What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

nippononly · September 2006

I'm a little car driver, and whew! From my perspective the Monte is a BIG car, believe me. And all that space is wasted by a lack of four passenger doors.

Oh, BTW, there are also hatchback/wagon people and sedan/coupe people, and THOSE two groups will never agree on the perfect car either! :-)

andre1969 · September 2006

Going even further, there are coupe people and sedan people, but I think that distinction is starting to go away. For one thing, it's not like there's a coupe and a sedan version of every car out there anymore. I used to prefer coupes because of the sleeker styling, and the larger doors made it easier to get in and out of the front seat...provided that you weren't in an ultra-narrow parking spot! Also, I usually found visibility to be better out of a coupe because the B-pillar was further back and didn't block my vision to the side.

However, as the years went by, sedans have gotten larger doors that make entry/exit better. For instance, I can probably get through the back door opening of my uncle's '03 Corolla better than I could a 1974 New Yorker. Now the New Yorker is going to have a much bigger back seat and be more comfortable for me, but the door opening is also lower, the window curves in further, and the seat actually sits pretty far back between the C-pillars, making entry/exit a bit of an acrobatic maneuver. A lot of cars were like that back then. And in many cases, that puts the B-pillar a bit further back. And in many cases sedans have gotten slicker over the years, to the point where a coupe version really wouldn't be much sleeker.

Also, since the hardtop went away, it's very rare to find a coupe these days with roll-down rear windows, and I prefer fresh air.

In general, coupes sacrifice comfort and practicality for style. And maybe that's why the Monte Carlo might not make sense...because it's NOT that stylish! I think they found a way to make the car "feel" bigger than it really is, too. Looking at the stats, it's only about 197" long and about 73" wide. That's about 6" less than my Intrepid and probably a couple inches narrower, but somehow it comes off bulkier looking. And it's like a FOOT shorter than my '76 LeMans, but I don't think it looks that much smaller. But then my LeMans is lower, mostly hood, and has a severely sloped, almost fastback rear, which might take away a lot of the visual bulk.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

good argument in general andre, but the Monte Carlo is a great example of a car that is not "intelligent" in design. I actually ,sincerely, honestly, felt that as I got back into my subcompact that I had UPGRADED in seating (Monty's the WORST yet I've found in a 2006 car), headroom, ergonomics, economy (for sure), AC, storage, build quality (I love the sound of a door rattling with a tweedy THWANG when you close it, don't you?) sound system, visibility (silly wing on the trunk) and fun factor. What I lost was power, a quieter highway ride, and some of my short term memory from bashing my head against the Monty's roof every time I got into the car.

Oh, I liked the Monty's cruise control, wish I had that.

Far as I'm concerned, I didn't lose much going back to the subcompact...or should I say, I gained more than I lost...yeah, that's more fair.

rorr · September 2006

"Oh, I liked the Monty's cruise control, wish I had that."

The xA doesn't have CC or does it just operate better in the Monty?

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

No cruise available on the xA, that's right. You can buy it aftermarket however. That bugged me when I was shopping but it wasn't a deal breaker. Other negative I had heard about prior to purchase were "no power" and "excessive engine noise" but these proved to be unfounded speculations---since neither "defect" is subtle and anyone would notice them if they were real.

snakeweasel · September 2006

No cruise available on the xA, that's right. You can buy it aftermarket however.

Yep for 29 cents at the local landscape supply center you can buy a brick.

crimsona · September 2006

With all the competitors this year, I suspect the Scions will get it next year. Haven't looked at the US site, but I'm sure that the Yaris in Canada already had CC.

andre1969 · September 2006

Other negative I had heard about prior to purchase were "no power" and "excessive engine noise" but these proved to be unfounded speculations---since neither "defect" is subtle and anyone would notice them if they were real.

Again, here, anybody who's ear is tuned to a bigger, slower-revving, car is probably going to notice the "excessive engine noise". Is it REALLY excessive? Depends on who's listening to it I guess. I think my buddy's '06 Xterra has excessive engine noise compared to my '85 Silverado. It certainly lets you know it's under the hood, and being a V-6 it has a different type of sound from a V-8. Somehow it comes off as not sounding as powerful as it really is.

As for the "no power", most people coming from a big car are used to that feeling where you just barely tap the gas and it goes. Even if the car really isn't that fast from 0-60 or the quarter mile, you don't have to give it much gas to get it going. People like this have to "re-learn" how to drive a high-revving engine, because if they try driving an xA with the same amount of pedal pressure that they drive their Monte Carlo, they're going to get themselves killed the moment they try to merge onto an expressway!

I even notice this with my buddy's Xterra. For having something like 260 hp and being able to do 0-60 in 7 seconds or whatever, if I've been driving some fairly large, loafy OHV V-8 for awhile and then drive it, I find that it just feels sluggish...because you have to put your foot into it more and rev it to get anything out of it. Not a defect, but just something you have to get used to.

boaz47 · September 2006

It still sounds like your objection to the Smart is the same as my objection of the Echo or even the Rio. It isn't like the ZTS is a big car or even the PT but both are about the right size for most American buyers. Traditionally the Civic, Sentra, Corolla, Focus, Jetta, Mazda3 have been about the bottom limit to what people will buy in any great numbers. But like everything else we shall see. I have listened for quite a while about how the rising gas prices will cause a mass movement towards sub compacts. If that is a driving force how does the drop of 70 cents a gallon over the last month going to effect sales? Today I paid $2.89 to fill up the car. Last month I paid $3.59 a gallon. The news reported that by Thanksgiving it could drop to $2.50 a gallon. At $2.50 I might consider that dry NOS system I have been looking at for so long. Just haven't been able to drop the hammer on that yet. Cold air and exhaust system yes, lower with new suspension yes, but I just worry about adding NOS because much like a Turbo or Supercharger they are hard to keep your foot out of. But looking at the bright side I might be able to get one of those electric Gem or whatever they are to drive to the local store and back in. One thing about living where I do, electricity is dirt cheep because we don't need central air. A big heater we need, air conditioning isn't necessary except for a very few days in mid summer.

rorr · September 2006

"Other negative I had heard about prior to purchase were "no power" and "excessive engine noise" but these proved to be unfounded..."

You know, I COULD make a crack about the age of the ears of the driver and the apparent lack of engine noise....

...but that would be crass. So I won't.......;)

I'm glad you enjoy your xA. I'm thinking though that when it comes time to FINALLY sell my Celica, I'll probably be looking a something a smidge bigger (Mazda3 hatch has my eye) with a bit more verve (like a Speed3).

I know that an xA probably has all the room I really NEED in a car. But for some reason the proportions in the styling just seem a bit too odd for my tastes.

wtd44 · September 2006

...for a look see at the little Mitsu coming soon, according to "Automobile Magazine" or "Car and Driver".

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

Sure everything is relative but the claims are not accurate. One either can or cannot compete on California freeways--you can't pretend to be fast enough or powerful enough-- and the xA does it easily. The "no power" criticism is to be discounted entirely.

As for engine noise, that *could be* excessive to a Lexus owner but certainly not to any 4 cylinder car owner doing a passing maneuver.

bumpy · September 2006

Which one? The Colt or the i?

mwqa · September 2006

... for the Mazda2

Which is what is wrong with sub-compacts: major players (Mazda, VW, Mitsubishi, Ford, Suzuki ...) haven't got cars out in this segment.

So it's still too easy to dream about the perfect car.

growwise · September 2006

Suzuki will not introduce swift in NA as it is deemed too small

So, dont hold your breath for mazda2 :P
You may still get SX4 though

andre1969 · September 2006

to get the Xterra's oil changed (first one is free). While I'm there I'm going to check out the Versa and see how it fits. I'll let y'all know whether I love it, hate it, or somewhere in between. :P

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

Saw a Versa ad on TV last night. Pretty clever. Interestingly, they were emphasizing not the economy but the interior room!

Also they used the tag line "The New Breed of Subcompacts".

I thought it was very good, and made the point. This is a whole new ballgame for the "small car".

lhanson · September 2006

Hasn't the Swift been selling for years in North America, Canada specifically?

bumpy · September 2006

The old Swift was sold in the US and Canada as the Geo/Chevy Metro. When production ended on that one in 2002, it was replaced in Canada with a rebadged Aveo as the "Swift+".

nippononly · September 2006

Wasn't the TONS of interior room the angle Chevy used to advertise the Aveo when it first came out? It sold pretty well, so maybe that worked.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

Yep they are hammering on people's past prejudices about small cars.

wtd44 · September 2006

I might be ready for a return of Renault-- even if disguised with the Nissan name tag. What do you think?

harrychezt · September 2006

Isn't the new VW Rabbit, at a hair under 165 inches total length, considered a Sub-Compact, and same for the upcoming SX4 SUV/sedan(it is around 163 inches total length, at least the SUV is...not sure if they will make the seadn larger).
With all of this "volume" inc ars dictating "Size' these days...(the consider trunk space, too, maybe next tire-air volume?lol), who knows what is subcompact, compact, midsized, of large any more.

Read the next (07) Elantra , due to volume(cubic feet) will be considered(EPA?) to be a large car, despite the fact it will be under 178 inches in total length.
I think it is currently a compact.

Anyhow, I go by Length.... if the car is under 14 feet, I'd hesitate to conisder a small car, in the land of 8 ton behemoths ,that still roam the Ohio roads.

I like some "Crunch Room",between me and the rear bumper and front bumper, in case i do get hit

As I said, MPG-wise.... the Aveo will get what, 35MPG?
It's only advantage is price, over a compact( that get maybe 36-40 MPG, like the Corolla, Civic, Elantra, Etc).

If only we could go back 20 years, when all vehicles were smaller, and anything that could haul 12 or more people was painted yellow,and took kids to school

take care/not offense.

boaz47 · September 2006

But one has to wonder if many people want to go back? No one ever had to suggest that we offer incentives or increase taxes to encourage the growth of the mid sized market. People just moved that way. There were no incentives offered by the government that got people into SUVs and Mini Vans in the first place. And SUV and Mini Van drivers never advocated taxing sub compacts to get people into their vehicle choices. (suggestions that often come from small car and hybrid advocates when asked how they would get people into small cars and hybrids.) The question is even harder if we look forward towards the future. Do many people want smaller cars? I will freely admit I don't know the answer to that. From a historical point of view it doesn't seem like it. People obviously didn't want small trucks. The sub compact truck market is a total bust. Three times they have tried in the last three decades and the Rampage, Brat, and Baja fell flat on their grill. The Compacts trucks have all moved towards mid sized trucks, even Toyota. The Honda truck didn't even start out as a small truck. Maybe Honda didn't manufacturer the truck however, maybe a Avalanche got over the fence where a Element lived? But none the less it isn't compact.

With Gas prices dropping again and the prediction that they will drop as much as 50 cents more by thanksgiving maybe it isn't the last gasping breath for mid sized dominance of the market just yet? Perhaps the F-Series Trucks won't lose their place as the best selling vehicle to the Yaris this year after all?

Living in California I don't expect to see super high mileage vehicles worth driving anyway. The diesel offerings simply aren't coming here and the hybrid offerings simply aren't worth it. I have lots of trees where I live and none of them look like they need hugging

andre1969 · September 2006

up front, I'd say it's a step up in room/comfort from something like a Corolla, Cavalier, Sentra, xA, Yaris, Focus, Fit, Aveo, or Echo, but still not quite up to something like a Mazda3, Civic, Caliber, Neon, Elantra or Cobalt. At least from the way I fit in it. Now to be fair though, all those cars I mentioned that feel more comfortable are larger. Some considerably so. And the ones that I thought were less comfortable were either notably smaller, especially in wheelbase, or simply older designs.

The seating position feels a bit lower than the Corolla, and the steering wheel doesn't get in the way as much, but I still wish the seat would go back further. With the seat all the way back I could reach the steering wheel fine. So in that respect it's kinda like the Corolla, where it should fit a driver with long arms and short legs just fine.

Now the back seat is huge. Its legroom would put most midsized cars and many so-called full-sized cars to shame. It still has your typical small-car shoulder room, but you could get two good-sized adults back there easily. I also sat in a Maxima, and found its back seat to be worse. Not only was legroom bad, but I had the added bonus of having to sit slouching to keep from bumping the headliner!

This particular model had an MSRP in the lower $16K range. It had a CVT and alloy wheels. No sunroof. EPA rating of 30/36. I wish they'd start making drum brakes out of something that shows better, because these suckers were already getting the rusty scale on them, which didn't provide the nicest of backdrops for the alloys.

Not a bad little car overall, but I think I'd still just go ahead and get one of the Altima S models on the lot that they had marked down to around $18-19K, and I'm sure you could get more off. Mileage was worse at 23/29, but that's not enough to bankrupt me, especially with the fairly low miles I usually drive.

One other thing I'll say for the Versa, is that the front seats felt fairly substantial for a small car. The buckets looked to be about the same size as what went in the Altima or the Maxima. Although IMO that wasn't saying much for the Maxima. And they had a few cloth seat Maximas that gave a strong argument for choosing the leather option. The Maxima uses this cloth that looks about like what you'd get if you took the velour interior of a late 70's Lincoln Town Sedan and got it nice and wet and let it mat up.

The Versa's cloth looked pretty nice, especially for this class of car. And it had inserts on the door panels which, while a bit thin, still dressed it up nicer than plastic or vinyl would!

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

Higher fuel prices are inevitable, but perhaps gradual. I don't think we should be buying cars based on some momentary dips or rises, at any rate, neither Escalades nor Smart cars. Handwriting is on the wall for gas prices IMO and with the public distrust of oil companies and all the fear advertising 24/7 in every conceivable part of American life, I don't think big gas-hungry cars are going to get a Second Life as mainsteam transportation. But sure, a dip in gas prices will slow down subcompact sales somewhat, for a little while--but I think the smart bet is to hop on the 30 mpg + train now rather than be stuck trying to ditch a 12 mpg vehicle in a year or two from now. Take a lesson from the poor slobs who thought 1973 was the last "fuel crisis".

Speaking of the future, have a look at this video and please comment: (disregard first 30 seconds about the Mazda)

http://www.youtube.com/v/ry6w3mRm-FM

snakeweasel · September 2006

I don't think we should be buying cars based on some momentary dips or rises,

I agree but there are a lot of people out there that are not as far sighted as you or me. There is a good sized segment that will not think twice about getting a gas guzzler simply because gas is 40-50 cents cheaper than a few months ago.

Speaking of the future, have a look at this video and please comment:

Interesting. My guess is we will see the technology but not in that form and it may not be hydrogen.

plekto · September 2006

All they would have to do is make that exact same car with a CNG powered drivetrain.

boaz47 · September 2006

And there you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. What does the car buying public look for in a vehicle? Enthusiasts beg for cars outside of the mainstream but we don't tend to buy cars on the scale of the mainstream. And if they do produce the cars enthusiasts are crying for we buy one and drive it till the wheels fall off. When I bought my old Ram Charger in 89 I had a boat. I drove that thing till 2001 and I sold the boat in 93. I drove it on vacations, on 4x4 trips, camping trips and when my commute was only 16 miles one way I drove it to work and back. We didn't sell it till my wife decided she simply wasn't going to drive it anymore. I think I had about 200,000 miles on it and it was still running strong. But I wanted that vehicle specifically when I bought it. My wife wanted a small car so we bought a Saturn SL-2. I tied to like it and it did all I asked of it but within two years I wanted something bigger, even if just a bit bigger. While I was sad to see the Ram Charger go I didn't shed a tear when I left the Saturn at the Chrysler dealership. I believe the reason was because I bought the Saturn for the same reasons and with the same attitude the mainstream buyer has. I needed something to drive to and from work and getting there was more important than how I got there. I wasn't looking for something that would fit me for the next fuel crisis I was looking for something that would fit the current family debate. People in this country tend to live for the moment, I can't see that changing enough to make them happy with Sub Compacts as their main form of transportation. Even if they are better than they once were I don't see them as being better than what we can get in a Accord or Camry, Chrysler 300, Ford 500 or the like. They sure aren't in the league of a Mazda3 or 6.

john500 · September 2006

Neat car. After 10+ years in research, here's my take about timeline estimates.

When a scientist or engineer says something is two years off, it is really five years off. However, the technology is there and it is just a matter of engineering optimization.

When a scientist or engineer says something is five to ten years off, it likely won't occur. If it does occur, it will likely be 30 years in the future. A few major advances are required and the projection of 5-10 years is based upon the concept that everyone in the world dropped what they were doing and started working on that right away.

When a scientist or engineer says something is ten to twenty years off, it definitely won't occur unless George Jetson or ET comes down and shows us the way. There are fundamental physics laws violations and major advances are needed. Things such as human limb regeneration, aging without senescence and free energy (or fuel cell utilization in a country that uses 80 + % hydrocarbon based power) fall into this category.

plekto · September 2006

Hydrogen powered cars aren't free. In fact, it's horrendously wasteful of energy to produce the stuff. We would need hundreds of reactors to produce enough power to make enough to meet the needs of every single person in the U.S.

CNG is infinately better. It can be made from waste and plants, plus is theoretically infinately renewable. All for a fraction of the cost of any other method. This will be the fuel of the next hundred or more years, though we'll only see it once oil becomes scarce and they have wrung all the profit out of it that they can.

$3.50 a gallon gas or $1 a gallon CNG. When gas gets to $5 a gallon, I surely won't be driving a gasoline-powered car.

The Honda Civic GX, for instance, is a perfect example. It wouldn't take very much effort to make a version with a 350-400 mile range. Just put another tank in there - under the rear seats or wherever, since there's no gas tank anymore.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

Whenever someone mentions hydrogen I keep thinking about the Hindenberg....oh, the humanity!

I agree though, that there are some major "miracles" that still have to occur before hydrogen power is a reality. TV shows tend to gloss over the hard, sober stuff---they don't want to depress the audience TOO much with facts!

And this idea of "switching bodies at the dealership"---GEEZ, it's hard enough getting them to do an oil change correctly......

boaz47 · September 2006

Fuels aren't much help to Sub Compacts. find a renewable fuel and the need for Sub Compacts takes a hit on the head. As we have heard time and time again even in this forum the high cost of fuel and the impending doom of the whole planet because we just barely have enough fuel reserves to make it till Christmas has been the prime factor driving people into sub compacts. Without that specter hanging over our heads what would keep people from just driving what they wanted like the do now?

nippononly · September 2006

I dunno boaz - I am eagerly anticipating the day when we have the (carbon equivalent of) 100-mpg vehicles readily available to us, and the small size and light weight of subcompacts will still be an aid in the pursuit of that goal regardless of the fuel being used.

snakeweasel · September 2006

That may not be the case. While a renewable fuel can be replaced how fast we can replace it may be a very strong factor in what kind of cars we drive.

boaz47 · September 2006

Yes nip, but you may friend are almost an anomaly compared to the general car buying public. They have always moved towards something different than what you, and in some cases I, like to drive. You and Shifty wold get small light cars even if they found a way to run on water, or methane. While without the fear of fuel prices, the talk of running out hasn't done much during the SUV prime years, people gravitate to larger vehicles. Why else would some advocate taxing SUVs and bug trucks at a higher rate than a small car. If small cars could stand on their own subsidies wouldn't be necessary. Even hybrids tend to get subsudised. If people want them then a subsidy wouldn't be necessary. Getting people to buy into the small sub compact is all you need mentality is like trying to get them to eat healthier. 400 micky Ds will open to every health food store and 400 health food stores will close before one Micky Ds.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

Energy resources are now a national issue, a defense issue, an economic issue, cutting across all political lines...it's not just a matter of what a car owner likes or doesn't like anymore. You're going to be allowed to kill yourself by over-eating, but you aren't going to be allowed to suck the country's fuel tanks dry, in other words--just like people were finally not allowed to dump toxins into streams and rivers.

You'll see more financial and social rewards and/or incentives for "driving small", just like you have seen rewards for not polluting, for riding bicycles, for not littering, even for not smoking.

Cheap energy is, at the moment, gone forever in its present form, with nothing immediate to replace it. So what else can you do but use less?

And the easiest way to use less? Not push around so much weight.

If you could build a 2,000 lb 25 foot SUV, I'd have no problem with that....

plekto · September 2006

Natural gas and biodiesel are here right now. They use them to power many cities' busses, which is far more taxing than any consumer use.

Equivalent to $1 a gallon if you fill it with a device in your own garage(overnight). $1.50 if you go to a filling station.(same timeframe as filling with gas or diesel - 3 minutes or so)

british_rover · September 2006

On small cars loaded up on MSN right now.

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=2894

reddroverr · September 2006

I am all for diesel or biodiesel. CNG may be good, but aren't we already trying to import LNG to bolster supplies? If a whole bunch of cars started using it...who knows what the supplies will be relative to demand. Govt I assume would have to figure out a way to get increased tax revenue from it to replace *what i assume* are higher taxes on gasoline.

fitluver · September 2006

I couldnt agree more with regards to eating healthy and buying healthy.

Too many people are short sighted with their car purchases and dont consider their grandkids or great grankids.

I like the idea of a renewable fuel source but I think that the ethanol they are trying to sell us is less then desirable.

It would take far more energy and far more then every corn kernel to supply this country's "greedy needs" then what it would cost to produce the energy.

I cant wait to get my fit and I hate that I have to wait till december but its nice to know that I will probably far exceed the expected mpg...on regular gasoline.

I get up to over 60 miles per hour only once about every two or three months so I expect killer mileage. :shades:

fitluver · September 2006

Incredible movie. Wow!

Thanks.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

I've been looking over the length and weight of some of the car we have been calling "subcompact" and really, they don't qualify. An Elantra is a full TWO FEET longer than a Scion xA--that can't possibly be in the same class then.

I think someone suggested a cut-off of around 165 inches and that sounds about right to me.

Also a subcompact sucking gas at the rate of 25 mpg doesn't make much sense, and there are a couple of those around (because of 2 liter and bigger engines in them). I suppose you can make that up in style and sportiness in the MINI but some of the other gas-hungry small cars are pretty dreary otherwise.

nippononly · September 2006

Who is calling Elantra a subcompact? No way is it a sub. Neither are Corolla or Civic or Focus. Neither is Caliber, which always seems to get lumped in with this group lately.

And it is debatable whether Versa is a subcompact, if you ask me. Here we have a car which, like Yaris/Corolla, is only slightly smaller than its sibling next up in the line, the Sentra. Yes, it's cheap. No, it's not that small.

Question: I see many people lump the xB in with the subcompacts - would you say it is or isn't? It is certainly short in length, but isn't really small in any other dimension, and has one of the most spacious interiors for four people available today, short of a Crown Vic.

Mr_Shiftright · September 2006

I think overall length is about as fair a guideline as one can come up with. So yeah, at 155 inches the xB certainly qualifies IMO. While not pretty, the xB is certainly "intelligent" in use of space.

andre1969 · September 2006

my cutoff for a subcompact versus compact car was usually 170-175 inches. But that was back before cars started getting taller and wider and finding ways to increase interior room without getting much longer. So a 2006 Civic or Corolla might only be the same length as a 1985 Cavalier, but they're wider and taller, with more headroom and back seat room, and probably larger trunks as well, thanks to the higher rear deck.

As for the xB, it has good headroom and backseat legroom, but up front legroom is still typical subcompact...too close to the pedals to really be comfortable, at least for me. Same affliction as the xA, Yaris, Corolla, Sentra, and to a lesser degree, the Versa. So it's kind of an odd duck in having a compact front seat mated to a backseat with legroom that would probably put Lemko's '89 Fleetwood Brougham to shame!

I really don't know what to call it. Truthfully it's more like a little van that has hinged, versus sliding back doors. I'd group it in whatever you'd call vehicles like the PT Cruiser and HHR. Technically they're trucks, and even classed by the EPA as such. But they're really not that far removed from something like a Ford Focus wagon or a Toyota Matrix or, back in the day those odd tall Civic wagons or those funky Nissan Stanza-based things, or even the first-gen Honda Odyssey, which blurred the line between minivan and wagon.

Now on the Versa, I'd consider it a compact. Even though it's considerably shorter than something like a Corolla, Sentra, or Civic. It also has a fairly long wheelbase, something like 102" IIRC. I think the EPA classifies it as a compact.

The EPA actually classifies the Elantra as a midsize! I'd call it a roomy compact though. Seats four really good-sized adults in comfort, but still kinda narrow in the shoulder room department so that you really don't want to try squeezing 3 people across in the back.

Truth be told though, even most cars today that have the shoulder room for it aren't good for 3-across seating. Either the contouring of the seats is wrong for it, or there's a hard spot in the center of the seat, or a protrusion from the armrest, too big of a driveshaft hump in the RWD cars, too much curvature from the windows and C-pillar, etc.

boaz47 · September 2006

We are doing the very same thing with sub Compacts as they did with SUVs. Because big station wagons fell out of favor and we regulated out of existence we came up with the mini van and then to avoid the stigma of driving a soccer moms car we developed the more Macho SUV. Doesn't matter if the SUV was most often used like a big station wagon or not it only mattered that it was called something else and rated as something else by the EPA. Chopping off the overhang on a Lincoln town car doesn't move it from large car to mid sized. Doing the same thing with the overhang on compacts doesn't move them from the compact range into the sub compact range. Taking a Echo and putting the body of a 65 Chevy van on it doesn't make the chevy van a sub compact either. Everyone knows how I feel about the xB. It is the ultimate anti car. It is the anti enthusiasts vehicle. It is pure appliance and lack of aerodynamics. A box on wheels. Like driving a happy meal. Even the owners call them rolling toasters. It should only be called a sub compact if "A" you want to insult sub compacts or "B" you believe a Chevy Cargo Van is a compact. But it does supply a lot of room for its size. Then again if they provided Bob Sled seating you could get ten kids in the thing and still have room for their walk men. Better yet you could require that they take out the seats and stack the driver and passengers in like cargo boxes and get close to twenty kids in a xB. If you had a foot fetish it might even be considered sexy. It does look for all the world like a shoe box.

andre1969 · September 2006

Chopping off the overhang on a Lincoln town car doesn't move it from large car to mid sized

Well according to the EPA, if you chop enough of that overhang off and shrink up trunk space, you'd end up with a midsized car! The Town Car has 112 cubic feet of interior space and 21 cubic feet of trunk space, for a combined total of 133. Get that trunk volume down to less than 8 cubic feet and you've got an intermediate.

Just for kicks, I looked up the specs on the 1993-96 Cadillac Fleetwood. That sucker's got 125 cubic feet of interior volume, plus 21 cubic feet of trunk space! So that sucker qualifies as a fullsized car (120 cubic feet of combined volume) just on passenger cabin alone! :surprise:

As for cramming large amounts of people in an xB, better hope that foot fetish doesn't involve womens' high heels or boots with deep lug soles, or someone's gonna get hurt! For maximum capacity, probably best of stripping everyone naked, lubing them up with Crisco, and shoving them in. :P

andre1969 · September 2006

the xB wears, to me it looks like a scaled down, less aerodynamic version of the Astro!

robertsmx · September 2006

EPA actually classifies the Elantra as a midsize!

Thats because their definition includes trunk space (added to cabin volume). So, a car with 90 cu ft cabin but 20 cu ft trunk would qualify as a full size even though the cabin dimensions barely qualify for a compact.

My personal preference is passenger cabin volume.
104 cu ft: fullsize

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles