What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

ateixeira · April 2007

Around here it's the parents giving them up to their teenagers. :surprise:

Not a good combination, inexperience + 6000 lbs of momentum.

snakeweasel · April 2007

whether a human body would be fine decelerating from 70 mph to zero in a nanosecond remains a mystery that even crash tests cannot accurately measure.

In other cars with crumple zones the rate of decleration is just about as fast when you drive into a concret barrier.

There are some forces that are not related to the vehicles size in other words, and plenty of freak occurrences as well.

I have seen people walk away from accidents that almost disintegrate the car and have seen people taken away in an ambulance from an accident with little damage to the car. Its weird how forces act sometimes.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2007

My feeling is that normal economic incentive will eliminate the extremely large car in due time as energy prices continue to climb. Such people as require large vehicles for commercial purposes will pass those costs to the consumer; individuals who elect to pay to run large vehicles despite punishing energy costs can do so as long as they pay; and those who drive smaller cars pay less for energy and thus have money for other things (theoretically).

As for safety, I think the day will come pretty soon when the question of whether you'd like to be in the Suburban or the Versa will be answered with "What YEAR Suburban?"--in the same way that today we know that a modern small car is much safer than a 1960s car with no airbags, sidebags, ABS, collapsible steering, stability control, disc brakes, etc.---and in the same way that a 60s car is safer than a 20s car with no safety glass, no seat belts, no hydraulic brakes, skinny tires, etc.

fitluver · April 2007

Wouldnt it be next to impossible to get the side impact airbags to deploy out of leather or vinyl?

lilengineerboy · April 2007

The panels are designed to rip away at the seam. Most luxury cars have leather interiors and have side airbags. There is either a perforated area designed to break away or the whole panel goes at the seam.

ateixeira · April 2007

Pat Goss had a segment on Motorweek where he talked about insurance companies actually meeting with auto manufacturers and working on how to get insurance costs down, and one of the big ones was air bags and the very seams you mention.

Basically some of them destroy the entire seat. A simple seam could save a lot of money in the long run.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2007

You mean "how to get insurance PAYOUTS down", right? :P

I think if I got a letter from my insurance company telling me that due to clever design changes in my make and model, my costs will be lowered...I'd drop dead on the floor.

bpizzuti · April 2007

Actually, certain options on cars (DRLs, ABS, etc) do lower insurance premiums.

Mr_Shiftright · April 2007

True, but that's not quite what we were focusing on...design improvements to existing safety components.

ateixeira · April 2007

LOL, so true!

Every year I get a letter that they re-mapped the zones and my rates went up again. I wonder how many zones had rates going down, eh?

bpizzuti · April 2007

None.

It's nice to see some manufacturers going after avoiding accidents rather than surviving them. Positives all around for that, since premiums will (well, SHOULD) drop due to fewer payouts, and the car also comes through unscathed without needing repair or replacement.

It's good to be able to survive an accident, but it's better to avoid the thing in the first place. Subcompacts can be VERY good at that between small size and nimble handling, provided they ALSO have enough power to scoot out of the way.

explorerx4 · April 2007

a picture like that is exactly why i bought a focus sedan, instead of the 3/5 door hatch. really wanted a 3 door.

plekto · April 2007

Maybe it's a bit too obvious, but why don't they put the side airbags, oh, say, in the B pillar? Look - it deployed. (replaces module and cover). $300 fix instead of needing new seats.

bumpy · April 2007

Because the side airbag needs to stay in the same place relative to your body to be effective. If it were in the B-pillar, people who put the seat all the way forward or back might not get any protection at all.

nippononly · May 2007

it's technically a microcar, but Autoweek has a new article on the Smart ForTwo today:

http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070508/FREE/70507018/1528/n- ewsletter01

They are saying that in the States, this car's 1.0 will make 84 hp, and they expect an EPA rating of over 40 city, 60 highway! Not to mention all the usual safety gear is standard even on the $11,995 model, along with many other niceties, and the $13,995 model includes A/C (optional on the base model), alloys, and all sorts of other goodies.

I do hope this car sells. With a 1700-pound curb weight and 84 hp, I think it will be plenty fast enough to keep up with the Joneses, and the gas mileage is fantastic, not to mention maneuverability in the city. I think it makes the perfect commute car, even if your commute does take you on the highway.

They are about to embark on the Smart Tour, where they go around the U.S. showing off the cars and offering test drives. The website is a little frustrating because they don't show stop locations or dates, but I would like to try one out even if it IS only offered as an automated manual. (no stick, sigh :-()

Mr_Shiftright · May 2007

I don't think MPG will be anywhere near those numbers however and this bad PR will kill the deal. They should prep people and not publish such outrageous claims and they'd be better off I think. Problem? We already have cars with 2200 lb weight and 100 HP getting 35 mpg, so how does 16 less HP and 500 less pounds double the gas mileage? Makes no sense whatsoever, especially when you factor in that these poor little beasts will have to operate at very high RPM on freeways here in America, thereby operating well outside their efficiency range (like how hybrid mileage drops drastically at freeway speeds).

I agree, the diesel for putting around in the city would have been a good move. Around 40 mph or so, I bet a turbo diesel in a light car like this would put up 55 mpg.

MrShiftright
Visiting Host

ateixeira · May 2007

Early estimates for the new Jetta wagon TDI are about the same, 40/60 EPA mpg IIRC. Amazingly that's under the new 2008 EPA guidelines. Still preliminary, but wow!

The problem for the ForTwo will be that the price is close to vehicles like the Honda Fit, which feel much more like "real" cars.

A high EPA rating sure will help, but I still think the ForTwo will need some sort of incentive (HOV lane access maybe? discounted parking?) to truly succeed in the USA.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2007

Oh they will sell some of them...a small niche market...but whether that can sustain an entire business operation remains to be seen....just my two cents but I think the Japanese will slap them silly. This is old tech and a mostly failed enterprise trying for a new start in a new town.

I could see this vehicle for someone living in San Francisco delivering newspapers, or a college kid in L.A. who plows through traffic all day...there are applications....

MrShiftright
visiting host

ateixeira · May 2007

I think they'll draw a lot of curious browsers, but few buyers. A small niche, sure, but like you said not enough to sustain them for long.

They'd be wise not to invest too much in the launch. These cars will market themselves by word-of-mouth anyway.

bumpy · May 2007

The website is a little frustrating because they don't show stop locations or dates

The map has popups for dates and cities, but not specific locations other than LA yet. San Francisco is August 16-26.

bumpy · May 2007

I don't think MPG will be anywhere near those numbers

I dunno; the Toyota Aygo gas 1.0L has 15 fewer hp, is 100 pounds heavier, and gets about 50 mpg (US) combined.

bumpy · May 2007

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/road_tests/index.htm?id=265

We're getting the 1-liter turbo, apparently.

84hp @5,250rpm; 89 ft-lb @3,250rpm
0-60 10.6 seconds
top speed (limited?) 87 mph
combined economy 48 US mpg

auto_guy · May 2007

The website is a little frustrating because they don't show stop locations or dates, nippononly click this link

http://www.smartusa.com/ and on their website will be a map of the usa with street smart. The first city of the tour is in los angeles on may 19 and the last city is in miami on november 4.

nippononly · May 2007

Well of course they don't have to sustain a whole business operation since they will just be one component of Penske's multi-faceted automotive group.

And the base model with A/C will be less than $13K which is a good $2K+ less than a Fit automatic. With far better fuel economy to boot. And some decently-sized and decent-looking steel rims rather than the little rims and totally cheap wheel covers of the base Fit.

I too remain skeptical, but I am hoping this thing will sell moderately well. Not because I want a bunch of microcars on the market in the U.S. particularly, but because I think it will make automakers less afraid to bring their best subcompacts to market here then. They are only looking for 20K sales per year nationwide, which with 8 or so large urban markets is a pittance in the context of auto sales. I think they could probably make 2500 sales per market per year, call me an optimist if you will. ;-)

daysailer · May 2007

I also hope that it will succeed, and for similar reasons. I very much would like to see a return of smaller vehicles to the market. Unfortunately however, the Smart would not be an option for me unless they offer a proper transmission.

nippononly · May 2007

Why oh why couldn't it have an optional 6-speed stick? I swear if it did, I would be very interested in looking at it with a thought to buying. I find it intriguing. But I am sticking to my manual-only guns.

Kirstie_H · May 2007

A reporter from a large national newspaper is looking to speak to anyone who has purchased a small car in the past couple of months. If you purchased this car as an additional car for the family versus a replacement, please note that as well. Please provide your daytime contact info to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Thursday, May 10, 2007.

andre1969 · May 2007

with the EPA testing is that the highway cycle speed averages something like 52 mph. Most cars are just loafing along at that speed, and a lot of bigger cars with loafy gearing almost feel like they're going to stall out!

Still, I took my uncle's '03 Corolla on a day trip a couple weeks ago. It was about 230 miles, round trip. I got about 37.4 mpg, at speeds on the highway averaging mainly 65-80, flow of traffic. I think it's EPA-rated at 38. So I guess that's not too far of a drop-off from the EPA estimate, given the higher operating speed.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2007

People (or Penske)seem to forget that historically every micro car ever made was produced in response to severe and chronic economic desperation of some kind. We certainly aren't desperate in America. Is this what Smart is anticipating? Isn't that quite a gamble?

The Smart seems to be, at this point in time, the answer to a question nobody asked. Or if they did ask, the question would have to be:

"Could you put me in a roller skate of a car so that I could save $13 a month in gas over a compact Corolla CE that costs the same price?" (38 vs 58 mpg, 10K miles a year, gas at $3 a gallon, Corolla CE MSRP $14,305)

So a Smart would pay for itself versus a Corolla in only 85 years.

MrShiftright
Visiting Host

ateixeira · May 2007

Bigger rims won't make the ForTwo look less toy like.

Ironically that might work to its advantage. Why?

It helps to look at the Prius vs. the Civic Hybrid. While similar in concept the Prius gets 10 times as much media attention, and has been far better for PR than both the Civic and Insight combined.

It looks different. It stands out, and flies the green flag unabashedly.

The ForTwo has that all over the Fit.

But...when you sit there and think rationally, the Fit is twice the car for nearly the same price. Mileage gains once you're already at 35 mpg mean less and less. The savings are probably gone when you realize that the ForTwo is probably someone's 2nd vehicle, not their sole vehicle - it really only serves as a commuter.

I think they should have brought the Smart Roadster instead. Why? Because roadsters start at $20k. They could have priced it at $18k and it would be seen as a bargain.

Look at all the press the Tesla has gotten. It's become a household name. Few people talk about the RAV4-EV, but the Tesla is the talk of the town.

They should have sold the roadster....

bumpy · May 2007

People (or Penske)seem to forget that historically every micro car ever made was produced in response to severe and chronic economic desperation of some kind.

Ah, but that formula is based on cheap fuel, cheap cars, and friendly oil suppliers. Fuel's not getting any cheaper, cars aren't getting any cheaper (but credit is easier), and the suppliers aren't so friendly anymore.

plekto · May 2007

It'll do very well. The thing is, delivery and courier companies alone will gobble this thing up. It's the modern replacement for the Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift. Commuters as well will love it. If it gets 45/55mpg, it's going to obliterate the competition - and the Prius as well, since half of that car is yuppie status and not about saving real money and resources.

But the big deal... turbo. Nice. That means a chip and a kit might cost you a couple of grand and 5mpg or so, but 100hp with a stronger boost level will be easily doable (evil grin). 8 seconds 0-60 would be fun, to say the least.

edit:
The stock engine in Europe gets 4.7l/100km and this uses 4.9l/100km - or a bit less than 5% worse economy. Hardly worth mentioning and not the 20-30% that we were fearing,

Of course, the CDI gets 3.4l/100km, which is astounding, really.

Converted: Combined MPG, real world testing(Europe's testing is much more accurate to real life): 50.05mpg and 48mpg
(Converted to *US gallons, no less!*).

The TDI gets 69.18! But 0-60 in almost 20 seconds is truly dangerously slow.

52kW 999cc 3-cylinder petrol: 52kW (71bhp) @5,800rpm; 92Nm torque @4,500rpm
52kW petrol: 0-60 13.0 seconds
(52kw = 69.73HP)

62kW 999cc 3-cylinder petrol: 62kW (84bhp) @5,250rpm; 120Nm torque @3,250rpm
62kW petrol turbo : 0-60 10.6 seconds
(62KW = 83.14HP)

What a difference a turbocharger makes - more power at lower rpms and much flatter torque curve as well. A bit over 2mpg lost in the exchange. This will be a quick car in city traffic(0-40) I bet.

ateixeira · May 2007

Some say we'll have $4 gas this summer.

I saw premium break $3.50 this past weekend when I visited CT, so I believe it.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2007

well bump I was thinking of like...postwar Italy and Germany and Japan, when microcars were King...or when the pretty small Honda CVCC first came out during the 1973 Gas Crunch in the USA (very unfriendly fuel suppliers).

These events were very serious spurs to the development of the microcar---but we have no such situation in America.

I suppose one could "bet on" severe fuel shortages or punishing prices for gas in America in the near future, but then that would so screw up the economy I think the new car business would fall collectively to its knees and USED cars would become the hot ticket item---because it's not gas that would be in short supply but actual money in people's hands.

(cf, depression or recession, when people tend to keep old cars going forever...)

qbrozen · May 2007

I'm with you. Gimme a 6-speed stick and shave at least 3 seconds off the 0-60 for under $14k and I'd be VERY interested in a commuter car like that.

stever · May 2007

I'd like to see it more around $8k - like Kia Rio territory.

The idea of parking a microcar in my garage and still having room to mess around on my workbench is appealing too.

daysailer · May 2007

Actually, the Civic CVCC was a BIGGER car than Honda had been selling in the US prior to the fuel crisis. Previously, there was the much smaller Honda 600 as well as numerous other small cars from other marques that were available in the '60s when there was no fuel availability/price issue.

Mr_Shiftright · May 2007

True, true...but the 600 wasn't a real car...that was a motorcycle powered toy...the CVCC was a "real" car, with a back seat, all the amenities, and great fuel mileage...Honda got SO LUCKY with the '73 Gas Embargo...they could never have sold that car in the quantities they did unless there was that gas crunch....'73 and '79 changed American cars forever....

lilengineerboy · May 2007

Geo Metro / Suzuki Swift. Commuters as well will love it.
As a commuter, I have no love for the Metro/Swift. Loud, buzzy and nervous on the highway, just unpleasant.

That means a chip and a kit might cost you a couple of grand and 5mpg or so, but 100hp with a stronger boost level will be easily doable (evil grin). 8 seconds 0-60 would be fun, to say the least.

So now you aren't getting the mileage, and you dumped another grand in the thing, you are pretty much in a Civic, which holds 5 and has a more comfortable ride.

qbrozen · May 2007

its been the same thing every summer for a while now. doom and gloom. doom and gloom. ;b

i'm sure some folks are saying $5 (again). and, once again, I say it won't happen. I've been right each year so far (of course, a 50/50 chance ain't exactly fortune telling).

plekto · May 2007

I get 48mpg average from that review(US gallons), so dropping that to 40-45mpg to create a car that's much faster than a Fit - for less money(because a $12K Pure with mods will be about 13K?). Total no-brainer. Either way it gets better efficiency, looks better, costs a LOT less, and has more safety and handling goodies as well.(Honda Fit with stability and traction control? Heh - as if.)

Basically you just need to alter the computer/chip it and alter the intake and exhaust a bit. I bet you can get another 10-15% out of it without hardly trying. Of course, none of this would be possible without a turbo or supercharger to mess with in the first place.

Or just wait a year or two for the Brabus/AMG version. With this larger engine, expect 100hp+ out of it.

qbrozen · May 2007

actually, you'd still be getting about 5-7 mpg better than a Civic LX coupe. and it might be more fun.

oops... pletko beat me to it ... kind of.

an AMG Smart. Now THAT would be funny to see.

plekto · May 2007

They make a Brabus version in Europe already that gets about 85hp or so, so this is exactly like getting that version without the premium pricetag. With a bigger engine to work with, 100HP will be easy for them to achieve.

nippononly · May 2007

plekto nor qbrozen mentioned that you would still be in a car weighing around 1800 pounds after mods, maybe less. The Civic weighs 2700, that's almost half a ton more of fun-sucking steel.

You can read that article I linked to see who Penske thinks will actually be interested in this car. He mentions 4 groups, one of which is cash-starved first-time buyers, a group I don't think he should count on what with $9000 Aveos and Rios for sale out there every day. But he also mentions ultra-urban types and greenies and some other folks too, and I remember thinking he was pretty much right on with the other 3 groups, which are small groups but hey! He is only trying to sell 20K per year!

And if it sells 40K/year, might we finally see the mighty Swift GT and the (Euro-Ford subcompact, why am I blanking on its name??) here for sale? Or the VW Polo, a pretty nice car in its own right? And shoot, stick a tiny turbo diesel in any one of those cars and the resulting fuel economy numbers might just make me buy one for a commuter even if it DIDN'T have a manual option! Welll....maybe I won't go THAT far. :-P

ateixeira · May 2007

Fiesta.

Or the Ka? They even make a SportKa.

bumpy · May 2007

Euro-Ford subcompact, why am I blanking on its name??

Fiesta, the Mazda2-derived next-gen of which is supposed to be here in a few years. There is also the Ka, which is more fortwo/Aygo sized.

ateixeira · May 2007

I'll guess he meant this:

grbeck · May 2007

It wasn't just the gas crunch that propelled the Civic's sales. It was also a very good car for that class...in 1980 my family bought a used 1977 Civic CVCC.

It was far ahead of our 1973 AMC Gremlin and my aunt's 1977 Ford Pinto in virtually everything except rust resistance (and the Gremlin wasn't much better in that regard, either).

Even discounting the superior gas mileage, the Civic was revelation compared to its direct competitors at that time. Remember that in 1974, VW's big seller was still the OLD Beetle, and the domestic competition was the AMC Gremlin, Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Vega.

plekto · May 2007

plekto nor qbrozen mentioned that you would still be in a car weighing around 1800 pounds after mods, maybe less. The Civic weighs 2700, that's almost half a ton more of fun-sucking steel.
****

Or to put it into today's terms:
100HP/140lb-ft of torque(what I estimate is easily possible) - 1800lbs.

That's equal to 200HP/280lb-ft - 3600lbs.(actually more because the thing will handle better and stop quicker, thanks to less mass to deal with)

Even the stock model is equal to a roughly 170hp midsize sedan. That's no slouch. Not a rocket, but certainly not slow.

snakeweasel · May 2007

With a 1700-pound curb weight and 84 hp, I think it will be plenty fast enough to keep up with the Joneses,

Not sure where you live but I am in the Chicago metro area and during rush hour traffic accelerates pretty slowly. Even if the car in front of you takes off like a bat out of hell two teenagers pushing a Yugo will catch up with it in a minute or two.

I think it makes the perfect commute car, even if your commute does take you on the highway.

Around here the highways don't go all that fast during rush hour.

The Smart looks like a great commuter car

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles