What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

jlawrence01 · October 2007

The Scion xA still had a cheaper sticker price than the Corolla. IIRC, they basically came in one trim level, fully-equipped, with the only option being stick or automatic. They had power windows standard and a few other niceties that you had to pay extra for on the Corolla.

One problem.

My Corolla stickered for $17.2 but sold for $13.9 (yes, there was that much difference). I will admit that most people in Chicagoland were paying closer to $15.0.

When I asked about the xA (more out of curiosity), they told me I would pay sticker.

Also, you can generally fill up a hatchback pretty high up and still see out the back window. The Chevette that I owned hauled a ton. I could pile it up within 2" of the ceiling and see out the window. (no kidding)

andre1969 · October 2007

Has anyone sat in the back seat of the new xD? My gosh that thing has a LOT of rear legroom! The seats move back and forth so much. Amazing legroom in the xD.

I haven't tried it out yet, but I am curious. According to published specs I've seen, the xD is actually tighter in back than the xA! Edmund's lists the xD at 33.9 inches, compared to 37.6" for the xA. For comparison, the Corolla is 35.4". I wonder if that 37.6" for the xA is a misprint? That's midsized car territory. About the only small cars I've seen lately with legroom that generous are the Nissan Versa and the Scion xB, both vehicles that seem purpose-built to have a huge back seat. Those two are almost built like how they used to do limos...cramped front seat for the driver (in limos it was due to that partition between the front and the back), but a cavernous back seat for the passengers back there.

Still, sometimes those published specs don't tell the whole story. If the seatbacks on the xD are contoured correctly or hollowed out for your knees, or if footroom underneath the seat is really good, these aspects can all negate a seemingly low published legroom number.

andre1969 · October 2007

My Corolla stickered for $17.2 but sold for $13.9 (yes, there was that much difference). I will admit that most people in Chicagoland were paying closer to $15.0.

Would that be the LE trim level? I've sat in those at the auto shows, and they're pretty nice. They have a lever on the seat that ratchets the back part down, putting it at an angle that seems to give me more legroom and a more comfy seating position than my uncle's cheap CE base model.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

I think the main and most conspicuous advantages of an xA over a Corolla are a) cargo space (you cannot get a mountain bike into a Corolla no way no how) and selling price for comparably equipped vehicles. There really is a few thousand difference out the door.

Also the xA is sorta kinda fun and the Corolla has engineered fun out completely. Driving a Corolla could lead to narcolepsy.

In short, the xA has far more utility.

Disadvantages are a) less power than the Corolla and some would say b) not as attractive.

boaz47 · October 2007

Yes but if we are talking an economy car why would the sub compact get less fuel mileage than the compact? And again why do it with a smaller engine. If you are going to give up HP why give up MPG as well? You know I did the same comparison with the Fit and a 1990 Civic Hatchback. The Fit is a touch bigger and it is a sub compact? The Versa is a lot bigger and it is a sub compact?

That is why I wonder how far a light year must be if the advantage to the Fit is 1 MPG and it weighs close to 400 pounds more? The Versa gets even less fuel mileage and weighs closer to 600 pounds more than the old civic. So it seems to me the method of making sub compacts more acceptable to the modern consumer is still the same method they have always used. Make them bigger and add HP. Worked before seems to be working now.

Nippon my friend you are always true to your colors. No one will ever accuse you of traveling to the beat of the same drummer. I have no problem with a hatch I just find so few very attractive. And traditionally a hatch is less popular in this country for whatever reason. The hatches I do find attractive are closer to notch backs or fast backs and that restricts their usefulness as a hatch. But then, if you discount one far enough I can over look their looks.

andre1969 · October 2007

Yes but if we are talking an economy car why would the sub compact get less fuel mileage than the compact? And again why do it with a smaller engine. If you are going to give up HP why give up MPG as well?

I imagine that the xA, with its smaller engine than the Corolla, is going to have to rev its little buns off to do the same amount of work as the Corolla's engine. I've driven my uncle's '03 Corolla a few times, and out on the highway, it seems to pull about the same amount of revs as my Intrepid. At 75 mph, around 2500 rpm, give or take.

Sometimes, a bigger engine, even if it's in a bigger car, just doesn't have to work as hard. Supposedly, back in the early 70's, a Buick Electra with a 455 would get slightly better fuel economy at 70 mph than a lighter LeSabre with a 350 would. And that's coming from the folks at GM. They wouldn't lie to us, would they? :P

As for hatchbacks, in general I'm not too fond of their style. However, with smaller cars, the sedans often look goofy anyway, so you might as well just get the versatility of a hatch. In some cases, such as the Versa, I think the hatch looks better than the sedan.

As for the Versa, I really have trouble calling it a subcompact. IMO, it would be a compact. Actually, the Yaris sedan seems kinda big for a sub, too. Isn't it around 172" long?

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

Again this is apples to oranges. A Fit is a Rolls Royce compared to a 1990 Civic hatchback. Not all the advantages and improvements are readily quantifiable, like MPG, etc.

bobw3 · October 2007

Our Fit has 21CuFt of cargo space behind the 2nd row, has storage under the 2nd row seats, gets in the mid to upper 30mpg on long highway road-trips at 70mph fully loaded, has high ceilings and high seats (as compared to Civic, Corolla, etc) to make it easier to put kids in carseats, and cost us $16K for a fully loaded auto with paddle shifters.

Tell me what other car can do all that, and is only 157" long!

andre1969 · October 2007

Well, I think the Fit sort of cheats a little in its shape. It's really more of a half-pint-sized minivan in shape than a small car.

Also, most of its interior room is from height, but not necessarily legroom or shoulder room. The driving position of the Fit felt tight to me, but no worse than something like a Yaris, xA, base Corolla, etc. It's a versatile little vehicle, but I'd probably get more use out of a Civic sedan, simply because the driving position is better for me.

robertsmx · October 2007

if we are talking an economy car why would the sub compact get less fuel mileage than the compact?

It depends on the purpose/orientation of the subcompact. Within the same family and serving the same purpose, it is not far fetched idea to expect better mileage from the smaller car, for example, Fit to Civic. Under similar real world conditions, Fit can be expected to deliver better fuel economy.

That is why I wonder how far a light year must be if the advantage to the Fit is 1 MPG and it weighs close to 400 pounds more?...than the old civic.

It weighs more for a lot of reasons. Just to give you an idea, Honda Fit in Japan (1.5-liter, FWD only) is listed at 990 kg (2180 lb) to 1050 lb (2310 lb). By the time it crossed the pond, it got another 150-200 lb on it. But, a Fit, with superior chassis, and perhaps more features, more power and similar weight still exists somewhere. But as you can see, it is the "other" things that add weight.

boaz47 · October 2007

Still the question is. Why get less fuel mileage with a smaller car? Why get a sub compact if at the same time you can get a compact with better mileage? The Example of the Corolla is only one example? I am not saying there aren't small car fans here I am asking about the average consumer. To the small car fan there is nothing wrong with a sub compact. Never was and never will be. There is always an excuse why the sub compacts don't sell as well as a mid sized car or even a compact. Sales figures don't matter and fuel mileage doesn't matter all that matters is that they are "called" a sub compact. The question is to the average consumer what is wrong with a Sub Compact? How do you make a sub compact that interests that same consumer. The answer is clearly design it bigger and after introduction add HP. It is not as some said earlier fuel mileage because we already pointed out that some compacts get better fuel mileage than some sub compacts from the same company. And looking at the xD we can see that Toyota has decided the xA wasn't big enough or powerful enough period. The contention I was making is that "if" there was nothing wrong with the sub compact from Toyota why did they drop it in favor of a bigger more powerful version? How is it that we can believe sub compacts are making great strides into the American car buying life style if they are simply becoming bigger and so they are now the size of a compact?

robertsmx · October 2007

Subcompact might be cheaper, and even though EPA ratings may not tell the whole truth (and in many cases, it doesn't), the real world fuel economy may still favor the smaller car.

We know Civic gets good mileage. But, in markets like Japan, Fit gets even better mileage. To put that in perspective (numbers based on Japanese mileage rating):
Civic 1.8 (140 HP): 16.2 km/l to 17.0 km/l (38-40 mpg)
Fit 1.5 (110 HP): 18.6 km/l to 20.5 km/l (44-48 mpg)
Fit 1.3 (86 HP): 21.0 km/l to 24.0 km/l (50-56 mpg)

I don't know how "true" the Japanese mode is to reality, but there are the numbers. We also know that EPA rating doesn't really take power into account. They accelerate all cars at same rate, so a more powerful car isn't exactly outaccelerating the less powerful car, in fact, the smaller/less powerful car may be getting pushed to its limits while the powerful car is just getting started (pushing it to its higher limits will only worsen its fuel economy).

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

Well if the subs grow in size and price they will hit the same wall that the compacts are hitting, and they'll have to go back to the drawing boards.

But every time they go back to square one, they get better and better.

So I think the answer to your question is: "it's cyclical".

bobw3 · October 2007

Yes, cars like the Fit are more like a CUV, SUV, or minvan in their seating position, which may or may not be liked by everyone.

bobw3 · October 2007

Why get a sub compact if at the same time you can get a compact with better mileage? Speaking only for the Fit...it has more cargo space, better seating positions (for my needs) and is more versatile as a hatchback than either the Civic or Corolla, and costs less. For that, I'll take slightly less highway MPG.

andre1969 · October 2007

Still the question is. Why get less fuel mileage with a smaller car? Why get a sub compact if at the same time you can get a compact with better mileage? The Example of the Corolla is only one example?

I've seen this situation happen with mid- and full-sized cars, too. For instance, back in the 80's, a midsized GM car with a 305 or 307 V-8 would get about the same economy as a fullsized GM car with a 305 or 307. I had an '86 Monte with a 305 and an '85 LeSabre with a 307, and they'd both get around 14-15 around town, lower 20's on the highway. With me driving, at least. My granddad managed to milk about 29 mpg out of that LeSabre on one leg of a trip out west though, back when it was new.

However, in this case, getting a smaller car, like say a Cutlass Sedan instead of a Delta 88 or a Bonneville instead of a Parisienne, would get you a car that was about a foot and a half shorter, 4-5 inches narrower, could still hold 4 people in comfort, still gave you about 16-17 cubic feet of trunk space, and got you to 60 mph about 2 seconds faster.

To somebody like me who's used to bigger cars, I see a big difference there, but then I don't see much advantage of going from what's already a small car in my eye, like a Civic or Corolla, to an even smaller car. But to somebody who's used to those smaller cars, going from a Corolla to an xA might be like me going from an '85 LeSabre to an '86 Monte Carlo. If that makes any sense. :shades:

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

In real life this probably isn't so. My xA consistently gets better mileage than my friend's 2007 automatic Corolla. Not MUCH better, but about 2 mpg.

Why does this happen? Because she has an automatic and drives in the city and I have a stickshift and drive on the highway.

Would a trade her lazier highway cruising engine for mine and 2 mpg less?

Yes I would.

tiff_c · October 2007

I haven't tried it out yet, but I am curious. According to published specs I've seen, the xD is actually tighter in back than the xA! Edmund's lists the xD at 33.9 inches, compared to 37.6" for the xA. For comparison, the Corolla is 35.4". I wonder if that 37.6" for the xA is a misprint? That's midsized car territory.

Well I sat in an xD and with the seat all the way back it had more room than the Honda Civic I sat in as well as a Corolla. The seats in the xD are like the front seats and can adjust forward or back on rails. It's got a lot of legroom. I don't pay attention to specs about legroom because they don't define how they measure it and every manufacturer is different they all have their own way to determine legroom.
But if you sit in the car you'll know. The xD is a very real possibility for me or rather my wife but I have not driven one yet. I won't waste a dealers time driving a car unless I am serious about buying one soon.
The only thing is the civic gets better economy but my wife hates the fact she can't see the nose or trunk at all on it. Heck I can't either and that's not really a good thing. gotta drive them back to back but I'm crazy busy so no chance for a while. Oh and the rear seats in the xD recline as well

It seems as much designed for people as the Fit is for cargo. Try one you'll be surprised.

tiff_c · October 2007

Disadvantages are a) less power than the Corolla and some would say b) not as attractive.

Looks aside the xD which is the new model the xA is no more, has the 1.8 Corolla engine in it which might be ok. So it's not a world apart any more. More utility but it would be nice if the seats really folded flat. they do give you a foldable riser to make it easier to slide stuff into the car

bobw3 · October 2007

It seems as much designed for people as the Fit is for cargo. Try one you'll be surprised

The Fit has the same rear dimensions as the Xd and more cargo.

tiff_c · October 2007

It seems as much designed for people as the Fit is for cargo. Try one you'll be surprised

The Fit has the same rear dimensions as the Xd and more cargo

Yes that was my point but you have a LOT more room for passengers in the xD than the Fit but less cargo room. Believe me the xD is very big people wise in the back seat.
Plus it has reclining rear seats. I'm not saying the Fit isn't a nice car, it certainly is I have 2 friends who own them and they do haul a lot of stuff but they have less room than the xD for people in the back, no matter what a spec sheet might say.
Also dimensions don't tell the whole story. How it's laid out as well as the design of the Fit limits it in some ways because those cool "magic seats" work great, but they don't adjust very well for passengers. The xD adjusts all over the place. it's like being in the back of a Buick. Well almost :shades:

jlawrence01 · October 2007

LE Trim, no ABS or side airbags.

The ADVANTAGE of the Corolla over the xA is that you can fit five people in the vehicle (which I have had to do 3x already), a trunk over the hatch (more security when I head into Chicago), and it is a bit more comfortable.

If I **HAD** to buy a subcompact, it would probably by the Hyundai Accent ... if I could find one.

boaz47 · October 2007

That was always a disadvantage with a hatch even in the early days. The back is an invitation for theft in the shopping malls. It tends to be a lot easier to break a window than to pop a trunk. Not that one should excuse the criminal element in our society but that was always my opinion. Of course with inside trunk releases that defeats part of the security of a trunk.

What makes it harder for me to accept sub compact hatch backs is I was driving during the first advent of the sub compact hatches. Yes I know they should be better than the old days but then VWs are supposed to be better as well and we know that isn't true.

bobw3 · October 2007

Actually the Fit's rear seats recline a little bit too and has the same legroom of the xD according to the Scion site, but maybe the specs are off like you said.

boaz47 · October 2007

Reminds me of a line from one of Agatha Christie's books by one of her detectives, Periot. He was supposed to be a Belgian and he was talking to a collector about collecting miniture figurines. He said he thought Belgian miniatures were some of the best in the world and when asked why, he replied, "because they are the biggest."

Today the Sub Compacts we see are bigger than sub compacts used to be and yet we insist they are still sub compacts. They Mini cooper may be closer to the old mini cooper but the rest of them seem a bit long for a sub compact.

Shifty you may be correct that it is simply cyclical but Scion moved up pretty fast with the xD even for Toyota.

I know that I tend to be 180 degrees out from Nippon. He seems to go one size smaller for simplicity and I almost always go one size bigger for comfort. However the vast majority of people seem to be in the middle and that is why everyone seems to be trying to capture the mid sized market. Sub Compacts and Fulled sized vehicles are the extreams and the consumer is not as interested in extreams.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

I think the xD is the refinement of the formula. I don't think the xA got it quite right, even though it is a terrific little car for the money. The xA needed 2 inches of legroom and maybe 4 inches more behind the back seats. Ceiling height and width are perfect. Drivetrain needs higher gearing, so the 1.8 Corolla engine can pull that tall gear. Really, aside from the debatable looks, the xD is just about the perfect car for 99% of America's population.

But what about the BACK SEAT you say---fact is, there are so many cars in America already, that if the entire population of America all got into their cars at the same time (like they do in Los Angeles on Fridays), there would in fact be no one IN the back seats.

We have way more seats than butts already.

And there's icing on the cake. Toyotas hardly ever break. So really there is no suffering in our futures.

harrychezt · October 2007

Hmmmmm. Top model... with shipping, around 18K.
MPG 31. HP: 143.
0-60? Unknown as of now.

from what I read on Edmunds, and many other sites.... this would be a nice sedan/sporty sedan, if it were maybe 1991-94, around the time of the SE-R(difference is the SX4 has more airbags, abs...).

What it does NOT have:
1) Sun/Moonroof options.
2) Folding rear seats.
3) Height/8 way adjustable seats
4) No center console.

Lancer has these, iirc...so does 3 door tC( and same MPG...but from a 160HP engine, with all the stuff mentioned above, and reclining rear seat backs... all at 17,800...with shipping,maybe 18,500-18,600...so 600 dollars more gets you more HP, more everything).

And some cars, on sale recently, like larger midsized sedans, on sale(Fusion, Optima, Sonata) get same MPG, same price, more car.

I know, this is "sporty", tuner...whatever.
For 18K(like the 20K, or more... Astra 3 door, with automatic, other items)...No, sorry. Not for me.

Decent little cars...but the price, vs other stuff out there...no thanks.

take care/not offense.

bobw3 · October 2007

And some cars, on sale recently, like larger midsized sedans, on sale(Fusion, Optima, Sonata) get same MPG, same price, more car.

Depends on your definition of "more car" For some, the Fusion, Optima nor Sonata offer any more car based on some folks needs.

ateixeira · October 2007

SX4 is a bit narrow and feels like a compact economy car.

Nothing wrong with that, but a wider mid-size sedan is far more comfortable, at least.

Plus, everything the SX4 does the Subaru Impreza 2.5i does better. Except the warranty, that's about it.

boaz47 · October 2007

That was so realistic. It made me smile. I always got a kick out of our, California's, idea of a car pool. Two people or more. So what do you see 99 percent of the time? Two people.

However how does the xD stand up to the word "Sub Compact"? Isnt it closer to what we see as a Compact? If so did it go from the xA falling short to being perfect by moving to the next size bigger and becoming a compact?

andre1969 · October 2007

However how does the xD stand up to the word "Sub Compact"? Isnt it closer to what we see as a Compact? If so did it go from the xA falling short to being perfect by moving to the next size bigger and becoming a compact?

According to the EPA, the xD is rated at 84 cubic feet of interior volume, 11 feet of cargo volume (that's behind the back seat, NOT total volume with the seat folded, as that would be double-counting)

the xA is rated at 86 interior, 12 feet cargo. So they're both still firmly subcompacts. I think the threshold for a compact is 100-109 cubic feet, so the xA was a little below that, while the xD is actually moving in the OPPOSITE direction!

If anything, the xD sort of makes me think of how GM and the other domestics started building cars in the 70's, where the new designs were bigger on the outside, but ended up with less room inside. All Toyota needs to do is give it a bigger engine with less hp than its predecessor, wider panel gaps, a few exposed screw heads on the interior, and that analogy would be complete. :P

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

That's a very plausible statement, yes.

boaz47 · October 2007

We have come to a meeting of the minds.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

Call forth the heralds. Bid the soldiers shoot! More wine for my men!

british_rover · October 2007

I just finished a nice glass of red wine from a local vineyard. Good stuff indeed.

I think I will have another.

boaz47 · October 2007

I have a fondness for Marlot but alas I believe we are out.

ateixeira · October 2007

That's a first! :shades:

Cheers!

robertsmx · October 2007

EPA's criteria to classify wagons into size categories is different from "cars". I'm assuming xA/xD would be considered wagons. Wagons...
Small: < 130 cu ft
Midsize: 130-159 cu ft
Larger: 160+ cu ft

Cars...
Minicompact: <85
Subcompact: 85-99
Compact: 100-109
Midsize: 110-119
Large: 120+

Looks like wagons are beyond the scope of this thread. :P

stever · October 2007

"U.S. compact- and subcompact-car sales hit a record 2.7 million units in 2006 ... But the boom has American automakers scrambling, as foreign brands currently control 76 percent of the U.S. small-car market. The things that have fueled (small-car sales) are really not going away: Gas prices, the housing market (and) the fashion aspect of these cars"

Compacts, subcompacts selling at a record pace (Boston Herald)

andre1969 · October 2007

EPA's criteria to classify wagons into size categories is different from "cars". I'm assuming xA/xD would be considered wagons. Wagons...
Small:

Nah, they do still classify the xA and xD as cars and not wagons. One thing that I found interesting, looking at some old data files, is that while the threshold of what constitutes a "full sized car" is pretty loose (a 2000 Taurus is full-sized, and an '02-06 Camry or Altima are about 1 cubic foot shy of it), there are actually very few car-based station wagons that break that 160 cubic foot threshold.

Looking at 1978, the furthest back the EPA figures go, only the following wagons broke that threshold...
GM's Caprice/Impala/Safari/Custom Cruiser/Estate wagons: 110-111 cubic feet of interior space, 51 cubic feet of cargo. 161-162 total.
AMC Matador: 112/50, 162 total. I think it's interesting here that an "old school" inefficient intermediate actually ends up with as much interior room as a newly-introduced full-size.
Ford/Mercury full-sized wagons: 106/56, 162 total.

In contrast, something like the Volvo 240 wagon (dunno if they called it 240 back then, but that style) was rated at 89/42. While definitely compact in passenger room, that upright, boxy shape gave it plenty of cargo room. That 42 cubic feet puts it in the league of midsized wagons back then like the Aspen/Volare/Diplomat/LeBaron, Malibu/LeMans et al, and Fairmont/Zephyr. Only the old-school Fury/Monaco, with 50 cubic feet, were notably larger.

Seems like those wagon thresholds put the cars on a more even footing than the other car thresholds. With the way they define a compact car, a 1985 Escort or Omni is put in the same category as something like a modern Corolla, Focus, Neon, Civic, Mazda3, etc, and there's a pretty big difference in size there, IMO at least. And a "full sized" car can range from a 2000 Taurus or 2008 Accord, on up to a 1996 Cadillac Fleetwood. A car big enough that, even if you chopped off its trunk entirely, would qualify as full-sized based just on passenger cabin volume!

andre1969 · October 2007

I drove my Intrepid up to Carlisle, PA and back this past weekend for their swap meet. I made a similar trip back in April, with my uncle's 2003 Corolla. In that Corolla, I got about 37.4 mpg on that trip, which I thought was decent. That was close to its 38 mpg highway estimate.

However, I just got back from the gas station, filling up my Intrepid. I actually did more driving this time while I was up there, putting about 281 miles on this tank, versus something like 228 for the Corolla. Fuel economy on this trip came out to around 30.8 mpg. About 50 miles of that trip included having a passenger with me, and about 114 miles of it included having a set of Pontiac Rally 2 wheels in the trunk, which I'm guessing added about 120 pounds.

I think that's about the best economy I've EVER gotten on a tank of gas with that car! Gas was something $2.679 per gallon, so I figure that if I took my uncle's Corolla on this trip and it got 37.4 mpg, it would've saved me about $4.34 in fuel. I wonder if that extra weight (the extra passenger and then the Rally wheels) would have cut the fuel economy on the Corolla any?

One thing I've noticed is there's a big difference in performance in the hilly areas of this particular trip. Once you get north of Baltimore, there's a lot of hills and valleys. With the Intrepid, on the downhill grades, I can take my foot off the gas pedal completely and let it coast, and it holds its speed. And if I'm willing to let my speed drop a few mph going up the next hill, it'll usually be able to make the next grade without downshifting. On the flip side, the only way that Corolla will maintain velocity going downhill is to push it off a cliff! So instead of coasting downhill, I have to give it some gas. And then on the next grade, it's a given that the car is going to downshift, unless I want to be a road hazzard for every other motorist going up that hill.

On level ground, I'm guessing that Corolla would excel more, and definitely in local stop-and-go driving. But out on the open road, it just doesn't seem worth it to put up with a weaker, back-breaking, jittery, rough-riding car just to save $4.34 on a trip to Carlisle!

If anything, this experience drives home the point of how far bigger cars have come, and how far smaller cars need to come, if there's ever going to be a mass exodus to the smaller car. Still, that being said, I'm keeping an open mind. While there are no subcompacts out there that would probably interest me, I'd still be willing to give the Civic a chance. And while not exactly small cars, something like an Altima or '08 Accord is still about a foot shorter than my Intrepid and more economical, at least according to the EPA.

iluvmysephia1 · October 2007

how many miles do you have now on your Intrepid? Seems like you've had that rig for years...and years...and years. That's a good sign of it's powerplant's efficiency if it coasts at good speed and holds it up. Sounds like it's doing very well for you.

Kia is introducing a new car with a 1.6L diesel engine, the C'eed, to Europe and this article calls it a winner, in Germany. Beat out a Fiat and a Toyota in this comparo.

http://www.kia-world.net/index.php/2007/10/02/abc-auris-vs-bravo-vs-ceed/

Unless you can read German don't bother clicking in to the link to the online article, unless you want to look at the pictures, of course. Peter Schreyer design work, this new C'eed. Although I kicked over to Mitsubishi to buy my new Lancer GTS for this go-around, Kia won me over with my '99 Sephia and '01 Sportage 4X4 and they only get better each passing year, IMO. I would definitely return one day, yessiree-bob.

andre1969 · October 2007

My Intrepid's pushing 137,000 miles now. I bought it November 6, 1999 (don't ask me why that date sticks in my mind!) so it's going on 8 years now. I think I had that car before I joined Edmund's so yeah, I guess it would seem like forever!

It hasn't been perfect, but it's been pretty good. Mainly minor stuff going bad, like a thermostat housing, two power lock actuators, passenger side mirror adjust, oil pressure light giving a false reading, transmission cooling lines leaking slightly, etc. One potentially major repair IS looming though, the air conditioning. I noticed a few months ago that it seemed to be getting weak. It seems to blow strong when the temps are maybe high 80's or less, but once it gets up over 90, you might as well just roll down your windows and stomp on it!

But all the stuff that's "supposed" to go wrong with these cars, like dumping transmissions and sludging up, hasn't happened yet.

imidazol97 · October 2007

Doesn't it just need some R12 added?

andre1969 · October 2007

Doesn't it just need some R12 added?

Actually it's R134A. I dunno...that could be all it needs. Haven't checked it out yet. I'm sending it to the mechanic soon to check up on some other stuff...just a general checkup before the winter sets in, so I'll have them check the a/c and see how bad it really is.

iluvmysephia1 · October 2007

don't you live in a cold area, too? Now that you don't need the A/C as much you can find out what is going wrong, I guess. Yeah, that stuff that has gone wrong is not serious stuff.

Since this is the "subcompact" thread I would like to second my emotion for a new, Chinese-built Dodge product called the Hornet. Updates to how production might be going on this new car are extremely difficult to obtain so it's gonna be a matter of you Americans will see it when you see it. I'm trying to pry for more 'cause I like it's quirky new body style. If you thought Scion's have quirky body styles wait 'till you see the 2009 Dodge Hornet. Seriously.

As I believe the Hyundai/Kia 10 year, 100,000 mile Long-Haul Warranty is genius in the industry, I agree completely with Chrysler's decision to go with the Lifetime Powertrain Warranty. I mean, since when are we too preoccupied to follow manufacturer's specs as far as tune-ups, LOF's, original owner only, etc. to keep a generous Warranty like this alive? If we're too dink-minded to accept this new Chrysler Lifetime Powertrain Warranty then I fear Americans are smoking some very, very strong hashish and aren't backing off of it enough every coupla weeks to let their minds rebound completely. Really, what's to bark about here?

Tell ya what, if you're smart you will follow it. What are question marks are Chery of China manufacturing concerns(that I would have)...not even serious concerns, maybe trims falling off, windshield wiper stalks clunking off, etc. Rinky-dink stuff, I think Chery and Dodge will codger the powertrain along to the point that it will be solid. Chery is working hard on their own Chinese cars with quality issues but still lag way behind Japanese manufacturers(Duh!)and South Korea's Hyundai and Kia as well. But I think they'll get the drivetrain stuff down fine, well before first car rolls down the line and off to the world. It's that other stuff...including things like air conditioning...that concern me more right now.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

Make no mistake...the xA is a SMALL car by any standards. One look at an xA parked in a row of the usual array of cars you'd see in a parking lot would verify that.

Only a MINI looks smaller to me, and that's more in the width than anything else.

iluvmysephia1 · October 2007

I tell ya...I think the xA like yours is a cooler rig than the new xD, it's replacement. I can't get used to that weird new xD bodystyle and I don't know if the new '08 xB is a real improvement either. I've heard many people stating they like their old Scion's much better than the new replacements. I almost bought a Polar White '06 xA in 5-speeds...but we were about to move again( :sick: )and I couldn't get my wife to come on board with the idea.

Truth be told, she didn't want our new '08 Lancer GTS at all like I do and she still loves our '01 Kia Sportage 4X4! But I really dug my '06 Scion xA 5-speed test drive. It had some extra's up there, regarding i-Pod's and such, foglights, etc, for about $14,395 IIRC. I was ready to deal. Buzzy engine but it got the job done...small car but still kind of heavy for it's length and width and heighth, huh?

iluvmysephia1 · October 2007

this new subcompact for 2009?

For those that don't know this is the Dodge Hornet concept model. The real McCoy will be built for Dodge by Chery of China. That is happening as I type this out AAMOF.

british_rover · October 2007

Funny the two are almost the exact same width.

MINI VS xA

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles