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?
8676 messages, Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 1:07 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
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....
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: texases (Aug 01, 2008 12:02 pm) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Aug 01, 2008 9:31 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: irismg (Aug 02, 2008 11:58 am) I personally feel that if I am going to spend time driving, it might as well be enjoyable. I am not talking about styling, I am talking about driving experience. I don't understand your reference about stealing something out of one car more than another or what you feel would draw attention to one car more than the others. If you are getting your needs met, I think you made the right decision for your situation.
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Aug 02, 2008 12:49 pm) I don't want a car that people are going to envy and want to steal all or part of it. I could have bought an "exciting" car that's maybe less reliable, or a "boring" car that I can count on and has lower insurance rates - the dreaded "appliance". I chose a boring, attractive car. My driving experience in my boring car is OK. It's the interior of the car that makes the driving experience for me rather than the exterior anyway, in my view, which for me means as long as I have my music and am comfortable and safe, I'm fine. I personally equate "fun-to-drive" with "driving like an idiot". I don't need that. Slow and sensible wins the race. I'm really not expecting anyone to "understand" this point of view. It's just that the other poster made some very good points that I agree with. And yes, I am getting my needs met by my choice.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: irismg (Aug 02, 2008 1:06 pm) I understand, I didn't mean to come across as critical of your choices; thats why we have choices, so everyone can get their needs met. I don't want a car that people are going to envy and want to steal all or part of it. I could have bought an "exciting" car that's maybe less reliable, or a "boring" car that I can count on and has lower insurance rates - the dreaded "appliance". I think this might be where we differentiate things. An interesting or exciting car need not scream "steal me" nor spend all of its days in the service bay. I haven't lost a vehicle (or any part) to theft nor have I spent a lot of time in the dealer's service department waiting room, and yet I have still found rides I would consider enjoyable. With the exception of my current vehicle, I wouldn't have considered any of my cars as appliances. My driving experience in my boring car is OK. It's the interior of the car that makes the driving experience for me rather than the exterior anyway, in my view, which for me means as long as I have my music and am comfortable and safe, I'm fine. To that end, I definitely agree with your decision, the Corolla gives a Lexus-like feeling inside until you actually touch anything. I personally equate "fun-to-drive" with "driving like an idiot". I don't need that. Slow and sensible wins the race. Its interesting that you implied that enjoying a drive is "driving like an idiot" but compared your driving style with racing. I'm really not expecting anyone to "understand" this point of view. It's just that the other poster made some very good points that I agree with. And yes, I am getting my needs met by my choice. That, my fellow forum contributor, is what its all about (to the contrary of those that feel putting your left foot in and shaking it around is what its all about).
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Aug 02, 2008 7:50 pm) It's a fable, "The Tortoise and the Hare," about who wins in life, not just about racing: the hot shot showoff or the nondescript but reliable plodder. I thought the terminology was appropos!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: irismg (Aug 03, 2008 8:10 am) Its the link between fun cars and exhibitionism I don't understand. And that somehow driving a penalty box gets you further ahead.
|
|
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
