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: harrychezt (Jan 10, 2006 9:55 pm) WANT AN ECONOMY VEHICLE OR A TANK CANT HAVE BOTH
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: deerebilt (Apr 06, 2008 5:10 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: podred (Apr 06, 2008 1:45 pm) I first drove to Alaska in '73 in a VW Bug back when the Alcan was gravel. It's all paved now and I've driven it in three wagons, a compact Tercel and two minivans. Now, you may need an SUV if you live in Maine. (AP)
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 06, 2008 5:55 pm) |
|
|
|
|
SmartForSomeone. It is 4.5ft shorter than the VW Beetle! I read that in the May '08 Car and Driver magazine. Yikes. Pert-near 5 feet shorter than the VW Beetle? This car is t-i-n-y. I actually saw one in my little SE Arizona cowtown the other day. It took a left at the busiest intersection in town and headed uphill towards the I-10 on ramp/switchchange. Perhaps if one loved VW Beetle's in their hey-day and wanted to re-live some of the glory they could nab one of these mini-cars. Did I read that it weighs some 2,300 lbs.? Or was that only 1,800 lbs.? Too heavy, but that no doubt helps it in it's endeavours to pass crash testing. Oh, the magazine article mentioned that there is a Smart Cabriolet. The C&D testers didn't particularly like getting the car in to the top-down mode, though. Didn't exactly go smoothly. But it eventually worked, exposing small, stick-like C-pillars, but it was an actual Smart-vertible. Weird little rig, it really is. Too small for this padre, but, I don't dislike it. The Mitsubishi i-MIEV all-electric under development doesn't look all that much bigger, but if I pulled dimensions on both cars I have a feeling the i-MIEV would dwarf the SmartFor by quite a few feet, not just by quite a few inches. 
|
|
|
Replying to: podred (Apr 06, 2008 1:45 pm) Last August, two friends and I went out to Cedar Point in Ohio, in a 2006 Xterra 4wd. Fuel economy averaged about 20 mpg. About 3 years ago, the three of us went down to Florida in my 2000 Intrepid, and on that trip probably averaged about 27.5 mpg. We ended up taking about as much luggage both times. I'd say that the only advantage to the Xterra was that we could reach the cooler in the back, so we could get food and drinks out of it without stopping. With the Intrepid, we had to not only stop, but partially unload the trunk to get to the cooler! Dunno if that little bonus was worth the mileage penalty, though!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 07, 2008 5:19 am) Your V-6 sedan used about 25% more gas than my Matrix would have, and the Matrix would also have provided good seating for four and access to the cooler in back. And if you all could have fit in the Echo, you would have saved another 30% in fuel. The SUV used 125% more fuel on that trip than the Echo would have. Wow.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 07, 2008 7:51 am) Waitaminute...if I'm doing the math right, then presuming the Xterra's averaging 20 mpg, wouldn't that mean the Echo would be averaging about 45 mpg? I don't think I'd be getting 45 mpg given the circumstances...speeds averaging 65-75 mph with occasional bursts up to 80-85 (the 5-speed automatic in that Xterra keeps the revs down and makes you feel like you're going slower than you are, so it's easy to lose track of speed). Constant use of the a/c. And three people on board with a boatload of luggage. To do another comparison, about a year ago, I drove my uncle's '03 Corolla up to PA and back. I drove it pretty gently, just about pure highway driving, no a/c use, and averaged about 37.4 mpg. Last October I made the same trip in my Intrepid, and got about 31 mpg. So in this case, the Intrepid used about 20% more fuel than the Corolla. Which sounds pretty substantial on the surface...until you realize that it comes out to a difference of about 1.1 gallons per 200 miles I also did that trip in my '85 Silverado the following weekend. It got about 18 mpg. 
|
|
|
After reading the two posts above this one, I'm enjoying this new direction in our dialog. It would be great to continue this discussion taking into consideration the points below. Consider this, a comparison of: "Cars We Own" from the list of subcompacts being discussed in this thread, as compared to the "Other Cars We Own or have Owned". Therefore we would be reading _True Stories_ from the people that own them as opposed to speculation based on road tests or other second hand sources of info. Especially since as we all know there is a huge difference between reading the road tests, and actually owning the vehicle and living with it. It's this very type of dialog which would enlighten all of us as to the "real differences" the pros and cons. After all there is much more to consider here than "just the mileage factor". Perhaps we call it functionality or useability or some such term that clearly identifies how, where and why, we are using the various "other" vehicles. Ones that may be larger and not as fuel efficient as the "new subcompacts we own". By continuing the discussion in this direction, it would create a very stimulating environment from which to draw new ideas. Cheers! .... |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Apr 07, 2008 8:31 am) I am confident that with constant A/C use, at those speeds, with your three buddies, I would see 45 mpg and in fact I am fairly confident I could beat that figure. That was a conservative estimate for the sake of discussion. Now would your three adult male buddies be happy on a long trip in the Echo? I would think the two in the back would be wanting to switch with the two in the front at fairly short intervals! So the Matrix was a better example for group trips. But for long trips with just you or just you and a passenger aboard, the Echo has enough interior space to get comfortable and save a bunch of gas. And with the new Yaris, even that caveat has been erased - as small as it looks, the back seat is now much more spacious than the Echo's was. They added a few inches to the wheelbase (and 200 pounds to the curb weight) in order to accomplish that. Footnote: the Corolla's EPA numbers make it appear that its mileage is almost identical to the Yaris/Echo's, but in real world use the smaller models are producing some fantastic figures and very few below 35, whereas many Corolla drivers report much lower numbers. It is much harder in the Corolla to get those 40-plus mpg numbers, even though both are rated around 35 (both were previously rated 41) for highway use. So Corolla is not your best example for how efficient small cars can be, even though it probably is the most efficient in the compact class. the thing is, there's a whole (BETTER  ) class below compacts...
|
|
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
