Will Green Cars Be Exciting To Drive And Enjoyable To Own?

hpmctorque

I don't know about you, but I'm apprehensive about the cars that Washington will require automakers to produce in the future. I'm concerned that mileage and emissions regulations may result in cars that are expensive to buy and, despite having great fuel economy, are expensive to own. For the auto industry, this could mean producing cars without the "gotta have it" factor that's critical for strong demand.

Hopefully, my concerns are misplaced, and the showrooms will be filled with very appealing cars cars, with outstanding fuel economy, that people are eager to buy.

Do you share my concerns, or do you have a "don't worry, be happy, everything will be all right" view of the automotive future?

larsb

Exciting to Drive - probably not so much.

Enjoyable to Own - If you enjoy low fuel costs and the feeling that you are reducing your own carbon footprint, then yes.

The era of moving away from a fleet of primarily fossil-fuel burning autos was inevitable. It has begun.

Sooner the better if'n ya axe me.

fintail

In the upcoming brave new world of centralized power and diminishing expectations, cars won't be exciting. Not that they can't be - socalled "green" technology can be used for some performance. But the sheeple will be told to desire transportation pods and little else, and a lot of people are secretly itching to do whatever they are told.

I think I'm going to convert my fintail to coal power to even things out a little :shades:

fezo

Transportation pods? You been talking to lemko?

boaz47

We have been, and are being, moved towards point A to point B transportation. Cars like the Prius are touted as the future and the government and media supports that contention. You simply can't get any more vanilla than a Prius, Civic Hybrid, Camry Hybrid. The very image looks vanilla if you just close your eyes. But that being said, it looks like that is where we are going and I don't think it is very high on societies worry list. People are more concerned with where they are or where they want to be than how they get there. It isn't going to get any better.

fintail

We do think alike in some ways....

The future will likely bring us vehicles for the masses like Nanos, Wildfires, G-Wiz, etc, all with electric or other alternative power, all limited to an emasculated nanny-imposed speed, all tracked 24/7 by a massive group of public sector observers to make sure nobody is doing anything wrong. A Prius will seem like an S-class in comparison, and a Camry Hybrid will be like a Rolls. Globalization, oh yeah!

hpmctorque

"You simply can't get any more vanilla than a Prius, Civic Hybrid, Camry Hybrid. The very image looks vanilla if you just close your eyes. But that being said, it looks like that is where we are going and I don't think it is very high on societies worry list."

Maybe, but shouldn't the auto industry worry about this? People don't trade their refrigerators or furnaces for new ones until they break, but most people trade their cars more frequently than the life expectancy of the vehicles. This despite the fact that cars are less of a status symbol for most people than in the '50s and '60s. If people come to regard cars purely as transportation appliances, sales will slump even more than recently, and remain on a permanently lower plateau.

Auto enthusiasts also have reason to be concerned with cars becoming appliance-like.

boaz47

The Japanese have designed a system that allows for bland people movers with restrictions that make the consumer replace their vehicle far more often than we do already. In fact sometimes the consumer drives their old car to the recycling lot and parks it for them. Does Toyota or Honda or Suzuki care? Nope. Does it effect Japanese car sales? Nope.

Off topic but look at the American view of the future depicted in movies. There is no science to this but we see a future where everything is automated and the same or every thing is broken but the same.

We in this forum are a percentage of a percentage point when it comes to caring about what we drive and why. In the 70s to early 80s one of the most popular vehicles on the road was the Mini-van. In the mid 80s to the late 90s the SUV ruled the road. There was a time when 50 percent of all new vehicles sold in the US were either SUVs or Pickup trucks. The ford F-series was the best selling vehicle in the world and it was just about exclusively sold in the US. They sold more F- series trucks than Toyota and Honda combined sold Camrys and Accords. None of them were drivers cars and yet that is what people bought. People movers sell because people are less concerned with how they get somewhere than they are about getting there. Otherwise how would anyone explain a ugly car like the Prius even selling in the US?

Knowing this is what the public thinks about how they get places why should the auto manufacturers worry? To some it is depressing but it is more than likely a view of the future. Think with your head and not your heart and you will see the answer to the question in this forum. will enthusiasts be dissapointed? Sure but the public will never notice and the manufacturers are already impacted by the economy far more than all the enthusiasts in world could ever effect them. For a several billion dollar bailout they will make just what the government wants them to. Our new vehicles will be designed by committee and we will not be asked for our opinion.

gagrice

I think I'm going to convert my fintail to coal power to even things out a little

I'm thinking a coal fired steam car would be good to drive through the eco terrorist neighborhoods. Or maybe an old diesel Frito Lay box van painted with all kinds of epitaphs denouncing the brave new World CA is trying to force on the citizens.

hpmctorque

To the extent that your perception of the future is correct, car sales will remain at reduced levels, because many people who are traded their cars frequently - to impress neighbors and friends, to live large, or to feel good - will tend to keep them until they wear out. Sure, sales will improve when credit becomes more available, but the "gotta have it" factor is what really hypes demand.

iluvmysephia1

I might be willing to at least test drive this one.



80 mph top speed, electronically-limited. 153 mile range and only 5 hours to charge back up. It will no doubt have the "quick re-chargers" popular with all-electric manufacturer's, that will enable 80% re-charges in only a half-hour(one of these will be a must for me, I would pay for one as an option if that's what it takes).

The Pininfarina-Bollore LeBlue car, used as a test mule for the new B0 pictured here, is fitted out with the same lithium-polymer, steel-encased, battery system. It has gone 120,000 kilometers, needing no maintenance in that time frame, nor any repairs of any kind. Bollore of France has worked on that battery system for 15 years and has confidece that it's rock solid in delivering reliable performance.

I'm more than mildy interested in this 4-seater. It has solar panels on the front grille and roof to soak up our Arizona sun and deliver the energy down to the powerpack to add more propulsion power.

hpmctorque

Interesting, but how much will it cost to buy and maintain, and how will it drive, are questions I'd like answered before I get too excited. Also, the 80 mph top speed wouldn't be a deal breaker for an urban runabout, IF the purpose of this limit is to extend the car's range per battery charge. If the purpose of the speed limitation is a "big brother" feature, however, it would be a major deterrent for me.

iluvmysephia1

on top speed. I know the test mules similar powerpack is holding up well, no fires, loose wires, etc.

For a price comparo, I had to really dig in to the internet system. I found an article on the LeBlue cars, the predessesor to the B-Zero. It was going to sell for $23,000USD. Obama is talking of a $7,500 rebate to Americans buying "green" cars.

I would expect pricing to be around $24,000, give or take a peso or dollar or euro here or there. It's the $7,500 rebate that makes it all the more attractive to me. I read some reviews on the LeBlue's driveabilty.

Quiet comes to mind the most, but, it is a small 4-seater and I would not expect much cushiness in it's ride. A tight package, it would handle something like a Smartcar, I would think. The lack of maintenance required for the LeBlue test mule is appealing and refreshing.

I have given it much time and consideration. I must say, the small car offers so much that my critical eye is being held open by this car's possibilties much more so than it's potential liabilities.

Pininfarina-Bollore is sending some B-Zero's over to three U.S. markets(one of them being Los Angeles)in 2009 and then the first main shipment is coming here in September of 2010. So this is not a concept, it's all for production, and the U.S. is an important part of the market strategy for them. I'm all eyes and ears, dudes.

gagrice

I could get interested in a B-zero with $7500 tax credit. As long as it is not blocked with AMT or some other such glitch in the tax code. For me it would strictly be for running to the store, bank and errands. CA should wave the sales tax and make license fees small. Not likely they will do more than lip service. I don't think Ahnold is going to like people getting a free ride on the roads. Would be impossible to really tax unless they go to the tax by mile plan. I would rather have a small box van similar to the old style xB with electric drive.

lemko

Yeah, and my 1988 Buick Park Avenue would seem like a Ferrari compared to those dull transportation capsules. I will be holding onto my old cars indefinately.

Of course, don't expect the globalist elite to be driving Nanos and Smarts, etc. They'll still be thundering across their privately-owned interstates and turnpikes in Hummers and Maybachs while flattening us peons in our eco-friendly loser cruisers. :mad:

lemko

I wouldn't go that far, but I will love to see the look on the eco-weenies faces when I rumble through their hermetically-sealed neighborhood in a massive 1958 Buick Limited.

iluvmysephia1

umm...is it just me or does your above post not contradict totally the one by you just above it? :confuse:

I am tired of being held hostage by people that don't like us and would rather screw us over by artificially inflating ghastly prices just because they can. I want off the ICE gravy-train drivetrain concept. It's just an idea and not a very viable one at that.

I'm talking down the road apiece. Way down dat road.

fintail

I just want to let off smoke like an old locomotive. Maybe give a few of the brave new worlders a massive heart attack from the mere sight of it.

Even now it's not exactly a low emission vehicle...and it predates any idea of smog pumps or emissions controls so it's perfectly legal...I wonder how many Prius I cancel out each time I start it up :shades:

fintail

They won't flatten us, they will have their own lanes, and when a globalized serf peon strays into a preferred citizen lane in his 40mph pod, a camera snaps a photo and then you go to jail. The Madoff Expressway.

iluvmysephia1

fintail, you NW-stern-ers just amaze me.

I should've known you would side with Mad-off and feel fine about severely affecting other people's things. New ideas bounce off you like wild, errant Kobe Bryant layins at crunch time.

If an old person's foreign car with glazed-over, discolored, water-logged headlamp clusters is what turns you on, then you just have at them with much fervor. :shades:

gagrice

I think most of the negatives you see with regard to government mandating what we drive. Is just that, Government control. There is going to be rebellion against the elitist hypocrites that control this nation. The do as I sayers, like Teddy and Bobby Jr. Yes we want alternatives, just not in my view. The current Congress is replete with just that kind of elitism that wants to put you and I in a Yugo and then jump into their stretch limo and cruise down the interstate sipping a martini. I have always wanted to save on fossil fuel. My 52 Studebaker V8 got consistent 22 MPG back in 1962. That company just like any other back then that was innovative, was crushed by the General. I would have bought a small PU if any offered in this country would get 35-40 MPG like the rest of the world has. This latest bunch of crap from CARB and Ahnold is just so much talk and power playing.

larsb

More on the 1952 Studebaker gas mileage, which was really good:

Gas mileage, as might be expected, was above average. In fact, in the 1951 Mobilgas Economy Run from Los Angeles to Grand Canyon, a Studebaker Champion, Commander V-8, and Land Cruiser V-8 -- all with overdrive -- finished first, second, and third in actual gas mileage to lead a field of 26 cars entered in "standard classifications."

In 1952, the Economy Run traveled from Los Angeles to Sun Valley, Idaho. A Champion beat out all regular-sized cars, averaging 27.82 mpg, while a Commander V-8 came in second with 25.60 mpg.


So if you only got 22 MPG, you musta been a leadfoot.

But why are you bringing up the mileage you got in a car a generation ago, Gary? Whom or what exactly are you complaining about?

Guvmint up to today has never mandated what we drive. Ever. No one in guvmint authoriTIE has ever said to anyone in the country, "YOU MUST BUY AND DRIVE THIS CAR."

They have said, "The exhaust from this vehicle is not clean enough to meet our clean air standards."

That's not mandating what you CAN drive. It's eliminating polluters from the road.

nippononly

The Japanese have designed a system that allows for bland people movers with restrictions that make the consumer replace their vehicle far more often than we do already. In fact sometimes the consumer drives their old car to the recycling lot and parks it for them. Does Toyota or Honda or Suzuki care? Nope. Does it effect Japanese car sales? Nope.

Actually the emerging issue in the Japanese market the last 12-18 months is exactly this: Japanese car sales are in significant and continual decline, causing a great deal of concern at the tops of the Honda, Toyota, and other Japanese car companies.

Why the decline? They feel it is because the younger generation just now heading into their 20s and early 30s is less excited about and less interested in cars that have become blander and blander (even among the wild entries in the Japanese home market). This combined with the increased awareness of how hard on the environment cars are has led to a state where younger folks often won't go to the trouble and expense of buying one. Certainly much of the Japanese population lives in large metro areas with excellent transit systems making the purchase of a car much less pressing for a much higher percentage of their population, but still the same thing could begin to happen here.

lemko

In places with good transit systems, you can get away without a car altogether. There are a lot of people in NYC who've never owned cars because they never needed them. However, in places like Philly with mediocre transit systems, a car is necessary. My second job requires reliable transportation - that does NOT mean SEPTA!

nippononly

In fact, in the 1951 Mobilgas Economy Run from Los Angeles to Grand Canyon, a Studebaker Champion, Commander V-8, and Land Cruiser V-8 -- all with overdrive -- finished first, second, and third in actual gas mileage to lead a field of 26 cars entered in "standard classifications."

LOL! Unlike the current Land Cruiser V-8, which wouldn't have a hope in heck of winning a competition of fuel economy, even among the worst guzzlers available new! :-P

lemko

Well, the Landcruiser might win if the competitors were an M-1 tank and a Bradley armored vehicle.

nippononly

OK, among vehicles certified for passenger use on the street. ;-)

In general, cars are already headed towards being merely A-to-B transports, with or without the green movement: witness the DOT's excitement over its plan to eventually robotize freeway traffic so that it can travel much closer to together at high speeds, reducing congestion. At that point, the "driver" won't be driving at all any more! Maybe we can start to call them "participants" instead. You will need a participant's license to get behind the wheel.

Even the "exciting" cars of today leave the driver so removed from the drive that you wonder how they can be called "enthusiast cars". The ever-present march of increasing technology and computerization under the hood and inside the cabin ensures that "driving" as we know it will be all but dead and buried within the next 40 years. We don't need the greenies help to do that, and I say that as a "greenie" myself.

gagrice

So if you only got 22 MPG, you musta been a leadfoot.

I was 19 and traveling 20 miles each way to work on the freeway. Most of the time speeding. They did not have points back then or I would have been in trouble. I got a 1955 Commander after that and it was not as good a mileage as the 1952 4 door Champion. My boss had a 1951 Studebaker Land Cruiser. He was still driving that car when I quit and took the job in Alaska in 1970.

My point is good mileage has been around a long time. By contrast my 1947 Pontiac was lucky to get 9 MPG. So the Studebaker was a real money saver for me.

gagrice

"YOU MUST BUY AND DRIVE THIS CAR."

What happens when they eliminate every car you would like to own using goofy science to pass laws? By saying what you cannot drive is narrowing the field as to what you can drive. The current trend with CARB is to narrow down our choices to a few they feel are adequate. Except for the very wealthy. If you can afford a Bentley it is OK to guzzle gas and spew lots of pollution. If you want a Toyota PU with a 4 cylinder diesel you have to install it yourself.

I see this crazy move by CA as opening up the door for every kind of aftermarket you can imagine. Only a few eco nerds will bow down to the Prius or Insight push. CA should be able to put the final nail in the Domestic automaker's coffin with their lawsuits and mandates.

larsb

Gary says, "What happens when they eliminate every car you would like to own using goofy science to pass laws?"

Then you ADAPT and become a less-picky shopper.

Hey, the era of wasteful fossil fuel vehicles will eventually end. People need to get their heads wrapped around it sooner than later.

When green becomes the norm, then there will be only a very small portion of the populace who cannot find what they want in a car.

gagrice

Hey, the era of wasteful fossil fuel vehicles will eventually end.

Fine with me. Just give my a big roomy SUV that gets 40 MPG and I am a happy camper.

Though maybe CA has a new way to eliminate cars. This is the kind of flawed science CA uses to force people to do as they see fit.

Mandate could force gas stations out of business

ARCADIA - Dozens, and potentially hundreds, of gas stations around California are choosing to shut down rather than comply with a state mandate that would require owners to purchase new equipment to reduce vapor emissions at the pump.

The requirement, known as Phase II in the state's Enhanced Vapor Recovery Program, is set to go into effect in April. It requires gas station owners to individually purchase tens of thousands of dollars of equipment designed to prevent harmful vapors from escaping into the air when gasoline is pumped.

Among them is George Fasching, who after 31 years of selling gasoline at Fasching's Car Wash in Arcadia, stopped in December.

"I came to the decision that I was too small a volume operator to continue on with the expenses imposed by the bureaucracy of the state," Fasching said.

April's requirements would have cost him $35,000, he said. Fasching used to sell the gasoline as a convenience for his car wash customers, and blames the new regulations for forcing him to stop.

"It will have some effect on my business, but at least I have the relief that I don't have to deal with these people anymore," he said.

As of the end of December 2008, the South Coast Air Quality Management District had heard back from 3,109 of its 4,500 sites about EVR Phase II.

Seventy-six - or 2.4 percent - indicated they will be shutting down on April 1, 2009 rather than upgrade their sites, said Dimitri Stanich, public information officer for the California Air Resources Board.

Some 1,400 of the SCAQMD's sites have not yet responded. About 12,000 dispensing facilities will be affected statewide.

April's regulations promise to cut what are known as reactive organic gas emissions by 7 tons per day statewide, but opponents point to the fact that California produces 2,322 tons of such gases per day.

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_11563313

larsb

I see nothing at all wrong with that.

Were you not complaining somewhere on these forums about a gas station on every corner?

I can't see how things could be worse off if we had a smaller number of gas stations.

gagrice

I can't see how things could be worse off if we had a smaller number of gas stations.

It will mostly affect the small station owners that keep the prices competitive. I guess you missed the drift of what that will really accomplish. Your nothing is clean enough mentality is coming through loud and clear. People are not important in your world. Only government regulations. For me the longer I live in CA the more I feel out of place. I don't like worthless laws that make life tough for the working class. They are the ones that pay for such foolishness.

lilengineerboy

Gagrice,
Its not that, Larsb is a socialist. Its a deep political belief. The good of any one individual is dependent on the good of all individuals. Your individual rights are not of great consequence, nor are person freedoms. It is all about the collective.

I don't think that is going to fly in the US. In fact, one of my friends in CA is complaining that the new laws are going to screw California as they are going to get a limited selection of small, possibly undesirable cars, while the 43 states not tagging along will get whatever they like.

I am also amused by the number of people out west with a Pirus and a BMW, so they do have something that is actually fun to drive in addition to their commuter pod. You also see a lot of driveways with a Prius and a large SUV. Maybe they are trying to balance out?

I appreciate those that drive a Prius and are willing to make that sacrifice. To them, driving might not be anything pleasant to them anyway, so they might not see it as a sacrifice. I am thankful for them.

larsb

..

Gary, "people" are the MAIN reason for environmental caretaking !!!

We need to take care of the world and keep the air clean so the people can live healthy and happy lives !!!

larsb

I am no socialist, sir.

I have voted Republican my whole life.

I just realize that sometimes, people, when left of their own accord, are not smart enough or capable enough or willful enough to do the CORRECT, unselfish thing.

That's where guvmint and laws and mandates need to step in and help people take care of themselves.

How dirty would the air be if leaded fuel had not been outlawed? DDT? What if the EPA had never been formed?

Can you imagine the wasteland we'd be living if if the Guvmint did not force private industry to clean up after themselves !!?!?!?!?!?

lilengineerboy

Fair enough,
So back on topic, do you feel that "green" cars will be:
1. Exciting to drive?
2. Enjoyable to own?

btw i have been following the photo radar conversation also...you seem to have a very European view of things, kind of what made me align you with something of a socialist mentality. Thats not a dig at all, just seemed to be a lot of similarities there.

fintail

Instead, the gubbamint simply exports that ecological wasteland to China, which it worked feverishly to open under the old GOP, and that's where the next green cars will probably be made. Fantastic.

gagrice

Another CA initiative getting lots of airplay is the push for everyone in the state to buy a new energy efficient water heater. Now I don't think any water heaters are made in USA at this time. So more money sent overseas to further erode our trade imbalance. Like you say, my guess is the cars the eco nerds will push for will be made in India and China. CA has not been a friend to the Domestics for decades. This EPA bowing to CARB will only make this recession longer and harder for much of the USA.

larsb

Thank you for de-pigeonholing me. That was an appreciated gesture on your part.

I think it's exciting to see how many MPG I can squeak out of my TCH.

It's enjoyable for me to fill my tank up only every 25-35 days.

I'm not interested in a road-hugging, take-this-55-mph-curve-at-85-mph vehicle.

Give me an electric car with 20 mile range for my commute, and as long as it seats 4, goes at least 65 mph, and has an air conditioner, I'm good.

fintail

Just like with the new light bulbs, eh.

It's just another battle front for the globalization proponents, it seems.

larsb

Let me tell you what I did to reduce my water heating costs.

I bought a "heat pump electric water heater assist device" that has my electric water heating costs for the year down to less than $50 PER YEAR. Not a misprint

Look up the AirTap. It's awesome. I paid $549 with shipping, and the heating elements in my water heater have been turned off since July 2008.

boaz47

Nippon has a valid point. We will need public transportation and the government will be the driving force in moving us in that direction. We as a country swing like a pendulum politically and we are in a full socialist swing at the moment. It is true that with a good public transportation system cars become less important. I know people living in Nippons back yard, San Francisco, that don't own a car and can't see a reason to buy one. They are like the small car people that don't understand why people own a SUV or Pickup. In those forums I hear people saying, "if you need a truck or SUV why not just rent one for the few times they are necessary?"

The attitude of the buying public here and in Japan and parts of Europe is moving more in the direction of cars being more of a necessary evil rather than a need or want.

when we moved from the Mussel car era we went through a period of bland cars with new smog controls that sapped power from them. It took 20 to 25 years for cars to get back to the point that enthusiasts could say they were happier with the new generation of cars. I don't know if we will recover as enthusiasts from the next 25 years. Maybe we will have a better idea of what happened to the Wooly Mammoth.

nippononly

Gagrice, CARB gotcha' down? It may soon be time to move to Arizona, buddy! ;-)

But seriously, are cars, green or not, progressing in any sort of "exciting direction" even now? The roads become more and more crowded every day (a very California perspective, I realize), so there's hardly anywhere to drive for fun and stretch your legs anyway. Municipalities everywhere are harder and harder up for money, so police enforcement is clamping down ever harder on what little driving fun one might be able to extract from said roads.

Meanwhile, the trend right now is toward less and less steering feel (electric steering, ugh), heavier and heavier vehicles with their consequent loss of natural agility, higher and higher vehicles as manufacturers seek that magical butt height where one can sit on the driver's seat without moving even one inch upward or downward (thereby raising the vehicle's center of gravity enormously), more computers every year taking away driver controls, and everyone's idea of the biggest possible improvement to a vehicle being the addition of two or three more passive driver safety features (hello ABS, 22 airbags, lane departure control and warnings, 17 cameras pointing out in every direction to display extra information about surrounding obstacles in the middle of your dash, stability control, traction control, brakes that brake for you if you don't brake yourself, I'm barely getting started), thereby adding cost, complexity, and weight to already over-heavy, overly expensive vehicles.

I say bring on the green movement. At least then cars might get lighter and use less gas. But will they be more exciting to drive? I think not, but they already aren't.

kdhspyder

To make these questions more relevant you have to allow a wide variety of versions of 'Exciting' and 'Enjoyable'..

Is being fast and corner-hugging all there is to 'Exciting'? If so then all but a few of the SUVs, trucks are disqualified. An electric car using no gasoline with 4 motors on each of the 4 weels doing 0-60 in under 6 sec certainly qualifies.

'Enjoyable'? How many buyers are there each year? 40 million? Well then you have 40 million versions of 'enjoyable'. Enjoyable for a youngster in his first car at 19 is pure unadulterated pleasure. The fact that it's a Versa doesn't matter one bit. Those from the George Halas School of Economics ( 'He throws around nickels like they were manhole covers.': Mike Ditka ) love the fact that their 4 cyl MT 1994 Toyota pickup has never missed a beat in 200,000+ miles. Now that's pure unadulterated pleasure.

lilengineerboy

Thank you for de-pigeonholing me. That was an appreciated gesture on your part.

Yeah, sorry I didn't mean to do that in the first place.

Give me an electric car with 20 mile range for my commute, and as long as it seats 4, goes at least 65 mph, and has an air conditioner, I'm good.

That is fantastic, I think the overwhelming majority of the motoring public feels that way. I think vehicles such as the new Fusion Hybrid (which bests the TCH F/E), Prius, Civic Hybrid etc are great for all of these drivers. If I can figure out a way to add a/c to my son's Little Tikes Cozy Coupe and hook up a washing machine motor, I think I have a business plan.

That said, there are a number of driving enthusiasts that do like things like the way a car feels, the way it corners, the way it sounds, even the way it looks. I don't think that group is going to be totally excited about going along with a change, nor do I think that group is big enough to worry about. If one tries to legislate what others drive, I don't think that is going to work out so well.

In Europe, they tax petrol, diesel and LPG. This keeps things in check and gives enough money back to make improvements in other areas. I'd be in favor of a system like this one, but wouldn't willingly accept being told what I am to like and dislike.

boaz47

The answer is????? No!!!! They will get us where we are going but driving for pleasure has already become a social crime in most car buyers minds. I also would give up a lot for a practical EV or even a practical diesel, by anyone but VW. VW dependability shows the Germans are still mad about the second world war.

The day of the bare bones sports car are gone. The day of the no ABS no Skid control sports Coupe is almost gone. Computer control is here to stay and it will only become more intrusive. Just a fact of what the future holds.

And will anyone but those of us old enough to remember MGs, TRs old Porsche sportsters care? Nope. All people really want is something that starts and gets them where they are going with as little input from them as they can get away with. As a example, Ford may sell more radios that you can talk to than they do manual transmissions. The next generation will care even less because they are plugged into technology far more than we are.

lilengineerboy

Is being fast and corner-hugging all there is to 'Exciting'? If so then all but a few of the SUVs, trucks are disqualified. An electric car using no gasoline with 4 motors on each of the 4 weels doing 0-60 in under 6 sec certainly qualifies.

In my personal opinion, yes, the Tesla qualifies (on paper) as being enjoyable and exciting to drive. Since I've never driven one because they don't exactly exist yet, I don't know...fictitious cars don't count. Also, at a cost of $100,000, I don't see it as being more fun then say, S2000 or WRX at 30% the cost.

Secondly, other people really seem to enjoy tromping through the woods and mud. An SUV might be very exciting to them, if totally dull to me.

'Enjoyable'? How many buyers are there each year? 40 million? Well then you have 40 million versions of 'enjoyable'. Enjoyable for a youngster in his first car at 19 is pure unadulterated pleasure. The fact that it's a Versa doesn't matter one bit. Those from the George Halas School of Economics ( 'He throws around nickels like they were manhole covers.': Mike Ditka ) love the fact that their 4 cyl MT 1994 Toyota pickup has never missed a beat in 200,000+ miles. Now that's pure unadulterated pleasure.

40 million would be a a dream world at this point. Its expected that 12-12.5 million units will move in North America in 2009. I am missing your point about volume and buyers and enjoyable.
If you mean each person has their own purchase criteria, I would totally agree with that statement, and I think it supports my argument that choices are a good thing. :shades:

kdhspyder

There's also about 30 million USED vehcle buyers every year. The total is over 40 mllion annually.

gagrice

I say bring on the green movement. At least then cars might get lighter and use less gas. But will they be more exciting to drive? I think not, but they already aren't.

I would not count on a lighter more fuel efficient vehicle. One of the most fun vehicles I ever drove was a friends CRX. The EPA pretty much destroyed that car with all the crap you listed above. I don't like ABS, PQR and all the other driving aids. I like to feel the steering. By the time CA gets finished with any EV allowed in the state it will weigh 4000 lbs and be lucky to have a 25 mile range.

lilengineerboy

There's also about 30 million USED vehcle buyers every year. The total is over 40 mllion annually

Ahh, thanks got it. But then are you in agreement with me that choice is a good thing, so each of those 12 million or 40 million or whatever customers can find exactly what meets their needs and desires?