class in America has to have something to aspire to. Individually Americans can be the most generous people on the earth. But corporately we are consumers first, and we have the ability to consume more than anyone on earth. The French are rude, the British have bad teeth and we consume more than our share. That is simply how it is. ( warning, some of the previous was intended as hyperbole.)

grbeck · August 2006

Trust me, those of us who lived through the experience of driving a Gremlin on an everyday basis found that our sense of humor was severely taxed, and hasn't quite recovered...

The scary part is that the lousy reliability was the least of the car's problems.

wale_bate1 · August 2006

Sorry, but the move away from full-size anything didn't end up in a larger-format for quite a while, and not until confidence recovered enough to overpower the stigma!

Minivans were actually mini, and SUVs didn't catch on in earnest until the late 80's. Midsize was the new full-size. Reminders of how badly the full-size segment, even in the cushy categories, suffered would be the Cimarron and Skyhawk, I think.

Not that all that didn't wear off, of course...

G: LOL!

andre1969 · August 2006

that once prices stabilized and the fuel was free-flowing again, people returned to their big cars with a vengeance. On the subject of the Electra for example, 1976 one of its best years in history! They ran off about 125,000 copies. I think the mammoth Olds 98 also had a record year in '76. Big cars may have been an embarrassment to many people, but there were still plenty who demanded them. Now these cars would see even higher sales with the downsized 1977-79 models (I think the 1980 recession ensured that the '80-84 models would never top 1976 sales, but I'm not positive), but at the time, sales were brisk enough for the '76 models that GM was probably starting to second-guess their impending decision to downsize.

Also, those two fuel crises we had, while they were fairly short-lived in retrospect, at the time they were pure hell, and most people actually going through them probably didn't have the slightest inkling that things would ever return to "normal".

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles