Corolla vs Focus, Rabbit, Impreza, xD, SX4, Lancer & Astra
05-15-08, 05:48 PM
#1
Lead Lap
Thread Starter
C&D: Corolla vs Focus, Rabbit, Impreza, xD, SX4, Lancer & Astra
2009 Toyota Corolla vs. Ford Focus, VW Rabbit, Subaru Impreza, and Four More Economy Cars - Comparison Test
Little Feet: Eight ways to shrink your carbon footprint: looking for the 35-mpg car.
BY PATRICK BEDARD, PHOTOGRAPHY BY DAVID DEWHURST
May 2008
Come the year 2020, new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. must average 35 mpg. It’s the law. But why wait? We’ve rounded up eight new models that deliver a 35-mpg average right now, more or less, according to federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) calculations.
Reality check: Although the Congress has mandated 35 mpg, our tests show that 35-mpg cars get 25 to 27 mpg in the real world. Close enough for government work? Well, yes, but there is a solid logic at work here. CAFE is a regulatory process first and foremost, and CAFE mpg comes from laboratory tests designed to reliably measure mileage for regulatory purposes. Any resemblance of your mileage to CAFE is purely coincidental.
But there is a payoff. The government tests are extremely reliable in producing the CAFE mileage number, and jacking that number to 35 mpg will produce more efficient cars than the ones we’ve been driving up to now that were built to the old 27.5-mpg mandate. Just don’t expect to get 35 mpg. If you’re shopping for mpg today on a budget appropriate to strained economic times, you’d look at small cars. Something around $18,000? Six new models have arrived since our last small-car comparison [“Sensible Shoes,” December 2006], and the Ford Focus has enjoyed a major upgrade.
Our rule for comparisons is this: The winner gets an automatic invitation next time, losers are out. Too bad, third-place Honda Civic; tough break, second-finishing Mazda 3. Welcome back, defending champ Volkswagen Rabbit (CAFE: 30 mpg).
The Rabbit is facing a tough bunch of new guys, starting with a freshly baked Toyota Corolla, bestseller in the class. We find that Toyotas typically outfrugal the competition in our tests. And sure enough, the top CAFE ranking of 40 mpg is shared here by a pair of Toyotas. The 1798cc Corolla is a traditional four-door. Untraditional is the company’s curveball to left-brainers, the Scion xD.
Mitsubishi has a new take on its compact Lancer, a large-for-the-class four-door boasting “shark nose” styling. With the newly available 2.4-liter four, it carries a 31-mpg CAFE score. Saturn replaces its unloved four-door Ion with the five-door hatchback Astra from Germany—CAFE, 36 mpg.
Small-car specialist Suzuki just introduced a four-door take on its SX4 (CAFE: 34 mpg), formerly offered only as a hatchback. Subaru, famous for all-wheel drive all the time, has an all-new Impreza. The downside: It’s the heaviest car of the bunch, and mileage suffers accordingly, achieving a 29-mpg CAFE.
We promised 35 mpg, “more or less.” Our assembled group ranges from 29 to 40 mpg CAFE. Let’s see what they do on the road.
2008 Ford Focus SE - Comparison Test
Eighth Place: Little Feet
This car raises a single question over and over: “What are they thinking?” With the chrome gills pasted on the fenders? With the imitation-leather look of the leather seats? With the tin-box flatness of the sheetmetal between the taillights? With the overly knobbed and overly buttoned center stack that glows blue at night like the interior of a vodka bar?
If you can get past the presentation, this Ford, rehabbed for 2008, is a willing performer. Acceleration is midpack, fuel economy is third best on our test run, it rides smoothly, and it aced the lane-change test. On the other hand, stopping from 70 mph required 203 feet, the weakest showing here by far.
It has an American-style driver’s seat. That means a wide, flat cushion for those whose buns are now loaves. The door and the center armrests are slightly soft to the elbows; the console has two generous cup holders, and there’s another in each front door along with a map pocket. However, Ford’s efforts to overamp a portfolio of gimmicky details—especially the clunky-chunky dial markings and the glut of techno trickery, including the voice-activated Sync system—seem misplaced when many normally expected automotive features are missing. Why no back-seat headrests? No door pockets in back, either, and only the right front seat has a pocket on the back side. And don’t bother reaching for a grab handle over any door.
Rear passengers will find excellent foot space. The seat cushion is high and firm. But adding a center passenger back there pushes the others into the low-head-clearance zones.
Imagine our joy, however, when we discovered we could adjust the lighting in the cup holders and foot wells through seven different colors. Oddly, there’s also a beacon down by the gas pedal that shines the chosen color up into the driver’s eyes.
What are they thinking?
2008 Scion xD
Seventh Place: Little Feet
This bite-size four-door, like all Scion models, tries hard to be what older people at Toyota think younger people want. Our enthusiasm for it is obviously well contained.
Scion’s bait for said younger people consists of: (1) low prices and (2) provocative (read “bizarre”) styling. The xD’s $15,170 base price falls into the group’s bargain basement. At $17,088 as tested, our Scion is below the test average. The styling is inspired by noncar ideas, and this brings up the nugget of truth about this car: It fights with our car expectations. The driving position is too buslike, the seat cushion feels like a dome, certain controls—radio on/off, for example, and the tach—are contrived simply to be different, not better. The buckets have no height adjusters, and the pedals are way too close to the seat. Our jury has two exceptionally tall guys, both six feet five. The xD is least comfortable for them. Average-height drivers downgraded it for the same reason.
In size, this is a snippet of a sedan, 25.2 inches shorter than the Mitsubishi Lancer, the group’s longest. Yet the rear is quite comfortable for two passengers, thanks to the high, firmly packed cushion. Three across bring the shoulder belts hard against the necks of the outer passengers. Interestingly, the whole rear seat slides on easy-adjust tracks with about six inches of fore-and-aft travel. Someone wants less legroom? Probably not, but you might want to trade off some passenger space for more hauling capacity behind, or perhaps move a child-seated infant within easier reach of the front.
Beneath the bizarre, this Scion is a To*yota. Fuel economy, 26 mpg on our drive, is second only to the Corolla’s, and acceleration to 60 mph is 0.7 second better, a payoff due to 100 fewer pounds of curb weight.
Bottom line: too much attitude, not enough hospitality.
2007 Suzuki SX4 Sport
Sixth Place: Little Feet
Of a possible 250 test points, this Suzuki earns 14 more than the Scion, a clear margin, yet they have similar shortcomings: They don’t fit our drivers. Both lack seat-height adjusters. Moreover, their pedals are too close to the seat, and the steering wheels are oddly angled. Suzuki compounds the misery with a folding armrest between the seats. Up or down, it’s always in the wrong place.
This four-door sedan, Suzuki claims, is the sporting version of the five-door, also called the SX4. Translation: The five-door’s hatchback has been replaced by a notchback with a separate trunk. For the record, our sport meter was unmoved. Still, this is a solidly screwed together runabout with accurate steering and good composure over the road, and a relatively good ride, too. The interior theme is simple, executed with quality materials. Dash and door panels have a low-sheen surface that looks particularly rich. Surprisingly, it’s as hard as concrete to the touch.
With an EPA rating of 22 mpg city and 30 highway, fuel economy is midpack. In our 300-mile test drive the Suzuki finished in a fourth-place tie, beating out three others to return 24 mpg, 4 mpg behind the most-frugal Corolla.
The SX4 makes the best use of its lofty roofline—highest of the group at 60.8 inches—by placing the rear bench at chair height, reducing the need for leg stretch-out room. And there’s decent headroom for three-across seating. Unfortunately, the seat itself doesn’t fold forward to open cargo space for long items, a feature we believe should be a part of all small cars.
Many comments were written about the pseudo-vent-window styling at the A-pillar, none of them favorable. Inspired by FedEx trucks? An overt appeal to the nerd market? Hey, nerds need cars, too.
2009 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS
Fifth Place: Little Feet
Lancers come in sensible-shoes DE and ES trim levels, too, but New Year’s arrived early at Mitsubishi stores where the 2009s are on the floor. The sport-suited GTS may not be ideally suited to our quest for 35-mpg cars—standard equipment includes an upsized, 2.4-liter engine with 168 horsepower, 16 more than the 2.0-liter that still propels lesser Lancers—but car guys do not live by thrift alone. With the GTS suspension tuning and 215/45R-18 Dunlop SP Sport tires, this Lancer rides a bit stiff-legged, although not more so than the Saturn Astra.
The Lancer is the big guy of the group, but barely more than an inch longer than the Corolla; widths of the two are identical. The windshield sweeps steeply forward to a low cowl, making the cockpit feel sportier than all the others. The hugger sport seats add to the mood. The interior shapes and details tend toward busy; black-flannel-like cloth on the seats and center armrest feels soft to the touch.
The upsized engine for 2009 makes the Lancer quickest through the quarter-mile in 15.9 seconds. Fuel economy on the test trip ranked lowest, however, at 21 mpg.
Yet speed is not necessary for this Mitsu to feel sporty. The low 45-series Dunlops miss no opportunity to rumble, roar, and kawop! over pavement imperfections; stones thrown up ping loudly off the floorpan. The balance-shaft four doesn’t thrash, but it sends lots of small thrums into the passenger cabin. The steering plays along, with lots of little kickbacks. There’s just enough wind rush to sound fast even when it’s not.
Fun so far, but the jumpy throttle is silly.
The back seat sits low, but the seat itself has supportive contours and appropriate firmness. The Lancer GTS is a zingy formula obviously not aimed at thrift.
2008 Saturn Astra XR
Fourth Place: Little Feet
Cue the violins! Financially struggling GM, after years of trying to export cars built with strong dollars into weak-currency markets, has reached into Germany for a small car built in euros to sell here. Profits at last? No way. The dollar plummeted, making this Opel-built, Saturn-labeled five-door an expensive import, at least in the near term.
The Astra follows the European formula for family haulers, a two-box design similar in concept to VW’s Rabbit but about five inches longer. The extra length pays off big in the back, with excellent foot space and a cushion perfectly shaped for support, even though it’s rather low. Three-across seating is surprisingly good, too, with none of the usual gripes from “hump boy.”
The 1.8-liter is about as wimpy as its 138-hp rating would suggest, strolling to 60 mph in 9.3 seconds on the way to a last-place finish in the quarter at 17.1 seconds and 82 mph. Braking was about average, but skidpad grip topped the ranking at 0.84 g. Fuel economy on our test loop ranked fourth before rounding down to 24 mpg, matching the Astra’s EPA city rating for 2008.
We very much liked the feel, shape, and look of the cloth seats front and back, but we’re less enthusiastic about other interior details—markings on the ***** and switches are inscrutable, and the center-dash display looks like some IBM leftover from the ’80s DOS age. For a German car, the Astra is surprisingly rattly-buzzy inside. The shifter is clunky, too.
The optional Sport Handling package ($695) is surely to blame for the crisp ride, but it brings this car alive in the twisties, with quick responses and lots of kickback in the steering.
The Astra strikes a good compromise between frugality and fun.
2009 Toyota Corolla
Third Place: Little Feet
This 2009 Corolla is something we’ve almost never seen, a Toyota so naked it had crank windows and manual locks; $250 for stability control was the only add-on, lifting the sticker to $16,160.
This is a new model in its first C/D comparison. We like the styling—an expressive, feminine shape, following the theme advanced by the current Camry. We also like the fuel economy, best of the group whether you’re looking at the window sticker or the results of our test trip in which it covered 28 miles for each gallon.
The top-of-the-class mileage is consistent with Toyota’s reputation these days, and so is the hospitality of the Corolla’s interior. No other here came close. Annoyance-free and verve-free, you might say; competence is the only flavor we detected.
Conveniences include seat-height adjustment, a tilting-and-telescoping steering wheel, two glove boxes, an auxiliary input jack, a center console with a bin under the armrest and two drink holders, plus one more and a large pocket on each front door, all rendered in low-excitement gray.
Almost to a man, we fit well in this sedan, on soft but comfortable seats. Exception: One of our sequoia-sized testers felt the driver’s seat was too small.
The Corolla, along with the Rabbit, was on 15-inch tires, easy-riding Continentals in size 195/65 on both. The Toyota was slightly slower than average in acceleration and road grip and notably poorer in braking, although well within the test’s extremes. Our one major complaint: The new electric-assist power steering has a herky-jerky feel, the result a nonlinearity in the assist curve that amplifies small corrections. The Scion, with a similar system, was less objectionable but not great.
Extremely hospitable, this new Corolla, with no risk to your blood pressure.
2008 Subaru Impreza 2.5i
Second Place: Little Feet
Subaru as a style leader? Right, and gravity expires tomorrow. But we’ve seen it, the wedgy hatchback silhouette fashionably accented in chrome, the swoopy dash with broad, titanium-hued accents sweeping onto the extravagantly sculpted doors, and the plush flannel upholstery in delicious French vanilla. The entertainment center is high, just a short drop in the driver’s gaze from the road ahead, and the three HVAC ***** are up where you can see them. This car knows how to work with its driver. We can see out of it in every direction. And it fits all of us with no grumbling.
Still a Subaru underneath, though, with the signature grunting engine, tingling vibrations, and standard-equipment all-wheel drive with its attendant weight penalty—at 3080 pounds, the Impreza outgroans the others at the scale, but by only 20 pounds over the duded-up Lancer.
The performance numbers cluster around the average in every test. Fuel economy on our road trip tied with the Rabbit at 22 mpg, 1 mpg up from the last-place Lancer. The engine is weak off idle; give it some revs as you let out the clutch. The ride is quite smooth. The suspension feels soft, serviceable rather than sporty. Yet control in the twisties is secure, even fun. The seat cushion is shaped to keep the hips from sliding about.
Foot space is a bit tight in the rear, limited by the back of the front seat at ankle height. The cushion is short and less resilient than those of Mitsubishi, Saturn, and Suzuki, but the shape of it is just right for three-across seating, where it pushes the center passenger forward and out of shoulder alignment with the other two. We give the Impreza top marks as a five-seater. The seatback easily folds forward to make a flat cargo floor, too. Except for its fuel economy, the Impreza impresses.
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit S
First Place: Little Feet
So the Rabbit repeats, once again topping the small-car ranking just as it did in “Sensible Shoes.” And for the same reasons—it’s a brisk performer that’s serious about covering miles.
If fuel economy were the top priority, the VW’s 22-mpg showing on our road trip, 6 mpg behind the Corolla’s, would probably knock it from contention. Our test results—a tie with the Subaru for sixth place—closely track the EPA’s relative placement of the models presented here. We’re willing to trade a bit of frugality for driving enjoyment.
The Rabbit was a close match with the Mitsubishi for the acceleration prize, 0.4 second behind in 0 to 60 but 0.1 ahead to 100 mph. Braking was just a bit better than average; cornering was exactly average.
It’s in the subjectives that the Rabbit pulls ahead. The upright driving position is excellent, there’s no nonsense in the controls, path accuracy is reassuring, the clutch strokes easily, and the shifter has a trusty, mechanical feel. Torque pours forth from small motions of your right foot.
The Volkswagen’s cockpit has a stern, businesslike appearance, a froufrou-free zone at this $16,435 price-leader level. There’s no center armrest for driver or passenger, and the seat fabric looks seriously thrifty.
We won’t gloss over the shortcomings. The tires read road textures loudly into the interior, passenger comfort with two in back ties the Ford’s at the bottom of the ranking, and some of our thinly upholstered drivers object to the contour of the front buckets where the cushion meets the backrest. We aren’t too enthusiastic about the blue dials at night, either.
Still, two highly subjective categories figure strongly in our final results: “fun to drive” and “gotta have it.” This VW outscored the others in both.
Little Feet: Eight ways to shrink your carbon footprint: looking for the 35-mpg car.
BY PATRICK BEDARD, PHOTOGRAPHY BY DAVID DEWHURST
May 2008
# Eighth: 2008 Ford Focus SE
# Seventh: 2008 Scion xD
# Sixth: 2007 Suzuki SX4 Sport
# Fifth: 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS
# Fourth: 2008 Saturn Astra XR
# Third: 2009 Toyota Corolla
# Second: 2008 Subaru Impreza 2.5i
# First: 2008 Volkswagen Rabbit S
# Seventh: 2008 Scion xD
# Sixth: 2007 Suzuki SX4 Sport
# Fifth: 2009 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS
# Fourth: 2008 Saturn Astra XR
# Third: 2009 Toyota Corolla
# Second: 2008 Subaru Impreza 2.5i
# First: 2008 Volkswagen Rabbit S
Come the year 2020, new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. must average 35 mpg. It’s the law. But why wait? We’ve rounded up eight new models that deliver a 35-mpg average right now, more or less, according to federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) calculations.
Reality check: Although the Congress has mandated 35 mpg, our tests show that 35-mpg cars get 25 to 27 mpg in the real world. Close enough for government work? Well, yes, but there is a solid logic at work here. CAFE is a regulatory process first and foremost, and CAFE mpg comes from laboratory tests designed to reliably measure mileage for regulatory purposes. Any resemblance of your mileage to CAFE is purely coincidental.
But there is a payoff. The government tests are extremely reliable in producing the CAFE mileage number, and jacking that number to 35 mpg will produce more efficient cars than the ones we’ve been driving up to now that were built to the old 27.5-mpg mandate. Just don’t expect to get 35 mpg. If you’re shopping for mpg today on a budget appropriate to strained economic times, you’d look at small cars. Something around $18,000? Six new models have arrived since our last small-car comparison [“Sensible Shoes,” December 2006], and the Ford Focus has enjoyed a major upgrade.
Our rule for comparisons is this: The winner gets an automatic invitation next time, losers are out. Too bad, third-place Honda Civic; tough break, second-finishing Mazda 3. Welcome back, defending champ Volkswagen Rabbit (CAFE: 30 mpg).
The Rabbit is facing a tough bunch of new guys, starting with a freshly baked Toyota Corolla, bestseller in the class. We find that Toyotas typically outfrugal the competition in our tests. And sure enough, the top CAFE ranking of 40 mpg is shared here by a pair of Toyotas. The 1798cc Corolla is a traditional four-door. Untraditional is the company’s curveball to left-brainers, the Scion xD.
Mitsubishi has a new take on its compact Lancer, a large-for-the-class four-door boasting “shark nose” styling. With the newly available 2.4-liter four, it carries a 31-mpg CAFE score. Saturn replaces its unloved four-door Ion with the five-door hatchback Astra from Germany—CAFE, 36 mpg.
Small-car specialist Suzuki just introduced a four-door take on its SX4 (CAFE: 34 mpg), formerly offered only as a hatchback. Subaru, famous for all-wheel drive all the time, has an all-new Impreza. The downside: It’s the heaviest car of the bunch, and mileage suffers accordingly, achieving a 29-mpg CAFE.
We promised 35 mpg, “more or less.” Our assembled group ranges from 29 to 40 mpg CAFE. Let’s see what they do on the road.
2008 Ford Focus SE - Comparison Test
Eighth Place: Little Feet
This car raises a single question over and over: “What are they thinking?” With the chrome gills pasted on the fenders? With the imitation-leather look of the leather seats? With the tin-box flatness of the sheetmetal between the taillights? With the overly knobbed and overly buttoned center stack that glows blue at night like the interior of a vodka bar?
If you can get past the presentation, this Ford, rehabbed for 2008, is a willing performer. Acceleration is midpack, fuel economy is third best on our test run, it rides smoothly, and it aced the lane-change test. On the other hand, stopping from 70 mph required 203 feet, the weakest showing here by far.
It has an American-style driver’s seat. That means a wide, flat cushion for those whose buns are now loaves. The door and the center armrests are slightly soft to the elbows; the console has two generous cup holders, and there’s another in each front door along with a map pocket. However, Ford’s efforts to overamp a portfolio of gimmicky details—especially the clunky-chunky dial markings and the glut of techno trickery, including the voice-activated Sync system—seem misplaced when many normally expected automotive features are missing. Why no back-seat headrests? No door pockets in back, either, and only the right front seat has a pocket on the back side. And don’t bother reaching for a grab handle over any door.
Rear passengers will find excellent foot space. The seat cushion is high and firm. But adding a center passenger back there pushes the others into the low-head-clearance zones.
Imagine our joy, however, when we discovered we could adjust the lighting in the cup holders and foot wells through seven different colors. Oddly, there’s also a beacon down by the gas pedal that shines the chosen color up into the driver’s eyes.
What are they thinking?
2008 Scion xD
Seventh Place: Little Feet
This bite-size four-door, like all Scion models, tries hard to be what older people at Toyota think younger people want. Our enthusiasm for it is obviously well contained.
Scion’s bait for said younger people consists of: (1) low prices and (2) provocative (read “bizarre”) styling. The xD’s $15,170 base price falls into the group’s bargain basement. At $17,088 as tested, our Scion is below the test average. The styling is inspired by noncar ideas, and this brings up the nugget of truth about this car: It fights with our car expectations. The driving position is too buslike, the seat cushion feels like a dome, certain controls—radio on/off, for example, and the tach—are contrived simply to be different, not better. The buckets have no height adjusters, and the pedals are way too close to the seat. Our jury has two exceptionally tall guys, both six feet five. The xD is least comfortable for them. Average-height drivers downgraded it for the same reason.
In size, this is a snippet of a sedan, 25.2 inches shorter than the Mitsubishi Lancer, the group’s longest. Yet the rear is quite comfortable for two passengers, thanks to the high, firmly packed cushion. Three across bring the shoulder belts hard against the necks of the outer passengers. Interestingly, the whole rear seat slides on easy-adjust tracks with about six inches of fore-and-aft travel. Someone wants less legroom? Probably not, but you might want to trade off some passenger space for more hauling capacity behind, or perhaps move a child-seated infant within easier reach of the front.
Beneath the bizarre, this Scion is a To*yota. Fuel economy, 26 mpg on our drive, is second only to the Corolla’s, and acceleration to 60 mph is 0.7 second better, a payoff due to 100 fewer pounds of curb weight.
Bottom line: too much attitude, not enough hospitality.
2007 Suzuki SX4 Sport
Sixth Place: Little Feet
Of a possible 250 test points, this Suzuki earns 14 more than the Scion, a clear margin, yet they have similar shortcomings: They don’t fit our drivers. Both lack seat-height adjusters. Moreover, their pedals are too close to the seat, and the steering wheels are oddly angled. Suzuki compounds the misery with a folding armrest between the seats. Up or down, it’s always in the wrong place.
This four-door sedan, Suzuki claims, is the sporting version of the five-door, also called the SX4. Translation: The five-door’s hatchback has been replaced by a notchback with a separate trunk. For the record, our sport meter was unmoved. Still, this is a solidly screwed together runabout with accurate steering and good composure over the road, and a relatively good ride, too. The interior theme is simple, executed with quality materials. Dash and door panels have a low-sheen surface that looks particularly rich. Surprisingly, it’s as hard as concrete to the touch.
With an EPA rating of 22 mpg city and 30 highway, fuel economy is midpack. In our 300-mile test drive the Suzuki finished in a fourth-place tie, beating out three others to return 24 mpg, 4 mpg behind the most-frugal Corolla.
The SX4 makes the best use of its lofty roofline—highest of the group at 60.8 inches—by placing the rear bench at chair height, reducing the need for leg stretch-out room. And there’s decent headroom for three-across seating. Unfortunately, the seat itself doesn’t fold forward to open cargo space for long items, a feature we believe should be a part of all small cars.
Many comments were written about the pseudo-vent-window styling at the A-pillar, none of them favorable. Inspired by FedEx trucks? An overt appeal to the nerd market? Hey, nerds need cars, too.
2009 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS
Fifth Place: Little Feet
Lancers come in sensible-shoes DE and ES trim levels, too, but New Year’s arrived early at Mitsubishi stores where the 2009s are on the floor. The sport-suited GTS may not be ideally suited to our quest for 35-mpg cars—standard equipment includes an upsized, 2.4-liter engine with 168 horsepower, 16 more than the 2.0-liter that still propels lesser Lancers—but car guys do not live by thrift alone. With the GTS suspension tuning and 215/45R-18 Dunlop SP Sport tires, this Lancer rides a bit stiff-legged, although not more so than the Saturn Astra.
The Lancer is the big guy of the group, but barely more than an inch longer than the Corolla; widths of the two are identical. The windshield sweeps steeply forward to a low cowl, making the cockpit feel sportier than all the others. The hugger sport seats add to the mood. The interior shapes and details tend toward busy; black-flannel-like cloth on the seats and center armrest feels soft to the touch.
The upsized engine for 2009 makes the Lancer quickest through the quarter-mile in 15.9 seconds. Fuel economy on the test trip ranked lowest, however, at 21 mpg.
Yet speed is not necessary for this Mitsu to feel sporty. The low 45-series Dunlops miss no opportunity to rumble, roar, and kawop! over pavement imperfections; stones thrown up ping loudly off the floorpan. The balance-shaft four doesn’t thrash, but it sends lots of small thrums into the passenger cabin. The steering plays along, with lots of little kickbacks. There’s just enough wind rush to sound fast even when it’s not.
Fun so far, but the jumpy throttle is silly.
The back seat sits low, but the seat itself has supportive contours and appropriate firmness. The Lancer GTS is a zingy formula obviously not aimed at thrift.
2008 Saturn Astra XR
Fourth Place: Little Feet
Cue the violins! Financially struggling GM, after years of trying to export cars built with strong dollars into weak-currency markets, has reached into Germany for a small car built in euros to sell here. Profits at last? No way. The dollar plummeted, making this Opel-built, Saturn-labeled five-door an expensive import, at least in the near term.
The Astra follows the European formula for family haulers, a two-box design similar in concept to VW’s Rabbit but about five inches longer. The extra length pays off big in the back, with excellent foot space and a cushion perfectly shaped for support, even though it’s rather low. Three-across seating is surprisingly good, too, with none of the usual gripes from “hump boy.”
The 1.8-liter is about as wimpy as its 138-hp rating would suggest, strolling to 60 mph in 9.3 seconds on the way to a last-place finish in the quarter at 17.1 seconds and 82 mph. Braking was about average, but skidpad grip topped the ranking at 0.84 g. Fuel economy on our test loop ranked fourth before rounding down to 24 mpg, matching the Astra’s EPA city rating for 2008.
We very much liked the feel, shape, and look of the cloth seats front and back, but we’re less enthusiastic about other interior details—markings on the ***** and switches are inscrutable, and the center-dash display looks like some IBM leftover from the ’80s DOS age. For a German car, the Astra is surprisingly rattly-buzzy inside. The shifter is clunky, too.
The optional Sport Handling package ($695) is surely to blame for the crisp ride, but it brings this car alive in the twisties, with quick responses and lots of kickback in the steering.
The Astra strikes a good compromise between frugality and fun.
2009 Toyota Corolla
Third Place: Little Feet
This 2009 Corolla is something we’ve almost never seen, a Toyota so naked it had crank windows and manual locks; $250 for stability control was the only add-on, lifting the sticker to $16,160.
This is a new model in its first C/D comparison. We like the styling—an expressive, feminine shape, following the theme advanced by the current Camry. We also like the fuel economy, best of the group whether you’re looking at the window sticker or the results of our test trip in which it covered 28 miles for each gallon.
The top-of-the-class mileage is consistent with Toyota’s reputation these days, and so is the hospitality of the Corolla’s interior. No other here came close. Annoyance-free and verve-free, you might say; competence is the only flavor we detected.
Conveniences include seat-height adjustment, a tilting-and-telescoping steering wheel, two glove boxes, an auxiliary input jack, a center console with a bin under the armrest and two drink holders, plus one more and a large pocket on each front door, all rendered in low-excitement gray.
Almost to a man, we fit well in this sedan, on soft but comfortable seats. Exception: One of our sequoia-sized testers felt the driver’s seat was too small.
The Corolla, along with the Rabbit, was on 15-inch tires, easy-riding Continentals in size 195/65 on both. The Toyota was slightly slower than average in acceleration and road grip and notably poorer in braking, although well within the test’s extremes. Our one major complaint: The new electric-assist power steering has a herky-jerky feel, the result a nonlinearity in the assist curve that amplifies small corrections. The Scion, with a similar system, was less objectionable but not great.
Extremely hospitable, this new Corolla, with no risk to your blood pressure.
2008 Subaru Impreza 2.5i
Second Place: Little Feet
Subaru as a style leader? Right, and gravity expires tomorrow. But we’ve seen it, the wedgy hatchback silhouette fashionably accented in chrome, the swoopy dash with broad, titanium-hued accents sweeping onto the extravagantly sculpted doors, and the plush flannel upholstery in delicious French vanilla. The entertainment center is high, just a short drop in the driver’s gaze from the road ahead, and the three HVAC ***** are up where you can see them. This car knows how to work with its driver. We can see out of it in every direction. And it fits all of us with no grumbling.
Still a Subaru underneath, though, with the signature grunting engine, tingling vibrations, and standard-equipment all-wheel drive with its attendant weight penalty—at 3080 pounds, the Impreza outgroans the others at the scale, but by only 20 pounds over the duded-up Lancer.
The performance numbers cluster around the average in every test. Fuel economy on our road trip tied with the Rabbit at 22 mpg, 1 mpg up from the last-place Lancer. The engine is weak off idle; give it some revs as you let out the clutch. The ride is quite smooth. The suspension feels soft, serviceable rather than sporty. Yet control in the twisties is secure, even fun. The seat cushion is shaped to keep the hips from sliding about.
Foot space is a bit tight in the rear, limited by the back of the front seat at ankle height. The cushion is short and less resilient than those of Mitsubishi, Saturn, and Suzuki, but the shape of it is just right for three-across seating, where it pushes the center passenger forward and out of shoulder alignment with the other two. We give the Impreza top marks as a five-seater. The seatback easily folds forward to make a flat cargo floor, too. Except for its fuel economy, the Impreza impresses.
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit S
First Place: Little Feet
So the Rabbit repeats, once again topping the small-car ranking just as it did in “Sensible Shoes.” And for the same reasons—it’s a brisk performer that’s serious about covering miles.
If fuel economy were the top priority, the VW’s 22-mpg showing on our road trip, 6 mpg behind the Corolla’s, would probably knock it from contention. Our test results—a tie with the Subaru for sixth place—closely track the EPA’s relative placement of the models presented here. We’re willing to trade a bit of frugality for driving enjoyment.
The Rabbit was a close match with the Mitsubishi for the acceleration prize, 0.4 second behind in 0 to 60 but 0.1 ahead to 100 mph. Braking was just a bit better than average; cornering was exactly average.
It’s in the subjectives that the Rabbit pulls ahead. The upright driving position is excellent, there’s no nonsense in the controls, path accuracy is reassuring, the clutch strokes easily, and the shifter has a trusty, mechanical feel. Torque pours forth from small motions of your right foot.
The Volkswagen’s cockpit has a stern, businesslike appearance, a froufrou-free zone at this $16,435 price-leader level. There’s no center armrest for driver or passenger, and the seat fabric looks seriously thrifty.
We won’t gloss over the shortcomings. The tires read road textures loudly into the interior, passenger comfort with two in back ties the Ford’s at the bottom of the ranking, and some of our thinly upholstered drivers object to the contour of the front buckets where the cushion meets the backrest. We aren’t too enthusiastic about the blue dials at night, either.
Still, two highly subjective categories figure strongly in our final results: “fun to drive” and “gotta have it.” This VW outscored the others in both.
Last edited by GS69; 05-16-08 at 03:31 AM.
05-15-08, 05:58 PM
#2
Lexus Champion
even tho CR also ranked the Rabbit as #1 in their small car comparo, I'd still be a little weary of their reliability (especially since my Audi has been in the shop 3 stimes in 5000 miles).
05-15-08, 08:02 PM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Read this article in last month's issue.
Typical that they pick the one they think is the most fun to drive regardless of any other factors.
I love how the title of the test is "...,looking for the 35 mpg car", and then crown the gas guzzler of the group which they observed 22 mpg's.
Hey, it's not their money at the gas pump. Plus it's 2-doors while the rest of the group has 4. Who needs to ride in the back anyway?
Typical that they pick the one they think is the most fun to drive regardless of any other factors.
I love how the title of the test is "...,looking for the 35 mpg car", and then crown the gas guzzler of the group which they observed 22 mpg's.
Hey, it's not their money at the gas pump. Plus it's 2-doors while the rest of the group has 4. Who needs to ride in the back anyway?
05-15-08, 08:13 PM
#4
Lead Lap
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: MD
Posts: 4,511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Impreza is a great value for someone looking for AWD. I'd still like to see a 2.0L version for improved fuel economy. 150 HP is still better than the original 110 HP Impreza, even though it has gained a few pounds. At least their is a CVT on the way for improved efficiency.
I've gone from quick WRX to slow, but efficient. I am dissastisfied with myself, but at least its interesting.
05-15-08, 08:41 PM
#5
I believe this is a repost.
But I do want to reiterate that the drivers of C&D did not focus on gas efficiency while test driving the car, and based their judgement on near-maximal performance instead of functional driving.
Therefore, damn mpg scores! It all ends up focusing on performance...
But I do want to reiterate that the drivers of C&D did not focus on gas efficiency while test driving the car, and based their judgement on near-maximal performance instead of functional driving.
Therefore, damn mpg scores! It all ends up focusing on performance...
05-22-08, 04:49 PM
#6
Pole Position
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why I hate most car reviewers. They are overly critical about the most inconsistent things and are completely ossified to what consumers want. The Rabbit is probably the last choice when it comes to compact cars. My mom could write a better review than this guy. She bought a Corolla back in 05' because she wanted a commuter car that was reliable, fuel efficient, and practical. People who shop for compact cars don't care about how fast it accelerates or how fast you can take a turn in it. The people who shop for fun factor in the compact class go for the cheap coupes like the Eclipse or the Civic Si.
This guy really needs a reality check. "Hot hatches" are not popular in America by any means, and the Rabbit's lack of reliability or fuel efficiency are not helping its case. If this guy knew ANYTHING about what he was reviewing, he would have stated to two most obvious choices; the Corolla and the Civic.
This guy really needs a reality check. "Hot hatches" are not popular in America by any means, and the Rabbit's lack of reliability or fuel efficiency are not helping its case. If this guy knew ANYTHING about what he was reviewing, he would have stated to two most obvious choices; the Corolla and the Civic.
05-22-08, 06:24 PM
#7
Lexus Champion
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 2,070
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you know why rabbit always win in this segment? I think to them it handles well..very well..best handling among all. period.
which is BIASED
which is BIASED
Last edited by tfz_hebe89; 05-22-08 at 06:32 PM.
Trending Topics
05-22-08, 10:59 PM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 7,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only for this test, but for everything. We seem to have this complaint about nearly everything rite now.
Yes there are cars that should be perfomace oriented (they're called sportscars) but big luxury sedans should be about luxury and small fuel efficient commuter cars should be about efficiency (anyone see where this is going?). The current car 'fad' if you will, seems to be very much about the performance of EVERY car reguardless of what the cars intended use is.
I like GT cars, so this fad doesn't bug me too much but I can see how consumers in general might be quite frusterated by the lack of 'comfortable' riding cars or 'highly efficient' cars.
Yes there are cars that should be perfomace oriented (they're called sportscars) but big luxury sedans should be about luxury and small fuel efficient commuter cars should be about efficiency (anyone see where this is going?). The current car 'fad' if you will, seems to be very much about the performance of EVERY car reguardless of what the cars intended use is.
I like GT cars, so this fad doesn't bug me too much but I can see how consumers in general might be quite frusterated by the lack of 'comfortable' riding cars or 'highly efficient' cars.
05-23-08, 06:11 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
I do agree this is another C&D blunder where they say they are looking for MPG but award a car that gets LESS MPG than their very own long term Lexus GS 450h with 340hp.
Think about that.
However, that doesn't change the fact the Corolla tested poorly again in another mag, even in SE trim.
Think about that.
However, that doesn't change the fact the Corolla tested poorly again in another mag, even in SE trim.
05-23-08, 10:22 AM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
I've gone from quick WRX to slow, but efficient. I am dissastisfied with myself, but at least its interesting.
05-23-08, 10:28 AM
#12
Lexus Fanatic
I do agree this is another C&D blunder where they say they are looking for MPG but award a car that gets LESS MPG than their very own long term Lexus GS 450h with 340hp.
Think about that.
However, that doesn't change the fact the Corolla tested poorly again in another mag, even in SE trim.
Think about that.
However, that doesn't change the fact the Corolla tested poorly again in another mag, even in SE trim.
As I see it, the Corolla is an excellent small car in just about everything except for its weak spongy brakes and a couple of cheap climate-control *****. Its assembly quality is above average and its ride comfort good for a small car. The only reasons it doesn't get more points than it does with "enthusiast" magazines is that its handling and steering response is not the crispest among small cars. C&D, like other similiar magazines, usually worships at the altar of aggressive driving.
05-23-08, 07:40 PM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 7,864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Corolla and xD (which share engines) will last twice as long as the VW with minimal repairs to boot. But what do they care about that when they're not the one's buying? 
These comparisons/tests are getting tiring. Next month, they'll probably compare minivans and 1st place will go to the one that goes through the slalom the fastest.
One other observation: The xD get's 7th place here. For one thing, it's placed here with cars typically more expensive. What get's me though is that Edmund's, which I give a lot of respect to for non-biased ratings, paired the xD against the all-mighty Honda Fit. The Fit has won every other comparison test against just about every car in it's class but against the xD it lost. Interesting.
These comparisons/tests are getting tiring. Next month, they'll probably compare minivans and 1st place will go to the one that goes through the slalom the fastest.
One other observation: The xD get's 7th place here. For one thing, it's placed here with cars typically more expensive. What get's me though is that Edmund's, which I give a lot of respect to for non-biased ratings, paired the xD against the all-mighty Honda Fit. The Fit has won every other comparison test against just about every car in it's class but against the xD it lost. Interesting.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ferdinan
Car Chat
14
07-11-08 08:00 PM
