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?
8564 messages, Last post on Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
|
|---|---|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dbarclay (Nov 06, 2008 10:13 am) Fuel economy hasn't been a big concern until two years ago, which is why the cars you have available today still reflect that old way of thinking. And there's no guarantee that automakers will continue to prioritize it now, if gas prices drop down and stay low for the next few years. And of course, a lot of older models that were very fuel-efficient were also quite slow by today's standards. My wish is that automakers would start to produce some slower cars again, because they could save a lot of gas if they did. Commuter cars don't need to do 0-60 in 7 seconds, or even 8 or 9. Nissan has made a preliminary step in that direction by offering a 1.6L Versa for '09, with a lower base price. If Toyota does go ahead and follow suit with the 1.3L Yaris, we may see others follow suit. Rumor has it that Honda may be considering a similar step for the Fit. |
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 10:25 am) I am sure the new civic hybrid, or non-hybrid are a safer, better car overall now than they were 10 years ago. But, I was just surprised to see a mix city/highway real world test of a hybrid version getting only 36 mpg, within a couple mpg of what I got out of a non hybrid model 10 years ago. I luckily always got better mpg than listed for that civic. That is not the case with my wife's 02 corolla which has overall done a few mpg lower than the sticker estimate. I wonder what happened to the Honda insight? With $4.00 gas prices a couple months ago, I am surprised it did not come back into production. |
|
|
Replying to: dbarclay (Nov 06, 2008 10:13 am) They did it ealier, too. I forget when. So we can't compare EPA numbers from the 1980s to today's numbers. They've been adjusted downward at least twice. The other issue is mentioned above - the Sentra is now mid-sized, and the Accord is full-sized. Today's Sentra is more efficient than Nissan's mid-sizer from a decade ago (Altima). Just like a full-size Accord 4 cylinder easily beats any full-sizer from the 90s.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 06, 2008 12:23 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: kyfdx (Nov 06, 2008 12:27 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 06, 2008 12:23 pm) They did it ealier, too. I forget when. The first time they adjusted the numbers was 1985. From 1978-84 they'd publish the raw numbers, although sometimes instead of giving you city/highway AND combined, they'd just show the combined number. If you dig around on the EPA's website, there's a place where you can download data files that show you the raw, unadjusted numbers. My 2000 Intrepid, which was EPA-rated 20/29 when I bought it, and something like 18/27 by the new numbers, scored something like 24/38 in the raw, unadjusted numbers! The Impala, back when it used the 3.4 V-6, got 24/41! My uncle's 2003 Corolla, with automatic, scored 32/48 in the raw numbers. Its window sticker said 30/38, and I guess it's dumbed down to 25/36 with the 2008 numbers. Oh, and just for kicks, a Toyota Echo with the stick shift scored 39/54 in the raw numbers. Something for you to shoot for, Nippononly! 
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (Nov 06, 2008 12:42 pm) |
|
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
