CTC Review: 2009 Nissan cube

[Canada Stig]

Canada Stig: You watch too much Top Gear - you're describing what Jeremy wants. Europeans generally do not care about power - well they do - but not at the expense of economy - this why everything in Europe is offered with a diesel engine. It just makes sense as gas is much more expensive over there.

I disagree - European cars are generally peppy and powerful for their engine size - Diesel and Gasoline both.  I lived in the UK for 4 years and while there are always the "appliance" purchasers (think Proton, Rover and SsongYang), drivers generally wanted the most bang for their buck -Myself included, which is why I drove a Ford Focus (petrol) and an Audi A3 TDI while I lived there. 

I don't always agree with Clarkson, but you have to admit the man makes and breaks the sale of a particular model based on what he says about it.  I went to a TG taping in 2004 and it was incredible - the guy is like the Pope in that studio.  Why do you think Chrysler won't let him test their cars?

And that Cube is ugly.  Disappointing on all fronts.  I still say an Element, Soul, Xb, or Mazda 5 is a better purchase all around.

[Juke1]

The Cube is funky to the nth degree, you like it or hate it.  Personally I would like to have seen this come here, I saw tons of them in the UK http://www.nissan.co.uk/#vehicles/city-cars/note

For those who have not noticed, The Cube sits at 1633 units ytd and the Element is at 741.  The Soul is killing at 6511 units!

[Shnak]

Not entirely fair to compare the Element to the Cube and Soul though... it is bigger/higher, and quite a bit more expensive too.

[Juke1]

...true, but any more desirable at $4000 more. 

[Shnak]

The Element hasn't been redesigned in 4-5 years, and besides, it was never meant to be a huge volume seller. I'm sure Honda is happy with the Element sales as they are.

The Soul, cube and the coming-soon Scion xB are direct competitors. You can compare them to the Element if you want, but I'm not sure what those comparisons will tell you.

[Juke1]

The Element hasn't been redesigned in 4-5 years, and besides, it was never meant to be a huge volume seller. I'm sure Honda is happy with the Element sales as they are.

The Soul, cube and the coming-soon Scion xB are direct competitors. You can compare them to the Element if you want, but I'm not sure what those comparisons will tell you.

They are all a "box thing" on 4 wheels that cater to a very specific group.  Even if the Element is a 4-5 years design, how different are the newcomers? not really...

[random006]

The Element hasn't been redesigned in 4-5 years, and besides, it was never meant to be a huge volume seller. I'm sure Honda is happy with the Element sales as they are.

The Soul, cube and the coming-soon Scion xB are direct competitors. You can compare them to the Element if you want, but I'm not sure what those comparisons will tell you.

They are all a "box thing" on 4 wheels that cater to a very specific group.  Even if the Element is a 4-5 years design, how different are the newcomers? not really...

By that definition, every van on the road today would qualify.  A restriction in class definition is required and once one does that, one might as well be very specific indeed.  The Element is larger and more of a "go anywhere" type of vehicle.  The Mazda 5 is also larger and more in line with the Kia Rondo.  As such, I would eliminate both the Element and the Mazda 5 from your list.

[safristi]

...after the above...i'm just trying to imagine Clarkson in the Popemobile..........i figure he'd give it  4 fishes and 5 loaves.......... ........

[Shnak]

Element is a CUV while the others are sub-compacts... higher ground clearance, bigger engine, AWD availability, etc. all justify the higher price. Higher price and getting-long-in-the-tooth-design both explain why the Element sells less than these sub-compacts.

Oh, and "box thing" on 4 wheels can describe a lot of vehicles out there... Off the top of my head: Caravan, Journey, Flex, Transit Connect, Sprinter, PT Cruiser, HHR. I don't see anyone lumping all of them in one category.

[JamesTS]

My Mazda 3 Sport is rated at 6.9L on the highway and 9.4L in the city - these are impossible numbers to reach with this car even if you don't drive it zoom-zoom like Mazda says you should.  Its automatic, but even the manual is only rated a couple points lower.  The wife got 10.2 in the city once and that was using cruise on the long stretches and being extremely careful with the throttle off of lights.   An 11 is the norm - got a best of 8 on the highway.

Not a fun way to drive a car that is advertised for fun. 

[safristi]

I'm INCENSED.......

[Canada Stig]

My Mazda 3 Sport is rated at 6.9L on the highway and 9.4L in the city - these are impossible numbers to reach with this car even if you don't drive it zoom-zoom like Mazda says you should.  Its automatic, but even the manual is only rated a couple points lower.  The wife got 10.2 in the city once and that was using cruise on the long stretches and being extremely careful with the throttle off of lights.   An 11 is the norm - got a best of 8 on the highway.

Not a fun way to drive a car that is advertised for fun. 

I would say that neither of my latest Hondas - a Civic and an Odyssey - got even remotely close to the MPG numbers on the window sticker.  The Odyssey is rated at somewhere near 7.6L/100km highway with the cyl deactivation system and I have never, ever, got better than 9.5 on a flat highway run at 100km/h.  My civic also was about 20% worse than advertised, even feathering it. 

Transport Canada takes the manufacturer's word for it - the EU and the US actually test the cars.  A Honda Fit is rated at somewhere around 45-46mpg highway here and is 40mpg (imperial converted from 33US mpg) in the USA. 

On the other hand, my Mercedes continually beats official ratings by 10% or more even when driven hard.

That being said, the Cube is still an ugly disappointment.  There is a car out there that that can do whatever it does, but better, be it a Soul, Element, 5, Rondo, Xb, etc.

[Sival]

Transport Canada takes the manufacturer's word for it - the EU and the US actually test the cars.  A Honda Fit is rated at somewhere around 45-46mpg highway here and is 40mpg (imperial converted from 33US mpg) in the USA. 

Transport Canada doesn't test the cars themselves, but they verify the data given according to strict testing procedures by the carmakers. The EPA does the same thing in the US, except it tests a few models sometimes to independently verify the results (but only of a minority of vehicles).

The results from TC's tests represent someone driving a car with fuel economy in mind, notably by avoiding high RPMs. On a flat stretch of highway, at 100 Km/h, my instantaneous fuel consumption in my ION is more or less spot on what it's rated as (6,3 l/100 Km). But if I put on the AC and increase my speed to 110-115, I'm up to about 7,0-7,3 l/100 Km, which is what the EPA says it should do. So both ratings are correct... depending on how you drive your car and where. The city rating is more touchy, what exactly is city driving? Bumper-to-bumper traffic yields worst than the EPA's city rating, but careful driving in a suburban area can yield me around 8,5 l/100 Km, better than the Canadian rating for my car.

Note: my information is obtained with a Scangauge and verified at the pump.

[Sival]

Canada Stig: You watch too much Top Gear - you're describing what Jeremy wants. Europeans generally do not care about power - well they do - but not at the expense of economy - this why everything in Europe is offered with a diesel engine. It just makes sense as gas is much more expensive over there.

I disagree - European cars are generally peppy and powerful for their engine size - Diesel and Gasoline both.  I lived in the UK for 4 years and while there are always the "appliance" purchasers (think Proton, Rover and SsongYang), drivers generally wanted the most bang for their buck -Myself included, which is why I drove a Ford Focus (petrol) and an Audi A3 TDI while I lived there. 

The Focus in Europe starts with a naturally-aspirated 1.4L gas engine yielding 80 hp... I think that says everything about how much little power Europeans are ready to live with.

[tpl]

Canada Stig: You watch too much Top Gear - you're describing what Jeremy wants. Europeans generally do not care about power - well they do - but not at the expense of economy - this why everything in Europe is offered with a diesel engine. It just makes sense as gas is much more expensive over there.

I disagree - European cars are generally peppy and powerful for their engine size - Diesel and Gasoline both.  I lived in the UK for 4 years and while there are always the "appliance" purchasers (think Proton, Rover and SsongYang), drivers generally wanted the most bang for their buck -Myself included, which is why I drove a Ford Focus (petrol) and an Audi A3 TDI while I lived there. 

The Focus in Europe starts with a naturally-aspirated 1.4L gas engine yielding 80 hp... I think that says everything about how much little power Europeans are ready to live with.

But 80 bhp in a light car, probably much lighter than an NA focus sedan, with no AC and a manual transmission  would be plenty lively enough.    I looked up the next one up   1.6 litre engine 100 bhp  with ac 11.9 0-60   2747 lbs.  the diesel is 2985 lbs and faster to 60 10.9 as well as having a combined econmoy of 65 mp ImpG  I see that diesel has no automatic available which means of course that it would a total no-no for NA.

ref   http://www.carpages.co.uk/guide/ford/ford-focus-econetic-1.6-tdci-%28dpf%29-5dr.asp

[Canada Stig]

The Focus in Europe starts with a naturally-aspirated 1.4L gas engine yielding 80 hp... I think that says everything about how much little power Europeans are ready to live with.
[/quote]

I had the 1.6L Petrol, and it was plenty quick enough.  Remember Europeans quote bhp, not crank hp, which does make some difference....but really, who cares?.  North Americans are far too obsessed with HP numbers and not the overall dynamics of the car.  That little 1.6 Focus was just as quick in real world driving as my 250hp Odyssey was, mainly because the Odyssey was a Sherman Tank with leather seats.

[airbalancer]

The Focus in Europe starts with a naturally-aspirated 1.4L gas engine yielding 80 hp... I think that says everything about how much little power Europeans are ready to live with.

I had the 1.6L Petrol, and it was plenty quick enough.  Remember Europeans quote bhp, not crank hp, which does make some difference....but really, who cares?.  North Americans are far too obsessed with HP numbers and not the overall dynamics of the car.  That little 1.6 Focus was just as quick in real world driving as my 250hp Odyssey was, mainly because the Odyssey was a Sherman Tank with leather seats.
[/quote]

Way do you come here any is it better in the UK

[Sival]

I agree that North Americans are too obsessed with horsepower, but at the same time, let's not pretend a 1250 Kgs (2750 pounds) Focus with an 80 hp naturally aspirated engine that does 0 to 100 Km/h in 14.1 seconds with a manual transmission is anything but slow. Even the 1.6L manual version of the Focus is rated by Ford to do 0 to 100 Km/h in nearly 11 seconds, that's roughly the time an automatic Aveo would take. Except if an Honda Odyssey was loaded to the roof, I don't think it would be that slow.

Don't get me wrong, for 99% of people, that power would be adequate (especially since Europeans drive mostly manuals that are geared aggressively), but we can't go around and pretend like they're not slow compared to what we have here.

[Turbo Bob]

The Focus in Europe starts with a naturally-aspirated 1.4L gas engine yielding 80 hp... I think that says everything about how much little power Europeans are ready to live with.

I had the 1.6L Petrol, and it was plenty quick enough.  Remember Europeans quote bhp, not crank hp, which does make some difference....but really, who cares?.  North Americans are far too obsessed with HP numbers and not the overall dynamics of the car.  That little 1.6 Focus was just as quick in real world driving as my 250hp Odyssey was, mainly because the Odyssey was a Sherman Tank with leather seats.

Way do you come here any is it better in the UK

Why is everyone getting so upset about North America vs Europe?    Get over it.

There are some great cars available in the UK that you can't get here, and the same goes for North America, who cares.  At the end of the day European customers (generally) prefer smaller cars that are lighter and more fuel efficient than their North American counterparts.  That's because journey times are usually shorter, and roads, cities, streets and parking spaces are usually all smaller.

Europeans also see the value in sportier models like the Renault Megane R26R, the Focus RS and Clio V6 that focus on driving dynamics (due to twistier roads) and light weight instead of a big V8 and high HP numbers.  In fact look at the Fiat 500 Abarth for a really awesome fun car that many people on here would probably dismiss due to it's size and small engine.

And whilst you may say that Europeans like small underpowered cars, the UK is on it's 10th iteration of the EVO, Canada has only just go it!      (and many Skyline GTR's and many turbo-charged Impreza's, and Nobles and Atoms and TVR's etc etc.)

[vdk]

What he said. ^^^