Now it seems that folks in the U.S. who are looking for an economical vehicle that doesn't sacrifice storage space will soon be getting yet another option. Nissan has admitted that the rumors are true, the Cube will finally be offered in the United States market and it won't be the spawn of a new company brand either. The question is why did Nissan take so long to make the move since the Cube was first released in Japan ten years ago? Toyota proved the American consumer's demand for cuboid shaped vehicles with the launch of Scion and the xB back in 2004, yet Nissan continued to hold out. Most likely the push over the edge came from the recently revised CAFE standards as the Cube is powered by a fuel sipping 1.5-liter I-4 engine. It is the perfect compliment to the powerful new GT-R.
[Source: Automotive News - Sub. Req.]
Subaru Exiga heading to production, teaser leaks out
Racer dies at Altamont 24 Hours of LeMons
VIDEO: Danica Patrick hits crew member on pit lane at Indy
Nick Hogan sentenced to 8 months in jail
Pontiac El Cami-"NO"
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
Project Track Slut, Part One: Pick a weapon on the cheap
By the Numbers: April 2008
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Avinash machado @ Jan 16th 2008 8:03AM
Looks like a box on wheels. A Renault Clio would be a better choice.
psarhjinian @ Jan 16th 2008 10:42AM
..unless you have to carry cargo and people at the same time.
An econocar is a good thing, but sometimes it really helps to be able to actually fit people _and_ their stuff. I have a Honda Fit, which is an excellent car, but you cannot pack the thing for a week-long family vacation. Cars like this (and the Element and xB) get not much worse mileage and offer a lot more versatility.
Derek @ Jan 16th 2008 12:37PM
There is a reason who boxes are box-shaped. It's good for holding stuff.
Dustin @ Jan 17th 2008 12:39AM
There is a reason who cars aren't boxy anymore. (Remember the 80's?) It's unattractive.
Drewboy @ Jan 16th 2008 8:17AM
1.5 L engine? 0-60 in 20 seconds?
AlexP @ Jan 16th 2008 8:24AM
If 1.6L-equipped subcompacts can do 0-60 in about 10 seconds, why would this one do it in 20?
Hell, they're probably going to throw in the USDM Versa's engine for the sake of not making it too "underpowered" by American standards (who the hell floors his car on an onramp anyway?).
Markus @ Jan 16th 2008 8:44AM
While I don't like this Nissan Cube much, I really start wondering what's up with that American obsession of sub 10sec 0-60 times for their cars. 1.2l and 1.4l gasoline engines with 55-90hp are the standard entry-level engines on all the A-segment cars over here in Germany, and I can assure you that each and all of them can be savely driven onto an Autobahn, providing a manual transmission and rudimentary driving skills. Sure, passing while going uphill on the highway is not going to be fun, but it's not meant to be, though it will work if it has to. Many NA drivers seem to think that it's actually somewhere between dangerous and impossible to take a car onto a highway onramp if it doesn't have at least a 2l/120hp engine. Why?
I've driven in downtown and on highways in and around Boston, NYC, and Toronto, among other locations, all of it in a rental Grand Cherokee with a 4l/195hp I6. And while the Jeep is certainly better suited for hauling luggage, coffee and donuts, a 1.4l Polo at least wouldn't have started swaying like a sailing boat when changing lanes and would therefore probably have been safer and more relaxed to drive - except for the lack of space for coffee and donuts, of course.
Pat @ Jan 16th 2008 9:00AM
I agree with the opposition above.
My favourite cars have been subcompacts with small 4 cyl engines and 5 speed transmissions.
I didn't care how slow my Tercel got to 100km/h because I had fun getting it there.
Larger 4 cyl engines may be more fun ton drive but they do not give you the fuel economy you'd expect --and you know what, they still can't make it up the hill.
The only thing the great HP allows you to do is drive faster and harder and consume more fuel.
psarhjinian @ Jan 16th 2008 10:56AM
My father has a 67 slant-six Valiant that could barely get out of it's own way, and the 76 Aspen that suceeded it wasn't much better. My European cousins have sub-1.5L diesels that can do 0-60 eventually and my old 87 Corolla wasn't a champ, either.
The Fit does it in under 10 (barely under 10, mind you) and has a 1.5. Remember its only recently that mass-market cars could get sub-7 and sub-6 times; other than the horsepower explosions of the late 60s.early 70s and right now, 10+ was the norm.
North Americans are spoiled for power. People talk about the fabulous 400+ cid engines of the past, but forget that, by and large, people were actually buying much more modest cars. Even today we have a Camry (a Camry!) that can nearly break six seconds. That's sheer madness.
Derek @ Jan 16th 2008 12:37PM
Def agree with the Europeans here. I've driven a 60hp diesel Benz cross country and through plenty of urban interstates with no risk of life nor limb, just requires a bit more awareness on the drivers part. MB said the 0-60 time was 28sec when it was new back in '71. A 10-15 sec 0-60 time is plenty for real-world driving, even high speed merging. Heck, doing a 10 sec 0-60 off a stoplight is probably enough to get an excessive acceleration ticket if the cop wants to.
OTOH, to Alex, I usually floor my car (not just the Benz!) coming down the ramp (if the engine is warm) and wish more people would do the same. Never can stand the people who "merge" onto the highway doing 50 and wait 1/4 mile to get up to speed. Causes nothing but backups. Just put your foot in it and get on down the road, that's what the highway is for!
AlexP @ Jan 16th 2008 3:31PM
I don't merge at 50MPH and I don't have to floor my God damn Aveo to attain 65MPH before getting on the highway.
I honestly doubt you're flooring it.
dsb @ Jan 16th 2008 8:19AM
I would buy it. Nissan should also bring the March over here.
Godzilla @ Jan 16th 2008 8:22AM
"It is the perfect compliment to the powerful new GT-R."
Exactly.
rar @ Jan 16th 2008 10:12AM
Can you make one post without saying something about the GT-R?
MoonRover @ Jan 16th 2008 8:25AM
Wow! A pregnant rollerskate.
Azrael4h @ Jan 16th 2008 8:25AM
Given the popularity of the Scion xB in it's first generation here, the box on wheels design sells really well.
It'll do good here.
BassClef @ Jan 16th 2008 8:30AM
Exactly. I own a 2006 Scion xB and, even though the car was released nationally in 2004, I'm always meeting people who have never seen one and immediately ask where to buy one. Since Toyota screwed everyone over with the 2008 xB I've been telling folks to hold out for the Cube. Nissan may sell a lo more of these than they realize.
MoonRover @ Jan 16th 2008 8:29AM
The buying habits of the American public in the last few years have convinced the Japanese automakers they will buy anything. Somewhere a designer in Japan is laughing his/her ass off.
Geoff Gibson @ Jan 16th 2008 1:05PM
Wow. . . who would have thought that not everybody agrees with your particular taste in automobiles? Or that perhaps somebody actually likes the design of this car. . .
Get off your high horse.
You aren't the deciding factor on car designs. People like what they like, get the hell over it.
I am finding that my tolerance for ignorance these days is becoming quite short, but, then again, when you have to read comments like these on an almost daily basis I'm sure it's a normal thing.
Calebe @ Jan 16th 2008 8:32AM
YES Thank you Nissan.!!!!! We didn't know what we were going to do when it was time to replace our first gen Xb. We love its room and fuel economy. Zero to 60 from the 1.5 is about 10 seconds which isnt bad. Buy a new Xb? we both hate the look of the new one. To big, to big an engine. From cult car to crap in one model year.