Ask the Car People.SM


What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

9838 messages,  Last post on Feb 07, 2013 at 10:28 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum.

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

Messages Page 769 of 985

#7674 of 9838 according to Ford by nippononly

May 22, 2008 (1:15 pm)

as quoted here:
 
http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/05/ford_cagey_about_whether_buyers_will_pay_big- _to_go_small.html#more
 
the market for subs and smaller has doubled in a few short years to 400K or so in 2007, and they expect it to be 700K annually and growing by 2012.
 
They do ask a very pertinent question: will people pay premiums for small cars that are superlative in some way, be it features, handling, whatever? They cite the example of VW failing to succeed in offering "premium" small cars, which I think is partly misleading because one of the main reasons people are downsizing is certainly the fuel economy of the smaller cars, and VW has no small cars with even close to class-leading fuel economy.
 
I would assert it is the firm conviction of some posters here that America will never shake loose of its attitiude that cars should be charged by the pound, so smaller should cost less, period. Obviously, the Mini Cooper is the prime example of the exception to this rule, and the new Fit Sport is perhaps another, as it crosses over in price with many of the cheaper compact cars and sells mostly at or near sticker.
 
Does anyone besides me think that people will gradually let go of this "charge me by the pound" philosophy of car pricing, particularly if carmakers manage to offer some subcompacts with truly excellent fuel economy (as opposed to many of the current offerings, which are nothing more than fairly decent to good) or lots of content more typical of more expensive, larger cars?

#7675 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [nippononly] by texases

May 22, 2008 (1:24 pm)

Replying to: nippononly (May 22, 2008 1:15 pm)
I thought the Mazda 3 (which Ford would know well) was living proof of people's willingness to pay more for a quality small car. VWs, besides poor mpgs, have also had their quality issues, so a poor example, for sure.

#7676 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [nippononly] by ateixeira

May 22, 2008 (1:25 pm)

Replying to: nippononly (May 22, 2008 1:15 pm)
I hope so, but....
 
Few have succeeded at that, Mini is a good example.
 
But look at the volumes - Ford builds more green F-150s in a day than Mini sells all year, probably.

#7677 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [ateixeira] by texases

May 22, 2008 (1:27 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (May 22, 2008 1:25 pm)
Ohhh, you mean 'green', as in color...thought you were goin E85 on us, there...

#7678 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [texases] by ateixeira

May 22, 2008 (1:28 pm)

Replying to: texases (May 22, 2008 1:27 pm)

 
I'm sure GM could say that...

#7679 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [nippononly] by andre1969

May 22, 2008 (1:35 pm)

Replying to: nippononly (May 22, 2008 1:15 pm)
the market for subs and smaller has doubled in a few short years to 400K or so in 2007, and they expect it to be 700K annually and growing by 2012.
 
Wow, that shows just how much the small car market had shrunk up over the years. For example, in 1981, which was probably a high point for small cars at that time. I remember the Chevette, by itself, sold about 458,000 units. It was the most popular subcompact that year, although I think the Escort would oust it for 1982. Anyway though, figure there was the T1000 on top of that, and the Escort/Lynx, and the Omni/Horizon over at Chrysler, plus the Accord and Civic (both were subcompacts back then), the Datsun 210 (was the 310 still around?), Toyota Corolla and Tercel (maybe the Starlet was around at that time too), and probably a few others I'm forgetting, and I'd imagine that the subcompact market as a whole was good for a good 1.5 million or more.
 
I think people were a lot more scared back then, though. The jobless market was pretty bad as I recall. Interest rates were through the roof. And the fuel was not only expensive, but not exactly free-flowing. And we were all afraid that $3.00/gal gas was looming just around the corner, and would be here to stay.
 
Oddly, 1982 was actually a worse year for the auto industry as a whole, but big cars started to sell again. Chevy was actually selling V-8 Caprices at MSRP, while they had to practically beg people to buy the more efficient Celebrity and Cavalier.

#7680 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [andre1969] by nippononly

May 22, 2008 (4:33 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (May 22, 2008 1:35 pm)
Well, just look at how few models we have had to consider in our musings in this thread, up to this point. What, 7? Yaris, Fit, Versa (questionable, it's biggish), Mini Cooper, Aveo, Accent, Rio. 8 if you include (as many seem to want to) the Smart car.
 
In 2002, the baseline year for Ford's remarks, there were even less (no Fit yet, no subcompact Nissan, no Aveo? I forget, on the Aveo. When did they stop selling Geos and their Chevy successors?)
 
There are more than 160 models of passenger car or light truck for sale in the market today, per the last numbers I saw quoted. Of those, subcompacts make up 7 (or 8). No wonder sales had dropped so low.
 
The nice thing is that just based on what automakers have planned right now, we will have double that many 3 years from now. Maybe more, if some other automakers reconsider their current strategy and bring in more of their global offerings.

#7681 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [nippononly] by boaz47

May 23, 2008 (9:42 pm)

Replying to: nippononly (May 22, 2008 1:15 pm)
Does anyone besides me think that people will gradually let go of this "charge me by the pound" philosophy of car pricing, particularly if car makers manage to offer some subcompacts with truly excellent fuel economy (as opposed to many of the current offerings, which are nothing more than fairly decent to good) or lots of content more typical of more expensive, larger cars?
 
I believe people will buy small cars if forced to. Not as a first line preference but because of fuel prices or some other economic reason. But whe you look at American culture nothing else seems to go as smaller is worth more. Even in cars when all things are considered bigger is viewed as worth more. Even with the mini it has to be remembered it is a BMW and the bigger BMWs cost more.
 
All things being equal think about it. We will pay more for a 2000 square foot house in the same area than we will for a 1000 square foot house. People expect to pay less for a 20 inch Sony TV than the do for a 32 inch Sony. When I bought my boat I can promise you a 25 foot Catalina was thousands less than a 30 foot Catalina. Now that I have a RV I can also assure you that a very well equipped 20 foot RV will cost you about half of what the same kind of RV in 32 feet will.
 
I got a automotive GPS the other day and the bigger screen ones cost more than the smaller screen ones and no one expects any different. At least not in the same brand.
 
Your question represents the only get what you need group. A different mind set.

#7682 of 9838 The cost vs. size ratio by thegreatoz

May 24, 2008 (4:13 am)

The only product category I can think of where "smaller is more expensive" is in computer electronics, such as small laptop computers which are almost always more expensive than big desktop models.
 
Normally, a five-pound box of candy is more expensive than a one-pound box. A 32-ounce Pepsi costs more than a 16-ounce bottle. Always will be.

#7683 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [boaz47] by nortsr1

May 24, 2008 (5:46 am)

Replying to: boaz47 (May 23, 2008 9:42 pm)
Good post boaz...I agree with you. Most of the new "small car buyers" really are only making the purchase because of the higher gas prices. They really "don't want" a "small vehicle"...They just don't want or "cannot afford" these higher gas prices.
   I know someone will probably post that these same purchasers didn't need an SUV or "bigger type vehicle"...but... that's what they wanted and enjoyed for many years. The commute to work is now getting too expensive for a lot of the working class and even for retired people such as myself.
   I have always enjoyed the ease of entrance and comfort of my SUV (as I am handicapped) and if I purchase a "small" vehicle" I damn near need a crane to get in and out of same. (for "us" old people" it's hard enough trying to get off the damn toilet. (yes, I know) they even have higher toilets now.

Messages Page 769 of 985

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement