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?
8654 messages, Last post on Nov 29, 2009 at 10:39 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 07, 2007 10:19 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 07, 2007 3:21 pm) I consistently beat EPA in my Scion xA and that has the same engine as a Yaris, and I did get 40 mpg once or twice---but I'd have to report mine as about 34-36 MPG average with *very* fast driving (as in "Shifty, stop, I can't go any faster").
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: robertsmx (Dec 07, 2007 11:10 am) Because EPA estiments are the closest thing you can get as a constant for this measurement. No two drivers drive exactly the same way. I will most likely get more or less MPG than you depending on how different we drive. Also no two cars are the same, even the same model with the same engine, and will get slightly differing mileage. You driving your Accord and getting X MPG doesn't mean I will get X MPG on an Accord that has the same options.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Dec 07, 2007 1:36 pm) Ha. I work for the state and I feel lucky that I have a chair and not an old milk crate. Now if I can only get them to stop using my work space for storage I will be happy. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 07, 2007 3:15 pm) Remember that we are talking two car families where one car always (or mostly) has one person in it for the commute. The Fit would be ok, but do you really need to spend more money and get less mileage for added space you will never need? I think if you put a SMART and a Fit side by side with gas mileages taped to their windows, for the same price, and asked small families to choose, I think the Smart would lose 9 out of 10 times. But the Smart will be less expensive and lets face it, if people are practical when choosing that second commuter car they will choose the less expensive better mileage car. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 07, 2007 3:25 pm) Well then we are reading different things because the EPA website has, IIRC, 52 people reporting and something like two or three reporting way higher than the EPA estiments.
|
|
| After crushing all opposition with incisive logic and irrefutable reasoning, he turned slowly to savor the victory. Only the did he realize that he was alone in the room. | |
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 07, 2007 3:25 pm) Practical people look for balance. And that also involves practicality. My second car doesn't need to be large, it needs to be practical enough that if I need it as a replacement for my primary car, I could use it. Something like Smart wouldn't even register on my radar for a second car, not at $13K and 40 mpg. There are far superior choices out there. I would rather go used if money were an issue. Because EPA estiments are the closest thing you can get as a constant for this measurement. A constant that is overly pessimistic. A constant that always gets beat. If there weren't an issue with this constant, EPA wouldn't dump the old constant and come up with a new one. And my cars have always met (or exceeded) the old constant. The new constant has done nothing but create a chaos. In fact, it has done greater harm to higher mileage cars than lower. A 10-12% reduction on 40 mpg vehicle is far more "visible" than similar loss in a 15 mpg vehicle. You driving your Accord and getting X MPG doesn't mean I will get X MPG on an Accord that has the same options. If you look at the way I drive, you would think otherwise but you will. Most do. Well then we are reading different things because the EPA website has, IIRC, 52 people reporting and something like two or three reporting way higher than the EPA estiments. Looking at mileage reported on 2007 Yaris w/auto transmission I see 53 entries, and only six failed to meet the combined mileage which is only 31 mpg. Most folks seem to be averaging in mid-upper 30s, especially considering those that are close to approximately 50-50 city/highway (+/- 10%).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (Dec 07, 2007 3:39 pm) SMART VS. FIT: If you price out both of them with comparable equipment, that is base Smart with AC & power steering, vs. Base Fit with those items standard, I regret to say that the Honda comes out to be $128 more, with more standard features than the base Smart has. That even surprised me. I didn't do that before. Try it yourselves: Go to www.edmunds.com, click on "new cars" and price out the 2008s, as base models.
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently beauty is not subjective. Scientific studies suggest that the human brain is programmed to prefer symmetry and certain ratios and proportions. Now, since I am the only one who decided that I like the symmetry and certain ratios and proportions of my '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS, I have no other compelling reason to tell anyone else they must feel the same way about the car. But, I was programmed to like it and I just acted on...on...ummm...superior pre-programmed powers of being prone to crave beauty. There. That does it. I felt this strange pull within me to get that out. Nice find, shifty, makes lots of good sense to me. 
|
|
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
