Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
8653 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 6:22 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 07, 2007 5:03 am) I too think that would be great, unfortunately the Smart isn't that car for me. I think a 3-5 year old VW TDI would be a lot closer for me, especially since the hwy mileage is a bigger factor for me than city.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 06, 2007 6:59 pm) 
|
|
| 5.9 L/100 km is 39.875 miles per US gallon | |
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 06, 2007 4:17 pm) However, you are 100% wrong saying there is no virtue to making do w/less (which I don't see as a sacrifice anyway). If EVERYONE in the US got 2 MPG better we would be MUCH better off. I don't care what the Chinese do. If they want to purchase more, so be it. If we can cut down on our polution and our dependence on foreign oil not only are we better off, but more importantly our children are as well. I don't like being at the beckon call of dictators who hate us and want to end our way of life. All these people claiming "I can do what I want" won't be able to much longer if we continue to live so frivolously.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 07, 2007 5:08 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: dgecho1 (Dec 07, 2007 5:48 am) Sub Compacts have as much right on our roads as any other car, that has never been an issue or the question. We have just shown as a society a preference for something more comfortable or with more power and yes even something as large as a SUV. It does not make US consumers evil simply because we haven't embraced the plight of drivers in other countries. We had clean air standards when Europe was still burning peat as heating fuel up to about 15 years ago. No one assumed they were evil because they were spewing dirt into the air and didn't care about American air. we simply have a different lifestyle and SUV and quad cab trucks work for us better than they do for people in other countries. We have no reason to feel guilty for being successful as a nation and for taking advantage of that success. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Dec 07, 2007 6:04 am) The Prius has already suffered the same fate. It's got great city mileage but when people take it on the freeway, their overall MPG sits right around 41-44 mpg, and this was a far cry from EPA or Toyota brochures. Once again, a SMART only makes sense to a city dweller/driver who values parking over everything else, and is willing to pay a premium for that one advantage (presuming his city allows perpendicular parking and offers other perks to SMARTS). RE; LIARS -- I don't think the people reporting 40 MPG + on their Yaris on this site are liars. If they are, they must have all agreed to tell the same lie. 
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 07, 2007 5:03 am) Have you ever shared your numbers to EPA's website? Calling those who do liars is the last thing that comes to my mind. I don't know about you, but I find the new EPA rating ridiculous. There is no way I can get 26 mpg in my TL on highway, unless (perhaps) I drive at 90 mph all day long. I get 24-26 mpg (lately, 26 mpg has been difficult perhaps due to traffic congestion and winter fuel, still got 24.9 mpg on last tank). Same with 98 Accord. 27 mpg on highway? How about 32-33 mpg at 80 mph? The worst tank ever in either car is around 23 mpg, and over 236K miles. Interestingly enough, even that is better than the suggested combined mileage by EPA. So, tell me why I should take EPA more seriously than my personal observation, and reporting by others who seem to get similar mileage as I do? Interestingly enough, the one that seems to lie outside of the norm is the EPA rating. At their website, 2007 Fit/Auto has 26 observed fuel economy. Among those, reported with 40-60% city, all but one exceeded EPA's rating. You may choose to disbelieve them all and stick with EPA, I won't.
|
|
|
Replying to: dromedarius (Dec 07, 2007 7:54 am) The simple fact is that petroleum is a finite resource and while it won't run out overnight, at some point production will peak, demand will exceed supply, prices will increase dramatically (we ain't seen nothin' yet), and some areas will experience shortages. This may not happen this week, this month, or this year, but there is a very good chance that it will happen within ten years.  When it does happen, what do you want parked in your garage? What do you want parked in all of you neighbors garages across the city/state/country? Hummers? The time to prepare is now, not after the situation becomes critical.  james |
|
|
Replying to: dromedarius (Dec 07, 2007 7:54 am) My complaint with Sub Compacts is they do not provide enough additional benefits over a current compact when the Corolla gets better fuel mileage than a Fit and the price is the same. I don't assume the owner of the Fit is an Ugly American because they decided the benefits of that car were worth the extra fuel it burns over the Corolla. It simply all breaks down to personal preferences. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Nissan Versa
2010 Toyota Yaris
2010 Honda Fit
2009 smart fortwo
2010 MINI Cooper
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
