With all that brainpower out there, can anyone tell me why these sub-compacts don't always have telescoping steering wheels and seat adjusters?
I would have thought it would be a no-brainer, so the widest possible 'audience' of drivers would be able to feel comfortable in the car and buy it. :confuse:
Well, I always took subjective to mean based on opinion and preference, while objective is based on fact. If I simply don't like a snug driving position or don't like a small car and prefer the feel of a bigger car that's subjective. However, if I get a pain in my lower back or the steering wheel gets in the way of me, that's a fact. You might not experience it in the same way I would, but it's a fact.
As for the dentist's drill, while everybody might be subjected to the same stimulus (the drill), not everybody's going to react to it the same way. It all depends on how sensitive your nerves are, and how much of a tolerance to pain you have, etc. Some people might not need any painkillers at all, while some people might need a triple dose and that's still not enough. And others still might be turned on by it! :P
I guess about all you can really say is that it's a combination of fact and preference. Honestly, visibility is the same way. If my seat is in a different position than yours, I'm not going to get the quite the same view as you are, and my blind spots will be slightly different. If you sit really close to the windshield you'll get a better view, but if you're further back the A-pillars will be more in your line of vision. If you're higher up, the rearview mirror will be more in the way. I actually look DOWN at the rearview mirror of my Intrepid, which I have never done before in any car I've ever owned. Well, okay, my DeSoto's mirror is on the dash, so ya got me there! The lower mirror usually gives you a better view out the rear window, but then it runs the risk of blocking your view out the front. In the DeSoto's case though, it's so low that the only view out the front it obscures is the hood. It does become almost useless though if you have people in the back seat. Also, since I usually put the seat all the way back in just about any 4-door car I drive, I'm going to get a blind spot off to the side because the B-pillar is right beside my head. But then a shorter person might not sit back as far.
Not referring to anyone in particular, but the comment usually is that someone "can't fit" in a car. The response is that a gorilla could fit in the car in question. The reponse to that is that the person feels they "can't fit comfortably" in the car which generally degrades into "the car is uncomfortable" which is almost meaningless to anyone but the dude who says it.
I suspect biases play into this also. Personally, I fit comfortably into a Boxster because I want to. If I fit exactly the same way into a Ford Aspire, I would probably claim that I am way too big for that little tin box.
Oh I believe you 100% but I guess it is the severity of your discomfort couples with my curiosity at your formidable Hulk Hogan size that fuels my inability to wrap myself around your complaints. :P
I'm trying to visualize, as I sit in my own xA, exactly HOW BIG one would have to be to not be comfortable in it---I sort of practice inflating and stretching myself until I expand to the point where my body would actually interfere with the car's surfaces-----and it seems like one would have to be an impressively big man.
On the other hand, I can relate to the concept of "discomfort". I hated driving the Chevy Monte Carlo, but it wasn't the "interior size" of the car, or exterior size....it simply had lousy seats and terrible rearward visibility.
It was a design issue, not a size issue in other words.
Egads, I think that I am going to try to find an xA in this vacinity to try it out ... I don't think that I have seen one in this area.
The Ford Aspire was the ONLY car that I truly did not fit in. I had to open up the window to have a place to put my arm. Nothing like driving around Cleveland with the window open in January.
the monte carlo is a niche vehicle. for another person with a different body, maybe the seats are comfortable. rearward visibility is most likely an issue for everyone. was there anything you could tolerate about it?
2024 Ford F-150 STX, 2023 Ford Explorer ST, 91 Mustang GT vert
some people have about sub compacts is not limited to the people in this forum. Just look at the commercial for the Versa. They have even created a word for it. Something like Auto claustrophobia. Contrary to the, sub compacts have plenty of room mantra that some have tried to convince others of here. Is it perception? Maybe but it is enough perception that the advertisers are willing to try and cash in on it stating that the Versa has solved the small car cramped feeling. To some my PT and the focus are way too small. We could get into the discussion about the American space comfort zone but most of us already realize that americans require more room between themselves than our European cousins and lots more room than our Asian cousins.
Ohhh, believe me, these seats were baaaaddd...I suppose an 18 year old who is used to crashing through trees on a mountain bike might find them tolerable, even delightful, but yer average driver---hard to imagine....hard, lumpy, non-supportive. Think of driving a few hundred miles in a bad chair from a thrift store.
Anything I liked about the car? Yep, the engine was great, the trunk was big. Back seats sucked, radio sucked, AC sucked, visibility sucked, ergonomics (eh), styling (eh), build quality (eh), handling (eh), gas mileage (eh), steering (dead).
You know, GM mediocrity wrapped around a powerful engine and a big trunk and a decent price---the usual formula.
To be fair, Scion seats aren't...GREAT...or anything, but they are more than adequate for a 200 miler.
To some my PT and the focus are way too small. We could get into the discussion about the American space comfort zone but most of us already realize that americans require more room between themselves than our European cousins and lots more room than our Asian cousins.
I see the PT and the Focus as being different ways of trying to serve the same market. They're both basically tall, short, compact wagons. The PT's just a little taller and has a flatter load floor, so it gets qualified as an SUV. So does Chevy's HHR. I've sat in all three, and prefer the PT the most. It doesn't have vast stretch-out room, but has enough for me to get comfortable. I always found the Focus to be cramped, though. And the HHR I fit in okay, but the small windows and high beltline make it feel claustrophobic to me. In contrast, the PT feels like it has more glass area, and also bigger doors.
If they took something like an xA and added maybe two inches of wheelbase in the front seat area, and another inch or two in the backseat area, they'd have a vehicle that was still subcompact in overall length and wheelbase, but would fit bigger people really well. Honestly, when it comes to legroom, a couple of inches can make all the difference in the world.
I've noticed with my comfort level, there seem to be two factors at play: seat design and actual stretch-out room. If a car has sucky seats but I can still stretch out, I'm usually okay. I think this is one reason why I'm actually more comfortable in many older cars. Also, their seats seemed to support my lower back my thighs fairly well. Many car seat base cushions today are just too flat, and the backrests force me into a bit of a slouching position.
However, the best seats in the world are going to be useless to me if I don't have enough room.
Shifty, if ya want, the next time I go to an auto show, I'll bring my camera and have someone take a pic of me in an xA, so I can show you just what I'm talking about when I say I'm not comfortable! :P
Not referring to anyone in particular, but the comment usually is that someone "can't fit" in a car. The response is that a gorilla could fit in the car in question. The reponse to that is that the person feels they "can't fit comfortably" in the car which generally degrades into "the car is uncomfortable" which is almost meaningless to anyone but the dude who says it.
What you are saying is true. I've said "I can't fit in a Corolla" when what I meant was "I can't fit 'comfortably' in a Corolla."
I'm 6'4", drive an Accord, and my girlfriend has a 2004 Corolla LE. I drive it all the time (at least once a month). While head and leg room is basically sufficient, the steering wheel is incredibly too far away from me, almost locking my elbows out in some turns!
It's not that I don't fit, it's that I don't fit comfortably.
there's big news on the Scion front, man! The xA and the xB are both being replaced. Scion finally made the announcement.
The xB will be replaced by the production-variant of the Scion x2B. Remember the photos of that we saw about 8 or 9 months ago? Just picture an xB with rounded corners and a much-more space-age body design and you'll have a good enough handle on it.
As for the xA, Scion is rumoured to be using the tall Ractis wagon design for that automobile. That car will give you that extra legroom and headroom and even backseat passenger room. There's a picture of a tall Ractis wagon on the Edmunds' Scion xA thread, go about 20 posts or so back is all and you'll see a picture of one. Everyone is not unanimous that they like the "proposed" new xA design. Since these are only rumoured new production plans you may not want to spend any time at all on it until Scion spills "official" beans on new xA plans for us.
It probably wouldn't be any faster but it would have more torque and thus allow some higher gearing for the highway. If you put in a 2.4 you're going to start sucking gas like a PT Cruiser does (and really, it's a pretty sluggish car in base form anyway) which kind of defeats the whole idea. You'll lose 10 mpg easy with a 2.4. Might as well drive a bigger car for that kind of MPG.
Seen how easy agreement comes to those who wait? If the xA would have been out when I got the Focus ZTS I might have given it a shot with 130 HP. 108 just wasn't going to cut it. I only know a very few people that own an Echo and so far none of my friends have a xA but the Echo people are retired and almost always have two or three people in the car. I haven't seen Nippons Echo or how he drives so that doesn't count. Those other people that have Echos have a heck of a time coming back up our mountain with three people and the air running. No problem in the fall or anytime but the summer however that little motor just doesn't cut it going from 1000 feet to 5000 feet in less than 16 miles. With 130 ponies and the weight of the xA it should be a little scooter that would more than make up for its smashed Matrix looks.
I can only say they probably don't know how to drive, seriously. I bet they short shift, or bog uphill, etc.....with a small engine you have to be a) very attentive to the tachometer, b) able to anticipate engine loads and c) understand how a manual transmission works most efficiently.
For instance, there's a big hill just north of the Golden Gate bridge...if you take an on-ramp approaching that hill in 5th gear, you will bog in the right lane, lose all your momentum and end up having to go full throttle in 3rd to build it all back up again. But if you hit the onramp in 3rd at 5,500 rpm and did a quick shift into 4th, you are fine and dandy all the way up...you might even catch 5th.
These are the same people who stall airplanes in climbs.
In short, an xA has PLENTY of power, if you know where to find it.
How tall is this mountain? If it's over 5,000 feet....well, you might have a point with 4 people and AC on....but then, a 1.8 liter engine isn't going to do much better with 130 HP.
I have driven the Echo with three adults and a 3 year old into the City, and come back up the grade Shifty is referring to without ever dropping below 55 mph (the speed limit on that stretch).
What he says is very true, and in retrospect perhaps one of the larger challenges subcompacts face in America: You have to know how to drive. This is not a car where you leave it in some random gear and hope to go everywhere with the huge 1500-rpm torque the gas-slurping V-8 American cars have. This is a car that you have to allow to rev for power in taxing situations (and help it by choosing the right gear if you have a manual). People I know, even ones that drive manual, usually don't do this. They think it's bad for the engine or something? It's a darn shame, because some of the smaller Japanese engines, especially the Hondas, sound sooo sweeeeeet when you rev them. In the case of the Toyota 1.5, it's not the sweetest sound I have ever heard but it is very smooth and barely intrusive even when revving hard.
I have also taken the Echo up to Tahoe a couple of times, once solo, once with another adult, both times in the heat of summer with the A/C running all the way. The summit over highway 50 is more than 6000 feet, and the car never broke a sweat. I did NOT, however, attempt to do the whole thing in fifth gear!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have always contended that the reason Americans are among the world's most gearshift-challenged is because they are "torque-lazy" from learning to drive on big American engines. Even our own Bob Lutz said that the most fun driving is with a manual transmission attached to an underpowered car on a twisty mountain road---yes he did, he said that. Of course he meant twisty,not a straight-line slog.
if you put a 2.4 engine in the xA if you'd run into the same problem as the tC? Now a tC really isn't that much lighter than a Camry, even though it's a much smaller car. And one thing I never could understand is that it's not much faster, but suffers considerably in highway economy. I know y'all have explained to me WHY that happens, but I'm still just not getting it. :confuse:
I've always been of the opinion that some engines are balanced perfectly for the car they're in. To the point that if you take away mass, you're not going to see any improvement in performance or economy. But at the same time, if you add more mass, you're going to lose out in both. For example, if you were to take a 426 Hemi out of a '71 Barracuda and find a way to force it into an xA (I have seen it forced into the PT Cruiser), are you really going to see any improvement in acceleration or fuel economy? A 426 Hemi was pretty much overkill for just about any car that it went into, so any modern car is just going to be more of the same.
Putting a Hemi in a Dart 270 would also be overkill, but maybe if you put one in a link Travco 270 it might hold it back a tad. And you might see fuel economy suffer. :P
The tC/Camry discrepancy is all about the gearing! As are the performance disparities of many cars that have about the same power-to-weight ratio.
But you are wrong about the economy. Take away mass, and you will always gain economy, even if you leave the power and gearing exactly the same. Of course, you can enhance this by making the gearing taller after you reduce the weight, further increasing economy.
Let me put this in a context you can relate to: putting the 2.4 in the xA is like putting the Hemi in the 300. All the extra power allows you to loaf around most of the time at 1500 rpm, and the full power of that engine is never needed, and probably never fully utilized by the majority of drivers. Put in the 3.5 V-6, and you will have fuel economy gains (despite DOD and all the rest of it) in most situations but especially in city driving, where the big V-8 takes more gas at all times to fire up and when idling, and in driving situations where the extra power is never needed.
To take it one step further, put in the (despised by some) 2.7, and if you are a slow driver that is prepared to drive like there is an egg under the gas pedal to save gas, you will have even further gains in economy because you never need the extra power of the larger engines.
Of course, reducing the 2-ton curb weight of that brick would have a huge positive effect on economy, even if you left the power and gearing alone. That thing needs at least 500 pounds sliced off.
There is no way the next xA is getting an optional 2.4 - they are still playing with the idea of making a sport version of the next Corolla/Matrix with such a large engine - but if they give it the 2.0 from the next Corolla and make the gearing LOTS taller (while keeping the car light and small), they have the potential to turn it into a real gas sipper, which will never be last at the races either.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
well here's one thing I never really could figure out. Last year I went to Florida in my Intrepid, with two of my friends. We had that car loaded to the gills, with the trunk packed full and one or two items of luggage spilling into the back seat. Between the two of them and all the luggage, I know that was probably about 500-600 pounds more weight than when it's just me in the car. On that trip we averaged about 26-28 mpg, with the a/c going full-blast most of the time. But, get this...26-28 mpg is about what I normally get on the highway with just me in the car! So in this case, the extra 500-600 pounds, which is essentially like going from a 3400-3500 pound car to a 3900-4100 pound car, made almost no difference on this trip. In stop-and-go driving though, I'm sure it would've made a noticeable difference.
And yeah, I know that normally, when you reduce weight you should be able to improve fuel economy. However, I think that in many cases it's going to be negligible. If a 2.4 can get 33-34 highway mpg in a Camry, but the little 1.5 4-cyl only gets around 38-40 in an xA or Yaris, I'd expect that putting a 2.4 in an xA or Yaris would be somewhere in the middle. When you figure you're dropping about nearly a thousand pounds, the improvement in economy just isn't that much.
I think that it's just that the 2.4 is in its "sweet spot" in a car that weighs around 3000-3300 pounds, and dropping a few hundred pounds just isn't going to boost fuel economy or performance that much. But then if you put that engine in something heavier, like maybe an Avalon or God forbid a truck, it's going to kill itself!
And there have been instances in the past when getting a bigger engine would actually get you better economy, simply because it was better matched with the weight of the vehicle. From around 1979-83, where they gave you the choice, you were better off getting the 318 in a Mopar than you were a 225 slant six, because the slant six was simply overmatched for the bulk of those cars. You had no acceleration and no fuel economy, because it just wasn't strong enough to move that mass with any efficiency. The 318 was better suited, and didn't have to struggle as hard, so it gave much better performance and slightly better economy.
As for the new 300/Charger, I'm actually impressed that the economy ratings are as good as they are. The 2.7 is rated at 21/28. My 2000 Intrepid with that engine was 20/29. When you figure it probably has 300 pounds or so on my car, plus the added power sap from the RWD setup, that's not bad.
The 3.5 is rated at 19/27. On the old LH cars it was 18/26. Now the LX cars have a 5-speed automatic these days, but IIRC, when they were only offering the 4-speed with the 3.5, the EPA rating was the same. So it looks like in this case, even with adding the 300 pounds or so (the V-6 cars don't bulk up quite as much as the Hemi) and the added power sap of the RWD doesn't seem to have an effect on the fuel economy ratings.
Of course, that's just EPA estimates. real world results might be different.
I agree, it's plenty of power for a car this small and light. And of course, there is no way Toyota is putting a different engine in for American Scions than the same cars get worldwide - the whole point here is maximizing economies of scale. The Yaris spin-offs are Toyota's biggest volume worldwide, and there isn't another market anywhere that would consider the 2.0 a plus - they would just be taxed like crazy for it. This 1.5 has just recently been slightly revised for the new Yaris, and the next xA/xB will come out soon, so I think they will still be using the same engine series with the same displacement.
Now it might well make a little more power than it does now. It would be cool if they could give it a taller overdrive gear for better highway fuel economy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Kills you when you have to accelerate the mass, so around town or up hills. Driving in the flat lands, once you have it up to speed, the aerodynamics and gearing have a bigger impact. 500 lbs isn't going to make much difference when you are locked into highway cruising like you were doing.
This is not a car where you leave it in some random gear and hope to go everywhere with the huge 1500-rpm torque the gas-slurping V-8 American cars have.
That would also depend on where you live. Here in the Chicago area hills that will bog down that little four banger are few and far between (ok they are non existent).
Unfortunately there are a few places that make excellent day trips that will put you on such a hill. It seems like half the time I am behind someone who doesn't know how to take a hill. :sick:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
- Bigger engine is required, because HP is a made-up number as it is, derived mostly from gearing - but based on torque, which is the only real meaurement of an engine's output. 150Hp does you no good if the car has 80ft-lbs of torque due to silly gearing. - Bigger tires. - Bigger brakes - Bigger drivetrain components - Bigger fuel tank - Bigger radiator and accessories And so on... It may only be a few pounds here and a few ounces there, but it does create a snowball effect.
Conversely, loosing weight does the same thing. Slightly less powerful engine, smaller tires, and so on - to get the same performance. And less weight handles better, which is always a plus.
I keep recalling when Colin Chapman of Lotus went to the Indy 500 one year. He said something like "Those cars are monsters. I could beat them with a car weighing 1/3 as much and with 1/2 the power".
And he just about did that two years later. (rear engine Lotus V-8 as I recall).
Well cars.com and autoinsider both have reported that the xA and xB will be replaced after this year. The tC will be the only real 2007 model and I would not be surprised to see a bigger motor in the new models in 2008. we won't have long to wait but my guess from reading some other sites that at lest a 2.0 if not a 2.5 may be in the offering. What do you think they are going to do?
available by spring 2007 will be almost exactly the t2B concept car they showed this year, which is just the next-gen bB in Japan. They are following a tried and true formula there. And it will still use the 1.5.
The next xA will indeed be the Ractis, as iluv mentioned. And guess which engines the Ractis uses right now? Yup, the global 1.3 (which has never been available in the U.S.) and the oh-so-familiar 1.5! :-)
(Oh, and yes, the Ractis is a 5-door, a funky-looking Japanese home market 5-door. It has a profile very similar to the Mazda5 microvan, but it has regular doors instead of sliders, and it's significantly smaller).
And hey, if you want an xA or xB, you better grab one quickly, as they go off sale this December to make way for the new models.
And boaz: in two years they have sold 80,000 xAs and almost 145,000 xBs here in the States! How's that for "it'll never catch on..."?! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yes, and the sales were flipped from predictions. But still. In another 20 years they would have equalled one year of F-series trucks. And now they will be gone.
F-150's certainly doesn't show that F-150's are a better way to go. There are so many F-150's loose right now on America's streets it's ridiculous.
They are using too much ghastly and they are polluting more.
I'll take me a 2007 Suzuki SX-4. Hey, you know who worked with with Suzuki on the SX-4? You guessed it, none other that Fiat Motors. Small car maker working with a mostly small car maker from Japan. This new hatchwagon from Suzuki is the real deal, a small rig that is loaded to the gills with good standard equipment, including a roof rack and a keyless remote.
Oh, I almost forgot. The SX-4 will also come with a self-lubricating timing chain, to reduce your maintenance costs even more. It's already going to be a great car for low maintenance costs but this one saves buyers about $300-$500 every 60,000 miles to go along with everything else.
It's now at the very pinnacle of my futures list. Any time now. Yeah right. The Sportsman is too good, gentlemen. It's a great little SUV, my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4. Can't say enough good things about that rig. So, I could be driving it for another 40,000 miles easily. Wednesday it goes in for it's 120,000 timing belt change. It will also get it's differential fluid dumped and changed and it's manual tranny fluid dumped and changed. Plus, it's time for a battery post cleaning. A little bit of corrosion was spotted the other day while giving a friend(in a little Jeep Wrangler)a jumpstart. Dudes, Kia is not going anywhere but up. They are a great car maker.
Just as sure as your beloved Pittsburgh Steelers will not be making another trip to the Super Bowl this year Kia is a great automaker. Rothelschild, why not rest your sore appendix and get over the flu before playing against Jacksonville? What a bunch of dorks the Steelers and their coaches and their fans are.
Watching the game, it became clear what the problem in the Steeler's game is - and why they are doomed as soon as other teams figure this out.
Jacksonville was very good at rushing and pushing the Steeler's quarterback hard. He had to make snap decisions and react quicker than he usually had to - and as a result, couln't make good passes. Hardly any were caught, and it ended up with the final insult - he was so stressed that in the last play, he actually threw the ball right to the other side's player.(OUCH!).
It's amazing that they figured it out so fast, though - because it's the Steeler's Achille's Heel. He's a thrower and not a runner, so don't give him time to make good throws and presto - the whole thing self-destructs.
About cars - the statistcs GM and Ford use include fleet/government/taxi/police/corporate/etc use as well, so it creates a horribly skewed picture.
They have to be careful about "beefy" 4 cylinder cars. 4 cylinders have inherent vibration problems, and they get worse as displacement increases....2.5 is about as far as one should go IMO. Notice you never see a 3.0 4 cylinder engine...I can't even recall a 2.8. Oh, the TATRA had a 3.0 boxer engine I think, if you are into rear-engine Czech cars that look like lizards.
Having looked over the Yaris, I'm glad I bought the xA. I like the looks better and the Yaris offers no improvements I can see except piddley stuff.
And having followed a Fit around from behind, I'm really glad I didn't buy that ugly butt.
I was really hot for the Chevy HHR, but GM + 1st year model scared me. I'm such a wimp. Ditto the MINI. The very idea of making car payments on a car sitting in a dealer's repair shop makes me ill.
Didn't Porsche make a 3.0 liter four cylinder for something?
But yeah I agree with you I think anything over about 2.5 liters is too big for a four cylinder and even that is pushing it. You have to make the balance shafts too large.
Ah, now I remember why I don't want a big 4 cylinder in a car...actually the 968 isn't too bad---Porsche uses Mitsubishi's balance shaft system, and of course torque is directly related to the individual displacement of each cylinder. Still the Porsche 4s are not the smoothest of engines by a long shot. I'm a sucker for a big inline 6, and we aren't going to see THAT in a subcompact anytime soon!
Comments
I would have thought it would be a no-brainer, so the widest possible 'audience' of drivers would be able to feel comfortable in the car and buy it. :confuse:
As for the dentist's drill, while everybody might be subjected to the same stimulus (the drill), not everybody's going to react to it the same way. It all depends on how sensitive your nerves are, and how much of a tolerance to pain you have, etc. Some people might not need any painkillers at all, while some people might need a triple dose and that's still not enough. And others still might be turned on by it! :P
I guess about all you can really say is that it's a combination of fact and preference. Honestly, visibility is the same way. If my seat is in a different position than yours, I'm not going to get the quite the same view as you are, and my blind spots will be slightly different. If you sit really close to the windshield you'll get a better view, but if you're further back the A-pillars will be more in your line of vision. If you're higher up, the rearview mirror will be more in the way. I actually look DOWN at the rearview mirror of my Intrepid, which I have never done before in any car I've ever owned. Well, okay, my DeSoto's mirror is on the dash, so ya got me there! The lower mirror usually gives you a better view out the rear window, but then it runs the risk of blocking your view out the front. In the DeSoto's case though, it's so low that the only view out the front it obscures is the hood. It does become almost useless though if you have people in the back seat. Also, since I usually put the seat all the way back in just about any 4-door car I drive, I'm going to get a blind spot off to the side because the B-pillar is right beside my head. But then a shorter person might not sit back as far.
I suspect biases play into this also. Personally, I fit comfortably into a Boxster because I want to. If I fit exactly the same way into a Ford Aspire, I would probably claim that I am way too big for that little tin box.
I'm trying to visualize, as I sit in my own xA, exactly HOW BIG one would have to be to not be comfortable in it---I sort of practice inflating and stretching myself until I expand to the point where my body would actually interfere with the car's surfaces-----and it seems like one would have to be an impressively big man.
On the other hand, I can relate to the concept of "discomfort". I hated driving the Chevy Monte Carlo, but it wasn't the "interior size" of the car, or exterior size....it simply had lousy seats and terrible rearward visibility.
It was a design issue, not a size issue in other words.
The Ford Aspire was the ONLY car that I truly did not fit in. I had to open up the window to have a place to put my arm. Nothing like driving around Cleveland with the window open in January.
rearward visibility is most likely an issue for everyone.
was there anything you could tolerate about it?
Anything I liked about the car? Yep, the engine was great, the trunk was big. Back seats sucked, radio sucked, AC sucked, visibility sucked, ergonomics (eh), styling (eh), build quality (eh), handling (eh), gas mileage (eh), steering (dead).
You know, GM mediocrity wrapped around a powerful engine and a big trunk and a decent price---the usual formula.
To be fair, Scion seats aren't...GREAT...or anything, but they are more than adequate for a 200 miler.
I see the PT and the Focus as being different ways of trying to serve the same market. They're both basically tall, short, compact wagons. The PT's just a little taller and has a flatter load floor, so it gets qualified as an SUV. So does Chevy's HHR. I've sat in all three, and prefer the PT the most. It doesn't have vast stretch-out room, but has enough for me to get comfortable. I always found the Focus to be cramped, though. And the HHR I fit in okay, but the small windows and high beltline make it feel claustrophobic to me. In contrast, the PT feels like it has more glass area, and also bigger doors.
If they took something like an xA and added maybe two inches of wheelbase in the front seat area, and another inch or two in the backseat area, they'd have a vehicle that was still subcompact in overall length and wheelbase, but would fit bigger people really well. Honestly, when it comes to legroom, a couple of inches can make all the difference in the world.
I've noticed with my comfort level, there seem to be two factors at play: seat design and actual stretch-out room. If a car has sucky seats but I can still stretch out, I'm usually okay. I think this is one reason why I'm actually more comfortable in many older cars. Also, their seats seemed to support my lower back my thighs fairly well. Many car seat base cushions today are just too flat, and the backrests force me into a bit of a slouching position.
However, the best seats in the world are going to be useless to me if I don't have enough room.
Shifty, if ya want, the next time I go to an auto show, I'll bring my camera and have someone take a pic of me in an xA, so I can show you just what I'm talking about when I say I'm not comfortable! :P
What you are saying is true. I've said "I can't fit in a Corolla" when what I meant was "I can't fit 'comfortably' in a Corolla."
I'm 6'4", drive an Accord, and my girlfriend has a 2004 Corolla LE. I drive it all the time (at least once a month). While head and leg room is basically sufficient, the steering wheel is incredibly too far away from me, almost locking my elbows out in some turns!
It's not that I don't fit, it's that I don't fit comfortably.
The xB will be replaced by the production-variant of the Scion x2B. Remember the photos of that we saw about 8 or 9 months ago? Just picture an xB with rounded corners and a much-more space-age body design and you'll have a good enough handle on it.
As for the xA, Scion is rumoured to be using the tall Ractis wagon design for that automobile. That car will give you that extra legroom and headroom and even backseat passenger room. There's a picture of a tall Ractis wagon on the Edmunds' Scion xA thread, go about 20 posts or so back is all and you'll see a picture of one. Everyone is not unanimous that they like the "proposed" new xA design. Since these are only rumoured new production plans you may not want to spend any time at all on it until Scion spills "official" beans on new xA plans for us.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I can only say they probably don't know how to drive, seriously. I bet they short shift, or bog uphill, etc.....with a small engine you have to be a) very attentive to the tachometer, b) able to anticipate engine loads and c) understand how a manual transmission works most efficiently.
For instance, there's a big hill just north of the Golden Gate bridge...if you take an on-ramp approaching that hill in 5th gear, you will bog in the right lane, lose all your momentum and end up having to go full throttle in 3rd to build it all back up again. But if you hit the onramp in 3rd at 5,500 rpm and did a quick shift into 4th, you are fine and dandy all the way up...you might even catch 5th.
These are the same people who stall airplanes in climbs.
In short, an xA has PLENTY of power, if you know where to find it.
How tall is this mountain? If it's over 5,000 feet....well, you might have a point with 4 people and AC on....but then, a 1.8 liter engine isn't going to do much better with 130 HP.
I have driven the Echo with three adults and a 3 year old into the City, and come back up the grade Shifty is referring to without ever dropping below 55 mph (the speed limit on that stretch).
What he says is very true, and in retrospect perhaps one of the larger challenges subcompacts face in America: You have to know how to drive. This is not a car where you leave it in some random gear and hope to go everywhere with the huge 1500-rpm torque the gas-slurping V-8 American cars have. This is a car that you have to allow to rev for power in taxing situations (and help it by choosing the right gear if you have a manual). People I know, even ones that drive manual, usually don't do this. They think it's bad for the engine or something? It's a darn shame, because some of the smaller Japanese engines, especially the Hondas, sound sooo sweeeeeet when you rev them. In the case of the Toyota 1.5, it's not the sweetest sound I have ever heard but it is very smooth and barely intrusive even when revving hard.
I have also taken the Echo up to Tahoe a couple of times, once solo, once with another adult, both times in the heat of summer with the A/C running all the way. The summit over highway 50 is more than 6000 feet, and the car never broke a sweat. I did NOT, however, attempt to do the whole thing in fifth gear!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I've always been of the opinion that some engines are balanced perfectly for the car they're in. To the point that if you take away mass, you're not going to see any improvement in performance or economy. But at the same time, if you add more mass, you're going to lose out in both. For example, if you were to take a 426 Hemi out of a '71 Barracuda and find a way to force it into an xA (I have seen it forced into the PT Cruiser), are you really going to see any improvement in acceleration or fuel economy? A 426 Hemi was pretty much overkill for just about any car that it went into, so any modern car is just going to be more of the same.
Putting a Hemi in a Dart 270 would also be overkill, but maybe if you put one in a link Travco 270 it might hold it back a tad. And you might see fuel economy suffer. :P
But you are wrong about the economy. Take away mass, and you will always gain economy, even if you leave the power and gearing exactly the same. Of course, you can enhance this by making the gearing taller after you reduce the weight, further increasing economy.
Let me put this in a context you can relate to: putting the 2.4 in the xA is like putting the Hemi in the 300. All the extra power allows you to loaf around most of the time at 1500 rpm, and the full power of that engine is never needed, and probably never fully utilized by the majority of drivers. Put in the 3.5 V-6, and you will have fuel economy gains (despite DOD and all the rest of it) in most situations but especially in city driving, where the big V-8 takes more gas at all times to fire up and when idling, and in driving situations where the extra power is never needed.
To take it one step further, put in the (despised by some) 2.7, and if you are a slow driver that is prepared to drive like there is an egg under the gas pedal to save gas, you will have even further gains in economy because you never need the extra power of the larger engines.
Of course, reducing the 2-ton curb weight of that brick would have a huge positive effect on economy, even if you left the power and gearing alone. That thing needs at least 500 pounds sliced off.
There is no way the next xA is getting an optional 2.4 - they are still playing with the idea of making a sport version of the next Corolla/Matrix with such a large engine - but if they give it the 2.0 from the next Corolla and make the gearing LOTS taller (while keeping the car light and small), they have the potential to turn it into a real gas sipper, which will never be last at the races either.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And yeah, I know that normally, when you reduce weight you should be able to improve fuel economy. However, I think that in many cases it's going to be negligible. If a 2.4 can get 33-34 highway mpg in a Camry, but the little 1.5 4-cyl only gets around 38-40 in an xA or Yaris, I'd expect that putting a 2.4 in an xA or Yaris would be somewhere in the middle. When you figure you're dropping about nearly a thousand pounds, the improvement in economy just isn't that much.
I think that it's just that the 2.4 is in its "sweet spot" in a car that weighs around 3000-3300 pounds, and dropping a few hundred pounds just isn't going to boost fuel economy or performance that much. But then if you put that engine in something heavier, like maybe an Avalon or God forbid a truck, it's going to kill itself!
And there have been instances in the past when getting a bigger engine would actually get you better economy, simply because it was better matched with the weight of the vehicle. From around 1979-83, where they gave you the choice, you were better off getting the 318 in a Mopar than you were a 225 slant six, because the slant six was simply overmatched for the bulk of those cars. You had no acceleration and no fuel economy, because it just wasn't strong enough to move that mass with any efficiency. The 318 was better suited, and didn't have to struggle as hard, so it gave much better performance and slightly better economy.
As for the new 300/Charger, I'm actually impressed that the economy ratings are as good as they are. The 2.7 is rated at 21/28. My 2000 Intrepid with that engine was 20/29. When you figure it probably has 300 pounds or so on my car, plus the added power sap from the RWD setup, that's not bad.
The 3.5 is rated at 19/27. On the old LH cars it was 18/26. Now the LX cars have a 5-speed automatic these days, but IIRC, when they were only offering the 4-speed with the 3.5, the EPA rating was the same. So it looks like in this case, even with adding the 300 pounds or so (the V-6 cars don't bulk up quite as much as the Hemi) and the added power sap of the RWD doesn't seem to have an effect on the fuel economy ratings.
Of course, that's just EPA estimates. real world results might be different.
Now it might well make a little more power than it does now. It would be cool if they could give it a taller overdrive gear for better highway fuel economy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
That would also depend on where you live. Here in the Chicago area hills that will bog down that little four banger are few and far between (ok they are non existent).
Unfortunately there are a few places that make excellent day trips that will put you on such a hill. It seems like half the time I am behind someone who doesn't know how to take a hill. :sick:
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
They'd have to re-design the xA for a 150 HP engine...the torque steer would be vicious I think.
Not from a 1.5L. Peak torque wouldn't be more than 110 foot-pounds, maybe 120 if it's direct-injected.
- Bigger engine is required, because HP is a made-up number as it is, derived mostly from gearing - but based on torque, which is the only real meaurement of an engine's output. 150Hp does you no good if the car has 80ft-lbs of torque due to silly gearing.
- Bigger tires.
- Bigger brakes
- Bigger drivetrain components
- Bigger fuel tank
- Bigger radiator and accessories
And so on... It may only be a few pounds here and a few ounces there, but it does create a snowball effect.
Conversely, loosing weight does the same thing. Slightly less powerful engine, smaller tires, and so on - to get the same performance. And less weight handles better, which is always a plus.
And he just about did that two years later. (rear engine Lotus V-8 as I recall).
Bob
No xA replacement
One xB replacement, and a extended version of the xB (think matrix or larger sized cube)
And the introduction of the 5-door Yaris.
The x2B will be a rough way of looking at what the next Scion xB will look like in the spring of 2007 as a 2008 model.
The best-selling Scion tC will remain.
As for engines in the new xA and xB I haven't been able to find out any information on that yet.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The next xA will indeed be the Ractis, as iluv mentioned. And guess which engines the Ractis uses right now? Yup, the global 1.3 (which has never been available in the U.S.) and the oh-so-familiar 1.5! :-)
(Oh, and yes, the Ractis is a 5-door, a funky-looking Japanese home market 5-door. It has a profile very similar to the Mazda5 microvan, but it has regular doors instead of sliders, and it's significantly smaller).
And hey, if you want an xA or xB, you better grab one quickly, as they go off sale this December to make way for the new models.
And boaz: in two years they have sold 80,000 xAs and almost 145,000 xBs here in the States! How's that for "it'll never catch on..."?! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
They are using too much ghastly and they are polluting more.
I'll take me a 2007 Suzuki SX-4. Hey, you know who worked with with Suzuki on the SX-4? You guessed it, none other that Fiat Motors. Small car maker working with a mostly small car maker from Japan. This new hatchwagon from Suzuki is the real deal, a small rig that is loaded to the gills with good standard equipment, including a roof rack and a keyless remote.
Oh, I almost forgot. The SX-4 will also come with a self-lubricating timing chain, to reduce your maintenance costs even more. It's already going to be a great car for low maintenance costs but this one saves buyers about $300-$500 every 60,000 miles to go along with everything else.
It's now at the very pinnacle of my futures list. Any time now. Yeah right. The Sportsman is too good, gentlemen. It's a great little SUV, my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4. Can't say enough good things about that rig.
Just as sure as your beloved Pittsburgh Steelers will not be making another trip to the Super Bowl this year Kia is a great automaker. Rothelschild, why not rest your sore appendix and get over the flu before playing against Jacksonville? What a bunch of dorks the Steelers and their coaches and their fans are.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Jacksonville was very good at rushing and pushing the Steeler's quarterback hard. He had to make snap decisions and react quicker than he usually had to - and as a result, couln't make good passes. Hardly any were caught, and it ended up with the final insult - he was so stressed that in the last play, he actually threw the ball right to the other side's player.(OUCH!).
It's amazing that they figured it out so fast, though - because it's the Steeler's Achille's Heel. He's a thrower and not a runner, so don't give him time to make good throws and presto - the whole thing self-destructs.
About cars - the statistcs GM and Ford use include fleet/government/taxi/police/corporate/etc use as well, so it creates a horribly skewed picture.
Having looked over the Yaris, I'm glad I bought the xA. I like the looks better and the Yaris offers no improvements I can see except piddley stuff.
And having followed a Fit around from behind, I'm really glad I didn't buy that ugly butt.
I was really hot for the Chevy HHR, but GM + 1st year model scared me. I'm such a wimp. Ditto the MINI. The very idea of making car payments on a car sitting in a dealer's repair shop makes me ill.
Chevrolet Colorado has a 2.8L I-4.
Didn't Porsche make a 3.0 liter four cylinder for something?
But yeah I agree with you I think anything over about 2.5 liters is too big for a four cylinder and even that is pushing it. You have to make the balance shafts too large.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
:P
So, yes, they can make small inline 6s