What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

boaz47 · May 2008

You made me think with that post. I have wondered why Yale, Cat, Raymond, or Clark haven't made a small electric commuter vehicle. After all their electric equipment is designed to work 8 to 10 hour shifts 5 days a week and 52 weeks a year. These are working machines and the batteries when treated correctly will last 5 to 7 years. I realize that are designed to only go 3 to 7 MPH but they are also designed to lift their weight all day every day. Sure the batteries are expensive but they have been using the technology for a very long time and should be able to make a city car that could do at least 35 and run for 8 hours if it didn't have to lift an additional 5000 pounds to do it. You would have to use 3 phase chargers more than likely but it should be worth a try. (just daydreaming here.)

And the Smart is part of this discussion. It may sit at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Cooper but it part of the sub compact culture. Believe it or not a few years ago when I bought our Focus I looked at several pretty small cars. I even looked at the Jetta but I still don't trust VW. I drove the early Prius and the Insight. The Prius simply doesn't impress me for the money. But I came close to dropping the dime for a Insight. Yes I know it was pretty impractical but getting close to 70 MPG just impressed me to no end. If I lived where I do no I might have had that car today. But I knew climbing from almost sea level to close to 5000 feet when I was still driving down the mountain would be depressing. I still believe if I could find a used on it might be a worthy addition or replacement for the little 4 banger. And far better choice than a Smart car. A corolla can do about as well as a Smart and it has more room.

By the way Nippon, have you seen the new commercial for the Forester? The man comes on and says they loved their old Forester but the new one was, "Bigger, Better, nicer." So they had to make room for it in their garage. Ends up they sold the boat but I was sure th e point wouldn't be missed on some here.

stever · May 2008

Nah, this is the '09 Forester commerical you want to see. Or maybe not, lol.

ateixeira · May 2008

That commercial hit home for me because I owned a 98 Forester, and it was even Acadia Green Metallic like the one in that commercial.

Subaru did a good job increasing the size while keeping weight down - it's only 80 lbs heavier than the outgoing model, with a 3.5" wheelbase stretch. It's wider, longer, and even taller, and only gained very little weight.

stever · May 2008

Yeah, but how many sumo wrestlers will it carry?

andeet · May 2008

Well, we could try using propane energy system like some other forklifts. Those puppies usually go 25-30 mph. Perfect for the city driving. Depending on when you installed new tank, you'll could operate full 8 hour shift. Oh God that brings back a lot of memories; I always got stuck with empty tank in the strangest areas like forks are stuck in the air or stuck on the product.

My company used propane for four months and our mechanics had to tune them down cause they were going way over typical 9 mph. The way Toyota has their hydraulic hoses on their trucks; distracts your front view. We had few crashes into building poles cause we weren't able to see.

I think operating forklifts should be on the list for everyone in the world should learn how to do like driving a stick shift car. Because I made ALOT of choices in my car to avoid accidents that I typically do on a forklift to avoid warehouse accidents due to selfish co-workers.

Currently, I'm suspended operating anything with wheels at work. I got busted without wearing seatbelt for one second. So I'm stuck manually unloading foreign containers (like polybags that are made in China; we have made since it's cheaper to make over there) onto pallets, hand wrapping least 200 pallets a night, and boring clean this or that.

nippononly · May 2008

"But I knew climbing from almost sea level to close to 5000 feet when I was still driving down the mountain would be depressing"

How do you know? Did you ever try? One of the car mags (was it C&D? I think it was) took an Insight over Cajon Pass without a problem. And unlike some of the other hybrids along for the ride, the Insight had exemplary fuel economy despite all the steep climbing.

Meanwhile, you would have used, like, NO GAS AT ALL, on your descent if you had picked up the Insight.

I think it's funny that many of the people posting here with such well developed opinions of these cars haven't driven any of them. Many haven't even SAT in one. It's one thing to quote what a car magazine has to say about a car (and most professional reviewers have been complimentary regarding these little cars, particularly the Fit), but another to have some extensive personal opinion about something one hasn't even tried.

I don't mean to pick on you personally, boaz. There are lots of folks doing this here. Maybe it's just a Town Hall thing, I dunno.

podred · May 2008

And talking to Honda and Toyota dealers they consider Civics, Corolla, and Scion as something to grow out of and into bigger Honda and Toyotas. In fact many here have indicated that is the market plan for the whole Scion line.

Yes indeed this is the plan and has been, from the day that Toyota and (then Datsun) Nissan began bringing their cars into this country. They took one look at how much Dearborn and Detroit were making on large cars and this became the target. The irony, is that Toyota most specifically has done the best job dealing with the politics's and push back from all directions to become the number one automaker in the world. They may not have the highest sales numbers presently but it will not be long.

An impressive performance especially when you consider todays Camry, has more American Content, than the new Chevy Malibu. Toyota has a better safety record in the manufacturing plants here were the workers get paid more, and have better benefits than their American Counterparts. A telling situation for sure.

Look at how long Toyota waited before entering the Minivan market, and now the full size pickup truck market. All the while those vehicles were as good as done, just waiting for Toyota to pick the right time to release them. The pickup truck market in particular is the last bastion of the American automotive culture.

Don't get me wrong I'm not bragging or being pro Japanese, I'm simply reporting my observations along with a few points that I know to be facts. The American Automotive "Leaders" were busy profit taking and accumulating houses, boats, and trophy wives. Then there were the obvious stupid decision making moves, such as terminating the Thunderbird before a good replacement was in place. Terminating the Camaro, (that was actually selling quite well) too early as well.

Let's see here, we "Ford" have a good product (Thunderbird) that has a long history and while it may not be the most current design, but it's selling well and we've paid off the tooling, now lets kill it! Then we will take years to revamp it completely, insure that it's really underpowered and feminine looking, and whoops... it's not selling? Kill it. No matter what the model name represents.

Then from across the street, (so to speak) GM finds the somewhat aged Camaro, another car that is selling and making a profit, .... Sheesh let's get nervous (a profit? ) and kill it off to follow Fords lead. After all the names stale, and we wouldn't want to continue a good thing. So there you have it... two milestone model names in the American car business killed off for flimsy reasons. And they wonder why they have sub par auto sales numbers.

Finally I remember in the 70's there was an insider saying within the ranks of GM: "There's an [non-permissible content removed] for every seat" alluding to the fact that if the customer walked instead of buying the new car, no big deal there is another rolling into the driveway right as they leave.

The low key approach of Toyota trumped the very companies that could have reacted in a positive way and not handed the business over to the company from Japan. Such as sad commentary. The greed of some , ruining the industry that we rely on.

bristol2 · May 2008

Excellent points but not got a lot to do with sub-compacts. And I'm not sure that Toyota should get much praise for bringing out the all-new Tundra coincidentally with the highest gas prices ever.

You are right that they build pretty solid vehicles though.

snakeweasel · May 2008

They told the newspaper that they average 32 MPG. My reaction...."WHAT??? I get that in my '07 Scion tC! And I get better power and space!"

They probably get that in heavy stop and go traffic and if you get that in your Scion its highway driving.

I'll be too scared to know what my body is going to look like and where I'll wake up the next day.

Unless I was driving a Abrams I would be worried about that no matter what I drove.

andre1969 · May 2008

Y'know, one thing I was wondering about that test, is whether or not they just went out and dogged the snot out of that little Smart, and that's what resulted in the low mileage? So while 32 mpg might sound horrible, who's to say that a Civic, Corolla, or Sentra wouldn't do 24-25 mpg under those same conditions?

busiris · May 2008

You know, I made very similar comments on another forum (GM product) not long ago. The absolute arrogance that the domestic auto makers exhibited also caused their downfall. Remember Henry Ford II's famous comments..."Small cars mean small profits"?

I guess the Japanese weren't listening that day.

However, if you look at the changes Toyota has gone through in its attempt to overtake GM and become #1, you can see a little of that same thinking beginning to surface.

Toyota may yet find out that what it takes to get to the top spot may be much different than what it takes to stay there...

boaz47 · May 2008

If the report on mileage was an isolated example you might have a point. But it seems to be closer to what several different reports are saying. This is as least the second or third report of that kind of mileage for the Smart. remember this little car has been selling in the red even in Europe where fuel mileage is close to the most consideration.

Nippon
I did drive the insight up our mountain at the time. A missionary friend of mine was living here and commuting to Palmdale from Arrowhead. Yes he got the 70 MPG going to Palmdale. He got a bit less coming home. But one night he allowed me to drive it from San Bernardino to Crestline. With the two of us and the climb we got passed by a Sammy. Having been the owner of several Sammies I was pretty surprised. But then it was only 1000 CCs and it had been on the freeway for several miles running at freeway speeds before he picked me up in Berdoo. You may be right and I should have bit the bullet and I now wish I had but then fuel wasn't more than 2 bucks a gallon and the Focus seemed so much more practical and it still got better than 30 MPG. Still I might keep my eye out for a used Insight. Living in the flatlands it makes a big difference as a in town car. I just don't think I will ever accept a sub compact as a road car or a highway cruiser. Only time will tell.

My wife and I have talked it over and we will not be buying anything until we see if they deliver on the promised plug in hybrids or EVs by 2010. But I have been riding a bicycle a lot more now that we moved.

You wouldn't like it however, 21 speeds but no clutch. :P

nippononly · May 2008

"You wouldn't like it however, 21 speeds but no clutch."

Well, now that's just a design flaw, plain and simple! ;-)

One of the great things about the Insight: you could get one with a clutch. :-)

I still have high hopes for the 2010 CRZ hybrid: 50 mpg combined and a clutch to go with it.

andeet · May 2008

I still rather spend the extra $4.00s to the tank knowing my car can out run a semi-truck that can't move to the middle lane when I'm getting onto a interstate. To me, safety is very important. I know leadfooting is dangerous but least I have a chance of getting by.

Trust me; that's why I got rid of the xA. Cause I almost got ran off the road twice. Even slamming on brakes would still side stripe the trailer. Leadfooting barely got me by.

I've been in one accident; airbags went off and windshield got smashed. I still have the burning smell memory in my head and everytime I drive by accident. That smell triggers my brain and brings chills to my spinal cord.

snakeweasel · May 2008

I still rather spend the extra $4.00s to the tank knowing my car can out run a semi-truck that can't move to the middle lane when I'm getting onto a interstate.

I have driven the Smart and I will say that it does have the ability to do that. Heck in my little 140 HP Elantra wagon I rarely floor it, I even rarely get it higher than 35oo RPM 's.

thegraduate · May 2008

I still rather spend the extra $4.00s to the tank knowing my car can out run a semi-truck that can't move to the middle lane when I'm getting onto a interstate.

Others will let the truck go by and slide in behind the semi, if their car can't accelerate that quick, or if they simply don't want to wind-out the engine and use their gas.

I've done both (although I tend to drive conservatively 90% of the time), so I'm not harping on ya.

bpizzuti · May 2008

Others will let the truck go by and slide in behind the semi, if their car can't accelerate that quick, or if they simply don't want to wind-out the engine and use their gas.

This strategy has the additional benefit of allowing one to draft the truck, significantly increasing their MPGs. :shades:

thegraduate · May 2008

Well, mainly my goal is not to cut off any vehicle that weighs exponentially more than mine! And, if you're having to really race to get in front of the truck before your lane runs out, chances are it's going to be a close in front.

andre1969 · May 2008

Plus, I think ANY car, no matter how fast it is, can brake faster than it can accelerate, so if you're alongside a semi and your lane is running out, or if it changes lanes unexpectedly, chances are you're going to be more likely to not get snubbed by nailing the brakes, rather than trying to speed ahead of it.

Of course, there is a point of no return, which is going to vary depending on just how fast the car is, where you're better off gunning it to get ahead of it, rather than braking.

thegraduate · May 2008

All excellent points, 'dre.

nippononly · May 2008

Of course, if you're that bad at gauging the traffic flow and planning ahead, there's always something called the emergency lane too! ;-)

iluvmysephia1 · May 2008

class was taught, that you need to look out and see "the big picture" is actually pretty sound advice. Looking back, I am pretty impressed by the Edmonds School District No.15(north of Seattle about 15 miles)driver's education program. So many dumb things I see done that we were taught not to do cause both accidents and stress on the road.

I tend to draw back on the freeway when there's a crowd...that avoids a lot of stress and "bunched-up" conflicts on the road. And if there's a pileup you can just stay out of it.

I'm still mystified by the laziness of Americans and their staunch refusal to show common courtesy and signal their intentions to change lanes. If that's being stubborn or showing a no-fear attitude, my question is, what are they afraid of? Helping traffic to flow more confortably on the freeway? :confuse:

What d'y'all attribute this lack of signaling to? A sign of the last days, if nothing else.

thegraduate · May 2008

What d'y'all attribute this lack of signaling to?
If anything, I attribute it to other people's lack of courtesy.

Wednesday, I was rolling through traffic, in the rain, at about 15 mph on I-65 (like I said, traffic!). I needed over, as I was about a mile from my exit, and I was in the middle of the 3 lanes. I spotted a hole in front of a late-model Galant, about 2 cars back in the adjacent lane. As that lane was moving faster, I put on my blinker, and as I prepared to fill the vacant spot, the nose of the Galant pitches upward as it gunned the throttle to fill the spot where I was signaling my intent to fill. I turned my blinker back off, as I still had time to get over, and there was no real room behind him. The Galant driver was on the phone I could see. Sure enough, he stopped paying attention again, a hole opened up, and I filled it; this time, sans-blinker.

Honestly, I am an AVID signal-user. Every lane change, every turn, even pulling into parking spots at the grocery store, I use a blinker. In cases like this though, other people's lack of courtesy means using one is lane-change suicide, because heaven-forbid, the car leaving the space will be 2 seconds later to their destination.

On the interstate, if you give me a blinker, and are enough distance ahead of me, I'll always flash my lights to "wave you in," because you've used common courtesty as if to say "may I?" I wish more people used this logic.

andeet · May 2008

There's so much construction done around here both in Chicago and Milwaukee. Some areas it's terrible to get onto the interstates. In fact, there was construction being done near O'Hare airport. The on-ramps there are so terrible. You're like half foot away from the lanes AND there are not Yield signs. Since it's Chicago, you think anyone is doing the required speed of 45? Heck no! I was coming back from Indiana and passed by this area. A car actually stopped on the on-ramp cause there was so much cars coming back. Car panic and stopped right on the ramp. While everyone is doing 60-65 this car's front end was about half foot away from traffic.

Oh do I just LOVE Illinois :mad:

Comment about semis being kind...not around here. Most are selfish because people around here are selfish. Since I'm aware of those trailers could easily hold 35,000+ loads and it's hard to brake on a dime. Kind of like freight trains stopping in emergencies; not going to happened. Jack-knifing is VERY hard to impossible for semi-drivers to save. I was told that by semi-driver from one of our trucking companies at work.

I try to be kind as much as I can but kind of hard to do when you have 7-Series BMW on your butt while in the middle lane. He's too much of an [non-permissible content removed] to lane change to passing lane.

nippononly · May 2008

as quoted here:

http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/05/ford_cagey_about_whether_buyers_will_pay_big- _to_go_small.html#more

the market for subs and smaller has doubled in a few short years to 400K or so in 2007, and they expect it to be 700K annually and growing by 2012.

They do ask a very pertinent question: will people pay premiums for small cars that are superlative in some way, be it features, handling, whatever? They cite the example of VW failing to succeed in offering "premium" small cars, which I think is partly misleading because one of the main reasons people are downsizing is certainly the fuel economy of the smaller cars, and VW has no small cars with even close to class-leading fuel economy.

I would assert it is the firm conviction of some posters here that America will never shake loose of its attitiude that cars should be charged by the pound, so smaller should cost less, period. Obviously, the Mini Cooper is the prime example of the exception to this rule, and the new Fit Sport is perhaps another, as it crosses over in price with many of the cheaper compact cars and sells mostly at or near sticker.

Does anyone besides me think that people will gradually let go of this "charge me by the pound" philosophy of car pricing, particularly if carmakers manage to offer some subcompacts with truly excellent fuel economy (as opposed to many of the current offerings, which are nothing more than fairly decent to good) or lots of content more typical of more expensive, larger cars?

texases · May 2008

I thought the Mazda 3 (which Ford would know well) was living proof of people's willingness to pay more for a quality small car. VWs, besides poor mpgs, have also had their quality issues, so a poor example, for sure.

ateixeira · May 2008

I hope so, but....

Few have succeeded at that, Mini is a good example.

But look at the volumes - Ford builds more green F-150s in a day than Mini sells all year, probably.

texases · May 2008

Ohhh, you mean 'green', as in color...thought you were goin E85 on us, there... :P

ateixeira · May 2008

I'm sure GM could say that...

andre1969 · May 2008

the market for subs and smaller has doubled in a few short years to 400K or so in 2007, and they expect it to be 700K annually and growing by 2012.

Wow, that shows just how much the small car market had shrunk up over the years. For example, in 1981, which was probably a high point for small cars at that time. I remember the Chevette, by itself, sold about 458,000 units. It was the most popular subcompact that year, although I think the Escort would oust it for 1982. Anyway though, figure there was the T1000 on top of that, and the Escort/Lynx, and the Omni/Horizon over at Chrysler, plus the Accord and Civic (both were subcompacts back then), the Datsun 210 (was the 310 still around?), Toyota Corolla and Tercel (maybe the Starlet was around at that time too), and probably a few others I'm forgetting, and I'd imagine that the subcompact market as a whole was good for a good 1.5 million or more.

I think people were a lot more scared back then, though. The jobless market was pretty bad as I recall. Interest rates were through the roof. And the fuel was not only expensive, but not exactly free-flowing. And we were all afraid that $3.00/gal gas was looming just around the corner, and would be here to stay.

Oddly, 1982 was actually a worse year for the auto industry as a whole, but big cars started to sell again. Chevy was actually selling V-8 Caprices at MSRP, while they had to practically beg people to buy the more efficient Celebrity and Cavalier.

nippononly · May 2008

Well, just look at how few models we have had to consider in our musings in this thread, up to this point. What, 7? Yaris, Fit, Versa (questionable, it's biggish), Mini Cooper, Aveo, Accent, Rio. 8 if you include (as many seem to want to) the Smart car.

In 2002, the baseline year for Ford's remarks, there were even less (no Fit yet, no subcompact Nissan, no Aveo? I forget, on the Aveo. When did they stop selling Geos and their Chevy successors?)

There are more than 160 models of passenger car or light truck for sale in the market today, per the last numbers I saw quoted. Of those, subcompacts make up 7 (or 8). No wonder sales had dropped so low.

The nice thing is that just based on what automakers have planned right now, we will have double that many 3 years from now. Maybe more, if some other automakers reconsider their current strategy and bring in more of their global offerings. :-)

boaz47 · May 2008

Does anyone besides me think that people will gradually let go of this "charge me by the pound" philosophy of car pricing, particularly if car makers manage to offer some subcompacts with truly excellent fuel economy (as opposed to many of the current offerings, which are nothing more than fairly decent to good) or lots of content more typical of more expensive, larger cars?

I believe people will buy small cars if forced to. Not as a first line preference but because of fuel prices or some other economic reason. But whe you look at American culture nothing else seems to go as smaller is worth more. Even in cars when all things are considered bigger is viewed as worth more. Even with the mini it has to be remembered it is a BMW and the bigger BMWs cost more.

All things being equal think about it. We will pay more for a 2000 square foot house in the same area than we will for a 1000 square foot house. People expect to pay less for a 20 inch Sony TV than the do for a 32 inch Sony. When I bought my boat I can promise you a 25 foot Catalina was thousands less than a 30 foot Catalina. Now that I have a RV I can also assure you that a very well equipped 20 foot RV will cost you about half of what the same kind of RV in 32 feet will.

I got a automotive GPS the other day and the bigger screen ones cost more than the smaller screen ones and no one expects any different. At least not in the same brand.

Your question represents the only get what you need group. A different mind set.

thegreatoz · May 2008

The only product category I can think of where "smaller is more expensive" is in computer electronics, such as small laptop computers which are almost always more expensive than big desktop models.

Normally, a five-pound box of candy is more expensive than a one-pound box. A 32-ounce Pepsi costs more than a 16-ounce bottle. Always will be.

nortsr1 · May 2008

Good post boaz...I agree with you. Most of the new "small car buyers" really are only making the purchase because of the higher gas prices. They really "don't want" a "small vehicle"...They just don't want or "cannot afford" these higher gas prices.
I know someone will probably post that these same purchasers didn't need an SUV or "bigger type vehicle"...but... that's what they wanted and enjoyed for many years. The commute to work is now getting too expensive for a lot of the working class and even for retired people such as myself.
I have always enjoyed the ease of entrance and comfort of my SUV (as I am handicapped) and if I purchase a "small" vehicle" I damn near need a crane to get in and out of same. (for "us" old people" it's hard enough trying to get off the damn toilet. (yes, I know) they even have higher toilets now.

snakeweasel · May 2008

Does anyone besides me think that people will gradually let go of this "charge me by the pound" philosophy of car pricing,

Consider this, all things being equal shouldn't a bigger car be more expensive (ignoring market conditions of supply and demand)? A bigger car needs more raw material which means the cost of raw material is going to be more hence the price needs to be more in order to make a profit.

andre1969 · May 2008

The only product category I can think of where "smaller is more expensive" is in computer electronics, such as small laptop computers which are almost always more expensive than big desktop models.

Believe it or not, one automotive-related category where this holds true, to an extent, is motorhomes. Those really small ones that are essentially heavily reworked conversion vans are usually more expensive than the bigger Class-C mini-motorhomes. I think most of the extra cost comes up because of the special purpose-built, miniaturized appliances and other components they have to design to put in those things. Where a Class-C motorhome is still going to have smaller appliances and such than what is in your house, I think they tend to use more generic, off-the-shelf, mass produced components.

As for cars, I think we're always going to run into the issue of them being cheaper by the pound, because the bulk of the costs associated with them is developing things like the engines, transmissions, suspensions, electronics, etc. I don't know if this still holds true, but it used to be that the most expensive component to redesign on a car is the firewall/cowl/windshield area.

But if the manufacturers want to design in a longer rear for a bigger trunk, or punch out the wheelbase for more legroom, or more front overhang to make the car look bigger, none of that really costs very much.

boaz47 · May 2008

I think the seating position of the SUV was one of the biggest hits with the consumer. In fact that may be part, not all, of the success of many of the crossovers compared to sedans. The idea of just sliding in and sitting down like a comfortable chair just seems right. That was one of the reasons my mother in law loved my PT. If you think about it that is the seating position every American has preferred in their homes for as long as there have been Americans. But some of the small cars seem to be trying to address this. Like you I don't care to have to grab the top of the door to lift myself up to a standing position.

But if we think about it even in the suggestion of things like computers if we go from same manufacturer and options a 15 inch lap top will cost less than a 17 inch. In motorcycles a 250 cost less than a 350 and a 350 cost less than a 700. We expect cars to be the same.

Like many I have been forced to drive a compact for some of my daily tasks around town. If I have my choice of if I were still working I would drive my Tahoe. I am retired now and my job no longer pays for my fuel so I have to save my money from longer trips in the Tahoe when we go on vacation. I like the extra room.

snakeweasel · May 2008

You also have to remember that the cost of developing and design per car goes down with increased production. The price of the additional material to make the bigger (or even look bigger) stays the same per car no matter how many is produced.

In other words the cost per car to design the firewall/cowl/windshield area may be much less than the cost of making the rear end longer for a bigger trunk on a per car basis.

nippononly · May 2008

"Consider this, all things being equal shouldn't a bigger car be more expensive (ignoring market conditions of supply and demand)? A bigger car needs more raw material which means the cost of raw material is going to be more hence the price needs to be more in order to make a profit."

No, this is a false premise if the smaller car has more expensive design elements in it. For instance, an Explorer or Tahoe with a suspension design in use since the 1950s and an old-tech engine, causing crappy handling and a tendency to run out of steam as soon as the tach begins to rise, is using MUCH cheaper parts than a new Fit, Cooper, or Yaris. Heck the Accent SE outhandles and outrevs those vehicles. Ditto the comparison with large cars like Impala, Lucerne, etc.

OTOH, except for the Cooper, we don't have any of the type of subcompact I was envisioning with that statement available for sale here (dare I say yet?). I would like to see a much wider selection of premium subs available in the U.S. If sky-high gas prices contribute to that happening, then I guess that is the silver lining of the oil crunch.

andre1969 · May 2008

No, this is a false premise if the smaller car has more expensive design elements in it.

I think even if you're talking about a small car with cheap design components in it, it doesn't cost that much more to make a bigger car. Most of the cost goes into the R&D. A few (or few hundred) pounds of extra steel and such isn't going to make a car cost that much more.

One thing that's kinda funny, is that for all the ragging the domestic industry takes for the crappy small cars it made in the 70's and beyond, many of them were actually much more advanced than the big cars they were putting out. For instance, the Vega had an aluminum OHC engine. The Pinto had OHC and rack and pinion steering. I think the V-6 used in the Pinto wagons was even OHC. It was German, IIRC. And Chrysler had FWD, OHC, and I'm sure rack and pinion steering in the 1978 Horizon. Yet the most expensive New Yorker had an engine that could be traced to 1958, and a transmission and suspension that could be tracked to 1957.

But, aside from all that, they still ended up being crappy little cars. :sick:

busiris · May 2008

One thing that's kinda funny, is that for all the ragging the domestic industry takes for the crappy small cars it made in the 70's and beyond, many of them were actually much more advanced than the big cars they were putting out. For instance, the Vega had an aluminum OHC engine. The Pinto had OHC and rack and pinion steering.

I don't know if I would call those "advanced" models....at least, defining "advanced" as "better".

The Vega engine was replaced with a cast iron block engine because the aluminum block burned oil like the old Jaguars leaked oil. I still remember the local Chevy dealership having a cast iron engine on display in the showroom, attempting to persuade buyers that it was an "improved" design over the aluminum engine.

And, the Pinto...the "exploding" pinto that burst into flames witha minor rear-end tap...All so Ford could save $12-14 per car, because it was cheaper to pay off injury claims than correct the desing issue with the gas tank placement.

But ...the big cars were trash, too...

lilengineerboy · May 2008

The Vega engine was replaced with a cast iron block engine because the aluminum block burned oil like the old Jaguars leaked oil. I still remember the local Chevy dealership having a cast iron engine on display in the showroom, attempting to persuade buyers that it was an "improved" design over the aluminum engine.

I thought they just put sleeves in the pistons, like they do today with aluminum engines. The Cosworth Vega of '76 was even more advanced with a 16 valve fuel injected engine.

The Fiero is another car that comes to mind, it had the Saturn style dent resistant body panels, really innovative packaging, and could've gotten people used to smaller vehicles. Unfortunately, it seems like they sold it before they tested it or finished designing it and it got the reputation for being a POS and it killed the model. Its kind of ashame because the 1988 was a legitimate vehicle.

nortsr1 · May 2008

boaz47...Yes, sliding in and out is a bid advantage from me. I have 2007 Honda CRV FWD EX that gets approx. 22 mpg city and 27 on long trips. I, also, have a 2006 PT Cruiser that I purchased for the exact same reason of getting into and out od easily (great high seat advantage). Plus the PT (with the rear seats folded down) makes my mobility scooter easily accessible,as also my CRV. I have a Pride GO Go that disassembles into four easy to lift pieces (heaviest piece is only 35 lbs.) I keep the PT down in Fla. at my home in Melbourne Beach and the for summer visits I keep the CRV in NJ.
I actually get better gas mileage with the CRV as compared to the smaller PT Cruiser.

andre1969 · May 2008

I thought they just put sleeves in the pistons, like they do today with aluminum engines. The Cosworth Vega of '76 was even more advanced with a 16 valve fuel injected engine.

I had always thought that they switched over to the Pontiac Iron Duke 2.5 in later years of the Vega, but my old car book shows the 2.3 engine being used right up through the Vega's last year, 1977. That year, Pontiac did use the Iron Duke in the Astre wagon and all models of the Sunbird, with the 2.3 Vega engine still standard in the other Astre models.

I do remember watching an episode of "Let's Make a Deal", or one of those old game show reruns, where the prize was a later Vega. In describing this glorious prize, the announcer made mention of the "new and improved engine", so they must have done something to it in its later years? Maybe that's when they sleeved the cylinder walls, perhaps?

Interestingly, my old car book also mentions that the Chevette used OHC engines. That was a bit of a shock to me, considering how simplistic the Chevette was even when new. But it was actually based on an Opel design, so I'm guessing the engines were of German descent.

busiris · May 2008

The Fiero is another car that comes to mind, it had the Saturn style dent resistant body panels, really innovative packaging, and could've gotten people used to smaller vehicles. Unfortunately, it seems like they sold it before they tested it or finished designing it and it got the reputation for being a POS and it killed the model. Its kind of ashame because the 1988 was a legitimate vehicle.

If I remember correctly, the Fiero was originally designed to be much more of a mid-engine performance vehicle. However, certain factions within GM (especially Chevrolet, worried aboiut Corvette sales/stature) screamed bloody murder and had enough influence to de-tune the design, making the car an oddity, at best. It was certainly never considered a performance vehicle, and never found a niche buyer audience.

lilengineerboy · May 2008

If I remember correctly, the Fiero was originally designed to be much more of a mid-engine performance vehicle.

Everything I've seen says it was destined to be a small commuter car designed for light weight and good mileage. Its back end was the front of a Citation turned around and the front end was originally from a Chevette, so I don't think there were too many visions of glory anywhere in there.
Resto-mods with the little Northstar V8 are running around showing what could've happened.

andre1969 · May 2008

Everything I've seen says it was destined to be a small commuter car designed for light weight and good mileage.

That falls in line with everything I've heard about the Fiero, too. Basically, it was supposed to just be a sporty, economical little car, more show than go. Essentially what the original vision for the Ford Mustang had been, minus the back seat.

Pontiac was also just about dead by 1982-83, as its more profitable bigger began to fall from grace, and the smaller, more economical cars just weren't selling. Pontiac began trading its performance image in the 70's for more of a luxury image, but then that put them into Buick/Olds territory, and those cars just did it better. The Firebird/Trans Am had been a hot seller...until the second fuel crisis nearly wiped out demand for that type of car. And the Grand Prix had been a strong seller as well, until the 1980 downturn that affected all bigger cars. A 1981 restyle, that was supposed to be 15% more aerodynamic, sold tolerably for a year and then began to fizz.

The Fiero was probably conceived with the idea of scarce $3.00/gallon gasoline in mind. It just happened to get launched in 1984, and by that time gas was cheap again and people were returning to bigger cars in droves, and performance suddenly wasn't a dirty word anymore. As it was though, the Fiero generated a lot of buzz for Pontiac, and was the cornerstone of its 1984 turnaround. Pontiac sales simply exploded for 1984, and the Fiero, represented a major part of that.

Unfortunately, the performance didn't match the car's looks. I think I heard 0-60 came up in about 12-13 seconds, which actually isn't bad for a 92 hp 4-cyl pushing 2500 lb or more. It probably laid waste to 4-cyl Mustangs and Camaros, and Firebirds pushing the 2.8 V-6. But then Grandma would pull up next to it in a V-8 Parisienne, wire wheels and all, and lay waste to it. :surprise:

lilengineerboy · May 2008

Unfortunately, the performance didn't match the car's looks. I think I heard 0-60 came up in about 12-13 seconds, which actually isn't bad for a 92 hp 4-cyl pushing 2500 lb or more. It probably laid waste to 4-cyl Mustangs and Camaros, and Firebirds pushing the 2.8 V-6.

You also have to see what else was out there, even the premium stuff. So early 80s, thats like the 110 hp Audis, the BMW 318, or even a Poncho 6000 w/ the same engine, or Obama's fav, the Granada.

busiris · May 2008

Everything I've seen says it was destined to be a small commuter car designed for light weight and good mileage. Its back end was the front of a Citation turned around and the front end was originally from a Chevette, so I don't think there were too many visions of glory anywhere in there.
Resto-mods with the little Northstar V8 are running around showing what could've happened

You might be correct, but I would suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the Fiero. It mentions the objections to a Corvette competitor by GM accounting folks, as well as prototypes tested with V-8 engines. I find it difficult to believe that GM did that testing just to provide the public a small commuter car.

Of course, I guess it depends on the specific point in the life-cycle as to what the car's intention was meant to be. I do remember reading articles in car magazines touting the car's image before it went into production, and the theories about why it never fulfilled its performance capability.

ateixeira · May 2008

Wasn't the Iron Duke known for catching fire, so they swapped out and started using a bigger oil filter?

I had a co-worker that had one and she could not sell it, even for peanuts, after a couple of years.

It was a glorified secretary's car, basically.

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles