Human memory has a funny way of warping the truth as time goes on. From spinning minor accidents into huge deals to millennial/Gen Z cuspers coming out of COVID isolation with rose-tinted memories of life during the War on Terror, our brains have a unique way of making things go topsy-turvy. Take the Chevrolet Aveo: It’s a hateful little shitbox that embodies American automakers’ contempt for the small car, right? Not so fast. While I’m not saying that this mediocre subcompact car is unappreciated genius, there’s a possibility that in some way, shape, or form, it was alright at one point. Welcome back to GM Hit or Miss, where we peel back the layers of GM’s fill-every-niche pre-bankruptcy lineup in (Pontiac) Pursuit of scratchy-plastic enlightenment.
Let There Be Economy
Back in the 1990s, captive imports were all the rage. Ford had Mazda, Chrysler had Mitsubishi, and GM had the kitchen sink. From the collaborative NUMMI plant with Toyota to rebadged Isuzus sold as Geos and Asunas, the post-Cold War decade was a great one for Asian cars with American badging. Let’s zoom in on two examples critical to the Aveo’s story.
First up, we have the Suzuki Cultus, which was brilliant. A series of rotating GM badges meant this subcompact hatchback was America’s minimum viable new car for more than a decade, and viable it was. Sure, the Chevrolet Sprint or Geo Metro or whatever you wanted to call it was slow, but it was almost unfathomably economical. When new, the 1992 Geo Metro XFI was rated at 53 mpg city, 58 mpg highway, and 55 mpg combined on the EPA’s old three-cycle testing regimen. Owners still report fuel economy north of 50 mpg and even the larger, heavier next-generation model was rated at 41 mpg city, 47 mpg highway, and 43 mpg combined. See what lightweight construction and three tiny cylinders can do?
Another entry-level captive import rebadged as a GM product was the Daewoo LeMans, and it was a little bit rough. Needless to say, I smile every time I see one on the road. Sure, it’s not bad to look at and it was based on the Opel Kadett E, but early Korean build quality meant they never lasted long in the rust belt. Plus, Motorweek’s John Davis reports in a period review that the handling was crap. Brakes locked up early, the manual steering rack was described as “very slow and dead in road feel.” Adding to the matter, Davis reports that “The steering wheel didn’t want to re-center itself after a turn.” Ouch.
Needless to say, the LeMans was cut from the team after 1993, but the Metro soldiered on until 2001, faithfully fulfilling that cheap new car niche so highly desired today. However, the Metro was getting old and General Motors had different plans for the CAMI plant in which it was built. It was time once again to outsource.
A Shrewd Acquisition
Back to the Daewoo for a second. By 1999, the Korean automaker had collapsed due to a combination of corruption and bad timing. It eventually gave us one of the greatest automotive lines in cinema, but that’s all this chaebol wrote. After several years of trying to find a buyer for its automotive division, General Motors eventually swooped in to purchase Daewoo Motors for $1.2 billion in 2002. By that time, several projects were well underway including the Kalos, a B-segment hatchback or sedan that primarily used a licensed variant of GM’s Family I line of four-cylinder engines.
On paper, the Kalos seemed brilliant. Engine by Opel, styling by Italdesign, testing in such demanding locales as Kapuskasing, Canada and Arjeplog, Sweden, and a huge list of optional equipment. It was a genuine world car for Daewoo, so it’s not terribly surprising that Chevrolet plucked it out of the Daewoo lineup and rebadged it as the Aveo for various global markets. It went on sale in America for the 2004 model year at the low price of $9,995 and despite all its promise, it turned out to be a mixed bag.
The Car, The Myth, The Disappointment
Remember the Metro from earlier? This bastion of economy built a hell of a name for itself. On paper, it should’ve never worked in America – it was too small, too underpowered, and completely at odds with the prevailing American tastes of the time. However, all the traits that made aspiring SUV owners turn their noses up at the Metro gave it an iron-clad reputation as a brand new car that was almost cheaper than a bus pass and would never, ever go wrong. Even setting economy aside, the Metro was good – it had independent rear suspension for surprisingly decent handling, consumables cost absolutely nothing, the cabin was well-finished for the time, and quality genuinely felt present. Would I love a five-speed Metro to augment my 325i? Hell yeah I would.
However, the Aveo largely abandoned this niche. For a start, fuel economy was surprisingly poor for such a little car. The EPA rated it at 27 mpg city, 35 mpg highway, and 30 mpg combined in old three-cycle testing, and that’s if you didn’t opt for the four-speed automatic. This little car may have packed substantially more power than a Metro, but it was a lush for the subcompact segment.
Then there’s the matter of quality – for whatever reason, every older Aveo I’ve ever been in has felt poorly-made. The wiper stalks are popsicle sticks JB-Welded to concrete, threatening to snap if you dare wish to see where you’re going while Mother Nature is chucking down cats and dogs. Then there was the dashboard, which would get marked up like a blackboard soon after purchase. Sure, cheap Toyotas of the time had hard plastics, but they were nicely-textured, whimsically-styled, and hid scratches well. The Aveo’s dashboard didn’t do any of those things. Oh, and the shifter action felt like stirring a cup of coffee.
Get the Aveo out on the road and things improve. Ride quality is remarkably good compared to most subcompacts of the time, cabin noise isn’t wildly loud, and visibility is solid. Sure, the iron-block Opel-derived engine was 80-grit coarse, but compared to much of the competition, the Aveo was a decent road-tripper.
See, the rest of the subcompact segment in 2004 didn’t do much to stir the imaginations of Americans. The Hyundai Accent was cheap and nasty, and so was the Kia Rio. The Toyota Echo was great, but it was shunned for being weird, and it was much the same deal with the Scion xA and the more expensive, more refined Suzuki Aerio. For people on a budget whose tastes were as bland as grits, the American subcompact car market in 2003 ticked no boxes other than basic transportation.
In that context, it makes sense how the Aveo caught on. Sure, it was cheap and slightly nasty, but it was first and foremost cheap. Owning a used car is a luxury if you can’t afford breakdowns, so it wasn’t uncommon to see Aveos here, there, and everywhere. For a few years, the Chevrolet Aveo was alright. That would all change very quickly, though.
Aging Un-Gracefully
Just two model years after the introduction of the Aveo, the Toyota Echo, Hyundai Accent, and Kia Rio all got replacements. Surprisingly, all three of were better than the Aveo, with the Accent and Rio demonstrating that Korean car brand trend of taking a quantum leap forward instead of simply evolving a model. Honda then came along with the brilliant Fit for 2007, and Suzuki brought out the phenomenal yet misunderstood SX4, cementing the Aveo’s status at the bottom of the subcompact car barrel.
So what’s GM to do? It’s 2007, the Aveo hasn’t yet completed a typical model cycle, but the competition was creaming this entry-level car from all fronts. That’s right, keep it on-sale unchanged. It took another year or two for the Aveo to reach facelift time, but at least it was an extensive update. In addition to the customary new bumpers and lights, GM changed the front fenders, hood, and a huge chunk of the dashboard. Seriously, just look at this comparison between the pre-facelift dashboard and the facelifted model’s dashboard.
I don’t think I need to label which one’s the early dashboard and which one’s the late one. If you’re still wondering though, the facelifted model’s dashboard is the one with veneers from the Roger B. Smith collection. Even though the updates did a lot to make the Aveo feel nicer, they weren’t extensive enough to catch the competition. The Toyota Yaris still got better fuel mileage, the Honda Fit was better in every way, and Ford was starting to drop hints that the Fiesta might make it to America. There just wasn’t much appeal to the Aveo at this point, nor was there much safety if you crashed one. In Euro NCAP frontal crash testing, the facelifted T250 Aveo scored just two stars. Watch for yourself:
Well, that’s a lot of deformation. It would make sense if Chevrolet killed the Aveo quickly after its facelift, but we’re talking about a company going through serious financial hardship. For one reason or another, the Aveo soldiered on through the 2011 model year. This means that Americans could buy an Aveo and a Mazda 2 at the same time, and it’s plain to see which was the better car. GM followed up the Aveo with the Chevrolet Sonic, and it was so good that everyone just forgot about the Aveo’s existence.
Vindicated
Now that the dust has settled, I reckon the world was a little bit too harsh toward the Aveo. There’s a huge difference between a car being flat-out bad and being just subpar. In 2004, for the money, the Chevrolet Aveo was fine. If that sounds crazy, I’d like you tell me that you’d rather drive a 2004 Accent than an Aveo with a straight face. It’s difficult, right?
I’d actually reckon that its biggest problem was timing. Perhaps the Aveo was born too slow? If it had come out in 2002 and run a typical five-year model cycle, it likely would’ve been more respected. Likewise, if GM wasn’t in dire financial straits by 2008, a full replacement to the T200 Aveo may have prevented a backsliding reputation. Consider this a lesson: If a car will be left to languish on the vine, it better be excellent. Competition moves quickly, and what’s perfectly fine now might be unacceptable in five years. So, here’s to the Aveo. Indisputably one of the cars of all time, and the first GM product we’ve showcased that’s both a hit and a miss at the same time. How’s that for a legacy?
(Photo credits: Chevrolet, Geo, Italdesign, Hyundai, Kia, Toyota, Scion, Suzuki)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
GM’s Crossover Sport Vans Weren’t As Bad As You Remember: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Philippines-Market Chevrolet Lumina Was A Really Weird Exercise In Badge Engineering: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Cadillac XLR Was More Than Just A Neutered Corvette
-
The GMC Envoy XUV Was Even Weirder Than You Remember: GM Hit Or Miss
-
The Surprisingly Nice 2024 Chevrolet Trax Is $21,495 Of Fundamental Goodness
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
I had one as a rental for a week, it really felt like an urban transportation module and nothing more. Nothing bad, but nothing good and no “slow car fast” smile on my face, while attempting to toss it around. )-:
Test drove an Aveo when they were new, I really wanted to like it. I ended up spending a couple extra dollars and getting a fairly basic focus zx5.
It came with a timing belt, enough said.
Seriously, I won’t even consider a car that has a timing belt unless it’s an exceptionally reliable car in every other way.
This car was supposed to be cheap transportation, then GM saddled owners with an expensive repair 60,000-100,000 miles into it’s life. What percentage of Aveos lived long enough to have their timing belt changed twice? It depreciated so quickly that by the time you get near the second service interval, people would probably just roll the dice and drive it until the belt snapped, then send the car to the wreckers.
I mean, Civics came with timing belts as late as 2005, and they were at the high end of the segment above Aveo. The Rio had a belt through ’11. This feels like goalpost moving.
Civic had a longer interval though, at least 100k miles vs. 60k for the Aveo, and Honda using belts was still a ‘norm’ with the Accord I4 only having just switched in 2003.
GM had been heavy on timing chains for years – it was a selling point for the original Saturn S-Series over most imports that used belts – and long maintenance intervals with – 100k mile tuneups and the like (for better or worse).
Not that an Aveo owner was likely coming from past GM cars or anything, but it was kind of backwards for a “new” budget car.
actually that was very often the major gripe about Honda’s in the early 90’s, 60K interval. took until 95 for Honda to start using better belts that had 105K mile interval suggestions.
Yeah, but at that time most belts were in that 60k range for the change interval, Toyota included. Most switched to chains well before Honda though. And still, back then GM was pretty much all chains.
Wasn’t long after that GM (and others like Ford) were pushing the whole 100k mile tuneup for lower maintenance costs, and others followed suit. I don’t know what the spark plug change interval was on the Aveo, but I know the 1.8 in the Saturn Astra was 30k miles.
thing is the old OHV cam in block timing chains were fine, most were short, so stretch did not matter as much over time and they were also wide so they did not stretch much even with miles. they were noisy enough though and modern timing chain systems with VVT and tensioners and 5 foot long chains are not really superior anymore with regard to longevity. the plastic guides and phasers seem to fail enough that the benefits are largely gone from where they once were.
I will say that I did not and still do not understand the benefit of making your Engines interference combustion chamber designs. it would be a massively moot point if it did not matter if the timing belt or chain decided to stop doing it’s job.
I wonder how much the years of low interest rates and drawn out loan terms impacted desirability/saleability of cheap new cars like these. It seems like most folks focus on the monthly more than the total purchase price, and if you can make the payments on something bigger why not? Sorta the inverse of all of those high $$ trucks that are supposedly sitting on lots these days.
There was a Pontiac G3 very, very, very briefly before the company ended permanently for GM to survive as a whole. It’d been on sale in Canada (seen a few cross over the border to US) but we got a very rare hatchback that came far too late.
I doubt anyone is still the first owner of one.
Have to add, my assistant drives a Spark. It is a fantastic car. That’s all. Thanks for reading. 🙂
Both generations intrigue me.
I wish I had an assistant.
I gave a massive thumbs up to the new Trax yesterday for being a small, reasonably priced car that normies the country over could potentially love.
The Aveo is not that car.
The Aveo is the sort of car that makes people hate small, thrifty cars. There is little cheerful about this thing, the interior after 6 months off the lot was typically worn like an 8 year old car, and full of rattles. Every one of these looked like hot garbage within a few years, like the car version of when D.A.R.E. officers would show us pictures of how 4 years on meth would age people.
I owned an SX4 for a number of years that people would be entirely dismissive of because of their history with shitboxes (in a bad way) like the Aveo. After experiencing the SX4, I’d get, reliably a “wow, this car is shockingly nice!”.
It is in my opinion, cars like the Aveo killed the small car here.
Yeah, cars like this ruined the good name of the small car. I’d say it deserves the scorn it got and then so due to its place in history.
This is the correct take – good small cars are great, but bad ones (and the Aveo was definitely bad) sucked the life out of that segment. Cheap does not always equate to good value.
Now we are getting excited for a new Trax, for gods sake, because it’s the closest thing to affordable value on the market today.
Yeah, I doubt many Aveo drivers were say, excited to get into a better small car, like a Fit. After long-term Aveo ownership I’d probably be pining for something like a CR-V myself.
nobody will like that Trax either, normies will immediately find the issues, but the disdain from the rest will make them feel they are driving junk I imagine.
I dunno, the new Trax looks sharp. The Aveo looked like a high heel dress shoe from Payless mounted to old roller skates
For a couple of years, my family had both an Aveo AND an SX4 at the same time (and BOTH were 2010s) so I was able to directly compare the two and I wholeheartedly agree that the SX4 is a great little car! (although relearning the TPMS is a MAJOR PITA, and the oil filter location is an absolute nightmare) the Aveo I had on the other hand was a featureless penalty box on wheels (and was a former Enterprise rental car) with the 2009-2011 models having shockingly expensive emissions and cooling system parts.
Oxygen sensors that were $250 a piece (and that wasn’t just the dealership price either!) thermostat assemblies that were $360 a piece (the SAME PHYSICAL PART with only a different part number on a 1.8L Sonic or Cruze is HALF of that!) I had to suffer driving that “car” for nearly 10 years so I didn’t shed a single tear when a deer jumped in front of me one morning on the way to work and was totaled by my insurance.
I’m guessing the deer was late for work that day.
It was a late deer.
The SX4 oil filter location was indeed the cruelest thing about that car.
And I have found economy cars have some bizarrely expensive emissions parts. A friend had a Yaris that needed a new EVAP canister, it was 650$! That’s pretty crazy, as it’s basically a plastic box. My Elantra Touring had a cheaper one (also cracked and had to be replaced) and while a found one on Rock Auto for 220$, you have to drop the fuel tank to access it. That was a bummer.
My neighbor at the last place I lived had this car, probably an 05 or so, in the most appalling condition I’ve ever seen a car in person since Cars for Clunkers took the rust buckets off the streets. I have no idea how it passed state inspection every year.
Never knew the clear coat was there to keep cars from getting a rash of mildew.
“There’s a huge difference between a car being flat-out bad and being just subpar.”
This is not exactly high praise, but it is one of the more positive lines I have read in an Aveo review. I think the Aveo is somewhere between subpar and flat-out bad. It is subpar in the sense that it is a meh-grade transportation appliance that generally works as advertised. However, I can’t get over the fuel economy. I never met an Aveo driver that got anywhere near the EPA estimates. I knew a few Aveo drivers that averaged in the low 20s. The best I ever heard was a person that averaged 27 mpg with mostly highway driving. That is completely unacceptable for a 2500 lb. subcompact. The Aveo deserves its scorn.
Considering I get up to 42mpg highway in my Sonic (the Aveo’s replacement) that is exceptionally terrible.
This is the car that killed Suzuki in North America.
GM forced it on them and it became the Swift+ (along with another rebadged sedan). Daewoo quality was no where near Su zuki’s and buyers never came back to Suzuki after one of these.
Source: the owner of a Suzuki dealership I dealt with in the day. He stuck it out to the end, even though the writing was on the wall.
And yes, the SX-4 was a neat little car.
I owned an SX4 and it was an absolutely excellent car. It was the opposite of the crappy crap GM foisted upon Suzuki and killed it’s reputation with.
R.I.P. Suzuki N.A.
The Metro was good because it was based on the excellent Cultus/Swift, which was also a surprisingly durable car. CAMI actually did a good job of screwing things together as well.
The Aveo was where your dreams went to Daewoo.
I guess for me the thing that stands out is the daily visibility. Where I live, I actually see 4 different Metros driving around. I don’t see any Aveo’s, even though they are much newer.
Having had the misfortune of driving an Aveo, other than being a cheap new car with a warranty (which are major pluses to be fair) it has zero redeeming features. Interior is awful, with an automatic it is borderline dangerously slow, and the clear taillights are just odd. As a current Sonic owner, which was sold as the Aveo in some markets, the quantum leap between the 2 in quality is astonishing.
I worked at a GM dealer when these were new – the best I can say is that it was generally better than the Optra and Epica GM Canada was trying to foist on us at the same time (the Optra5 was kind of handsome and the Epica had a Porsche-designed straight six (!), but that’s pretty much where the positives on those two end). The Aveo was roughly equal in misery to the ’04 Accent I drove a few years later, but marginally less reliable.
Although, I don’t think the Aveo is exactly a product of contempt for small cars – it’s a product of GM trying hard enough on the Cobalt (I know, but there’s a lot it did right, or at least showed GM wanted to do well) that they no longer had something cheap enough to appeal to former Cavalier buyers.
Cough cough everything except the GT-R.
Tacoma resale values and availabilty would like a word
I would love a subcompact that’s inexpensive for a daily driver. However shareholders won’t allow OEMs to make them since they know everyone will spend at least $40K now
The Aveo still sucks
That car was always a massive piece of shit. I’d much rather have a 1989 Honda Accord with 200k miles than a brand new Aveo; it’s a better car by every metric.
The mechanic my work used had one for his extra car in the rare instance both he and his wife needed to be different places at the same time (his shop was behind his house) and his teenager. Bought cheap when the original motor blew, dropped in replacement and ran it for another 5ish years until the second engine blew. He hated it but the heat and AC worked well and it ran well until it suddenly didn’t. Bought a 2 year old accent to replace it which was a massive upgrade in every way according to his son.
The Aveo was unreliable. As far as cheap cars go, you can forgive most of the flaws except reliability. If you have a cheap car that’s unreliable, it’s worthless and will kill the brand. Ford Fiesta suffered a similar fate with their terrible transmissions.
You guys just can’t quit with this can you? How are sales of cheap cars these days? Maverick aside (it’s not a car), it’s hard to think of a single one selling above expectations. What evidence, besides wishful thinking, and commenter whining, is there that anyone is demanding a small, cheap new car in 2023?
Leave the likes of the Aveo in the past.
I would love one.
Great, a few companies still make subcompacts, so I’m sure you’ll be first in line to buy one then?
Does anyone really?
To make sure I’m not out of line here, I did a quick search on my local Kia and Hyundai dealers. No Rio, no Accent (which I believe recently was killed). Yaris is dead. Fit is dead. Fiesta is dead. Sonic… is dead. This entire segment is about as dead as the wagon.
I’m aware that the Mirage exists, but I think we can agree that while some people would like something cheap and cheerful, the Mirage, unless sourced in a bright color, is in no way cheerful, and is a result of there no longer being any competition in this segment. Also for many people the nearest Mitsubishi dealership is 50 miles away.
The Versa is still around too.
I honestly thought the Accent was still made, but the Rio definitely is.
You beat me to my edit, so I’m pasting it here since it wouldn’t let me revise it anymore, haha.
Edit: I forgot about the Versa! This gen is actually not a terrible soul-sucker of a car like the 2nd gen. There’s only a couple in my entire area but… I guess that’s sort of an option?
And I know the Rio exists in theory, but I can’t find one available in my area at all.
This has been an issue for a while now, why would a car manufacturer bother to supply cheap cars in a time where they can either limit production to high end stuff on purpose, or just go for the high margin stuff for the chips they have available.
Small cars being dead has less to do with demand, and a lot more to do with disinterest from manufacturers that would, like any other business, want to maximize their profit margins. This goes for really anything in the sub 30k world right now.
I wonder if its regional. There are currently 23 Rios on cars dot com within 100 miles of me, 25 Versas, and 4 Mirages.
Possibly. I live in a fairly thrifty area in the Northeast.
That may also be part of it, I know a lot of people who drive cheap, smallish cars. I wouldn’t say they’re massively popular, but they’re popular enough that there’s never a reasonable inventory of the cheap stuff around here.
I own a Fit. I say a prayer every day that it stays safe. I can afford far more, but want nothing on the market.
Yes. And plenty of other people would be if they actually existed. Or were stocked. Or if salespeople would actually let you buy one. There is definitely demand for cheap small cars.
A salesperson “not letting” you buy something has to be a new one for me.
Enthusiasts have made the same mistake (thinking their desire for something is widely shared) with wagons, manual transmissions, diesel engines, RWD, low ride height, etc etc etc. Subcompacts are just the next version of that.
I don’t know why it offends people so much when I point it out.
I’m well aware that my demand for large naturally aspirated engines isn’t widely shared, and so when I mourn their demise, I don’t double down by saying “iF oNlY tHe CaRmAkErS tRiEd OfFeRrInG tHeM” or some other nonsense. For some reason it’s like a personal attack that carmakers responded to a decade of declining sales in the segment by deciding to sell something people wanted to buy instead!
I largely agree with you on the matter – people are buying what they want. But I will lend another view to the dealer “not letting you buy” something – and sort of support what taargustaargus said about manufacturers dumping the small cars for more profit – the smallest car isn’t always the cheapest car.
The Yaris was a good example. You could usually get a Corolla for the same or less thanks to more discounts on the Corolla or more margin. Honda was the same way with the Fit and Civic. If Toyota sends a dealer a few dozen Corollas and put cash on the hood because they want to sell more of those, compared to a couple Yarises, that’s probably where the dealer will start with the typical buyer that just wants cheap wheels, aka most of them.
Nowadays if it’s a little FWD crossovery thing that gets them there, so be it.
While “let you buy” is not quite the way to phrase it, there are cars where salespeople will exert significant pressure to prevent you from buying that model – and generally they are the cheaper specs.
Back in 2009 – Jesus that is a long time ago – I wanted to buy a Toyota Matrix. Specifically, I wanted the XR model – bigger engine – buy I wanted one in white, with a manual transmission, and no appearance package. So no alloy wheels, no whatever else that package had.
The salesman did NOT want me to skip the appearance package. He wasn’t too fond of the manual either. But the appearance package, he was adamant that I needed to get that. So he was doing everything in his power to sell me on this package. Pointing out the wheels being nicer, pointing out assorted features it came with that I didn’t care about, so on and so forth. I wasn’t moved.
And, of course, they would be harder to get. They would have to search dealer lots, do trades, so on. I might have to wait a long time. I could get a Matrix in a different spec right from the lot today. Sure it would be an automatic and a different color, but I would be out of my (dying) Escort already and wouldn’t that be better?
But I was adamant. And before he put in the request for a dealer trade, he went “and that was with the appearance package,” so I had to immediately stop him and go no, no package.
But of course he wanted me in the one with the package – easy way to get a bigger commission. And of course Toyota wanted their dealers to push it – it’s an item with big margins. So you get that pressure.
Now, I think the whole hair shirt thing a lot of internet enthusiasts do is total bullshit. But there are models that are, effectively, extremely difficult to buy because they make another model look better in context and can justify a higher purchase price on the second model.
Sales aren’t merely about what people will buy, it’s what people are willing to get sold.
I doubt there was much more in the commission with the package – much more likely the availability like you said. He wanted that deal today, not whenever that dealer trade could happen. Toyota probably built way more with the package than without, especially the few they made with the manual.
Heck, the dealer that had the car in lot was probably saying “who is ever gonna buy this car with the big motor but no appearance package?” 🙂
I’m in Canada, and the only small cheap car is the Mitsubishi Mirage. I’m not actually shopping for a replacement for my current small car, but when I eventually need to do so it would be nice to have more than one option. Too bad the Micra isn’t still available.
I tend to agree, but this is because we have come to expect cars to cost $30k or more, leaving the phycological mind fuck for anything less than that. This not “anyones” fault other than the carmakers greed.
Or, perhaps consider the possibility that automakers are responding rationally to what their customers actually want to buy (CUVs & trucks), rather than what they begrudgingly bought in the past (subcompact cars).
Not everything is malicious.
I don’t disagree that most people want what has been selling of late. I’m not delusional or expect that if every manufacturer started selling decent subcompacts that everyone would be running to trade in their King Ranch.
But the manufacturers as a whole know they’re better off eliminating low cost options, at least as long as people are willing to double down on massive loans at a rate that allows them to only churn out high margin stuff. Will this last forever? We’ll see…
I agree that the automakers’ motive is also self-interested.
I also bought a brand new lot poison Ford Fiesta in 2017 for $6999. Demand for subcompact cars has been very low for a very long time.
Maybe I’ll reframe the level of demand here a little.
I don’t think many of us who have a passion for this sort of bizarre thing necessarily expect a massive sea change where that segment sees a renaissance. I just think we’d like to see genuinely any level of competition to keep small cars alive and at least of some level of quality that isn’t meant to force regret on people.
Also, nice deal on that Fiesta.
Thanks, the price is a bit misleading because it was a dealer error as well as a massive discount. But still the car had sat on the lot for 8 months or something and had never even been test driven (had low single digit miles when I test drove it). I had a long commute at the time, and found the 3 cylinder Fiesta interesting and unloved.
Sticker was $16,700 or something. They had the car advertised for $10,XXX including a $3000 rebate from Ford. The salesperson asked me to write “my bottom dollar” on a piece of paper to show his manager, so I wrote $9999. He returned with my paper, showing a written offer of $9999-$3000 rebate (double counting it) and adding all the taxes and fees, etc, so something like $7600 all in. Needless to say, I accepted, then sat waiting all through the finance manager’s office paperwork (paid cash, but still a lot of forms) waiting for someone to notice. They didn’t until about 2 hours after I had left with the car. They called me saying they made a mistake and would I bring the car back to them? I asked them if they had my check, which they of course did. I asked them if we had a signed contract, which we of course did. I informed them that I believed we had a legally binding transaction then, and they could pound sand.
Pretty decent little car, just had no need for it after I had a 3rd kid and went full time WFH.
Haha, no wonder you don’t hate dealers, you’re going to be ahead of that game for awhile.
I’ve heard the 3 cylinder was pretty good. Did it avoid the Powershift transmission?
Yes, 5 speed only. The engine is known for cooling issues and I had some components replaced under warranty, but was otherwise decent to me for nearly 80,000 miles and never failed to return high 30s-low 40s mpg no matter the season or city/highway.
And you’re correct, buying unloved cars for well under sticker is something I’ve taken advantage of several times (including ~40% off sticker price with the Viper), so I’m loathe to give up the dealer model as at least an option, since I enjoy the game. I understand why some people don’t like it, but I’ve saved far too much money this way.
If anything, you can buy cheaper new cars than the Aveo if you adjust for inflation.
A 2004 Aveo had a base MSRP around $11,500 which is equivalent to $19,000 in 2023 dollars. For less than 2004 Aveo money you can get a:
You could also spend a bit more and get a 2023 Corolla for $21,000 or a Civic for $23,000 ($14,300 in 2004 dollars); both of those are genuinely nice cars. These are base prices so some will argue that no one buys cars for these prices, but no one bought a base Aveo either.
Also worth considering how much more equipment is standard in 2023 than 2004. AC, power windows, cruise control, etc. were options in cheap 2004 cars. Maybe we forget these cars are cheap since they have many standard features that used to be options?
The death of the cheap car is greatly exaggerated. The demand for the cheap car is likewise greatly exaggerated.
I get a lot of people here like to do the “if you adjust for inflation” thing here to compare eras, but I just don’t think it’s the apples to apples calculation that everyone thinks it is.
Yeah, I understand that you get more car for the money today, I don’t think you can argue against that. But the amount of money the average American has in their budget to put towards transportation in an age of insane price hikes in housing and other necessities, I’m not sure that the inflation metric is so useful. Not to mention the whole inflation outpacing wages of many issue.
The other issue is that we’re comparing MSRP, where back in 2004 paying that much was borderline unthinkable. Now, people are paying at or over, dealing with higher interest rates, and these base models are becoming fairly rare.
I agree inflation adjustments don’t tell the whole story, but inflation data is a good starting point and useful to put things in perspective.
It is a valid point that buyers usually paid less than MSRP in 2004 and they don’t now. However, car loan interest rates are similar now to what they were in 2004 (average rate in May 2023 is around 6.5% vs 6.7% in 2004). Rates seem high since we are coming off years of incredibly low rates, but they are not high by historical standards.
Also, I just found some data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (I’ve never previously heard of it but it is apparently part of the US department of transportation) that reports households spent 18% of their budget on transportation in 2004 vs 16.4% in 2021 – it is probably higher using 2023 data but not substantially so).
It is also worth considering that cars last longer, are more efficient, and require fewer repairs in 2023 than they did in 2004. Even if comparable vehicles cost 20% more in 2023 than 2004, a lot of that cost is offset by increased quality and longevity.
I am concerned that people use inflation as an excuse to buy a more expensive car than they otherwise would have. Part of this is due to anchoring. If the average car costs $50,000, the $40,000 car seems like a prudent and rational purchase, all while the $30,000 car you didn’t buy meets your needs and has a lower monthly payment.
My biggest concern about the economy and related matters is irrational pessimism. I’ve seen a few surveys where a majority of Americans think they are better off economically than they were 10 years ago, but the same majority thinks everyone else is worse off than they were 10 years ago. A lot of people accept the narrative that times are harder in 2023 than they were in 2003 or 1963, yet all seem to forget that a lot of Americans struggled to afford basic necessities in even times we agree were prosperous.
I have driven an Aveo once, at low speeds. I’ve never driven a car where every single control felt like it was operating via rubber bands. Nor have I driven one since. Well, excepting cars with bad uninspiring CVTs. I’ve also driven a Geo Metro and basic as it was, it was a more engaging drive than the Aveo.
But they were everywhere for a while, and I’ll never give an automaker too much shit when they actually delivered an affordable car. Just like the Mitsubishi Mirage. It’s probably dreadful to drive, but I see them all over the place, likely because it’s one of the last truly cheap cars you can buy.
I thought the replacement for the Aveo was the Spark, and not the Sonic.
Also the only person in the history of the internet to defend the Aveo was an unhinged “Italian” commenter who when by many user names on the old German Lighting Site and Offtopic offshoot.
The Spark followed the Daewoo Matiz, which we never received here. The lineage of the other models went like this, with the “final form” being developed under GM’s ownership.
Daewoo Lanos > Kalos (Aveo & other names) > Sonic
Daewoo Nubira > Lacetti (Forenza, Optra) > Cruze
Daewoo Leganza > Magnus (Verona, Epica, Evanda) > Tosca/Epica* which we never got > 2013 Malibu
*Tosca might have been fully developed under GM but I guess was too early to really be integrated into all international programs. Similarly, the Daewoo Winstorm was the first Chevy Captiva, developed on the GM Theta platform (VUE/Equinox), and the Winstorm MaXX became the Opel Antara and over here, the 2nd gen Saturn VUE/later Captiva Sport.
Australian buyers probably had the biggest shock as the initial Daewoo rebadges mostly replaced Holden-badged Opels, whereas here it filled in for segments GM had left, or ran alongside the home-grown model. Or of course, given to Suzuki.
“the Aveo was a decent road-tripper”
ARE YOU INSANE?
I rented enough of them, drove some for road-trip distances, and operated them in cities, highways, deserts, mountain passes, etc… and any defense of these little hateful shitboxes is just not correct. They were trash when new.
Let me put it this way, when the rental counter would give me the 1st gen Versa instead of one of these I was very happy.
I wanted to like the Aveo, as I do enjoy smaller cars that are good at just being a car…. the Aveo’s weren’t good at just being a car.
I will defend the Chevy Spark, however. When I rented one of those I thought “great… another Aveo” and I was surprised how much I didn’t hate driving it. The one I got was white and I nicknamed it “snowball” because there was a crazy blizzard on I70 in Colorado and that little mouse of a car was so light and nimble that it was so easy to drive in some very rough mountain pass conditions where people in full sized SUVs were white-knuckling it.
100% agreed. Aveos were total crap.
Although he does have a point here:
“tell me that you’d rather drive a 2004 Accent than an Aveo with a straight face.”
Which is, of course, like deciding between a turdburger and shit sandwich.
Honestly? 2004 Accent… all day.
It’s been a long time since I’ve driven the Hyundai Accident, but…yeah, I’m siding with the Accident, too. Small cars were miserable in this era, and the Aveo was one of the worst offenders.
I think this is clickbait/trolling us to get us to interact with this place. This car is awful.
I agree, it’s pretty transparent. Put out a headline that the writers know the majority of people will disagree with in the comments. Nice job guys.
There are GM cars that the “hit or miss” idea makes sense for – cars that they seemed to really try on, and then got in their own way with beancounters or quality control or something. Maybe something that could have been a good car or the bones were good.
The Aveo, like the Uplander the other day, is not one of those cars.
When I rent cars I try to rent the cheapest, lousiest car available. I usually request a vehicle using those exact words. Usually I get a “we don’t have any bad cars” kind of response, but on at least two occasions I received an understanding nod and the keys to an Aveo.
If I were the type to posit conspiracy theories, I would say Chevrolet intentionally made the Aveo terrible to make other vehicles on their lots look more appealing by comparison.
I think you are on to something. The Aveo could have been GM saying “here’s your small car, we engineered it so you don’t want to own it”
I only drove an Aveo once- a rental for a weekend trip. I figured it wasn’t worth the money to get anything but the minimum car (Avis? I forget) on offer. They gave me automatic, of course.
I have driven Metro’s, Chevettes, and an old VW Beetle with the auto-stick. I got beaten in a traffic light drag race in that Beetle – by a freaking school bus full of jeering kids.
I know slow. But that Aveo. Jeezsus. I actually stopped on the side of the expressway to see if the emergency brake was stuck on or something. It wasn’t.
No amount of revisionist history click-bait can redeem the Aveo.
I can’t square calling an Accent (even the ’04 which debuted in ’99) “cheap and nasty” in comparison to the Aveo. I know which one I’d rather have.
I have this thing where I have to test drive EVERY car in my price range that could fit my needs. The logic is that maybe conventional wisdom is wrong, or that my own biases are leading me astray. This logic got me a Toyota Matrix, and I liked that car a lot when I owned it.
So this meant I test drove a Chevy Aveo, new off the lot. It drove like a 30 year old economy car that was abused by countless teenagers. Also it loudly squeaked every time it turned left. It was, without question, the worst car on the market that I test drove. Even compared to the Accent and Rio. It was total trash.
Agree with your methods of research. This car ? was a total death trap and piece of shit. It was crap way back in the before days, and still is. Crack pipe.