Small / economy car deathwatch: we've passed "peak econobox" again

[freebeard]

Their crumple zones turn upside down more easily.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Hyundai Xcient made in India, available in some countries neighboring Brazil but not here.



Does this beauty qualify as a small economy car despite being targetted to a different public?

[MetroMPG]

That Hyundai looks like one of the things built to satisfy the specific Indian regulation that deals with tiny, unattractive sedans.

And didn't Suzuki just release a next generation Jimny last year?

[mpg_numbers_guy]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Have we done this one yet?



Source ... https://www.subcompactculture.com/20...fit-to-be.html

So if you want a little Honda, you have to get whatever crossover they make on the same platform.

Fit only sold 35,414 units In the States in 2019.

I wonder if it's being dropped in Canada too...

Horrible news

[MetroMPG]

Yeah, it's especially sad because you think of Honda as a die-hard economy car company. It's almost a betrayal.

A dozen years ago, it was just Honda, Toyota and GM with subcompact hatchback cars in the N.A. market.

[JSH]

There are several reasons small cars are dying. Economics are one. This has been talked about a lot but I haven’t heard anyone talk about another big reason – Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

The NHTSA changed CAFE rules back in 2007 so that every car has a fuel economy target based on footprint (Wheelbase x Track) and type (Car or Truck). Those new rules went into effect in 2011. Cars have to increase fuel economy 5% per year while truck requirements increase 3.5% per year. It is getting to the point on the fuel economy curve that current small car designs don’t meet CAFE requirements and customers aren’t willing to pay for the tech required to hit those targets.

The 2019 Honda Fit has a footprint of 40.3 ft2. For 2020 it is required to get 49 mpg CAFE (which equals 37 mpg combined on the EPA sticker) It is rated at 33 mpg combined. By 2025 it will be required to get 61 mpg CAFE (46 EPA combined). That simply is not going to happen without going full hybrid like the Prius C.

On the same lot Honda has the 2020 HR-V which is built on the same platform as the Fit. It has a footprint of 43.3 ft2 and is required to get 38 mpg CAFE (29 mpg EPA). It is rated at 30 mpg combined. By 2025 it will be required to get 48 mpg CAFE (36 mpg EPA)

Therefore, every Honda Fit sold puts Honda 4 mpg negative for their CAFE fleet average. The fine is $55 per mpg so that would be a $220 per Fit. Meanwhile the HR-V is 1 mpg ahead of target so that extra mpg offsets part of the Fit’s debit. At the end of the year if an automaker is ahead of their CAFE target they can bank those mpg credits for the future or sell them to other automakers that didn’t hit their target.

[redpoint5]

Very illuminating. This underscores the absurdity of these seemingly arbitrary targets. Did engineers and economists develop the targets based on what is both technically and economically feasible, or were the targets less scientifically derived?

This is why I'm always saying the way you reduce fuel consumption is to penalize fuel consumption in the form of increasing taxes on it. There's no clever circumventing the rules when done this way. The automobile options would then better reflect the twin goals of reducing fuel consumption while delivering the vehicle types consumers want to purchase.

My useless anecdote is that my grandfather quit smoking cold turkey the date taxes went up on it. People respond to price signals.

[MetroMPG]

Interesting summary of unintended consequences. Thanks.

But...

For 2020 it is required to get 49 mpg CAFE (which equals 37 mpg combined on the EPA sticker) It is rated at 33 mpg combined...

Therefore, every Honda Fit sold puts Honda 4 mpg negative for their CAFE

I'd argue Honda could have offered a CAFE-compliant Fit (37 combined on the sticker) through 2024 -- 5 more years of sales -- with existing non-hybrid tech & drivetrains if they'd wanted to.

I think they're bailing early more for other reasons.

2025 onward, your take on needing hybrid tech to avoid penalties makes sense though.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Very illuminating. This underscores the absurdity of these seemingly arbitrary targets. Did engineers and economists develop the targets based on what is both technically and economically feasible, or were the targets less scientifically derived?

Well the 2025 target is very achievable considering that Toyota beat that 2025 goal way back in 2011 with the Prius C.

The economic side is trickier. When the rules are set engineers look at it with logic. (Technology to increase fuel economy by X amount costs Y) What they can't factor in is changing consumer tastes and fades 10 years into the future.

Why do Americans buy cars by the pound and believe cost should be related to size?

[MetroMPG]

The Mirage also beat the 2020 target as a 2012 design by 2 mpg.

And that's with the1.2L "big block" motor.

A 1.0L engine was/is sold in countries with stricter efficiency rules/higher fuel costs. E.g. parts of Europe & Japan.