NationStates Jolt Archive

Occasionally, I'm crazy wrong about what's going to take off and what isn't. I thought the Crossfire was going to be a big seller for Chrysler, totally wrong. I thought that no one in their right mind would buy a Scion xB.

Not only was I wrong about the xB, but apparently a new segment has popped up. I'm sure there is some clever name for this segment, carefully thought out by some marketing dude (like how Nissan calls theirs a 'mobile device.') I'm just going to call them toaster cars. 'Cause that's what they look like.

Here's the O.G., the Scion xB:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/293481518_13b00aaff0.jpg
I don't know if Scion exists outside of the US. Here it's the 'hip branding' of some Toyota lines. Turns out people under 30 would rather walk than drive a Toyota, so enter Scion. The xB was one of their flagship cars. They now market it on the love it/hate it thing about its shape.

Now there's the Kia Soul:
http://www.uniquecarsandparts.com.au/images/concept_cars/kia_soul_02.jpg
Apparently, all the cool hamsters are driving it these days. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ-CDE_r_wg)

And now the Nissan Cube:
http://img.motorpasion.com/galleries/nissan-denki-cube-concept/normal_Nissan_Denki_Cube_Concept-2.jpg
Apparently this has been out in Japan for a while.

Technically, in the similar segment you could include the now defunct PT Cruiser (http://image.motortrend.com/f/car-news/dropping-cars-at-the-new-chrysler-what-would-you-cut/7219270+w600+cr1+re0+ar1/chrysler-pt-cruiser.jpg) or maybe the Honda Element (http://www.pix8.net/pro/pic/7564FApN/48435.jpg), and finally the Chevy HHR (http://mobileedgeonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/outsidehhr.JPG).

So, the goofiest trend since hardtops and fins, the perfect melding of compact needs and cargo space? Does anyone even have the remotest opinion on these rolling appliances?

I have to say, if I could get over the look and the excessive packaging they'd be useful for me where I need a decent amount of space, but a small vehicle with good mileage. I just don't know that I could drive a pill box. (Honestly, I wish that Chrysler had released a 'panel' version of the Cruiser with the diesel engines that they had in Europe. I kind of like how the Cruiser looked.)

If this makes it to a second page I'll be stunned...

I hate all those fucking cars so much. I hated the Element the most, but this "Cube" (is it supposed to be some sort of GameCube/X-Box monster lovechild?) has now taken the top spot. Dear lord that's ugly. Also, nice design on the break lights. That's not confusing/distracting/hard to see at all.

I still hate neon yellow Hummers the most, though.

I really hate how many people buy these things that never use the features that set them apart. Don't ask me why, it doesn't make any difference in my life, but it irritates me. My family's owned one SUV (actually, we still have it, 13 years and two break replacements later... nice engineering, Ford) and you know why we bought it? Because we needed it to go OFF ROAD. We did a lot of hiking and backpacking. We used that car to move my stuff when I went to school. We built fences and a pergola and hauled all the materials and equipment in the back. You don't need these cars to take your kids to fucking Tee-ball.

I was hoping to debate the merits of Toasters, :(

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the Honda Element doesn't really fit into this category of... cars. Yes it's boxy and yes it's from Japan like the Nissan Cube and the Scion. Unlike both of those it also happens to be a practical small utility vehicle.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the Honda Element doesn't really fit into this category of... cars. Yes it's boxy and yes it's from Japan like the Nissan Cube and the Scion. Unlike both of those it also happens to be a practical small utility vehicle.

Yeah, the Element still pretends to be related to a truck if not a truck itself. But really, it's pretending. I think that the HHR, Cruiser, and Element are outliers in that they don't commit to the weird box design in the way that the xB, Soul, and Cube do.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the Honda Element doesn't really fit into this category of... cars. Yes it's boxy and yes it's from Japan like the Nissan Cube and the Scion. Unlike both of those it also happens to be a practical small utility vehicle.
It doesn't have any offroading abilities other than to drive on the hard shoulder or get onto the sidewalk, or get through a good dirt road. It also doesn't have truck loading capabilities. 4WD there is a bit atavistic.

It doesn't have any offroading abilities other than to drive on the hard shoulder or get onto the sidewalk, or get through a good dirt road. It also doesn't have truck loading capabilities. 4WD there is a bit atavistic.

You seem to have mistaken it for a larger truck or SUV. I said it was a practical small utility vehicle, which it is. With an interior as square as the exterior it is a perfect little runabout for those folks who still want utility along with fuel efficiency, small size, etc...

You seem to have mistaken it for a larger truck or SUV. I said it was a practical small utility vehicle, which it is. With an interior as square as the exterior it is a perfect little runabout for those folks who still want utility along with fuel efficiency, small size, etc...

Which puts in in the toaster car category, because that's the theory for those little weirdies.

Which puts in in the toaster car category, because that's the theory for those little weirdies.

No, it's in a similar category to the CR-V (they actually share the same platform) or the RAV-4.

No, it's in a similar category to the CR-V (they actually share the same platform) or the RAV-4.

You're going to have to make your case about what distinguishes it from the other toaster cars.

I hate those things. My neighbour has one, I don't know how she survives all the potholes.

http://www.autocarparts.com/images/products/scion/scion_xA.jpg
My uncle had one of these Scion xA models for a while. Kinda neat, kinda funky, kinda weird. The tach & speedometer were in the center of the dash. At least it isn't a cube like the xB.

toaster? no. axion maybe. (that jetsons looking electric trike thing)

i still think wheels should be on rails so their sacred roundness won't be polluted by touching the ground.

(and a lot of other better but slightly more complicated reasons)

Here's the O.G., the Scion xB:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/293481518_13b00aaff0.jpg

holy shit that's the ugliest car i've seen in a long time :eek:
it looks like a chav has taken a car that was hideously ugly in the first place and chavved it up to make it even worse. add some shitty lights under the chassis and you're onto a winner

i actually quite like the look of that Cube one from Nissan. maybe 'like' is too strong a word, but its the best of a bad bunch there. and no, we don't have Scion here i think


edit:
that said, the Fiat Multipla gives it a run for its money
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5021/multipla.jpg

and the Honda Element is also truly vile
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7291/elementd102.jpg

all cars are ugly. somebody thought they'd crack a joke by making them uglier on purpose. inverse psyrinqology in marqetting maybe?

someone i know has one calles it "low polly", as in low rez.

maybe the idea was so they could be in game sims without lowering fps appreciably.

holy shit that's the ugliest car i've seen in a long time :eek:
it looks like a chav has taken a car that was hideously ugly in the first place and chavved it up to make it even worse. add some shitty lights under the chassis and you're onto a winner

i actually quite like the look of that Cube one from Nissan. maybe 'like' is too strong a word, but its the best of a bad bunch there. and no, we don't have Scion here i think


edit:
that said, the Fiat Multipla gives it a run for its money
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5021/multipla.jpg

and the Honda Element is also truly vile
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/7291/elementd102.jpg
The Scion is sold on its, lets call it 'Chav-ability.' You're supposed to do all manner of nonsense to it, including neon lights under the car.

The Multipla has a warm spot for me because we don't have Fiats here anymore (maybe that will change with the Chrysler merger) and it's a car that went from egg to crate:
http://www.muzeum-motoryzacji.com.pl/photo/Fiat%20600%20Multipla.jpg

You're going to have to make your case about what distinguishes it from the other toaster cars.

The Scion is sold on its, lets call it 'Chav-ability.' You're supposed to do all manner of nonsense to it, including neon lights under the car.

You said it yourself. Cars like the Scion, Cube, Soul, HHR, etc... are intended for that young audience who think shag-carpeting and mood lights are essential in a vehicle.

The Honda Element isn't marketed towards that demographic, at least not where I live. Honda tries to sell based on its practicality.

The 4-seat Element is optimized to carry large loads. The floor is made of textured urethane that is easy to clean; the fabric is tough and stain-resistant; the individual rear seats recline, fold up, and are removable. The rear clamshell tailgate arrangement is large and the vehicle is tall, allowing large loads.

The rear side doors are not suicide doors, despite that they open backwards; Honda refers to the rear doors as rear access panels. The design forgoes B-pillars to create unobstructed access for side loading. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Element)

You said it yourself. Cars like the Scion, Cube, Soul, HHR, etc... are intended for that young audience who think shag-carpeting and mood lights are essential in a vehicle.

The Honda Element isn't marketed towards that demographic, at least not where I live. Honda tries to sell based on its practicality.



I'm afraid that's unconvincing. All of the toaster cars are marketed for flexibility, the Element is still a compact car shaped like a toaster, and it is marketed to the youth market. Just because it's the Frankie Avalon to their Eric Von Zipper doesn't disqualify it as a toaster car.

all cars are ugly. somebody thought they'd crack a joke by making them uglier on purpose. inverse psyrinqology in marqetting maybe?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/766848779_a8b97ff1de.jpg?v=0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Aston.db5.coupe.300pix.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1365/980583556_5d440d96a5.jpg?v=0

All cars are NOT created equal.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1420/766848779_a8b97ff1de.jpg?v=0

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Aston.db5.coupe.300pix.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1365/980583556_5d440d96a5.jpg?v=0

All cars are NOT created equal.

You have great taste. I was going to add the 300SL Gullwing or E-Type or Bugatti Type 57 Atalante but the point has sufficiently been made.

Occasionally, I'm crazy wrong about what's going to take off and what isn't. I thought the Crossfire was going to be a big seller for Chrysler, totally wrong. I thought that no one in their right mind would buy a Scion xB.

Not only was I wrong about the xB, but apparently a new segment has popped up.
You're not alone. These new boxy small cars are a complete mystery to me - how did the designers decide that something so quintessentially 80s-angular would be a good idea? And, more importantly, why on earth is anybody buying them? I'd have bet everything that 99.9% of people find those things butt ugly.
I don't think I've seen any here yet, thank God. I've only come across them on the internet so far.

Technically, in the similar segment you could include the now defunct PT Cruiser (http://image.motortrend.com/f/car-news/dropping-cars-at-the-new-chrysler-what-would-you-cut/7219270+w600+cr1+re0+ar1/chrysler-pt-cruiser.jpg)
Now I'm offended on the Cruiser's behalf. Seriously.



that said, the Fiat Multipla gives it a run for its money
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/5021/multipla.jpg
Oh gawd, the Multipla. ><

I remember when the very first ads for it popped up on billboards. I kept catching glances of them while driving past and for the longest fucking time I thought it was some kind of newfangled high concept ad campaign drawn out over several weeks, where a new car slowly emerges out of an old shell until eventually a few weeks down the road they put up the ads which finally show the fucking thing they're advertising in all its glory.

When I finally realized that what I was seeing WAS the car - let's just say it was bad...

I'm afraid that's unconvincing. All of the toaster cars are marketed for flexibility, the Element is still a compact car shaped like a toaster, and it is marketed to the youth market. Just because it's the Frankie Avalon to their Eric Von Zipper doesn't disqualify it as a toaster car.
Well, so what IS your definition of a "toaster car"?

Well, so what IS your definition of a "toaster car"?

Primarily, a car shaped like a toaster. Little rolling pill boxes. Compact utility cars sold to the youth market. The Element is all these things, though doesn't manage the hard edges of the xB, even the xB rounded out in its newest design. The Cruiser and the HHR are in the same segment in they are small utility car, they just shied away from the toaster look.

Primarily, a car shaped like a toaster. Little rolling pill boxes. Compact utility cars sold to the youth market. The Element is all these things, though doesn't manage the hard edges of the xB, even the xB rounded out in its newest design. The Cruiser and the HHR are in the same segment in they are small utility car, they just shied away from the toaster look.
I don't get it. How are these cars "flexible" and "utility cars"? I'm clearly missing something. My mom had a Fiat Cinquecento (http://kretschi.de/images/auto/fiat/fiat_cinquecento_m.JPG) for years (not yellow, luckily) and it was certainly neither flexible nor a utility car (nor marketed to the youth market).
So what's the difference? I can see the difference in the marketing, but what's actually different about the cars?

I don't get it. How are these cars "flexible" and "utility cars"? I'm clearly missing something. My mom had a Fiat Cinquecento (http://kretschi.de/images/auto/fiat/fiat_cinquecento_m.JPG) for years (not yellow, luckily) and it was certainly neither flexible nor a utility car (nor marketed to the youth market).
So what's the difference? I can see the difference in the marketing, but what's actually different about the cars?

Well, first of all the toaster cars are slightly larger than your mom's Fiat. The toasters are essentially a squared off hatchback, so they have flexible seating, storage behind the back seat, tall for its wheelbase. Something akin to a SuperDeformed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_deformed) station wagon.

I don't get it. How are these cars "flexible" and "utility cars"? I'm clearly missing something.

Your not. The Scion, the Cube and others are not marketed as flexible or utilitarian. The only car in this thread I've seen being pushed as flexible is the Element.

Scion commercial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrFoG_LSBUg)

Element commercial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkAvO9v2Nk)

Your not. The Scion, the Cube and others are not marketed as flexible or utilitarian. The only car in this thread I've seen being pushed as flexible is the Element.

Scion commercial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrFoG_LSBUg)

Element commercial. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkAvO9v2Nk)

I'm afraid the lack of unseunse music in the commercial isn't going to move it out of the segment. The Scion still offers things like a 60/40 folding rear seat, storage tray under the rear seat, rear privacy glass, cargo floor, etc.

You can argue that the Element does a better job of it, but I'm afraid it's still a toaster.

Scion buyers have told be that their cube cars are flexible and practical.

I'm afraid the lack of unseunse music in the commercial isn't going to move it out of the segment. The Scion still offers things like a 60/40 folding rear seat, storage tray under the rear seat, rear privacy glass, cargo floor, etc.

You can argue that the Element does a better job of it, but I'm afraid it's still a toaster.

We've made it to page two debating on ridiculous cars that neither one of us shall ever own. :p

Scion buyers have told be that their cube cars are flexible and practical.

They are Scion buyers so their opinions are irrelevant.

The Scion is sold on its, lets call it 'Chav-ability.' You're supposed to do all manner of nonsense to it, including neon lights under the car.
then it gets extra ewwwwwwwww-points in my book ;)

The Multipla has a warm spot for me because we don't have Fiats here anymore (maybe that will change with the Chrysler merger) and it's a car that went from egg to crate:
http://www.muzeum-motoryzacji.com.pl/photo/Fiat%20600%20Multipla.jpg

that's awesome! i love it :D
that one is cool, all the others are made of suck


Oh gawd, the Multipla. ><

I remember when the very first ads for it popped up on billboards. I kept catching glances of them while driving past and for the longest fucking time I thought it was some kind of newfangled high concept ad campaign drawn out over several weeks, where a new car slowly emerges out of an old shell until eventually a few weeks down the road they put up the ads which finally show the fucking thing they're advertising in all its glory.

When I finally realized that what I was seeing WAS the car - let's just say it was bad...


lol, i can see how you could think that. it has all these random bits and blobs like they've been stuck on from other cars, or its halfway between two, probably quite decent, normal cars... but it got stuck in the metamorphosis, a frankenstein car, biding its time until it can wreak its vengeance upon the cruel world that created it. or something like that :P

Scion buyers have told be that their cube cars are flexible and practical.
Well, again, that just goes to advertising. You could argue that Honda feels that people need to be told that the Element is flexible since that's what they try and tell people.

We've made it to page two debating on ridiculous cars that neither one of us shall ever own. :p


Go me! At least it's debating the merits of a car that most of us could conceivably own instead of the relative merits of a hundreds of thousands of dollars limited edition sports car that most people will never even see in real life much less own or even touch. Hell, for $40 a day we can rent these cars, there's slightly more dignity to this...slightly

A lot of people in my line of work drive Elements, so I've been in a few. I have yet to ride in an xB as far as I can remember.

Go me! At least it's debating the merits of a car that most of us could conceivably own instead of the relative merits of a hundreds of thousands of dollars limited edition sports car that most people will never even see in real life much less own or even touch. Hell, for $40 a day we can rent these cars, there's slightly more dignity to this...slightly

;)

A lot of people in my line of work drive Elements, so I've been in a few. I have yet to ride in an xB as far as I can remember.

The Scion is built on the Yaris platform I believe so it is a significantly smaller vehicle.

;)



The Scion is built on the Yaris platform I believe so it is a significantly smaller vehicle.

By less than 3", the Scion is 167.9" and the Element is 169.9". The big difference is in height, where the Element is close to 6" taller. That comes out to a luggage capacity edge of four cubic feet for the Element.

I've had the displeasure of driving both a Honda Element and a PT Loser.

The Element is miserable to drive. Once you hit about 60 mph, even on a very calm day, the car gets caught by even the lightest breeze and whips around the road. Truly miserable.

The PT Loser has no acceleration. It just kinda sits there. They used an analogue clock on the dash, which killed me. It handles poorly at just about any speed. Breaking left a lot to be desired.

I hate all of these cars with a passion.

lol, i can see how you could think that. it has all these random bits and blobs like they've been stuck on from other cars, or its halfway between two, probably quite decent, normal cars... but it got stuck in the metamorphosis, a frankenstein car, biding its time until it can wreak its vengeance upon the cruel world that created it. or something like that :P
Yeah, I still think it looks like the top of one car glued to the bottom of another. Add some bolts and the Frankenstein look is perfect.

You seem to have mistaken it for a larger truck or SUV. I said it was a practical small utility vehicle, which it is. With an interior as square as the exterior it is a perfect little runabout for those folks who still want utility along with fuel efficiency, small size, etc...
"Utility" in "SUV" refers to cargo transportation and other non-passenger, mostly commercial use. I'm not sure who came up with the term, but it appears that it referred to marketing utility vehicles for personal use for carrying outdoor activities equipment.

More specifically, "utility" means the vehicle is at least designed to carry significant cargo loads and is capable of towing a trailer.


Let's take an example. My Land Cruiser 80 has a stated payload of about 1,500lbs [practically it can take 3,500, due to heavy-duty chassis and suspension], and a towing capacity of 6,200lbs.
Element has a rather underwhelming payload of 675lbs - just 4 men - and 1,500lbs towing capacity.

Yes, Element is a 3,500lbs car, and Land Cruiser a 4,600 one. But as you can see the 30% curb weight difference doesn't nearly match the 100% payload and 300% payload difference at all.

What about offroading? Small SUV are famous for their excellent off-road capabilities. Even my Land Cruiser 80, a prime contender for the title of most capable big off-roader along with Range Rover and Pajero, is no match for a small and nimble Land Cruiser 70, which will fit where others can't.
So, will the compact Element beat the fat LC80?

N...nno. And it's not just the meager 6" of ground clearance versus Cruiser's 11". You see, despite being marketed as small and nimble, it's actually as wide as a Land Cruiser 80. Their wheelbase, too, differs by less than a foot.
And all the while, despite the difference being so meager, the Land Cruiser offers full 8 seats, as well as significantly greater cargo volume.
How do they do it - how do they fit so little in a car almost the size of a Land Cruiser?

"Utility" in "SUV" refers to cargo transportation and other non-passenger, mostly commercial use. I'm not sure who came up with the term, but it appears that it referred to marketing utility vehicles for personal use for carrying outdoor activities equipment.

Something the Element can do fairly well. Actually, something all the vehicles in this thread can do, the Element just happens to do it better.

How do they do it - how do they fit so little in a car almost the size of a Land Cruiser?

Perhaps because the two are completely different vehicles? You are comparing a Land Cruiser to a Honda Element. I may as well compare my 3/4 ton to an El Camino.

"Utility" in "SUV" refers to cargo transportation and other non-passenger, mostly commercial use. I'm not sure who came up with the term, but it appears that it referred to marketing utility vehicles for personal use for carrying outdoor activities equipment.

More specifically, "utility" means the vehicle is at least designed to carry significant cargo loads and is capable of towing a trailer.


Let's take an example. My Land Cruiser 80 has a stated payload of about 1,500lbs [practically it can take 3,500, due to heavy-duty chassis and suspension], and a towing capacity of 6,200lbs.
Element has a rather underwhelming payload of 675lbs - just 4 men - and 1,500lbs towing capacity.

Yes, Element is a 3,500lbs car, and Land Cruiser a 4,600 one. But as you can see the 30% curb weight difference doesn't nearly match the 100% payload and 300% payload difference at all.

What about offroading? Small SUV are famous for their excellent off-road capabilities. Even my Land Cruiser 80, a prime contender for the title of most capable big off-roader along with Range Rover and Pajero, is no match for a small and nimble Land Cruiser 70, which will fit where others can't.
So, will the compact Element beat the fat LC80?

N...nno. And it's not just the meager 6" of ground clearance versus Cruiser's 11". You see, despite being marketed as small and nimble, it's actually as wide as a Land Cruiser 80. Their wheelbase, too, differs by less than a foot.
And all the while, despite the difference being so meager, the Land Cruiser offers full 8 seats, as well as significantly greater cargo volume.
How do they do it - how do they fit so little in a car almost the size of a Land Cruiser?

"Almost" the size of a Land Cruiser is a little euphemistic...You're comparing a full size truck vs. a compact. How do they do it? They start by being able to buy a three pack of Elements for the price of a Land Cruiser. And since the toasters are four bangers they rate 7mpg better mileage. For someone who isn't normally huffing around stacks of bags of fertilizer or whatever is going to weigh that much, this might be quite the deal. The shorter wheelbase and lower center of gravity is going to make the car more manageable in regular suburban/urban travel that's going to be 99% of the cars usage. For that rare time that they wander off pavement 6" of clearance is more than enough for most of those applications. Anything more and you have specific needs for a car. Which is, of course, why they sell different types of cars.

According to Edmunds ratings, the 'true cost to own' for a Land Cruiser is twice that (http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/toyota/landcruiser/101047659/cto.html) of an Element. (http://www.edmunds.com/new/2009/honda/element/101120558/cto.html) If you're living in the suburbs and just need a hauler it's hard to justify an extra $40k to do a bunch of shit you're not really going to do.

"Almost" the size of a Land Cruiser is a little euphemistic...You're comparing a full size truck vs. a compact.
Perhaps because the two are completely different vehicles? You are comparing a Land Cruiser to a Honda Element. I may as well compare my 3/4 ton to an El Camino.
Are you so sure? Is the Element really small, or does it merely look small due to its boxy shape and large windows?
Let's put their dimensions side by side.

Spec / LC80 / Element / % difference.
Length: 188" / 170" / -10%
Width: 72" / 72" / 0%
Height: 70" / 74" / +5%

So, the Land Cruiser 80 is a mere 10% longer, but as tall or 5% lower (despite having an extra 5" of ground clearance!), and they're the same width. Yes, it's a tad bit larger, but just a tad bit.
The Element just looks small due to its design.


How do they do it? They start by being able to buy a three pack of Elements for the price of a Land Cruiser. And since the toasters are four bangers they rate 7mpg better mileage.
Do they?
Of course, if you happen to be green, you probably think the Land Cruiser you're about to torch is a huge gas guzzler, while the Element is cute and kind to the environment. Is it so?

N...no. According to Honda, the Element does 18/23mpg. Which is not bad... oh, who am I kidding. It is bad, very bad. It eats as much fuel on the highway as the 530-horsepower Porsche GT2 supercar.

Not only is it as bad as a GT2, it's also worse than the Land Cruiser. To do it right, let's take the right Cruise. The 80 series - not the new posh 200, which is a Lexus for people who don't want the ultra-uncool Lexus badge - is a utilitarian off-road truck. In an off-road truck, you want torque in low rev range and a flat curve. That means you don't buy it with a gasoline engine. You buy it with a diesel one. A four-liter, inline-six, medium-duty diesel, built in Japan and good for hundreds thousands of miles.
How much fuel does it burn, then? You could trust my word for how I was startled by its unexpectedly low thirst, but you don't have to. See for yourself - other owners report 25 mpg (http://htdig.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=62661), 27 mpg (http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/toyota/landcruiser/r41215/), and 30+ mpg (http://www.vintageoffroad.com/nav.cfm?id=58) for their well-worn, 15 years old Land Cruisers.

How come? Well, for one, the box shape is terribly unaerodynamic. For other, the frontal cross-section of the Element is actually greater. Which means the engine actually has to put out more power to propel the Element than the Land Cruiser.
For other, the Cruiser's engine offers excellent low-end torque - twice more torque than the Element's - together with wide gearing, so you start off in the second gear and drive in the top gear for the rest of the time. You never really go above 1,500rpm, and low engine speed allows for low fuel consumption.

But mostly it's not about how economical the Cruiser is, but about how wasteful the Element is.

Are you so sure? Is the Element really small, or does it merely look small due to its boxy shape and large windows?

Yes, I am very sure they are completely different vehicles. The Honda Element is built on a modified CR-V platform. The CR-V is based on the Honda Civic. Unless I am mistaken, Toyota didn't base the Land Cruiser on the Corolla's platform.

Are you so sure? Is the Element really small, or does it merely look small due to its boxy shape and large windows?
Let's put their dimensions side by side.

Spec / LC80 / Element / % difference.
Length: 188" / 170" / -10%
Width: 72" / 72" / 0%
Height: 70" / 74" / +5%

So, the Land Cruiser 80 is a mere 10% longer, but as tall or 5% lower (despite having an extra 5" of ground clearance!), and they're the same width. Yes, it's a tad bit larger, but just a tad bit.
The Element just looks small due to its design.



Do they?
Of course, if you happen to be green, you probably think the Land Cruiser you're about to torch is a huge gas guzzler, while the Element is cute and kind to the environment. Is it so?

N...no. According to Honda, the Element does 18/23mpg. Which is not bad... oh, who am I kidding. It is bad, very bad. It eats as much fuel on the highway as the 530-horsepower Porsche GT2 supercar.

Not only is it as bad as a GT2, it's also worse than the Land Cruiser. To do it right, let's take the right Cruise. The 80 series - not the new posh 200, which is a Lexus for people who don't want the ultra-uncool Lexus badge - is a utilitarian off-road truck. In an off-road truck, you want torque in low rev range and a flat curve. That means you don't buy it with a gasoline engine. You buy it with a diesel one. A four-liter, inline-six, medium-duty diesel, built in Japan and good for hundreds thousands of miles.
How much fuel does it burn, then? You could trust my word for how I was startled by its unexpectedly low thirst, but you don't have to. See for yourself - other owners report 25 mpg (http://htdig.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=62661), 27 mpg (http://www.carsurvey.org/reviews/toyota/landcruiser/r41215/), and 30+ mpg (http://www.vintageoffroad.com/nav.cfm?id=58) for their well-worn, 15 years old Land Cruisers.

How come? Well, for one, the box shape is terribly unaerodynamic. For other, the frontal cross-section of the Element is actually greater. Which means the engine actually has to put out more power to propel the Element than the Land Cruiser.
For other, the Cruiser's engine offers excellent low-end torque - twice more torque than the Element's - together with wide gearing, so you start off in the second gear and drive in the top gear for the rest of the time. You never really go above 1,500rpm, and low engine speed allows for low fuel consumption.

But mostly it's not about how economical the Cruiser is, but about how wasteful the Element is.
First of all, we're comparing new cars to new cars with available options. And the mileage info comes from Edmunds comparisons so it's like test vs. like test.

Second of all, I'm afraid 18" is a significant difference in wheelbase and 5" is a significant difference in ride height that effects how the car behaves and drives. They are in fact different vehicles with different attributes that meet different needs. Sorry bob. Cost of ownership is almost three times for a new Land Cruiser vs. the toaster cars. If you don't need that 'manly' advantage, and many do not, then it is hard to justify the expense. Not to mention the completely different driving characteristics. Different cars. I know from past discussions with you that this is a difficult concept for you to grasp, but please try.

Yes, I am very sure they are completely different vehicles. The Honda Element is built on a modified CR-V platform. The CR-V is based on the Honda Civic. Unless I am mistaken, Toyota didn't base the Land Cruiser on the Corolla's platform.
That's where the whole fun is! Yes, it didn't. It based the Land Cruiser 80 on the Land Cruiser platform, a close relative of the Hilux pickup.

It's a hardcore offroad truck at its core, it's got a heavy-duty frame, built of high-yield steel. The body, also very strong (as demonstrated by Top Gear once, it alone can hold the vehicle together), is bolted onto it. Two live axles make the wheels touch the ground in even the worst conditions. It's powered by a big, heavy, all-steel diesel engine. The transmission and the suspension are designed to handle towing, collisions, drops, rock climbing. Large, sturdy, high-profile offroad tires push it forward.
No compromise, reliability and offroading first, capacity second, fuel economy not even a third.

And yet, the hardcore Toyota Land Cruiser 80 turns out to be more economical than the softcore, road-going Honda Element.

First of all, we're comparing new cars to new cars with available options.
No. You see, that Land Cruiser is not produced anymore. Well, that 200-series abomination does carry the badge, but doesn't deserve it.
Of course, you can buy the 70 series. 70 series is the old good Land Cruiser. They are still building them. But this one will probably be too hardcore for you.

So we're comparing the old, big, pre-oil-crisis, pre-green-craze Land Cruiser to the new supposedly small and green Element.


Cost of ownership is almost three times for a new Land Cruiser vs. the toaster cars. If you don't need that 'manly' advantage, and many do not, then it is hard to justify the expense.
As long as I can easily afford it, what do I care? Though actually I haven't noticed any costs of ownership for my old Land Cruiser, since I service it myself. Don't trust a car I haven't at least partially taken apart with my own hands.
All I've noticed is using less fuel than a saloon, though with diesel costing more, it evens out or is a bit more expensive. But the advantage of a car that works like a gun and is massively versatile outweighs the occasional extra cost. Cost of ownership? Well, if you count depreciation, maybe, but I've spent very little on replacement parts. Quite a bit to buy it and improve it (I need the ability to tow a trailer and move off the road), but once you shell it out, that's pretty much it.


As for the new undeserving successor, why would I want it? Driving AIDS for soccer moms and 16 year old rich kids? Not one. A built-in TV screen, cool, but not as good as off-the-shelf stuff. Losing what was good about the Land Cruiser in the first place, reliability and going anywhere, not cool.

No. You see, that Land Cruiser is not produced anymore. Well, that 200-series abomination does carry the badge, but doesn't deserve it.
Of course, you can buy the 70 series. 70 series is the old good Land Cruiser. They are still building them. But this one will probably be too hardcore for you.

So we're comparing the old, big, pre-oil-crisis, pre-green-craze Land Cruiser to the new supposedly small and green Element.
No, you are. We were having a discussion about new cars, specifically toasters. You were wagging your dick around about old trucks. The Land Cruiser is still available. New car to new car, they are different cars.



As long as I can easily afford it, what do I care? Though actually I haven't noticed any costs of ownership for my old Land Cruiser, since I service it myself. Don't trust a car I haven't at least partially taken apart with my own hands.
All I've noticed is using less fuel than a saloon, though with diesel costing more, it evens out or is a bit more expensive. But the advantage of a car that works like a gun and is massively versatile outweighs the occasional extra cost. Cost of ownership? Well, if you count depreciation, maybe, but I've spent very little on replacement parts. Quite a bit to buy it and improve it (I need the ability to tow a trailer and move off the road), but once you shell it out, that's pretty much it.


As for the new undeserving successor, why would I want it? Driving AIDS for soccer moms and 16 year old rich kids? Not one. A built-in TV screen, cool, but not as good as off-the-shelf stuff. Losing what was good about the Land Cruiser in the first place, reliability and going anywhere, not cool.
This has nothing to do with the discussion.

I chose Element because it was the least offensive. What do I know I don't like minis either.

No, you are. We were having a discussion about new cars, specifically toasters. You were wagging your dick around about old trucks. The Land Cruiser is still available. New car to new car, they are different cars.
Cars aren't condoms. They're big ticket property, like houses. You don't limit your choices to new ones when buying a house, do you? So with cars: you always have an option of buying new* or used. It doesn't have to be new to new, used to used, because both items serve the same purpose in the same way.


This has nothing to do with the discussion.
It just strayed a bit.
My initial point was that Element isn't a SUV, and if it was, it would be a grossly substandard one. To support it, I mentioned the specs of a real SUV, the Land Cruiser 80.
The counter-argument was that Element is a small SUV and LC80 a full-size. To which I responded by demonstrating that LC80 has almost the same dimensions, just 10% longer, and is actually more fuel efficient, thus, the comparison is valid. If you're intending to actually use it off the road, as a utility vehicle, Element is simply not competitive.

Your response about being completely different types of car only agrees with my initial point - Element isn't a SUV, it's a road car with high roof and a four wheel drive option available.


---

*Some even say that the only things you really get with a new car are the pleasure of haggling with the salesman and the honor of inhaling harmful chemicals outgassed by its plastics for the first months. In all other respects, 9 times out of 10 you can find a better used car for the same money. As long as we're talking about everyman's price range, of course.

Cars aren't condoms. They're big ticket property, like houses. You don't limit your choices to new ones when buying a house, do you? So with cars: you always have an option of buying new* or used. It doesn't have to be new to new, used to used, because both items serve the same purpose in the same way.
If this were a discussion about what car I should buy, maybe. But it isn't. And there are a number of reasons you, in this kind of discussion, don't compare old and new.

New cars have different regulations that they are built to as standards change over the years. A new car has reasonably consistent build with other new cars while a used car has a variable amount of 'use' that can't be factored in to a general comparison. Getting a loan and insuring a used car is different than it is for a new car. Things like longevity and depreciation and warranties are entirely different.

And, most importantly, when discussing the emergence of a new segment, "OMG my old truck is so much better!" is a side note at best and not entirely relevant.



It just strayed a bit.
My initial point was that Element isn't a SUV, and if it was, it would be a grossly substandard one. To support it, I mentioned the specs of a real SUV, the Land Cruiser 80.
The counter-argument was that Element is a small SUV and LC80 a full-size. To which I responded by demonstrating that LC80 has almost the same dimensions, just 10% longer, and is actually more fuel efficient, thus, the comparison is valid. If you're intending to actually use it off the road, as a utility vehicle, Element is simply not competitive.

Your response about being completely different types of car only agrees with my initial point - Element isn't a SUV, it's a road car with high roof and a four wheel drive option available.

It's a middling distinction that, characteristically, ignores again that there are degrees and different demands in a segment instead of your constant insistence that there is only one standard for everything. Off road prowess is not necessary for a vehicle to be classified as an SUV. Lately it's not even necessary for it to be built on a light truck chassis (even though, as SD tirelessly points out, the Element is built on a very light truck chassis). You continiously tout the "10%" number to hid the significance of an 18" difference in wheelbase. Ask someone who parallel parks on a regular basis if that's meager. There are crossover SUVs (built on car platforms), compact SUVs, mini SUVs (ah, Samurai we barely knew ye...). Just because you think your truck is 'manlier' doesn't mean you get to reclassify a vehicle. Just because it doesn't do the utility you want, or the sport you want, doesn't mean it's not one.

I still think of it as a toaster, because it looks like one, but it does have a greater ground clearance than the other toaster cars, it is built on a mini/compact truck platform unlike the other toaster cars, and it has things like a plastic floor for people tracking in sand/dirt intending it for a slightly different segment of the youth market than the Cube or Soul. So if Honda wants to classify it as an SUV, it seems like it has earned it. "I like my truck!" does not invalidate that. Sorry. Once again, different people have different demands. You'd function better if you'd understand that simple notion.

And there are a number of reasons you, in this kind of discussion, don't compare old and new.
Well - I went with old just because I'm familiar with old. We can take new compact SUVs. If we find those that are actual SUV. The Element is much closer to a road car capacity-wise.

Things like longevity and depreciation and warranties are entirely different.
I'm pretty sure a LC-100 will outlive most LC-200, a LC-80 will outlive a LC-100, and a LC-70 will outlive any LC-80. Same with most other companies. The quality of new cars is falling faster than old cars age. And depreciation-wise, used cars depreciate way less than new ones.

Though I assure you, if you were looking for an actual utility vehicle, you wouldn't bother with that. You wouldn't separate new and old models, and would easily compare a new F250 and a used F350 side by side. In the truck world, people tend to buy not "a new car" or "an old car", but a vehicle with specific capabilities for a specific job.


Off road prowess is not necessary for a vehicle to be classified as an SUV. Lately it's not even necessary for it to be built on a light truck chassis (even though, as SD tirelessly points out, the Element is built on a very light truck chassis).
CR-V? That's not a light truck, it's a SUV-style vehicle based on the Civic platform. They don't offer CR-V with a flat bed, it doesn't have any specific off-road features, AWD is long not an offroader exclusive.

Of course, they can call it a SUV. Or a Crossover SUV. The term "Crossover SUV" actually stands for "I want a station wagon, but I care too much about what random onlookers think of me to buy such an uncool thing".

If I may, I expect that the average 2019 "Crossover SUV" will have lower ground clearance, lower-profile tires, longer gearing, shorter suspension travel, and overall worse off-road performance than the average modern station wagon.


Just because you think your truck is 'manlier' doesn't mean you get to reclassify a vehicle. Just because it doesn't do the utility you want, or the sport you want, doesn't mean it's not one.
It's not about being 'manlier'. I need a truck to tow the PWC trailer, as well as occasional entertainment. And don't assume I don't hate the experience of driving it on the road, for the chassis just isn't cut for it.


I still think of it as a toaster, because it looks like one, but it does have a greater ground clearance than the other toaster cars, it is built on a mini/compact truck platform unlike the other toaster cars, and it has things like a plastic floor for people tracking in sand/dirt
It is a boxy car ("toaster car") all right. And no, Honda Civic isn't a truck platform, neither is CR-V that is based on it. It may be a bit less road-bound, but it's still, by design, a "toaster car" rather than an enclosed offroad truck (SUV).

Well - I went with old just because I'm familiar with old. We can take new compact SUVs. If we find those that are actual SUV. The Element is much closer to a road car capacity-wise.
I couldn't be less interested in what you personally consider to be a 'true' SUV.


I'm pretty sure a LC-100 will outlive most LC-200, a LC-80 will outlive a LC-100, and a LC-70 will outlive any LC-80. Same with most other companies. The quality of new cars is falling faster than old cars age. And depreciation-wise, used cars depreciate way less than new ones.
Likewise, your opinions on the progression of the Land Cruiser have zero baring on the topic of toaster cars.

Though I assure you, if you were looking for an actual utility vehicle, you wouldn't bother with that. You wouldn't separate new and old models, and would easily compare a new F250 and a used F350 side by side. In the truck world, people tend to buy not "a new car" or "an old car", but a vehicle with specific capabilities for a specific job.
And if this was a buying guide and not in fact a discussion about the emergence of toaster cars, this might be relevant, but it's not. I don't care what your particular take on what 'the truck world' would or would not do.



CR-V? That's not a light truck, it's a SUV-style vehicle based on the Civic platform. They don't offer CR-V with a flat bed, it doesn't have any specific off-road features, AWD is long not an offroader exclusive.

Of course, they can call it a SUV. Or a Crossover SUV. The term "Crossover SUV" actually stands for "I want a station wagon, but I care too much about what random onlookers think of me to buy such an uncool thing".

If I may, I expect that the average 2019 "Crossover SUV" will have lower ground clearance, lower-profile tires, longer gearing, shorter suspension travel, and overall worse off-road performance than the average modern station wagon.
You may be the only off roader actually trying to 'protect' the 'integrity' of the SUV segment, since most off-roaders would like very much to separate the 'true off roaders' from the SUV classification. Also, I don't care. It isn't relevant and your authority is in question.



It's not about being 'manlier'. I need a truck to tow the PWC trailer, as well as occasional entertainment. And don't assume I don't hate the experience of driving it on the road, for the chassis just isn't cut for it.
Say, that's great. Of course, what you need in a truck is completely irrelavant. But I'm sure you lead a manly life fully of manly activities that we can all sit around admire in your manliness. I say this because I can think of no other reason for you to bring up your needs and insist upon them in a discussion about toaster cars.



It is a boxy car ("toaster car") all right. And no, Honda Civic isn't a truck platform, neither is CR-V that is based on it. It may be a bit less road-bound, but it's still, by design, a "toaster car" rather than an enclosed offroad truck (SUV).
Noted. Unconvinced. I'm going to go with the classifications of the larger car market than your rather limited scope.

You may be the only off roader actually trying to 'protect' the 'integrity' of the SUV segment, since most off-roaders would like very much to separate the 'true off roaders' from the SUV classification.
True off-roaders are a rare, virtually extinct species today (LC70 is one). Plus, I'm not really "protecting the integrity" of something. It's just that I find it hard to think of Element as a SUV (not to mention an offroader).


I say this because I can think of no other reason for you to bring up your needs and insist upon them in a discussion about toaster cars.
I bring up my needs as an example of what a SUV is supposed to be used for, for I judge cars based on how well are they suited to my needs.


Noted. Unconvinced. I'm going to go with the classifications of the larger car market than your rather limited scope.
Go with whatever you wish, though you're really going with whatever the manufacturer calls it. I just mentioned my take on it.

True off-roaders are a rare, virtually extinct species today (LC70 is one). Plus, I'm not really "protecting the integrity" of something. It's just that I find it hard to think of Element as a SUV (not to mention an offroader).

I know you think that because-


I bring up my needs as an example of what a SUV is supposed to be used for, for I judge cars based on how well are they suited to my needs.
and you are continiously incapable of understanding that your needs and wants are not in fact universal nor are they in any way a determinating factor in whether or not a vehicle is a 'true' whatever.



Go with whatever you wish, though you're really going with whatever the manufacturer calls it. I just mentioned my take on it.
Actually, more than that and certainly a lot more than "Well, it doesn't do what I want it to do, so therefore it can't possibly be one!" But honestly, I don't fucking care because that wasn't even slightly what I wanted to discuss.

Toaster cars?

Like this? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Mini_Van_001.JPG)

Or this? (http://yourethiopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/renault-4_lag-1.jpg)

Yep, clearly not a new concept. :D

and you are continiously incapable of understanding that your needs and wants are not in fact universal
Yes, but they're the ones that matter for me.
Just because any car that can drive on a gravel road, carry two crates of beer and tow a tricycle counts as an SUV for someone doesn't mean I should call it such, does it?


nor are they in any way a determinating factor in whether or not a vehicle is a 'true' whatever.
As I've explained, the determining part is not my needs, but matching the original purpose of this class of car. My needs merely happen to coincide with said purpose.

Yes, but they're the ones that matter for me.
Just because any car that can drive on a gravel road, carry two crates of beer and tow a tricycle counts as an SUV for someone doesn't mean I should call it such, does it?
Yes, actually. It's how classification works. It's not a Vault 10-centric world and we are not going to be in the practice of asking you 'if it's okay.' Sorry.



As I've explained, the determining part is not my needs, but matching the original purpose of this class of car. My needs merely happen to coincide with said purpose.
Through the very narrow focused beam of your preferences buttressed by what you need. You've been clear. And I still don't care.

Yes, actually. It's how classification works.
If the classification worked that way - that as long as anyone calls something X, it's X - well you get the idea.

Do you have info on how does the EPA handle the Element, under truck or car rules?


Through the very narrow focused beam of your preferences buttressed by what you need. You've been clear. And I still don't care.
Well - you don't need a truck, don't buy one.

Toaster cars?

Like this? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Mini_Van_001.JPG)

Or this? (http://yourethiopia.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/renault-4_lag-1.jpg)

Yep, clearly not a new concept. :D

Yeah, but Europeans have been accustomed to boxy toaster cars since the beginning of the automotive age. That particular form of automotive ugliness is fairly new here in the USA. It needs to stay in the past, not be resurrected as a new form of ocular torment.

And auto companies: If your "Sport Utility Vehicle" doesn't really offer much utility, towing capacity, or off-road capability and is geared toward luxury and highway handling, it is simply a "Sport vehicle". Stop pretending it's an SUV.

If the classification worked that way - that as long as anyone calls something X, it's X - well you get the idea.
No.

Do you have info on how does the EPA handle the Element, under truck or car rules?
SUV (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/compx2008f.jsp). As well as the Cruiser and the HHR. Sorry, Bob.



Well - you don't need a truck, don't buy one.
Pointless.



And auto companies: If your "Sport Utility Vehicle" doesn't really offer much utility, towing capacity, or off-road capability and is geared toward luxury and highway handling, it is simply a "Sport vehicle". Stop pretending it's an SUV.
Off road capability has long ago not been the standard for SUV, 'sport' and 'utility' are pretty relative terms and different people have different demands, which is why there is more than one model of any class of car available. Any car is a compromise, otherwise it'd be nothing but F1 cars and dune buggies. SUVs have not 'favored' off road capability in that compromise since it became a popular segment. The Element does have utility, especially when measured against the average compact. Trying to find your favorite big bad off roader and saying it doesn't measure up is disingenuous. It's the difference between an Element and a three box car like the Civic and suddenly just calling it a compact seems ridiculous.

I hate all those fucking cars so much. I hated the Element the most, but this "Cube" (is it supposed to be some sort of GameCube/X-Box monster lovechild?) has now taken the top spot. Dear lord that's ugly. Also, nice design on the break lights. That's not confusing/distracting/hard to see at all.

I still hate neon yellow Hummers the most, though.

I really hate how many people buy these things that never use the features that set them apart. Don't ask me why, it doesn't make any difference in my life, but it irritates me. My family's owned one SUV (actually, we still have it, 13 years and two break replacements later... nice engineering, Ford) and you know why we bought it? Because we needed it to go OFF ROAD. We did a lot of hiking and backpacking. We used that car to move my stuff when I went to school. We built fences and a pergola and hauled all the materials and equipment in the back. You don't need these cars to take your kids to fucking Tee-ball.

Amen.

Go me! At least it's debating the merits of a car that most of us could conceivably own instead of the relative merits of a hundreds of thousands of dollars limited edition sports car that most people will never even see in real life much less own or even touch. Hell, for $40 a day we can rent these cars, there's slightly more dignity to this...slightly

A lot of people in my line of work drive Elements, so I've been in a few. I have yet to ride in an xB as far as I can remember.

Make sure your kidneys are firmly attached. The ride is roller-skate-like.

CToaN & V-10, you're both acting foolish. Vault for hijacking the thread, and CToaN for continually encouraging him. This is Vault's MO, so why play into his hands?

How's about we get back to the thread topic. If they beefed up the xB's suspension and made the ride more street-friendly in places that have rotten streets (like here in Spokane), it would be the clear winner. It also needs to be quieter -- in short, it needs to be a Honda. I judge looks long after efficiency and ride (comfort and noise).