What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

thegraduate · December 2007

I have that is a compact car, get 32 mpg highway(like I do) and 20 mpg in town (like I do) why would I want a subcompact car?

By that logic, if I can get a Honda Accord that delivers upper 30s on the highway regularly (topped 40 MPG twice at speeds averaging over 70 MPH), 29MPG in my suburban commute, and has better fuel economy than a compact according to the EPA (Lancer), why would I want a compact?

If I'm gonna buy a small ICE vehicle then the car should get a minimum of 40 mpg and hopefully 45-50 mpg, and up.

Otherwise I will enjoy my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS and it's better carrying capability than a subcompact and similar gas mileage to one. It's good to have a little more room to store things and seat more people comfortably for excursions, etc.

My same case holds true of my Accord against a Lancer. It's roomier and gets better milage. Why would I move to a smaller and LESS efficient car. At least with going to subcompacts, the mileage is better, if marginally (Fit v. Civic, Yaris v. Corolla, Versa v. Sentra). Go sit in a Versa; it's decidedly NOT a subcompact. I sat in the back seat, behind where I'd set the seat in the front. I had as much room as my midsize Accord. Cars like this Versa, and the cargo-carrying marvel Honda Fit are really practical vehicles; much more so than their sedan big-brother compacts in some cases.

The thing is, sephia, that these subcompacts typically have combined averages higher than those of compacts. They also are smaller on the outside (a plus for some people), and don't cost as much to purchase.

I find it sort of interesting that you seem cocerned about mileage, yet bought one of the least efficient compacts currently on sale.

iluvmysephia1 · December 2007

I bought for it's looks and for it's handling and features available for the price. Plus a Warranty that is industry-leading(until Chrysler came out with theirs).

Gas mileage is not even near the top of my list for why I want to buy a car. Since so namy disscussions on car sites involve gas mileage, I was simply pointing out the fact that many, many subcompacts just don't deliver in the mpg area compared to even my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS, which is a compact. And I get more room to travel in. More comfort.

And a great looking car body design as well, which is not easily delivered in a car with such a small body. Not to mention the increased safety of a bigger rig that also has the latest safety implements designed in. Just a better deal all the way around.

andre1969 · December 2007

By that logic, if I can get a Honda Accord that delivers upper 30s on the highway regularly (topped 40 MPG twice at speeds averaging over 70 MPH), 29MPG in my suburban commute, and has better fuel economy than a compact according to the EPA (Lancer), why would I want a compact?

Well basically, buy what you're comfortable with. If you're getting that kind of economy in an Accord, it's doubtful you'll do much better with a smaller car (MPG-wise yes, but $ wise, probably not, unless you drive an incredible amount of miles). Still, there are tradeoffs. The Accord is bigger, roomier, more comfortable. Probably quieter and smoother riding. The Lancer might be more nimble, easier to park in tight spaces, give a more connected driving experience, etc.

I've sort of run into a similar situation with my cars. My 2000 Intrepid a "fullsize" (according to the EPA at least...I'm still a bit old fashioned and call it a roomy intermediate :P ) can break 30 mpg if leisurely driven on the highway. Best I ever did was around 31. I've driven my uncle's '03 Corolla a few times, and one time keeping track of mileage I got around 37.4, driven fairly leisurely, highway driving...actually, the same run where I got 31 with the Intrepid!

The up-side of the Corolla was the 20% improvement in fuel economy. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? However, on that 230 mile trip I took, that translates to a gallonage of 6.15 for the Corolla, 7.42 for the Intrepid. A difference of 1.27 gallons. At $3.00 per gallon, that comes out to a savings of like $3.81 over the course of that trip. All of a sudden, not so great.

Now, if the Corolla is your thing, more power to you. However, I find it cramped, noisy, rough riding, uncomfortable, worse-handling, and slower-accelerating than my Intrepid. I also rarely have to worry about squeezing into tight parking spaces, so that advantage is pretty much a moot point for me. I'm used to driving pickup trucks and 221" long Chryslers, so to me the Intrepid IS a small, nimble car! :shades:

However, to someone else, who doesn't really need something Intrepid-sized, and is comfortable with the Corolla, then they should go for it. It's a perfectly adequate car, but it just doesn't fit ME.

So in short, buy what fits you the best, and what you're most comfortable with. If I had to go out and buy a new car right now, I'd probably get a 4-cyl Altima. It's smaller than my Intrepid, but still big enough to for me to fit in comfortably. According to the EPA, it should get better fuel economy. Basically, it's not too big, not too small, fairly economical, and fast enough for my needs.

thegraduate · December 2007

I was simply pointing out the fact that many, many subcompacts just don't deliver in the mpg area compared to even my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS, which is a compact. And I get more room to travel in. More comfort.

Who is to say that subcompact buyers don't do the same thing? Just because you like and dislike certain vehicle designs doesn't mean that other people don't feel the opposite. I couldn't put up with the interior quality of the Lancer, personally. That alone would cause me to look at other vehicles. The power/economy tradeoff was pretty bad in a brand new model as well.

My point that I'm trying to make, in a roundabout fashion, is this. The reasons you have for choosing a larger/different car may be just the reasons other people CHOOSE a compact. And, every subcompact I know delivers compared to the 21/29 MPG the Lancer is estimated to get in standardized conditions.

Versa - 27/33 MPG, more room (EPA Midsize I believe), extra cargo capacity with hatchback option.
Fit - 27/34, LOADS of cargo space with magic seats, GREAT handling
Yaris - 29/35, the Yaris gets in city stop and go what the Lancer gets on the highway!

You say the Lancer is a better deal all the way around... well, for YOU it is. You seem to be losing sight of the fact that we all have different needs. Some want great economy and loads of practicality. Some want midsize room and subcompact fuel economy. Some want the most fun-to-drive at the lowest cost.

The Lancer doesn't deliever on any of these wants I've listed, and therefore wouldn't be the best all around deal. It's great that you love your Lancer, it was obviously the best car for you. It's obviously not for everyone, because I never see them on the roads (that's good if you want a unique vehicle).

thegraduate · December 2007

The up-side of the Corolla was the 20% improvement in fuel economy. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? However, on that 230 mile trip I took, that translates to a gallonage of 6.15 for the Corolla, 7.42 for the Intrepid. A difference of 1.27 gallons. At $3.00 per gallon, that comes out to a savings of like $3.81 over the course of that trip. All of a sudden, not so great.

Now, if the Corolla is your thing, more power to you. However, I find it cramped, noisy, rough riding, uncomfortable, worse-handling, and slower-accelerating than my Intrepid. I also rarely have to worry about squeezing into tight parking spaces, so that advantage is pretty much a moot point for me. I'm used to driving pickup trucks and 221" long Chryslers, so to me the Intrepid IS a small, nimble car!

However, to someone else, who doesn't really need something Intrepid-sized, and is comfortable with the Corolla, then they should go for it. It's a perfectly adequate car, but it just doesn't fit ME.

So in short, buy what fits you the best, and what you're most comfortable with. If I had to go out and buy a new car right now, I'd probably get a 4-cyl Altima. It's smaller than my Intrepid, but still big enough to for me to fit in comfortably. According to the EPA, it should get better fuel economy. Basically, it's not too big, not too small, fairly economical, and fast enough for my needs.

I agree with everything you've said. Buy what's best for you. Just don't ridicule other purchaser's decisions because they don't fit what you would do - they have different needs and wants. If they didn't we'd probably all be in a Camry.

And, andre, my ex-gf had a 2004 Corolla; definitely not the best car in the world for fitting tall guys behind the wheel (I'm 6'4" and the driving position was HORRIBLE). I too like the new Altima, but that's a topic for another board.

)

tiff_c · December 2007

Versa - 27/33 MPG, more room (EPA Midsize I believe), extra cargo capacity with hatchback option.
Fit - 27/34, LOADS of cargo space with magic seats, GREAT handling
Yaris - 29/35, the Yaris gets in city stop and go what the Lancer gets on the highway!

Can we please add the Scion xD in here because it is basically the 5 door Yaris that is sold overseas with a different body style. It's also roomy and the seats are more comfortable than the Fit and the Versa at least for me. The Figures

Scion xD - 27/33 so the same as the Versa. The xD
has a Corolla engine in it which is very reliable as well.

thegraduate · December 2007

Thanks tiff, I had left it out by mistake. I was looking at the sidebar of this discussion and saw the Versa, Yaris and Fit, and forgot about the xD.

dromedarius · December 2007

And I get more room to travel in. More comfort.

Personally, I don't understand why so many people are so concerned about vehicle comfort. Granted, some people have long commutes, but most of us spend very little time in a car relative to everything else we do. Conversely I never hear people complain about how uncomfortable their chair at work is.

:P

I actually think my Prizm is comfortable (6 ft+ 200 lbs) but it is just a tool which gets me to and from work. I value the economy, low maintenance costs and ease of parking. Cars are bad places to stick your money anyway, so it never made much sense to me to stick anymore money into it than I have to. I actually chose it because it had a MT, no PW and no PL. Of course these are just my feelings, but as much as I like cars I have never become accustomed to how strongly people feel about their vehicles and how many creature comforts they expect.

:confuse:

lilengineerboy · December 2007

And, andre, my ex-gf had a 2004 Corolla;

See, I could never go out with a girl with a Corolla in the first place.

:P

thegraduate · December 2007

Hahaha... she was short, but her maintenance costs were pretty high!

(Mom had a Lexus GX470 and dad drove an assortment of Audi's since he was a GSM at a local Porsche-Audi dealer).

boaz47 · December 2007

Maybe but if the "if everyone got 2 mpg better" argument was valid it would be a heck of a lot easier for me to get 2mpg gallon better average in a 3/4 ton truck than it would for a Fit to find another 2MPG average.

Using the logic that if we all only got just what we needed then a person that switched to a Fit, Edmunds rates the base Fit at 28-34, from a base Corolla, rated by Edmunds at 28-37 will be wasting 3 MPG uselessly. Obviously you don't need a smaller car getting less fuel mileage. So if we only got just what we needed we could all drive Corollas. In fact a Fit driver would seem like a gas guzzler to a Yaris driver. If you are getting 34-40 MPG in a Yaris how do you justify giving up 4 to 6 mpg out of want rather than need? Not only that you tossed more money out the door because the Fit costs more. Even the Smart doesn't list their fuel mileage higher than a Yaris on their web site. So all we all need is a Yaris, and really dark glasses so we can't see each other.

If someone has the money to spend on a Hummer it is their money, they worked for it, in most cases, and if they want to give it away it isn't our task to suggest that we have a better use for it. It is no different than getting a 911 or a Z06. It is no different than buying a power boat. You and I both know that a Viper is a fuel miser compared to 2 Yamaha 200 HP outboard let alone 4 Volvo Pentas. But even in that industry there are those who will toss their money out on a $300,000.00 sail boat and complain about how much fuel the 150K speed boat uses.

Maybe the best choice is what someone said in the forum on what your car says about you. I don't car all that much what someone else drives. And I don't care that much about what someone else thinks about what I should drive. Looking at the number one selling vehicle in the US I would say that is a majority opinion.

lilengineerboy · December 2007

And I don't care that much about what someone else thinks about what I should drive.

I think that is the issue he is getting at. His argument is that you are only thinking about yourself and not about society, the environment, your country, etc. You are picking something that is good for you, even though it is detrimental to everyone else.

I'm not saying people should be told what to drive, just trying to frame the argument.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

Yes your argument has weight in that really we should always look at GALLONAGE, not MPG. If a person switches from a 4X4 V-8 truck to a Honda Fit, their gallonage will decrease significantly, whereas if they switch from an Audi A4 to Honda Fit, the gallonage decrease will not be impressive.

The "majority" is always behind the curve or the trend. That's why they are the majority. They are among the last to know when something has changed.

tiff_c · December 2007

Personally, I don't understand why so many people are so concerned about vehicle comfort. Granted, some people have long commutes, but most of us spend very little time in a car relative to everything else we do. Conversely I never hear people complain about how uncomfortable their chair at work is.

My back is screwed up, too much heavy lifting, more than a few falls and not much they can do about it. So of course I need a comfortable car. I travel extensively for my work and no way do i want to drive 5 + hours in an uncomfortable car. I don't need a huge SUV but really great seats are a priority. I really need AWD as some of the areas I travel don't get great snow maintainance. But you can't have everything. Spend about 1.5 million miles driving over the years and seat comfort is going to be waaaaaay up on your list believe me.

If I just drove 5K miles a year it might not matter so much.
My Miata was comfortable and did well in the snow. But too impractical for the driving I did. Highway cruisers are not city cars like your Geo which was a rebadged Suzuki I believe, not a bad car if it fits you and you are happy with it. I like a performance car and I also need a comfortable seat. No Civics for me thank you. :sick:

As far as my work chair goes I bought my own and took out the monstrosity they wanted me to use.

I either drive a desk or a car, both need to be comfortable. If you screw up your back severely you'll understand.

tiff_c · December 2007

Thanks tiff, I had left it out by mistake. I was looking at the sidebar of this discussion and saw the Versa, Yaris and Fit, and forgot about the xD.

No sweat, there are so many cars available out there now

. I just would like to see the ability to put at least a Recaro seat for the driver and not screw up the airbags.
Be easier to justify a few cars I might like to buy if I could get a Recaro seat and not void any warranties or change the safety.

ateixeira · December 2007

That is a funny point. How much time do we really spend in our cars? At most 2 hours a day?

Yes we spend 8 hours in the office. How many of us went out and bought an uber-expensive executive office chair?

The auto industry has done a GREAT job marketing all this stuff, convincing us we need it.

Another example: do you have keyless entry in your home? I have a 6CD changer in my car, yet a single CD player at home. I spend a lot more time at home, however.

It's all brilliant marketing.

andre1969 · December 2007

Personally, I don't understand why so many people are so concerned about vehicle comfort. Granted, some people have long commutes, but most of us spend very little time in a car relative to everything else we do. Conversely I never hear people complain about how uncomfortable their chair at work is.

That's because in my chair at work, I can adequately stretch my legs out if I need to. I can also get up and walk around, stretch, etc. I can push the keyboard to the computer to a comfortable distance from me. I can raise or lower the chair as I need to fit under the desk.

It also kinda helps that my company bought me a $560 or so ergonomic chair. :shades:

My uncle's Corolla starts to annoy me after about 10 minutes worth of driving. My legs cramp up, it gives poor thigh support, and I find myself leaning inward because of the way the roof slopes in.

Now truth be told, I probably could deal with this car for most of my driving needs. I'm close enough to work that 10 minutes is actually a long commute! But still, why subject myself to that kind of torture when I don't really need to?

ateixeira · December 2007

Here at work, we found out if you call the health folks you can get one of those bad boys for free (they pay). The next day a bunch of us called complaining about sore backs!

I still have a "low budget" chair, though.

tiff_c · December 2007

That is a funny point. How much time do we really spend in our cars? At most 2 hours a day?

I envy them! I really do! Somedays it's 8 hours of driving total, 4+ hours then figure out why some piece of machinery that was custom made is now all wonky. The 4+ hours drive back. Then of course it has to be fixed poste haste and so often I have to get the part back up there since it's always critical.
I slept in my office more than most I'll wager. :sick:

Yes we spend 8 hours in the office. How many of us went out and bought an uber-expensive executive office chair?

Mine was pretty darn expensive but it beats 6 months of therapy in a swimming pool which I do not have time for.

Another example: do you have keyless entry in your home? I have a 6CD changer in my car, yet a single CD player at home. I spend a lot more time at home, however.

Meet George Jetson.... His boy Elroy.... Jane his wife!
I rarely listen to the radio or CD's. i like peace and quiet when I drive, only if I am super tired do I put of stuff to keep me awake.

I do agree it's really a great marketing ploy but a great Nav system pays for itself. I used to use Maps Rand McNally but too much hassle after a while. I still keep road maps as a backup but some gizmos are worthwhile. If you drive a lot those little map lights allow the driver to drive with less distraction while the passenger fiddles with something.
Most stuff is a waste like climate control. I don't even have A/C in my house :surprise:

andre1969 · December 2007

there's comfort, and then there's marketing. The difference is that when a commerical tells you it's comfortable, then it's marketing. If your [non-permissible content removed] tells you it feels comfortable, then it it's comfortable! :shades:

robertsmx · December 2007

it would be a heck of a lot easier for me to get 2mpg gallon better average in a 3/4 ton truck than it would for a Fit to find another 2MPG average.

Not quite. If things were that easy, trucks would be more fuel efficient than they are. Based on my experiences, I find it virtually impossible to exceed 15 mpg in a Dodge Ram (14-15 mpg is the norm). And it is not that I enjoy driving those things so much that I drive without regard to fuel economy. For most part, I end up driving them at 55-60 mph when I would be cruising past 70 mph in my cars. Yet...

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

Engineers would sell their grandmothers into slavery to get an extra 2 mpg out of a big V8 truck without massive expense or without too much compromise in noise, drivability, etc.

I'd say if you could improve a big V8's mileage by 3 to 5% doing simple easy stuff that would be an accomplishment to brag about. But a 10-15% jump in mileage? You'd have to get kind of radical, and you'd have spent more than the gas savings justify.

The 2007 cars are REALLY well-dialed in for power and economy. Some guy in his garage is not going to dramatically improve that with snakey air filters and magic potions, or even $600 exhaust systems.

iluvmysephia1 · December 2007

2008 is insufficient and lacking. Did I mention bodystyling? Of course I did, I just listed in really clear fashion why my Lancer GTS is the best car on the market for me. At the top of that list is the great new bodystyle.

A great Warranty is nice and so is a dependable powertrain and comfortable interior, sunroof and 650-watt Rockford Fosgate 6 CD-changer with subwoofer in the trunk. Did I mention a comfortable interior and nice stereo and great looking new Lancer bodystyle. Leather-wrapped steering wheel and shift-control knob?

Driver interactive information center, headrest whiplash protection, skads of airbags (including driver's knee airbag), ABS w/EBD for the brakes and a 10 year and 100,000 mile Warranty.

Mitsubishi has built in years of rally racing experience in this design and it points towards upcoming features in the new EVO X due out in 2008. Did I forget to mention great new bodystyle? Oh, I forgot, that's merely subjective.

Every Toyota and Honda and Subaru owner needs to remember those frontline defenses because their bodydesign departments are merely afterthoughts of their collective corporations. Aren't they? With Toyota's Scion an exception is made because with those rigs Scion went for an individual design look to appeal to the younger generation. With the xA and tC they did a great job.

But, oh, those compact, midsize and larger Honda's and Toyota's. Middle of the road looks aren't quite good enough for those of us who really care about how our vehicles look like.

So, for a guy like me Big Megalo Mart car manufacturers like Honda and Toyota miss the mark. By a lot.

robertsmx · December 2007

The problem for companies like Mitsubishi might be that folks who buy cars only for looks are also the kind who will jump the boat (or ship, as the case may be) at the very first opportunity. The buyer may not care, but that is where customer loyalty comes into play.

But, I don't find what is so great about Lancer in terms of styling. The advantage it may hold is in seeing far fewer of them on the roads. "Familiarity breeds contempt" applies.

iluvmysephia1 · December 2007

of styling. To give this blank statement reason like "Oh, but styling is so subjective" just flat out stinks of jealousy and contempt. And that is just what it is. Anyone who gives the Mitsubishi Lancer GTS for 2008 a good, thorough look knows what I'm talking about.

And I'm developing in to a true Mitsubishi fan, too, not just a fair weather fan.

andre1969 · December 2007

Engineers would sell their grandmothers into slavery to get an extra 2 mpg out of a big V8 truck without massive expense or without too much compromise in noise, drivability, etc.

I'd say if you could improve a big V8's mileage by 3 to 5% doing simple easy stuff that would be an accomplishment to brag about. But a 10-15% jump in mileage? You'd have to get kind of radical, and you'd have spent more than the gas savings justify.

Well, depending on how aggressive your driving habits are in the first place, you might be able to change them and see a 10-15% jump, or even more, in your own real world fuel economy. For instance, the last time I did one of my runs up to Pennsylvania for a car show, in October, I drove my '85 Silverado, just for the hell of it. It was EPA-rated at 14/16 under the old EPA system, and something like 12/15 with the new, downgraded numbers. I've been able to hit 16 mpg in the past by driving fairly gently, in mostly highway driving. On that trip to PA though, I figured I'd try to hypermile a bit, and actually got it up to 18! So that's about a 12.5% improvement. Basically, I just kept it at around the speed limit, sometimes a bit below, averaging 55-65 mph with an extremely rare jaunt up to 70. Normally on that run, I'd average 65-75, with a rare jaunt up to 80.

Also, in local driving, I'd usually get around 12-13 mpg with that truck. When I'd let my roommate borrow it, it was more like 10.

Still, there's nothing really magical going on here. It's just easing up on the gas pedal, trying to pay attention far enough ahead so I can coast to a slowdown instead of having to jam on the brakes, trying to avoid fast starts, etc.

However, I dunno if it's any easier to beat the EPA estimates in a smaller vehicle versus a bigger one. Probably too many factors other than simply size/mass.

snakeweasel · December 2007

No, I didn't report the Canadian MPG I reported the Canadian liters used per 100 kilometers and converted it to US MPG.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

Apparently beauty is not subjective. Scientific studies suggest that the human brain is programmed to prefer symmetry and certain ratios and proportions.

snakeweasel · December 2007

I completely agree w/you regarding the smart; I can't see it being a practical purchase for 99.5% of the US population.

I will disagree with you on that one, there is a very large segment of two car families where one car is primarily used for commuting and that car rarely, if ever, has more than 2 people in it. For those families a Smart would be the perfect second car.

snakeweasel · December 2007

Once we get into high mileage cars, practicality becomes far more important than saving 10% on fuel economy,

Is it practical for two people to own two large cars? Is it practical for a small family to own two large cars when one is only used for commuting? There is a large segment of the two car family world that does not need a very large second car.

Now as the primary car no its not practical, but as a second commuter its a very good and practical car.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

So why wouldn't the Honda Fit be the perfect car for that family? With a Smart they are condemned to never carrying anything, which even a 2-person family certainly does every now and then.

I think if you put a SMART and a Fit side by side with gas mileages taped to their windows, for the same price, and asked small families to choose, I think the Smart would lose 9 out of 10 times. Either price, or "danger" or "looks" will come into play.

snakeweasel · December 2007

Have you ever shared your numbers to EPA's website? Calling those who do liars is the last thing that comes to my mind.

I am not calling anyone liars but I have to tend to seriously question a few who report numbers much higher than everyone else.

snakeweasel · December 2007

Thats just the point 90% are not reporting over 40 MPG its the 10% (maybe less) that are reporting over 40 MPG the 90% are reporting near EPA figures.

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

That's not what I'm reading though, interestingly enough. It's exactly the opposite. Of course, the data base isn't that large but since they are random owners from all over the country, I'd tend to take it seriously.

I consistently beat EPA in my Scion xA and that has the same engine as a Yaris, and I did get 40 mpg once or twice---but I'd have to report mine as about 34-36 MPG average with *very* fast driving (as in "Shifty, stop, I can't go any faster").

snakeweasel · December 2007

EPA tells me this car should get 27 mpg highway, 21 mpg in city. Tell me, what makes their number more credible, and why I shouldn't rely on what I observe.

Because EPA estiments are the closest thing you can get as a constant for this measurement. No two drivers drive exactly the same way. I will most likely get more or less MPG than you depending on how different we drive. Also no two cars are the same, even the same model with the same engine, and will get slightly differing mileage. You driving your Accord and getting X MPG doesn't mean I will get X MPG on an Accord that has the same options.

snakeweasel · December 2007

Here at work, we found out if you call the health folks you can get one of those bad boys for free (they pay). The next day a bunch of us called complaining about sore backs!

Ha. I work for the state and I feel lucky that I have a chair and not an old milk crate. Now if I can only get them to stop using my work space for storage I will be happy.

snakeweasel · December 2007

So why wouldn't the Honda Fit be the perfect car for that family?

Remember that we are talking two car families where one car always (or mostly) has one person in it for the commute. The Fit would be ok, but do you really need to spend more money and get less mileage for added space you will never need?

I think if you put a SMART and a Fit side by side with gas mileages taped to their windows, for the same price, and asked small families to choose, I think the Smart would lose 9 out of 10 times.

But the Smart will be less expensive and lets face it, if people are practical when choosing that second commuter car they will choose the less expensive better mileage car.

snakeweasel · December 2007

That's not what I'm reading though, interestingly enough. It's exactly the opposite.

Well then we are reading different things because the EPA website has, IIRC, 52 people reporting and something like two or three reporting way higher than the EPA estiments.

oregonboy · December 2007

After crushing all opposition with incisive logic and irrefutable reasoning, he turned slowly to savor the victory. Only the did he realize that he was alone in the room.

robertsmx · December 2007

the Smart will be less expensive and lets face it, if people are practical when choosing that second commuter car they will choose the less expensive better mileage car.

Practical people look for balance. And that also involves practicality. My second car doesn't need to be large, it needs to be practical enough that if I need it as a replacement for my primary car, I could use it.

Something like Smart wouldn't even register on my radar for a second car, not at $13K and 40 mpg. There are far superior choices out there. I would rather go used if money were an issue.

Because EPA estiments are the closest thing you can get as a constant for this measurement.

A constant that is overly pessimistic. A constant that always gets beat. If there weren't an issue with this constant, EPA wouldn't dump the old constant and come up with a new one. And my cars have always met (or exceeded) the old constant. The new constant has done nothing but create a chaos. In fact, it has done greater harm to higher mileage cars than lower. A 10-12% reduction on 40 mpg vehicle is far more "visible" than similar loss in a 15 mpg vehicle.

You driving your Accord and getting X MPG doesn't mean I will get X MPG on an Accord that has the same options.

If you look at the way I drive, you would think otherwise but you will. Most do.

Well then we are reading different things because the EPA website has, IIRC, 52 people reporting and something like two or three reporting way higher than the EPA estiments.

Looking at mileage reported on 2007 Yaris w/auto transmission I see 53 entries, and only six failed to meet the combined mileage which is only 31 mpg. Most folks seem to be averaging in mid-upper 30s, especially considering those that are close to approximately 50-50 city/highway (+/- 10%).

Mr_Shiftright · December 2007

Oh I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that I was looking at the edmunds.com, consumer reviews for the Yaris, not the EPA site. I didn't see any link to report fuel mileage to the EPA on their site.

SMART VS. FIT: If you price out both of them with comparable equipment, that is base Smart with AC & power steering, vs. Base Fit with those items standard, I regret to say that the Honda comes out to be $128 more, with more standard features than the base Smart has.

That even surprised me. I didn't do that before.

Try it yourselves: Go to www.edmunds.com, click on "new cars" and price out the 2008s, as base models.

iluvmysephia1 · December 2007

Apparently beauty is not subjective. Scientific studies suggest that the human brain is programmed to prefer symmetry and certain ratios and proportions.

Now, since I am the only one who decided that I like the symmetry and certain ratios and proportions of my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS, I have no other compelling reason to tell anyone else they must feel the same way about the car. But, I was programmed to like it and I just acted on...on...ummm...superior pre-programmed powers of being prone to crave beauty.

There. That does it. I felt this strange pull within me to get that out. Nice find, shifty, makes lots of good sense to me.

thegraduate · December 2007

I have no problem with the styling on a car, but simply saying one design is superior to another (when, in fact, the design is just made to be appealing to the eye and not to promote function) is subjective, because of the fact that my reason for liking a car may be your reason for disliking it (People say this about the Fusion's grill). So, I won't argue with you or shifty on styling, but I disagree with the fact that it is objective and do believe that it is subjective.

You like it. That's the important part. Just don't criticize others who don't, or those who don't give a rip about what it looks like as that would make as much sense as not liking somebody because of their birth date. Personally, I like the Lancer's exterior design for the most part. I do question its ability to age gracefully though.

lilengineerboy · December 2007

Apparently beauty is not subjective. Scientific studies suggest that the human brain is programmed to prefer symmetry and certain ratios and proportions.

Very true. In fact, engineers are capitalizing on it.
Del Coates - Industrial Designer

Del Coates You-Tube review of Ford 500

Yili Liu's Engineering Aesthetics

Its definitely a hot topic.

iluvmysephia1 · December 2007

you question the '08 Lancer's ability to age gracefully? As in, you don't have confidence in Mitsubishi engineering prowess?

Funny, I've had people I don't really know that well at work tell me that my Lancer will last forever. I agree, that sounds far-fetched, but these people looked me directly in the eye like they were happy to tell me that I've made a sound purchase that will last. A 10 year and 100,00 mile Warranty doesn't hurt, either.

I have read up on Mitsu's rally racing wins and racing design heritage and have come to respect the company a lot. Just basing a decision on them having a hard time because a bunch of American dorks defaulted on their 0-0-0 Mitsubishi loans doesn't even start to cut it. I spent hundreds of hours researching this car company before I bought my Lancer GTS. I became more and more impressed instead of leery of them.

No, I can't tell you you must like my Lancer's body design, graduate. I can tell you that I love it and that I have learned in the car world that people don't give too many quarters when good quarter is due. I don't question Honda and Toyota engineering ability and benchmarking. But for me to buy one of their rigs(excepting Scion, I almost bought a Polar White 2006 Scion xA in 5-speeds and foglights, i-Pod, etc.)it would require me to turn off my love of automotive design eyes. I can't do that.

shifty and engineerboy have shed some more light on that particular subject and I must learn more about that. As soon as I see if the Sonics can dispatch of the Bucks on NBA League Pass. Gotta properly juggle these enjoyments! :shades:

thegraduate · December 2007

you question the '08 Lancer's ability to age gracefully? As in, you don't have confidence in Mitsubishi engineering prowess?

Nope, not that's not what I said (or meant) at all.

I'm sorry you wrote an entire post based on a wrong assupmtion, but I mean in the sense that the Lancer's styling is very up-to date, but so heavily "STYLED" that I'm afraid it will look dated in 10 years. I like it today, but will I feel about the Lancer in 2018 the way I feel about the Chrysler Concorde, Oldsmobile Aurora, or any Pontiac? None of these three cars were bad looking in their time (in fact, all were good looking to me), but they look pretty dated to me these days. The Lancer looks great now, but in ten years I wonder if it'll look silly, or still look "current."

Not that it matters a great deal, but since we were on the subject of designs, I figured I'd bring it up. You got my post misconstrued however, I haven't questioned Mitsu's reliability in the least (I don't have enough experience with them to have formed an opinion).

tiff_c · December 2007

of styling. To give this blank statement reason like "Oh, but styling is so subjective" just flat out stinks of jealousy and contempt. And that is just what it is. Anyone who gives the Mitsubishi Lancer GTS for 2008 a good, thorough look knows what I'm talking about.

No doubt the Lancer GTS looks very nice and the EVO X hands down is a great looking car. The GTS really needs an extra 20HP for me to consider it. The lowly base 2.5i AWD Impreza has 170HP and 170TQ.
Of course it's a slug due to AWD drivetrain loss but in the GTS it'd be a rocket. I drive a LOT of highway and for me I need to to cruise well and be peppy in the city. mitsubishi agrees which is why they are upgrading the engine to get more sales from buyers who want a bit more performance. The new STI looks pretty good to me. The WRX is an example of what a car should Not be.

tiff_c · December 2007

you question the '08 Lancer's ability to age gracefully? As in, you don't have confidence in Mitsubishi engineering prowess?

I think he means the looks will look outdated in say 10 years. The quirky or oddball stuff or cute stuff can just lose it after a while like the PT Cruiser or the new Beetle. So far the new MINI is going strong but in another 10 years?
Some cars just have the lines to stand the test of time like the older corvettes the '53 Vette fro example.
There is no way to predict what will be the most awesome desirable design 20+ years from now. If you could lots of Classic cars would have been bought up when they were $500.

Don't worry about it. You like your Lancer, it makes you happy to drive it and that's all that matters.

lilengineerboy · December 2007

That made me think of cars that did age gracefully from a styling standpoint. I think the 90-93 Accord always looked nice, but the 90-96 Nissan 300ZX was a beautiful car that still looked beautiful 10 or 15 years later. I think the Toyota MR2 (90-94) was also in that category - which probably had a lot to do with that proportioning issue.
I do agree that beautify is in the eye of the beholder, as one of my favorite cars of all time is the Audi Quattro, and that car is so very 80s looking its not even funny.

andeet · December 2007

As ex '06 Scion xA owner..I was getting 39-40 mpg. I was driving close to 45 miles one way to work and I only had to fill up once week. It was good little car but being young...I wanted something more better & something more youthful so I went with a '07 Scion tC. Now I fill up about twice or even three times driving around & commuting to work. Scion are just as good as Toyota's...I've done some stupid things with both cars and they seem they want to start up the next day. In fact this week, I accidently left on one of my dome lights on during work....I hit the keyless remote: car unlocked. Lights were still on. Went to start the car: Car started and ran for second then died. I was amazed that my battery wasn't totally dead.

My other siblings (which is quite funny: Our Dad likes only GM. But my oldest sister and my older brother likes only Mitsubishi's. While my second older sister and I likes our Toyota's.) My brother just got '08 Lancer. Nice car if you like the "fun stuff" (accessories,) 1.5 liter engine stinks (Remember I'm used to my 2.4 161hp VVT-i), 18in alloys stink in the winter (he had very scary spin in the car's first snow storm), his front hood has rock chip that already is rusting? My tC is pushing 62k miles and I have some rock chips but they yet to become rust like his. I heard from Scion fan sites that Mitsu's are famous for terrible paint.

Sorry Mitsubisi owners (I used to own '00 Galant)...I guess Toyota made me into Toyota Buyer Monster

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles