must be a government conspiracy

[superchow]

For me it comes down to this:

Gas isn't expensive enough.

So people choose a car that is comfortable, as that is higher on their priority list. Let gas hit $5+ per gallon, and then we'll get a cheap, efficient and modern vehicle.

[texanidiot25]

Personal freedom can't please everyone's beliefs. The idea of intentionally raising gas prices in order to force this habit is nonsense.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

So there is, apparently, a market out there that's not being filled by the major automakers.

There are lots and lots of niches, no doubt. The question is, can any single manufacturer address them all?

My old employer tried that. We went from a simple, sensible, straightforward model lineup that made sense to the consumer entering the showroom, to a cluster . . . of stuff that caused people to have to do hours of homework to figure out what it is they wanted most.

It is possible to present the consumer with too many choices.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

My old employer tried that. We went from a simple, sensible, straightforward model lineup that made sense to the consumer entering the showroom, to a cluster . . .

Don't know who your old employer was, but unless it was Mazda, I doubt if they addressed the sports car niche effectively. I think that is the real problem with your old employer: not that they made too many different models, but that they made a lot of models with minimal real differences, targeted at the same few niches that they'd always sold to with their straightforward lineup.

If they'd tried to fill some of those now mostly unoccupied niches, they might have done a better job of selling. There's not only the sports car niche, but the small pickup niche, the small business van niche, the hatchback "throw the mtn bike, skis, backpack, etc in and get to the trailhead cheaply" that used to be occupied by Subaru niche... All the unfilled (except at Lotus/Porsche prices, sometimes) niches that are a big part of why I'm driving a 10 year old car and a 22 year old truck: there simply are no replacements.

[comptiger5000]

Cars have definitely gained weight over time. My Jeep is the most loaded package available for that generation, and weighs in at about 4200 pounds (base package was about 3950). By contrast, the base package of the current generation weighs about 4800 pounds, and its only a bit bigger (although the 2nd gen was similar to mine in weight). Many older large cars are similar to, or sometimes heavier than my Jeep in weight, so its not exactly light. However, compared to a lot of newer SUVs, it's practically a feather.

Plus, while it does have some nice luxury items, it leaves out all the excess "safety" crap. It has the basics, 2 airbags, door impact beams and ABS, but nothing more. Traction control is formed by the driver's right foot and the transfer case selector. Stability control is the driver's foot and the steering wheel.

I really don't understand why new cars have gotten to the extent they have with regard to "safety" features. 20 airbags, traction control and stability control may be nice, but make it an option! Some of us would rather drive without the car telling us what to do anyway. Same goes for so many cars only coming as automatics. Whatever happened to the consumer having a choice?

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

No doubt; I LOVE the old Minis while the new ones have almost 0 appeal to me

Did you know that several European car mfgs are now selling cars with NO OIL DIPSTICK?!? Yah, they say that the consumer no longer uses it anyway.

I don't know if it's possible to be any more out of touch.

Well, here in America there are lots of Saturns that have no dipstick for the A/T.

If you give them an oil dipstick, who knows what that might lead to? Regular DIY oil changes? God forbid!

[superchow]

Originally Posted by texanidiot25

Personal freedom can't please everyone's beliefs. The idea of intentionally raising gas prices in order to force this habit is nonsense.

All I am saying is that the government should stop subsidizing gasoline and let the market regulate itself. I agree that the taxing of gasoline in Europe is getting ridiculous, but at least they can tax it like a alcohol or tobacco and still have people get around in public transportation. I realize that having that dense of public transportation in this country isn't feasible.

[rbrowning]

"I agree that the taxing of gasoline in Europe is getting ridiculous, but at least they can tax it like a alcohol or tobacco and still have people get around in public transportation."

I just looked up the UK fuel tax on Wikipedia and I see that they are paying $2.92 per US gallon just for tax. I am currently buying gas at $2.85 per gallon including $.456 state and federal tax. If someone wants to kill this country quickly, raising the taxes to European levels is an excellent way to do it. And the tax on alcohol is $13.50 per proof gallon, based on 100 proof or 50% alcohol content. Do you really want that kind of tax on gas too?

As far as being able to get around by public transport, to even utter those words must mean you are from an urban area that HAS public transportation. To get to my last employer would involve taking a train from Jackson to Ann Arbor at a cost of $9 and the earliest one leaves Jackson after noon. Then a Taxi for the last 30 miles to arrive as everyone else leaves for the day. Out here the only public transport you see available to all homes on a regular schedule is the school buses and some of the districts are talking about dropping them because of finances.

People that talk about how great Europeans have it should go there some time. Yes, they have some wonderful things, but they have some wretched things too. I worked with a guy from UK and he said that he hadn't seen his grandparents for several years because they lived so far away. I asked how far and he said 70 miles! I commuted longer distances twice a day. The last time I visited England the jobs postings for engineers were paying engineers there about the same as we were getting based on one pound equal $1.50. But the cost per item was the same in pounds as we would pay in dollars, in other words we made about 1.5 times as much as they did. Yes they got 6 weeks holiday per year, but they were fixed, you couldn't take them when you wanted. And they had nationalized medicine, but those that could afford it paid for private insurance so that they would be treated in a timely manner. You can't look at a situation through a telescope from 3000 miles away and say "That little piece looks good" it is a package deal. Good and bad. Public transport would work great, if we were still in the thirteen original colonies, but I REALLY like the open spaces that you don't see in Europe. In England you see houses built wall to wall to wall until you get to the city limit, then it is farmers fields. There is no suburbia, no 1 acre lots, much less 5 or 10. There were farms you could drive across and there were public lands that you could walk across, but no one could live there except the farmer.

[NeilBlanchard]

On the weight front, Lotus has done a very interesting study:

Green Car Congress: Lotus Engineering Study Concludes Vehicle Mass Improvement of 38% by 2020 vs a Conventional Current Vehicle Can Be Achieved at Only 3% Cost

I've been working on a list of things that all car makers could be doing to improve efficiency:

More ways for auto makers to build more efficient vehicles - Updated 13 Apr 2010! - Vox

One of the things to add to what Lotus has done, is to add multiple latches to the doors -- this would improve the the strength of the overall structure, allowing the weight to be reduced because the door opening frames do not need to be reinforced as much. And the overall shell is complete, which increases the strength.

Another thing that adds efficiency in several ways, would be to redesign the wheels and the suspension, so that the wheels are rigid and non-inflating, and the suspension does all the dampening -- and the shock absorbers could then generate more electricity than they otherwise would. This would eliminate the need for an alternator; especially if, you had a plug in charger.

So, greatly improved rolling resistance and reduced unsprung weight, which leads to reduced energy to keep the car moving, combined with regenerative shock absorbers (which can be tunable for ride and handling), which eliminates the need for an alternator.

I hope you can read the rest of my list!

[superchow]

Originally Posted by rbrowning

I just looked up the UK fuel tax on Wikipedia and I see that they are paying $2.92 per US gallon just for tax. ... Do you really want that kind of tax on gas too?

...As far as being able to get around by public transport, to even utter those words must mean you are from an urban area that HAS public transportation. ...

You make valid points. Fact is, I AM German. I grew up in Vienna, Austria and went to University in northern England. It is a luxury to have a car there, but it does make some things - like grocery shopping - a lot more convenient.

It is also a fact that when I came to the US (Idaho actually) as an exchange student I fell in love with the sheer wide spaces of this country. People talk about the Autobahn and no speed limits, but I like to swoon about the thousands of miles that one can drive without ever leaving a country.

I actually argued that a massive public transportation network would NOT work in the US, because of the large open spaces. (If I didn't, I meant to say that.) So something has to give: does one want to live in an urban area with public transportation, or does one want to live in an open space where such a transportation system cannot be feasible? Suburbia only worked because gasoline was cheap and plentiful and driving in and out of towns was not a chore as it can be today.

If one wants to continue to live in an open space and work in a town, then one has to pay the price to do so. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

In a way the government is sponsoring a public transportation system by subsidizing gasoline. It only makes sense in a country where one does not even flinch when they are to drive 50 miles.

I drive a car that gets 35-38 mpg. I do not care if the price of gas goes up a dollar or two. That will only make a minimal impact on the bottom line for me. 11 gals @ $3 = $33, 11 gals @ $5 = $55

That is $22 more for every 400 odd miles. That just means I don't eat out once, or cancel my netfilx subscription and I have made up the cost. So in relative terms it gas is cheap here. But! When gas gets more expensive a 11 mpg truck driver will think twice before filling up 20 gallons every 220 miles.

The thing is this - higher gas prices force the population to reduce their gasoline consumption. If this is by driving less or by using less for the same distance is up to people. Or, another way to put it: The higher your mpg, the further you can live from a dense urban area.