|
There are occasions that 0-60 in 13-14 seconds is dangerous, but people with 13-14 second cars tend to know this and not get themselves into those situations to begin with.
My Honda Accord (when new, anyway) hit 0-60 in about 10 seconds flat. That feels on the "sporty end" to me, but the average economy is still okay (35.5 on my last three fillups.) My '99 Metro 1.3L 5-speed only ever had a problem on snowy hills with chains. (It actually didn't have enough horsepower to make it up in first gear.)
The 'sweet spot' is probably a mild hybrid option. Make your no-frills econobox for $10k, and then offer a mild hybrid (i.e. belt-driven electric motor boost with regen, kinda like the Honda IMA) for a couple $k more. Wouldn't hurt economy much if at all, and could be done on the cheap.
As to the C&D article, they do have a point on the 89-92 Metro they're basing the article on. Small cars of that vintage have no side impact protection, older "neckbreaker" SRS airbags (or, God forbid, automatic belts), less advanced injection systems (or carburetors)... I love my '90 Accord, but I know that I'm at a substantial disadvantage in a head-on or t-bone vs. a 94-up Accord.
However, I see no problem whatsoever with, say, a 94-up Metro. They met the 1997 side-impact requirements three years early, have newer-generation airbags and generally hold up much better in a crash. I also have no problem with the earlier Metros if you're not going to be doing a lot of heavy freeway driving.
|