Like it so far. It’s a fun little car. We’re not motorheads at all, don’t really care about performance, toys, and such. We want dependability, decent mileage, a listenable stereo. Cruise and air are nice but not required (our Aveo has neither). It has lots of room on the dash for stuff (there’s basically none in the Aspire). So far a smooth and quiet ride; I find it easy to get up to 65 without realizing it; the Aspire is a lumber wagon by comparison. You have to use the key to lock the driver-side door, a nice feature for people like me who are always locking their keys in the car. Decent speakers, but only an AM/FM radio; we’ll be putting in Sirius/CD when we get a chance. Rear window visibility is a little small at first, but you get used to it.
We got the hatchback for the extra cargo room. But the “trunk” space is pretty tiny, although so far it’s been enough for groceries, shopping trips, etc. When you fold the seats down (which we haven’t done since the dealership) it’s a fair amount of room for a putt-putt car. It’s just the two of us, no kids, and no way are we letting the dogs in it until it’s a lot more run down!
Yesterday’s mileage check was 37 MPG.
I think that’s about it. I get happy when I see other Aveos in parking lots and such.
I have no problem with the Mazda 3’s mileage–it’s not a comparable car to the Chevette. It’s just that mid-30s mpg is nothing spectacular when mid-80s vehicles have touched in the 50 mpg range. I’m just surprised no car manufacturers are building smaller and lighter cars, in the same vein as the Chevette and Sprint, but updated for this decade’s stylings. I’m sure there’d be a market for it.
The point being made is that you can’t make cars that small and light anymore, because of increased safety standards and increased standard equipment. Doors have to have side impact beams. There are six airbags, ABS brakes, rollover protection, stability control, collapsible steering wheels… Chassis are made much stiffer today because the consumer demands it - a stiff chassis allows for a more precise suspension setup, but it also adds weight.
That Chevette weighed less than 2000 lbs. The Mazda 3 weighs almost 2800 lbs. The Chevette had a 70 HP engine. The Mazda 3 has 150. That the two cars get the same gas mileage is a testament to how much better powertrains have gotten.
If you want to see what it takes to get a modern certifiable road car under 2000 lbs, look at the Lotus Elise. It’s a tiny car with a special lightweight bathtub frame and sparse interior with little soundproofing. It weighs more than a Chevette. Or the Smart Fourtwo, which is in the same weight league. Any normal sized modern car will be much heavier than its 1980’s equivalent.
Once again, the Chevette doesn’t weigh less. At least not the 1985 model which I’ve been referencing and have personal experience with.
The American Smart Fourtwo, as referenced in this thread, gets somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 mpg. We’re in the same weight class, with an extra 20 years of technology behind us, and we still can’t top 80s technology for mileage? Actually, it seems we can, as the European version gets closer to 60 mpg, but nobody seems to want to sell an underpowered ultra-high mileage vehicle here, I guess. It’d still be nice to have the option.
That is Fifth Gear, Channel Five’s imitation, not Top Gear.
They gloss over crumple zones as if having a rigid cage is the main thing. But crumple zones drastically reduce deceleration, i.e. force, in an impact, and tiny cars like the Smart basically have none. In many situations, you’d be better off in a car that falls to bits on impact.
If the primary feature of interest is fuel economy, color me as unimpressed. I can see the advantage for inner city dwellers that may have parking space issues, but otherwise no thanks. I currently get 30 mph (highway) with my full size 2005 Bonneville plus much more flexibility for use options.
