Upcoming Economy Cars

[Big Dave]

I agree that almost all commuter cars travel the rush hour with a driver and maybe in 5% of the cases one passenger.

That said, people are flat NOT gonna cough up $12,000 for a one-seater and a like or greater amount for a vehicle to ferry the tribe about with. They will pay maybe as much as $18,000 for a single vehicle that meets both missions.

The case against the one-seater:
Cost of one-seater: $12,000
Cost of four seater:$15,000

If you have to justify the cost of the one seater over the life of a five year loan you have to save $2,400 per year.

Picking arbitrary numbers:
Single seater: 50 MPG
Four seater: 36 MPG
Cost of gas/diesel fuel: $2.00/gallon

Fuel cost:
Single seater: $0.040/mile
Four seater: $0.056/mile
Delta bucks + $0.014/mile
Annual mileage to justify: 171,428
Even if we arbitrarily set the MPG of the single-seater to 100 MPG the payback distance is still 66,000 miles a year.

Now basjoos drives around a car that is still a four-seater (no, you are not gonna stuff me in his back seat) and has actually enhanced his stuff-carrying space. Get the EPA to back off on the Tier II nonsense and put a good efficient diesel in the basjoos-mobile and you can scare 100 MPG. I just don’t see a clown car matching that.

If you insist on short (wheelbase and overall length) cars for ease of city operation, you inevitably wind up with a clown car or an X-box. Aero=brick. Or something vaguely hedgehog-shaped. To get better aero (hence better highway MPG) you have to have length. Greater length exacts a price in vehicle weight, but pays you back in capacity and lower (potential) coefficient of drag. For ultimate economy a long tandem vehicle could give you the balance of aero and weight.

[Clev]

Any true long-distance commuter will need to be very high mileage, dead simple and reliable. My commute is 36,000 miles a year, so I'd want a small diesel that would last 200,000+.

I don't necessarily need 4 seats (though it's pretty easy to cram a couple of "little people" seats behind the front seats, in case I'm taking a third person to lunch or need to bring a box home--or just want to avoid "sports car" insurance rates.)

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Now basjoos drives around a car that is still a four-seater (no, you are not gonna stuff me in his back seat) and has actually enhanced his stuff-carrying space. Get the EPA to back off on the Tier II nonsense and put a good efficient diesel in the basjoos-mobile and you can scare 100 MPG.

As we have seen from VW, Tier II only costs ~$500-1000 more per vehicle so that isn't a make or break proposition. The average driver at ~15k miles/year would make that up in ~1-2 years. The largest obstacle to a large automaker building a 100mpg compact diesel is the aero/transmission accommodations people would have to live with. For most, not having a different looking car with a manual transmission (or a wonky CVT in the case of the 3L Lupo) is worth the extra ~$600/year they would pay in gas compared to something like a stock Civic. People like vehicles they're used to, and a basjoos-mobile isn't something they're used to.

[Bicycle Bob]

I'd like to see vehicles taxed according to weight divided by payload, except that people would just haul sandbags to show the man. The notion that we need heavy armour for protection reminds me of the situation in medieval libraries, where the makers of illuminated manuscripts had begun by putting little metal wear strips on the corners of the covers of these new random-access style scrolls known as books. After a few centuries, the corners had turned to jeweled embellishments showing the importance of the volume, as a frame did for a painting. Unfortunately, these jewels didn't have "matching bumper heights" and ripped the rest of the adjacent book covers to bits, while not protecting their own volume.

If excess capacity were taxed, hitchikers and car pools would suddenly gain favour.

It is tragic that a multi-vehicle family will still seldom have a decent single-occupant or even two-seater available, when that is all that is usually needed. When I'm emperor, that's what you'll usually own, and park at the truck co-op when you have more than a trailer to haul. Bwa ha ha!

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

If you insist on short (wheelbase and overall length) cars for ease of city operation, you inevitably wind up with a clown car or an X-box. Aero=brick. Or something vaguely hedgehog-shaped. To get better aero (hence better highway MPG) you have to have length. Greater length exacts a price in vehicle weight, but pays you back in capacity and lower (potential) coefficient of drag. For ultimate economy a long tandem vehicle could give you the balance of aero and weight.

Erm... there are examples of sawn-off runt cars that have Cds in the .20s. They make me wonder about this fineness ratio thing.

[Big Dave]

Gack! Not another call for more taxes! We are taxed too much now.

[MetroMPG]

I'm pre-empting: please let's not have this thread devolve into a debate about taxes!

[Big Dave]

I agree completely. Let's keep it about the cars.

Back on topic:

Unless you are going to confine yourself to the city, I think the AeroCivic shows the way. His bodywork could be duplicated by a big manufacturer at a mimimal delta bucks over the standard Civic. Given Honda's drivetrain expertise, I could see a EPA combined 60 MPG car (some of basjoos' performance comes from his driving I'm sure) without having to resort to the cost and complexity of a hybrid. The AeroCivic is not overly long at 15 feet. It should be no harder to park than an Accord.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

The Tata Nano was released today:

Tata Nano launches today - 56 mpg for $1,985

56MPG and $1,985 -- wow!!

That gives it not only the highest fuel rating of any other Indian petrol-powered car but also the lowest CO2 figure at 101 gm/km.

[Christ]

Wow... I love that car. I do fear, however, that a $2000 car which attains 50+MPG easily, could widen the gap of people who might have thought about EV conversions and such...

Would you rather pay $2000 and have to put work into a hybrid or Full EV conversion, or just pay $2000 US to get a car that already gets nearly 3x the US average MPG?

Far less people who would even consider doing the EV conversion means that the potential for EV conversion parts' prices to drop is lessened, meaning they still cost too much. That means that the prices will have to drop as a result of cross-field research and development before they can really be feasible... It's a matter of one advancement beating another, more viable advancement.

Other than that concern, I'd rather buy a $2000 new car than a $2000 used car, that's for sure. (I don't pay $2000 for cars... more like $500 or less.) So I'd probably consider buying one if/when they're released in the US.

What size are those rims/tires? 12's?