Sign In Join 



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


Messages Page 649 of 870
1
...
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
...
870
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#6478 of 8691
Re: Interesting Discussion! [boaz47] by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Dec 07, 2007 (8:28 am)
Reply

Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am)

The Fit is far more versatile than the Corolla. It's more useful, that's why people buy it. And that utility doesn't give up gas mileage, so that's another perk. A Fit is not an irrational choice by any means, but a Hummer is unless you are a commando or a big game hunter I guess, where you really really need to crawl up the sides of mountains.
 
#6479 of 8691
Re: Interesting Discussion! [boaz47] by dromedarius
Dec 07, 2007 (9:29 am)
Reply

Replying to: boaz47 (Dec 07, 2007 8:23 am)

I would like to see people live in smaller houses (judging by the current foreclosure situation, they probably do, too), use fluorescent bulbs, carpool, fly commercial, etc., etc. My conservation streak is not limited to JUST SUVs and trucks. My point is if everyone had the myopic view "I can do what I want" we'd be in even more trouble, but conversely, EVERY person who changes their lifestyle just LITTLE bit can make a difference, especially as those numbers grow.
#6480 of 8691
Re: Those are a lot of straws to be grasping at. [robertsmx] by john500
Dec 07, 2007 (10:13 am)
Reply

Replying to: robertsmx (Dec 07, 2007 8:10 am)

I agree with snakeweasel on this one. If you asked 100 people how to calculate the fuel economy in their car, I would guess you would get 10 different answers and I suspect that is where a lot of the variation comes in. The way I record fuel efficiency is to fill up at time 1 (and do not top the tank - let the vapor lock stop the fill). Ride around for some distance to about 1/2 the tank volume and then fill up at time 2 when the ambient temperature is the same. This will ensure that the tank doesn't expand significantly (since the gasoline T is generally constant since it is stored underground). Even this technique has the problem that as you consume gasoline, the weight of the vehicle gets lower. Therefore, if I rode around until the gauge was nearly empty, I should get somewhat higher fuel economy due to a weight of the vehicle. I would like to hear you ask 10 people you know how they compute fuel efficiency and see if you still believe the 42 mpg outlier (try to avoid people in occupations that deal with measurements and constraints i.e. avoid engineers, scientists, accountants).
#6481 of 8691
Re: Those are a lot of straws to be grasping at. [john500] by Mr_Shiftright HOST
Dec 07, 2007 (10:19 am)
Reply

Replying to: john500 (Dec 07, 2007 10:13 am)

Yeah but when 90% of the reported MPG are in one clump and only 10% are in the outlying data, why would you believe the 90% are calculating incorrectly?
#6482 of 8691
Or would increasing the sheer numbers of reporting by iluvmysephia1
Dec 07, 2007 (11:05 am)
Reply
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.
#6483 of 8691
Re: Those are a lot of straws to be grasping at. [john500] by robertsmx
Dec 07, 2007 (11:10 am)
Reply

Replying to: john500 (Dec 07, 2007 10:13 am)

I don't take the pain that you seem to go for, calculating mileage. I just filled up my Accord. 366 miles, 14.03 gallons (auto-stop) which is good for 26.1 mpg. I can literally place a bet that my next tank will get me somewhere close to 26 mpg unless driving conditions change drastically.
 
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.
#6484 of 8691
If I can get a 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS like by iluvmysephia1
Dec 07, 2007 (11:51 am)
Reply
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.
#6485 of 8691
Re: If I can get a 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS like [iluvmysephia1] by thegraduate
Dec 07, 2007 (12:02 pm)
Reply

Replying to: iluvmysephia1 (Dec 07, 2007 11:51 am)

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?
 
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.
#6486 of 8691
The fact is that I bought the car by iluvmysephia1
Dec 07, 2007 (12:12 pm)
Reply
I bought for it's looks and for it's handling and features available for the price. Plus a Warranty that is industry-leading(until Chrysler came out with theirs).
 
Gas mileage is not even near the top of my list for why I want to buy a car. Since so namy disscussions on car sites involve gas mileage, I was simply pointing out the fact that many, many subcompacts just don't deliver in the mpg area compared to even my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS, which is a compact. And I get more room to travel in. More comfort.
 
And a great looking car body design as well, which is not easily delivered in a car with such a small body. Not to mention the increased safety of a bigger rig that also has the latest safety implements designed in. Just a better deal all the way around.
#6487 of 8691
Re: If I can get a 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS like [thegraduate] by andre1969
Dec 07, 2007 (12:32 pm)
Reply

Replying to: thegraduate (Dec 07, 2007 12:02 pm)

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?
 
Well basically, buy what you're comfortable with. If you're getting that kind of economy in an Accord, it's doubtful you'll do much better with a smaller car (MPG-wise yes, but $ wise, probably not, unless you drive an incredible amount of miles). Still, there are tradeoffs. The Accord is bigger, roomier, more comfortable. Probably quieter and smoother riding. The Lancer might be more nimble, easier to park in tight spaces, give a more connected driving experience, etc.
 
I've sort of run into a similar situation with my cars. My 2000 Intrepid a "fullsize" (according to the EPA at least...I'm still a bit old fashioned and call it a roomy intermediate ) can break 30 mpg if leisurely driven on the highway. Best I ever did was around 31. I've driven my uncle's '03 Corolla a few times, and one time keeping track of mileage I got around 37.4, driven fairly leisurely, highway driving...actually, the same run where I got 31 with the Intrepid!
 
The up-side of the Corolla was the 20% improvement in fuel economy. Sounds impressive, doesn't it? However, on that 230 mile trip I took, that translates to a gallonage of 6.15 for the Corolla, 7.42 for the Intrepid. A difference of 1.27 gallons. At $3.00 per gallon, that comes out to a savings of like $3.81 over the course of that trip. All of a sudden, not so great.
 
Now, if the Corolla is your thing, more power to you. However, I find it cramped, noisy, rough riding, uncomfortable, worse-handling, and slower-accelerating than my Intrepid. I also rarely have to worry about squeezing into tight parking spaces, so that advantage is pretty much a moot point for me. I'm used to driving pickup trucks and 221" long Chryslers, so to me the Intrepid IS a small, nimble car!
 
However, to someone else, who doesn't really need something Intrepid-sized, and is comfortable with the Corolla, then they should go for it. It's a perfectly adequate car, but it just doesn't fit ME.
 
So in short, buy what fits you the best, and what you're most comfortable with. If I had to go out and buy a new car right now, I'd probably get a 4-cyl Altima. It's smaller than my Intrepid, but still big enough to for me to fit in comfortably. According to the EPA, it should get better fuel economy. Basically, it's not too big, not too small, fairly economical, and fast enough for my needs.

Messages Page 649 of 870
1
...
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
...
870
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement