Aston Martin readying Toyota iQ-based city car

[ChrisV]

I'm sorry, but this is a travesty of biblical proportions. This is a government-mandated Toyota iQ morphed into a bloated caricature of a proper Aston Martin. This isn't stylish, like a Radford Mini; this isn't whimsical, like a Fiat 500 Abarth SS; this isn't clever, cute or desirable - this is a prime example of the inherent ridiculousness of blanket fuel economy regulations slathered upon the entire industry. Forcing a manufacturer of weekend-driven fabulously-expensive GT coupes and convertibles to meet the same fuel economy average as manufacturers of daily-driven commuters and family cars.... my god!

Well, it could be worse. They could just not make cars at all... That would be sad, indeed.

But government regulations are always for our benefit!

[Madman]

Other countries do have freeways, you know.


A 1.0L 61HP Corsa may not be very nice on the freeway, but It can do it. It is capable of reaching and sustaining freeway speeds.

On one of my trips to the UK, I rented a Vauxhall Corsa Club with the 1.0 litre three cylinder.  I had no problem whatsoever on the motorways which, like the Interstates in most US states, have a 70 MPH speed limit.  Acceleration was no problem, either.  Proof you don't need a super-sized engine in a normal car.

Cheers,
Madman of the People

[r0tor]

i'll hold out for a ferrari version

[GoCougs]

On one of my trips to the UK, I rented a Vauxhall Corsa Club with the 1.0 litre three cylinder.  I had no problem whatsoever on the motorways which, like the Interstates in most US states, have a 70 MPH speed limit.  Acceleration was no problem, either.  Proof you don't need a super-sized engine in a normal car.

Cheers,
Madman of the People

Need = want in America, and I need my ~270 hp V6 in my Accord, Camry, Altima, etc...

[cawimmer430]

I seriously don't understand Americans.

They want "200-hp economy cars". What the fuck is a 200-hp economy car!? It's an oxymoron.   

[ChrisV]

I seriously don't understand Americans.

They want "200-hp economy cars". What the fuck is a 200-hp economy car!? It's an oxymoron.    

What the fuck is an expensive "economy" car, either?

There are actually a lot of Americans that agree with you. But the fact is, most of us that do also do not buy new cars, as it's false economy to spend $14k+ on a new "economy car" to save a few bucks at the pump, when a $2-3k used car will save you vastly more money annually, even if it doesn't get the greatest fuel mileage. The kinds of people that have no problem putting up with a 100hp or less economy car also have no problem putting up with a 10-20 year old car.

[cawimmer430]

What the fuck is an expensive "economy" car, either?

There are actually a lot of Americans that agree with you. But the fact is, most of us that do also do not buy new cars, as it's false economy to spend $14k+ on a new "economy car" to save a few bucks at the pump, when a $2-3k used car will save you vastly more money annually, even if it doesn't get the greatest fuel mileage. The kinds of people that have no problem putting up with a 100hp or less economy car also have no problem putting up with a 10-20 year old car.

Maybe it is just the impression Carspinners are giving me. When there is talk about the Fiat 500 coming over the general attitude is that the lesser engines can go f_ck themselves () while only the Abarth model is welcome here yadda yadda...   

I see your point though.

[ChrisV]

Well, if you're going to buy a new car, then why buy the "lesser version" if there isn't substantial savings in insurance or whatever? Sporty cars can get away with that, becasue they have other things going for them, and the "slow" versions are not necesarily slow overall, merely in comparison to the faster versions. But economy cars really don't offer "economy" if all they really offer is expensive "slow" in comparison to something that will really save you money.

[cawimmer430]

Well, if you're going to buy a new car, then why buy the "lesser version" if there isn't substantial savings in insurance or whatever? Sporty cars can get away with that, becasue they have other things going for them, and the "slow" versions are not necesarily slow overall, merely in comparison to the faster versions. But economy cars really don't offer "economy" if all they really offer is expensive "slow" in comparison to something that will really save you money.

Well, not everyone in the US will want an Abarth Fiat 500. Some old lady might find the car cute and will be perfectly happy with the say 1.2 or 1.4 liter engine choices. It suits her driving style. And the Fiat 500 is a car that appeals to a broad range of consumers: young and old, male and female etc. Bringing over the Abarth will limit its appeal.

[Raza]

Maybe it is just the impression Carspinners are giving me. When there is talk about the Fiat 500 coming over the general attitude is that the lesser engines can go f_ck themselves () while only the Abarth model is welcome here yadda yadda...   

I see your point though.

If you're going to put down the money for a new car, why wouldn't you want one that can keep up with the new car crop?  I see where you're coming from, and I definitely understand the mindset of the new-car buyer, but if my choice is between the in vogue expensive economy car or a two or three year old used car that will be more practical, outperform it, cost me less in depreciation, et al, I'd be looking at MkIV GTIs or EP3 CSis or SVT Foci instead of spending 10 grand on a car with 69bhp.

And on top of that, there are already cars in that segment that have 100bhp or more; so it would come out uncompetitive.  And add to that the fact that American roads are different from European ones, you have a recipe for a market failure for a sub-100hp car that costs as much as one that is more powerful and practical.  The "what if I..." scenarios play a lot into the minds of people when they're shopping for a car, trust me.  People don't often buy to fulfill their needs, they buy to fulfill a need that they may possibly encounter a few years down the road. 

[Raza]

Well, not everyone in the US will want an Abarth Fiat 500. Some old lady might find the car cute and will be perfectly happy with the say 1.2 or 1.4 liter engine choices. It suits her driving style. And the Fiat 500 is a car that appeals to a broad range of consumers: young and old, male and female etc. Bringing over the Abarth will limit its appeal.

And that's why you sell two versions.  You build a car for enthusiasts (say, the M3) to sell cars for everyone else (like the 328i).  The Abarth 500 would sell to people like me or Craig or Chris, and then to the people who don't care about performance would buy the lesser versions just to get the looks. 

Of course, as I recall, the 1.4L four is the same engine from the Panda 100HP, so that's okay in my book (as long as the 500 doesn't gain weight in the long boat trip across the Atlantic).

[2o6]

And that's why you sell two versions.  You build a car for enthusiasts (say, the M3) to sell cars for everyone else (like the 328i).  The Abarth 500 would sell to people like me or Craig or Chris, and then to the people who don't care about performance would buy the lesser versions just to get the looks. 

Of course, as I recall, the 1.4L four is the same engine from the Panda 100HP, so that's okay in my book (as long as the 500 doesn't gain weight in the long boat trip across the Atlantic).

I don't think you guys are grasping the Size of the Panda and 500. You guys think 80HP isn't enough, but the Panda is 6 inches shorter than a Yaris 3-door.

[280Z Turbo]

I don't think you guys are grasping the Size of the Panda and 500. You guys think 80HP isn't enough, but the Panda is 6 inches shorter than a Yaris 3-door.

There are diminishing losses you get from making a car smaller. The 500 is not very light.

80 hp could feel quite lively...in an open wheel formula car.

[2o6]

There are diminishing losses you get from making a car smaller. The 500 is not very light.

80 hp could feel quite lively...in an open wheel formula car.

The 500 is ~2000lbs, Give or take.

[Laconian]

500 = 2200lbs, Yaris = 2295 lbs.

The Modus 1.4 I drove for the better part of a month felt totally adequate around town and on the highways, despite being a taller vehicle. Proper gearing can disguise power deficiencies pretty well.

[2o6]

500 = 2200lbs, Yaris = 2295 lbs.

The Modus 1.4 I drove for the better part of a month felt totally adequate around town and on the highways, despite being a taller vehicle. Proper gearing can disguise power deficiencies pretty well.

And heavier too!

500 = 2200lbs,

I'm getting 1907Lbs - 2161lbs.

[280Z Turbo]

The 500 is ~2000lbs, Give or take.

Hmmm...I'm seeing about 2100-2220 lbs. I thought I read it was more like 2500 lbs.

[2o6]

Hmmm...I'm seeing about 2100-2220 lbs. I thought I read it was more like 2500 lbs.

Gosh, no. 2500 is Civic territory.


The Panda is even lighter.

[Raza]

I don't think you guys are grasping the Size of the Panda and 500. You guys think 80HP isn't enough, but the Panda is 6 inches shorter than a Yaris 3-door.

I think I really am.  Is there any particular reason you think you're the only one with the spatial awareness enough to read a fucking spec sheet and figure out how long a car is?

The Panda 100HP does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds.  That's not particularly fast, even when compared to the smallest economy cars we have here.  And that's the top line sporting version. 

[2o6]

I think I really am.  Is there any particular reason you think you're the only one with the spatial awareness enough to read a fucking spec sheet and figure out how long a car is?

The Panda 100HP does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds.  That's not particularly fast, even when compared to the smallest economy cars we have here.  And that's the top line sporting version. 

I think I quoted the wrong person.

[CALL_911]

I don't think you guys are grasping the Size of the Panda and 500. You guys think 80HP isn't enough, but the Panda is 6 inches shorter than a Yaris 3-door.

1. You haven't seen one in your life. You're grasping it just as well as everyone here is.
2. Stop Randomly Capitalizing things.

[cawimmer430]

If you're going to put down the money for a new car, why wouldn't you want one that can keep up with the new car crop?  I see where you're coming from, and I definitely understand the mindset of the new-car buyer, but if my choice is between the in vogue expensive economy car or a two or three year old used car that will be more practical, outperform it, cost me less in depreciation, et al, I'd be looking at MkIV GTIs or EP3 CSis or SVT Foci instead of spending 10 grand on a car with 69bhp.

And on top of that, there are already cars in that segment that have 100bhp or more; so it would come out uncompetitive.  And add to that the fact that American roads are different from European ones, you have a recipe for a market failure for a sub-100hp car that costs as much as one that is more powerful and practical.  The "what if I..." scenarios play a lot into the minds of people when they're shopping for a car, trust me.  People don't often buy to fulfill their needs, they buy to fulfill a need that they may possibly encounter a few years down the road. 

But my point is that people will hopefully buy what they need. Let's look at me for example. Let's say I am interested in a Mercedes C-Class. I'd buy the model that suits my needs. I want something reasonably quick and fuel efficient. A C220 CDI or a C250 CDI would address that requirement on the diesel side. A C200 Kompressor would be the ideal gasoline model for me, maybe even the C280, maybe. I am realistic when it comes to what I need. I suspect that there are plenty of folks in the US too that think like this. So why bring over only the Abarth version of the 500? How about bringing over the 1.4 and the Abarth model to give people a choice. Those seeking the cuteness factor can have their fun with the zippy 1.4 model while those who want speed and aggressive looks can go for the Abarth. Very simple. 

[cawimmer430]

And that's why you sell two versions.  You build a car for enthusiasts (say, the M3) to sell cars for everyone else (like the 328i).  The Abarth 500 would sell to people like me or Craig or Chris, and then to the people who don't care about performance would buy the lesser versions just to get the looks. 

Of course, as I recall, the 1.4L four is the same engine from the Panda 100HP, so that's okay in my book (as long as the 500 doesn't gain weight in the long boat trip across the Atlantic).

Don't let the 1.4 badge fool you. Most European mini cars with such small engines are quite zippy and agile these days. They feel like little pocket rockets in the city. The only place where their performance begins to falter is on the Autobahn.

I once had to do errands for an advertising firm in Munich with a Volkswagen Lupo 1.0. In the city the thing was quick and agile, but on the Autobahn it was begging for mercy...

[Tave]

1. You haven't seen one in your life. You're grasping it just as well as everyone here is.

Fuck youse! I've seen both.