2024 Nissan Kicks Is the Kind of Car We Need More Of: Affordable

https://www.thedrive.com/news/2024-nissan-kicks-is-the-kind-of-car-we-need-more-of-affordable

by PaulHoule • 3 years ago

43 111 3 years ago

damnesian• 3 years ago

get an EPA-estimated 36 mpg highway,

Highly commendable, but still lower than est hwy MPG for certain compact vehicles under production way back in 19 freaking 76.

Also, here we are 50 years later and the 100mpg carburetor is still apparenrtly under lock and key in a secret high-security vault somewhere.

PaulHoule2• 3 years ago

The Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic are in a class by themselves in terms of fuel efficiency, there are an awful lot of other small cars, some even smaller than those two, but nothing that comes close in fuel efficiency. I think getting that efficiency requires careful end-to-end tuning out everything that other manufacturers haven’t done. Also superficially both vehicles look kinda expensive for what you seem to get but they are well built so when/if they quit making them I think you’ll see used vehicles with 100,000 miles selling at “new” prices.

shortcake27• 3 years ago

I love my Corolla. 22 years old, 200k miles, runs perfectly fine. Never broken down on me. Even the interior is pristine, no rips in the drivers seat upholstery - something I’ve seen happen in a matter of years in other cars.

I felt bad when that story came out about Toyota engineers pulling the panels off a Tesla and being in shock. Sure, Tesla has done some amazingly innovative engineering. But the interior of a brand new Tesla is more rickety than my clapped out Corolla. Toyota engineers shouldn’t feel bad, they build cars that last, and that really matters to a lot of people.

jacquesm3• 3 years ago

Daihatsu Charade 3 cylinder diesel was the best fuel economy of any car I've ever owned including relatively modern hybrids. That thing more than once made me doubt if the fuel meter wasn't simply broken.

awiesenhofer• 3 years ago

the 100mpg carburetor is still apparenrtly under lock and key

I always hoped these or similar fables like the 1-litre car would suddenly surface when Tesla and electric cars in general started to be a thing. Especially from car companies more "set in their ways" like GM or german car makers. But all this talk about efuels now makes me think they maybe dont have anything up their sleeves after all.

404mm• 3 years ago

1L compact cars were not uncommon in Europe 10-15 years ago. Consumption was about 5L/100km (about 47mpg). Now they are being replaced with hybrids and electric versions.

Example: (German) Opel Corsa 1.0 3-cyl https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opel_Corsa#Corsa_D_(S07;_2006)

Sure it was a rather small car, but it gets you to work just as well as F-150.

Oh and carburetor was definitely not part of the design lol.

kstrauser3• 3 years ago

My counter to all those conspiracy theories: China. They have smart engineers, too. If a 100mpg carburetor were possible, they'd be building the thing so they could cut their oil imports.

(Well, that and physics. We know how much energy we can extract from a gallon of gasoline, and no amount of cleverness can get around that.)

ericbarrett• 3 years ago

I have a 4000 lb 4-door sedan that gets 38 mpg highway, real world, not a hybrid. So this is really table stakes.

AtlasBarfed2• 3 years ago

By point of reference, the Prius and the Honda insight came onto the market in 1997

It is a tragedy of humanity and the environment that the world regulatory bodies did not look at the design of those two vehicles in mandate that was in 10 years. All consumer vehicles should have a hybrid drivetrain.

Modern table stakes for a car should be a plug-in range of 50 miles, 40 mpg+ highway, and 40+ mpg city.

The fact remains the vast majority of ICE vehicles are still sold without a hybrid drivetrain. So is they toot around cities in stop and go traffic they're wasting all of their kinetic energy in brake/friction heat and not reusing it for the most energetically expensive thing it does: acceleration.

Most people don't even think about the sheer waste involved with a stop sign. The amount of mechanical work we waste with brake friction and the amount of energy to reaccelerate.

If any were reading the discussion about repurposing ICE engines for home generators, you can see that the design right there. You basically can't use an ICU as a generator for anything but like 10% of its output sustained because all it's cooling is designed around intermittent high power acceleration to get the car up to speed.

Think of all that wasted weight in the engine in the ICE drivetrain to do all that acceleration when much more compact hybrid drive trains can produce better torque and acceleration for most of that use case in consumer transportation.

If in one of those decades the US since the Prius was introduced, it's simply mandated the industry go over to hybrid drivetrains especially plug in ones, we would have been so much more resistant to fluctuations and petroleum costs.

And I don't even want to think about how long ago we actually could have done some sort of hybrid drivetrain in cars. This 1997 the formative arrival of the battery sufficient to be used in hybrid drivetrains?

Perhaps it was with notebook batteries in lithium ion, but could nickel-cadmium or lead acid also done the job?

lttlrck• 3 years ago

Cars have gotten heavier and heavier, which explains some of it but not all of it.

My 10 year old 4000lbs 3.5L sedan gets better mpg than lighter 2024 cars with less powerful, smaller engines... I think aero probably plays a part (sleek sedan vs tall modern designs).

In terms of conserving fossil fuels it feels like we've gone nowhere. Tailpipe emission are clearly lower, which is great, but that's just part of the battle.

scheme271• 3 years ago

Modern cars weigh a lot more due to safety features like crumple zones and better protection around the cabin. We could probably get that 100mpg car if we aggressively dropped all the safety features but then we'd go back to the fatality rates of 1976.

j-wags• 3 years ago

I strongly suspect that we could make equally protective, lighter weight crumple zones if we were designing for collisions with lighter weight cars. Excessive cabin protection is largely needed because bumpers on light trucks are at head level for passengers in normal cars. Weight is a safety factor independent of crumple zones and cabin protection because in a crash m1a1=m2a2, and you don't want to get caught with the smaller m.

I'm concerned that we're currently cranking out a generation of uniquely heavy and dangerous vehicles which future vehicles will have to share the road with for decades, perpetuating these dangerous design factors.

If we designed a new 5-seat sedan that could easily reach 90 mph, but which only needed to share the road with other copies of itself, I bet we could do it in 1000 pounds and it would be far safer.

hackermatic• 3 years ago

I like that you call out that this is mediocre even by compact car standards. We've lost so much fleet fuel efficiency because of SUVs and trucks, but there's no reason why a compact shouldn't be at least 50mpg.

I was really interested in the Chevrolet Spark until I realized it only gets 29 city/38 highway. I really don't understand how it's that bad.

supportengineer• 3 years ago

There were 50 MPG Honda's in the 1990s.

nickff• 3 years ago

Safety equipment is heavy, and crash standards make cars bigger; “compact” cars are now much heavier and larger than they used to be.

coredog642• 3 years ago

Modern catalytic converters require that the engine run much richer than efficiency dictates. We could improve fleet economy for small vehicles by trading off cold start emissions for highway emissions. Or allowing cat bypass once the engine has come to operating temperature.

bluGill4• 3 years ago

There isn't enough energy in a gallon of gas to get the typical car to 100mpg. You can get some special designed tiny cars to more than that, but the compromises on size mean that it won't be popular because of how small it must be. While they work for 90% of driving (one person), that other 10% means another car which is expensive.

fragmede5• 3 years ago

If it existed, I'd love to own a 1-person car/motorcycle, and then rent an SUV the other 5 weeks out of the year.

Ekaros• 3 years ago

Basically you end up with bicycle/motorcycle inside a teardrop shaped bubble... And limited speeds.

pram• 3 years ago

Does it need to be so aggressively ugly?

willcipriano• 3 years ago

To give you a reason to spend 20k extra to buy a more expensive model.

redwall_hp• 3 years ago

Or another sport utility trashwagon.

qbrass• 3 years ago

Aggressively ugly is Nissan's current design language. The exceptions being the Z and the GT-R, which are trying to be retro.

syndicatedjelly• 3 years ago

You bought a cheap car, Nissan wants you to feel embarassed.

timeon• 3 years ago

Well it is SUV so yes.

FooBarBizBazz• 3 years ago

Big fan of cheap.

Main concern: Does it have a Jatco CVT that turns itself into metal shavings? That's supposed to be the issue with FWD Nissans, no?

Tijdreiziger5• 3 years ago

Excuse the meme, but: https://i.redd.it/z3hifq228l491.jpg

akira2501• 3 years ago

Is driving the primary source of the "overheating?" Are safety outcomes different in the past 50 years? Are meme's anything other than weak propaganda for half thought out points?

mathisfun1235• 3 years ago

i'm always shocked when supposedly technology literate people meme like this; are you not aware of and/or dismissive of materials and mechanical engineering research in the intervening years. to such an extent that

1. the car on the left is 3x safer than the car on the right.

2. the car on the left actually does have comparable fuel efficiency (feel free to google for fuel efficiencies of the original minis)

3. the car on the left is better for the environment due to more stringent (e.g.) EPA standards for production vehicles (well at least until trump rolled them back...)

kstrauser3• 3 years ago

1. The modern day version of the car on the right would also be vastly safer.

2. Imagine how great all those fuel efficiency technologies would be if applied to a much lighter vehicle.

Tijdreiziger5• 3 years ago

I’m going tho have to disagree on these points.

1. the car on the left is 3x safer than the car on the right.

It might be marginally safer for the driver, but due to reduced visibility, it is less safe for pedestrians and cyclists.

Some carmakers take this to an extreme: https://i.redd.it/5b2ewauetf191.jpg

Here’s another example: https://i.redd.it/7vgq17y69m691.jpg. The fact that the front car is street legal is, frankly, a policy failure.

(The Mini is less egregious, of course, but having two of them highlights the differences more than having two different cars.)

2. the car on the left actually does have comparable fuel efficiency (feel free to google for fuel efficiencies of the original minis)
3. the car on the left is better for the environment due to more stringent (e.g.) EPA standards for production vehicles (well at least until trump rolled them back...)

Don’t you think that if we made modern cars the size of the right one, their fuel efficiency and environmental impact would be even less? Is it not a colossal shame that in 50 years, we have not improved on these parameters?

AtlasBarfed2• 3 years ago

When mass production of sodium ion 150 wh/kg cells huts mass production down to 40$/kwhr, this type of car will get even cheaper.

It seems nuts with all the issues car companies are having with EVs, but an EV is a simple motor (much smaller than an ice), brakes, axles, batteries and wires.

Domestic/ incumbent manufacturing really needs to stay on top of the segment because if they don't the Chinese are going to utterly invade America with it. The Chinese are basically designing the cheap urban car that can scale and purchase to a billion to 2 billion people in China and India.

That's why I think the sodium ion battery with a density sufficient for a 300 mile car hitting mass production at CATL and others is such a big deal.

jacquesm3• 3 years ago

but an EV is a simple motor (much smaller than an ice), brakes, axles, batteries and wires.

And a very large bunch of complex high power electronics.

fragmede5• 3 years ago

Regenerative braking means the brakes barely even get used to the point that Teslas used to have a problem with brake pads rusting from lack of use.

aspyct4• 3 years ago

Funny how they complain 122hp is little.

Meanwhile in Europe, we get by just fine with a lot less than that.

America needs to stop making everything so big for no reason.

Tijdreiziger5• 3 years ago

Unfortunately, there’s no shortage of needlessly big SUVs in Europe either.

People claim to feel safer in those vehicles, but they are actually making the roads unsafer for pedestrians and cyclists.

aspyct4• 3 years ago

Agreed. SUVs must die.

gottorf3• 3 years ago

In general, American roads are a lot bigger and straighter than European roads, meaning in terms of consumer preference, horsepower matters more in the former, and being nimble matters more in the latter.

I agree with you that not every car needs to have a sub-6 second 0-60 time. A 9.8 second 0-60 of the Kicks is considerably faster than, say, a Fiat Panda.

bluGill4• 3 years ago

In America torque matters more than horsepower and torque is what keeps you running at high speeds. In Europe horse power matters more as that is what accelerates you from a stop. What sells (and is marketed) in each country is different of course.

tzs3• 3 years ago

122 hp = 90 kW

Meanwhile in Europe, we get by just fine with a lot less than that

The EU average is over 100 kW [1].

[1] https://imgur.com/DcY6y6f

aspyct4• 3 years ago

Yes, it has become stupid in the recent years. However I used to have a 72hp car that was totally capable of barrelling down the highway at 120km/h (~= 75 miles per hour).

So, I insist, 122hp isn't "little".

sockaddr2• 3 years ago

My family has owned many Nissans and Infinitis and they are (in the last 15+ years) universally garbage.

Nissan makes trash that can drive around for a little bit first, that's what this is.

CVTs are kind of crappy to begin with but Nissan CVTs are by far the worst.

I have heard however that their newer leaf is pretty good.

SkyPuncher3• 3 years ago

I'm rather convinced that people's negative opinions of cars are almost exclusively influenced by their usage of them. Cars are complex. They all break. Everyone complains about the brands they drive, while almost always continuing to buy those brands.

nickthegreek• 3 years ago

I regularly bought Toyotas growing up, following in the footsteps of my parents. We never had any major issues over decades.

kstrauser3• 3 years ago

I don't get what you mean here. Why else would they have negative opinions of them?

Also, we bought a minivan in 2003, put 250,000 miles on it with no major repairs, got in an accident that totaled it, replaced it with a new version of the same model, have nearly 100,000 problem-free miles on it, and would buy the same model again if something happened to this one. Some people genuinely like their vehicles. I'd guess that most people do.

local_crmdgeon2• 3 years ago

A lot of it is political. A lot of people REFUSE to buy American cars (except Telsas) as a political point.

My Chevys have been unbelievably reliable, more so than my Toyotas, and the stats bear that out.

LeafItAlone3• 3 years ago

CVTs are kind of crappy to begin

What do you mean by this? My two cars both have CVTs and they have been great (not Nissan though). Together, they have about 500,000km on them

jacquesm3• 3 years ago

Together, they have about 500km on them

I doubt that's what you meant to write.

gottorf3• 3 years ago

CVT implementations vary, and I think some people just prefer the feel of a torque-converted automatic, which is why some CVTs fake this.

Nissan, however, is famous for making garbage CVTs that have lots of issues at low mileages.

willio58• 3 years ago

I think it depends on the manufacturer. I have a Honda reaching higher mileage and it's a CVT and I love it. Never had one problem with it.

Also, I think this is one of those things where CVTs came out, there were a bunch of problems that popped up in the first 3-5 years with different manufacturers, and now those problems are largely fixed but it left people feeling apprehensive around it. Honestly, I think this CVT ICE car is going to be my last gas car anyway. It'll probably last me another 5 years easily and by then there will be even more options for cheaper EVs in the US.

joecot• 3 years ago

There are multiple class action lawsuits and settlements with Nissan over their CVTs. My Versa with a CVT started dying around 70k miles. It had all its scheduled service. I brought it to a Nissan dealer, and paid for a transmission inspection, and they said it was totally fine, even though I regularly experienced it failing to shift (or slide, I guess) between gears while accelerating. Around 90k miles it stopped switching out of 1st gear while I was 400 miles from home. I brought it to a family friend mechanic, who showed me that the transmission fluid plug was covered in metal shavings.

CVTs, at least from Nissan are a black box. You can change the fluid, you can hook it up to a computer, but that's about it. There's no fixing them. When it's done you have to replace the entire transmission. I limped the car another 50 miles to a dealer and traded it in for a Chevy Cruze. I looked it up, and I was the only year model not to have a class action yet. Later there was, and I think they settled for a 500 dollar voucher towards a new Nissan. No thanks.

Grimburger• 3 years ago

This is honestly surprising to me. I've driven some old ass Nissans and they are ridiculously reliable machines. 240SX and the entire Silvia engine line is solid.

Never owned a CVT but from what I understand they basically trade off fuel consumption for a bit of longevity?

SoftTalker• 3 years ago

I have a Nissan truck that has been quite good mechanically, but is rusting like a tin can. I'd be interested in another one but not unless they've improved their corrosion resistance.

sottol• 3 years ago

I think Nissan's quality went downhill mid-2000s after their turnaround from near-bankruptcy in the early 2000s.

sockaddr2• 3 years ago

All of the pre-2000 Nissans my family have owned or that my friends have owned seemed to be pretty decent (I loved my 1996 sentra). I'm really only referring to some vague date shortly after 2000 where quality took a nosedive. Not sure why though.

randallsquared• 3 years ago

I dunno; I had a Nissan cube for 8 years and it was great, including the CVT. I was sad to hear they discontinued the cube.

PaulHoule2• 3 years ago

I'm on my second Honda Fit. I can't say it it's the most exciting car to drive but both have had zero trouble with the CVT at 110,000+ miles. The first one died a violent death (totaled twice in a year) and the second is going strong. All the major systems performed flawlessly, though there were some struggles with the hatchback handle and the tire pressure monitoring system.

I do remember renting a Dodge Caliber year back when the CVT performed terribly going up hills as automatic but it wasn't bad at all if you used the paddle shifters. I did read reviews of people who bought the things, drove 20,000 miles and complained bitterly about performance and never figured out about the paddle shifters though.

tmmx• 3 years ago

totaled twice in a year

How did it happen twice?

Ductapemaster• 3 years ago

This car is everything that I love about my 2015 Honda Fit, and I'm happy to see another manufacturer filling the void since the Fit's discontinuation.

While I am about to trade it in and get a truck, I have absolutely loved having a fairly basic, functional, and reliable car. It's taken my partner and I (and now our dog, who is unfortunately too large for the car!) thousands and thousands of miles across the West filled to the brim with camping gear, while also being a perfect around-town grocery-run car. Biggest repair was a failing starter motor, which ran me $600.

I have been saddened to see even the most basic cars getting loaded up with more and more features, and proportionally increasing prices. Of course some of it is mandated and unavoidable (backup cameras, etc), but I wish more manufacturers would fill out the bottom end of their model ranges with just the required stuff and not much more — letting premium features be an add-on vs. forcing the sale by only offering varieties of "everything". This is a step in the right direction!

battery_glasses• 3 years ago

Or for a couple grand more you can get a base model Subaru with symmetrical AWD and a it will easily get to 200k+ miles.

flerchin• 3 years ago

A basic corolla, at only slightly more ($21.9k vs $20.7k), gets 53 mpg vs 36 mpg, and will probably last longer.

slap_shot• 3 years ago

Exactly. I'm not sure what the appeal of these crossovers are (they're effectively small sedans on the Chassis of a small SUV) but at that price point, just get a foreign sedan that you can drive into the ground. I have a number of friends with 100k+ miles on Carollas that drive like they're brand new.

Some vehicles have gotten insanely expensive, but the real dollar cost per mile of a safe and reliable vehicle has never been cheaper.

PH95VuimJjqBqy5• 3 years ago

I purchased a 2004 corolla off the lot and that bad boy is running smooth at 165k miles.

It's ugly as all get-out, for some reason people love hitting me, including a freaking semi truck on a double left turn that turned too tightly. I literally have a line going down the side of my car marking where the trailer rotated into me.

But you know what I like more than a pretty vehicle? Reliable, no car payments, cheap insurance.

Just maintain it well and those vehicles will last you a lifetime.

Gibbon1• 3 years ago

I'm a broken record but you can buy used Chevy Bolts with 20-30k miles for $18000.

That's about 10 cents a mile capital cost. And the electricity will cost about 5 cents a mile.

reducesuffering• 3 years ago

The 53 mpg [city] Corolla Hybrid is $27k in the US. The $21.9k Corolla gets 35 mpg city+highway, and the $23.3k Corolla Hybrid gets 48 mpg overall.

throw7• 3 years ago

I actually don't care about adaptive cruise control, 360-degree parking camera, remote start, a bigger infotainment screen, and a Bose stereo for this segment. I'm sure someone will tell me now that removing those wouldn't make the car any cheaper. shrug.

A reliable, well-built (not pieces falling off after one winter season) car with a manual and non-cvt transmission would make this more appealing.

helij• 3 years ago

Apologies. What I wrote actually has nothing to do with today's times so removed.

2024 Nissan Kicks Is the Kind of Car We Need More Of: Affordable

Related Stories