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
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 19, 2009 7:33 am) I have an old Consumer Guide from 1985 that tested a Chevy Sprint. They didn't do their own 0-60 testing, but in the text it mentioned that GM estimated it could do 0-60 in about 12 seconds with the stick shift. If you didn't get air conditioning. Seriously, that's probably more than adequate for most driving. Heck, my two '79 New Yorkers, '76 LeMans, and '85 Silverado all take around 11-12 seconds to hit 60, and even so, it's not that often that I have to run them flat-out to get them to do what I need them to. And even merging onto highways, often it's pointless to run them flat-out, because then I'd be entering the highway faster than the flow of traffic, and only have to slow down.
|
|
|
Replying to: igozoomzoom (May 19, 2009 9:12 am) I dropped her off at the air port one time and drove it home for her. It didn't feel slow at all, but again that was an 1800 lb car. Hers was probably a later model, I think it had 62hp. I looked at those in 1991, but ended up in an Escort GT with 127hp. I guess I was tired of not being able to go up hills with the A/C on.  I recall looking at the price, and the HF was $300 cheaper than the LX or DX, IIRC, but those made 92hp. Then I thought...$30 per horse is a bargain. Didn't buy either, but I do remember shopping for them. I don't think the problem today is a lack of horsepower, when even the cheapest cars break 100hp. It's weight. It's scary how many fairly basic cars weigh over 3000 lbs. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: andre1969 (May 19, 2009 9:47 am) It is, a while back we timed ourselves in normal traffic. Typical 0-40mph times was between 12-15 seconds for a line of traffic coming off a stop light.
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (May 19, 2009 1:53 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: lilengineerboy (May 18, 2009 4:11 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (May 19, 2009 2:02 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: snakeweasel (May 19, 2009 5:15 pm) |
|
LOL 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 20, 2009 6:14 am)  Yes... both!
|
|
|
Replying to: thegraduate (May 20, 2009 8:02 pm) So, while it won't knock your socks off, it's still probably more than adequate for most needs. The only thing I'd worry about is highway merging. The 12-13 second 0-60 time doesn't scare me so much, but the quarter mile time does, and implies to me that the car is starting to get pushed to its limit after 60. For comparison, Consumer Reports tested a 1968 Dodge Dart with a 225 slant six (I remember this only because I used to own a similar 1969, so I know how it performed) and while it took them 14 seconds to get from 0-60, the quarter mile came in at 19 seconds at 72 mph. So, to get from 60 to 72 mph, it only took that car 5 seconds, while it's taking the Smart more like 6-7 seconds to get from 60 to 70.5 mph. And FWIW, that Dart seemed perfectly capable at the time, although I'm sure if I had it to drive today, it wouldn't be nearly as good as I remember! I also wonder then, how the Smart would do in highway passing? Such as, if you're cruising along at 65-70 and want to pass, but traffic in the passing lane is rolling past at a much faster clip. Would the Smart have the guts to pass safely?
|
|
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
