I think it gets to the root of this whole discussion. If the Sub Compacts were a lot less expensive in the first place "maybe" they would sell to the US consumer better but as it is when placed under the cold hard light of reality people for the most part are looking for a better deal than current sub compacts offer. Even the suggestion that we should increase taxes or offer cash incentives tells us we see some simple resistance to sub compacts. You didn't have to offer a incentive for people to buy the Mini. It hit a spot in the consumers heart almost from the beginning. When they released the V-6 in the Accord they didn't need to ask for a tax increase or incentive so that people would buy a I4 Accord. They still sold I4s quite well. No one needed to suggest we do anything to buy a Civic or even a Corolla and the Corolla.
In June of this year the top ten best selling vehicles in the US was reported by the international Herald Tribune in the business section using figures from Autodata Corp. They are. 1. Ford F-Series pickup 65,156 2. Toyota Camry + Hybrid 46,630 3. Chevrolet Silverado pickup 44,955 Not counting the GMC Sierra 4. Honda Civic + Hybrid 36,512 5. Toyota Corolla+Matrix 36,499 6. Chevrolet Impala 35,849 7. Dodge Ram pickup 31,114 8. Honda Accord+Hybrid 28,915 9. Nissan Altima+Hybrid 25,935 10.Toyota Tundra 21,727
I agree there is a trend here and one of the most impressive ones was what happened to the Tundra when it got bigger. It almost doubled in market share. I don't see any sub compacts coming close to breaking into the top ten however. If it continues at this rate it could displace last years number 10 best selling vehicle in the US the Cobalt. A pickup replacing a compact but not a sub compact replacing one.
This isn't saying sub compacts don't have a place but they are hardly the dream car of most Americans. And once again, there has to be a reason, we don't live in a theoretical vaccume.
theoretical time warp. If I were to have and drive just one car(like I do), driving a pickup truck would be like watching grass grow in SE Arizona(nope-it don't grow too fast, Marshall!).
To me it's what is fun to drive and even though I don't own and drive a subcompact(unless you call the '08 Lancer GTS a subcompact)I do own and drive a compact. And with this rig I get a great handling, fine looking car with a great factory stereo(Rockford Fosgate 600 watts)and a sunroof and ghastly mileage of 22 city, 29 highway.
When I look at that list of America's top ten selling rigs in June of '07 I get the same feeling I get when we head in to the 5th inning of any baseball game, anywhere. Would someone please pass the powerful coffee? Boredom in the 1st degree. :sick:
You might have a point, but it is still what people buy that determines what is companies make.
To those that buy the top ten it would never cross their minds to create a tax or incentive for anyone to switch from a sub compact to a mid sized car. They are perfectly happy with what they are spending their money on. Just because they may not prefer or even like a sub compact doesn't drive them off into thinking of ways to get people to stop buying them.
Do you know what one of the unintended results was when they mandated CAFE between 1983 and 1996? Increased fatality rates. The fastest and easiest way for manufacturers to meet the CAFE standards was to make lighter smaller cars. But at the same time they were able to increase the sales of pickup trucks and large SUVs. So the Fleet fuel average went down between 1983 and 1996 and the fatality rate went up. The easiest solution is not often the best solution.
Still there is a reason people prefer mid sized cars over sub compacts and there is a reason the top ten vehicles sold in the US does not include any sub compacts. Boring or not the top ten sell. But then you didn't get a sub compact either. So something kept your excitement meter turned off long enough to get you into a Lancer.
Hey boaz, look at your list. Every single model on your June list has been on sale in the U.S. at least a decade except the Tundra, and that one's close. More to the point, 7 out of 10 have been on sale continually for a quarter century or more. Give subs a little time! ;-)
The Fit has been here two years. Aveo, three years? How long has it been for that one? Yaris, less than two.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You are correct. But if we use the same thought pattern for Scion what is the excuse? The xA was a sub compact. The xB was bigger but homely brother and it out sold the xA. Almost two years later the tC comes out and it is bigger and has more HP and guess what. It out sells both the xA and xB after only a year. What didn't we need to give it time to catch on? Also in less than 5 years the xA is dropped for a bigger more powerful xD. So it doesn't take 25 years for the consumer to make up their mind. And remember, when the Tundra was about 7/8 of a full sized truck it hovered around 125K units a year. Turn it into a full sized truck and they are on track to sell 200k.
So Scion got bigger in five years. It doesn't take that long to predict a market trend and it sure doesn't take 25 years. In 25 years we will see a whole new breed of sub compacts. And if history is any example we may have time to see three new generations of sub compacts. But even for you, what sub compact do you see selling more than the Civic or Corolla in the next 15 years?
Friend, you know I can see value in a sub compact. I just don't see it doing anything for the American consumer other than as an economy car or something for a first time buyer. They would also make good second cars in a two car family. But in our lifestyle unless we turn into the direction of something like "Blade Runner" they lack the image Americans are looking for. Right or wrong, the top ten selling cars indicate what the consumer likes. Sub compacts have a hard mountain to climb to overcome those preferences in our culture.
If sub compacts are to succeed this time around they have to change their image and the American consumer has to warm up to them for some other reason other than because times are hard.
Let me ask you this in all honesty. How confident are you that the Fit will not get bigger or add HP in the next five years? What are the chances the AVEO will stay the same size and HP for the next six years? That is something we can measure. Remember the Versa already has more power than the typical sub compact and they increased the HP of the Mini.
Do you think the European or Japanese dream car is a sub-compact? Neither do I. Why do they drive them then? Because of cost and space reasons. Tax gas here and watch people abandon their large cars and trucks, and try to move in closer to their place of work. What the consumer wants is not neccesarily what's good for the country as whole- if you consider questions of dependance of foreign oil, and the possibility that the global warming theories are correct. The consumer may need to have some inducements to consume in a favorable manner for energy policy.
I can answer your rhetorical question in the case of the Fit, because the new model has already been released in Japan. Sadly, it affirms your point: up by 11 hp (a 10% increase)with a less-than-10% increase in fuel economy, and a small increase in size to meet the new Euro and Japanese pedestrian crash standards (although that expansion is mostly just empty air under the skin to increase crush space for pedestrian collisions).
Of course, they are already developing a new model for 2010 that is even smaller, hybrid no less. :-)
Subs' advantages beyond fuel economy lie in their small size and weight - it makes them maneuverable and well-handling without having to go to heroic engineering measures to achieve those goals.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"You might have a point, but it is still what people buy that determines what is companies make...."
I don't think that's necessarily true in all cases...if it were, the Big Three would not be constantly losing market share. Obviously there must be a lag between what people really want and what some automakers produce.
I suspect the Big Three will be behind the trend once again, just like always.
Revolutions are won one mind at a time, and I think Americans ARE changing what they want.
You can't swap your need for a pickup with a Honda Fit, but you can swap an Impala for a Camry.
Americans are downsizing, but not two sizes at once!
Maybe, but do you ever believe we will willingly down size to make sub compacts the best selling cars? I doubt it. And Hybrids can give us fuel savings and more size. And you and I know what happens when Americans find a way to offset the penalty of fuel cost. The very reason they abandoned the small cars in the first place and made light trucks and SUVs the best selling vehicles in the US. And every minute looking at Europe with their move to diesels with total dis interest.
Isn't toyota now one of the big three? And aren't they producing the number one selling passenger car? Do you think Sub compacts will replace mid sized car?
I believe we may some day have to use alternative fuels and maybe even find a replacement for petroleum. But that doesn't mean we will be happy with sub compacts. We may put up with them but when we find a way to get bigger again, we will. Like we always have. Small is always a temporary solution. I will be very surprised if that doesn't continue to be our culture during my lifetime.
Even Nippon sees it in the next generation Fit. Only a little bigger some would say? But they were only slightly smaller than a compact in the first place.
No I don't see the subcompact as EVER being the dominant car, but I do see them as a significant market share in America as traffic increases, parking gets tighter, and fuel prices rise. Those three items are very compelling antidotes to whimsical car buying habits that have no relationship whatsoever to real needs.
You have to remember (I'm going to blog about this soon) that there are cities around the world with MILLIONS of people in them and they all function in subcompacts, leading the same basic lives as we do. The "special needs" of Americans are 90% superficial and not justifiable. No population in the history of the world has ever been subjected to the 24/7 brain-washing we have. Now there are video car ads on gas pumps for goodness sake...what's next, the men's room wall?
I have to apologize for my Obstinacy I guess. I know people live in China where one of the major forms of transportation are bicycles. People will do whatever it takes to survive. But I believe Americans will always strive to dream more than many of those same countries you have mentioned. I have been to Kenya where they still use donkey carts to transport some of their goods to market. Places where a good road is a smooth dirt one.
So what do you consider significant? And how long before we are forced into smart cars for the City? You know I do believe that a trip from LA to Austin in a Yaris would be pure torture?
Maybe what we need is better public transportation? Like many of those cities you are going to blog about.
The cars are fairly close in size in the interior. The Camry is slightly smaller and probably noticeably smaller. However the difference is negligible to be practical as a trade step.
Possibly true, but psychologically it is a "step" IMO.
What I'm thinking is that America will transition gradually down to smaller and smaller cars, but we will have to go through stages.
While it seems true that there is a "cycle" of starting small and then gradually getting bigger, I think this cycle is going in smaller and smaller circles over time.
The Scion xA may become the xD, but it will not become the Explorer. In other words, the "smaller you start with, the smaller you end up with, even if you grow".
An example might be the almost complete disappearance of the full-size coupe. Once ubiquitous in the late 60s and early 70s, these monster-coupes are today regarded as a rather useless design. Attempts to re-introduce this design, as say with the BMW 8 series, have not been successful. Ditto the low-roofed, long "station wagon". How many "sport wagons" do you see that aren't SUVs in disguise? The occasional BMW 5-series wagon, the occasional Benz wagon, the old Volvo P1800ES---but as a rule, this is also a dying design.
We may see other large designs become virtually obsolete and the entire idea of "car size" move down a notch.
An American is not likely to jump from a Lincoln Town Car to a Corolla, but he might still downsize say in 2008, then downsize again in 2012. He'll "decompress" into the compact and subcompact world...IF....IF....current economic forces continue to suggest this as a wise course (or a necessity).
"I believe Americans will always strive to dream more than many of those same countries you have mentioned."
If your only dreams are getting a bigger car, bigger house and just more of everything that's pretty sad. There are other places to put your money than just bigger.
And McDonalds sells billions of hamburgers but that doesn't mean they're good for you. There are a lot of factors affecting the total number of cars sold per year. Just because a car isn't in the top 10 of sales doesn't mean it's an inferior car. There are millions of people doing stupid things all the time (buying homes they can't afford, smoking, drinking too much, buying junk food for their kids, etc) and it's the same with cars.
I think one of the main reasons subcompacts won't be big sellers in this country is because of the number of overweight people who will say that the average American is too big for something like the Fit, which is probably correct. I mean, how much space does someone's back-side need to spread out for them to be comfortable.
Personally, if it's going to help our air quality and reduce the amount of oil that we need, I'd rather mandate more efficient and less polluting vehicles. I'm not as concerned about size but the laws of physics mean that a smaller and lighter vehicle won't require as much power to keep it moving and if some overweight Americans are "stuck" with paying more to find a car that will fit them, then there's more incentive for them to get healthy.
We have thousands of soldiers dying everyday because we need middle east oil. Yes, there's a lot of other reasons behind the "war," but the foundation to it all is our need for oil. If we didn't need the oil, then we wouldn't be there.
So I would consider it a small sacrifice to buy a smaller and more efficient vehicle knowing that in some small part I was saving lives by lessening our need to have troups in harms way. And if someone's reply to that is that, "my buying a small car wouldn't make a difference," than go bury your head back into the sand and keep letting others sacrifice so you can do whatever you want.
Just trying to stir some thinking. People's actions affect the world around them.
BTW...if you go to the Honda Fit forum, you'll find out that anyone buying Fits are paying MSRP because of the high demand that's been ongoing since the summer of 2006. Give me an example of any other car that sells at MSRP with no incentives after almost 1 1/2 years? Like I said in my previous post, high sales doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good purchase, but if you have people willing to pay MSRP and wait in line for one, then at least it's something to consider.
BTW...if you go to the Honda Fit forum, you'll find out that anyone buying Fits are paying MSRP because of the high demand that's been ongoing since the summer of 2006. Give me an example of any other car that sells at MSRP with no incentives after almost 1 1/2 years? Li
MINI Cooper S is another car like that and it has been selling at or very close to MSRP for over five years now. Another sub-compact too... hmhhhhh
We don’t need to know, we just need to watch.
Forget about making a top ten best seller list, because that doesn’t necessarily imply a permanent problem, otherwise anything that doesn’t make it to top ten would be deemed “struggling”. Nobody is saying smaller cars have taken over, but let us not discount the trend. Smaller cars have made a come back, and it becomes more apparent every time gas prices rise, or stay close to $3/gallon. That has also translated to smaller SUVs. The traditional best sellers have been dropping off the sales charts. The current best selling SUVs are: CR-V, Escape and RAV4. Who would have thought that, about ten years ago? In fact, Honda was hesitant to bring CR-V to the USA. What happened?
The car world isn’t in as much gloomy state, but the more people understand the utility aspect and don’t feel threatened by bigger vehicles on the road, the more small cars will make inroads. They already are. Things don’t change overnight but in just a few years, I expect greater proliferation as more automakers get serious.
In the US Sub compacts come, get more power, grow and have to be re-introduced every few years. Look at Scion. The were introduced right in the middle of the sub compact revolution and the xA is already replaced with a more powerful version. What happened to paying attention to the rest of the world?
These vehicles aren’t growing from small to large overnight. They are being tweaked for several reasons. For example, the new Fit will be slightly larger (not taller or wider but a little longer with a longer wheelbase). It is still smaller than the little 5-door Civic hatchback from the early 1980s. And it is a global car. So, the changes aren’t being done for USA, it is being done with global market in mind. Part of it is ever changing standards towards increasing active and passive safety of the cars and people around them. Fit would be a fitting example.
ACE structure requires a few tweaks to the front, and ACE isn’t something to simply enhance cabin integrity, it is primarily designed to improve pedestrian safety and safety of a smaller vehicle. These, besides regulatory changes, require changes to dimensions.
Sure, over decades these cars could be bigger, but then there will be something smaller introduced to take over. It only reinforces the idea that you can’t do away with small and practical cars. BTW, Fit is what City has always been (“City” moniker is still used for Fit derived sedan form in Asia). So, the small car has been around for quite a while, even though, Fit as it is was launched in June 2001 (and a little over a year ago in North America).
I have been to the government green vehicle site and the Fit is not one of the cleanest vehicles listed and whatever I might think of the government site it is the only thing we can use to compare apples to apples with.
Consider the fact that the current Fit is in its seventh year of design cycle. Besides, the “government green” follows criteria that I don’t understand. If you do, tell me about it. Could you list cars that I can buy in Texas that are “greener” than Fit? But then, is that the point of small cars, to be the greenest of all? If it is, then is the point of largest cars to be the dirtiest?
Size doesn't determine "greenness" by government standards if you must live by the word. As I proved above, by definition, 268 HP Accord V6 is greener than Ford Escape Hybrid. Do you disagree? What did it take for the non-hybrid and powerful Accord to be one of the "greenest vehicle" in America?
In the top 10 best selling vehicles in the US is the Fit listed? If the answer is no then how far behind the Cobalt is it? If it were one of the top selling cars in Japan is it still and why isn't it in the US?
Let us visit a Honda and a Chevrolet dealership together with a color/transmission combination in mind, and see which of the two we will find on the lot, available with a hefty discount. That might tell you something.
I'm gonna have to buy one. I just can't stand it any longer. As someone who spends a LOT of time in a car, the MINI makes sense for me. Comfortable, lots of leg room, fun to drive, great on gas, VG build quality and a resale value that would shame any other car.
Take a look at today's WSJ article on subcompacts. More a world report, showing them as the growth category, problem for Nissan (subject of the article): How to build them cheap enough.
I think I said over a year ago that the MINI was the right kind of car for you. I have always been pretty good at figuring out what the right kind of car for a person is. They don't always listen to me though. :P
"Small, low-cost cars have abruptly become the next frontier for the global auto industry, after almost 20 years in which major car makers dismissed such vehicles as a low-profit afterthought."
Yeah, did you see the chart? SUVs are just subsiding and subsiding, while global estimates for small cars are climbing and climbing to a projection of 30 milion annually by 2013.
Hang in there with the xA! Tweak it some more and I'm sure you can extract 95% of the fun of the Mini without spending the extra $10 grand the purchase of the Mini would require. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
can't see any taxes or incentives necessary if these sub compacts are what the consumer wants. Simply let the market decide and see what happens.
The Smart will be released soon it should be a good sign of how Americans will accept the next wave of sub compacts. Japan has a whole division of cars with 500-600-and 700 CC engines that work quite well for them. I wonder why we don't see them imported?
I just need the legroom for long trips and the more relaxed engine for highway. The xA is really a splendid, nay...brilliant....metro car but she's no GT cruiser.
Besides, I've got an offer of $11,500 on the table here. I only paid $13,100 two full years ago and have put 32,000 miles on it. You can't beat that now can you? Never even cracked open the warranty booklet either. I'm even $2,500 upside on the loan.
Its all about finding the sweet spot, and Smart is unlikely to be it. Look no further than sales when gas prices do go up. It is why smaller cars have made a come back, and will continue to.
One of the reasons I have Fit on my want list now because it fits my needs. The problem will be finding a good deal, when the new one arrives. It is hard to find a good deal on the old one (it surprises me that the car's design is actually in its seventh year).
One of my concerns around smaller cars is their ability to work thru windy days and at higher speeds. The more these areas are addressed, the more accepting they become. And these things don't necessarily depend on size, but also on chassis tuning and design. I had a 1988 Corolla GT-S coupe that was much better dealing with cross winds than even the new Corolla is (much less the Corolla sedan from its day). Civic does well, and if I'm reading the reviews on the new Fit right, it seems to be a competant car at high speeds as well. Thats encouraging.
"can't see any taxes or incentives necessary if these sub compacts are what the consumer wants. Simply let the market decide and see what happens. "
The problem with that theory is that car manufacturer don't have any incentive to build them, no matter what the market wants. Car manufacturers know they only have a limited number of cars they're going to sell, so they want to sell the ones that make the most profit margin...bigger cars. So for the companies bottom line, there's more profit selling big cars. If the average family buys a new car every 3-5 years, the automakers want to make sure they get maximum profit out of each one.
That's why there are waiting lists for the Fit. You're not going to find a Honda dealer telling a potential Accord buyer, "Hey, based on your driving needs, did you ever consider a Fit. It will give you more cargo space, better overall MPG, more upright seating position, and it's a lot cheaper."
Or a better example...a fifty year old guy is looking to buy a Crown Vic for his daily commute. Do you think for a second that the dealer is going to recommend that he test drive the new Focus because of it pollution rating and MPG? I don't think so. The dealer is only thinking about how many add-ons this buyer will go for.
The American consumer is easily led by the nose to where-ever the manufacturers and advertisers lead them...of course with exceptions.
The American consumer is easily led by the nose to where-ever the manufacturers and advertisers lead them...of course with exceptions.
After watching a TV commercial last night, I'm about to try renting a Ford F150 (I think), and use it to stop a 30,000 lb jet. (The graphic simulation was quite convincing).
But, thats how things are. However, I still don't agree with providing an incentive to automakers. What is the point? Isn't the ultimate point about making things more efficient is to conserve? Do you really want to create an incentive on static numbers?
As you can see, Fit is selling on its merits. It is a win-win situation for Honda and the customers. What would be the point of an incentive?
I have absolutely no problem with anything selling on its own merits.
I may be off line for a while my friends. As you might know I live by Lake Arrowhead and it looks like someone has started a fire that may be coming in our direction. I will see how much I can get in our car because my truck was in the shop getting an upgraded suspension. If the fire crests the hill to the north east of me I will have to evacuate. I have all I can take in a sunbird packed and sitting by the door in case I see flames. well this is why we have insurance I guess. I will keep you posted as long as I can.
Thanks. I am waiting to see what happens. I am all packed and so thankful my wife is off the mountain and at the house in Hemet. If my truck gets done before they move us I will leave just in case. You hate to leave knowing that the way some people are the chances of looting increases but it is only stuff and it can be replaced. If you see any reports on the Grass Valley fire it is directly north east of me and the fire seems to be heading south west. All the tankers and water dropping helicopters seem to be dispatched somewhere else. But don't worry, I will leave even if my truck is still in the shop. It can be replaced.
Another way to think about incentives is to think about the disentives the government uses on smoking. We could just say, let the free market rule and if the market wants to buy cigerettes then let it. Now after the governemnt has taxed the price of them up to $5/pack and had a long-standing campaign on the dangers of cigerettes, smoking is down and we're a healthier nation because of it. There weren't any free-market conditions that led to Americans smoking less and living healthier, but just the government stepping in and doing something about it.
In the same way they could substantially increase the gas guzzler tax tax to include any 5 passenger or less vehicle that averaged less than 25MPG and any 7-8 passenger vehicle that averaged less than 20MPG. This would be added to the price of the vehicle, so right on the window sticker of a car, you could see if you're paying the extra couple of thousand dollar gas guzzler tax, and then let the market decide if they wish to buy that particular vehicle.
On the flip side the government could also provide a fuel efficient rebate of one or two thousand dollars for every 5 passenger or less vehicle that achieved an average of 35MPG or better, and any 7-8 passenger vehicle that achieved an average of 30MPG or better.
I'd guess that for the first several years it wouldn't cost the government anything because their would be more tax coming in from gas guzzlers than rebates, but if it got to the point where there were more rebates, then the standards could be bumped up to keep the program running at a break-even point.
Two questions: 1. What would be the ultimate purpose of the incentive? 2. Why is it better to tax (or provide incentive) on a static number that is EPA rating or engine displacement than it is to address the same at the pump?
"1. What would be the ultimate purpose of the incentive? " As one way (not the only way) to encourage people/manufacturers to purchase/build more fuel efficient vehicles to lower the gas consumption across the nation.
"2. Why is it better to tax (or provide incentive) on a static number that is EPA rating or engine displacement than it is to address the same at the pump? " The price of gas is not expensive enough to be much of an incentive for the vast majority of car buyers. In Europe, where the average car gets about 50% higher MPG then in America, the gas price is a lot higher, so unless you want to pay $5/gal for gas, the price of gas alone isn't going to be enough incentive. I'd rather provide an incentive at the time of purchase because that may influence car buyers more then the price of gas.
Boy, you SoCal folks are getting hit hard this year with the fires. Don't take chances - act prudently. As you say, things can be replaced, people can't. Good luck!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Boaz I have memories of the Painted Cave fire in '90. My heart goes out to you. My family's thoughts are with your family and the others on the mountain and in the canyons.
I just found out that my sister and her family have had to evacuate their home earlier today .. they live in the Rancho Bernardo / Poway area of San Diego.
I do hope that you and yours are safe and sound tonight, and that the dreaded Santa Ana winds die down soon.
I will throw in a scenario (very real). I live 13-14 miles from work with about 9 of the miles on freeway. My car is rated 20/27 mpg by the EPA but I average 27-28 mpg. So, I burn about 1 gallon of gasoline/day. Due to its rating, let us assume it falls into “C” class, good for $2K in additional taxes.
Assume a fictitious person with a smaller car, rated 32/40 mpg by virtue of which it falls in “E” class and no tax as a result. He gets 33 mpg and drives 22 miles each way. In other words, burns almost 1.5 gallons/day.
How is this helping conserve? I might be paying extra to drive a larger car without considering the fact that the size is also for it to serve as the family car when needed (instead of having a second car). Perhaps I will get around that fact, and drive a lower trim level that is cheaper by $2K. So, all the taxes did was to make me give up some features. It wouldn’t help conserve. Would it?
It is a bad idea to force people out of their needs. It is a good idea to let people understand their needs. When prices go up, people seem to realize this better. They might switch to higher fuel economy cars, or move closer and sometimes start using public transportation. Using static baseline has way too many loopholes on top of several we already do in the form of EPA ratings. That would be like taxing by displacement. For example, if an engine larger than 2.0-liter was dealt with a tax how do you propose taxing 2.0-liter turbo that essentially replaces a larger engine?
Tax the heck out of wasteful turbochargers, unless they are used to increase efficiency somehow. Just keep on taxing things until everyone is driving a small car, except for a few people who work in construction. What you need and what you want should be two different things, except for the wealthy who can afford either. Our problem in this country is that people who don't make much money can afford way too much car and truck compared to other places in the developed world. You need to be seriously rich to drive a big gas SUV in say, France or England, but not here.... that should change.
Japan has a whole division of cars with 500-600-and 700 CC engines that work quite well for them. I wonder why we don't see them imported?
Because I just can't see those cars with 500-700 cc engines crossing Nebraska on a wide open I-80. Sure they can work in Japan which is pretty compact having 11 times the population density of the US but can they do well here where we have empty areas the size of Japan?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Tax the heck out of wasteful turbochargers, unless they are used to increase efficiency somehow.
This is why those not educated shouldn't be making laws. Especially ones with their hands in my pocket. All turbochargers help efficiency. It lets a vehicle us a smaller displacement motor than it would otherwise need and still provide acceptable or even stellar performance. A VW Passat 1.8t has the smallest motor in its category (most others are 2.4l) and is still competitive.
You need to be seriously rich to drive a big gas SUV in say, France or England, but not here.... that should change.
Why? Because people in the US shouldn't have choices on how to spend money?
The problem with that theory is that car manufacturer don't have any incentive to build them, no matter what the market wants. Car manufacturers know they only have a limited number of cars they're going to sell, so they want to sell the ones that make the most profit margin...bigger cars.
Actually there is no problem with that theory. The reason bigger cars have more profit is because people want them and are willing to pay more for them. Thats the Market deciding what to build.
Now if people stoped wanting larger cars and were not willing to pay more for them they would gravitate to smaller cars and bid their prices up. That would make smaller cars more profitable and bigger ones less so.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Comments
In June of this year the top ten best selling vehicles in the US was reported by the international Herald Tribune in the business section using figures from Autodata Corp. They are.
1. Ford F-Series pickup 65,156
2. Toyota Camry + Hybrid 46,630
3. Chevrolet Silverado pickup 44,955 Not counting the GMC Sierra
4. Honda Civic + Hybrid 36,512
5. Toyota Corolla+Matrix 36,499
6. Chevrolet Impala 35,849
7. Dodge Ram pickup 31,114
8. Honda Accord+Hybrid 28,915
9. Nissan Altima+Hybrid 25,935
10.Toyota Tundra 21,727
I agree there is a trend here and one of the most impressive ones was what happened to the Tundra when it got bigger. It almost doubled in market share. I don't see any sub compacts coming close to breaking into the top ten however. If it continues at this rate it could displace last years number 10 best selling vehicle in the US the Cobalt. A pickup replacing a compact but not a sub compact replacing one.
This isn't saying sub compacts don't have a place but they are hardly the dream car of most Americans. And once again, there has to be a reason, we don't live in a theoretical vaccume.
To me it's what is fun to drive and even though I don't own and drive a subcompact(unless you call the '08 Lancer GTS a subcompact)I do own and drive a compact. And with this rig I get a great handling, fine looking car with a great factory stereo(Rockford Fosgate 600 watts)and a sunroof and ghastly mileage of 22 city, 29 highway.
When I look at that list of America's top ten selling rigs in June of '07 I get the same feeling I get when we head in to the 5th inning of any baseball game, anywhere. Would someone please pass the powerful coffee? Boredom in the 1st degree. :sick:
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
To those that buy the top ten it would never cross their minds to create a tax or incentive for anyone to switch from a sub compact to a mid sized car. They are perfectly happy with what they are spending their money on. Just because they may not prefer or even like a sub compact doesn't drive them off into thinking of ways to get people to stop buying them.
Do you know what one of the unintended results was when they mandated CAFE between 1983 and 1996? Increased fatality rates. The fastest and easiest way for manufacturers to meet the CAFE standards was to make lighter smaller cars. But at the same time they were able to increase the sales of pickup trucks and large SUVs. So the Fleet fuel average went down between 1983 and 1996 and the fatality rate went up. The easiest solution is not often the best solution.
Still there is a reason people prefer mid sized cars over sub compacts and there is a reason the top ten vehicles sold in the US does not include any sub compacts. Boring or not the top ten sell. But then you didn't get a sub compact either. So something kept your excitement meter turned off long enough to get you into a Lancer.
The Fit has been here two years. Aveo, three years? How long has it been for that one? Yaris, less than two.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So Scion got bigger in five years. It doesn't take that long to predict a market trend and it sure doesn't take 25 years. In 25 years we will see a whole new breed of sub compacts. And if history is any example we may have time to see three new generations of sub compacts. But even for you, what sub compact do you see selling more than the Civic or Corolla in the next 15 years?
Friend, you know I can see value in a sub compact. I just don't see it doing anything for the American consumer other than as an economy car or something for a first time buyer. They would also make good second cars in a two car family. But in our lifestyle unless we turn into the direction of something like "Blade Runner" they lack the image Americans are looking for. Right or wrong, the top ten selling cars indicate what the consumer likes. Sub compacts have a hard mountain to climb to overcome those preferences in our culture.
If sub compacts are to succeed this time around they have to change their image and the American consumer has to warm up to them for some other reason other than because times are hard.
Let me ask you this in all honesty. How confident are you that the Fit will not get bigger or add HP in the next five years? What are the chances the AVEO will stay the same size and HP for the next six years? That is something we can measure. Remember the Versa already has more power than the typical sub compact and they increased the HP of the Mini.
Of course, they are already developing a new model for 2010 that is even smaller, hybrid no less. :-)
Subs' advantages beyond fuel economy lie in their small size and weight - it makes them maneuverable and well-handling without having to go to heroic engineering measures to achieve those goals.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't think that's necessarily true in all cases...if it were, the Big Three would not be constantly losing market share. Obviously there must be a lag between what people really want and what some automakers produce.
I suspect the Big Three will be behind the trend once again, just like always.
Revolutions are won one mind at a time, and I think Americans ARE changing what they want.
You can't swap your need for a pickup with a Honda Fit, but you can swap an Impala for a Camry.
Americans are downsizing, but not two sizes at once!
Isn't toyota now one of the big three? And aren't they producing the number one selling passenger car? Do you think Sub compacts will replace mid sized car?
I believe we may some day have to use alternative fuels and maybe even find a replacement for petroleum. But that doesn't mean we will be happy with sub compacts. We may put up with them but when we find a way to get bigger again, we will. Like we always have. Small is always a temporary solution. I will be very surprised if that doesn't continue to be our culture during my lifetime.
Even Nippon sees it in the next generation Fit. Only a little bigger some would say? But they were only slightly smaller than a compact in the first place.
You have to remember (I'm going to blog about this soon) that there are cities around the world with MILLIONS of people in them and they all function in subcompacts, leading the same basic lives as we do. The "special needs" of Americans are 90% superficial and not justifiable. No population in the history of the world has ever been subjected to the 24/7 brain-washing we have. Now there are video car ads on gas pumps for goodness sake...what's next, the men's room wall?
So what do you consider significant? And how long before we are forced into smart cars for the City? You know I do believe that a trip from LA to Austin in a Yaris would be pure torture?
Maybe what we need is better public transportation? Like many of those cities you are going to blog about.
The cars are fairly close in size in the interior. The Camry is slightly smaller and probably noticeably smaller. However the difference is negligible to be practical as a trade step.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
What I'm thinking is that America will transition gradually down to smaller and smaller cars, but we will have to go through stages.
While it seems true that there is a "cycle" of starting small and then gradually getting bigger, I think this cycle is going in smaller and smaller circles over time.
The Scion xA may become the xD, but it will not become the Explorer. In other words, the "smaller you start with, the smaller you end up with, even if you grow".
An example might be the almost complete disappearance of the full-size coupe. Once ubiquitous in the late 60s and early 70s, these monster-coupes are today regarded as a rather useless design. Attempts to re-introduce this design, as say with the BMW 8 series, have not been successful. Ditto the low-roofed, long "station wagon". How many "sport wagons" do you see that aren't SUVs in disguise? The occasional BMW 5-series wagon, the occasional Benz wagon, the old Volvo P1800ES---but as a rule, this is also a dying design.
We may see other large designs become virtually obsolete and the entire idea of "car size" move down a notch.
An American is not likely to jump from a Lincoln Town Car to a Corolla, but he might still downsize say in 2008, then downsize again in 2012. He'll "decompress" into the compact and subcompact world...IF....IF....current economic forces continue to suggest this as a wise course (or a necessity).
If your only dreams are getting a bigger car, bigger house and just more of everything that's pretty sad. There are other places to put your money than just bigger.
And McDonalds sells billions of hamburgers but that doesn't mean they're good for you. There are a lot of factors affecting the total number of cars sold per year. Just because a car isn't in the top 10 of sales doesn't mean it's an inferior car. There are millions of people doing stupid things all the time (buying homes they can't afford, smoking, drinking too much, buying junk food for their kids, etc) and it's the same with cars.
I think one of the main reasons subcompacts won't be big sellers in this country is because of the number of overweight people who will say that the average American is too big for something like the Fit, which is probably correct. I mean, how much space does someone's back-side need to spread out for them to be comfortable.
Personally, if it's going to help our air quality and reduce the amount of oil that we need, I'd rather mandate more efficient and less polluting vehicles. I'm not as concerned about size but the laws of physics mean that a smaller and lighter vehicle won't require as much power to keep it moving and if some overweight Americans are "stuck" with paying more to find a car that will fit them, then there's more incentive for them to get healthy.
We have thousands of soldiers dying everyday because we need middle east oil. Yes, there's a lot of other reasons behind the "war," but the foundation to it all is our need for oil. If we didn't need the oil, then we wouldn't be there.
So I would consider it a small sacrifice to buy a smaller and more efficient vehicle knowing that in some small part I was saving lives by lessening our need to have troups in harms way. And if someone's reply to that is that, "my buying a small car wouldn't make a difference," than go bury your head back into the sand and keep letting others sacrifice so you can do whatever you want.
Just trying to stir some thinking. People's actions affect the world around them.
MINI Cooper S is another car like that and it has been selling at or very close to MSRP for over five years now. Another sub-compact too... hmhhhhh
Forget about making a top ten best seller list, because that doesn’t necessarily imply a permanent problem, otherwise anything that doesn’t make it to top ten would be deemed “struggling”. Nobody is saying smaller cars have taken over, but let us not discount the trend. Smaller cars have made a come back, and it becomes more apparent every time gas prices rise, or stay close to $3/gallon. That has also translated to smaller SUVs. The traditional best sellers have been dropping off the sales charts. The current best selling SUVs are: CR-V, Escape and RAV4. Who would have thought that, about ten years ago? In fact, Honda was hesitant to bring CR-V to the USA. What happened?
The car world isn’t in as much gloomy state, but the more people understand the utility aspect and don’t feel threatened by bigger vehicles on the road, the more small cars will make inroads. They already are. Things don’t change overnight but in just a few years, I expect greater proliferation as more automakers get serious.
In the US Sub compacts come, get more power, grow and have to be re-introduced every few years. Look at Scion. The were introduced right in the middle of the sub compact revolution and the xA is already replaced with a more powerful version. What happened to paying attention to the rest of the world?
These vehicles aren’t growing from small to large overnight. They are being tweaked for several reasons. For example, the new Fit will be slightly larger (not taller or wider but a little longer with a longer wheelbase). It is still smaller than the little 5-door Civic hatchback from the early 1980s. And it is a global car. So, the changes aren’t being done for USA, it is being done with global market in mind. Part of it is ever changing standards towards increasing active and passive safety of the cars and people around them. Fit would be a fitting example.
ACE structure requires a few tweaks to the front, and ACE isn’t something to simply enhance cabin integrity, it is primarily designed to improve pedestrian safety and safety of a smaller vehicle. These, besides regulatory changes, require changes to dimensions.
Sure, over decades these cars could be bigger, but then there will be something smaller introduced to take over. It only reinforces the idea that you can’t do away with small and practical cars. BTW, Fit is what City has always been (“City” moniker is still used for Fit derived sedan form in Asia). So, the small car has been around for quite a while, even though, Fit as it is was launched in June 2001 (and a little over a year ago in North America).
I have been to the government green vehicle site and the Fit is not one of the cleanest vehicles listed and whatever I might think of the government site it is the only thing we can use to compare apples to apples with.
Consider the fact that the current Fit is in its seventh year of design cycle. Besides, the “government green” follows criteria that I don’t understand. If you do, tell me about it. Could you list cars that I can buy in Texas that are “greener” than Fit? But then, is that the point of small cars, to be the greenest of all? If it is, then is the point of largest cars to be the dirtiest?
Size doesn't determine "greenness" by government standards if you must live by the word. As I proved above, by definition, 268 HP Accord V6 is greener than Ford Escape Hybrid. Do you disagree? What did it take for the non-hybrid and powerful Accord to be one of the "greenest vehicle" in America?
In the top 10 best selling vehicles in the US is the Fit listed? If the answer is no then how far behind the Cobalt is it? If it were one of the top selling cars in Japan is it still and why isn't it in the US?
Let us visit a Honda and a Chevrolet dealership together with a color/transmission combination in mind, and see which of the two we will find on the lot, available with a hefty discount. That might tell you something.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
NEW BLOG ENTRY: Driving in Rome
http://www.carspace.com/blogs/fenderbender/When-in-Rome--Drive-As-the
Subcompact article
"Small, low-cost cars have abruptly become the next frontier for the global auto industry, after almost 20 years in which major car makers dismissed such vehicles as a low-profit afterthought."
Hang in there with the xA! Tweak it some more and I'm sure you can extract 95% of the fun of the Mini without spending the extra $10 grand the purchase of the Mini would require. ;-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Smart will be released soon it should be a good sign of how Americans will accept the next wave of sub compacts. Japan has a whole division of cars with 500-600-and 700 CC engines that work quite well for them. I wonder why we don't see them imported?
Besides, I've got an offer of $11,500 on the table here. I only paid $13,100 two full years ago and have put 32,000 miles on it. You can't beat that now can you? Never even cracked open the warranty booklet either. I'm even $2,500 upside on the loan.
One of the reasons I have Fit on my want list now because it fits my needs. The problem will be finding a good deal, when the new one arrives. It is hard to find a good deal on the old one (it surprises me that the car's design is actually in its seventh year).
One of my concerns around smaller cars is their ability to work thru windy days and at higher speeds. The more these areas are addressed, the more accepting they become. And these things don't necessarily depend on size, but also on chassis tuning and design. I had a 1988 Corolla GT-S coupe that was much better dealing with cross winds than even the new Corolla is (much less the Corolla sedan from its day). Civic does well, and if I'm reading the reviews on the new Fit right, it seems to be a competant car at high speeds as well. Thats encouraging.
The problem with that theory is that car manufacturer don't have any incentive to build them, no matter what the market wants. Car manufacturers know they only have a limited number of cars they're going to sell, so they want to sell the ones that make the most profit margin...bigger cars. So for the companies bottom line, there's more profit selling big cars. If the average family buys a new car every 3-5 years, the automakers want to make sure they get maximum profit out of each one.
That's why there are waiting lists for the Fit. You're not going to find a Honda dealer telling a potential Accord buyer, "Hey, based on your driving needs, did you ever consider a Fit. It will give you more cargo space, better overall MPG, more upright seating position, and it's a lot cheaper."
Or a better example...a fifty year old guy is looking to buy a Crown Vic for his daily commute. Do you think for a second that the dealer is going to recommend that he test drive the new Focus because of it pollution rating and MPG? I don't think so. The dealer is only thinking about how many add-ons this buyer will go for.
The American consumer is easily led by the nose to where-ever the manufacturers and advertisers lead them...of course with exceptions.
To get rich, sell them what they don't need.
After watching a TV commercial last night, I'm about to try renting a Ford F150 (I think), and use it to stop a 30,000 lb jet. (The graphic simulation was quite convincing).
But, thats how things are. However, I still don't agree with providing an incentive to automakers. What is the point? Isn't the ultimate point about making things more efficient is to conserve? Do you really want to create an incentive on static numbers?
As you can see, Fit is selling on its merits. It is a win-win situation for Honda and the customers. What would be the point of an incentive?
I may be off line for a while my friends. As you might know I live by Lake Arrowhead and it looks like someone has started a fire that may be coming in our direction. I will see how much I can get in our car because my truck was in the shop getting an upgraded suspension. If the fire crests the hill to the north east of me I will have to evacuate. I have all I can take in a sunbird packed and sitting by the door in case I see flames. well this is why we have insurance I guess. I will keep you posted as long as I can.
Another way to think about incentives is to think about the disentives the government uses on smoking. We could just say, let the free market rule and if the market wants to buy cigerettes then let it. Now after the governemnt has taxed the price of them up to $5/pack and had a long-standing campaign on the dangers of cigerettes, smoking is down and we're a healthier nation because of it. There weren't any free-market conditions that led to Americans smoking less and living healthier, but just the government stepping in and doing something about it.
In the same way they could substantially increase the gas guzzler tax tax to include any 5 passenger or less vehicle that averaged less than 25MPG and any 7-8 passenger vehicle that averaged less than 20MPG. This would be added to the price of the vehicle, so right on the window sticker of a car, you could see if you're paying the extra couple of thousand dollar gas guzzler tax, and then let the market decide if they wish to buy that particular vehicle.
On the flip side the government could also provide a fuel efficient rebate of one or two thousand dollars for every 5 passenger or less vehicle that achieved an average of 35MPG or better, and any 7-8 passenger vehicle that achieved an average of 30MPG or better.
I'd guess that for the first several years it wouldn't cost the government anything because their would be more tax coming in from gas guzzlers than rebates, but if it got to the point where there were more rebates, then the standards could be bumped up to keep the program running at a break-even point.
1. What would be the ultimate purpose of the incentive?
2. Why is it better to tax (or provide incentive) on a static number that is EPA rating or engine displacement than it is to address the same at the pump?
As one way (not the only way) to encourage people/manufacturers to purchase/build more fuel efficient vehicles to lower the gas consumption across the nation.
"2. Why is it better to tax (or provide incentive) on a static number that is EPA rating or engine displacement than it is to address the same at the pump? "
The price of gas is not expensive enough to be much of an incentive for the vast majority of car buyers. In Europe, where the average car gets about 50% higher MPG then in America, the gas price is a lot higher, so unless you want to pay $5/gal for gas, the price of gas alone isn't going to be enough incentive. I'd rather provide an incentive at the time of purchase because that may influence car buyers more then the price of gas.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I have memories of the Painted Cave fire in '90. My heart goes out to you. My family's thoughts are with your family and the others on the mountain and in the canyons.
I do hope that you and yours are safe and sound tonight, and that the dreaded Santa Ana winds die down soon.
Assume a fictitious person with a smaller car, rated 32/40 mpg by virtue of which it falls in “E” class and no tax as a result. He gets 33 mpg and drives 22 miles each way. In other words, burns almost 1.5 gallons/day.
How is this helping conserve? I might be paying extra to drive a larger car without considering the fact that the size is also for it to serve as the family car when needed (instead of having a second car). Perhaps I will get around that fact, and drive a lower trim level that is cheaper by $2K. So, all the taxes did was to make me give up some features. It wouldn’t help conserve. Would it?
It is a bad idea to force people out of their needs. It is a good idea to let people understand their needs. When prices go up, people seem to realize this better. They might switch to higher fuel economy cars, or move closer and sometimes start using public transportation. Using static baseline has way too many loopholes on top of several we already do in the form of EPA ratings. That would be like taxing by displacement. For example, if an engine larger than 2.0-liter was dealt with a tax how do you propose taxing 2.0-liter turbo that essentially replaces a larger engine?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Because I just can't see those cars with 500-700 cc engines crossing Nebraska on a wide open I-80. Sure they can work in Japan which is pretty compact having 11 times the population density of the US but can they do well here where we have empty areas the size of Japan?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
This is why those not educated shouldn't be making laws. Especially ones with their hands in my pocket. All turbochargers help efficiency. It lets a vehicle us a smaller displacement motor than it would otherwise need and still provide acceptable or even stellar performance. A VW Passat 1.8t has the smallest motor in its category (most others are 2.4l) and is still competitive.
You need to be seriously rich to drive a big gas SUV in say, France or England, but not here.... that should change.
Why? Because people in the US shouldn't have choices on how to spend money?
Actually there is no problem with that theory. The reason bigger cars have more profit is because people want them and are willing to pay more for them. Thats the Market deciding what to build.
Now if people stoped wanting larger cars and were not willing to pay more for them they would gravitate to smaller cars and bid their prices up. That would make smaller cars more profitable and bigger ones less so.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D