Picture Gallery: 2009 Nissan cube | Day 1 | Day 2 | Day 3 | Day 4 | Discuss
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Some of the novelty has worn off since the cube’s initial launch. Like any vehicle that is unique, it gets a ton of looks at first, but now nobody seems to be noticing at all — but perhaps I haven’t met the right people.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
My test model is a SL version with the optional Technology Package, worth $800. Add in $135 for metallic paint and you have one of the least-expensive vehicles I have driven this year, at only $21,633. The tech package adds Bluetooth hands-free phone system, rear sonar system, XM satellite radio, rockford fosgate subwoofer, amplifier and six-speaker premium stereo over the standard features.
Those standard features include: a 1.8-litre engine powering the front wheels through a CVT (continuously variable transmission), stability control, ABS and electric power steering. Appearance-wise, standard stuff includes 16-inch aluminum alloy wheels, fog lights, body-coloured bumpers, door handles and mirrors. And on the inside: steering wheel-mounted audio controls, push button ignition with smart key entry, power windows and locks, power/heated mirrors, automatic climate control, cruise control and leather wrapped steering wheel.
For just over $21,000, the cube certainly packs in a well rounded feature set, and with NRCan rated fuel consumption numbers of 7.3L/100km city and 6.5L/100km highway, it should be decent at the pumps as well.
2009 Nissan cube
MSRP as tested (excluding destination): $21,633
For more information on Nissan and the cube visit Nissan Canada
to our site.
November 10, 2009, 03:26:36 pm
The Focus in Europe starts with a naturally-aspirated 1.4L gas engine yielding 80 hp... I think that says everything about how much little power Europeans are ready to live with.
I had the 1.6L Petrol, and it was plenty quick enough. Remember Europeans quote bhp, not crank hp, which does make some difference....but really, who cares?. North Americans are far too obsessed with HP numbers and not the overall dynamics of the car. That little 1.6 Focus was just as quick in real world driving as my 250hp Odyssey was, mainly because the Odyssey was a Sherman Tank with leather seats.
[/quote]
Way do you come here any is it better in the UK
November 10, 2009, 06:30:31 pm I agree that North Americans are too obsessed with horsepower, but at the same time, let's not pretend a 1250 Kgs (2750 pounds) Focus with an 80 hp naturally aspirated engine that does 0 to 100 Km/h in 14.1 seconds with a manual transmission is anything but slow. Even the 1.6L manual version of the Focus is rated by Ford to do 0 to 100 Km/h in nearly 11 seconds, that's roughly the time an automatic Aveo would take. Except if an Honda Odyssey was loaded to the roof, I don't think it would be that slow.
Don't get me wrong, for 99% of people, that power would be adequate (especially since Europeans drive mostly manuals that are geared aggressively), but we can't go around and pretend like they're not slow compared to what we have here.
November 10, 2009, 09:39:22 pm
The Focus in Europe starts with a naturally-aspirated 1.4L gas engine yielding 80 hp... I think that says everything about how much little power Europeans are ready to live with.
I had the 1.6L Petrol, and it was plenty quick enough. Remember Europeans quote bhp, not crank hp, which does make some difference....but really, who cares?. North Americans are far too obsessed with HP numbers and not the overall dynamics of the car. That little 1.6 Focus was just as quick in real world driving as my 250hp Odyssey was, mainly because the Odyssey was a Sherman Tank with leather seats.
Way do you come here any is it better in the UK
Why is everyone getting so upset about North America vs Europe?
There are some great cars available in the UK that you can't get here, and the same goes for North America, who cares. At the end of the day European customers (generally) prefer smaller cars that are lighter and more fuel efficient than their North American counterparts. That's because journey times are usually shorter, and roads, cities, streets and parking spaces are usually all smaller.
Europeans also see the value in sportier models like the Renault Megane R26R, the Focus RS and Clio V6 that focus on driving dynamics (due to twistier roads) and light weight instead of a big V8 and high HP numbers. In fact look at the Fiat 500 Abarth for a really awesome fun car that many people on here would probably dismiss due to it's size and small engine.
And whilst you may say that Europeans like small underpowered cars, the UK is on it's 10th iteration of the EVO, Canada has only just go it!
November 10, 2009, 10:01:34 pm What he said. ^^^
November 11, 2009, 09:03:28 am 100 hp is plenty of power for a small car...even here with air. Accent and Yaris here have plenty of go and cruise on the highway with the rest of the traffic with ease. Will they tear up the road and leave black smoldering rubber stripes...no...none of that silliness. I guess I just do not like the Cube...the Scion version I do like though. The view from three quarter right rear and rounded window corners looks strange to me...maybe some people like it though.
November 11, 2009, 10:49:04 am
Depends how "small" is "small". My Escort wagon, hardly a big car by any stretch of the imagination, had a 90 HP engine. When empty or with only passengers, the engine was fine for the job. When fully loaded and going through the mountains of New England, the car slowed down even with the accelerator pedal pushed right to the floor. A 120 to 130 HP engine like the 1st generation Focus had would have been far better suited for the Escort.
Your example of the Accent or Yaris might be the only class of car for which I'd recommend a 100 HP engine.
November 11, 2009, 11:12:55 am
November 11, 2009, 12:51:05 pm [[/quote]
So, you think my slant-six Volare was a bad idea?
[/quote]
The leaning tower of power!
November 11, 2009, 01:17:48 pm Come to think of it we had 4 of the slant sixes in various Duster/Demon/Dart cars...yeah about 100 hp and they worked great for us. Did not seem under powered in that size of car but were a bit finnicky with lean burn. These were low revving 3.4L engines though and more lower speed torque. Someone said they did not develop enough power to hurt themselves. Hmm...more then a quarter century ago.
November 11, 2009, 01:35:49 pm After I had installed the 2 bbl "Super Six" set-up, my quarter-mile trap speed went from 67 to over 70 mph. According to various online horsepower calculators, 97 hp made it to the rear wheels. Sounds puny by today's standards, but I never felt the car was unsafe when merging on to highways.
November 11, 2009, 04:19:20 pm I drove my 91 Tercel until 2003 or so. Killer 1.5l with an astonishing 82HP! Fine around town or multi-lane highways, but a pain in the ass trying to pass on a two lane.
IIRC my 2.3L 1984 Ranger had 90hp, and my 1986 Toyota Pickup with the 22R-E had 112HP. At the time I thought they were adequate for what I used them for.
November 11, 2009, 05:38:24 pm
Depends how "small" is "small". My Escort wagon, hardly a big car by any stretch of the imagination, had a 90 HP engine. When empty or with only passengers, the engine was fine for the job. When fully loaded and going through the mountains of New England, the car slowed down even with the accelerator pedal pushed right to the floor. A 120 to 130 HP engine like the 1st generation Focus had would have been far better suited for the Escort.
Your example of the Accent or Yaris might be the only class of car for which I'd recommend a 100 HP engine.
Was the Escort an automatic? maybe even a 3 speed auto?
I had an MGB with 100 bhp and a TR7 with IIRC 97 bhp both fast enough but of course they were light and could not carry much of a load.
Drove UK to Morocco and back in a 48 BHP Morris 1000 4 up and a roof rack. Certainly wasn't fast on any sort of hill but it got there... in fact it was down to 2nd gear at 25 mph and less crossing the Pyrenees and we didn't pass on two laners for sure.
@Rupert First NA car I ever drove was a slant 6 Valiant Mtl->TO and back in 1975. Really sluggish with its 3 speed auto and emission strangled engine. Those '70s cars were the worst for emissions controls.
November 11, 2009, 07:07:01 pm Old engines had poor power rating compare to now because they tended to be "peaky", torque was OK down low but the engine lacked power as RPMs climbed. That's where most of the power gain has occurred over the past 20 years, in the high RPM. Twin cam and VVT mostly led to more power high up in the revs, but not much gain down in the low and mid-range.
The Mazda Protege's 1.8L engine in 1990 had only 102 hp, which is basically 25-30% behind some of the 1.8L engines now available (for instance the Caliber's 148-hp 1.8L or the Civic's 140-hp 1.8L), but its maximum torque was 111 lb-ft, that's only about 10% behind what today's 1.8L engines get. Another clear example is the first Saturn sedan/coupé in 1991 with a SOHC engine that got only 85 hp (40% less than the 2007 Civic), but got 110 lb-ft of torque (only 13% less than the 2007 Civic), available as soon as 2400 RPMs. I don't think most people frequently make their engines rev up to 5000-6000 RPMs in normal driving, so the engines most of the time aren't that much more powerful than they were back in the early 90s or late 80s, but when we need to, we do have an edge with being able to play in the high-rev world like it wasn't possible before. Plus, cars were lighter back then, not something I whine about given the structural strength and safety of cars now compared to what it was before.
Addendum:
Remember, Power (hp) = Torque (lb-ft) times RPM of engine divided by 5252.
November 11, 2009, 11:38:00 pm
November 11, 2009, 11:42:09 pm
I think you have to rev the Lotus that high just to get it moving, no??
November 12, 2009, 12:30:47 am My pickup had 86 hp when it was new, and had compression and stuff. I'm still in the faster % of traffic in town, having 300 hp doesn't help if grandpa doesn't put his foot down.
A low power vehicle is perfectly fine if you are not afraid to let it rev when it needs to, pick up speed down hills to carry up them etc. It does get aggravating when said grandpa idles his monster SUV down the hill and then only decides to put his foot into it and pull away half way up. That I can't do.
Normally however driving is entertaining because the machine is worked to its limits pretty much all the time. The Weber, header and the nice-shifting manual certainly help, plus a tach to keep an eye on redline.
November 12, 2009, 08:48:12 am Now thats much more like enthusiast motoring. I bet TPL can very much relate to the need for keeping the revs up. The Morris Minor 1000 was a great little car and probably had handling that would easily match todays crop. All with less than 50HP. Set of Koni shocks to control the rear axel...add twin SUs and a better header. oh and polish the ports...not much that you could easily do with the front leaver type dampers. You could fit the larger diameter Wollesley 1500 front drum brakes (pre discs). Gosh even I was young once.
November 12, 2009, 09:45:29 am
That's "Koni" Rupert, Coney is a sort of wild rabbit native to NA IIRC. Yes indeed you have mentioned all the things that one did to an A-series engine that did not require much money! Ferodo linings all round were easier than replacing the brakes... unless you could find a Wolseley in a breakers yard. Real men with a Pound or two could fit Dunlop SP41 radials or even Michelin X to replace the OEM Dunlop C41 bias tires... the one we went to Morocco in had Sp41. made a difference coming DOWN the mountains that extra grip
I am not sure I believe you were young once.
November 12, 2009, 03:03:08 pm
I think you have to rev the Lotus that high just to get it moving, no??
You mean "Loyota", don't you? Or "Lotota"? I think the local go-kart track is using those Celica engines in their karts now. Of course, an Exige/Elise is just a go-kart with a ridiculous price tag anyway, isn't it?
:stick"
November 12, 2009, 04:44:06 pm
Depends how "small" is "small". My Escort wagon, hardly a big car by any stretch of the imagination, had a 90 HP engine. When empty or with only passengers, the engine was fine for the job. When fully loaded and going through the mountains of New England, the car slowed down even with the accelerator pedal pushed right to the floor. A 120 to 130 HP engine like the 1st generation Focus had would have been far better suited for the Escort.
Your example of the Accent or Yaris might be the only class of car for which I'd recommend a 100 HP engine.
Was the Escort an automatic? maybe even a 3 speed auto?
Yep, auto but it was 4 speed with overdrive.
Even Ford realized it needed a bit of a boost because the Escort got a 110 HP engine to replace the 90 HP in 1997. A 130 HP engine was apparently an option, appearing a year or so later.
November 12, 2009, 11:34:26 pm
I think you have to rev the Lotus that high just to get it moving, no??
You mean "Loyota", don't you? Or "Lotota"? I think the local go-kart track is using those Celica engines in their karts now. Of course, an Exige/Elise is just a go-kart with a ridiculous price tag anyway, isn't it?
:stick"
You can't even
November 13, 2009, 08:30:17 am Hey, my Accent's 1.5L is only rated at 92hp and I find it's got more than enough power with the manual transmission. I've often had 4 passengers in it and never really had a problem with a lack of power. It can easily keep up with highway traffic at 120-130kph. I even had 5 adults in the car for a short trip... sure, it was a tight fight back there, but I was fine in the driver's seat!
Of course, I've never carried 2-300lbs of lbs of cargo (other than passengers), hauled anything or went through mountains. But honestly, most people don't ever do that, especially not in smaller cars. And if they do, while not ideal, I'm sure a small car like mine could do it on occasion.
For small cars, ~100hp is enough IMO, especially if equipped with a manual transmission. If auto, it depends on the transmission.
November 13, 2009, 08:46:53 am I think there is a 'too little' bottom line, however. I had a new 2000 Daewoo Lanos 1.5l with 86 ponypower and 5 speed manual, no air conditioning.
In the city with the driver it was fine, and the suspension (tuned by Porsche, don't you know!) was fun and tossable.
Highway, four average size passengers and you were struggling. Passing (other than people doing it to you) was unthinkable unless you had 3 lanes and were on a flat or downgrade.
God helped whose who got them with an automatic and air....
November 13, 2009, 09:05:16 am Well, if you adapt your driving to your vehicle, there's no problem. Of course a 90hp car with 4 adults in it will struggle when accelerating going up-hill... you just don't attempt a passing maneuver in those circumstances.
As long as you don't expect V6 power and understand when it's safe for you to attempt certain maneuvers, I honestly don't see the problem with cars with smaller engines... again, especially if equipped with a manual transmission.
November 14, 2009, 12:43:10 am I rarely have anyone in the back seat and most of the time the car has only the driver in it. I bet that this is the case for the vast majority of car owners. Lower performance due to a heavy load can be tollerated on rare occasions surely.