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?
8564 messages, Last post on Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
if you tour the NEW CAR dealers, you will find the same thing. My local Toyota dealer has exactly two Corollas and two Yarises as of yesterday. Contrast this with about two dozen each of Tundra, Sienna, RAV4, and Camry. The Tundras all have huge red discount ads hanging from the rear view mirrors - $5000 off, $7000 off, 0% for 60 months, etc etc. With Tundra, I think they only just finished clearing out their '07s.
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jun 03, 2008 2:28 pm) Wow, I hope my coworker doesn't get wind of this. Earlier this year, when he was feeling the pain of gas prices, he made a rash decision and traded a 2004 Tundra 4.7 in on a 2009 Corolla S. After about 3 weeks, he decided that car didn't really suit his needs and he really wanted a truck, so he traded it on an '08 Tundra with the 5.7! I wonder what kind of deal he got at the time. I think that was about 2 months ago. Now in his defense, he has a fairly big boat that he tows around pretty regularly. So he does do truck-type things. However, his wife drives a Sequoia! Seems to me they could've just used the Sequoia to do the towing. Sometimes I think about getting a newer truck to replace my aging '85 Silverado. In my case, just about any truck I bought would represent an improvement in fuel economy. Unless they're still making 'em where they get 10-12 around town, 15-16 on the highway, and 18 if you REALLY old-lady it. I think the new Silverados, even with the 5.3, were rated 16/22 before the dumbed-down ratings took effect. I guess as little as I drive though, it would be foolish to blow $300 or more per month on a truck, just to save a few bucks in gas. I checked my truck's mileage log recently. It had 109,055 miles on it when I got it from my Mom in late 2002. It now has around 127,000, almost 6 years later. Kinda dumb to get into a payment over something that's only been averaging about 3,000 miles per year. |
|
|
|
I hate to throw cold water on this hot topic of small cars and fuel economy, but here in suburban Philadelphia, I filled my '07 Suburban Z71 with E85 for $2.89/gal yesterday and with the V8-V4 computer controlled engine, got 20.2 mph driving to Youngstown, Ohio on I-80 today. XM, NAV and AC running.  I drive a hydrocarbon Civic around town, but Reverend Al Gore you'll have to pry my big GM SUV out of my cold dead hands. 
|
|
|
Replying to: thegreatoz (Jun 03, 2008 3:13 pm) 20.2 MPH?! What happened? Did that V-8-6-4-0 break down and go into limp mode?  Just kidding, I knew ya meant mpg.  Actually, 20.2 mpg on the highway doesn't sound bad for something that size. Plus, aren't they supposed to get worse economy with E85? Just as a reference point, last year I went to Cedar Point in Ohio with some friends in a 2006 Xterra, and it was only averaging around 20 mpg on the highway.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: thegreatoz (Jun 03, 2008 3:13 pm) If you had put gas in it instead, what would your price have been per gallon?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jun 03, 2008 3:27 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Jun 04, 2008 6:23 am) A lot of it could depend on things like gearing, how much of a load he's carrying, terrain, etc. For instance, my uncle's '03 Corolla is a great flat surface car, but it doesn't like the mountains. The few times I've driven it up to PA, I'd have to really floor it on the upgrades if I didn't want to lose speed. And on the downgrades it just wasn't a good coaster. Take your foot off the gas and you'd lose speed and become a traffic hazard. My Intrepid does better in those hilly areas. It still needs a little kick in the rear on the upgrades, but not as bad as the Corolla does. And it coasts downhill better. But then the older vehicles I've taken on that run, like my '79 New Yorker, '76 LeMans, or '85 Silverado, they practically coast up the hills with little strain, and then you almost have to ride the brakes coming down. So in a situation like this, the terrain has a minimal effect on the bigger cars, but makes itself more noticeable on the smaller ones. As for cargo, well I could throw a ton of firewood in the back of my Silverado and hardly notice. With just 4 people in my Intrepid I can feel the strain, and with my uncle's Corolla, I can tell the difference with just one passenger. Sometimes, those bigger, torquier vehicles can handle being driven overly gently, because they're still strong enough to loaf along in a high gear. But when you try that with a smaller car that's used to revving, it just doesn't have the power. So you're either going to lose speed or probably shift down to a lower gear, which will use more fuel. I'd imagine the air conditioning in a smaller car will sap more fuel as well, but could be wrong here. I imagine they use smaller compressors for smaller cars, but in some cases they may not. Still, 29 mpg with a Suburban, using E85, sounds awfully optimistic. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 6:39 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: lemmer (Jun 04, 2008 6:42 am) Yeah, for the most part, the cars I've had would get close to what the EPA published. Well, the 1985-2007 style figures, at least. Any leadfoot should be able to achieve the dumbed-down figures they use now. The only car I ever had that was a pleasant surprise with fuel economy was a 1989 Gran Fury ex police car. It would guzzle to the tune of 11-13 mpg around town, but I was shocked to manage lower 20's out of it on the highway. It was only EPA-rated at 13/15! I'd be afraid to look at the new ratings. Probably more like 11/13, at best.  It just didn't add up, though. I mean, that thing had a 318-4bbl, 2.94 gearing, an antiquated 3-speed automatic with no overdrive, a lot of heavy duty components, and the aerodynamics of a brick! But, maybe the 4-bbl let it breathe better, and the quicker axle might've made it less likely to require downshifting. It also called for premium fuel, so if it was tuned that way, maybe that helped with the economy?
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 6:52 am) |
|
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
