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

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

What is this discussion about? Nissan Versa, Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, smart fortwo, MINI Cooper

#7453 of 8653 Re: Well, that sort of just [andre1969] by sandbyme Apr 03, 2008 (5:33 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 03, 2008 5:14 am) I own a 1927 Model T. Today, it will get 22-25 miles to the gallon and because of the suspension height and small tires it goes off road just fine. And does up to 50 mph on the road It could go just about anywhere 99% of these SUVs could go. Remember, when this thing was built there were virtually no asphalt or concrete roads in America. With all the supposed technology today.... We cannot build a 4wd today thats gets better gas mileage than a model T? Please... We are high on horsepower... Replies to this message: explorerx4 (Apr 05, 2008 3:38 pm)
#7454 of 8653 five stars in the side crash test by steve_ HOST Apr 04, 2008 (7:27 am)
Smart crash test results are in (Straightline)   Replies to this message: ateixeira (Apr 04, 2008 10:44 am) lostwrench (Apr 04, 2008 2:12 pm) andre1969 (Apr 05, 2008 4:02 am)
#7455 of 8653 Re: five stars in the side crash test [steve_] by ateixeira Apr 04, 2008 (10:44 am)
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 04, 2008 7:27 am) 4 stars are not bad, really, but in a world where you sort of expect Kias to get 5 stars, that might be seen as a negative.   I'm surprised it got 5 stars in that side impact, look at the intrusion.
#7456 of 8653 Re: five stars in the side crash test [steve_] by lostwrench Apr 04, 2008 (2:12 pm)
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 04, 2008 7:27 am) Did you see the rollover rating? Only 3 stars! Replies to this message: andre1969 (Apr 05, 2008 4:02 am)
#7457 of 8653 Advantage???? by karsick Apr 04, 2008 (5:34 pm)
Can someone tell me why the Smart would ever be preferred over a Yaris or Fit? (beyond the minor advantage in parking, that is) Replies to this message: bumpy (Apr 04, 2008 6:06 pm)
#7458 of 8653 Re: Advantage???? [karsick] by bumpy Apr 04, 2008 (6:06 pm)
Replying to: karsick (Apr 04, 2008 5:34 pm) Mileage, weight reduction, interior room, customization.
#7459 of 8653 Re: five stars in the side crash test [lostwrench] by andre1969 Apr 05, 2008 (4:02 am)
Replying to: lostwrench (Apr 04, 2008 2:12 pm) Did you see the rollover rating? Only 3 stars!   I'm surprised about that, too. I figured a smaller, lighter car would do better in a rollover test, since you don't have all that weight crushing down on the roof. I guess something else could have happened though, like the crash test dummy's head coming into hard contact with some part inside the car that could have dealt a serious injury to a live person?   I've noticed a similar thing in the frontal crash tests, where sometimes the car itself looks like it held up really well, but the seatbelts just didn't do a good job keeping the dummy in place, so it bounced around and hit the door sill or roof pillar or some other hard object.
#7460 of 8653 Re: Me, bash huge SUV's? [nippononly] by explorerx4 Apr 05, 2008 (3:10 pm)
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 02, 2008 9:31 am) one of the ways i view my suv is an alternative to flying and then renting something to drive. i think there are plenty of suv owners that view it the same way. it is probably not obvious to those who have different life styles. Replies to this message: podred (Apr 06, 2008 1:45 pm) steve_ (Apr 06, 2008 5:55 pm) busiris (Apr 06, 2008 6:14 pm) andre1969 (Apr 07, 2008 5:19 am) nippononly (Apr 07, 2008 7:51 am) and 9 more...
#7461 of 8653 Re: Well, that sort of just [sandbyme] by explorerx4 Apr 05, 2008 (3:38 pm)
Replying to: sandbyme (Apr 03, 2008 5:33 am) of course, the emissions are not too friendly in today's world.
#7462 of 8653 Re: Me, bash huge SUV's? [explorerx4] by podred Apr 06, 2008 (1:45 pm)
Replying to: explorerx4 (Apr 05, 2008 3:10 pm) You have brought up a very interesting point. While I'm not one to bash any type of vehicle, as I believe that all have certain purposes they serve well when used for those scenario's, your example does make sense to a certain degree.   After reading your post, I ask myself this question: If it's used for a long distance trip. Why not use a large sedan or crossover which in many cases saves quite a bit of fuel due to the lighter weight and more aero bodystyle?   One response as to why not to use a sedan or crossover, is if one is driving over particularly rough terrain. Say perhaps a trip to Alaska.   So yes, while it could be argued or justified in a wide variety of ways, I do believe that the mainstream driving public sees so many SUVs as nothing more that todays' version of the typical Mom's Minivan for Soccer trips, used on smooth paved roads, that they've lost sight of the group of people for whom the SUV is truly useful and being used accordingly.   Finally when I look around the city I live in, the enormous amount of SUV's being driven in the city are largely examples of those young men (and some not so young) that have very small egos, suffer from insecurites, all of which demand a large vehicle so as to make themselves feel strong, confident, whole and in charge. So sad, that it takes a 40k to 60k vehicle to accomplish that. There are more H2 hummers on the road here than I would have ever imagined.   Conversely, it puts a very broad smile on my face when we meet up at the local gas station as I watch their bill for fuel exceed $130, when mine's less than $70. in todays economy, the price to feed ones ego, is very high.   Cheers Replies to this message: steve_ (Apr 06, 2008 5:55 pm) busiris (Apr 06, 2008 6:14 pm) andre1969 (Apr 07, 2008 5:19 am) nippononly (Apr 07, 2008 7:51 am) andre1969 (Apr 07, 2008 8:31 am) and 8 more...

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