Why you can't buy a high mpg car....

[niky]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

When? Start from the late '50s-early '60s period, when the VW Beetle was first imported: what small cars did the domestic automakers produce? The Corvair (which wasn't all that small), and the Corvette/'57 T-Bird, which were aimed at a different market segment.

Then in the '70s the domestics produced some mid-sized cars like the Ford Pinto & Chevy Vega, which did fit your "truly, incredibly horrible... compared to the imports" description, but they were small only in comparison to the "ull-sized" domestics. The imports were all much smaller. That continued to be the case, as I recall, until the Geo Metro was introduced - and it was just a re-badged import.

Around the oil embargo time, Chevy had the Citation and Ford had the Pinto... then Escort. And during these times, they still outsold the imports. The "small" car of the time that came closest to cracking number one was the Golf... which wasn't Japanese. Look at VW's US market share versus the Japanese... not great. Simply because their reliability as of late has not been that good. Quality is everything. And what the Japanese did better than anyone else was make their cruddiest cars to the same quality as the rest of the line-up.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Hadn't noticed Suzuki going bankrupt. Did I miss something?

They won't because they're huge in India and Asia. Because what cars Suzuki makes are ideally suited for those markets. But they're nearly dead in America because, again, Americans don't like small cars, at least not in enough numbers for them to consider importing their best-sellers from elsewhere... and because GM made them sell absolutely craptastic Daewoo rebadges... which didn't help their image all that much.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

However, I don't think I suggested that (non-specialty) manufacturers could exist on small cars alone. That's why the imports widen their brand by producing mid-size models as well. But I think recent history has proven that the converse is also true, and that manufacturers can't exist on big cars (plus SUVs & trucks) alone either, at least absent multiple billions in government life support.

No one can survive on a single product line-up. But in the US, again, the best selling cars are all big ones. Which is why domestic makes focus on those.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

How much of that is by Honda's choice, though? Lots of design decisions are dictated by government regulations.

Government regulations don't cover the size of your trunk or back seat. Very little of that extra mass goes to frontal crash structure... especially considering Honda doesn't increase engine displacement as much as other manufacturers do.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But those small cars do sell, don't they? I know I see Minis all over the place.

And again... why do MINIs sell? Are they as fuel efficient as possible? Not with a turbo, an automatic and heavy-ass runflats. Are they as spacious as they could be? Absolutely not. That Z-axle rear end is about as practical as putting a motorcycle swing-arm on a bicycle... and takes up more space. Are they cheap to run and own? Go ask someone who's had to have one of those zillion niggling trim issues fixed, who's had to have their fuel system flushed to prevent damage to the GDI system, or who's had to replace the DMF.

MINIs sell because they're luxury cars, period. They're affordable simply because they're small luxury cars.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

'Cept it's not either/or. It's a case of selling the few hundred larger models PLUS the few thousand small ones. So what if profit on the smaller ones is minimal? You still have your dealers paying for buildings, staff, etc while waiting around to make their one daily sale of a large car. They might as well sell small ones as spend the time playing solitaire :-)

They won't sell enough of the small ones to make it worth their while. A dealer will stock up on items that will either sell or bring people into the showroom. Most small cars do neither.

Hopefully times are changing, and people are more willing to consider small cars. But considering most consumers consider a Fit an "unsafe penalty box" and sales have been declining every year since the 2008 spike, truly small and economical cars like the i10, the Aygo and perhaps even Murray's T25, will not even be on most people's radars for a long while.

It's a chicken or egg thing. No demand, no sales. No sales, no imports. No imports, no visibility. No visibility, no demand. Perhaps if the Chevrolet Spark experiment is successful, everyone else will follow. We can only hope.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by niky

Around the oil embargo time, Chevy had the Citation and Ford had the Pinto... then Escort.

Yes, but those weren't small cars. The Citation came along a bit later, though: Chevrolet Citation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Vega was the Pinto's contemporary, and wasn't by any means a small car. (I actually owned one once: it's the reason I haven't owned an American car since.)

Because what cars Suzuki makes are ideally suited for those markets. But they're nearly dead in America because, again, Americans don't like small cars, at least not in enough numbers for them to consider importing their best-sellers from elsewhere... and because GM made them sell absolutely craptastic Daewoo rebadges... which didn't help their image all that much.

Seems like you're using a circular argument here. Suzuki won't import small cars because "Americans don't like small cars", but GM forces them to import poor quality small cars? Do you suppose it could possibly be the poor quality that keeps Americans from buying these cars, not the size?

There also seems to be quite a following for the Suzuki Samurai & Sidekick. And indeed, for many of the smaller '80s and '90s Hondas & Toyotas. Now why are people buying these used, and often spending quite a bit of money on mods, if Americans don't like small cars?

[mcrews]

It's a chicken or egg thing. No demand, no sales. No sales, no imports. No imports, no visibility. No visibility, no demand. Perhaps if the Chevrolet Spark experiment is successful, everyone else will follow. We can only hope.

really it's not. Maybe in a pure marketplace but not with the business model that currently exists in the us auto industry.
The don't start with a 'clean sheet'. thay start with built in costs that are not material & normal labor. Every American car includes the cost of PAST union employees current health care. or the unfunded liability of retired workers. this amount is thousands per car. So they have to cover that cost to make a penny. That is why the US manufacturers build large loaded vehicles. That's why they cant compete w/ kia & hyndia. That's why kia and hundia can make money all day long on entry level vehicles. They DONT have the overhead. Sure the demand is there, but the american manufacture cant fill it

And I cant find the post but someone implied that the US car manufacturers gets subsidues from the us government on a regular basis. That is not true. The bailout is/was the only time (outside of chrysler....20 yrs ago, and the paid back all the money) GM & Chrysler still owe a sizeable about of the bailout money to the us governemnt.

[niky]

Well, post bailout, the American manufacturers are showing a great willingness to drop the overhead costs by simply moving production overseas... Hell... before the bail-out, GM and Ford were using foreign subsidiaries to provide their smaller cars for cheap... and they never shied away from the low profit-margin fleet sales.

And if Hyundai and Kia are so willing to take that hit... why is it only Chevrolet, of the three, who is bringing their mini-car to the US market? There isn't even the shadow of the suggestion of a rumor of the Koreans sending their tiny cars Stateside... Honda, on the other hand, scoffs at any suggestion of creating a left-hand drive variant of their good looking Brio. Says the demand isn't there.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Seems like you're using a circular argument here. Suzuki won't import small cars because "Americans don't like small cars", but GM forces them to import poor quality small cars? Do you suppose it could possibly be the poor quality that keeps Americans from buying these cars, not the size?

Suzuki cars, in my experience, are actually head and shoulders above any Daewoo in terms of quality. Unfortunately, except for the trucks, they didn't have any cars big enough for the US market at the time they were used as badge-job recepients for Daewoos. It's only now they have the SX4 and Kizashi, but the latter is too small for the market (like the Mazda6 was) and the former is... strange... neither here nor there. I think the Swift is an excellent vehicle, but the tiny back-seat and trunk would make it a hard sell. The MINI-like styling would make it popular enough... if only they'd bring it in.

There is some merit to the quality argument... years of Daewoo rebadges have soured the American public on Suzukis, just like the Aveo and Optra (you call it the Forenza) have almost completely destroyed the reputation of Chevrolet overseas.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

There also seems to be quite a following for the Suzuki Samurai & Sidekick. And indeed, for many of the smaller '80s and '90s Hondas & Toyotas. Now why are people buying these used, and often spending quite a bit of money on mods, if Americans don't like small cars?

We're talking about Americans who buy brand new. Not those who are smart enough to buy used.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by mcrews

It'[B]s a chicken or egg thing. No demand, no sales. No sales, no imports. No imports, no visibility. No visibility, no demand.

But as I have to keep asking, who* says there's no demand? The very active market for small used imports from the '80s and '90s shows that there are people who want small cars, and the amount some spend on modding those cars shows that they're not just buying them because they're inexpensive.

*Actually it seems to be the Detroit 3 and their followers who claim there's no demand, and who do everything possible - from spending large amounts on advertising to sabotaging corporate attempts to build viable smaller cars - to convince the world that it's true. I'd even argue that some of that sabotage must be deliberate, because no one could have built a car as bad as the Vega on purpose.

Every American car includes the cost of PAST union employees current health care. or the unfunded liability of retired workers. this amount is thousands per car. So they have to cover that cost to make a penny. That is why the US manufacturers build large loaded vehicles.

There is no reason in the world why a small car has to be sold at a low price. The Mini has a MSRP ranging from $20-35K, while the Mazda Miata starts at $23K. The few other small cars that you can actually buy in the US - Porsche, Lotus, BMW's roadster, etc - all seem to start somewhere above $50K, and climb rapidly.

That's why kia and hundia can make money all day long on entry level vehicles. They DONT have the overhead. Sure the demand is there, but the american manufacture cant fill it

And to repeat, small is not the same as entry level. It seems fairly obvious that entry level should be used, of whatever size the buyer wants.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by niky

We're talking about Americans who buy brand new. Not those who are smart enough to buy used.

Err... Who exactly are you including in "we"? Not me, that's certain.

But there is perhaps a bit of a "shot themselves in the foot" going on here. In the '80s and early '90s, Honda & Toyota (and perhaps others) were building small cars & trucks of such quality & durability that they'd last 20-30 years, which took a big chunk out of their market for replacements. Like my '88 Toyota pickup: 24 years and still running strong & reliably, so why would I spend money on a new(er) one?

[LeanBurn]

Cars seem to be like electronics. You will get people that always have to have the newest fastest model, then there are others who will get the middle of the road less regularly, then there are those that only replace when it no longer works for them.

My 1997 suburban gets nearly as good fuel economy as a 2012 model. Unless my suburban suffers from catastrophic failure, I will run it for as long as I can. Same with my Corolla. At the time I needed a second car, prices of 3-5years used were nearly the same as new so it was a no brainer...but be rest assured I will be driving it until fails.

[niky]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Err... Who exactly are you including in "we"? Not me, that's certain.

But there is perhaps a bit of a "shot themselves in the foot" going on here. In the '80s and early '90s, Honda & Toyota (and perhaps others) were building small cars & trucks of such quality & durability that they'd last 20-30 years, which took a big chunk out of their market for replacements. Like my '88 Toyota pickup: 24 years and still running strong & reliably, so why would I spend money on a new(er) one?

That's precisely the problem. Or part of it.

Smarter consumers often know to buy used... or will buy a brand new car and use it for a much longer time... they buy reliable, economical and smart cars and keep them... giving manufacturers little incentive to cater to them year after year.

The buyers who cycle through brand new vehicles under purchase or lease every three to five years are the meat of the brand-new market... the ones who buy cars as often as new shoes, don't maintain them well (or at all) and dispose of them once they show even the tiniest sign of mechanical trouble. It's hard to expect them to be practical.

Car-buying is like democracy or TV ratings. The majority is hardly ever 100% right.

-

I envy you and your pick-up (and lean-burn and his Suburban)... I don't know if I could make my Isuzu diesel last that long. Just eight years in and it's racked up over 150,000 miles. Most of them in heavy urban traffic... still... getting 28 mpg in traffic and nearly 40 on the highway. Not bad for a big, heavy diesel that's direly in need of calibration...

[hat_man]

OK...I really don't think it's a conspiracy (and never did) but I figured putting it out ther like that might ratchet up the thought process and let folks explore different avenues on this topic. I still somewhat believe parts of what I said but not to the alarmist/extremeist/conspiritorial level that I led out with.

I have never figured out how to use the "quote" function with replies so please bear with me....this is going to be a long post.

SerialK11lr,minispeed,flakbadger,oldmechanic,niky. ..This is the kind of thinking I was trying to get out there. Adding or changing the gearing in rear ends and transmissions to give better fuel mileage is kind of a no brainer and can be easily done. Especially for AT vehicles that get worse mileage than MT's. A higher "road gear" would be greatly beneficial. But don't just come out with a "new and improved" transmission and say it has more gears by only adding something between 2nd and 3rd or 4th and 5th and call it better. It may smooth things out but the final drive doesn't change so is it really better? I guess it depends on what you are looking for.

Niky again...I agree somewhat about what you are saying about the bailout as it related to the next cars that were released. They were on the drawing boards before the bailout. But I guess I feel that maybe they should have had a smaller (read mid-sized not econobox or micro) car on the boards also. For you and all the others that commented on the fact that the US market wants bigger cars because that is what they buy or that they are directly related, is it really sort of a Catch-22? Do the car companies produce bigger cars because that is what the consumer buys or does the consumer buy bigger cars because that is what the car companies produce? I'm it's not as simple as that but I think you get my point. What would happen if the car companies produced smaller mid sized (again not mini's or econoboxes) cars at the same rate as the larger more inefficient cars? Would we see sales begin to increase for the smaller ones and decrease for the bigger ones or even level out? Who knows? I don't think we will ever really find out.

Niky again...The Dodge Dart is an interesting car. I helped wire some of the robots what will be putting this car together in Belvedere. (Don't blame me if the same weld becomes a recall item haha) I have high hopes for it. It is a stylish car and the new trans may yet prove itself. But transmissions have never been a strong point for Chrysler products. It seems to be a somewhat "entry level" car for the younger first time car buyers, but then again so was the neon. And if you ever owned an early model neon you know they were plagued with quality issues. I really hope the Dart does better.

Redpoint5...I knew someone would hit back with the same tone as I put out there. Glad to see I got someone incensed but not in the way I had hoped. Again I really don't think it's a conspiracy out there, but I'm sure there is a little "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" going on. I mean, come on, how many times have we heard one administration or another say they are going to "take a hard look" at the oil companies record profits year after year. I know, there is the "speculator" aspect to take into consideration, but I don't think it has been "looked into" closely yet. Seems to me that a somewhat similar thing happened a few years ago in California with a so called "energy-crisis" and electrical rates went up pretty high. I thought I had heard that it was a manufactured crisis to benefit the utility companies. If I am wrong (and I very well may be) I will gladly take that statement back. I agree with your statement about striving for both powerful or efficient cars being fun and neither being absolutely necessary. Neither extreme is necessary, but moderation is. And that is what I guess I feel the US car industry isn't ready for, even though the US consumers are. If they weren't ready for it they wouldn't have been buyuing the midsized imports for the last 15 years. It seems what we have to choose from is mainly the two extremes and not much in the middle. Hopefully cars like the Dart will be a breakthrough in thinking.

Redpoint5 again...as for technology, I know it isn't sitting on a shelf collecting dust. But when you look at some of the older model cars that were really efficient, you saw ideas that aren't around anymore. Ideas that I'm sure in part, died off because consumers didn't see them as necessary after the fuel crisis, but it is interesting that they didn't make a comeback around 2003 or so when gas prices went so high. Again, is it because not enough consumers asked for them or were they holding out hope that gas prices would return to pre-2000 levels? Maybe. But we can't buy what isn't offered, and they won't build what isn't asked for. We as consumers are partially to blame, but the auto industry must shoulder some of the blame also.

OldMechanic and pete c...I give Ford a lot of credit for not taking any money from the gov't and I think you are right. They get the smaller engine higher output scenario. I think though that the Fiesta isn't for everyone as it is small. But that being said a 1.0liter, 6-speed, 60 mpg, $12K "no frills" car would still sell. What I am saying is do something similar with a mid sized sedan. A 2.0 liter, 6-8speed AT (with higher road gears not just smaller steps between gears resulting in the same final drive as a 5-speed) with shift points that put you in a more efficient gear at real world speeds, (do you ever notice that you almost have to almost break the speed limit, even in town, to get an AT to shift into a better gear and then bring it back down to speed and feather the go pedal to keep it from automatically down shifting?) or even a MT, room for 4 adults, without quite so many options (keep pwr brakes for the ABS) for $14K would sell pretty well I think.

mcrews...I can already feel the tongue lashing that is coming my way but here goes...If you look at some of the older model vehicles they DO out perform a lot of todays vehicles when it comes to efficiency. Maybe not in speed and HP but that isn't what I was getting at. I am talking fuel efficiency. As for the geniuses in the R and D compared to a bunch of eco modders. Why can we come up with ideas like warm air intakes being more efficient than cold air, better gearing options with respect to overall drive ratios, and, as one very enterprising poster here has done, taking the time to figure out that by adding a 39 cent 1.5k ohm resistor to a certain Ford engine it advances the timing of a supposedly "un-advancable" system a few degrees and adding MPG. I'm sure the "experts" could have built this into the circuitry, but they didn't. As for most MPG improvements being at the "nut behind the wheel" I 100% agree. If people drove better they would see improvements also. But as for numbers 1 and 2 I don't agree and somewhat take exception too. As for some of our "tweaks" not surviving normal consumer use or a day of normal consumer driving...I would venture a guess that a lot of us drive our "eco-tweaked" vehicles as our daily drivers and not just as a special use vehicle. Boat-tails, yeah might not survive, but an aero cap on a pickup would. Grill blocks...bet a lot of us have them and have had them survive for a long time. Wheel skirts or "pizza pan moonies"...nah they never survive (sarcasm intended!) Warm air intakes and changes to final drive ratios I think would withstand most driving situations. "Tweaks" like synthetic fluids and belly pans (better under vehicle airflow) are finally being picked up by the auto industry but this isn't new and emerging information. But saying that our "tweaks" or mods wouldn't last a day of normal use or our abuse I strongly feel is demeaning to everyone here that has tried and or succeeded in improving on what the auto industry (foreign or domestic) has given them, in whatever way they saw fit! Your opinion is yours though. I know that the auto industry is not sitting on their hand waiting for the next big break through, but I do think it's been a long time coming for them to try and break from the "status quo". As for technology...see my second response to Redpoint5. As for you thoughts on the "bailout"$$$ that's an argument for another thread. You seem to think it was all the unions fault. I disagree. If you can't blame the failed business model then blame the unions. That's the way it always is. The big bad unions. Everyone sees AFSCME and the problems they have caused and lumps all unions together with them. Trade unions are a different story. If you look back through history and see what trade unions have brought the working class you would be thanking them not blaming them for all the manufacturing industries woes. The unions aren't to blame as much as you think. Remember they work under contracts that are negotiated and agreed upon by BOTH sides. The workers and management. They don't just say they want everything and management says OK. In fact most UAW members have taken wage and benefit concessions over the last 10 years to keep their jobs. But I'm sure you didn't know that so I really can't hold you accountable for it. Im sure that the high price of cars has nothing to do with corporate greed and "golden parachutes" and consumers only being offered what the manufacturers want to sell. Your right it is all the unions fault. (Sarcasm definitely intended here!) As far as MPG numbers and the EPA I don't intend any sarcasm here but want to understand what you are saying. I am using real world everyday numbers for my truck. Before any mods and "nut behind the wheel tightening" I was getting 26mpg highway and about 20-22mpg city. That was with 97K miles on it as I bought it used. Now I get 30mpg highway and haven't really checked for the city because I drive only about 20% intown now. Again I am not attacking, just trying to understand...are you saying that the mpg numbers shown for newer vehicles are "shorted" and can get better than posted without mods or driving techniques to be more "real world"? I guess I don't understand what that has to do with my numbers. All I was trying to say was that those are the numbers I am getting and I'm doing it with the technology that was available at the time the truck was made (1997) and a very few minor tweaks. And yes the most of it is driving techniques as I only have a homemade warm air intake, grill block, and synthetic fluids for mods. But I am fighting rear wheel drive (as opposed to more efficient front wheel drive) and bad aerodynamics of a truck (no aerocap yet not even a tonneau cover) and meeting and sometimes exceeding newer Rangers and even some newer cars. I was just trying to point to the fact that vehicle technology has come a long way in 15 years but it just seems like the efficiency hasn't kept pace. Again, no sarcasm intended and I'm not attacking here. Just trying to understand better.

jamesqf...I think you have it right. When the imports started taking off and selling larger quantities they saw a niche that wasn't being met by the US auto industry and took advantage of it. It's just too bad that the US couldn't have filled that need then. Look what we might have now.

vman455...I think you have it right also. The imports got their "foot in the door" with the smaller more efficient vehicles that filled a void and appealed to the consumer. If they hadn't appealed to the consumer sales volume would have been lower. Now that they have staked a claim in the market they are building cars that are larger than what they started with but are still meeting or beating the US models in fuel efficiency. Are they falling into the same Catch-22 of only offering what the consumer is buying/consumers only buying what is offered? I don't know. Maybe?

minispeed...It seems like a good business model to me. Get a foothold in a foreign market (the US) and don't really change anything until you are pretty solid there. Then start making you current models equal to (parity) the domestic market by upsizing them and filling the newly created voids with smaller cars that resemble the models you started out with. Thereby trying to get a new foothold in a different sector of the market without sacraficing your place in your original sector of the market. Now why didn't we think of that?

vman455 again...yes the newer inports have grown in size. Like I said, it seems like a good business model to do so. I can't comment on the Camry or Honda's offering in that size but to say that larger cars have trouble overcoming their size to get decent fuel economy isn't exactly true. I have driven both the Kia Optima and the Hyundai Sonata and both are extremely roomy, the Sonata feeling bigger than the Optima to me, and both getting above average fuel mileage. My parents had an early 2000's Buick Century that got 32-34 highway with I think a 3.6l V6 and you can't say that wasn't roomy, but you just don't see those types of cars anymore. I'm sure they would sell.

mcrews again...It is painfully obvious that you don't like unions. I think you have made that perfectly clear. So (in a hypothetical world) lets say that the Big 3 get rid of all union employees by not renegotiating with the unions when their next contracts come up. Contracts that, by the way, were agreed upon by management. You could say that the unions "held a gun to their heads" by threatening to strike. Maybe the hypothetical President could pull a Ronald Reagan (I think it was him) and disband the unions like the air traffic controllers. So what (in our little hypothetical world). Good riddens to bad rubbish. Right? Then take some of the unemployed or underemployed millions of Americans and get them to build the cars for non-union labor rates and benefits. Hell, hire twice as namy of them and have them work 24 hours a week so you don't have to pay them any benefits because they are now part-time employees. What a win-win for management. They have cut their operating costs by not having to honor their union contracts (eliminating high wages and retirees), not having to pay into retirement plans or provide health insurance of any kind, and look like heroes in the eyes of the public for putting so many Americans "back to work". If that were to happen then would they build a quality AFFORDABLE car here to beat back the imports and send them packing back overseas? I doubt it. The shareholders would get richer because the cost of the car would not come down, ("Hell they're paying that much now they'll pay that much again.") and profits would double. Do you really believe that management would do anything to LESSEN it's profits? The workers would see nothing. Maybe a cost of living increase that would get eaten up by the increased income taxes they would have to pay because they have more income.

Get off the "It's all the unions fault!" bandwagon. Did you invest in GM and lose your shirt in the stock market crash and are now looking for someone else to blame? Sit down with some UAW guys at lunch sometime and find out how things really are. Or is that too "blue collar" for you?

jamesqf...posts 115 and 116. I agree. Whatever happened to that car called a Tucker anyhow? How about the EV-1. Are they still selling like hot cakes? Too bad that we chose to build "disposable" cars and the imports built reliable ones. Too bad for both of them. Don't worry though. 20% ethanol will tip the scales pretty quickly into the Big 3's hands again. Unless you can bend your own stainless gas lines. But I don't want to sound conspiritorial here.

Leanburn...great with your '97 Suburban! It shows what I am trying to say. 15 years of technology and 0-1 years of efficiency. What gives?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by hat_man

OK...I really don't think it's a conspiracy (and never did) but I figured putting it out ther like that might ratchet up the thought process and let folks explore different avenues on this topic. I still somewhat believe parts of what I said but not to the alarmist/extremeist/conspiritorial level that I led out with.

First you said "IMHO I think the auto industry, the oil industry, and the gov't are in bed with each other." Then you said "OK...I really don't think it's a conspiracy (and never did)". Why would you say "In my honest opinion" when you really mean "in my facetious opinion"? Within the same paragraph you say "I still somewhat believe parts of what I said". You make a wild and unsubstantiated claim, backpedal, and then tiptoe back to your original claim.

The evidence you point to is the fact that cars used to get relatively good fuel economy (back when they were much smaller and less powerful). This "evidence" is very weak. To substantiate a claim such as this, we need to see indictments, or a whistle blower, or a secretary who overheard a politician saying we need to keep fuel economy poor, perhaps an email... the claim is a conspiracy theory just as absurd as "the moon landing was faked".

That isn't to say there isn't massive corporate, government, and personal corruption motivated by greed, but I just don't see any evidence to suggest the sabotage of fuel efficient vehicles coming to market. Fuel would be consumed at enormous quantities regardless of fuel efficiency. In fact, increases in efficiency almost always positively correlate to increased use of a resource.

Example: In 1995 I got my first computer, a Pentium 100. It consumed 10.1W of power, or 10MHz per Watt. More recently a quad core i7 consumes 55W, or about 145MHz per Watt. That represents a 15x increase in efficiency! How the heck did we still end up increasing power consumption by 5x?

Another example is cell phones. My old flip phone would go 4 days on a charge. My "smart" phone can't go 24hrs, has a bigger battery, and gets hot to the touch.

We want more, we want bigger, we want faster. As long as the resources exist, we will find creative ways to consume them.

...Do the car companies produce bigger cars because that is what the consumer buys or does the consumer buy bigger cars because that is what the car companies produce? I'm it's not as simple as that but I think you get my point. What would happen if the car companies produced smaller mid sized (again not mini's or econoboxes) cars at the same rate as the larger more inefficient cars?

Of course, they both influence each other. To answer your question, a car company in the US would go bankrupt if they produced as many econo-boxes as mid-sized. Here's why. People like faster. People like bigger. People like luxury. People like excess. My girlfriend is highly intelligent and rational (for a woman ) but she made fun of an ex because he drove a Tacoma. She said it was a small girly truck. A woman has never had the primal "take me now" urge seeing a man pull up in a Geo Metro. They might admire a man who is "saving the world" by driving a wimpy car, but they certainly aren't throwing themselves at him.

So, women are attracted to big, powerful, fast, high-class, macho. Men who like women generally make decisions based on what attracts them. I don't see this changing. Ever.

...I'm sure there is a little "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" going on...Seems to me that a somewhat similar thing happened a few years ago in California with a so called "energy-crisis" and electrical rates went up pretty high. I thought I had heard that it was a manufactured crisis to benefit the utility companies.

You are absolutely correct. The energy crisis was manufactured by Enron, and it took government help(whether knowingly or unknowingly) to pull it off. I would be surprised to see any industry that is completely righteous, free of greed and corruption. Again, I fail to see how stalling efficient vehicles would benefit anybody.

...I agree with your statement about striving for both powerful or efficient cars being fun and neither being absolutely necessary. Neither extreme is necessary, but moderation is. And that is what I guess I feel the US car industry isn't ready for, even though the US consumers are. If they weren't ready for it they wouldn't have been buyuing the midsized imports for the last 15 years. It seems what we have to choose from is mainly the two extremes and not much in the middle.

Why do you think the US auto industry wasn't ready for change? Is it possible they didn't have the R&D money because they were stuck paying pensions and outrageous wages and benefits to union workers? Sure, they are to blame for the mess they put themselves into, but that mess is why they haven't withstood stiff global competition.

...as for technology, I know it isn't sitting on a shelf collecting dust. But when you look at some of the older model cars that were really efficient, you saw ideas that aren't around anymore.

Old technology like what, carburetor? Cars were efficient back in the day because they were small and sucked. When people could afford cars that weren't small and sucked, they got bigger cars that sucked (gas).

We as consumers are partially to blame, but the auto industry must shoulder some of the blame also.

I 100% agree with this.

If you look at some of the older model vehicles they DO out perform a lot of todays vehicles when it comes to efficiency. Maybe not in speed and HP but that isn't what I was getting at. I am talking fuel efficiency.

Fuel efficiency is defined as making the most power for the least amount of fuel consumption. Did cars really use to make more power per quantity of fuel consumed? I would say quite the opposite has happened.

...take some of the unemployed or underemployed millions of Americans and get them to build the cars for non-union labor rates and benefits. Hell, hire twice as namy of them and have them work 24 hours a week so you don't have to pay them any benefits because they are now part-time employees.

You would see a high turnover for these positions if auto companies did this. Turnover I'm sure is not efficient or good for quality control. Americans don't want these jobs long term because we see manual labor as below us. That's the reason cars are built overseas, or domestically by overpaid "unskilled" workers. I just don't see domestic production being economically feasible in a global marketplace until people lower their expectations for compensation.

Unions are the primary reason the auto industry has failed. Coincidentally, they are also the primary reason our education is failing. This isn't to say unions are always bad, or that they don't have their beneficial place, but at least in these 2 areas they have become a ravenous monster.