You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

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

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

#7794 of 8691 Re: An economical & green Suburban [andre1969] by thegreatoz Jun 04, 2008 (10:42 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 03, 2008 3:26 pm) Ah, Cedar Point...my new favorite place, now that Conneaut Lake Park is history.   I don't want to sound like The Reverend Al Gore, but E85 on a long trip doesn't deserve the reputation it has acquired from its lousy mileage in stop-and-go driving.   However, from an aesthetic point of view..."Live Green Go Yellow" is a crock of crap because of what's happened to food prices.   Just my opinion.
#7795 of 8691 Re: An economical & green Suburban [andre1969] by thegreatoz Jun 04, 2008 (10:49 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Jun 04, 2008 6:39 am) Still, 29 mpg with a Suburban, using E85, sounds awfully optimistic.   Actually, that fellow was extrapolating 29 mpg for GAS, since I got 20.2 mpg on E85.   Sad thing, however, because I patronized the E85 station, I'll be paying 25-cents a slice more for pizza because of the corn shortage for food.
#7796 of 8691 Not sure if I mentioned this... by british_rover Jun 04, 2008 (1:52 pm)
on this forum yet but probably not. A client of mine last week on memorial day got a flat tire in New Jersey with his LR3. He drove from Jersey to CT at 55 mph because he has a compact spare and didn't want to push his luck. By going 55 mph he got 25 mpg actual mpg as he hand calculated it in a 300 hp, nearly 6,000 lbs, permanent 4WD SUV.Using the 2007 and under ratings that LR3 got 14/19. I know we had the lower speed does not necessarily translate to better mpg before but on his car it did. Replies to this message: qbrozen (Jun 04, 2008 2:05 pm) steve_ (Jun 04, 2008 2:11 pm) kyfdx (Jun 04, 2008 6:12 pm) steve_ (Jun 05, 2008 6:22 am) qbrozen (Jun 05, 2008 6:48 am) british_rover (Jun 05, 2008 7:30 am) thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 8:26 pm)
#7797 of 8691 Re: Not sure if I mentioned this... [british_rover] by qbrozen Jun 04, 2008 (2:05 pm)
Replying to: british_rover (Jun 04, 2008 1:52 pm) A compact spare in an AWD vehicle?? That could NOT have been good for the AWD system! Replies to this message: steve_ (Jun 04, 2008 2:11 pm) kyfdx (Jun 04, 2008 6:12 pm) steve_ (Jun 05, 2008 6:22 am) qbrozen (Jun 05, 2008 6:48 am) british_rover (Jun 05, 2008 7:30 am)
#7798 of 8691 Re: Not sure if I mentioned this... [qbrozen] by steve_ HOST Jun 04, 2008 (2:11 pm)
Replying to: qbrozen (Jun 04, 2008 2:05 pm) Think of the mpg he'd get with four hard skinny little compact spare tires installed.   Of course, most of the manufacturers say you shouldn't go over, what, ~50 miles? on them so the tire expense would eat up your savings.   Isn't it the diameter of the tire that the 4WD/AWD systems care about?
#7799 of 8691 Re: Not sure if I mentioned this... [qbrozen] by kyfdx HOST Jun 04, 2008 (6:12 pm)
Replying to: qbrozen (Jun 04, 2008 2:05 pm) Most compact spares for AWD vehicles are full diameter... They are just skinny... They aren't like the mini-compact spares you see for regular cars...   So, no issues with the AWD... Replies to this message: steve_ (Jun 05, 2008 6:22 am) qbrozen (Jun 05, 2008 6:48 am) british_rover (Jun 05, 2008 7:30 am)
#7800 of 8691 Re: Not sure if I mentioned this... [british_rover] by thegreatoz Jun 04, 2008 (8:26 pm)
Replying to: british_rover (Jun 04, 2008 1:52 pm) I'm probably showing my age, but when I was a kid...and before all the "anti-pollution" gear was installed, manufacturers of the big V8 engines said maximum fuel efficiency was achieved at 70 mph.   Years of weekend commuting to the NJ Shore on the Atlantic City Expressway, where the speed limit was 70, proved that to be true. 80+mph at night...or 50+mph in heavy traffic noticeably reduced gas mileage in my Ford Galaxie 500.
#7801 of 8691 Re: No more Suburban hijacking [thegreatoz] by nippononly Jun 05, 2008 (6:17 am)
Replying to: thegreatoz (Jun 04, 2008 10:29 am) "...and you'll not want to get a piddling 40-50 miles-per-whatever-unit of fuel."   Now that IS a refreshing perspective coming from a Suburban driver!   Personally I think 40 mpg is decent and 50 mpg is very good, FOR NOW. In five years 40 will be my new floor, and I will be looking to be making 50 mpg routinely, OR MORE. Preferably more. Automakers had better have something in the works.   And sadly, with the HUGE run-up in diesel prices, a run-up that has been much faster and much greater than the one in gas, it appears that diesels will NOT be the quick fix to our problems that I had hoped. It is good to have them anyway because of the fuel they conserve, but with prices so much higher than gas, they don't save any money vs a reasonably efficient gasser.   I really think it is time for all these small cars that exist globally to start offering at least one smaller-engine option like they have in other countries...
#7802 of 8691 Re: Not sure if I mentioned this... [kyfdx] by steve_ HOST Jun 05, 2008 (6:22 am)
Replying to: kyfdx (Jun 04, 2008 6:12 pm) Hmmm, I forgot about the mini-compact tires.   This is what triggered my mpg thoughts:   hpmctorque, "Will Narrower Tires With Wider Sidewalls Return, To Improve Fuel Economy?" #1, 4 Jun 2008 12:07 am
#7803 of 8691 Re: Not sure if I mentioned this... [kyfdx] by qbrozen Jun 05, 2008 (6:48 am)
Replying to: kyfdx (Jun 04, 2008 6:12 pm) I hope so.   Of course, in that case, I wouldn't call it "compact." After all, a compact car isn't merely narrow. ;P

You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?