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?
8684 messages, Last post on Dec 03, 2009 at 9:12 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 06, 2008 7:43 am) However, I was unimpressed with the drive.... Even the six-speed was not that great.. (no offense to PF Flyer who has one, and likes it just fine).
|
|
WSJ had a article yesterday about small car regrets. The point being that people who 'traded down' to save gas found themselves missing things...like electric windows and CD players! What a bunch of maroons! Just about any compact car can be equipped comfortably, it's like these people panicked. 
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (Nov 06, 2008 7:47 am) |
|
|
Replying to: kyfdx (Nov 06, 2008 7:47 am) My wife didn't like not being able to see the front edges of the Versa, but the MT one we tested did drive ok. They still look pretty small to me but I guess having 5 doors rules them out of the sub-compact class.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 06, 2008 7:43 am) Overall it's not as big as the Sentra, although the Versa might have a bit more legroom in back. However, believe it or not, the EPA classifies the Sentra as an intermediate! I've sat in the Versa at the auto shows, and to me it feels like they managed to mate the front seat of a compact with the back seat of a midsize. The Sentra's a lot bigger up front. I think the back seat might be tighter, legroom-wise than the Versa, but I don't remember it feeling cramped. However, the Sentra is still small for a midsized car...97 cubic feet of interior room and 13 cubic feet of trunk, for a combined total of 110. The range for an intermediate is 110-119. And most midsized cars tend to push the upper end of that range. The Accord, at 106/14, is actually classified as a full-sized car! |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Nov 06, 2008 8:19 am) I did end up with a sedan, and regret not paying the extra for a hatch, though.. Even though the wife has recently rectified that issue, by trading her convertible for an SUV, I still wish I had a hatch..
|
|
|
Replying to: kyfdx (Nov 06, 2008 8:22 am) We've always had sedans, wagons or vans, so a hatch would be a nice change. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: texases (Nov 06, 2008 7:47 am)  The only subcompacts without standard A/C were the Aveo before (that has ended now) and for '09 the Versa. Do you know how hard you had to search to find one actualy built without factory A/C? Ditto a CD player - try finding a base Yaris without the factory CD. Dealers usually only bring them in for fleet orders. Most subcompacts sold will have both. Now hand crank windows are easier to find, although you still have to search a bit. My point is that the woman in the article who traded an expensive Buick for an Aveo clearly had enough money to buy one with a CD player, she just didn't think before purchasing. Even an Aveo with the full power package should have been within reach of someone with a Buick budget. As for those of us who like their cars basic, it gratifies me that we can still find a few where we can crank up the windows by hand if we so choose... |
|
|
This is my first post, sorry if this has recently been discussed. I just read the civic hybrid vs. Fit article on edmunds. I don't understand what is going on with fuel economy in these smaller cars. I recently sold a '99 civic ex 5-speed that got 40 mpg highway, and low to mid 30's mpg city over the span of 9 years. I believe the car had 127 hp. When I purchased the car, gas was 99 cents a gallon, and I don't recall any type of big push for better fuel economy in cars. That same year ('99)you could buy a civic HX rated at 45 mpg highway. I would think that in 2008 we should be moving forward to better fuel economy, not backwards. Are the auto makers having to meet more strict emissions, thus cutting down on fuel economy, or is fuel economy still really not that big of a concern for the auto industry?
|
|
|
Replying to: dbarclay (Nov 06, 2008 10:13 am) I think if you compare similar-weight cars over the years, you'll find that fuel economy has improved. The problem though, is that cars keep growing, both in size and weight. And more safety features are getting added. Plus increasing emissions standards. And let's not forget the demand for power. FWIW, the EPA has the 1999 Civic HX rated at 30/38 for the stick and 29/35 with the automatic. That's using the revised, lower estimates that they use on current cars. For comparison, the regular versions of the Civic were rated at 27/34 for the stick, 24/32 for the automatic. The current 2009 Civic is rated at 26/34 for the stick, 25/36 for the automatic. So that's a pretty decent jump for the auto, about a wash for the stick. But the modern Civic is bigger, heavier, and more powerful than the 1999 was. As for the HX, didn't those cars have to do without amenities such as power steering and air conditioning, and also used skinnier tires and taller gearing? If so, that was probably just too much of a sacrifice for most buyers to deal with, so it wasn't popular enough for Honda to build a modern equivalent. I wonder though, what kind of economy you could get out of a 2009 Civic if you could somehow custom-order one with no a/c or power steering, throw skinnier tires on it, and play around with the gearing?
|
|
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
