View Single Post
Old 06-26-2010, 04:31 AM   #44 (permalink)
AJI
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 116

Rallye - '98 Peugeot 106 Rallye
90 day: 33.79 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 12 Times in 9 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
But 10 years more technology that yields a car with half the mpg?
The Insight Mk1 and CR-Z have quite different motives. The Insight was designed to be pretty much as efficient as it could possibly be within the realms of it being still just a car. It used expensive materials, and a technology in it's infancy. As a result, it was expensive, and certainly didn't have the widest appeal styling wise either. I think it's great, but a lot of people find it very ugly.

The CR-Z is a bit more of a compromise. They wanted more performance this time, which is important for sales. Half a litre more capacity, less efficiency. It also has a steel monocoque and body. Partly to save cost you presume, but it's unfortunately at the expense of weight. Cost wise though, in the UK at least, you're getting much more for your money. An Insight set you back 18k at release, you can get a CR-Z from 17k. And it gives you all the extra performance, comfort and safety that a decade of technology has brought us.

Of course, as someone else said - EPA's testing methods have changed, so it's difficult to draw up any parity between the ratings.

Will be interesting to see what someone from this site could get from a CR-Z in terms of economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnemy View Post
I doubt you would be able to fit full grown adults into the back seats. If you consider 2 60lb children in the back that leaves more than enough for 2 adults and some luggage.
The iQ is really only a useable 3-seater. A driver of virtually any size will render the seat behind unusable for anyone but a small child. However, the front passenger seat can be pushed further forward comfortably and you can get a normal-sized person behind them. Luggage space wouldn't be great four-up though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadeTreeMech View Post
Cars like this one horrify me. There is no crush zone in case of a rear end collision, except the heads and bodies of whoever may be in the back, which would have to be children. Put an adult in the back and the back glass acts as a headrest.

If I had a car like this, the back seats would come out and be disposed of. My minvan has a sturdier frame and more room in the back than these things, and even it scares me a bit.
Given that it's a city car for the most part though, it's not really that big an issue. The most you're likely to be rear-ended at is 30mph, and the car will stand up to that absolutely fine. In general, the most it'll have to contend with is a 5mph bump.

Maybe if more cars were a little less safe people would drive a bit more considerately anyway. It's always interesting to see that whilst car safety has improved greatly over the last two decades, road deaths have remained at the same level (in the UK at least). Why? In safer cars, people take bigger risks and pay less attention.
__________________
  Reply With Quote