View Single Post
Old 05-14-2009, 12:22 PM   #12 (permalink)
Ernie Rogers
Ernie Rogers
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pleasant Grove, Utah
Posts: 133
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 5 Posts
Some real truth here

Hello, Racer,

You have a very good point here. While some of us want a small, simple car, what we are offered is determined by the majority. (My brother-in-law lusts for a Chrysler 300, though he knows the planet is in peril.)

It was about a month ago that Volkswagen announced that they would not be bringing the 2010 Polo Bluemotion to the U.S. because "it isn't big enough for Americans."

Fuel economy claimed for the 2010 Polo is 80 mpg.

Ernie Rogers

Originally Posted by CapriRacer View Post
Consider for the moment that this same question was asked during the 1973 oil embargo, when, interestingly, the price of gasoline quadrupled (Sound familiar?) Cars back then didn't have as standard equipment: Air conditioning, electric windows, cruise control, automatic transmissions, etc.

If vehicles had stayed the same during this entire time, the technological improvments would have resulted in improvements in fuel economy as suggested. However, vehicles that sell today have higher acceleration rates, better crash survivability, less harmful emmissions, more luxurious features, better sound insulation - but they are also heavier. As Ernie pointed out in his article, weight = fuel consumption.

Nope, The problem is you and me and what we are willing to accept.
  Reply With Quote