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

8674 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 11:23 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am) |
|
|
Replying to: robertsmx (Dec 07, 2007 8:10 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: john500 (Dec 07, 2007 10:13 am)
|
|
|
|
| people be required? For instance, take mpg numbers from 1,000 people instead of the current 100 people and then average out all of their results. Then compare to what youv'e got now. | |
|
Replying to: john500 (Dec 07, 2007 10:13 am) My driving conditions is approximately 50-50. On highway, I will drive between 60-80 mph, but mostly around 70-72 mph. This is an old car (1998, 184K miles). This is the same car that has returned 32+ mpg on long (500+ mile) road trips with speeds averaging over 75 mph (and thats average, including time spent at stop(s)). EPA tells me this car should get 27 mpg highway, 21 mpg in city. Tell me, what makes their number more credible, and why I shouldn't rely on what I observe. My numbers are consistent with numbers being quoted by others. Yet, I must believe they are liars (and so am I)? Gas/tank expansion/contraction theory is fine, but those differences are minimal enough to even worry about on this scale. And that car isn't the only one. I have another that makes me call the new EPA rating system a joke.
|
|
|
|
|
I have that is a compact car, get 32 mpg highway(like I do) and 20 mpg in town (like I do) why would I want a subcompact car? If I liked the design of a subcompact car I would buy one but so far I don't see a car design I like more than the '08 Mitsu Lancer GTS compact. And parking in my little town and even Tucson and Safford and Sierra Vista for shopping is laid-back southern Arizona, not up-tight Philadelphia, Chicago or New York City type of parking. So parking is not an issue. Mpg with subcompacts is currently not good enough. For my next car I am going to look at all the electrics available at that time (probably around the year 2012 or 2013 at the rate I'm putting mileage on my Lancer GTS) and pick one that I like. By then hopefully the range of travel with one charge-up will improve significantly, manufacturer's will increase the max.speed one can go in an all-electric vehicle, the initial cost to buy the vehicle will drop with good sound technology and mass-production, and the whole issue of re-charging these EV's will have been figured out and implemented by then. If I'm gonna buy a small ICE vehicle then the car should get a minimum of 40 mpg and hopefully 45-50 mpg, and up. Otherwise I will enjoy my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS and it's better carrying capability than a subcompact and similar gas mileage to one. It's good to have a little more room to store things and seat more people comfortably for excursions, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: iluvmysephia1 (Dec 07, 2007 11:51 am) By that logic, if I can get a Honda Accord that delivers upper 30s on the highway regularly (topped 40 MPG twice at speeds averaging over 70 MPH), 29MPG in my suburban commute, and has better fuel economy than a compact according to the EPA (Lancer), why would I want a compact? If I'm gonna buy a small ICE vehicle then the car should get a minimum of 40 mpg and hopefully 45-50 mpg, and up. Otherwise I will enjoy my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS and it's better carrying capability than a subcompact and similar gas mileage to one. It's good to have a little more room to store things and seat more people comfortably for excursions, etc. My same case holds true of my Accord against a Lancer. It's roomier and gets better milage. Why would I move to a smaller and LESS efficient car. At least with going to subcompacts, the mileage is better, if marginally (Fit v. Civic, Yaris v. Corolla, Versa v. Sentra). Go sit in a Versa; it's decidedly NOT a subcompact. I sat in the back seat, behind where I'd set the seat in the front. I had as much room as my midsize Accord. Cars like this Versa, and the cargo-carrying marvel Honda Fit are really practical vehicles; much more so than their sedan big-brother compacts in some cases. The thing is, sephia, that these subcompacts typically have combined averages higher than those of compacts. They also are smaller on the outside (a plus for some people), and don't cost as much to purchase. I find it sort of interesting that you seem cocerned about mileage, yet bought one of the least efficient compacts currently on sale.
|
|
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