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 984

#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.

#7684 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [nippononly] by snakeweasel

May 24, 2008 (5:51 am)

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,
 
Consider this, all things being equal shouldn't a bigger car be more expensive (ignoring market conditions of supply and demand)? A bigger car needs more raw material which means the cost of raw material is going to be more hence the price needs to be more in order to make a profit.

#7685 of 9838 Re: The cost vs. size ratio [thegreatoz] by andre1969

May 24, 2008 (6:20 am)

Replying to: 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.
 
Believe it or not, one automotive-related category where this holds true, to an extent, is motorhomes. Those really small ones that are essentially heavily reworked conversion vans are usually more expensive than the bigger Class-C mini-motorhomes. I think most of the extra cost comes up because of the special purpose-built, miniaturized appliances and other components they have to design to put in those things. Where a Class-C motorhome is still going to have smaller appliances and such than what is in your house, I think they tend to use more generic, off-the-shelf, mass produced components.
 
As for cars, I think we're always going to run into the issue of them being cheaper by the pound, because the bulk of the costs associated with them is developing things like the engines, transmissions, suspensions, electronics, etc. I don't know if this still holds true, but it used to be that the most expensive component to redesign on a car is the firewall/cowl/windshield area.
 
But if the manufacturers want to design in a longer rear for a bigger trunk, or punch out the wheelbase for more legroom, or more front overhang to make the car look bigger, none of that really costs very much.

#7686 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [nortsr1] by boaz47

May 24, 2008 (8:37 am)

Replying to: nortsr1 (May 24, 2008 5:46 am)
I think the seating position of the SUV was one of the biggest hits with the consumer. In fact that may be part, not all, of the success of many of the crossovers compared to sedans. The idea of just sliding in and sitting down like a comfortable chair just seems right. That was one of the reasons my mother in law loved my PT. If you think about it that is the seating position every American has preferred in their homes for as long as there have been Americans. But some of the small cars seem to be trying to address this. Like you I don't care to have to grab the top of the door to lift myself up to a standing position.
 
But if we think about it even in the suggestion of things like computers if we go from same manufacturer and options a 15 inch lap top will cost less than a 17 inch. In motorcycles a 250 cost less than a 350 and a 350 cost less than a 700. We expect cars to be the same.
 
Like many I have been forced to drive a compact for some of my daily tasks around town. If I have my choice of if I were still working I would drive my Tahoe. I am retired now and my job no longer pays for my fuel so I have to save my money from longer trips in the Tahoe when we go on vacation. I like the extra room.

#7687 of 9838 Re: The cost vs. size ratio [andre1969] by snakeweasel

May 24, 2008 (8:44 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (May 24, 2008 6:20 am)
You also have to remember that the cost of developing and design per car goes down with increased production. The price of the additional material to make the bigger (or even look bigger) stays the same per car no matter how many is produced.
 
In other words the cost per car to design the firewall/cowl/windshield area may be much less than the cost of making the rear end longer for a bigger trunk on a per car basis.

#7688 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [snakeweasel] by nippononly

May 24, 2008 (10:14 am)

Replying to: snakeweasel (May 24, 2008 5:51 am)
"Consider this, all things being equal shouldn't a bigger car be more expensive (ignoring market conditions of supply and demand)? A bigger car needs more raw material which means the cost of raw material is going to be more hence the price needs to be more in order to make a profit."
 
No, this is a false premise if the smaller car has more expensive design elements in it. For instance, an Explorer or Tahoe with a suspension design in use since the 1950s and an old-tech engine, causing crappy handling and a tendency to run out of steam as soon as the tach begins to rise, is using MUCH cheaper parts than a new Fit, Cooper, or Yaris. Heck the Accent SE outhandles and outrevs those vehicles. Ditto the comparison with large cars like Impala, Lucerne, etc.
 
OTOH, except for the Cooper, we don't have any of the type of subcompact I was envisioning with that statement available for sale here (dare I say yet?). I would like to see a much wider selection of premium subs available in the U.S. If sky-high gas prices contribute to that happening, then I guess that is the silver lining of the oil crunch.

#7689 of 9838 Re: according to Ford [nippononly] by andre1969

May 24, 2008 (10:30 am)

Replying to: nippononly (May 24, 2008 10:14 am)
No, this is a false premise if the smaller car has more expensive design elements in it.
 
I think even if you're talking about a small car with cheap design components in it, it doesn't cost that much more to make a bigger car. Most of the cost goes into the R&D. A few (or few hundred) pounds of extra steel and such isn't going to make a car cost that much more.
 
One thing that's kinda funny, is that for all the ragging the domestic industry takes for the crappy small cars it made in the 70's and beyond, many of them were actually much more advanced than the big cars they were putting out. For instance, the Vega had an aluminum OHC engine. The Pinto had OHC and rack and pinion steering. I think the V-6 used in the Pinto wagons was even OHC. It was German, IIRC. And Chrysler had FWD, OHC, and I'm sure rack and pinion steering in the 1978 Horizon. Yet the most expensive New Yorker had an engine that could be traced to 1958, and a transmission and suspension that could be tracked to 1957.
 
But, aside from all that, they still ended up being crappy little cars.

Messages Page 769 of 984

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