They built them, and no one came...

[rjundi]

I own a smallish car(Subaru WRX and previously Civic) and never again.

Small cars are simply not as comfortable as their larger counterparts and the value proposition is rarely there. I also think small cars do not age as well in terms of suspension/creaks/rattles.

Here is a good comparison of why bother small:

Honda Civic 2011 automatic 25city/36highway = 29mpg overall 18,555 LX
Honda Accord 2011 automatic 23city/34 highway = 27mpg overall $21,980LX

For $3500 you can so much of a more substantial vehicle over a Civic. You already spent $18,500 so that little bit more is definitely worth it.

 

[d00df00d]

My car is a remnant of when I made significantly more money than I do now and actually needed a car every day. Right now, I'd love to have a brand new or lightly used Honda Fit Sport 5MT or Civic Si. I probably would if I could afford it.

 

[Kestas]

Originally Posted By: eljefino
The intial CAFE got us from 13.5 MPG to 27 and dumped points ignition, carburetors, and got way more passenger space with less exterior largesse. Coincidentally with better fuel control we stopped fouling oil with gas and engines started lasting longer too. I bet there were nay-sayers then as well.

It wasn't CAFE that got us to that target first time around. It was high gas prices and the DEMAND for gas-sippers that got us there, irregardless of whatever CAFE numbers were imposed onto the industry. Another factor was the emerging japanese products and quality, which pushed Americans to compete and produce products with equivalent quality and fuel mileage.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
No offense intended towards you, but can we please refrain from using the descriptive adjectives that only serve to derail a valid discussion?

If you and others refrain from calling big car/truck buyers as "entitled idiots"...I will promise to not label small/hybrid buyers as "pencil necked, white knuckle, greenies".....OK?

edited to add....And for the record, I own both, enjoy both and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Government intervention not withstanding!

The objection is that many people are buying large vehicles when they probably shouldn't. This is not the same thing as saying that all people who buy large vehicles are idiots.

Likewise, when people say it'd be nice if the car buying public chose smaller cars, that is not the same as calling for -- or even condoning -- government action to that effect.

That much should be painfully obvious. I don't for one second believe that you of all people can't make those distinctions.


Exactly. Cash-strapped was the keyword set. "Idiots" as in people who are cash-strapped and cannot afford things, buying things they cant afford, getting deeper into debt because they think they "deserve" it.

There is a difference between buying a big vehicle because of need, and buying one on debt because you are trying to show a status symbol. That to me is stupid.

 

[Herz]

Let people drive what they want, its no ones buisness what someone else drives.

 

[ChuckBerry]

From the OP article, it is encouraging that VW is doing well with its diesel offerings, I hope that translates eventually into some American auto maker offering a small block diesel option for a light pick up truck and possibly the same engine for a full size car.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: ChuckBerry
From the OP article, it is encouraging that VW is doing well with its diesel offerings, I hope that translates eventually into some American auto maker offering a small block diesel option for a light pick up truck and possibly the same engine for a full size car.


I've been holding out the same hope for years.

FWIW, the sales of the new Focus Diesel in the UK have been slightly dissapointing thus far. While the petrol versions have made Focus the EU's best selling car in it's class, the diesel has been moving much slower. IIRC, the number was in the low teens for percentage of total sales.

 

[jmsjags]

if people want to drive unnecessarily large cars let them. they'll be the same ones [censored] and moaning when gas prices keep going up and they suddenly don't have money to go out to eat anymore.

meanwhile i'll be cruising past the gas station

oh and you'd be amazed how much gear you can cram into a wagon. my focus has just as much cargo room as my old grand cherokee

 

[sciphi]

The folks driving full-size pickups around me are using their smaller, cheaper cars a lot more. One neighbor's pickup has been gathering snow for the past few weeks while the family piles into the Impala. Other neighbors are parking their SUV's and driving their cars more.

There's a market here for more fuel-efficient cars. But, using what you have until it's dead prevails around me because most folks don't have that much, and only get new cars when they truly need to. We're still in a recession up in my neck of the woods. Once that goes away, folks will be replacing the 100-150k mile cars very quickly.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: defektes
Let people drive what they want, its no ones buisness what someone else drives.
Oil is a limited resource - I'm sharing it with my neighbor here and abroad. Dont use up all my stuff! BTW I loved driving my 2007 Chevy Silverado shortbox 4x4 4.3L stick - but I didnt love burning $350- worth of gasoline a month. If course if GM would have installed a REAL F.I system and a good PCV system and the throttle body didnt come loose in a years time - it would have done better. The bowtie marine F.I intake setup is schweet!

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: hhu168
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Over-weight people don't like to be in subcompacts and compacts.


Good point. Those who think the consumers are wrong just need to wake up.
Consumers are idiots and need to hearded like sheep.


Arco, I rarely agree with you, but in this case I do, although I have a slightly different take.
If driving something big, fairly cheap and thirsty makes some people feel that they have arrived, so be it.
I would not tell you or them how to spend what they have.
OTOH, I do feel that CAFE requirements should be significantly increased, since conservation brings as much newly available fuel as any plan to drain America first (new drilling in new locations) and I also think that the sheep need to be hearded to more responsible choices.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Oil is a limited resource - I'm sharing it with my neighbor here and abroad. Dont use up all my stuff!


Yes, we should spend billions on technology that doesn't exist or isn't ready yet in order to conserve as much as possible. In order that China and India can continue to grow exponentially at the cheapest cost possible. I'll pass, thank you very much.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

fdgc and arco...I kinda agree with your point about CAFE to a degree, but the reality is that CAFE doesnt drive mileage increases, technology does. If all it takes is a stroke of a pen, then why stop at 35.5...lets make it 70 mpg.

My point is that, there is no secret hidden tech that will get us to 35.5. So the question becomes, are you willing to make choices for people by legislation? Or some other non market driven apparatus? If our recent past is any indicator, the market forces alone will not get us there, simple as that. Regardless of the cause of that fact, or the lack of "intelligence" involved, the fact remains Americans want bigger vehicles, speculation about higher gas prices changing that have never proven true. Never, not here at least.

If you guys want to legislate choice of vehicles, or raise the price of gas to $9 a gallon, just say so. But CAFE and the market will never get this country to where we need to be, or at least what I'm reading into where you may want us to be. If there is another alternative, less draconian measure that you could propose I'm all ears. Seriously....I just dont see one.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
Arco, I rarely agree with you, but in this case I do, although I have a slightly different take.
If driving something big, fairly cheap and thirsty makes some people feel that they have arrived, so be it.
I would not tell you or them how to spend what they have.
OTOH, I do feel that CAFE requirements should be significantly increased, since conservation brings as much newly available fuel as any plan to drain America first (new drilling in new locations) and I also think that the sheep need to be hearded to more responsible choices.

You can't have both can you? I mean, I guess you can if you are willing to add a huge gas guzzler tax on lower mileage vehicles. But in reality, how can you say, "buy what you want"...and then raise CAFE "significantly" (what would you raise it to? And how do you propose the manuf. meet it?)....Isn't this just another way of legislating someones choice using economics as a tool?

Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining.

Tell the sheep they have a choice, when in reality the choice has been made for them by the powers that be? BTW, what do you think those powers that be will be driving/driven around in? They'll still have their bullet proof Suburbans I'm sure...lol

 

[eljefino]

What's this "powers that be"?

I authorize my government (by voting) to play nice with Saudi Arabia and pretend their schools don't graduate lots of little jihadists.

All I want in return is a little CAFE tweaking so we can raise our percentage of domestic oil consumption from a shameful 30%.

This is the same goal, albeit with different means, of the "drill baby, drill" crowd.

Cities have zoning laws that keep skyscrapers from blocking out the sun. If we didn't have CAFE, would SUVs keep getting jacked up higher than the existing fleet so people could fulfill their ambition to see over everyone else?

 

[LS2JSTS]

The answer to your query lies in the difference between "tweak" and "significantly".


And for the record, no where have I ever said CAFE should go away. Rather tried to make the point that it should more closely reflect the available, cost effective technology. This horse can't be led around by the cart, it just doesn't work that way.

And please, the CAFE standards just got a huge "tweak", one that many industry insiders are saying is impossible to meet. See the attached article for market proof of said fact. One of the first things this new Admin did was to drastically raise CAFE standards....you got your "tweak".

 

[Herz]

LS2JSTS brings up a very good point, China and India will quickly consume whatever oil we conserve. I do not know about you guys, but I rather have US/Canada use it instead of them.

 

[sciphi]

I'm posing this question because I'm curious. I readily admit I do have a bias, and will try to be impartial:

Why didn't we put more R&D into increasing fuel economy for cheap instead of monster horsepower numbers?

Examples: a light-duty pickup that gets 30 mpg highway while still being able to tow 10k lbs on the weekends? Or a 35 mpg combined non-diesel/hybrid midsize sedan?

Or is that a silly and naive question?

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS
Yes, we should spend billions on technology that doesn't exist or isn't ready yet in order to conserve as much as possible. In order that China and India can continue to grow exponentially at the cheapest cost possible. I'll pass, thank you very much.

1. I'm not sure what to make of your first sentence. You seem to be implying that the fact that the nonexistence or unreadiness of a technology is a reason not to invest in it... but that's the point of investing in technology in the first place, isn't it? To bring it into existence and make it ready? What am I missing?


2. You overestimate China's and India's ability to grow on crude oil. There are LOTS of other potential limitations on their growth. Population density and food, for starters. Moreover, if they develop too far without breaking their dependence on crude oil, they will collapse hard and fast -- which is why they are currently investing heavily in... sustainable methods of energy production and consumption.

3. We need to look more broadly at the global impact of American sustainability. Yes, it will permit other big economies cheaper access to obsolete resources. It will also make us a LOT less vulnerable to geopolitical nonsense and make us largely impervious to situations that would bring other nations to their knees. Again, short term pain for long term gain. Besides, sooner or later, everyone is going to have to become sustainable or die. There is no reason why we shouldn't get there first. Being the world leader in that department would have a lot of advantages. It also would turn the tables on China in a hurry, if that's what floats your boat.


Just to be clear: I am very emphatically NOT saying the EPA is doing everything right, or that the current CAFE standards are good, or blah blah blah. Just that the idea of sustainability shouldn't be categorically dismissed. If you want to talk about the details, that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish...

 

[LS2JSTS]

Most of the things that improved efficiency, also improved HP.

Although I admit, you have a valid point. The HP wars surely detract from the overall possible efficiency.

Would you suggest HP or engine size limits based on class of vehicle, much like they have in Japan?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
I'm posing this question because I'm curious. I readily admit I do have a bias, and will try to be impartial:

Why didn't we put more R&D into increasing fuel economy for cheap instead of monster horsepower numbers?

Examples: a light-duty pickup that gets 30 mpg highway while still being able to tow 10k lbs on the weekends? Or a 35 mpg combined non-diesel/hybrid midsize sedan?

Or is that a silly and naive question?

I still wonder why Volkswagen hasn't brought back a TDi powered Golf based pickup

The original got upwards of 45mpg. It was slower than Christmas but I can't remember any other pickup EVER getting 45mpg. Or even close.

I think they could at least break even on the Golf diesel Pickup just in delivery fleet sales.