But the question is: change in which direction? Not all change is good. Or it may be good for one thing and bad for another. Or may be what one group of people considers good but what another considers bad.
Consider the SUV craze. I'm not convinced these types of vehicles offer a real advantage for the great majority of people who buy them. Take for an example a few comments in
this article from Car and Driver:
Quote:
|
Station Wagon: Station wagons have perhaps the worst reputation of any body style on the market, but we’re fighting to change that. They offer the best attributes of a car without the trade-offs of larger crossovers and SUVs. The Mazda 6 wagon actually had more passenger and cargo volume than the Mazda CX-7 crossover, was quicker, and got better fuel economy. It was so immensely unpopular that it was discontinued [in 2008], and a forthcoming [after 2009] CX-7 promises a weaker engine in an effort to reduce fuel consumption.
|
Quote:
SUV/Crossover: Jack up the ground clearance of a hatchback or station wagon, and you have a crossover or an SUV. Do you need that ground clearance? Probably not. ... But the fuel-economy penalty of opting for a taller and heavier vehicle is something that affects you every time you start the car...
... If you need a truck only to tow a few times a year, perhaps renting in those instances is a better alternative to living year round with the fuel-economy penalties of a truck.
|
Quote:
|
Minivan: Those with large families—or dreams of such—often resist the practicality of the van, but if you routinely haul five or more people, there is no vehicle short of a school bus that will better accommodate six, seven, or eight passengers. A jumbo SUV like a Chevrolet Suburban or Ford Expedition EL has more cargo space, but passengers will find greater comfort in a minivan.
|
So even putting aside the fuel mileage advantage, there seems to be lots of reasons not to go after SUV's, CUV's, pickups and the like. Yet that seems to be the type of vehicle people want. It's as if the better fuel economy of more efficient engines is an excuse to buy bigger boxier, less aerodynmic vehicles.
It seems that vehicles like the Aptera may always be for a niche audience, if the niche is big enough to keep them alive. Maybe they'll eventually pickup popularity in countries with worse off economies where low energy consumption is priority. But for those who live in areas rich enough to afford large amounts of energy even at high costs seem more interested in finding a Swiss Army knife vehicle, one that's practical for everything including the unnecessary. After all, the average American can afford to fuel a Hummer as a daily driver. So why buy a vehicle that's more efficient?
Only after humanity reaches an all-out energy crisis will people likely make the change to low energy consumption vehicles. But right now, I'm sick of the whole "everyone should buy an SUV" attitude and am putting the Aptera on my list of possible car's I'd buy in the future.