What do you consider a "real" subcompact? The Echo hatch was actually shorter than the Swift/Metro, and the Yaris is only 0.2" inches longer. If you are focusing on weight, I might well agree.
Yes, weight is a big issue, and so are width and height. These dimentions have major fuel economy implications - you're not going to get 60 MPG with a car that weighs over a ton (unless it is a hybrid), and aerodynamic drag is directly proportional to frontal area. Length to me is the least important dimention to keep under control. Why make a car wide enough to put 2.5 people in the back seat? Either go all the way to "compact" size and have 3 full seats or narrow it down to 2 so it fits into the 3/4 parking spaces that pop up everywhere when the parking lot lines get covered with snow. As for weight, the Echo hatchback was almost 50% heavier than the Metro, and just as heavy as the Echo sedan. Newer hatchbacks are artificially short due to the near zero rear overhang that seems to be the modern styling fashion. This kills the "small on the outside, big on the inside" advantage of hatchbacks. If the Echo hatchback was made by sloping the rear window of the sedan more instead of lopping off the trunk it would have been much more practical with little or no downside. The 1989-1994 Metro could carry 4 people or 2 people and a lot of stuff comfortably while tipping the scale at only 750kg. You could even fit about 20 2x4s in one and still close the hatch. My wife and I brought home our queen size bed in and on top of a Metro. Of course, the ultimate in space design has to be the original Mini - why oh why did BMW have to go and turn it into a much bigger and more expensive high end car?
