The Beat Begat Spark, And It Was Good: New Spark for 2015

[YSSMAN]

That is a pretty good point. For the average person, $25K I would think would be where the idea of an electric car becomes fairly reasonable... Assuming you live in an area where that is a rational choice.

I'd be interested in the Smart if they had a dealer network around here. Even if the Spark isn't available in Michigan, assuming that it eventually will be, there is practically a dealer on every corner. Still, at a solid $25K before incentives, that Smart is a pretty solid deal. Even more so when your tax credit comes.

 

[YSSMAN]

There's a New Spark Coming

The current car seemed to be pretty well-liked, and this one at least appears to be a little more "complete" than the bargain bin special that it is today. It'll get the new version of the G2SC chassis, and a fair bet is that new generation of super-small-displacement engines that were announced last year with the Opel Adam. Fair bet is that it'll have the 1.4L I4 as standard, and maybe that 1.0T as an option.

More interesting to me, however, is that the Spark is getting an update before the Sonic which is in a much more competitive market, at least in the US anyway.

 

[homeforsummer]

The Spark has been overdue for replacement since about six months after it launched, so I'm not surprised they're replacing it before the relatively new Sonic.

A bigger engine would certainly be nice though. I'm not really a speed freak but the current Spark is truly, truly slow, even when compared to other city cars here in Europe. It wouldn't see which way a Mitsubishi Mirage went, and the Mirage is hardly a paragon of performance.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I see a Chevy SS front grille.

 

[xprojected]

I'm not really a speed freak but the current Spark is truly, truly slow, even when compared to other city cars here in Europe.

You should look for the Spark EV then.. 130 hp, *400* lb-ft of torque O_o, 0-60 in 7.9 seconds.

 

[homeforsummer]

You should look for the Spark EV then.. 130 hp, *400* lb-ft of torque O_o, 0-60 in 7.9 seconds.

Well aware of that one - spent most of the last few years writing about it

Unfortunately, while quite a neat little car, it has the usual EV issue of being quite expensive. GM has done a good job of jazzing up the interior and exterior but really the point of a Spark is to be an inexpensive city car. The current Spark does that job okay, it's just that over here at least, virtually every other manufacturer selling a similar product does it significantly better.

 

[05XR8]

Well aware of that one - spent most of the last few years writing about it

Unfortunately, while quite a neat little car, it has the usual EV issue of being quite expensive. GM has done a good job of jazzing up the interior and exterior but really the point of a Spark is to be an inexpensive city car. The current Spark does that job okay, it's just that over here at least, virtually every other manufacturer selling a similar product does it significantly better.

That's true. I see more Up!s and Mirage than Barina Sparks. I definitely don't see many Barinas(Sonic) on the road. Those products are so low class next to Mazda2, Jazz and Polo, I20, i30, Kia.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Had a rental Spark while I was in Vegas. I would say it was tragically awful, but it got me through the desert in one piece so I can't be too mean.

Steering: Almost entirely Feel-less
Brakes: Not too bad in terms of feel, but they faded very quickly
Power: None. Dangerously slow. Almost got creamed several times on the highway because there was simply zero acceleration above 60mph. I would say it's not really appropriate or safe for highways in the US.
Gearbox: Unreasonably bad. It's a CVT that continuously finds the wrong ratio to be in. For some reason it has 2 gears in addition to the CVT, and it constantly was shifting between the two to maintain speed on the highway, which was annoying.
Chassis: Didn't seem too bad. It was actually much quieter than I expected.
Interior: Gauge cluster is cool, but the materials are pretty bad. Fitment seems substantially better than Chevy's of 10 years ago though.

Basically, when I got back in my 2, it felt like a Maserati in comparison. Vastly better built, vastly better to drive, and significantly faster, even with only 100hp.

 

[Keef]

Power: None. Dangerously slow. Almost got creamed several times on the highway because there was simply zero acceleration above 60mph. I would say it's not really appropriate or safe for highways in the US.

My '93 Corolla 1.8 is odd. As it sits it gets 35 mph at over 70 mph. My best is 38, all-highway. This is surely a factor of its weight because the engine is buzzing right along at some atmospheric rpm (pretty sure @YSSMAN has/had the same engine in a Celica with a tachometer) and therefore has hilarious power on the highway. I did fifth gear pulls against my buddies in a WRX and E34 525i and I walked both of them. No contest. This little car gits on the highway. Which tells me that Toyota could have worked with the gearing to lower the rpm by 1000 and get some serious mileage.

Unfortunately, the speed limit was 55 in 1993 so this gearing probably worked out well. The rpm would have been considerably lower and would not have put down nearly as much torque.

Btw, the only things I like better about new small cars than old ones is the steering stability and the quiet interiors. Everything else, including the driving position which can be a deal-breaker for me, is better in old cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

This little car gits on the highway.

Noticed that in quite a few older cars recently. Short gearing may not have been great for economy compared to today, but it was so much better for driveability.

The Spark would probably get along okay if it had shorter gearing but it's compromised in the name of economy. I'm all for economy, but that pursuit does make some cars far too slow.

Btw, the only things I like better about new small cars than old ones is the steering stability and the quiet interiors. Everything else, including the driving position which can be a deal-breaker for me, is better in old cars.

I actually kinda agree. While I do climb into some new small cars and marvel at just how great they are across a wide spectrum of things - quality, equipment, ability to cover long distances at freeway speeds with little effort - they're also hugely compromised in several areas.

Visibility is much worse now. The main USP of a small car is that it's easier to manoeuvre and park than a larger one, yet despite sitting much higher up in modern small cars the hood rakes so steeply and the rear window is so small you can't see where the thing actually ends. The gearing was much better (on the performance/economy scale) and like you, I kinda prefer the driving positions too - there's a lot to be said for a squashy seat rather than a sculpted brick, for a start.

 

[YSSMAN]

My '93 Corolla 1.8 is odd. As it sits it gets 35 mph at over 70 mph. My best is 38, all-highway. This is surely a factor of its weight because the engine is buzzing right along at some atmospheric rpm (pretty sure @YSSMAN has/had the same engine in a Celica with a tachometer) and therefore has hilarious power on the highway.

Yup. Thanks to weight and displacement differences, I'll average about 32 MPG running 75-80 MPH. That's right around 4,000 RPM, and rarely requires a downshift to pass. I think I ran up most of those mountains in VA/WV in 5th, no problem. Nothing like a big ass 5S-FE to make you feel important.

there's a lot to be said for a squashy seat rather than a sculpted brick, for a start.

I want to know who these officers of the SS are designing seats in these little cars. Do they not have legs? Have they been standing for so long that any seat will do?

 

[Cale]

My Outback is at 4000RPM at 75-80mph... Sounds badass with my myriad of exhaust leaks and hauls ass.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

My parents' Fit is doing about 3500 rpm at 70-75. It's pretty buzzy on the motorway. It does, however, feel pretty quick at those speeds due to the high rpm. And it's easy to drive it at 90, at which point the engine is going at well over 4000 rpm, so at that point you're only doing about 25-28 MPG US.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

My parents' Fit is doing about 3500 rpm at 70-75. It's pretty buzzy on the motorway. It does, however, feel pretty quick at those speeds due to the high rpm. And it's easy to drive it at 90, at which point the engine is going at well over 4000 rpm, so at that point you're only doing about 25-28 MPG US.

My 100hp, 100lbs/ft 1.5 M2 never feels slow if I'm in the correct gear. This is what made the Spark so bad. It was probably the slowest and least responsive car I've ever driven. 80hp is not enough for 2300lbs. I can't believe it is actually heavier* than my 2 despite having smaller dimensions and a colossal 20% less power.

*depending on options

 

[Keef]

Yup. Thanks to weight and displacement differences, I'll average about 32 MPG running 75-80 MPH. That's right around 4,000 RPM, and rarely requires a downshift to pass. I think I ran up most of those mountains in VA/WV in 5th, no problem. Nothing like a big ass 5S-FE to make you feel important.

Oh dang, I didn't know your car had that monster. I'm just rocking the 7A-FE, all 115 horses of it, and I still crawl through the mountains and pass people in what I would call a hurry.

Why on earth would they give your later model the same gear ratios? The speed limit was above 55 then so you'd think they would drop 5th down for better mileage.

I want to know who these officers of the SS are designing seats in these little cars. Do they not have legs? Have they been standing for so long that any seat will do?

I sampled a lot of rental cars while working at the airport and I was appalled at what gets passed as an interior these days. The new Nissan Sentra sticks in my mind as the worst one. The steering wheel won't come close enough and the pedals are way too close - it's designed for a person that is 2/3 torso and 1/3 legs with arms like an orangutan. Who the hell came up with that? I have never sat in a more uncomfortable driver seat in my life. The Ford Escape was another terrible one. Oddly, the Chevrolet Captiva, a thing which is literally only a rental SUV, has a great driving position with a lot of adjustment.

But I'm pretty picky. I like my legs to be almost fully extended depressing the clutch and for the wheel to be close enough the I can hold the entire rim without lifting my shoulders. Volvo gets it right. Most other companies don't. And the small cars are just useless.

My 100hp, 100lbs/ft 1.5 M2 never feels slow if I'm in the correct gear. This is what made the Spark so bad. It was probably the slowest and least responsive car I've ever driven. 80hp is not enough for 2300lbs. I can't believe it is actually heavier* than my 2 despite having smaller dimensions and a colossal 20% less power.

*depending on options

Can't argue with that but if it would help to have gear ratios like Me and YSSMAN and Cale to get thing a-scootin'. I mean, it's a scrawny city car bro, what do you expect?

 

[homeforsummer]

80hp is not enough for 2300lbs

I'd argue it can be, just not in a car with economy-orientated gearing and a lazy, eco-biased throttle map. And the aerodynamics of a brick.

I drove a EK-generation Honda Civic several years back with the 1.4 engine sold, I believe, only in Europe. It has around 90hp but weighs >2500lb. It could never be considered a fast car and if you lived anywhere hilly it'd need a bit of thrashing, but it could still get out of its own way because it had snappy gearing and was happy to be worked to the red line without protestation.

The Spark's problem is that it doesn't have anything to give even if you hammer on it, which is unfortunately a familiar situation for the sort of small-engined cars currently sold in Europe (less so in the US). Small, light cars used to feel quite peppy even if they only had 50hp, but now the only ones which move with conviction are the turbocharged ones, be that petrol or diesel.

 

[05XR8]

My '83 Corona had stock 70 series tyres on 14" steel wheels. It had nicely cushioned seats and outward vision was prime with thin pillars. My '88 Jetta 16V had 60 series tyres, a rear lip spoiler and I could see all corners of the car. Plus, the Recaros had rake for excellent leg support. 123hp was plenty for a car weighing 1927lbs

. I had an '88 Festiva 4cylinder 4spd manual. Always buried the needle to stay with traffic when I lived in Upstate NY. That car was only really good for city traffic. When I had an '03 Charade 1.0L 5spd, I drove with my then pregnant wife, from Newcastle to Albert Park. Just under 1000km, at 110km-120km/h getting 550km on a 36L/9gal tank. City driving saw me filling up every 2 weeks. They're the best.

Today's cars force you to use your side mirrors and focus ahead. No more low back bucket seats for over the shoulder traffic checking. Thus, the use of blind spot aids with thick pillars all around(Rem.

 

[VXR]

I'd argue it can be, just not in a car with economy-orientated gearing and a lazy, eco-biased throttle map. And the aerodynamics of a brick.

I drove a EK-generation Honda Civic several years back with the 1.4 engine sold, I believe, only in Europe. It has around 90hp but weighs >2500lb. It could never be considered a fast car and if you lived anywhere hilly it'd need a bit of thrashing, but it could still get out of its own way because it had snappy gearing and was happy to be worked to the red line without protestation.

The Spark's problem is that it doesn't have anything to give even if you hammer on it, which is unfortunately a familiar situation for the sort of small-engined cars currently sold in Europe (less so in the US). Small, light cars used to feel quite peppy even if they only had 50hp, but now the only ones which move with conviction are the turbocharged ones, be that petrol or diesel.

My other half has a 1.2 Corsa D and it's far too easy to lose the power. Keep it on the boil and it feels a full 85bhp, but lose it and it might as well be half that.

 

[homeforsummer]

My other half has a 1.2 Corsa D and it's far too easy to lose the power. Keep it on the boil and it feels a full 85bhp, but lose it and it might as well be half that.

Corsa D, as in the car that's only just been replaced? If so, not at all surprised - along with the Spark it's one of few cars I've driven that are genuinely, properly slow. There's a hill near my parents' place that, coincidentally, is between there and the Enterprise rental place where I've picked up Sparks, Corsas and others over the years. The Spark and Corsa are the only cars I've driven up that hill that have needed full throttle and a down change to maintain anything close to the national speed limit up there.

 

[Keef]

And the aerodynamics of a brick.

If that car has the aero of a brick then a Miata has the aero of a brick with a parachute out the back.

 

[RocZX]

New Spark spied in Korea

 

[VXR]

Wow, looks like the model the current one could've replaced...

Not a good update at all.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

No more funky motorcycle-esque gauge cluster? DISLIKE. That was one of the few things I liked about the Spark.

 

[disinfected]

Wow, looks like the model the current one could've replaced...

Not a good update at all.

It really does.

Reminds me of this.

 

[homeforsummer]

If that car has the aero of a brick then a Miata has the aero of a brick with a parachute out the back.

Indeed, but a Miata has more power and significantly shorter gearing.

No more funky motorcycle-esque gauge cluster? DISLIKE. That was one of the few things I liked about the Spark.

Quoted for truth. It may have been made of spectacularly nasty shiny silver plastic but it at least looked interesting.

 

[05XR8]

New Spark spied in Korea

it's lost its "sportiness" for a plain Jane skin.

That front bumper looks like those horrible Erebuni aero kits.

 

[Bo]

Well, it looks:

• Ugly
• Dated
• Cheap
• Bland

Ticks everything I expected it to. Unless they work wonders on the steering, chassis and suspension, it's going to feel cheap too. I don't think it has anything going for it.

 

[Robin]

Wow they have managed to take all the character and everything that was good about the previous model and throw it down the drain, Good job 👍

 

[Wiegert]

It'll blend right into the Picanto/i10 identity parade.

In comparison, the new Viva/Karl looks half-decent for a bland GM runabout that's set to replace its more modern-looking predecessor.

 

[Robin]

It'll blend right into the Picanto/i10 identity parade.

In comparison, the new Viva/Karl looks half-decent for a bland GM runabout that's set to replace its more modern-looking predecessor.

I agree with all of that, it looks so much like a Kia / Hyundai creation and yeah the Viva looks good, much better than the abomination which is the new Corsa. Chevy should have used that body.

To this day I still want the Spark exactly as it was in the Transformers movie. I see quite a few lime green ones around and kinda want to buy one