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

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

8674 messages,  Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 11:23 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

#8040 of 8674 Re: Give Ford a (little) break! [podred] by dtownfb Sep 11, 2008 (6:19 pm)
Replying to: podred (Sep 11, 2008 2:29 pm) Considering Honda is considered one of the best engine companies in the world, i find your explanation pretty far fetch. Honda is regularly recognized as having the most fuel efficient lineup not by us on this forum but by the experts. Quite honestly if your Pilot is getting that bad gas mileage, you need to get it checked out. Replies to this message: podred (Sep 15, 2008 12:08 pm) dtownfb (Sep 15, 2008 8:30 pm)
#8041 of 8674 Re: Give Ford a (little) break! [podred] by lemmer Sep 12, 2008 (5:53 am)
Replying to: podred (Sep 11, 2008 4:44 pm) In our Pilot, my 23 MPG number was for 80 MPH. The funny thing is I've always thought that Hondas do better than their EPA numbers. Our Pilot is the only one of our 6 Honda/Acuras owned that merely met rather than exceeded EPA ratings. I've only had one Toyota product - a Lexus RX300 that got a little below its ratings. I guess our small pool of anecdotal evidence cancels each other out.   To get back on topic, our Integras and Civics were incredible subcompacts - great mileage, great reliability and fun to drive. Replies to this message: andre1969 (Sep 12, 2008 6:15 am)
#8042 of 8674 Re: Give Ford a (little) break! [lemmer] by andre1969 Sep 12, 2008 (6:15 am)
Replying to: lemmer (Sep 12, 2008 5:53 am) Now that I think about it, the one experience I have tracking fuel economy with my uncle's '03 Corolla, it didn't make its EPA highway estimate! It's rated 30/38 (probably something like 26/35 with the new numbers they started using in '07). Last year I drove it up to PA and back, almost pure highway driving, no a/c use, and taking it easy. Maybe 60-65 for the most part, occasionally getting to 70 if needed, and trying to time speeding up and slowing down so I didn't have to floor it, or jam on the brakes unneccesarily. I ended up getting 37.4 mpg. Close to that EPA estimate, but still just a tad below. Still, I was impressed at the economy. At first.   Then, I started driving my Intrepid that way, whenever I'd make that trip up there, and found that it was actually easy to make it beat its EPA estimate! The last time I drove it up there, in June, I got about 32 going up and 31 coming back. Main difference was that coming back I was using the a/c more, and driving a bit faster. But still, trying to stay around 60-65, with an occasional romp to 70. It's rated at 20/29. Probably 18/27 with the new numbers.   I guess one thing that could account for the discrepancy here though, was the terrain. While the trip was practically pure highway, there are a few steep hills between here and there. The Intrepid is less likely to downshift on the up-grades, and could maintain its speed on some of the downhill slopes with no pedal pressure at all. I'd have to give the Corolla some gas even on the downhill portions, or it would lose enough speed to become a road hazard.
#8043 of 8674 Fuel Economy by alltorque Sep 12, 2008 (7:24 am)
Reading many posts re actual MPG vs EPA figures and would comment as follows :   MPG figures from EPA in USA or EU-specified sequence testing here in Europe are surely only to be taken as a comparative guide to that model's likely fuel consumption in various theoretical situations. Here in Europe it is widely believed that our "Official" figures are over-optimistic by around 8%.............but that varies model-to-model etc. Even the manufacturers are pressing for a change to the testing sequences to give more reliable "real world" figures. Having great mileage figures according to standard tests looks great in the brochure but becomes less attaractive when Joe Public complains that he can't match them, so it's in everyone's interests to be as accurate as is possible. Of course, there will never be all-encompassing accuracy due to manufacturing tolerances, geographical differences, (terrain), driving styles, vehicle loadings etc etc ad infinitum.   My wife's Honda Jazz, (Fit), is the 1.4 7A model and the EU Combined Sequence mpg is claimed as being circa 45mpg, (imperial gallon). When she drives it she gets 40 - 42 mpg but that 95% town/urban driving and she's very happy with that. (I can't get that 'cos I drive it like the sports hatch I want it to be using the flappy-paddle gearchange - bad boy me). I know the lowered economy is down to me and accept it. I know that if I drive my Volvo S60 D5 Geartroninc like a saint then I can achieve some really outstanding numbers. When I drive it like a sporty saloon, (not that much of an oxymoron), then I know I'm going to be visiting the diesel pump a lot sooner.............but, by jove, it's worth it.   What I'm saying, in an awfully roundabout way, is that "Official" figures are, at best, a rough guide based on specific operating criteria. If you're getting in the region of those numbers be happy - if you're numbers are wildly different and there are no obviously adverse factors then go see the dealer. Being out by a couple of mpg is no cause for concern. If you like the car and the fuel economy isn't hurting too much............smile. There are worse things that getting mpg that doesn't quite match the EPA or EU guesstimates.   Back to topic - I am giving Ford a break. After many years of producing mediocre cars, I now believe they are producing some very good ones, (at least here in Europe). Same goes for GM with their mainline Vauxhall/Opel brands.   Thank you listenin g to an old man. Have a great weekend.
#8045 of 8674 Re: Give Ford a (little) break! [lilengineerboy] by ateixeira Sep 12, 2008 (8:55 am)
Replying to: lilengineerboy (Sep 11, 2008 5:08 pm) the vans are 16/23 and the Flex is 16/22, again, not a real difference   Hmm, debatable. The Flex has a 6 speed automatic and the AWD Sienna only has 5, so it should be better, not worse.   The weight hurts for sure. Replies to this message: andre1969 (Sep 12, 2008 10:26 am) ateixeira (Sep 15, 2008 10:19 am)
#8046 of 8674 Re: Give Ford a (little) break! [ateixeira] by andre1969 Sep 12, 2008 (10:26 am)
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 12, 2008 8:55 am) Actually for 2009, the EPA's website has the the Sienna 4wd rated at 16/21, compared to 16/22 for the 4wd Flex.   For 2wd models, it's 17/23 for the Sienna and 17/24 for the Flex.   Speaking of transmissions and the "benefit" of an extra gear, could someone explain why the 2009 Charger 3.5 is rated 17/25 with the 4-speed, yet 16/25 with the 5-speed? Replies to this message: ateixeira (Sep 15, 2008 10:19 am)
#8047 of 8674 Re: Give Ford a (little) break! [andre1969] by ateixeira Sep 15, 2008 (10:19 am)
Replying to: andre1969 (Sep 12, 2008 10:26 am) I wonder why the change?   In the real world I do waaaaay better then the EPA numbers with my Sienna. I can beat 21 mpg around town, though mine is FWD.   Any how, the high end Siennas with that curb weight include power sliding doors on both sides, power folding 3rd rows, and a power hatch. Those have got to weight more than a single fridge. And the Sienna has 2 center consoles as well, for 1st and 2nd rows.
#8048 of 8674 a small mea culpa by nippononly Sep 15, 2008 (11:59 am)
from Ford:   "But Americans will have to wait until 2010 for the Fiesta, which needs to be modified to meet U.S. government requirements.   "We recognize that we're late, with this car, to market," said Derrick Kuzak, Ford's head of global product development. "So, it really has to stand out. It has to stand out in its design. It has to stand out in how it drives."   So far, it appears to be doing all that and more. European journalists are already short-listing the Fiesta for 2009 car of the year."   http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080915/AUTO01/809150365/1148-   Apart from that, there are some things in there that make it sound pretty attractive:   - ...anticipated gas mileage of 31 miles per gallon in the city and 39 mpg on the highway...   - The nimble Fiesta eats up the narrow, twisting roads of the Tuscan hills with relish and its economical engine provides plenty of pep.   - What is most surprising, however, is the interior.....the Fiesta sports an über-modern two-tone design. Soft-touch surfaces are the norm, something surprising in a car of this class. But it also is quite comfortable, even for an American-sized adult.   And perhaps most encouraging, in terms of the content they will make available to us slothful Americans: - Farley believes that there is "small but significant" number of American consumers who would gladly pay $17,000 or $18,000 for a nicely equipped model.   They hope to sell 75K/year. Since it's Ford, it's hard to call how well the Fiesta will do, as there is such ample opportunity for them to screw it up. But I have my fingers crossed that this adds one to the very short list of "premium" subcompacts we unworthy Americans get... Replies to this message: plekto (Sep 15, 2008 12:55 pm) nippononly (Sep 15, 2008 8:33 pm) plekto (Sep 16, 2008 12:31 pm) and 2 more...
#8049 of 8674 Re: Give Ford a (little) break! [dtownfb] by podred Sep 15, 2008 (12:08 pm)
Replying to: dtownfb (Sep 11, 2008 6:19 pm) Considering Honda is considered one of the best engine companies in the world, i find your explanation pretty far fetch. Honda is regularly recognized as having the most fuel efficient lineup not by us on this forum but by the experts. Quite honestly if your Pilot is getting that bad gas mileage, you need to get it checked out. . I agree that Honda makes great engines. I have alot of experience with Honda cars and motorcycles. They did check my Pilot out, and if you read my entry, you will remember they gave me a second new one to satisfy my demands. Yet that second Pilot was a gas hog just like the first. I'm reporting just the facts. You can choose to ignore it, but you'll be sorry if you buy one of these. As I also mentioned in my post, I have spoken with numerous other Pilot owners that have the same experience. Finally you will notice that at no time did I indicate I was upset, or angry over the issue. lt simply is what it is. Pilot's are gas hogs. So What? I simply dumped it and bought something else. But that did not sour me on Honda products, as I just bought a new 2009 Fit. The first one in my region. Mileage.... exactly what's on the sticker. So it just goes to show you that it's primarily a characteristic of the V-6 used in the Pilot and their Van. Also it's important to note that not everyone is capable, or understands how to calculate fuel mileage accurately. As an engineer by formal education, I tend to be very particular about specifics. Thus I fill my vehicle up at the same pump at the same station near home, whenever I'm testing for mileage.   Cheers Replies to this message: dtownfb (Sep 15, 2008 8:30 pm)

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