What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

podred · March 2008

"I do miss the old days of blasting down the freeway but sadly those days are gone."

Yes, you are in possession of the same fond memories I have....

And sadly, I must agree with you..... those days are _long_ gone, today it's .....

Hello? Officer Bob? Yes sir, I know I was going 144 mph on the Freeway.
(see there IS a downside to owning an F50 Ferrari)

Click....click....what?
I'm being arrested for reckless driving and your what? Impounding my car you say.......

boaz47 · March 2008

I have noticed the new cruise controls work going down hill as well. Like you I at first wasn't sure I liked that but then I realized the bottom of a hill is just where the black and white cars like to sit.

Kirstie_H · March 2008

A reporter wants to interview people who have switched their daily driver from a truck or SUV to a car within the past 18 months. If you have done so, or if you are considering doing so, and care to share your story, please reply to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than Monday, March 17, 2008 and include your daytime contact info and the makes/models involved.

tiff_c · March 2008

And sadly, I must agree with you..... those days are _long_ gone, today it's .....

Hello? Officer Bob? Yes sir, I know I was going 144 mph on the Freeway.
(see there IS a downside to owning an F50 Ferrari)

haha yep, so true although I don't own a Ferrari. I've had some blazingly fast cars in the past tho. What a waste that now we have all the power but fuel is way over priced and speed limits are used not for safety but to generate money for the Gov't.
Someday a 2007 Prius will be considered a Muscle car! :surprise: :sick:
A Toyota Yaris or a Fit will be fondly remembered for their flat out power as we all drive our 4000 lb. electric golf carts.

lilengineerboy · March 2008

Yep, when they're coming out of a Ferrari 308,

Except for the Accord V6 and Camry V6 are faster than the Ferrari by a considerable margin. Perhaps not as visceral though.

The Ferrari's 0-60 time is in the 8-9 second range, and requires a bit of effort to get there (IE putting it in D and flooring it won't work)..

lilengineerboy · March 2008

A Toyota Yaris or a Fit will be fondly remembered for their flat out power as we all drive our 4000 lb. electric golf carts.

I don't understand why people think electric motors will kill all the fun. I have a 1/10 scale radio control car that uses a "mild" motor, it has more winds of a smaller wire and is about 20% faster than a stock RS540s (estimated 30-40 mph). You can also upgrade/replace the brushes and magnets to make more power or increase efficiency. Very much like real cars, there is a definite relationship between how hot the motor is and how often you have to recharge the 8.4v nickel cadmium battery pack.

lostwrench · March 2008

What is wrong with sub-compacts? They are so uncomfortable. After an hour of driving or riding in one of those things, my body screams to get out and walk around. I think 80% of people suffering from back and leg pains could be cured simply by owning a motor vehicle with a wheelbase greater than 110".

tiff_c · March 2008

I don't understand why people think electric motors will kill all the fun. I have a 1/10 scale radio control car that uses a "mild" motor, it has more winds of a smaller wire and is about 20% faster than a stock RS540s (estimated 30-40 mph). You can also upgrade/replace the brushes and magnets to make more power or increase efficiency. Very much like real cars, there is a definite relationship between how hot the motor is and how often you have to recharge the 8.4v nickel cadmium battery pack.

I don't think electric cars will kill ALL the fun. I just think power will have to drop over time and when you consider that there are very real inherent problems in charging up electric cars never mind in the summer when all the air cons are going full bore!
They need to build more nuke plants to generate electricity.
Personally I really think a more viable system is rechargeable batteries using a "zinc air fuel cell" this would mean you set up an infrastructure to swap out an empty battery for a fully charged one.
I think Toyota is working on this, google for more info.
Until electric hub motors come down in price and up in power I don't see electric as totally viable at this time, add to that, the drain on the national grid and it's a problem.
I can easily see a subcompact with a rechargeable zinc air fuel cell and you swap it out at the local filling station as it's almost 100% recycleable.
Electric cars today are pretty much hot rodded golf carts. What with all the safety stuff they add every year a car in 2020 will weigh at least 4000 lbs. for a subcompact! The Fit is what 2496 lbs. already!
Couple that with an electric motor and it'll be slow. They'd be better off using a futuristic trolley system where you auto hookup to the grid on the road somehow.
can't be overhead but if you had an electric meter in your car then you just get a bill at the end of the month for whatever car you own based on an internal metering system and use the battery for back roads, good idea eh? :shades:

explorerx4 · March 2008

back when i had my '89 taurus, i took it up to 6500 rpm an 5th gear. the speed was rpm/50. the redline was 7000. i never took it up to that.

andre1969 · March 2008

Heck, I'm almost ashamed to admit this, considering some of the mammoth V-8's I've owned. But the fastest I've ever driven a car was 115 mph, in a 1991 Honda Civic 4-door sedan.

Okay, so it was on a looong downhill slope on I-15 in California where I had a long time to get up to it.

Now I did get my '57 DeSoto to peg 130 once. The numbers only go up to 120, but there's another hash mark about where 130 would be, and it's a straight-across drum speedometer, not the more common strip speedo that compresses the midrange numbers. But in all honesty, what happened was I floored it to merge out onto the interstate, and the red line of the speedo briefly shot all the way to the end of its range and then failed!

I probably wasn't doing more than 75-80. Oh it would go a lot faster, but I just didn't feel comfortable taking a car that was 13 years older than me, with bias ply tires, no seatbelts, and a non-collapsible steering column aimed right at my chest up that fast.

Now I have seen 100 mph in plenty of cars, but as I get older and more conservative, I'm less inclined to do that.

explorerx4 · March 2008

after a while, cars like your desoto don't have to prove anything performance wise. they are still around and a lot of the others are not. that is bragging rights.

snakeweasel · March 2008

Heck, I'm almost ashamed to admit this, considering some of the mammoth V-8's I've owned. But the fastest I've ever driven a car was 115 mph, in a 1991 Honda Civic 4-door sedan. Okay, so it was on a looong downhill slope on I-15 in California where I had a long time to get up to it.

I did the same thing in a mid 80's Dodge Omni on a long downhill empty road in NW IL. Can't say how fast I was going because the speedometer only went to 85 MPH, but it was a circular speedometer with the odometer in the 6 O'clock position and the needle was past the odometer and was in the vicinity of 5MP for the second time.

andre1969 · March 2008

A friend of mine in college had a stripper 1989 or 1990 (forget which now) Plymouth Horizon. It had the 2.2, which was standard by then, and a 3-speed automatic. I would've thought the 2.2 in a car that small would've been pretty tough, but for some reason this thing was a dog. Maybe it was just geared really tall or something?

One day we raced...him in his Horizon and me in my '69 Dart slant six. Honestly, I thought he would've had a good chance at beating me. 96 hp in a ~2000 lb car with no air conditioning or power steering to bog it down versus 110 hp (net, 145 gross) in a roughly 2900-3000 lb car, with a/c and power steering sapping its power. I ended up walking him like a dog though. Got it up to about 90, left him in the dust, and then he finally caught up to me at a red light. He started hollering at me for being crazy, going that fast. :surprise:

Oh, and a week later, he tried to blame me for messing his car up! He said that after that little race, his Horizon never ran right, so that was my fault! :confuse: That's a pretty sad commentary when a brand-new car can't take the heat from a 20-something year old compact sporting the second smallest engine available! It was situations like this one that for years kept me convinced that new cars really were crap compared to the old ones. But then, this was back in the late 80's/early 90's, and reliability/durability was still a far cry from where it is today.

texases · March 2008

My Dodge Omni memory is following one, and wondering what the bright glow was coming from under the car :sick: must have been a bad cat...it was doing all of 20 mph in a 40 zone.

ellenoc · March 2008

I had a 1987 Dodge Omni and until the Fit it was my favorite vehicle of all time. It was quick, it was fun to drive. It cost less than $7,000 new. It never had a hiccup until 150,000 miles were on it. The interior was a grey velour that didn't show every bit of hair, dirt, and lint the way the black interior on the Fit does and it was downright luxurious for such a little, cheap car. And the air conditioning would hang icicles off your nose set on low when it was 100 outside -- something my limited experience with foreign cars makes me believe the Japanese don't believe in. At least my Subaru barely got me cold enough when blasting at high settings when it was that hot and I suspect the Fit will be the same.

snakeweasel · March 2008

I find that hard to believe, I had an earlier Omni with the 2.2 and a three speed with power steering and A/C and that thing was pretty peppy. Sure it wasn't exactly fast but it wasn't slow either, I would say it was at least average for the day (most likely a bit faster) and most certainly should have beat out your car. Back then they also had a 1.6 engine (VW IIRC) and that was rather slow.

Now after only a couple of years someone made a left turn right in front of me and that was the end of that car. I liked it enough that I bought a second one and this time around they had the GLH. Now that car with the turbo charged 2.2 was fast.

bumpy · March 2008

Sounds like you need to hit the gym and build some muscle tone, if an hour in a softly-sprung subcompact is enough to wear you out.

andre1969 · March 2008

I find that hard to believe, I had an earlier Omni with the 2.2 and a three speed with power steering and A/C and that thing was pretty peppy. Sure it wasn't exactly fast but it wasn't slow either, I would say it was at least average for the day (most likely a bit faster) and most certainly should have beat out your car.

Yeah, honestly I never could figure that one out, either. FWIW, my Consumer Guide from 1985 has a test of a 1985 Plymouth Reliant with the 2.2/3-speed auto, and it did 0-60 in about 13-13.5 seconds. The closest comp I could ever find to my Dart was a Consumer Reports from 1968 that tested a 270 4-door sedan with the 225 slant six/automatic and a 2.76 axle, and they got 0-60 in 14 seconds, quarter mile in 19 seconds @ 72 mph.

A Horizon with that same engine/tranny must surely be faster than the heavier Reliant. And I'd figure that with no a/c or power steering belts to sap power, it would be downright peppy. Only thing I can think of is perhaps Chrysler muddled around with the gear ratios in the transmission, or the axle ratio, to try and wring more economy out of it? Most comparable Japanese cars were offering more efficient 4-speed automatics by this time, something Chrysler wouldn't put in its small cars until the 2002 Neon! They may have given the later Omni/Horizons more long-legged gearing in an attempt to wring a few more mpgs out of them? Or I guess it's possible that there was just something wrong with his Horizon and it wasn't running right, and that held him back?

Wouldn't be the first time. In 1981, in an attempt to compete with the 4-speed automatics in the Ford and GM big cars, Chrysler stuck their equivalent models with an ultra-tall 2.26:1 axle. It had been 2.45:1 the year before. In this case though, it put too much of a strain on first and second gear of the tranny, so they had to give them quicker gears to compensate, so in this case I don't think it affected acceleration any, since the quicker 1st and 2nd gear would cancel out the taller axle. But I guess it would make the shift into and out of direct drive more noticeable.

Oh yeah, my 1985 Consumer Guide did test a Dodge Omni GLH. It had a hopped up 2.2, but I don't think it was a turbo. The turbo that year put out 146 hp, while the regular 2.2 put out 96 hp. I think this one had 112 hp. It also had a 5-speed and, well, it would Go Like Heck! :P

andre1969 · March 2008

I know in my case, it's mainly a matter of how well I can stretch out my legs, and how well my thighs and lower back are supported. Overall size of the car actually has very little to do with it. It's usually more a factor of how far the pedals and the firewall are from the driver's seat.

I think sometimes though, a little car can wear you out quicker because they tend to be more jittery. But then a lot of it may just depend on what you're used to. I think my uncle's Corolla is kind of a pain because it wanders all over the road, and the slightest bump can often throw it off course, so it tends to need constant attention to keep it in its lane. But then someone used to driving it would be perfectly fine with it, and would probably think that my '79 New Yorker is pure torture!

ateixeira · March 2008

I think you had some rather incredibly bad luck with your vehicle choices. You just named pretty much all the major problems Honda and Toyota have had over the past decade or so, and you've experienced every one of them.

The 1MZ engine had sludge, but the 3MZ that followed did not. The new 2GR is also sludge-free.

Ody transmission have improved a lot, and ratings show that.

Glass camshafts affected only 1 of the 3 engine options in the Tundra (the big V8, the small V8 and V6 were fine), and that's been fixed.

You have a knack for picking the bad ones. It's rather amazing, the coincidence. Really.

If you bought American cars, it would be like having am early Pontiac Fiero with the Iron Duke that caught on fire, then replacing it with a Contour that went through it's CD4E transmission 3 times in its life.

lilengineerboy · March 2008

I had, at one point, the distinction to drive the family's 1983 Plymouth Reliant SE wagon with fake wood paneling and the Mitsubishi 2.6l as my transportation to high school and back. This was in the early 90s. What a miserable car. It got relatively poor fuel economy for the total lack of power, build quality was horrible, and the counter balance shafts had become out of sync in the motor.

I am still thinking of a redeeming quality of that car.

Oh I got one...the rear window washer squirter was loose so it could be aimed at the sidewalk. This allowed me to blast my friends on the way home from school.

andre1969 · March 2008

My uncle briefly had a 1982 Plymouth Reliant sedan. It was an early model with the 2.2, and still had the stationary rear door windows and flip out quarter windows. He bought it in 1989, and paid $600 for it. It belonged to one of his friends, who also had a '66 Catalina hardtop coupe that he also only wanted $600 for. In retrospect, he probably should have bought the Catalina!

I drove that Reliant, once. I had a stopwatch, and timed it from 0-60. I think it took about 25 seconds! I know it was more than 20. I think one problem back then with cars was that the build quality was so inconsistent that two identical cars could come off the assembly line, but act totally different. This thing was also 7 years old though, so it could have had other issues making it so slow. But a ~2500 lb car with about 85-90 hp, IMO, shouldn't be taking 20-25 seconds to get from 0-60!

My uncle had that thing for only a few months. As I recall, something died on it and he paid $400 to fix it, and then turned around and sold it to a used car lot up the street for $200 and a ride back home! :confuse: My uncle did weird things like that back then.

Oh, wanna hear a REAL insult? Briefly in 1981 or 1982, when you bought an Aries or Reliant with the optional 2.6, they had the nerve to put a badge on the front fender that read "HEMI 2.6"

lilengineerboy · March 2008

Oh, wanna hear a REAL insult? Briefly in 1981 or 1982, when you bought an Aries or Reliant with the optional 2.6, they had the nerve to put a badge on the front fender that read "HEMI 2.6"

People forget what a "hemi" is; its just the shape of the head. Any car can have a hemi. That car had so many abnormalities I can't even get started right now. I was happy to see it go, and it was the only car my parents have had that didn't make it past 100k (and mine get closer to 200k).

andre1969 · March 2008

just pulled out my old 1985 Consumer Guide. The Omni they tested was a GLH model with a 110 hp 2.2 with, surprisingly, a 2-bbl carb, and a 5-speed. 0-60 came up in 10.1 seconds, but they said that was a bit deceving because it had really short gearing that required you to shift to third gear before you hit 60. The main advantage of the GLH was in passing power, which was excellent across a broad range of speeds.

They also tested a Horizon with the 96 hp 2-bbl 2.2 and a 5-speed, and got 0-60 in 10.2 seconds, pretty respectable. The gear ratios were more widely spaced, and they were able to get up over 60 mph in 2nd gear. In 5th gear at 60 mph, it was pulling just under 2500 rpm. They called it a "wolf in sheeps clothing".

Consumer Guide liked both cars, and gave the Horizon a "Best Buy" rating.

jlawrence01 · March 2008

My uncle briefly had a 1982 Plymouth Reliant sedan. It was an early model with the 2.2, and still had the stationary rear door windows and flip out quarter windows.

My parents had one and the vehicle had no power.

I bought a 1983 and I had NO problems with getting 0-60 ... and I had the speeding tickets to prove it. I had to get out of VA while I still had a drivers license.

andeet · March 2008

I have driven my current '07 Scion tC to 75k miles already.

And you know how many problems I have had within these couple of years?????

Two!

One- CEL came on because when I got my Cold Air Intake installed. That was caused by the battery wasn't disconnected and the computer didn't get re-setted.

Two- The dealer didn't torque positive connector correctly and when I went to start my car up. It didn't. Lucky for me I tried the start up at home and they also fixed the problem for free. And "yes" I did reconnect the battery on my own & started but tried starting up again...didn't. Thought it was something more serious.

I've been complained at on here about not keeping up with maintenence. That was back in August; now I keep up with every tire rotations, synthetic oil changes, and Toyota recommend mileage maintenance. Car's been running like a champ!

Then of course when I had my old Ford; I didn't do anything. Car drove to the ground. Only had problem starts on very cold day.

lilengineerboy · March 2008

I bought a 1983 and I had NO problems with getting 0-60 ... and I had the speeding tickets to prove it. I had to get out of VA while I still had a drivers license.

I think the low point for me in the '83 with the Mitsu 2.6/3spd auto was when the kid on the moped passed me as I was accelerating out of the school parking lot.

andeet · March 2008

You know what is more uncomfortable?????

Operating a forklift! Now that's more uncomfortable. I'm serious. Back of the seat only goes up to your lower back and the way the pedals are closely together. Lower back and right knee problems occur over time. I operate a Toyota and the way they have the levers is so uncomfortable for your right shoulder. The seats they put on them isn't the quite comfortable seats; I'll say bleachers at Wrigley Field are more comfortable than these.

Since I operate a electric truck but once upon a time did use propane trucks. Now we can claim Toyota Industrial makes them comfortable for propane. Leather seats, you're sitting lower so its easier to step in, which also means levers are also lower. They operate more like a car if you don't keep your foot on the brake while you're sitting still...the truck will keep on going. LOL These 3,500 lbs+ trucks can least do 35 mph. While my current truck only does 10 mph.

Thought to throw it in...since forklifts can somewhat be subcompact. LOL Least they can pick one up and drop it 60 feet up in the air.

snakeweasel · March 2008

I'll say bleachers at Wrigley Field are more comfortable than these.

If you think the bleachers in the friendly confines are uncomfortable then your not drinking enough beer.

andeet · March 2008

I don't drink and I never sat in the W.F. bleachers (I heard they are pretty bad.) I always gotten better seats.

Miller Park's are uncomfortable too. I know for sure. Try watching a game with huge pole in front of you too. Your butt is hurting while your back is tired of leaning to the side.

snakeweasel · March 2008

Until the Tribune company got the Cubs and sent bleachers prices soaring the bleachers were the place to be. Especially when heckling the opposing teams players and yelling "Right field sucks". Some of my favorite High School memories were in the bleachers.

andeet · March 2008

They are still fun. Sometimes when the Cubbies are losing there is more action in the bleachers than on the field. Nothing like watching drunks fight while Chicago's finest is trying to break it up. My older sister had that luxury of watching that.

I guess the bleachers are 22-45 bucks for spot.

boaz47 · March 2008

Trying to get back on topic is it you contention the fans are so disagreeable because they are in the bleachers or because people who drive sub compact economy cars are uncomfortable and A: are already iratable. Or B: are already uncomfortable and can only afford the bleachers?

To be honest it must pretty much be a matter of taste. To most people and to madison avenue it seems as if comfort is pretty much like you would expect in a luxury car. The closer your ride is to a Limousine the more you can say it is comfortable. To a degree I see their point. To some here comfort isn't the same in their car as in their house. They feel comfortable with the little inputs the road offers. A slight moving in the lane when a truck passes or the wind blows doesn't bother them.

I can only say it depends on how far you have to go and what kind of road you have to drive on. It must be remembered that I prefer comfort more like my living room sofa than my office chair. That being said I can only relate comfort in two trips to Salt Lake City from LA. One in a SUV and one in a Compact. From LA to passed Vegas maybe all the way to Mesquite the SUV was a lot more comfortable on a person lower extremities. The compact was more interesting between Mesquite and Saint George. Not more comfortable but the road took your attention off of those same extremities. But my friend Nippon said he finds driving from his area up by San Francisco to San Diego perfectly comfortable in his Echo and I would prefer the same trip in something bigger.

lilengineerboy · March 2008

I wouldn't pick the Echo personally, but cars in that size range typically don't bother me at all. I did a lot of long distance driving in a '91 Isuzu Impulse wagonback (think Geo Storm stationwagon, like the Vega and Pinto ones of yore) and other than wishing for a 6th gear to bring revs down, I had no issues. The car had very comfortable, supportive seats and a nice fabric, got good mileage and had enough power. It had great visibility and was a worthy companion for playing pockets on 101 from Santa Barbara to San Jose, or down to San Diego.
I feel like if there is enough room inside for me and the suspension keeps the car from being all over the road (including buffing from wind and trucks, etc), thats about all I need from a comfort/driveability perspective.

hudsonthedog · March 2008

I had a 1982 Dodge Aries 2-door with a vinyl bench seat (6-passenger) and a 2.2L/four-speed drivetrain (tipping the scales at about 2,400lbs...I weighed it once). I loved this car...and nearly everyone who rode in it loved it. At the time, the acceleration was really good for a family car. I impressed people who were used to cars like GTOs...but part of that could have been that this car was stripped with nothing to tax the 84hp engine.

The car had about 100,000 miles on it when I traded it...and I'd buy it back today.

I find that hard to believe, I had an earlier Omni with the 2.2 and a three speed with power steering and A/C and that thing was pretty peppy. Sure it wasn't exactly fast but it wasn't slow either, I would say it was at least average for the day (most likely a bit faster) and most certainly should have beat out your car. Back then they also had a 1.6 engine (VW IIRC) and that was rather slow.

As for the Omni, it originally had the VW-based 1.7L. The 2.2L Chrysler engine was added later and the 1.7L disappeared shortly afterward. The later 1.6L was added to the baseline models and was supplied by Peugeot.

The Omni 2.2 was geared for performance 0-50 because the 55 mph national speed limit would have made it difficult to advertise a 0-60 time.

ateixeira · March 2008

Hmmm, very suspicious.

I notice dvsutton mentions his lemons in every single post he writes, in various threads. All Japanese vehicles, all nightmares.

I think I smell a troll.

boaz47 · March 2008

I have had a lot of cars in my life from Europe, the US and Asia. Never had an Audi but my best friend had one of the early 5000s? the ones that were supposed to have, sudden acceleration problems. His wasn't running long enough to develop that problem. He knew his mechanic and the whole family by name. I would still consider getting a MB but am a bit shy about BMW. VW has been in my wallet three times they will not get a 4th shot. I have had two Nissans that place them second behind VW in cars I would not put on top of my wish list. I had at least one bad Chevy, one Ford, one Dodge one Toyota and a Honda that have made me think twice about why I bought them. I had a Mazda let me down through no fault of its own. I have had 4 "Zook Sammies" and would still have one if they didn't stop making them. Not as dependable as one might like but you could fix one with nothing but a hand full of tools and some vacuum line.

Of all of those cars only VW has scared me away from their dealership doors. Nissan may be on the bottom of my list but at least it is still on my list.

podred · March 2008

Yep, when they're coming out of a Ferrari 308,

Except for the Accord V6 and Camry V6 are faster than the Ferrari by a considerable margin. Perhaps not as visceral though. The Ferrari's 0-60 time is in the 8-9 second range, and requires a bit of effort to get there (IE putting it in D and flooring it won't work)..

This is specifically why I purchased a Ferrari F50
1) Good Power, V-12 producing 513 HP.
2) Decent Acceleration, 0 to 60 in 3.8 seconds
3) Light Weight, 2710 lbs.
4) Modest top speed of 203 mph........

Accord value new = approx $24,000
Camry value new = approx $23,000
BMW M3 " " = approx $48,000
BMW X5 " " = approx $55,000

Ferrari F50 = Priceless..... :P

andeet · March 2008

If I made million...I would too get into Italian. Ever since I was young girl playing with my Barbie's. I always wanted a Ferrari because Barbie had one.

Anyway, why would you want a '08 Malibu when the cruise control doesn't even have reset?

thegraduate · March 2008

Press Release

Going with the 5AT instead of a CVT. Only the 1.5L will be offered, as will the amazing seating configurations.

Courtesy of Vtec.net

podred · March 2008

When I was a young boy, I loved cars. Everything revolved around cars. However that said, never in my wildest dreams did I think that I would ever own a Ferrari.

Fortunately due to long, hard, focused work, along with patience and diligence, I am lucky enough to find myself in this position. Everyday I'm grateful for the successes, as I have so many friends that could have created the same success I did, but who were not as fortunate to have it all come together.

To balance things out, I currently give 30% of the profits from my companies to charities, foundations, and medical research. Giving back is worth more than any car in my collection.

ateixeira · March 2008

Bummer, it got that weird new steering wheel Honda seems to love.

The GPS is impressive in this class.

I like the current interior better, but maybe this will grow on me.

podred · March 2008

Kudo's,

I think you have made a brilliant choice in the 2009 Honda Fit.

As is typical of Honda, if they really focus on the goal they have chosen, they are capable of building a really great car. This is one of them. A quantum leap compared to the earlier version, which is one very good car as it is.

When this car is released for sale in the U.S., Toyota better be prepared with a response. As much as I truly enjoy my 2008 Yaris Sport 2 door hatchback, and while it compares closely to the current Fit, (depending on ones preferences) it is not as well done as the new 2009 Fit Sport.

I commend Honda for deciding to (finally) bring a truly exciting small car into the U.S. In my humble opinion, nothing comes close to this revised & upgraded model. My prediction is if any of us want one of these, the purchase should be made as soon as possible. Once the word gets out to the general public, they may be hard to come by.

podred · March 2008

Yes I must say that the steering wheel reminds me that this is a Japanese car. There are some other rather odd styling cues to the interior such as the "hood" over the gauges, which I read was purposely designed to be thick & rounded to "soften" the interior for women.

How they (all Japanese Mfgs, not just Honda) manage to come up with some of the odd styling ideas, and then get them past the "committee" is typically a Japanese centered trait.

And yet, that said, no car is perfect and the rest of this car is so stellar that one can overlook some of these oddities.

I am very impressed with this car and will be the first to aquire one as soon as they are made available.

thegraduate · March 2008

Well, I am not choosing a Fit (I don't need a new car

). I was just passing on the info for you folks.

It does look like a great choice though. Let's just hope the mileage is actually better than the old model. Maybe iVtec will help?

british_rover · March 2008

Strong demand for Smart cars

Could we have been wrong and the Smart car will do well or is this just the initial its the new thing demand that will die away in six months?

nippononly · March 2008

Hmm, give it rear discs and double wishbones and this thing could have been the perfect reincarnation of the Civic SI of old, albeit in 5-door form.

Should sell well as the market downsizes. In fact, I think it will increase its sales pace by another 50% in 2009 over the 50+% it is already up this year over last. As long as Honda has enough production capacity, that is.

Over at TOV it seems like there is lots of speculation that in 2010 the compact will occupy the sales level the midsize did in 2000. There is also a lot of anguish that the Fit couldn't have been offered in an SI trim.

Clearly, the reason for this is that the model we get as the Fit Sport is already the "SI" in Japan, where the model is lifted from mostly intact. There, the Fit also comes in several lower trims with smaller rims, downgraded everything, and smaller engines.

I am curious, if gas prices continue to climb as they have the last two years, to see if Honda will introduce a gas-sipper trim of the Fit at the MMC in three years. They could sell the 1.3L with CVT here and it would be slow but pull high 40s for mpg. Will the market for slowish subcompacts with super-high fuel economy reemerge? We now have consistently high gas prices, but we also have the advent of the whole hybrid thing. Our cheapest hybrids sell for around $20K. My thinking is that a Fit 1.3 CVT with nothing more than a CD player and window cranks (and the safety gear that Honda has now made standard across the board) could sell for around $13K and clean up in sales at 48 mpg.

I have just returned from a vacation in Europe, which makes it seem a bit foolish that we call the large cars we have subcompacts the way we do. Over there subcompact has a whole different meaning, and seems to be just about the most popular size there is. Certainly, there are very few cars larger than a Corolla there, except for commercial vans, buses, and the like.

I do wish Renault would use the Nissan distribution chain to introduce a few Renaults in the States, if only for the extraordinary and usually cute styling. Maybe they could design a few existing Renault models to incorporate Nissan powertrains or something. I also wish Toyota would bring over the Aygo to the States, it's quite popular there. That and all the multiple body styles the Yaris comes in. Corolla too. The most intriguing thing was to see the new Yaris hatch all over the place there, but with five doors. Less sporty-looking certainly, but much more practical. I suppose our Canadian neighbors get this version. It hardly looks any bigger than the 3-door we get, seems identical but for the two extra doors.

texases · March 2008

I think it's too early to tell on the Smart - give it a year. I think it would especially attract a small group of enthusiastic buyers - see how long it lasts. If its reputation is good, it could do well, at the numbers they're talking about. I would be surprised if it creates a whole new, large market segment for two-seater commuters.

texases · March 2008

see the new Yaris hatch all over the place there, but with five doors

I've been seeing a surprising number of the 2-door Yarises here, must be doing pretty good.

nippononly · March 2008

So have I, and apparently they are doing well, because Toyota recently changed the production mix for Yaris to produce more of the hatches.

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles