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

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

8656 messages,  Last post on Nov 29, 2009 at 3:06 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

#7917 of 8656 press request by kirstie_h HOST Jul 31, 2008 (10:16 am)
A reporter with a national newspaper would like to speak with consumers who are moving away from large SUVs and trucks to smaller compact cars and also consumers who are taking advantage of the lower prices and purchased a large SUV or truck. If you are a new owner, please respond to ctalatiedmunds.com with your daytime contact information no later than Monday, August 4th.
#7918 of 8656 Re: Civic vs Corolla [ateixeira] by nippononly Jul 31, 2008 (3:44 pm)
Replying to: ateixeira (Jul 31, 2008 10:15 am) Wow, I'm not quite sure what I did to spur those comments. I believe we were talking about how they were updating the Fit to handle worse, but provide a smoother ride while doing so. I called it Camry-ization, simply because that is what the Camry is: quiet, smooth, a very poor handler. They would have to GUT the Fit to make it handle as poorly as a Camry, and I'm sure they won't. Camry-ization is a process, not an overnight transformation.   Beyond that, I have driven many many MANY miles at the wheel of my friend's Sienna at this point, and I would agree that in a van what do you really want besides smooth power and ride, lots of isolation from road noise, maybe some decent emergency handling (which I'm not convinced the Sienna would have, but I haven't tried - not my van!). Sienna scores well in the areas that van buyers would prioritize, I imagine. The proof is in the pudding - it's the best-selling minivan now, right? Me, I would find another way to transport my family, unless I had more fannies than a 5-seat sedan could accomodate. Or if I was wealthy enough, I would have the Sienna just for highway trips - that van really excels in that area - little noise intrudes, the ride is sooo smooth, power is good and brakes are decent, and it tracks straight without requiring lots of steering input, despite the high sides.   I would have 2 subcompacts for the rest of the time!   Oh, and as regards this: For people that want quiet isolation, IMO Toyota > Honda. I would just say this is completely 100% true in every class of car there is where the two go head to head. Even between the Fit and the Yaris, it is evident after 1 minute of driving that the Honda is noisier, with a busier ride. The trade-off is the Yaris isn't as good a handler, and the Fit is more fun to drive. Replies to this message: ateixeira (Aug 01, 2008 9:31 am) irismg (Aug 02, 2008 11:58 am) lilengineerboy (Aug 02, 2008 12:49 pm) and 5 more... ateixeira (Aug 04, 2008 6:05 am)
#7919 of 8656 Re: Civic vs Corolla [nippononly] by ateixeira Aug 01, 2008 (9:31 am)
Replying to: nippononly (Jul 31, 2008 3:44 pm) Sorry, again, it wasn't targeted at you, in fact I mentioned that. Yours was just the last post on the subject.   It's not even limited to comments I've heard in this thread. It's just this overall sentiment towards Toyota from enthusiasts, that comfort and quiet are seemingly bad things. Not so, if that is what a buyer is looking for.   I think when "Camry" is used as an adjective, it's almost always condescending. Yet it's the best selling car in America, so Toyota is just giving people what they want.   If a Camry could talk, it would reponse like so....   Sure, I'm soft and isolated, and don't handle like a sports car, but 2/3rds of Americans are overweight and need the room and enjoy the comfort, and could not fit in the Recaro seats of an EVO X if their life depended on it. And my cup holders are better so there.     Replies to this message: irismg (Aug 02, 2008 11:58 am) lilengineerboy (Aug 02, 2008 12:49 pm) irismg (Aug 02, 2008 1:06 pm) and 4 more... ateixeira (Aug 04, 2008 6:05 am)
#7923 of 8656 So much for the 'good old days' by texases Aug 01, 2008 (12:02 pm)
I came across an archive article on the C/D web site where they tried to 'hypermile' a '74 Pinto. Amazing numbers: Base car at steady 70 mph: 14.6 mpg (honest!) Max with all add on (radial tires, aero ads, 2 blade fan): 18.1 mpg   Makes a 35 mpg Fit look pretty good.... Replies to this message: andre1969 (Aug 01, 2008 6:44 pm)
#7925 of 8656 re: [lemmer] by ateixeira Aug 01, 2008 (12:54 pm)
Agreed, but what I'm saying is that I think folks like C&D don't realize that it is indeed subjective.   And when they evaluate minivans, maybe spend less time at the track, and more time car-pooling, carrying people and their stuff, which is what vans do.   They even complained that the 3rd row was hard to fold, and gushed over the Dodge's power folding ones - yet Toyota offered them first!   Most cases of beer! In all configurations. Game Over for me. LOL   Any how, rant over, back to subcompacts. Hopefully a few more people will understand that some people intentionally choose ride over handling.
#7926 of 8656 Re: So much for the 'good old days' [texases] by andre1969 Aug 01, 2008 (6:44 pm)
Replying to: texases (Aug 01, 2008 12:02 pm) That's really pretty sad when you consider I could get 22-23 mpg out of a '69 Dart slant six, doing 70-75 mph with the a/c going full blast, and a few passengers in the car.   Now sure, cars got worse in the 70's, but I've been able to get about 17.4 out of my '76 LeMans, 350-4bbl, and 18 out of my '79 New Yorker, 360-2bbl.   I have heard thought, that 1974 was about the worst year ever for fuel economy. All that rudimentary smog crap really hurt fuel economy, and when the catalytic converter came out for 1975, it actually improved things alot.

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