I agree that the term "city car" means something particulary small, cheap and underpowered, like the Smart, Fiat Cinquecento and Daewoo Matiz, the kind of car I'd rather not own. Though most hatchbacks that aren't absolutely tiny, like the Fiat Punto and the Renault Clio (I've owned one of each) are perfectly acceptable and reliable cars even if they aren't anything to write home about. But then there's the hot hatchback, and the newest generation are faster than ever (although I'm not a big hot-hatch fan). I can understand why many Americans have disdain for small cars, most American cars are so generous in size and affordable (and gas is so cheap) and since there is no shortage of space in America they can't be bothered with small hatchbacks whereas if you have to live in British and European cities (which aren't built on a "grid system") the advantage of small cars is a lot more obvious. I'd love to have a Mercedes S-Class but I think the biggest downside would be trying to park it in cities. If I lived in America, I wouldn't bother driving a Geo Metro when there are so many big, comfortable American cruisers that would still be fairly cheap to run (though I wouldn't have an SUV).

I guess G-MANN is right, however, I think even in Europe and Asia, I would still like to have a big car and not a piece of shit city compact or a hatchback.

I do not know what exactly means "city car" actually, but in French the "citadine" term includes car like the Renault Clio that G-MANN cited. I was not mentionning cars like the Smart.

And a small car isn't especially slow. Take a Citroën C2 VTS for example.

What is the problem with hatchback btw? It is so useful when you have to cary large things. You can often puts more/larger things in a hatchback than in a sedan, even if the sedan is longer.

The only reason why I do not have a "big" (european big) old cheap car - I'd like to have a Citroën XM or an old SAAB for example - is that it is too big to park and use in the city

In some parts of Asia, having any kind of car is a luxury.

Cars in Europe cost more than in America, and big cars are more prohibitively priced and more expensive to run (don't forget how much more petrol costs over here). EVERYTHING in Britain costs more than in America (except medical and college fees), a basic Ford Mondeo (the British equivalent to the Ford Five Hundred) has a list price (on the Ford UK website) of nearly £15,000 thats about $29,500, more than the most expensive Ford Crown Victoria. That's why not all English drive Jaguars and not all Germans drive Mercedes E-Classes and S-Classes (though those are cheaper in Germany). Would you call our houses or flats shitty because they aren't as big as the house you live in probably is? And that's a fair bet because you live in Alaska and I can't imagine property prices are very high there.

I'll tell you one thing Explorer, if you lived in England, not only would you have to wait three more years til you could drive at all, once you did reach that age and pass your test, you have a very hard time getting affordable car insurance on anything bigger than a Ford Escort (a car substantially smaller than your Tempo), so you would be stuck with shitty little cars until you reached your early 20s. I don't know anyone whose first car, that they owned, not one they borrowed from their parents, had an engine bigger than about 1.6 litres.

Well I am sorry, but I see it as 100% worth it to have a big car, no matter what the cost. As for hatchbacks, I dislike them as they are always odd looking, most are slow and most are very cramped in passenger room.

I really, really don't think I could live like that. The Tempo, for me, is already too small.

When the car is smaller and so also less heavy, the engine can be smaller and still give the same power (and it seems that in lots of cases engines of European car do not have to be as big as those used in US cars to still offer the same kind of performance )


I do not see how the fact to have a hatch can make the car smaller or slower... hatchback can also be just a kind of fastback sedan.
I guess that you compare again uncomparable things, like comparing a Ford Crown Victoria with a Ford Aspire to prove that hatchback are evil

Well when I say hatchback I tend to mean Ford Fiesta or Vauxhall Corsa, not Rover 800 or Citroen XM.

It seems that every Tempo I see on the street is damaged in some way. For example- dents on the sides, a cracked bumper, or a missing window covered with clear tarp and tape. I'm not kidding. There's even a road safety commercial playing on TV here that shows a '89-'90 Tempo being knocked over on its side by a big snowplow.

I don't live in my car.

The only small car I think I'd find really cramped as a driver is the old Mini. They are seriously small, and I'm over 6 foot (though I'll admit I've never actually driven one, Jeremy Clarkson liked them as he's much taller than me).

Sure, but there are also larger hatchbacks. And on a small car there is no reason to make it sedan, as it is usually loss space: longer car for no more inside/trunk room.

Hatchbacks are hatchbacks, they are fugly and cramped.

It's because they've been used for crashes in movies.

Or just because nobody except few crazy guys care of such car

Actually same, I rarely see a Tempo in good condition. Mine is though. Its because people don't value them as they should. Tempos are cheap cars, you can get them (running) as low as $100.00, so its not like the owner is obligated to keep it running perfectly and keep it in mint condition.

I don't think Americans know how to make decent small cars, things like the Geo Metro and Ford Aspire and Festiva looked so cheap and nasty it's no wonder they didn't last. But then those cars aren't American, they're rebadged Asian cars. That's why Explorer hates small cars, because the only ones available in America are crap.

Sure.
But on the other hand when he says that "Hatchbacks are hatchbacks, they are fugly and cramped." it is also a proof that he is obstinated with that. Lots of hatchback are like sedans: some are just an hybrid between a sedan and a wagon.

Probably, but we do get the 2.0L Focus. And holy God that thing is a piece of shit. We rented one a while back, a hatchback. It was too weak to get up hills my Tempo was able to fly up, and the worst part was there was absolutely no room for people. Sure, better cargo space then a sedan our coupe, but they sacrificed passenger space for it.

But the European Focus looks stunning, and the ST looks good too. Still, not my flavor. If I were to have a European car, it would be the Mondeo (even though it is small as heck).

Put a lot of emphasis on SOME. The Focus hatch looks gay, so does the Aveo. Just about every hatchback looks like a jelly-bean! The only decent one is the Dodge Caliber SRT-4.

If you had to have a European car (including British makes) what would you have? For the sake of argument let's set a limit of £50,000 ($100,000) so you can't have all the obvious dream supercars.