Compact car sales interesting figures

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
No matter how it compared to the market in general the cavalier was a great little car.

Sometimes it's better to be a bit back from the 'cutting edge'.


You think? The 95 Cavalier was a much better car than 95 Civic. However 96 Civic came out and crushed it. There was not much cutting edge about cars back in 1995-2000. Before that no comment on Cavalier. I only drove the Caddilac version and thought it was awful back in the 1980's.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: LT4 Vette
Lets not forget that the Honda Civic has and will always be a Point A to Point B type of car. A simple yet boring low frills vehicle (same goes for Corolla). I own a 2007 Civic EX and its a great car... probably will keep it another 7-8 years.

Now if you want something special then you need to buy a Lexus, BMW, Benz, Audi or some other fancy car.



Not necessarily.
The Civics of old, like our old '76 and the two '86 wagons we had, were actually quite engaging to drive.
They were fun to pound on, cornered well and were generally very alert little things.
Great shifters and very direct steering with no power assist needed.
Engines that pulled hard all the way to redline and beyond.
Mechanically very solid cars as well.
The Fit may be the same type of car.
The current Civic certainly isn't.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: rjundi

You think? The 95 Cavalier was a much better car than 95 Civic.


You're serious?
You must have driven much better Cavies of that generation than the almost brand new rentals I had the displeasure of driving.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
No matter how it compared to the market in general the cavalier was a great little car.

Sometimes it's better to be a bit back from the 'cutting edge'.


You think? The 95 Cavalier was a much better car than 95 Civic. However 96 Civic came out and crushed it....

What?
What was significantly better between the EH9 and EK8? One has a D16Z6, the other has a D16Y8. Many debates on which one is better but they are essentially similar. One has aluminum shift forks, the other steel. Mechanically, that's pretty much it. They are otherwise largely identical.

How was a Cavalier better than an EH9? The EH9 had 4 wheel disc brakes with ABS, fully independant suspension, VTEC motor, and in spite of their odd headrest mounts, better seats and interior. The Cavalier appears to have been styled after the 5th gen Civic

The 6th gen Civic does have a more traditional grill. Is that what made it "much better" than the 5th gen Civic and Cavalier?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Remember my definition of the Cavalier 'class' of car is transportation. Not expecting any fun or engagement! Just true economy. That means can I go for many years with minor maintenance.

That's what an old gen Cav was good for. We had them for teen drivers and they rock for 'cheap to keep' quotient. They were also pretty stout in a crash for a tin box.

Heck, one of the Pontiac Sunfire variants was still in our family until last year!!! OMG, that thing would NOT die!!!

 

[fdcg27]

With an old Civic you could have both operating economy and driving entertainment.
Why settle for only economy when you could have both?
My old four cylinder BMW offers a similar combination of operating economy and reliability, and it is an old car now.
We've put 20K trouble free miles on the old dear over the last two summers, really only parking it for road salt season, a problem you don't have down there.
There was a time when economical operation and driving fun were not mutually exclusive.
Economical, reliable fun to drive cars were once common.

 

[sciphi]

I was never impressed by any Cavalier. The Cobalt was competitive with the 4th gen Civic. It was crushed by the late 5th gen and 6th gen Civic.

Steve, those old GM compact cars certainly did not die. If one wanted a car that would not die, a Cavalier or Cobalt was an ideal choice. Yes, the interior might be shot, the struts might be blown, and it might be Bondo colored or aping a VW Harlequin Golf, but darned if they didn't keep functioning. Driving dynamics, well, they weren't built to have any driving dynamics.

The older Civics had personality and driving dynamics, even the hybrid 5th gen. They'd keep going too, and keep being fun to drive.

The Cruze in 1.4T/MT trim is more like the old Civics in that it's fun to drive and good on gas while having power when needed. The Fit, even in AT trim, is far more of a handling car than a power car. Keeping momentum is the game, and the Fit is great at cornering briskly.

There are a good number of fun to drive smaller cars on the market again. We are lucky enough to have 2 sitting in the driveway.

 

[kozanoglu]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: daves87rs
Originally Posted By: sciphi
GM having a competitive small car is unheard of in the US. The Cavalier and Cobalt were outdated at launch.



Eh...the cavalier wasn't bad..at first.


Meh...

it was priced better than the similarly sized (circa 1982-85) Accord and it was way better looking than the ugly 1st gen Camry.
Sure, the Camry and Accord were more refined cars, but they cost quite a bit more.
The problem was the Mazda 626 which was priced just a bit higher than the Cavalier and was far more sophisticated and refined than the Accord and Camry.

What about the Europeans? A Peugeot 305 cost nearly as much as an Audi 4000. The attractive but boxy new Jetta wasn't being made in Mexico yet so same problem there. It was quite a bit more expensive. The Renault Alliance was made in Wisconsin, but it was a bit smaller than the Cavalier....plus it's a Renault. Who wants that? Fiat had already exited the United States.

What about the Domestics? Ford had the Tempo. It's OHV engine was bigger. Yeah, that's all I got. They took the perfectly good 200 6 cyl, sawed two cylinders off of it and ruined the fool thing. Chrysler? The K-cars were bigger mid-size cars. The French derived Omnirizon was smaller.

So based on price, performance, and size? Yeah, it wasn't that bad. The 626 was leagues better for a few hundred dollars more. But in the early '80s there were still a lot of people who would not buy a relatively unknown Japanese brand. A brand that made a rotary engine that a friend of a friend of a friend had neglected and assasinated in the '70s.
You can make a case for the Tercel or Civic (or 323) against the Cavalier, but they were at the time smaller subcompact cars.


Have you seen new Renaults?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: kozanoglu


Have you seen new Renaults?

Did you see the old ones?

It was only a few hundred dollars less than a Mazda 626

Combine that with a dealer network that really didn't know how to repair French cars (although the Alliance was built in Kenosha) and sketchy part availiability.
The Renault Fuego wasn't a terrible looking car, Kinda' like a French interpretation of the Porsche 924. but it was not made for warm climates. The dash needles on every one I ever saw in the '80s were warped. None of them had an A/C system capable of cooling a car in the southern United States (when it worked at all) and I think they may have used the same exhaust tubing supplier that Zastava did for the Yugo. I'm thinking that rustbelt states' exhausts would last about 10 minutes into winter. When they rust out in a couple of years here, they die young up north.

 

[Burt]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: kozanoglu



The Renault Fuego wasn't a terrible looking car, Kinda' like a French interpretation of the Porsche 924. but it was not made for warm climates.


The 1980's Renaults were fine cars to drive, the only problem was you were not able to drive them very long before they broke down - very French.

 

[artificialist]

Yes, Renault never got far in the USA. The Winnebago LeSharo RV was a modified Renault, and many people consider it the worst RV.

During the late 1990s, they bought Nissan and their money enabled Nissan to stay alive. I sometimes wonder who inspired who when building later models.

I have heard that Peugeot cars were good cars, but American drivers weren't attracted to them due to the price.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Burt
Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: kozanoglu



The Renault Fuego wasn't a terrible looking car, Kinda' like a French interpretation of the Porsche 924. but it was not made for warm climates.


The 1980's Renaults were fine cars to drive, the only problem was you were not able to drive them very long before they broke down - very French.


I think they had a hard time deciding which steering wheel spoke design to use, so they just used all 3 on the Fuego.

It was a neat car. Had a softer ride and more body roll than a Cadillac Cimarron, (high end Cavalier) but unlike the Cimarron it would actually stick in a corner - very French indeed.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: artificialist


I have heard that Peugeot cars were good cars, but American drivers weren't attracted to them due to the price.


I often hear good things from former Peugeot owners. How their 505 was the rival for any Mercedes Benz etc... And a previous neighbor down the street had a black Peugeot 207. Frontera Tamaulipas plates. Suprisingly good looking and seemingly well appointed hatch. (Don't know what happened to my neighbors. Maybe their visa expired. Nice enough people though)