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?
8691 messages, Last post on Dec 04, 2009 at 1:39 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: oregonboy (May 28, 2008 9:45 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (May 28, 2008 2:37 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Reported at Auto Observer: http://www.autoobserver.com/2008/05/seismic-shift-to-smaller-segments-rocks-us-m- - - - arket-edmunds-analysis-shows.html#more In the second two months of this year, consideration of subcompacts by prospective buyers was up 28% from the first two months of this year! (last chart at the bottom of the page) And two of the three domestics have no car to field in this segment, despite having been caught out in exactly the same way in the 70s. At least GM has the Aveo, but they really ought to work on its fuel economy, as they have done for the Cobalt. Aveo is close to 1/2 a ton lighter than Cobalt, as well as being slower, yet it only matches the larger car for EPA ratings? Something wrong there... Oh, and for anyone who disagreed with me that manufacturers like Toyota are missing a golden opportunity by not offering better/more standard optional equipment on their smallest models (and perhaps raising their prices to reflect the increased content): "At the same time, during March and April U.S. consumers also displayed their quickly growing interest in ensuring that they take amenities with them as they shift to smaller and more fuel-efficient segments. Consumers were paying more for typically equipped small and midsize cars" |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (May 28, 2008 8:49 pm) Isn't the real point that the people are moving for fuel mileage not for size? If they are offered two vehicles and both have similar fuel savings will they still option out for the Sub Compact? They want their goodies more than they want a stripped down car and goodies weigh and that makes the sub compact heavier and uses more fuel. So if the sub compact gets compact fuel mileage the compact seems like a better deal. We are right back to where we started with people being forced into sub compacts because of outside forces not preference. If that is the case then todays sub compacts still don't offer much over what we already have been driving for over 20 years. Better for you who happens to be pulling for small cars but nothing much for the consumer. As far as manual steering? There is a reason it has been almost dropped from most cars and it has nothing to do with increased road feel. It was a pain at slow speeds. About the only road feel advantage it had was to force you to keep the car in proper alignment so it didn't fight you in a straight line. If there were a real advantage they would remove it from racing sedans in the things like the Rolex series where they would do anything to get an advantage over the other cars. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (May 29, 2008 5:11 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (May 29, 2008 5:11 am) |
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (May 29, 2008 5:11 am) I'm anything BUT a small car hugger, but even I would say they've improved in leaps and bounds from what was being offered 20 years ago. Just as one example, I had a 1991 Civic rental car once. I forget which engine it had, but for some reason I'm thinking it was an upgraded engine. Although it was just a 4-door sedan. According to www.fueleconomy.gov, there was a 1.5, which was rated at 28/33 with the automatic and a 1.6, which was rated at 24/29. That car was dog-slow in acceleration, and if you just let the automatic transmission do its own thing, it would top out around 75-80 on level ground. You could pick up speed on a downhill slope, but it couldn't maintain that on an upgrade. However, I did discover that if I manually held third gear, keeping it out of overdrive, it would get past that 75-80 sticking point, and if I threw it back into overdrive around 85 or so, it would go faster. And given a long enough downhill slope, it would hit 115. But that's kinda like saying if you dropped this Civic and a Corvette out of a cargo plane, they'd both hit the ground at the same time...doesn't mean the Civic has Corvette performance!  That car wasn't without its merits though. It was roomy and comfortable up front for such a little car. For someone like me to say that about it, that's considerable praise. Handling was decent. And it was quiet and rattle-free. I'm sure any subcompact built today would walk that Civic like a dog, while returning better fuel economy. I'm sure they're better built and more reliable these days, too. Not saying that Civic was a piece of junk, but it's just that cars have advanced over the decades. Now seating position, I'm not sure about. I'm horribly cramped and uncomfortable in modern cars like the Yaris and Fit, and the Corolla and Versa aren't much better for my tastes. The Sentra and Civic are tolerable. It's really hard to say how the modern cars would compare to the comfort of that 1991 Civic, because it's been over 16 years since I sat in it. It might not be as comfy as I remember. And while that Civic was comfy for a small car, it couldn't hold a candle to a bigger car. After that vacation and 1700 miles of seat time in that Civic, I swear my Dart never felt so good!  Keep in mind too, that in 1991 and throughout the 80's, the Civic was probably the benchmark of subcompacts. So if much of today's crop has improved over a 1991 Civic, I'm sure they'd make a lot of those other little cars from back then really look like crap. Now in some extreme cases, like the CR-X, and other ultra-economy-minded cars of the 80's, today's cars are nowhere near as close in terms of fuel economy. But if you were to take the average Civic or Corolla from 1985 or even 1990, and compare it to the average Civic or Corolla of 2008, fuel economy would be improved in the newer cars...even though the newer models are heavier, larger, and more powerful.
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (May 28, 2008 2:37 pm) tire calc I used it to determine that my "oversize" tires were less than 2% larger than the originals. As it turned out, the change actually made my speedometer read MORE accurately, as determined by a stopwatch over 15 miles. This was later confirmed by my Garmin GPS.  james
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (May 29, 2008 5:11 am) NA Miatas were available with manual steering and those were sought after by enthusiasts. Mostly for the increased feedback, though.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 29, 2008 10:20 am) But they decrease road feel by the same proportion that they decrease power cannibalization. |
|
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
