how to tackle the 'new car' issue? How can we change manufacturers minds?

[320touring]

lets get our teeth into this.. I've just read through the 'cruze eco' thread in this section and a few things struck me.. 1. If all manufacturers offered an 'eco pack' on all models-pried similarly to a 'sports pack' would this be a good first step in making ecoformance (great term) a more mainstream feature? 2. Is fuel consumption (and associated cost of fuel) really signifiant compared to the depreciation of buying a new vehicle? I.e. Which is the buyer more concerned about-fuel costs or the monthly repayments? 3. Why is society predisposed to the idea that 'new is better than old!'? Looking at this from a resource use point of view, then surely reuse is better? I do understand that there are socioeconomic reasons for sustaining car companies-but i'd like a fresh page approach Anyway, here's what i'd like your opinions on.. Would it be possible for us (the consumers) to materially shift the focus of production towards more fuel efficient transport? I see the 'cruze' was developed in Germany-like the bmw 3 series and mercedes c class. However, despite the price differential, the 3series is class leader. It comes with 'efficient dynamics' stop start etc and a range of engines for frugality and power. The sales come from the prestige of owning a 'quality' car Could similar kudos be achieved for brands that were ECO? If so, how? Is there anything that could be implemented easily across the marketplace? For what its worth, i go to the Frank Lee school of economics..£/$2000 buys at least 5 cars Current fleet for myself and the boss 1985 golf gti convertible 1988 bmw 320 touring 1989 bmw 325 touring 1995 bmw 318iS coupe 1997 renault clio 1.2 rn Total cost £2450 thats less than 10 months repayments on a cruze.. The clio does 44mpg US on a run The 318iS managed 32US so far, combined. The other 3 are projects to pass the time. Why cant more people take a similar approach? I look forward to your input-its time to figure out how we can hae some positive influence on car design and usage cycles!

[320touring]

could a kindly mod please sort out the spacing in the first post?my phone doesnt like long posts!

thanks and sorry!

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by 320touring

1. If all manufacturers offered an 'eco pack' on all models

Should be stock !
Sports option = eco package.
Better streamlining will make it go faster

2. Is fuel consumption (and associated cost of fuel) really signifiant compared to the depreciation of buying a new vehicle?

Definitely !
Operating costs are quite significant :
At the moment, my 64 month old car has cost as much to operate than to buy.

At 86K miles / 138K km it has depreciated to 1/3 of its original value.
Total fuel cost is just shy of 1/3 the purchase price - despite it being a rather frugal diesel, and despite diesel being a good deal cheaper than gas over here.

I.e. Which is the buyer more concerned about-fuel costs or the monthly repayments?

They'd have less to worry about the latter if they had looked closer at the former before buying

3. Why is society predisposed to the idea that 'new is better than old!'?

Because the idea has merit.

My current car is a lot safer than any of the previous ones, and it is environmentally cleaner to boot.

Looking at this from a resource use point of view, then surely reuse is better?

It's not just a new resources issue.

When burning the same liter of fuel, old (Euro 0) cars can pump out up to 6 times more pollutants than a current new (Euro 5) car.
Re-using old cars doesn't require the resources needed to produce a new car, but their continued use itself is worse on the environment.
An old car is also far worse on its occupants when things go badly wrong - it doesn't need to be of your own doing.

For every car, there's a time to start looking beyond good MPG - depending on its age and use.


There's no reason why Honda couldn't have produced a true, back to basics, 2nd gen. Insight incorporating all of today's safety features yet still be @ lower vehicle weight and lower fuel consumption than the Insight II it's producing now.

Most of the excessive vehicle weight can be attributed to larger-sized (or rather oversized) vehicles equipped with all sorts of unnecessary creature-comforts, like 8-way electrically adjustable, heated seats.


Ultimately, the trend to buy new vehicles will also see the Frank Lee economists being able to buy less polluting cars at reduced prices
But schemes like "cash for clunkers" have put a serious dent in the used car market wherever they were implemented.

[320touring]

thanks for your reply

Certainly the points you make re 'luxury items' and emissions could be held true, but by the same token, i can get these comforts in a 15year old s class merc, for less than the cost of a new car..

Emissions are a strange one- europe seems to favour small high output engines with their legislation, whereas the US has (had?) a leaning towards less stressed, larger engines. It appears that pollution assessment is NOT standardised, and as such, there must be additional expense to manufacturers regarding engine types for different markets?

I also reckon that older cars are not as 'smoke billowing' as people think-i've never had issues with my bmw's passing the MOT-often with the emissions below those levels required of cars with cats.i do however admit that newer cars have better emissions contol..however that comes at a price regarding servicing and parts reliability (hdi anyone?)

You have a volvo-what elements of the drivE model should be transferred to all volvos?

Re the sports vs eco pack-i reckon there is room for both.. First and foremost i enjoy driving, so a well set up car is a pleasure-better handling means more momentum conservation round the twisties

Hopefully we can gain some consensus here as to a 'top 3 easy things' that would make new cars more efficient and acceptable to the public.

[Frank Lee]

As I see it there's basically three things that influence what carmakers make:

1. What sells. F150 has been the #1 selling vehicle in N.A. for decades, not Metros. All the mfgs are going to try to build F150s then.

2. What's the most profitable. The market has said F150s are worth enough to it that they'll pay a price that includes a tidy profit for the mfg. The market has said that to sell a Metro, the price has to be at a point where the profits are thin.

3. Government regulations. CAFE and safety regs can provide forces to influence product that the Market alone may not.

I think everything else- letter writing campaigns, forum threads, or... what else is there?- pretty much falls on deaf ears.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by 320touring

but by the same token, i can get these comforts in a 15year old s class merc, for less than the cost of a new car..

But it won't be as safe or clean as a more modern car.

Also, many of these creature-comforts creep down from top-range cars where profits are high enough to warrant excesses, and owners are willing to pay for something the average Joe doesn't have.
Later on, mass producing the excesses becomes profitable and they become optional extra's on Joe Average's ride.
Even later, they become standard fitment.

Emissions are a strange one- europe seems to favour small high output engines with their legislation, whereas the US has (had?) a leaning towards less stressed, larger engines.

In Europe, you have to figure in higher fuel prices, and higher taxes increasing with engine displacement.

The Yanks never really cared much about fuel consumption.

You can burn lots of fuel in a big engine, and still meet pollution standards other than CO2 output.

It appears that pollution assessment is NOT standardised, and as such, there must be additional expense to manufacturers regarding engine types for different markets?

There are different standards, even in the US California has tighter standards than the other states.

Obviously, the expense to comply with the tighter rules is higher than the cost of having multiple slightly different versions.

I also reckon that older cars are not as 'smoke billowing' as people think

It's not about billowing smoke as with a diesel or the white puff of a cold gasser.
You can't see NOx, or CO, nor the smaller HCs (though you will see the effects of the bigger HC, as in blue oily smoke)

i do however admit that newer cars have better emissions contol..however that comes at a price regarding servicing and parts reliability (hdi anyone?)

Yeah

You have a volvo-what elements of the drivE model should be transferred to all volvos?

LRR tyres; underbelly pan (C30 only now); deflectors in front of tyres ; R-design / T5 front spoiler, yes indeed, part of a sports package on an eco version; low viscosity engine and transmission oil ; closed grille ; shift indicator; making roofracks optional instead of an optional deletion;

[I'm as yet undecided on the heavy aero rims - time will tell wether they're helping, as my driving style has also changed.]

No matter what eco efforts a mfg. claims to be taking, not doing those simple things across their entire range means they don't really mean it.

Re the sports vs eco pack-i reckon there is room for both.. First and foremost i enjoy driving, so a well set up car is a pleasure-better handling means more momentum conservation round the twisties

There's no mutual exclusion in my reasoning.
Every car should handle well


Other than on a straight motorway, I'm not really going slow.
I'm faster than a lot of drivers thru the more challenging parts of the road - like many on EM, I have a history of going (too ?) fast.
The main difference with other drivers, is I usually don't speed up after a turn, nor do I slow down much when going into one

[320touring]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

As I see it there's basically three things that influence what carmakers make:

1. What sells. F150 has been the #1 selling vehicle in N.A. for decades, not Metros. All the mfgs are going to try to build F150s then.

2. What's the most profitable. The market has said F150s are worth enough to it that they'll pay a price that includes a tidy profit for the mfg. The market has said that to sell a Metro, the price has to be at a point where the profits are thin.

3. Government regulations. CAFE and safety regs can provide forces to influence product that the Market alone may not.

I think everything else- letter writing campaigns, forum threads, or... what else is there?- pretty much falls on deaf ears.

fair points frank!but i ask..

1. Why is the f150(a pickup) the best selling vehicle in North America? What does it offer to so many people?or is it just the best/cheapest option out of several poor choices?

2. Would much higher fuel prices (like in europe) refocus the market towards products more geared to low fuel consumption?

3. Would a shift to a single set of 'emissions legislation' help make it easier for manufacturers to develop efficiencies? I struggle to believe that the US dont get the diesel cruze- i imagine the engines are similar to the vauxhall/opel insignia engines, so should be a decent drive.

I also cant help but think that development of 'eco' versions of cars is hampered by limited markets (due to legislation) in the US-if both the EU and the US were able to accept similar cars, then the market for 'eco' cars could potentially double, making the technologies more cost effective..

[cfg83]

Frank -

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

As I see it there's basically three things that influence what carmakers make:

1. What sells. F150 has been the #1 selling vehicle in N.A. for decades, not Metros. All the mfgs are going to try to build F150s then.

2. What's the most profitable. The market has said F150s are worth enough to it that they'll pay a price that includes a tidy profit for the mfg. The market has said that to sell a Metro, the price has to be at a point where the profits are thin.

3. Government regulations. CAFE and safety regs can provide forces to influence product that the Market alone may not.

I think everything else- letter writing campaigns, forum threads, or... what else is there?- pretty much falls on deaf ears.

Yeah, I think you need to build incentives into owning economy cars, aka (or a-KEI-a?) Japan :

Kei car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kei cars ("light automobile") are a Japanese category of small vehicles, including passenger cars, vans, and pickup trucks. They are designed to exploit local tax and insurance regulations, and in most rural areas are exempted from the requirement to certify that adequate parking is available for the vehicle. These standards originated in the times following the end of the Second World War, when most Japanese could not afford a full-sized car yet had enough to buy a motorcycle. To promote the growth of the car industry, as well as to offer an alternative delivery method to small business and shop owners, kei car standards were created.

CarloSW2

[320touring]

euromodder,

Re the '15 yr old S class' arguement-i'm approaching this from an ECOnomics point of view.. Essentially-less than 6months repayments on a fiat500(bog stock-no toys) would get me a non depreciating asset that provides more space, safety features and is potentially MORE reliable (fiat stands for fix it again tomorrow)

I dont for a second doubt that it'd eat more fuel

Regarding the mods you suggest should be stock-i've never understood why fwd cars have such huge 'transmission tunnels'.. Surely there is scope for both weight reduction AND repackaging inside the passenger cell thst would allow easy fitment of a floorpan or a flat floor?

i also question re the the 'hdi' point whether there is an inverse relationship between exernal controls (like ecu's etc) and the gains recouped once additional servicing and manufacturing is considered?

And, just to spice it up a bit..

Is it the manufacturer or the purchaser who is ultimately in control of the desire for (and performance of) the car?

[Big Dave]

Here in the US, Ford, GM, and Honda offer improved MPG options packs for selected models. They just don’t advertise them much.