What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

bobw3 · November 2006

The base Altima starts at $18K and a fully loaded Fit Sport auto cost $16K. Now what's missing on the base bare bones Altima (from Cars.com): auto transmission, air conditioning, keyless entry, CD player, ABS, less cargo space. The Fit has less rear leg room but overall only 10CuFt less passenger volume (90 vs 100), but if you went with a Versa there's even less of a difference in rear leg room. So this is what I get for buying a base Altima and paying an extra $2K...hmmmm.

The standard mid-sized sedan costing in the low $20's is fine if that's what you like, but things as simple as putting a kid in a carseat in the Fit is so much easier than in a Civic or even Accord because of the higher roof. And the cargo space (and ease of putting it in a hatch vs small trunk opening) of cars like the Fit is better too. Plus the more upright seating position gives you better visibility. Not that I'm saying that some of these subcompacts are "better" than the standard compact or even mid-sized sedan in every way, but I don't see much value added to buying a compact/mid-sized sedan, yet I do see the downsides (cost, space, versatility, etc.). At least for our family as our second car.

snakeweasel · November 2006

800 miles on one tank of diesel

One big looming question. How big was the tank?

andre1969 · November 2006

The base Altima starts at $18K and a fully loaded Fit Sport auto cost $16K. Now what's missing on the base bare bones Altima (from Cars.com): auto transmission, air conditioning, keyless entry, CD player, ABS, less cargo space. The Fit has less rear leg room but overall only 10CuFt less passenger volume (90 vs 100), but if you went with a Versa there's even less of a difference in rear leg room. So this is what I get for buying a base Altima and paying an extra $2K...hmmmm.

Well, the Altimas on this sales lot were marked down to about $18-18.5K, and all of 'em had an automatic, a/c, and a CD player. They were S models and had something called a Special Edition package that added a few other trinkets (forget what now, though) I don't remember if they had ABS or not, though. Now I think the window sticker on them was around $20K, but I doubt anybody pays sticker for 'em. I'd imagine though, that they wouldn't be willing to knock much off of a Versa just yet.

This might not be a fair comparison though, because the Altimas were 06 models and probably on clearance. My biggest reason for choosing the Altima over the Versa would be its improved (for my tastes) driving position. If the Japanese could figure out how to get the steering wheels of their little cars out from between my knees, that would be half the battle right there! I've driven the Altima, and I thought it was a smooth, quiet, comfortable cruiser. I didn't drive the Versa, but I doubt if it would be as smooth or quiet.

Oh, as for backseat legroom, I forget what the actual measurements were, but after sitting in the Versa, I'd consider it to be about equal to the Altima, and better than the Maxima! My biggest criteria for back seat legroom is how far my knees are from the seatback. Or in many cases, how contorted to I have to get to squeeze in there? Sometimes a higher back seat can work against taller passengers, because the higher the seat, the more horizontal your legs will be, requiring more fore-aft room (not necessarily "legroom" as they measure it)

qbrozen · November 2006

19.x

i forget the exact number. i think it was 19.2.

he said repeatedly he needed to get 40.4 mpg average to do it.

british_rover · November 2006

Keep in mind those are imperial gallons which are about 20% larger then US gallons.

19.2 imperial gallons is equal to about 23 US gallons.

So about 35 mpg in our way of thinking. Still pretty impressive.

qbrozen · November 2006

good thing you cleared that up. That was actually one of the questions I had while watching it (why the heck are they talking gallons?).

So that makes sense now.

Darn, and here I thought they had a v8 getting 40 mpg.

snakeweasel · November 2006

May I ask what Audi model it is?

The A3's can get in the low 30's with a gasser so around 40 MPG in a diesel isn't unthinkable.

qbrozen · November 2006

you don't want to watch the videos? its a pretty entertaining show. i highly recommend it.

Its the A8! So a full-size very heavy vehicle with a twin-turbo V8.

british_rover · November 2006

Yeah even thought the A8 is mostly aluminium it is still heavy and it is even heavier with the diesel.

The UK is all messed up in terms of units of measurment even more so then the US.

They use some standard units for length for the most part and some a combination of metric and british units for weight but for voulume they use mostly british measurments.

So you got kilograms mixing with stones mixing with miles mixing with meters mixing with British Gallons etc.

Really a pain in the [non-permissible content removed].

http://www.audi.ie/audi/ie/en2/new_cars/a8/a8_saloon/0/4_0_TDI_275_BHP_quattro.h- tml

Weight of the diesel V8 model is about 4,300 lbs.

snakeweasel · November 2006

you don't want to watch the videos?

Not that I don't, I can't, the site is blocked from this location. Maybe later on when I am at home.

Its the A8!

The EPA rates an A8 at 25 MPG Highway. Since diesels get up to 30% better mileage than gassers I would suspect the diesel to get around 32.5 MPG. So this is reporting a little more than one MPG better than I would have expected for the diesel.

That is unless its the 12 cylinder, then I would be more impressed.

qbrozen · November 2006

well i've personally never achieved highway mileage in any car I've ever owned, no matter how hard I try, so exceeding the highway estimates by almost 10% (audi told him max was 37 mpg and he got over 40) is damned impressive to me, regardless of the vehicle. What's even better is that he achieved subcompact car economy in a luxury barge. I can't wait until diesels are widespread here! a subcompact with a diesel should be quite an impressive economy car. Of course, if all cars had diesels, I'd probably still opt for something bigger and heavier because the sacrifice would be even smaller (meaning, 48 mpg in a subcompact won't look so great to me sitting next to a 37 mpg luxury car).

british_rover · November 2006

Also keep in mind he started in downtown London and ended there as well so Clarkson drove several miles in London Traffic before he could even hit the the M whatever.

qbrozen · November 2006

yup. and sat in a traffic jam or 2, as the videos showed. Oh, and stopped at a hotel for the night.

snakeweasel · November 2006

well i've personally never achieved highway mileage in any car I've ever owned, no matter how hard I try, so exceeding the highway estimates by almost 10% (audi told him max was 37 mpg and he got over 40) is damned impressive to me, regardless of the vehicle.

Keeping my car under 65 MPH I can usually exceed my cars EPA estiments by around 10%. Was able to beat EPA highway estiments by about 5% or more in my last one. So beating what Audi told him by 9.1% is not that impressive to me.

Now if there were EPA estiments on this car we could have a more meaningful conversation on this. If the EPA came out and estimated it at 27 and he got the 34 I would be impressed. If the EPA would estimate 32 I wouldn't be impressed with 34.

I can't wait until diesels are widespread here!

Same here, I am hoping my next car will be a diesel.

Of course, if all cars had diesels, I'd probably still opt for something bigger and heavier because the sacrifice would be even smaller

I am not sure I would, I really don't think I get that much more in return with a larger vehicle.

snakeweasel · November 2006

Yes but that would only be a few percent of his driving at most. While it will bring down his mileage it wouldn't be by much. Say he drove a total of 50 miles of that 800 miles off the highway and city driving was one half the mileage his highway mileage would only be 6.25% higher than the average.

andre1969 · November 2006

it's give or take whether I've beaten the EPA highway estimate with my cars. My Intrepid is rated at 29 on the highway, and I usually get 26-28. I've barely broken 30 on a few occasions, if I've driven gently, such as when I've gone on trips and had people in the car who would gripe, such as my Dad or Mom. :P

Oddly, my '89 Gran Fury could easily break 20 mpg on the highway, even when pushing it a bit. Now that doesn't sound all that impressive, but its EPA rating is only 15! The 4-bbl carb and 2.94 gearing, plus the heavy duty cop stuff no doubt dragged down the rating. The civilian models were rated at 22, with a 2-bbl carb and 2.26:1 gearing. Around town it was a guzzler though. I was lucky to get 13, which was its city rating.

I've had two 80's GM V-8's with overdrive, and their highway rating was around 24-25. Best I'd usually get out of them was 22, but I also never took a good, long highway trip in either one.

My uncle's '03 Corolla is rated at 38 highway, and he says he usually gets 34-38 in his mostly highway commuting.

bobw3 · November 2006

Maybe modern cars are designed to maximize the estimated MPG, calculated for cars driving 60mph, so once you get to real highway speeds 70-75mph or higher, the real MPG really drops off. As compared to the big old V-8s whose engines could cruise at 90mph as easily as 60mph, so maybe there wasn't that big drop off in MPG. But on the other hand, I read somewhere that at high speeds it's really the wind resistance that affects MPG more than anything else.

british_rover · November 2006

Friction does increase at the square of speed.

qbrozen · November 2006

Keeping my car under 65 MPH I can usually exceed my cars EPA estiments by around 10%.

Isn't the epa test something like 55 mph with zero load?

i just looked it up ... its done in a lab, 60 mph is the top, and 48 mph is the average. So I find your claims quite tough to believe ... unless you are always driving downhill.

PLUS, just a couple of pages back, you scoffed that 25% over epa was unbelievable ... but 10% is not impressive and common? That's an awfully narrow emotional range ya got there. So what, to you, would be "impressive"?

snakeweasel · November 2006

I don't know what the EPA uses as a standard but my epa rated at 30 MPG highway has gotten me 34 MPG driving the back roads of the UP and the northwoods doing 60-65. Of course getting on the interstate and doing 80 MPH it drops significantly.

Remember a few things.

1.) EPA estiments are just that estiments.

2.) EPA conducts its test in a laboratory which is not the same as real world experience.

3.) Each car is slightly different and will have slightly different performance numbers including attainable mileage.

All that being said a 10% swing either way from the EPA estiments is not unbelievable.

Also do you know what type of gas did the EPA use? If they use an ethanol blend it will get a few MPG's less than 100% gas.

PLUS, just a couple of pages back, you scoffed that 25% over epa was unbelievable ... but 10% is not impressive and common? That's an awfully narrow emotional range ya got there. So what, to you, would be "impressive"?

There is a certain range that is more acceptable than others. There is a big difference between a 10% variance and a 25% variance. Case in point the average height of an adult male in the US is just over 5 foot 9, I bet you wouldn't think to much of a 6 foot 3 person walking down the street (10% taller) but would really notice someone 7 foot 2 (25% taller).

lilengineerboy · November 2006

I have beat the EPA estimates in the last 3 cars I have had. I was teasing the lady about her getting 30 mpg in her car when I get 33 (combined) and she got so tired of me teasing her, she found the window sticker and it is rated at 30mpg highway.
Neither of us drive exactly slow.

nippononly · November 2006

the EPA estimates on every car I have ever owned. Every one.

My current Echo is pulling a solid 41 mpg month in and month out, and that is all suburban driving. It was rated at 34/41. It has gotten me 46-50 mpg in all highway driving, the exact mileage depending quite a bit on whether I needed to run the A/C a lot (46 mpg with mostly A/C use, 50 mpg with none). Yes, I am a speed limit driver, after two decades of more speeding tickets than I would have liked. That is probably the primary difference between all the folks posting who have either never made the EPA estimate in their cars or make and exceed it with regularity. Less speed = more mpg, every time! :-)

andre1969 · November 2006

that it's easy to meet or beat the EPA's estimates at higher speeds is because most people don't drive with a steady pressure on the throttle. They'll drive a bit, then ease off because of a downhill slope or whatever, and then coast for a bit. Now you'd think that the time spent giving it more gas for uphill slopes, accelerating, etc would cancel out those other moments, but perhaps they don't?

Prior to 1985, the EPA's estimates were really lofty, because they just published their raw data. In 1985 they started rounding the numbers down to make them more realistic, and the highway figures tended to drop more, as I recall.

IIRC, my 1980 Malibu V-6 was EPA-rated at 19/27, and I think a 1980-83 Cordoba/Mirada with the slant six was EPA-rated at 18/26. If those cars really got that kind of economy, I have a feeling that there never would have been such a push for more downsizing, smaller engines, etc.

In reality, my Malibu got about 15-16 around town and maybe 21-22 on the highway. And the slant six Cordoba/Mirada was so overwhelmed by its ~3500 lb body that in the real world it usually got worse economy than the 318 V-8!

Neither of these cars was still around in 1985 though, so I don't know how they would have done if rounded down. The closest thing I could find to my 1980 Malibu would be a 1985 Regal, and it's rated at 19/24 with the V-6. Different V-6 though (Buick 231 instead of a Chevy 229). Dunno how much difference that would make. I had an '82 Cutlass Supreme 231, and it got about the same economy as my Malibu did.

Under the old rating system, I think a lot of smaller cars easily broke 40 mpg, and even 50 was attainable.

Also, I don't know how Consumer Reports drives their cars, but they once got a 1984 Caprice with a 305 V-8 to get about 32 mpg on the highway. I think it did about 14 on their city cycle though.

bobw3 · November 2006

its done in a lab, 60 mph is the top, and 48 mph is the average

If this is accurate, then I think the reason we can meet or beat the estimated highway MPG is because in the lab they vary the speed. In my car, I'll get the exact highway estimate mpg driving 70mph on cruise, so the RPMs are pretty much constant. In the EPA lab, if they're varying the speed, RPMs, and with an average speed of 48mph, the auto transmission is probably dropping to 4th gear too, then I can see how it's not hard beating the EPA highway estimates by driving at 60-65mph on cruise.

qbrozen · November 2006

but 7'2" is not unbelievable, so there's a fault in your comparison since you feel 25% over epa is unbelievable.

EPA conducts its test in a laboratory which is not the same as real world experience.

my point exactly. given the way the epa test is SUPPOSED to be conducted, a logical assumption is that real-world mileage would be worse (given that its not in a controlled, level, machine-driven environment).

However, what we don't take into account is the fact that WHERE you drive makes the biggest difference. Without either of us making the drive from London to Edinburgh (??), we can't say what we might achieve.

jlawrence01 · November 2006

In reality, my Malibu got about 15-16 around town and maybe 21-22 on the highway.

I had the same vehicle 1986-1994 and averaged about 24-25 mpg. On the other hand, back then, I was a good boy and rarely drove much over 55 mph.

Hated that car ...

qbrozen · November 2006

actually, for what its worth, they say cruise control is worse if you are not on level ground. With your foot, you tend to apply less gas on uphills than the computer would.

bobw3 · November 2006

It's really not the use of cruise that hurts your MPG going uphill, but the actual speed you're trying to maintain. If you're not using cruise and you're going up a steep hill at 75mph, but I'm using cruise and going up the same hill at 65mph, then I'll get better mpg. What I do if I'm on a steep hill is keep the cruise on and just use the "reduce speed" button to lower the speed a little while I'm going up the hill. The key benefit of using cruise is consistency, which is why city driving kills MPG.

andre1969 · November 2006

might actually be worse for economy nowadays than it was back in the days of big, torquey engines and fairly tall axles. My Intrepid's cruise control will actually make the engine downshift to slow the car down if it creeps up too high. The older cars I had would just ease the throttle pressure and you'd coast. If you picked up too much speed, then you had to hit the brakes, which would cancel the cruise.

With the cars I've had with 3-speed automatics, the transmission would also never downshift to second on uphill grades, but that could just be because the cars had enough power to more or less maintain speed. My Intrepid will downshift in a heartbeat though. My '86 Monte and '85 LeSabre both had cruise and 4-speed automatics, but I can't remember if they'd ever downshift or not. They were both geared so tall though that you barely noticed going between 3rd and 4th (or Drive and overdrive, if you prefer) When either of those would downshift, it was basically going from an overall effective top gear ratio of ~1.8:1 to 2.56:1 (Monte) or 2.73:1 (LeSabre). When my Intrepid downshifts, it's essentially going from ~2.6:1 to 3.89:1, which is much more noticeable of a jolt.

Cruise control does a lot more these days on the cars, and works harder to maintain the speed you set. So maybe that's what causes it to use more fuel?

snakeweasel · November 2006

but 7'2" is not unbelievable, so there's a fault in your comparison since you feel 25% over epa is unbelievable.

It was just an example and doesn't fit 100%. Cars don't vary by that much. Suffice it to say then that either you would take any number (say 3,000% increase) as liget or none at all. Both are unrealistic. Gas mileage on the same model will vary by individual car and might be as high as 5-10 % between any two. 25% is way out of that ballpark.

my point exactly. given the way the epa test is SUPPOSED to be conducted, a logical assumption is that real-world mileage would be worse (given that its not in a controlled, level, machine-driven environment).

Not always, the laboratory test does not mimic real world driving so it may be off. How much and in which way is the question. A logical presumption would be that it is an estiments and that your mileage may vary and you may get better or you may get worse. Or both depending on how your driving habits change from day to day.

Without either of us making the drive from London to Edinburgh (??), we can't say what we might achieve.

I would think that similar driving would result in similar results. That being the case driving from Chicago to Minneapolis would result in similar results (they are about 400 miles apart connected by high speed roads.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2006

People have to understand that the effects on smaller displacement engines at highway speeds can be far greater (percentage loss of fuel mileage) than for big V8s---things like use of AC, excessive headwinds, etc.

Actually that poor Audi A8 could get 100 mpg and it's not going to compensate for the brutal rate of depreciation.

The only cars that impressive me with MPG are ones like the Corvette, where you get really decent MPG and don't lose the enjoyment of driving. But spending all day squeezing mileage out of a Buick or a Camry?---just kill me.

andre1969 · November 2006

I had the same vehicle 1986-1994 and averaged about 24-25 mpg. On the other hand, back then, I was a good boy and rarely drove much over 55 mph.

Maybe that's what my problem was...I WASN'T a good boy! :shades:

andre1969 · November 2006

The only cars that impressive me with MPG are ones like the Corvette, where you get really decent MPG and don't lose the enjoyment of driving.

Isn't a Corvette though, or any car for that matter, going to be pretty boring if you're dead-set on hypermiling it? When I ride with my buddy who has an 01.5 Passat with a V-6/stick and the two Mark V's, the Mark V's are actually a more exciting ride! For some reason he tries to hypermile the Passat, but in the Lincolns he turns into Cruella DeVil trying to run down the furniture truck with her dalmatians in it! :surprise:

Well, maybe "exciting" isn't the word for it, but it does get the adrenalin pumping!

snakeweasel · November 2006

My Intrepid's cruise control will actually make the engine downshift to slow the car down if it creeps up too high.

I have never had a cruise control do that. I have had them downshift going up hill to maintain speed, but down hill they only let off the gas.

bobw3 · November 2006

Other then better MPG, I really use the cruise on the highway to make the driving easier for me and those around me. It bugs me when I'm in the right lane, on cruise going about 70mph and come up to a car going 60mph. Then as I pass him at 70mph they start speeding up for some reason like they're racing me. Now we're both going 70mph. If I drop back behind him, of course he'll drop back to going 60mph, so usually I'll accelerate to 75mph to pass, and then drop the cruise back to 70mph. Now if that car and every other car would just use their cruise control on the highway when they could do so safely, then highway driving would be a lot smoother for everyone.

snakeweasel · November 2006

I once had a sign (that I never used) that read "I'm using cruise control whats your problem?".

qbrozen · November 2006

I would think that similar driving would result in similar results. That being the case driving from Chicago to Minneapolis would result in similar results (they are about 400 miles apart connected by high speed roads.

Oh no no no. Not even close. temperature, elevation, changes in elevation along the road, even the composition of the asphalt all affect mileage. No 2 stretches of road were created equally, regardless of how similar they may seem to the naked eye.

bumpy · November 2006

a.k.a. my right foot. :P

snakeweasel · November 2006

First off I said similar not the same. I choose that rout because the elevation isn't that much different (a few hundred feet) and changes in elevation should be about the same (IIRC).

Mr_Shiftright · November 2006

Between my worst driving habits and my best driving habits (without getting silly about it), my mileage will vary from 30 to 38 mpg. That's a pretty good spread.

So that's what I feel I have control over...above and below that are just freak events.

bobw3 · November 2006

driving what car and in what conditions?

qbrozen · November 2006

as i said, its ALOT more than just elevation.

snakeweasel · November 2006

And I addressed those

qbrozen · November 2006

you did? i didn't see anything about asphalt composition, pollution levels, ambient temperature, wind speeds, position of the sun, etc, etc, etc.

Its somewhat akin to comparing racetrack results. A million tiny variables can combine together to make a significant difference.

But you go ahead and believe what you want.

snakeweasel · November 2006

But you go ahead and believe what you want.

Likewise I am sure, but the differences that you allure to will have a very minimum effect on the mileage. Driving style will effect it far more.

pollution levels, ambient temperature, wind speeds,

Those can change from day to day in one spot. Who is to say that a wind speed and direction on that one route will be the same today as it was yesterday.

position of the sun,

Now you are just being silly.

Mr_Shiftright · November 2006

Scion xA, any conditions, doesn't seem to matter within that mileage range at least.

fintail · November 2006

On that mileage discussion...in the Nov 02 issue of "Mercedes Enthusiast", a couple of guys there take a S320 CDi on a trip from Land's End to John O'Groats...they finish the journey of 844 miles with an average mileage of 44.1 mpg (Imperial of course) at an average speed of 56 mph. So it's very doable.

lilengineerboy · November 2006

Car and Driver (maybe it was Road and Track) did that as well, I believe they went from LA to SF and back on I5. As I recall, they ran out of gas just north of LA. They also did something similar with a Honda Civic VX hatchback.

plekto · November 2006

The biggest factor, though, is how you drive.

1:slowly accelerate until the car drops into the next gear. You want it to shift as soon as possible while still barely getting over idle RPMs if you can. The goal is top gear at 40mph or so. You want all gears to behave like overdrive does, speed-wise. 1400-1600rpm in a V6 is V8 is optimal. You'll notice that there is a point where the rpms start going up again(gearing and wind resistance become a negative factor). Just below this point is your optimal cruise speed. On my 87 LeSabre I had, it was 68-72mph.

2:Only accelerate downhill if possible. The goal is to build speed like you are in neutral(gravity only or a tiny boost from the gas - like 1mph per 5-10 seconds or so) and then coast up the hill, dropping to about 50mph at the top.

Cruise control does the opposite - slows you downhill and powers you up. The guy on Top Gear figured this out quickly.

3:No accessories. If you are anal about it, re-route the belt to bypass the compressor entirely - it sucks 5HP pretty much just sitting there, and about 10-15 running.

4:Wax. Slick as possible. Also wax the glass and antenna and anything sticking out.

5: Lastly, get right behind the semis in the slow lane. Use them to draft. If they take the initial brunt of the wind, your velocity can increase greatly without using loads more gas.

brightness04 · November 2006

At certain point though, it bocomes an issue if it's really worth some extra mileage bragging rights, if certain driving behavior means killing the transmission and cltuch for lugging, or risking tail-ending a semi :-)

I remember a few years ago, some magazine editors fully exploited the rules of a mpg contest for Honda Insight. They actually went out and rented a moving truck, with special wooden barn doors/sails/vanes installed to create the maximum vacuum pressure in front of the Insight. They drove their own air pusher because they then could maintain constant speed and let the Insight tail-gate as closely as possible. They averaged something 80+ mpg. Of course, the moving truck probably did less than 8mpg with all that wind drag :-) There ain't no free lunch ;-)

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy