You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

8691 messages,  Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 1:39 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, smart fortwo, MINI Cooper

#5 of 8691 Re: What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts? [harrychezt] by carlisimo Jan 10, 2006 (11:59 pm)
Replying to: harrychezt (Jan 10, 2006 9:55 pm) You must be very large!   My '91 Tercel is plenty comfortable for three of my friends and myself, and my '92 Sentra would be the same if it weren't for driver ergonomics. I find new small cars have thicker padding, but are larger to compensate. Small headroom in the back is more common than it used to be though - but that applies not just to small cars, but to midsized cars from Buick, Lexus, and Mercedes Benz (among others, probably).   All I can say is... subcompacts do not work for you. They do for a lot of other people.
#6 of 8691 we owned by harrychezt Jan 11, 2006 (12:11 am)
87 spectrum, 90 sentra, and now a Scion tC(with sunroof) and have no issues putting 5 people in any of these vehicles, ever.   Our 90 Sonata GLS V6 had barely 1 inch o fheadroom with seat adjusted up in height, but our 04 has about 2 inches of headroom, seat fully up in height.   Also, like my father in law, he is under 6' tall,(about 5'11") but, he has a "tall torso", and short legs. He needs approx a 41 inch headroom to be confortable, or forget it. If say you have long legs, and a short (body) torso, you could be happy, in a smaller vehicle, at least up front?   Torso..... Body, et al..   My 6' 4" Brother in law has less issues than FIL has(his dad). he has longer legs, shorter torso. Also, depends on how one likes ot sit. FIL sits what, 90 degrees( seat straight , no notching it backwards when he drives, ever). If they do not give you enough headroom to crank up the drivers seat, it should be a standard seat, and not height adjustable. If you have a seat that can be cranked up all the way, ya should be able to sit straight up in it, also, and not hit your head on the room liner. I am about = leg/torso height. I am shorter than FIL.   I like the "command of the road" a height adjustable seat can give you, If you can adjust it fully, w/o hitting your head, when the seat is only 1/2 way up, on the liner of the roof.   I like driving with the seat up. I notch it backwards, to recline some. Some guys drive where all you see is arms and a hat. Looks like the vheicle is driving itself   If ya sit like that, 18 inches would be sufficient head room.
#7 of 8691 head room exception for sub-compacts by harrychezt Jan 11, 2006 (12:20 am)
xb!  46 inches of headroom, most midsized, or other cars are 38.5-40.5, give or take, and same for the HHR, PT Cruisers, etc.   Seems the Xb next gen coming out this year will solve many issues: HP will be tC's 160HP, 2.4 liter I4, increase overall length 10 inches, and add 4 inches of width to the vehicle(which is a problme current... nothing like sitting in the seat, and your door is a leg rest, and your passeneger is an arm rest ).    Still, spouse said no, it is not going to see our driveway, ever, due to looks of it.lol.   These other makers need to do similar measuremtns on HHR, and others of it's ilk.
#8 of 8691 one last rant by harrychezt Jan 11, 2006 (12:38 am)
MPG: 35mpg on Accent? What's so special about that?   They advertise 34MPG on automatic version of 06 Sonata, 4 cylinder, 162HP.   Our tC, 160HP, sporty car, gets 33-34MPG hwy. Lot more fun than 110 HP, 0-60 in 10.5 seconds. yes, it cost is maybe 2,200 less( the rio loaded up, rio5, is over 15K, we paid 17, 199 for our 05 tC, 2K more, over 5 years= not a whole lot more)35 a month more? 8-10 dollars a week more? 1 dollar and 10 cents more per day?   Read the Fit and Yaris will hit 40 MPG(does the Civic not already do this? yes, you can get a cheap one for 15K, give or take, no sunroof, or cruise).   I just do not get where the "big value" is?   Hyundai= 10/100K warranty. Same for Kia.   That's about it.   Our 90 sentra xe got 33-37MPG, 90 HP, 3 speed automatic, about 200 lbs lighter than the Accent. More car, IMHO, too(it was around 168-169 inches TL, simialr size to Reno, which has more room than other cars I sat in recently, in this class, less MPG< though). There are V6's claiming 30-32MPG now, in midsized sedans! You can buy used ones shortly for not much more than these things. In 90, when Sentra was "small", it was 8,999 on sale. We got up to 41+ MPG on all hwy trip of 250 miles. 55mph. What gives? lol. back then, midsized cars , V6 , lucky to get mid-20's mpg. so, yes, a Sentra made sense, to get 10 mpg more, on avg, when i drove 75 miles per day. if ya can afford a G6 for under 16K(yes, on red tag, they were under 16K, I-4, gets 34MPG), midsized sedan, with lots of room everywhere, why buy a elantra, cobalt, accent, rio, aveo,that get 35-37 mpg? In today;s world, if these figures are facts, a small car makes little sense, unless it could get say 45 MPG. It's all smoke and mirrors, I feel. Corolla gets almost as much MPG as their Yaris. Not too much more in price, either. Cobalt gets 34? It is not too terribly expensive. Replies to this message: bumpy (Jan 11, 2006 5:32 am)
#9 of 8691 Re: one last rant [harrychezt] by bumpy Jan 11, 2006 (5:32 am)
Replying to: harrychezt (Jan 11, 2006 12:38 am) if ya can afford a G6 for under 16K(yes, on red tag, they were under 16K, I-4, gets 34MPG), midsized sedan, with lots of room everywhere, why buy a elantra, cobalt, accent, rio, aveo,that get 35-37 mpg?   Those other cars also weigh significantly less than a G6, even with the I4. The Elantra and Cobalt are around 2800 lbs, and the new models of the others should be around 2400 lbs. There are a few of us who still hew to Colin Chapman's axiom: low mass is its own reward. I'm waiting for those 1600 lb Obvios.
#10 of 8691 Heck... by andre1969 Jan 11, 2006 (5:46 am)
as far as I'm concerned, what's wrong with these new subcompacts is what's ALWAYS been wrong with them...they're just small! By and large, they're not meant to be comfy, spacious 4/5 passenger cars (IMO the "true" 6-passenger car has been a myth, for about 30 years now...that's what minivans are for) They're meant to be economical, maneuverable little cars with a back seat designed for children or occasional adult use, or just folded down to expand the trunk space. They're not meant to be family cars. Cars for singles, couples with small children, or as a second car for a large family.   One thing I have noticed though, with all cars, is that the seating position has been changing over the years. Cars are starting to trade generous lateral stretch-out room and a low seating position for a more upright, truck-like position with less stretch-out room. Now because of the way they measure legroom, they can still come up with some pretty decent published measures. FWIW, they measure legroom from the base of the accelerator pedal to the center of the back of the seat cushion, or something like that, so published legroom won't tell you how far away the firewall is, how intrusive the dead pedal or wheel wells are, etc. For a taller driver that likes to stretch out, these upright seating positions can feel cramped.   I had a 1991 Civic for a rental years ago, and I actually fit pretty comfortably in it. I haven't tried out the '06 Civic yet, but the '01-05 felt horribly cramped to me. Now the '01-05 was better in the back seat, but it seemed like they sacrificed the driver's comfort to improve the back. And IMO, the driver's seat is one area that should NEVER be compromised.
#11 of 8691 let me echo by nippononly Jan 11, 2006 (8:03 am)
bumpy's remarks: low weight is its own reward, in terms of handling and fun. One of the best reasons to buy one of these little cars, ESPECIALLY if you commute to a job. They are efficient, big enough to carry people occasionally but mostly designed to serve solo commuters (some 90%+ of all car commuters). And of course, if you need to put kids in the back, which is the only reason I ever use the back seat, there is plenty of room for that.   Mileage has been a bonus in the past with these tiny cars, but it seems that today most automakers have decided that Americans won't accept any car, even a low-priced one, that can't beat a midsize family sedan to 60 mph, and hence we have mid to high 30s for combined mpg, and cars that can do 0-60 in 9 seconds or less. To people like me that is a bummer, but in the context of the market, it is average or above for cars, and fast for trucks (and as we know, there are PLENTY of solo commuters out there in trucks - if they were in a subcompact instead, they could in many cases DOUBLE their fuel efficiency overnight). Replies to this message: andre1969 (Jan 11, 2006 5:27 pm) nippononly (Jan 12, 2006 8:27 am)
#12 of 8691 scion by Mr_Shiftright HOST Jan 11, 2006 (5:06 pm)
I find the Scion xA quite spacious in front and adequate in the rear. Headroom and shoulder room are non-issues but leg room in the rear can be a bit tight---but really no worse than a 3 series BMW if the front passengers have their seats all the way back.   Some sub-compacts are far more intelligently designed than others but ALL will have to compromise somewhere. With the xA it's cargo space behind the rear seats.
#13 of 8691 Re: let me echo [nippononly] by andre1969 Jan 11, 2006 (5:27 pm)
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 11, 2006 8:03 am) Hah, hah, aren't you the funny one, Nippon, with that "let me echo" double entendre!   Actually, one thing I do remember about the Echo that my uncle test drove, was that for the tiny external dimensions of the car, it was pretty roomy inside. I remember my uncle drove, I rode shotgun, and the sales guy was in the back seat. Now my uncle's only like 5'9", and the salesguy was pretty short too, but with me being 6'3" and having the seat all the way back, there was still a little room back there, in kind of a Dodge Dart hardtop sort of way. There wasn't a whole lot of room to stretch out, but the tall seating position helped a bit.   It had what I'd call a useable back seat...a seat where I could fit back there, even with the front seat all the way back. Of course, using that definition, it would vary from person to person, as we all come in different shapes and sizes.   As for a BMW 3-series, well that IS a subcompact! I rode in one a few years ago, and it was comfy up front. However, I doubt if you could even get an infant's car seat behind me, let alone an adult.   Interestingly, one of the smallest cars that I felt could hold four people in reasonable comfort was the Dodge Neon. I can fit comfortably up front, and even with the seat all the way back, can still fit in the back. Now, the seats themselves aren't that comfy, but those little suckers are roomy.   Now, the Neon sucks in other ways, and honestly I'd probably put up with a Corolla just to get the better reliability/fuel economy/etc, as it's still tolerable for my body. But then, neither the Corolla nor the Neon would really be considered subcompacts these days. Replies to this message: nippononly (Jan 12, 2006 8:27 am)
#14 of 8691 My view ... by jlawrence01 Jan 11, 2006 (7:38 pm)
I would buy a subcompact if:   1) 50% of the vehicles on the road weren't SUVs and trucks.   2) if one would have a comfortable front seat for me. The Echo doesn't cut it as it is so small. The Neon is comfortable but not reliable.   3) They would mount the driver's seat in the middle of the sedan ala Britian's Invacar.   Personally, I don't care about the backseat as it is never used in my car.

You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?