Small / economy car deathwatch: we've passed "peak econobox" again

[niky]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

RIP, Suzuki Celerio, a car in the Aussie "micro car" class (which includes others like the Mitsubishi Mirage and a few more).

Sad.

I liked that thing more than the Mirage. Drives better. More economical, even with the CVT. (because 1.0. Bummed we don't get the 1.0 Mirage here). Bigger trunk.

Aussies got too much money. They have to feel a financial pinch to consider buying small.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by niky

Aussies got too much money. They have to feel a financial pinch to consider buying small.

Unless it's something like a Suzuki Jimny

[airbiteses]

Because the Suzuki Celerio 1.0 with a power of 65 hp burns a bit more in the city than the Suzuki swift or baleno 1.2 and 1.0 Turbo. For me, Suzuki Baleno 1.2 in the city burns about 4.5 liters, although he did 2,550 km since leaving the salon. The downside to the new cars are small fuel tanks ... once in Renault Megane they had 60 liters and now 40-45 liters and other brands too ....

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by niky

Aussies got too much money. They have to feel a financial pinch to consider buying small.

Yeah, I just read an article about their remarkable economy: no recessions in over 25 years.


Yet they also have even higher household debt as a percentage of disposable income (currently near ~200%) than both the U.S. (?) and Canada (~170%).



They're buying the fancy stuff on credit and bypassing the econoboxes.

[niky]

Originally Posted by airbiteses

Because the Suzuki Celerio 1.0 with a power of 65 hp burns a bit more in the city than the Suzuki swift or baleno 1.2 and 1.0 Turbo. For me, Suzuki Baleno 1.2 in the city burns about 4.5 liters, although he did 2,550 km since leaving the salon. The downside to the new cars are small fuel tanks ... once in Renault Megane they had 60 liters and now 40-45 liters and other brands too ....

That's odd. I've had both the Celerio and the 1.2 Swift on different weekends, and the Celerio used less gas overall. Then again, I tend to drive only 80 km/h on the highway.

Haven't driven the new Swift yet. But I can believe, given that it's the same weight as the Celerio in a more aerodynamic package, that it will be more economical.

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Unless it's something like a Suzuki Jimny

The Jimny is useless for families. That back seat makes the rear seat of the CR-Z look sensible. When you buy one, you're buying a toy for yourself, not a means of transport.

Oh Lordy do I want one.

[airbiteses]

Which year did you ride the swift *****es from? Because the 1.2 and 1.0 turbo engine in baleno and swift has been since 2016.
Combustion data according to the manufacturer:
1. Celerio 1.0 68 hp: City 5.1 l, route: 3.7 l, mixed: 4.4 l
weight: 805-840 kg, v-max 155 km/h

2. Swift 1.2 90 hp (new engine): City 5.4 l, route 3.7 l, mixed 4.3 l
weight: 840-890 kg, v-max 180 km/h

3. Swift 1.2 90 hp hybrid: city 4.5 l, route 3.7 l, mixed: 4.0 l
weight: 850-900 kg, v-max 180 km/h
Swift 1.0 110 hp turbo (hybrid): city 5.7 l (4.8 l), route 4.0 l (4.0 l), mixed: 4.6 l. (4.3 l)
weight 865 kg- 915 kg (925 kg), v-max 195-200 km/h

Weight without driver.

My mother bought with her husband Suzuki Baleno with a 1.2I engine a nice ride and little smoking in the city. Only a defect is the weak plastic in the interior.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by ThermionicScott

I'm still entertaining the idea of buying a used Mirage someday, and folks need to keep buying them new if I'm going to do that.

Don't worry - it's still selling remarkably well in the States.


As a matter of fact, this month marks a milestone: the 100,000th Mirage (current generation) was sold. Lots of used ones will be available in the years to come.



And roughly 10% of them are manuals!

[niky]

Originally Posted by airbiteses

Which year did you ride the swift *****es from? Because the 1.2 and 1.0 turbo engine in baleno and swift has been since 2016.
Combustion data according to the manufacturer:
1. Celerio 1.0 68 hp: City 5.1 l, route: 3.7 l, mixed: 4.4 l
weight: 805-840 kg, v-max 155 km/h

2. Swift 1.2 90 hp (new engine): City 5.4 l, route 3.7 l, mixed 4.3 l
weight: 840-890 kg, v-max 180 km/h

3. Swift 1.2 90 hp hybrid: city 4.5 l, route 3.7 l, mixed: 4.0 l
weight: 850-900 kg, v-max 180 km/h
Swift 1.0 110 hp turbo (hybrid): city 5.7 l (4.8 l), route 4.0 l (4.0 l), mixed: 4.6 l. (4.3 l)
weight 865 kg- 915 kg (925 kg), v-max 195-200 km/h

Weight without driver.

My mother bought with her husband Suzuki Baleno with a 1.2I engine a nice ride and little smoking in the city. Only a defect is the weak plastic in the interior.

That's weird. According to that data, the Swift 1.2 gets worse economy in the city, the same economy on the highway... and... better mixed economy? Must be an error in translation.

The one I drove was the older Swift 1.2. Heavier than the Celerio. A 2015, I think, with a 4-speed auto. Very good economy, but not quite the same as the lighter Celerio with the CVT. We're only getting a CVT in the Swift with this 2018 model.

[airbiteses]

Actually, an error.......It should be: City, Outside town and highway. The CTV automatic gearbox burns 0.2 in the city to 0.3 liters more on the motorway than the manual one in 1.2. And in 1.0 Turbo it is the automatic gearbox there is already more than 0.4 liters on the motorway to 0.7 liters in the city...

[aerostealth]

We own a Ford C Max Energi. Since Nov 2017 I have been keeping separate records of the energy use for the electric drive, the IC engine, and the combined energy use of both platforms.

The long and short of their competitive performance is EV mode 108 mph e charged with solar power costing me 8 cents a kWh averaged about $30 per 1,000 miles. The IC mode cost $85 per 1,000 miles at 32 mpg. Combined $57.50 per 1,000 miles used at 50%/50% ratio.

We are switching to a BEV in two years. We want to pass the car on to our daughter so she can benefit from electric drive like we have. She lives in town and can do at least 90% of her driving in EV mode.