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

[Arminius]

Check out the link below. If only GM had..............

General Motors (GM)

[i_am_socket]

All of those fit into the "it would be better going in reverse" category, but still better than a lot of what's out there today.

[bgd73]

north america doesn't get the big mpg cars because they are too small. This is an old question.
To get bigger car and mileage would require a total rethinking of drivelines and work acheivable....inline fours are horrifying when facts of engineering are really drawn out.The extincted 3 main boxer four would fix the whole retarded mess at expense of killing car businesses.. Nothing will beat it, and that is why we don't have it but from old vehicles. It is a ridiculous picture to really take an unbiased look at where we and the world is going with crazy cars and concepts...when answers exist without bias, but truth.

[xbUser]

Originally Posted by bgd73

north america doesn't get the big mpg cars because they are too small. This is an old question.
To get bigger car and mileage would require a total rethinking of drivelines and work acheivable....inline fours are horrifying when facts of engineering are really drawn out.The extincted 3 main boxer four would fix the whole retarded mess at expense of killing car businesses.. Nothing will beat it, and that is why we don't have it but from old vehicles. It is a ridiculous picture to really take an unbiased look at where we and the world is going with crazy cars and concepts...when answers exist without bias, but truth.

I don't think a good mpg car must be a very small car. It is all about the design. For example, Civic is small in size, good mpg, but it is quite roomy inside. Similar cars are like Honda Fit, Scion Xb, etc. They are all selling good. Many automakers thought the same way like, American is big, they don't like small cars, etc. That is not true. Those small car selling numbers prove that right. That is why those good mpg cars with clever design are selling good.

Also, if they spend more time to develop inline four engine technologies, the FE will be much higher than now. For example, Ford is building turbo 4 cycl. It saves more gas and has more power than some V6. Is it a new technology? Definitely not. They put it in new cars now because the voice of high mpg is getting higher. If they put enough money to develop small engine in the last 15 years, I believe their small engine is much more efficient than now. You can tell the difference from Honda/Toyota small engine and Ford/GM/Chylser engine.

But, does it mean American car makers doesn't have high tech engine? No. It is using in Europe, Asian models. With small modification, those engine can ship to US. They don't do it because they believe American is dummies. They love V6 more than inline 4, doesn't matter which one has more power and higher FE.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by bgd73

north america doesn't get the big mpg cars because they are too small. This is an old question.

Maybe an old question, but still has the same old answer: bring the small cars here, and spend the same amount of advertising money on them as on the oversized gas-guzzlers. There are plenty of people who want small cars (especially when they're not just "econoboxes") and more who'd buy them every time gas prices take a jump.

[cfg83]

i_am_socket -

Originally Posted by i_am_socket

All of those fit into the "it would be better going in reverse" category, but still better than a lot of what's out there today.

Yeah. Harley Davidson had a reverse-trike like you are saying :

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...elers-964.html

Originally Posted by cfg83

DAN -

Trie-hawk. That sounds familiar. ... Here it is :

TRIHAWK 304 - Road & Track -- Road Test - (from May 1982)
R&T Road Test -- Trihawk 304

Trihawk Homepage
TRIHAWK Home Page
TRIHAWK History Page



Ok, with probably only 100 built, that must be why I don't remember it. I like that it is very low to the ground (very stable, yes?). I'll bet I am mixing it up with a 3-wheeled Kit-Car with a similar(?) name.

CarloSW2

Here's another cool article on it :

When Hawgs Could Fly: The Harley-Davidson Tri-Hawk

If you wanted to buy a Tri-Hawk back in the autumn of 1984 at the time of Harley-Davidson’s acquirement of the company, you had to cough up $12,000 which today will buy only about two-thirds of a Big Twin. Back then 12K seemed a lot for a vehicle with no top and only three wheels. Yet it had appeal, and substance, both in performance and in the looks department. It coulda, shoulda…but the Factory game plan was lacking in the area of infrastructure to support sales. Milwaukee decided not to sell them through their dealers, leaving only the factory in Dana Point and three other franchise locations to sell the Tri-Hawk… not exactly universal availability nor were there Super Bowl ad spots in the way of promotion. Even then, only about eleven Tri-Hawks were leaving the factory nest on a monthly basis, again not exactly flying out of the assembly door into the waiting arms of the motoring public. So like many endangered species, the Tri-Hawk died not from intrinsic design flaws, but from neglect.

Bottom line, the Tri-Hawk is an intelligently designed, seriously made sports machine that shares much of the adrenaline producing qualities of the Cobra’s eyeball sucking performance and the Lotus car’s nimble handling, but with motorcycling licensing and insurance perks, plus a bit of jetfighter tossed in. It could carry two in relative comfort, and safety thanks to the integral roll bar and safety belts. And you didn’t need to know French to drive one. They weren’t delicate or temperamental, gave good gas mileage, and were easy to park. And in the curvies, they ate big Beemers and Benz’s for breakfast. Today 12 grand seems a bargain, except the last Tri-Hawk this author knows about sold for $25,000. You might catch it near Los Angeles flying around the Malibu Canyons piloted by a guy with a big grin.

CarloSW2

[Arminius]

"Good mpg" is in the mind of the beholder. I'm to the point now that I would only feel satisfied by an EV.

[dcb]

Man, leave the 3 year old hate be.

Didn't this guy own a Segway?

[Big Dave]

What constitutes "roomy enough" or "comfortable" is a subjective and personal opinion.

Ecomodders, by definition, are rare birds.

Soccer moms are are far,far more numerous. SUVs, vans, and minivans are responses to the cumulative tastes of soccer moms.

It is a dirty little secret that big conventional vehicles and little conventional vehicles cost about the same (within a few hundred bucks) to make. But people will not pay as much for little vehicles as big vehicles. Most manufacturers are losing money on a $15,000 vehicle and making a decent profit on a $25,000 vehicle. So which would you prefer to make and sell? Sell too many money-losing $15,000 cars and not enough $25,000 (or more) money makers and you are Enron.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

But people will not pay as much for little vehicles as big vehicles.

Oh? I don't think that's actually the case, as a quick search gives prices for some small cars that I wouldn't exactly call cheap. The 2008 Lotus Exige comes in at $61,000, the 2008 Porsche 911 at $83,800, while the 2008 BMW Z4 Roadster 3.0si is a comparative bargain at only $42,700. Even US automakers can do this, with the 2008 Chevrolet Corvette Base Convertible at $54,570, and the Z06 Coupe at $71,275.

For comparison, the 2008 Hummer H2 has a MSRP of $56,735 - probably heavily discounted these days :-)