Workhorse REx Hybrid Truck

[deluxx]

I have a cordless drill from workhorse, it was $50 and while it's not very powerful it was a great value. I expected it to last 6 months for light duty around the house crap now it's with me working a full time job.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Manufacturers don't build used cars though. The point is that new car buyers won't stand for a "new" '88 Toyota and associated price tag.

And how do you know this, exactly? If manufacturers refuse to build something like a new '88 Toyota, how do you know that new truck buyers won't buy it? What you have is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For a parallel, you could go back to the early '70s. Nobody built small trucks back then (though the big pickups of the day were quite a bit smaller than now). Toyota icould have said "nobody buys small trucks, so let's not bother making one". Instead, they introduced the small truck, and it sold. Same with the Volkswagen Beetle, or Japanese care in the '70s and '80s.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Manufacturers don't bu
Only new vehicles are relevant to the discussion as they will become tomorrow's used vehicles.

All that means is that my cars will continue to age without suitable replacements

I am noticing a lot of street legal Japanese kei cars hitting the market in recent months

A 3cylinder 660cc 6speed 2wd Dual range mini truck looks quite attractive.

[redpoint5]

So now the thread is about the irrelevance of hybrid technology in light of the fact that we could just build smaller trucks, exactly as were built in 1988, and consumers will love not having any of the technology found in modern vehicles... and something about cordless drills.

[niky]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And how do you know this, exactly? If manufacturers refuse to build something like a new '88 Toyota, how do you know that new truck buyers won't buy it? What you have is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

For a parallel, you could go back to the early '70s. Nobody built small trucks back then (though the big pickups of the day were quite a bit smaller than now). Toyota icould have said "nobody buys small trucks, so let's not bother making one". Instead, they introduced the small truck, and it sold. Same with the Volkswagen Beetle, or Japanese care in the '70s and '80s.

Anything you build, there will be at least one sucker who will buy it.

But you can't justify the cost of development, certification, marketing, distribution, parts supply planning, mechanic training and etcetera on just one sucker. You need a lot of suckers.

Manufacturers don't sell manuals anymore because there aren't enough suckers buying manuals.

Manufacturers refuse to sell basic small pick-ups because market research tells them that they're not going to get enough suckers to fund the push unless they drop the price to where it's not profitable to sell them brand new.

US manufacturers generally have good market research, which is why they don't even try to attack non-profitable segments. Out here in Asia, it's more of a Wild Wild West theme... manufacturers will attack any niche looking to create a new market.

But people aren't interested in back-to-basics cars. Even in India, where they drive auto-rickshaws and twenty year old rebadged Kei cars dressed in new sheetmetal... cars like the Nano have a hard time, because people want bigger, better, more.

[Xist]

Manufacturers don't sell manuals because too many suckers pay extra for automatics.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Xist

Manufacturers don't sell manuals because too many suckers pay extra for automatics.

They don’t offer manuals for US vehicles
(when they have an already designed drop in units overseas)
Because they would have to spend many millions of dollars on additional crash tests.

It would cost manufacturers basically zero to offer engine and transmission options that they already sell but our platform laws make it illegal and very costly to do so.

These same laws make it illegal for Toyota to glue on a 15 lb solar panel to the roof of their prime and sell it here while it’s perfectly legal to sell roof racks that carry hundreds of pounds.

At some point you have to say enough.

[niky]

Originally Posted by rmay635703

They don’t offer manuals for US vehicles
(when they have an already designed drop in units overseas)
Because they would have to spend many millions of dollars on additional crash tests.

It would cost manufacturers basically zero to offer engine and transmission options that they already sell but our platform laws make it illegal and very costly to do so.

These same laws make it illegal for Toyota to glue on a 15 lb solar panel to the roof of their prime and sell it here while it’s perfectly legal to sell roof racks that carry hundreds of pounds.

At some point you have to say enough.

Offering more transmission options is not zero cost, with or without legislation.

You have to stock spare clutches for all those manuals. Then you have to train people to replace them. That adds up to overhead costs. Limiting buyers to a single transmission option simplifies things. It's easier for a mechanic to change fluid than to change a clutch.

And then, there is the cost to the consumer. You don't need perfect control of your transmission to sit for hours in traffic. Or to wait at a stoplight. Or to drone along at the speed limit on the highway. Those of us who actually drive are vanishingly few. Most people buy cars to commute with. Preferably with minimum fuss and effort. Leg pain is a very real problem for Asian drivers, and I've seen some completely destroy a clutch due to traffic in as little as six months.

As markets mature, more and more buyers are switching to automatics. Here in the Philippines, where we have NO intrinsic crash or emissions regulations, only a third of all consumer models offer manuals... mostly the cheaper cars... many crossovers and SUVs don't offer a stick. Being in the industry, I hang out with marketing people and product planners a lot. When the question of offering a manual variant for a new crossover or midsized sedan comes up, we laugh.

We laugh because every time someone decides to offer this option, the take rate is vanishingly low. People with money don't buy sticks. Only skint buyers and enthusiasts like us do. And enthusiasts are more likely to buy used because they don't like new cars, anyway.

As people get more prosperous, they start to value the convenience of an auto over the savings of a manual. And the whole 'jinba ettai' ethos of being as one with your car goes out the window when you're sitting in a four hour traffic jam. Sure, switching to MT saves gas, but you don't see most people turning off their AC to save gas, either. (I do, but I'm weird)

In other Asian markets, manuals still dominate, but automatic uptake is on the rise, and automatic sales are predicted to outstrip manual sales in the future. In China, luxury cars are almost all autos. Only in the budget category do manuals rule. In Australia, autos dominate. In India, the last bastion of hairy chested balls-to-the-walls driving, MTs still dominate, but the AT segment is growing by leaps and bounds (helped in part by the popularity of cheap automated manuals).

The MT transmission is dying, by bits and pieces, around the world. America is one of the most mature markets out there, so whatever is happening in the USA, the rest of the world will eventually follow.

I'll be sad to see the stick go, but then, I was sad to see the manual choke go, too.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by niky

Offering more transmission options is not zero cost, with or without legislation.

I'll be sad to see the stick go, but then, I was sad to see the manual choke go, too.

While true on the head of things, especially in your market,
in the US “legislative compliance cost” is up to 30% of vehicle cost to the consumer on “volume” models, on low volume models even higher, on very high volume models much lower.

I too work in the industry and generally if the take rate isn’t high enough to reduce regulatory costs under 30% it won’t be considered,
historically us auto makers would allow you to buy a custom car offering options that may only have a take rate in the dozens.

The consumer simply paid the shipping and overhead costs for customization.

Now days the “custom car” is all but impossible because the cost of the customization is pennies on the dollar compared to the regulatory cost, you can’t divide a 25 million dollar regulatory cost over a few thousand cars.

That is why everything is standard at OEM and only the aftermarket can offer true options.


Compare the US for example to Europe, most US volume models offer at most 2 engine/ transmission options, in Europe the same car may have 6 or more drivetrain options and that is on a much smaller market with much lower volumes, legislation first and foremost makes the decision for the automakers, if this wasn’t the case the Euro zone would not have significantly more drivetrain selection than the US, they should have less.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by niky

But you can't justify the cost of development, certification, marketing, distribution, parts supply planning, mechanic training and etcetera on just one sucker. You need a lot of suckers.

But if you already have most of the development &c done, as with say the '80s Toyota pickup, it costs nothing to keep making them, and very little to keep making incremental improvements.

Compare with computers, for instance. Intel doesn't start with a clean sheet for every new CPU, it keeps the same basic design and improves it, so you can run 30 year old software on the latest generation.