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

#51 of 8691 The thing is with this new batch of Kia's by iluvmysephia1 Jan 17, 2006 (10:30 pm)
is they are sharing platforms with Hyundai and, in many cases I have read, people are preferring the Kia model more than the Hyundai model it competes with.   For just one simple example, on one of the Edmunds threads I was reading online today, one of the Edmunds' regulars, harrychezt, sat in a '06 Kia Rio and a '06 Hyundai Accent. He couldn't fit into the back of the Accent but he could fit into the back of the Rio, and he was comfortable.   Early reviews on the '06 Kia Rio are very favorable. Test drivers are digging it's quiet cabin, for instance. Kia has put several sound deadening layers in between the wheels and the cabin and it is paying off in the form of a quiet cabin ride. I have also read of reviewers stating that the Rio engine seemed "peppier" than the Accent, even though many of them say the Kia emits more noise during acceleration up through the low gears. Once the car has hit a low cruising speed the engine settles into a quiet hum. Several have commented on the Rio's quiet ride. I know this is true, since I have read them myself, I am reading everything I can get my paws on about this new "Euro" designed subcompact from Kia.   I am thinking I'll trade for one of them because I don't feel like paying extra for ghastly, for one thing. The '06 Rio in 5-speed form gets 32 city, 35 highway, certainly an agreeable set of numbers.   Now, it is true dependability figures are not great for Kia. I like to get my Kia in for anything it needs, whether a TSB is out on the rig or not. I have been treated great from the two Kia dealers I've sought service from. If a person keeps up their maintenance schedule and works hard toward keeping their Kia in tip-top shape, you can get what you want from your Kia vehice.   I am going a lot from my previous experience from Kia. I will also tolerate a repair here or there, even with a new vehicle, too, and I won't complain about it and include it on a new owner's driving survey. Skewing the data, you say? Well, no, it doesn't. It reflects customer satisfaction to handle the surverys that way, eight?
#52 of 8691 Re: boaz47... [boaz47] by nippononly Jan 17, 2006 (10:51 pm)
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 8:48 pm) A future for compact trucks, boaz? Alas, I think not. The automakers have discovered they can make a stripped midsize pick-up for about $15K, and that there is no need to get much cheaper than that. All the people who wanted one as a cheap rugged runabout back in the day have since discovered they can get a brand new Korean car for about $10 grand, with as much longevity and durability as they really need, and much better gas mileage. And the fleets like pizza delivery will pay the $15K for the basic midsize pick-up, as that is less in 2006 dollars than these trucks cost back in 1986 dollars.   And UNLIKE subcompact cars, I don't see a lot of advantages to a smaller version of what is strictly a utility vehicle (the truck), rather than one sometimes or often driven for pleasure (the car). The agility, ease of parking, the handling, the joy of a lightweight vehicle, all are absent in a compact pick-up. You do not LOSE anything moving up to the next size. Even the fuel economy of the compacts was never that great - indeed, the Tacoma (the only one I know off the top of my head) maintained its FE rating with the latest generation, despite moving up from compact to midsize, and increasing in power by 20% (and by 0.3L in displacement).   I hope I have elucidated clearly what the differences are between cars and trucks in this regard. Subcompact cars have the biggest advantage of all - light weight is its own reward. Handling, agility, parking, maneuvering through city streets, the best fuel economy in the market, best of all the knowledge on the way to work each morning that it is just the right amount of car for the job it is used most often to execute. In that sense, it is the least wasteful way to own a car, if one has to own a car.   Subcompacts are not for everyone, but a lot more people would be perfectly adequately served by them than you might think. Replies to this message: logic1 (Jan 18, 2006 6:31 am)
#53 of 8691 I think compact trucks... by andre1969 Jan 18, 2006 (6:01 am)
have a future, but only enough of a future for maybe 1-2 players. It's kind of like the ponycar market, where if you only have a 1-2 choices, there's enough demand that everybody's happy. But if every maker jumps into the market, it just gets too fragmented and nobody wins.
#54 of 8691 Re: nippononly [boaz47] by logic1 Jan 18, 2006 (6:18 am)
Replying to: boaz47 (Jan 17, 2006 11:31 am) 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.   Well, they must be looking through oddly tinted glasses.   In New York, Chicago, and LA, crime is going down while in surrounding suburban and smaller urban areas, crime is going up. Replies to this message: andre1969 (Jan 18, 2006 6:35 am) Mr_Shiftright (Jan 18, 2006 8:12 am) andre1969 (Jan 18, 2006 8:21 am) logic1 (Jan 18, 2006 8:55 am) and 3 more...
#55 of 8691 Re: it's true [nippononly] by logic1 Jan 18, 2006 (6:25 am)
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 15, 2006 4:44 pm) And you know, a great deal is said all the time about people wanting vehicles big enough to stuff all manner of poeple and gear into, but hey! Marriage and child-bearing rates are both on the decline! There are lots of people who just plain don't need all that space! Even childless couples don't need that much space. Now if you feel you do I have no quarrel about that - only you know what you use your car for. But rather than just ASSUMING that "bigger is better", as most Americans do, and never stopping for a second to examine your priorities, how about considering that if you mostly drive around solo, or with just you and a spouse in the car, you don't REALLY need all that space. And perhaps you could take it a little easier on the planet, save a whole bunch of gas money, and buy in to maneuverability all in one shot by buying SMALLER instead.   But storage space is your most consistent complaint about the Solstice/Sky.   Given the Kappa car's popularity with many people who probably otherwise prefer larger vehicles, it stands to reason you would appreciate a stealth lesson in less is more to those otherwise reluctant to listen.
#56 of 8691 Re: boaz47... [nippononly] by logic1 Jan 18, 2006 (6:31 am)
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 17, 2006 10:51 pm) You do not LOSE anything moving up to the next size. Even the fuel economy of the compacts was never that great - indeed, the Tacoma (the only one I know off the top of my head) maintained its FE rating with the latest generation, despite moving up from compact to midsize, and increasing in power by 20% (and by 0.3L in displacement).   One thing that gets me to wondering was why the Colorado with the I4 is so oft criticized. The I4 has more than enough oomph for hauling furniture, bikes, or towing your jet ski or small boats - in short, what almost every typical consumer not in the building or agricultural trades needs a truck for. It gets decent mileage. It is also a very smooth and quiet little engine.   Nevertheless, the small GM trucks are blasted for no V6 (and often for no V8).
#57 of 8691 Re: nippononly [logic1] by andre1969 Jan 18, 2006 (6:35 am)
Replying to: logic1 (Jan 18, 2006 6:18 am) Well, they must be looking through oddly tinted glasses.   It's hard to change people's perceptions once something gets ingrained in their mind. For example, you could probably never convince my grandmother to move into DC, because she remembers all the rioting, crime, violence, and when DC burned. Nevermind the fact that nowadays some of those once burnt-out rowhouse shells now go for a cool Million $ plus, and these days you could probably dress a man up in high heels, a dress, and makeup, and name him Sue and he wouldn't get jumped!   But then on the flip side, a teenage girl's body was dumped less than 500 feet up the street from my grandma's house in the 'burbs, and a few years back I was mugged literally right outside my front door!   Now granted, there are still parts of DC where you wouldn't want to get stranded. And there is still a lot of poverty and despair. But by and large, the Big City is not what they made it out to be in "Good Times". I'd say it's more like "Bob Newhart" nowadays...and I don't ever remember Bob getting mugged or Emily getting gang-raped, or Carol the secretary getting kidnapped.
#58 of 8691 I think one reason... by andre1969 Jan 18, 2006 (6:37 am)
the Colorado got blasted is because its overall payload capacity and its towing capacity are actually down a bit over the S-10 it replaced. It's still probably more than adequate for most jobs, but it tends to still come in toward last place in most comparison tests. Replies to this message: logic1 (Jan 18, 2006 7:07 am)
#59 of 8691 Re: I think one reason... [andre1969] by logic1 Jan 18, 2006 (7:07 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jan 18, 2006 6:37 am) It's still probably more than adequate for most jobs, but it tends to still come in toward last place in most comparison tests.   Clearly, appearance and comfort are an issue in this market segment and many feel GM does not match the competition.   But the I4 decently, and relatively economically, meets, (as you say) the needs of most jobs in this segment. But people still want the larger V6s (and in the case of the Dodge, even an available V8).
#60 of 8691 logic by nippononly Jan 18, 2006 (7:21 am)
I hope you didn't mean to imply that I had some complaint about the amount of storage space in the Solstice, because I have no opinion on the matter and have never expressed one. But if you meant in general, then I might weigh in with the thought that NONE of the little roadsters in Solstice's class have much in the way of storage, so it is to be expected.   As for the Colorado, I am in agreement with you because I recently had one with the I-4 for several days. I was helping a friend haul out a ton of junk in his garage, off to the dump. We did many full loads above the top of the bed, the thing never felt strained. Hopefully, all of these smallest-class pick-ups will continue to offer a 4-cyl base engine for all the folks who use them for little things like driving their bikes and surfboards around. I should add that economical was one thing the Colorado was NOT, pulling around 18 mpg over two tankfuls of gas. But then it was loaded half the time.   Now that has no bearing on how competitive the truck's optional engine is, and in this case, I have no personal seat experience in one with the I-5. All the competition are V-6s, most are more powerful aren't they? I guess the presumption is that if you are paying for the optional engine, then you really need the power for towing or heavy loads, whatever. Most likely the I-5 is enough to meet the need for most buyers.   I am curious to see if the companies introducing new or revamped subcompacts this year see a decrease in sales of their compact cars as a result. I hope not, because that will make it more likely that they will be dropped after this model cycle. Chevy has updated the Aveo in a shorter-than-typical amount of time, while the Cobalt is beginning to age relative to its competition. Toyota has the Yaris against the 4 year old Corolla, while Honda has the Fit against the brand new Civic, some interesting contrasts. And wouldn't it be interesting if Ford reintroduced the Fiesta before they redo the Focus. Replies to this message: logic1 (Jan 18, 2006 8:51 am)

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