Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
I respect your opinion but I'd like to see evidence. I think we should get a special deal for protecting them and not destroying them when they should of been blown off the map. They should be thankful us americans allowed them to live not the other way around. :confuse: It's hawg wash and something politcally needs to be done immediantly. :mad:
The Japanese tax a US car so intensely that they are unsalable in Japan. his has been going on for many years.
Well at what point do we say enoughs, well is enough. Just because it's been going on doesn't make it right !!!
I sure don't know the solution but putting up trade barriers of our own really won't help at this point. I know a few guys living in Asia and one is a damn good friend and he's into all this stuff and he just says it's the way it is. Rules are different in Asia than in the US. You can't equate their society to ours in any way.
Korea is even worse. They inject such nationalistic pride at every level that very few non Korean manufacturers will succeed there.
ASEAN nations are a bit different but they do get some great small cars. But they will usually cost you more than in the US. The grass always looks greener when you look at the other side of the fence but the grass still tastes like grass.
It would be nice if things were as easy as you make them seem.
Cars from India will fail in the US, remember the Yugo?
Well it didn't sell very well and cheap crap never will in the US.
India has a long way to go to catch up with Kia and Hyundai.
Well something needs to be done !!!! It's unfair and unfree trade. Why should our subcompacts be taxed to the point of oblivion in Japan, wheile their's are tax free ? It makes no sense unless you a "import monger" personality.
-Rocky
Agree with ya their.
...How come American citizens aren't buying those war bonds?
Probably because the majority of the american people don't support the war.
-Rocky
As for our safety and emissions laws, that's also a clamp on "free trade". Our choices become limited by government intervention.
When you look at the 70s and 80s, to the history of the Big Three back then, don't look at sales figures, look at profits. They Big Three were getting beat up pretty badly, and they needed protection because they could not compete "freely" with the Japanese on product or price.
I'd gladly bet anyone that if Toyota came out with a 100 mpg car the size of an Impala, there is no way in hell they would be allowed to sell it here.
It's hard enough getting subcompact turbo diesels into America. Fortunately for the Big Three, both the subcompact and the diesel markets are limited in America.
I respect your views Shifty, but based on the evidence I've seen the government abandoned the Big 3 in the 70's and got worse in the 80's. They yes gave some helping hands to the japanese, which was ridiculous. It's not like the japanese returned the favor when GM, tried going to japan. all they got was trade barriers and tariffs. The japanese told their manufactors what the rules were years in advance so they could retool and have a leg up on the big 3 of course you probably already know this.
-Rocky
-Rocky
Rocky, seriously have you ever even been to any parts of Asia? I have as well as Europe and I have friends literally all over the world! One of my best friends ever, currently lives in the Philippines and I visited him there for 3 weeks. He himself has been all over Asia, we both went over to Thailand for a week. believe me being American-centric is no different than some of the ASEAN nations.
Life is so simple when you have a myopic view, it's too bad I can't get him back on Edmunds (if he hasn't been banned due to his strong opinions) because he really understands what goes on in Asia. He's busy with finishing up his work and moving back to the US.
Of course a good study in foreign policies in a college course would help you to understand more a bit why we do some of the rather "lack of common sense" appearing things that we do for foreign policy.
Closed economies tend to fail, but wide open ones tend to crush the domestic economy. You need a delicate balance.
Well at what point do we say enough, well is enough. Just because it's been going on doesn't make it right !!!
True but there are other factors. If you think it's unfair then consider that to buy a japanese car in the UK costs about double the US price.
It's not simple. Yes they do use policies tat prevent US products from being sold in their countries to an extent and so doesn't the US to an extent.
Well something needs to be done !!!! It's unfair and unfree trade. Why should our subcompacts be taxed to the point of oblivion in Japan, while their's are tax free ? It makes no sense unless you a "import monger" personality.
:sick: Ok, so what do you suggest? How about nuking them, make Japan and Korea into a green glass parking lot? Think that will solve the problem?
How about we Tax the snot out of them and double the price of cars from japan and effectively limit your choices to the Big 2.5? Gotta love those 400HP cars coming out of Detroit with $4 a gallon gas heading our way.
There is no such thing as free trade, it's all manipulated on higher levels. Some college courses would show you how all these things work and why it's good and bad.
Personally I think it's fine if I pay half price for a foreign import (whatever that means) most imports are made in the USA anyway.
no one can define Domestic or Foreign anymore, is it the car or the company? Both?
Anyway back on topic, you cannot just get upset and go off half cocked. Their is no such thing as Fair or Equal in the real world no matter how the Politically Correct folks want you to believe it is.
We don't get most subcompact cars because frankly as much as I like them they do NOT sell in the US with it's huge highways with giant trucks bombing down the roads 24/7.
Go to an Island country and you'll see a ton of small and tiny cars, but huge cars where the roads are big and wide and people want to feel they can survive in their armored (in their mind) SUV when in reality it's not that much safer than a subcompact.
Subcompacts sell where there are parking problems, high fuel prices and narrow roads (Bermuda anyone?)
The US has Super Slabs and buyers WANT SUV's and they want big cars and they are happy buying them. So naturally the car dealers are thrilled and make more of them.
If Smartfortwo cars get really popular in the US just watch and see how fast we get subcompacts or smaller micro cars. Same for diesels. If they sell a lot you will see a lot. The Asian mentality is to be very cautious with new products and test the waters out first but if someone else makes it big then copy them and go all out.
As far as doing something reflect on this older quote which applies so well in this case.
"The best revenge is livin
Does that mean that they will start regulating our breathing?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
But will the vehicle have the reliability Americans expect, and will it be backed up by a reputable dealer network with readily available parts?
The answer, based on past experience with those manufacturers, is most likely "no."
I don't doubt that Renault, Peugeot and Fiat have some attractive vehicles to sell, based on their features and styling.
The problems have tended to come AFTER the customer's check clears the bank, which is why Americans of a certain age would give their products a wide berth, and which also probably explains their reluctance to send their products here.
The only protectionism I see is wary potential customers anxious to protect their bank accounts against unreliable vehicles sold by subpar dealer networks.
The only entities that can overcome this are Fiat, Renault and Peugeot, and so far they haven't been willing to spend the time, money and effort necessary to do so. Their reluctance, however, does not mean that our safety and emissions standards are protectionist in nature, especially given that many other overseas manufacturers are successfully selling vehicles here.
A superficial view of the CONCEPT of CAFE might suggest that, however, the IMPLEMENTATION of CAFE included a huge loophole which exempted the largest, most fuel thirsty and most profitable vehicles, which were mostly domestic. A loophole that was very counterproductive to the expressed intent of the regulation and which was very much protectionist in effect. That loophole still has not been closed and I've not heard an argument in favor of it that was not based on protectionism (other than a libertarian rant).
A loophole that foreign manufacturers have also exploited - unless those Sequoias, Tundras, Titans and Armadas exist only in my imagination - so I fail to see how it specfically benefited the domestics over the long run.
If anything, it encouraged the foreign manufacturers to invade the most profitable segments of the market, to the detriment of the domestics over the long term.
That hardly meets the common definition of "protectionist" legislation.
Protectionist legislation would have opened up the loophole and allowed ONLY the domestics to exploit it. Which did not happen.
daysailer: A loophole that was very counterproductive to the expressed intent of the regulation and which was very much protectionist in effect.
Given that Toyota, Nissan and others have exploited this loophole, to the detriment of Detroit, it cannot be held to be "protectionist" by the common definition.
daysailer: That loophole still has not been closed and I've not heard an argument in favor of it that was not based on protectionism (other than a libertarian rant).
Then you must not be familiar with why it was enacted in the first place.
At that time (mid-1970s), light trucks were used either for farming or small businesses (contractors, etc.). They were NOT used as a replacement for the family sedan or wagon.
The thought was that the technology needed to increase their gas mileage would decrease their usefulness to those who used their full capabilities (which, at that time, was virtually everyone who bought them - we didn't have 120-pound Beverly Hills housewives driving mega-SUVs to Starbucks), so it would be best to regulate them under separate standards.
Over the long run, it backfired, but that doesn't mean that the original intent of the loophole was protectionist.
By the way, one reason American companies didn't do well in Japan in the 1980s and 90s is that for the longest time the Japanese would not buy American cars due to their inferior fit and finish in the showrooms.
This has since been mostly corrected.
Would Renault, Fiat, Peugeot subcompacts and diesels meet the American buyer's standard of reliability?
I think so, if they are compared to American cars or German cars. If compared to Japanese cars, I'm not so sure a Honda owner will tolerate a Fiat.
Perhaps a half-truth, but it has the ring of authenticity.
Based on ratings in the British magazines - Top Gear, Car, etc. - and conversations with my German relatives (one of whom works for Opel), French and Italian cars have more problems than someone used to an American car built within the last 5 years would tolerate.
If you look at domestic makes that came and went relatively recently (Geo, Eagle, Renault/AMC), it shows that barriers to entry can be overcome by aligning with an existing dealer network, but the car still has to survive on its own merits.
And in that era, there were also overt tariffs on imported trucks which is why Japanese pickup beds were made in the USA and anomalies like the Subaru Brat developed.
Obviously your views of protectionism are very different from mine and in any case are not the subject of this trhead, so I'll leave it there.
Thoughts of the 70's do remind me of a time when you could actually buy a small vehicle and even haul material without driving a behemoth. Too bad we can't do that today!
I think Renault could easily hook up with Nissan and enter the US market..
FIAT/Alfa.... Maybe if they bought Saab from GM, then they could roll all that together, using the Saab dealer network.. Those guys need something to keep busy, anyway.
Success? Doubtful, but I'd love to see it.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I like your SAAB idea but it won't work since GM says they are keeping the brand as it is crucial to their turn around plans.
I think they just want to throughly run the brand into the ground as their is still a little bit of SAAB left around the edges.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
You're right about leverage, or platform sharing, as the SAAB 9000, predecessor to the SAAB 9-5, shared its platform/chassis with the Fiat Croma, Lancia Thema and the Alfa Romeo 164.
I'd hate to see Alfa in America again. I don't want to see the name dragged through the mud once again by slapdash service and parts networks-- too painful.
"Turnaround", as in a traffic circle, this one without any exits!
Rich folks have a couple of nice diesel solutions, what about the crowd with a budget under $30k? Or in a subcompact, like the title of the thread states.
Last Jetta TDI I drove by was loud and slow, and couldn't tow a GT3 on a trailer.
Towing is more torque than hp. But I don't think they make low hp/high torque engines like they used to, so you're not going to find 150 hp engines with 250-300 ft-lb of torque like back in the day.
But the Compact truck is a good example of how American consumers, in majority not counting daysailer and Nippon and maybe Shifty,
Eh, they aren't THAT bad. With an automatic it'd be a complete dog, but with the manual the little Fronty is peppy enough (no worse than my '96 Accord is with an auto). Needing to downshift on hills is, um...charming.
Actually, it has a better power to weight ratio than my Accord does. 2911lbs/143hp compared to 2855lbs/130hp. Couple that with a five-speed vs. my four-speed auto, and it isn't bad at all.
The Baja had only 4 seats, a short bed, and no mid-gate from the concept (only a small pass-through).
Then, to jack prices up, they made leather and a moonroof standard. :confuse:
Oh yeah, it flopped. Badly.
The idea could work, if they kept it simple, kept costs down, offered a real Crew Cab that could seat 5 and a longer bed (extended wheelbase would help).
I'd still consider the Ranger and the Colorado/Canyon to be compact trucks. Not in the league of stuff like those old 70's LUVs and Datsuns and such. But a Colorado/Canyon doesn't seem any bigger to me than the S-10 was, and I swear the Ranger doesn't feel any bigger than it did back in the 80's. Seems to me like it's just a re-skin, but I'm sure it was redesigned at some point.
I think a lot of these midsized trucks are becoming redundant. In many cases, they're really not that much smaller or lighter than their full-sized counterparts, but they come up short in payload capacity, the ability to carry the proverbial 4x8 sheet of plywood flat in the bed, passenger room, etc. And often, fuel economy isn't all that much better.
I think I read somewhere that if the Dakota had been based on the Durango platform, instead of being unique, it would have been able to carry a 4x8 sheet flat on the bed floor. And if the Colorado/Canyon had been Trailblazer-based, they would have been able to, as well. But if they did that, then it would make the full-sized trucks somewhat redundant.
The Colorado/Canyon is bigger than the S-10; I've seen them parked side-by-side. It's a bit wider and, as with all trucks these days, it sits higher than its predecessors.
and I swear the Ranger doesn't feel any bigger than it did back in the 80's. Seems to me like it's just a re-skin, but I'm sure it was redesigned at some point.
The Ranger is basically the same truck it was back in 1982 or whenever. It got reskinned for 1993, and it has received a few upgrades and minor redesigns under the sheet metal along the way.
And seating 5 in anything resembling comfort in any compact vehicle is hopeless if you're talking about adult males, unless it's tall enough for three rows of seating.
But that's the Idea! Those of us who want compact vehicles don't need to carry soccer teams. The '76 Toyota's bed was large enough to carry more than its 1100lb payload of most materials (it was a "1/2 ton" truck, after all). If it had 4' clear between the wheel wells it wouldn't be COMPACT!
Amen, Brother!
It's funny how the "Standard Cab" pickup has almost disappeared and the crew-cabs seem to be overtaking the extended-cab models in popularity. It's indicative of the fact that pickups have become "family" vehicles. The importance of load hauling capacity is secondary to passenger capacity.
I will need to replace my Tacoma someday. (It has 198k miles on it).
(Why won't MYCARSPACE picture show? It worked on "preview" then disappeared)
But there aren't and good compact trucks left on the market. I'm waiting for a Toyota/Honda/Nissan turbo-diesel, non-crew cab COMPACT truck.
I may be waiting forever. :sick:
james :shades:
No, I'd like my compact pickup to stay compact. But IMO a MIDSIZE truck, which is a relatively new category, should be able to pass the 4x8 test. After all, back in the day, a full-sized station wagon could do it, and I think even some midsized ones could, at least until downsizing set in in the late 70's, essentially turning the full-sized wagon into what the midsize had been, and the midsize into what the compact had been.
Just for kicks, I measured the width between the wheel housings of my '85 Silverado. Something like 49.5". My buddy's Xterra, a compact SUV, has about 44" between the wheel housings. I looked up the specs for the 2005+ Dakota. 45.2". Closer to the compact than the full-size, but really, there's not a whole lot of spread there. How much width did those tinny little 70's trucks have between the wheel openings, maybe 40-42?
As for midsized trucks that passed the 4x8 test, well, there was the T-100. And in 7/8 scale trucks, a Toyota exclusive, the first-gen Tundra could do it. I read somewhere that the 2nd Gen Dodge Dakota could pass the 4x8 test, but I have my doubts.
I like the idea of something T-100 sized. Basically a midsized truck that could do most of what a full-sized half-ton could. I don't remember how roomy the cab was, though.
On a similar note, Toyota has been offering a 1-ton version of its small truck for ages. They used to build Dolphin mini-motorhomes on that platform, the smaller U-haul trucks, etc. They wouldn't offer it as a pickup though, at least not in the States. Most likely because they want to keep up the illusion that you need a BIG truck if you want 1-ton capacity. Just like they want you to get a BIG truck if you want it to pass the 4x8 test.
As for hauling 4x8 sheets of plywood, I have hauled many, many sheets of plywood and particleboard in my (former) 1990 Nissan standard-cab pickup. (134HP, 5-spd). The trick is to LEAVE THE TAILGATE UP. Place the front of the sheets down in the bed and the back of the sheets up on the (closed) tailgate. Tie down SECURELY.
I learned that trick from Kenny, the manager of the Sample Department of Roseburg Forest Products, where I used to work. Employees could buy "seconds" at VERY reasonable prices. I bought ALOT.
james
I like the idea of something T-100 sized. Basically a midsized truck that could do most of what a full-sized half-ton could. I don't remember how roomy the cab was, though.
The issue is the T-100 wasn't any cheaper than a comparable F150/1500, and didn't get that much better mileage. It also couldn't tow what even the base models of the 1/2 tons could.
On a similar note, Toyota has been offering a 1-ton version of its small truck for ages. They used to build Dolphin mini-motorhomes on that platform, the smaller U-haul trucks, etc. They wouldn't offer it as a pickup though, at least not in the States.
They used to, we had an 84 or 85 or so Toyota SRW one-ton/4spd that was kind of donated to my group of friends in HS. We would share it for hauling mtn bikes or yard waste or whatever. One of the guys used to call it the won-ton. I think it had over 300k on it when it was t-boned.
Most likely because they are not selling war bonds.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The problem is very simple, whenever they increased the size of the truck people bought them by the boat load. It is not the manufacturers fault it is what the consumer is willing to buy. The point I am trying to make is, given the choice the American consumer wants more for their money. I believe the problem with sun compacts in this society is they cost more than they should. SO it is so easy to justify getting the next size bigger vehicle if it doesn't cost a lot more. You may never need it but it looks good compared to needing it and not having it.
Americans just don't see getting just what the need if what they would like only cost an additional 100 bucks. (that is just an example) Give me a sub compact at sub compact prices, under 10K and they become a lot more interesting. Price it the same as a Compact and the compact seems like the better deal.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I would really love to see Toyota bring back a truly compact truck. The Tacoma is now bigger than the old T-100, just a hair smaller than the last-gen Tundra, and way too goldarn big.
The trend away from regular cabs I can appreciate - I always liked the XtraCabs because you had some room to stow stuff inside the cab (and mostly out of sight). Crew cabs, OTOH, are not my thing.
Some more future subcompact plans: Toyota is bringing out a RWD sport 2-door in a couple of years, and Honda is bringing out a "new CRX" and a dedicated hybrid smaller than the current Civic. Subaru might start to sell a car smaller than the Impreza too. Ford is firming up plans for the '09 Fiesta. And now Mercedes is saying the plans to bring the A-class to America might be on too? These are high times for devotees of the smallest yet greatest class of cars! ;-)
Footnote: hey, claiming in its press release that demand widely exceeded projected sales estimates, Toyota is boosting Yaris production and adding an 'S' trim of the hatchback for '08. Not quite the also-ran some were expecting...and Honda has finally allocated more Fit production to the U.S., so for the first time since their debut 18 months ago, Fits are in stock at dealers. Now we will see how many they can really sell. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Subaru's Secret from the 90s
They probably understood that market, but just didn't have the resources to jump into it whole-heartedly. So instead they went for that cross-breed market that was just starting to open up. Vehicles like the Explorer Sport-track, Avalanche, etc...vehicles that are not quite pickup, not quite SUV. Only thing is, Subaru tried to mate the compact car with the pickup, and the offspring didn't come out quite right.
Sure, it was a flop, but I don't think Subaru sunk a ton of money into it, either, so at least it didn't cripple them, like how the Pacer and those frog-eyed Matadors did to American Motors.
I wonder how hard it is to offer a unitized car in different wheelbases? Probably harder than a body-on-frame, but Chrysler seemed to be a pro at it back in the K-car days, offering that thing on everything from a 97.3" wheelbase on up to something like 109.9". So maybe it wouldn't be all that hard to stretch out a Legacy/Outback to make a new Baja-type vehicle.
Then again, car-type trucks never were a huge success in the US. In the old days, they used to be based on 2-door wagons, so it was cheap to make them, but then the 2-door wagon went out of style. Later versions were a blend of coupe and wagon, so again, they could be made fairly cheaply. And I guess the El Camino was popular enough to keep in production through 1987. The Malibu coupe and wagon, upon which it was based, were dropped after 1981 and 1983, respectively. But other models, like the Ranchero and Rampage, never seemed as popular.
I would certainly consider one if it were conservatively styled, king-cab, turbo-diesel, and AWD. Oh yeah! :shades:
james
Have you seen some of the compact "pick up" cars sold by VW in Mexico. Utilitarian for the small contractor but way too small for this market.