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

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

8694 messages,  Last post on Dec 07, 2009 at 6:51 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

#41 of 8694 Re: What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts? [harrychezt] by carguy58 Jan 17, 2006 (11:02 am)
Replying to: harrychezt (Jan 10, 2006 9:55 pm) "You can bet when the 2 inches longer Elantra comes out, it will jump a few grand."   Of course its going to jump up in price. All cars jump in price every year. I don't think the Elantra will jump a few grand but maybe 1 grand. I can't see a compact car jumping 3 grand in price in 1 year.   "Guess they are all trying to "grab the cash" before China, Inc hits USA?"   People on these boards act like the chinese are already selling cars in the US and taking market share. They(the chinese manufacturer's) aren't even here yet and haven't even proven themselves yet. The chinese manufacturers when they get to the US don;t have even have the respect of Kia in the states. The chinese manufacturers are going to have to compete head to head with Kia. They can't come right out of the gate in the US with a Camry competitor.   About supcompact cars of course they are going to be tight inside. I wouldn't be expecting headroom like the curent Altima has.
#42 of 8694 nippononly by boaz47 Jan 17, 2006 (11:31 am)
Lets try this approach. If you had your choice between a sub compact and a mid sized car and they both cost the same what would you buy? Think about it and put yourself in the mainstream consumers shoes.   Now not knowing what you answered lets say you said the Mid sized of course because you get more car for the money. Then that whole discussion breaks down to a cost issue. To sell a sub compact you "have" to offer it at a lower cost than you would a Mid Sized car. So how do you get away from the entry level stigma? Secondly how to you convince someone that works 45 hours a week that they don't "deserve" a little more room and a bit more comfort if they can afford it? Higher gas prices won't do it because people simply factor in the price of gas. SO if my neighbor has a Micro mini Hondaca hatchback with a 1500cc engine and can seat 4 and I make 20K more a year than my neighbor what will convince me not to look at the Benzolac V-6 that only burns 8 more MPG than my neighbors Hondaca? Considering that I am only looking at an extra 15 gallons a week? After all that is only 45 bucks and I make close to 100 bucks more than he does any way and still I will have a nicer car?   Isn't that the way marketing and advertising works? Isn't that how our society thinks? Because haven't we learned this from our own history over the last 230 years? I can't see those preferences changing can you? And to tell the truth do you ever think Urban flight will ever turn into a return to the city? Not as long as I am taking a breath I am sure. Those living in the Burbs see the city as pure crime waiting to happen. Maybe a newer generation may see things differently but if you look at real estate I don't see people that are established moving into smaller houses just because all they need is a one bedroom do you? Replies to this message: bumpy (Jan 17, 2006 12:03 pm) carlisimo (Jan 17, 2006 12:06 pm) logic1 (Jan 18, 2006 6:18 am) andre1969 (Jan 18, 2006 6:35 am) Mr_Shiftright (Jan 18, 2006 8:12 am) andre1969 (Jan 18, 2006 8:21 am) and 4 more...
#43 of 8694 I think one thing... by andre1969 Jan 17, 2006 (11:42 am)
that's been a killer for many smaller cars is that you can often get a much larger car that has better power, is roomier, AND gets better economy, simply because its larger engine doesn't have to rev or strain so much.   For instance, back when I bought my '00 Intrepid, it was EPA rated at 20/29 for the 2.7 (I think in the final couple years it moved slightly to 21/29). Anyway, a 4-cyl Stratus was actually a bit worse, at 20/28 for the 2.4! With the Mitsu 2.5 they used back then it was 19/27 (18/26 for California models). The 2000 Neon came in at 25/31 with the automatic, 28/35 with the stick.   Likewise at GM, getting a Malibu or Cavalier instead of an Impala, or even a LeSabre, really didn't save you a whole lot of fuel.   It was one thing, back in the 70's when most of those big mastodons were lucky if they broke 15 mpg on the highway, and your CVCC might've topped 30 mpg. But nowadays many large-ish V-6 sedans can push the 30 mpg mark, while precious few economy cars can break 40. Basically, they've just made greater strides with larger cars than they have with smaller ones, so the fuel savings is pretty much a moot point...at least until prices shoot up to ridiculous levels and/or it goes into short supply, Mad Max/Road Warrior style...
#44 of 8694 well by nippononly Jan 17, 2006 (11:58 am)
I could answer you, but would you believe it? Given the choice between an '07 Camry and '07 Yaris (both are redesigned this year, due out in 2 or 3 months), I would definitely take the Yaris.   Now if there were such a thing as a $20K Yaris, I would take it over the $20K Camry. Agility, fuel economy, these are things that are high on my list. But I must admit that I have a second car, my truck, which is bigger, and if I didn't have that it would be more of a toss-up. But make no mistake: I would be sacrificing many of my vehicle priorities if I were to buy the larger car, and would do so only because it would be more versatile as far as passenger-carrying capacity. Truth is that in this scenario I would ACTUALLY go in-between and get a Corolla.   And I would expect the Yaris at that price to be well-equipped, as much as the Camry in fact. And to have far better fuel economy. FE keeps inching up at a rate that is wholly unacceptable to me! 24/34 in a 4-cyl Camry just aint that great to my mind, in fact the upcoming Fit's (subcompact) estimate at 33/38 is no cause for celebration either. Likewise, the Yaris's 34/40 is acceptable but not great.   And infill? It is already happening in a few long-established cities like New York, San Francisco, and others in New England, for instance. It will be 50 years before it begins to happen in the more recently expanded cities like Phoenix, Vegas, etc, and a while also before it comes to some of the other large cities. But it will eventually happen. It is inevitable, simply because the supply of land is not infinite. Especially buildable land clsoe enough to cities to make it worth it to build.
#45 of 8694 Re: nippononly [boaz47] by bumpy Jan 17, 2006 (12:03 pm)
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 11:31 am) Lets try this approach. If you had your choice between a sub compact and a mid sized car and they both cost the same what would you buy? Think about it and put yourself in the mainstream consumers shoes.   I'm not Nippononly but I'd take the smaller one, other things being equal (cost, suspension, engine, etc.) since the smaller car would axiomatically have superior handling and performance. My '92 Nissan Sentra SE-R stickered for just over $12,000; I would imagine that $12,000 could have put you in a low-option '92 Stanza, but the Stanza is no SE-R (and the U12 Bluebird SSS would have run a lot more than $12k if it had been sold here). A base Aveo versus a base Cobalt is a squash match except in price, but an Aveo 2.2 versus a base Cobalt (both at $15k) is a whole other matter.
#46 of 8694 Re: nippononly [boaz47] by carlisimo Jan 17, 2006 (12:06 pm)
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 11:31 am) The smaller car simply has to have something that the bigger car doesn't.   If they're priced the same but different sizes, the smaller car might be able to have better materials. It might be a funner drive. It might have better styling or a bit of prestige.   There are people out there buying $27k Audi A3's instead of $27k large Buicks. The 3 series used to be tiny but that didn't stop it. Some buyers are choosing Civic Si's or optioned-out Civic EXs over base Accords. Discounted GM midsized sedans haven't killed sales of Minis and Mazda3s. A few of us here would buy a Lotus Elise instead of an SRT-8.   Or, just like sportiness or prestige, price can make a deal too. For some people, a new Accent is better than any midsized car you can get for the same price, because that midsizer will have to be a used car. Along the same lines as price, gas mileage can make a real difference to someone who drives a lot more than you do.   If you don't want one, that's fine. You're in the majority, as you know. Doesn't mean it's the only way to live.
#47 of 8694 boaz47... by iluvmysephia1 Jan 17, 2006 (1:29 pm)
what do you mean, why do I go and stick my neck out like that?   Well, I am one who discovered with his '99 Kia Sephia that Kia's are made well, drive nicely and look bodywise better than all other carmakers out there, including Mercedes-Benz, BMW, etc. Name a huge carmaker and I'll tell you the Kia make and bodystyle that I prefer.   I will get with my '06 Kia Rio LX a great little car that is well-built, carries a 10-year, 100,000 mile Long-Haul Warranty, looks great and performs well.   My maintenance costs on the two Kia's I've owned since 1999 have been hideously low. I can not find another car on the planet I would buy that I would prefer over my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4, except the 2006 Kia Rio LX or 2006 Kia Rio5 SX. I will buy one of those two in a few weeks, unless I decide on a 2006 Kia Spectra or 2006 Kia Sportage. All or any would be great deals. I get a $500 Owner Loyalty rebate and a $400 college grad rebate whichever I choose. The one I want, in Sapphire Blue, the 2006 Kia Rio LX, will cost me a whopping $12,155 with the two discounts I'll be availing myself of.   Most regulars on here have heard my spiel and know my stance, boaz47. You've been conspicuously gone for a few months and I guess you've forgotten my stance.   To me, the past, present and future in my own automotive needs is Kia Motors of South Korea. And, even though Americans are extremely thick-headed about realizing it, Kia Motors cares deeply about their quality and greatly want you to be happy with your purchase.   If you think about it, gentlemen, who would spend the time to build something so complex as an automobile and not want it to be perfect for the buyer? Huh? Replies to this message: boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 2:32 pm) carlisimo (Jan 17, 2006 3:42 pm) boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 8:48 pm) and 2 more... andys120 (Jan 19, 2006 4:00 pm)
#48 of 8694 Re: boaz47... [iluvmysephia1] by boaz47 Jan 17, 2006 (2:32 pm)
Replying to: iluvmysephia1 (Jan 17, 2006 1:29 pm) I know your stand. I was simply stating that Kia and dependability don't seem to go hand in hand and if Kia was to represent sub compacts as a whole the dependability stats in JD Powers would put them pretty low on the list of vehicles worth buying. You having two that have served you well in no way negates the many that have placed them at the bottom of the JD Powers survey. why, might I ask "you" do you feel they have such a bad dependability rating from their own owners? I am not saying you can't love your vehicle choice. That is never a question after someone buys a vehicle for what ever reason they buy it. But as you may have detected you contention that they are high on the dependability scale leaves a lot of room for debate. Or don't you look at the owner surveys in JD Powers? The numbers you are quoting give legs to my contention that sub compacts do best when priced as entry level vehicles. It is like buying a power tool from Harbor freight. You have a functioning tool. But it may let you down much sooner than a name brand. Are their tools worth it? Sure they are but they aren't of the same quality as the professional grade tools.   Yes I have been visiting other sites over the last few months. Nothing much has changed while I have been gone however. Replies to this message: carlisimo (Jan 17, 2006 3:42 pm) boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 8:48 pm) nippononly (Jan 17, 2006 10:51 pm) and 1 more...
#49 of 8694 Re: boaz47... [boaz47] by carlisimo Jan 17, 2006 (3:42 pm)
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 2:32 pm) "...my contention that sub compacts do best when priced as entry level vehicles."   Hm... the pricier subcompacts seem to do well. They're all specialty cars: roadsters plus the Mini and Insight. That's all I can think of, as far as subcompacts starting above $15k.   And entry level subcompacts are going to be well, only as good as an entry level car can be. I'd call them specialty cars too, as they sell mostly on price. Replies to this message: boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 8:48 pm) nippononly (Jan 17, 2006 10:51 pm) logic1 (Jan 18, 2006 6:31 am)
#50 of 8694 Re: boaz47... [carlisimo] by boaz47 Jan 17, 2006 (8:48 pm)
Replying to: carlisimo (Jan 17, 2006 3:42 pm) Once again I agree. But then you have niche vehicles. And it is hard to start a trend with the buying public with a niche vehicle.   The question I still come back to is for Nippon. What is happening to the compact truck? Are they not an example of what people are looking for? I can tell you that my old 80 Courier was a whole lot smaller than my 98 Mazda series. We had a old 77 F-250 with a 460 was a bunch smaller than our 98 F-250 diesel. So my friend Nippon, is there a future for compact trucks? If not, what is the big difference between between compact truck buyers and car buyers? Replies to this message: nippononly (Jan 17, 2006 10:51 pm) logic1 (Jan 18, 2006 6:31 am)

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