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?
8866 messages, Last post on Mar 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (May 29, 2008 6:11 am) 
|
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (May 29, 2008 6:11 am) |
|
|
Replying to: boaz47 (May 29, 2008 6:11 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 3:37 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 6:11 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 11:20 am) But they decrease road feel by the same proportion that they decrease power cannibalization. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: oregonboy (May 29, 2008 8:39 am) also, i measure the odometer not the speedometer. you happened to hit something that fit that calculator. we replaced the conti's on the escape with the same size goodyear tripletread. they are huge compared to the original tires. you can see the physical difference in size. the gas mileage has been down some since then, but i am not sure if it is due to rolling resistance or tire circumference, or both. i also experienced a big drop in gas mileage when i changed tires on my focus. i got most of it back when i switched back to the original tire model. the smaller the car, the more the weight difference in tires plays into the gas mileage, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: explorerx4 (May 29, 2008 3:15 pm) Just for clarity, what did you think the revs/mi was on the Miata.net chart? also, i measure the odometer not the speedometer. So you can back-average the speed so you know what to tell the kind gentleman with the badge? i also experienced a big drop in gas mileage when i changed tires on my focus. i got most of it back when i switched back to the original tire model Hmm your experience is someone opposite of mine. When I replaced the 195/60HR15 MXV4 Energy tires with 195/60VR15 Khumo ASX tires, I got both a dramatic improvement in handling, consistent fuel economy, and 4 Khumos were $12 more than 1 MVX4.
|
|
|
Replying to: oregonboy (May 29, 2008 8:39 am) So you have to adjust a bit to compensate - unless you have a digital one that is - those are pretty close to exact with stock tires.
|
|
|
Replying to: plekto (May 29, 2008 3:53 pm) Odometer Accuracy Not Regulated By Federal Law Investigation Reveals Inaccuracy Of Many Cars Odometers |
|
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
2010 smart fortwo
2010 MINI Cooper
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
