Cheap Car Wars Canada: 2016 Chevrolet Spark Gets $9,995 CAD Price Tag, and Americans Should Be Seriously Pissed Off

by Mark Stevenson

Published: January 15th, 2016

cheap car wars canada 2016 chevrolet spark gets 9 995 cad price tag and americans

Chevrolet might be trying to sell its newest Spark in the United States for $12,660 ($13,535 with freight), but the automaker is bringing its game to other low-priced subcompacts in Canada with a starting price of $9,995 CAD ($11,595 CAD with freight/PDI).

That means the Spark costs $6,880 USD on the Canadian side of the border after adjusting for current exchange rates. Either GM Canada is taking a massive financial hit on the Spark, or Americans are getting hosed — by $5,780 USD, to be exact — for the Korean-made hatchback.

According to GM Canada, the new Spark arrives with a decent amount of kit as standard: a 7-inch touchscreen with MyLink, Apple CarPlay and Android Auto; OnStar with 4G LTE and Wi-Fi hotspot; 10 airbags; hill-start assist; and rearview camera. In the United States, the hatchback also receives single-zone climate control with air conditioning as standard.

(Last time we checked, air conditioning didn’t cost nearly six grand.)

The Spark, with a curb weight of 2,246 pounds in LS Manual guise, is powered by a 1.4-liter four-cylinder engine producing 98 horsepower and 94 pounds-feet of torque paired to either a five-speed manual or continuously variable transmission. The CVT is rated at 6.7L/100km, or 35.1 mpg, on the combined cycle, according to Natural Resources Canada. Fuel consumption increases to 6.9L/100km, or 34 mpg, with the five-speed manual.

(NRCan and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency use the same five-cycle test for calculating fuel economy.)

The 2015 Nissan Micra S, which tips the scales at 2,302 pounds with a five-speed manual, offers a stouter, thirstier engine but less kit as standard for its $9,998 CAD ($11,598 CAD with freight/PDI) MSRP. Current incentives on the Micra bring that MSRP down to $9,348 CAD ($10,948 CAD with freight/PDI). Wind-up windows, a basic four-speaker AM/FM/CD/MP3/AUX audio system and six airbags greet you in the least-expensive Nissan. Its 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine pumps out 109 horsepower and 107 pounds-feet of torque, but is rated at 7.7L/100km (30.5 mpg) with the five-speed stick or 7.8L/100km (30.2 mpg) with its traditional four-speed automatic.

Mitsubishi gets to keep its fuel economy crown. The 2015 Mirage is rated at 6.4L/100km, or 36.8 mpg, but is effectively a very fancy bus pass with its wheezy 1.2-liter three-cylinder engine with 74 horsepower.

The new, 2017 Mirage (Mitsubishi is skipping the 2016 model year) brings with it a more streamlined exterior, which should help it eke out an additional mile per gallon, and carry the honor of being the first Mitsubishi to offer Apple CarPlay and Android Auto in Canada and the United States. No pricing has been announced, but expect it to keep its $9,998 CAD price tag in Canada when incentives are calculated into the total ($11,448 CAD with freight/PDI). It also receives a bump in output to 78 horsepower and more robust brakes.

The 2016 Chevrolet Spark is on sale now, and it might be in your best interest to go north to buy one.

#2016ChevroletSpark #CheapCarWars #Chevrolet #ChevySpark #Micra #MicraS #Mirage #Mitsubishi #MitsubishiMirage #Nissan #Spark #NissanMicra #QuebecSpecial

Mark Stevenson

More by Mark Stevenson

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 80 comments

09box on Jan 20, 2016

If Nissan bought the Micra over the border into the States, that thing would sell like hot cakes. That thing would be a hoot to drive.

Like Reply
Namstrap on Jan 20, 2016

I think the Daewoo Matiz, the car the Spark evolved from, was a hell of a lot better looking. I'm only 5'10" (maybe 5'9" now), and my legs are bent more than I want them to be with the seat in the most rearward position. I want to like it, but I'm afraid I just don't.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.