Why doesn't the U.S. get good FE cars?

[NeilBlanchard]

Hiya,

I hope that Honda sees the light and offers the 2009 Fit with the 1.3 liter, as well as the 1.5 liter and the hybrid version...

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

blah blah blah 1.3 liter blah blah blah...

[xbUser]

I believe Fit will have 1.3L, like Civic. So, expect similar FE.

[akcapeco]

Originally Posted by bbjsw10

Never realized until this statement, You my friend are absolutely correct. Geo metro= Suzuki Swift,,, Chevy Aveo= Daewoo ?,,, Ford festiva= Mazda ? Ford Probe= Mazda 626 drivetrain. Why is it every small car US automakers turns out to either A= designed and built by foreign automakers or B= Powered by foreign automakers. I am sure there are alot more cars than this, If Chevy can turn out a car that performs like the Vette, Dodge the Viper, Ford the GT why shouldn't they make a Good FE car for US soil.

Aren't we all being just slightly naive here? North America is a comparitively vast geographic footprint with residents paying comparitively little for fuel.

We've over-specialized our talents in developing larger cars suited for long distance... in the rest of the world, people pay Taurus money for a well-outfitted Mini.

Til the $4.00 gasoline cast its recent sobering light on our situation, most Americans would walk right past that Mini and enjoy their Taurus, F-150 etc.

We can blame the big three all we want, but it costs big bucks to field any kind of entry in the automotive market, our market has been suprisingly resilient til now -- and our market has been utterly distinct from the rest of the world.

Doesn't anyone remember how Chrysler struggled to introduce the Neon... it was a brazen attempt by the a US automaker to say "we can compete," to reclaim a turf we had formally enjoyed (Vega, Pinto, etc) and since relinquished.

Turns out its not as easy as it looks. Global platform engineering makes a far better business case.

Americans enjoy a vantage of inordinant wealth and privilige. Immature Americans are fond of casting meaningless aspersions on cars they don't understand... especially small cars that don't deign to address their unsatisfiably spoiled need for constant aspirational reassurance.

An Aveo... fundamentally decent, modest as it may seem... but which provides a hundred times more content, value and engineering prowess than almost any car offered three decades before... is called crappy.

Oi.
.
.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by akcapeco

Til the $4.00 gasoline cast its recent sobering light on our situation, most Americans would walk right past that Mini and enjoy their Taurus, F-150 etc.

Yet the Mini sold well long before the advent of $4 gas, and so did a lot of those other small fun imports. That's what the US automakers don't do: they don't make & sell small cars that are fun. Their attitude seems to be that small cars are for those who can't afford better right now, and the buyers will be moving up to the big SUV as soon as they can.

An Aveo... fundamentally decent, modest as it may seem... but which provides a hundred times more content, value and engineering prowess than almost any car offered three decades before... is called crappy.

But is it fun? Is it cute? Is it nimble? Nope. It's stodgy, and looks like it was squished from the sides and squirted out the top, like a loaf of bread baked in a too-small pan.

Suppose you took those well-engineered Aveo internals, put them inside a Miata-like body (which itself was a knockoff of a Lotus, IIRC), and sold the result for a few thousand more than whatever the Aveo's MSRP is. I think you'd sell a heck of a lot more of them.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Yes, it is 2.5" longer, with 2" more length inside, and the windshield is 5" farther forward -- and just 22 pounds heavier. 160% stiffer torsionally, too -- and a hybrid version.

[tjts1]

Considering the 1.2 liter Honda Jazz returns exactly the same fuel economy as the 1.4, I and everyone else in America will pass on the poverty spec engine. You're better off having a horse tow your car. Or walking.

[Blue07CivicEX]

One of the big reasons I went with the civic was for reliability, gas mileage and I wanted something that was fun to drive. Now that I drive more conservatively I am getting 40+ with my 140hp civic, but on the off day I want to drive like a maniac (today being one of them, crappy day and driving fast blows off steam for me call it a relapse if you want) I still have that 140hp that I can go 0-60 in the blink of an eye (ok maybe 3-4 blinks but still not too bad). If there was a US made car I felt I coud rely on and had the same performance I'd MUCH rather buy US but frankly with all the tranny issues that were seen in the 90's and early 2000's I don't trust US cars for getting me to work and home for 200k miles.

[Big Dave]

Its not the size per se, but the combination of size and acceleration people like. As pointed out Corvettes and Porsches (relatively small but very fast cars) sold briskly. Still do even with high gas prices. Big slow H2s sold briskly. Not now but if an oil bubble bursts, they'll be back.

But combine low, light, and slow and people get paranoid. You cannot reason with that perception. You may as well bark at the moon.

BTW, big vehicle have fabulous brakes these days. At least mine dones.

People have also come to dislike a semi-reclined seating position and many don't care to do yoga to get in and out of them. This dictates a rather tall vehicle.

All this is whyI think it is more constructive to improve the vehicles people like than building something you have to eschew air conditioning and you back for.

[xbUser]

Compare to H2, Porsche and Corvette uses much less gas. Also, those drivers won't hurt a lot when the gas price goes up >$4. First, those owners usually have more than one car. They may drive another gas saver to work. Second, they are usually earning a lot. They can afford the high gas price.