I remember the Isetta. When I was just a kid a neighbor bought one and all the kids thought it was so cool. I can't imagine one with a front end that opens like the origional however.
Well even back when I saw my first one somewhere about 1961 we knew it would be the end of anyone who hit anything. You just had to believe you would never hit anything and nothing would hit you. Back then there were several strange little cars.
The NEW Isetta is not like the old Isetta. On the old Isettas, the front of the vehicle (including the windshield opens up for the passengers to exit. The new one looks like it has side doors like every other car.
My friend has a couple of the Italian built Isettas and two of the German BMW models.
We can all forget about little cars and start buying SUV's so we all can be safe. Then someone will buy an even bigger SUV to be above the crowd and Americans will all want the bigger SUV's. That's ok. We'll just vote for George Bush because he promises to lower gas prices....DOH!!!
Is that a political statement that we have to check and see if we need to give equal time to other political points of view?
Right now the consumer simply buys what they can afford. If mid sized cars are the most popular there has to be a reason. If the best selling vehicle is a truck there has to be a reason. I don't know anyone that just tosses money at a manufacturer without deciding what they want and what they expect from a car or truck. If you have the money to buy a boat, quad ot travel trailer maybe a sub compact isn't going to work. If you have a family and are required to place three car seats to take your kids anywhere maybe a sub compact won't work.
SUVs and Trucks earned their place with the consumer. They filled a need small cars couldn't. Mid sized cars earned a place with the consumer because they were more comfortable for most consumers. Sub compacts will have to do the same, earn a place on their own merit. It is not a political conspiracy. SUVs may have reached the height of their popularity between 1993 and 2001 and we know Bush wasn't president then.
I don't think this politician or that one can individually affect the cars we own but over a long period of time (almost a century!) the tremendous lobbying strength of Big Oil certainly has. The market is shaped by far more than consumer choice---taxes, import restrictions, legislation, etc.
Maybe, I don't disagree there are many factors. But why when the consumer had the option of a Compact did they more towards the SUV and Pickup? What made the mid sized car replace the compact after the fuel shortages in the 70s? If the consumer didn't want of buy the car or truck they wouldn't make them. That is why we didn't see them keeping the Baja. Something moved the Accord from a Civic sized car to a Mid sized. I don't think it was big oil.
America is the land of excess. Just look at our guts and it's pretty clear. Cheap gas under Clinton allowed the SUV to be popular. Now that gas is $3/gallon, suddenly Americans discovered they really didn't need the SUV after all. The Europeans have babies too and they get along fine in their Corolla's. I blame Clinton and his cursed cheap gas and the era of excessively high wages. Thank you Republicans for bringing us Americans down a couple of notches so we can now truly appreciate smaller, greener cars.
But shifty, they had small cars when the SUV craze hit. You could just as easily have bought a Corolla as you could a SUV in 1996. If the manufacturer builds something and people snap them up why wouldn't they build more of that something? And if the consumer only buys a few why build more than a few of those vehicles?
The point you made is very valid. But there would be no need to build a SUV hybrid if people had been waiting for a Smart car. They would only have to consider a SUV hybrid if it was to fill a perceived need or want of the consumer. And that is the point. The historical point is that sub compact, low power, basic cars fill the wants of far fewer consumers than bigger more powerful vehicles. Because the bigger the target group the higher the sales share the manufacturers try to find a way to interest the customer in their product. So to attract more customers into buying their sub compact over someone elses sub compact one manufacturer will add a bit more power. To counter that another manufacturer will add more power and a few more features and maybe a little more weight or size. After a while your sub compact is a compact and like in the case of the Accord maybe it even grows to a mid sized car.
Do you believe this historical chain of events is ready to change? Do you believe the American consumer believe things are bad enough that they are willing to settle for what they consider a lower lifestyle like the Europeans? I can't see any of us taking a page from the French can you?
Yeah actually I am beginning to suspect that we are at the point of a historical change that will radically alter the car consumers' behavior---similar to the pivot point around 1960 (small cars become credible to Americans) and 1980 (American reject domestic products in huge numbers as "too fat, too sloppy, and too outdated").
I think the large V-8 SUV will come, in time, to look as ridiculous to us as the 1979 Lincoln Mark 23 Ralph Lauren Edition (I just made that up).
Now you know me---I never predicted that the subcompact would displace the larger car---only that the subcompact will take a larger market share than ever before. And that already seems to be coming true**
Note to Self: Always predict something just after it happens.
You have to remember--American automakers just don't get it. They will stick with a concept long after the public has turned its back on it. They'll just add colors, size or gadgets, cut price, whatever, to it until it finally sinks like a stone. They'll ride the SUV right into the ground.
Mr Shiftright, you seem to have summed it up very neatly - as ever. I fear you are correct about the USA car makers and that is really sad. Of the 10 or so folks in USA that I am privileged to call friends, not one owns/drives a domestic model. They all drive Japanese. At a meeting 3 years ago, in Va, I asked the assembled group of 24 managers what car they spent their own Dollars on, (we'd just had a discussion re design in Europe & Japan vs non-design in USA, (not in the automotive field), and this here Brit was getting a hard time. Of the 24, only one owned an American car and the rest said, rather jokily, that he'd always been weird ! I found that quite revealing. It was mostly Honda, Audi and MB.
The Europeans have babies too and they get along fine in their Corolla's.
Sure, as long as they don't have a crash, since several countries in Europe don't require infant/child seats. Maybe that is how they control population.
Yes, but like the La auto show indicates the green car award went to a Hybrid SUV not something like a Smart. I don't discount the idea that domestics will lose market share. But Honda, Toyota, Subaru, Nissan and even Porsche have decided to make SUVs as well. If the imports have as many larger vehicles as Toyota has where is the preference shift? I am not talking temporary economic shift I am talking about consumer preference. The Sub compact has traditionally relied on economic reasons for its success. If the economy improves or fuel becomes reasonable we always drift to bigger or more powerful. Not once have we ever regressed willingly to simpler times.
Like I mentioned early on in this forum the real issue promoting sub compacts is supposed to be fuel economy. It has never been preference of the consumer. If you look at our country compared with Japan or Europe you see we have "space" and lots of that space is still open and undeveloped. In LA alone our average daily commute exceeds what a Japanese commuter does in a week. Our houses are bigger. We believe in super malls and we spend more on our pets than some countries have to spend on their people.
Having been in the people counseling business for more than 35 years I know of one consistent trait of my fellow US citizen. We will always spend what we make and we will always want just a bit more than our neighbor. If someone offers us that little bit more we will spend what we have to get it. That isn't likely to change in my lifetime. However there are always the few that will buy smaller or decide on needs verses want and they will always hope the majority will change. I wonder if that is what the Indians thought when they first started dealing with the european white men?
I would suspect that most European and Japanese cars protect their passengers at least as well, possibly better, than most mainstream American cars. I don't have any proof but the Chrysler Grand Voyager fares appallingly in Euro crash testing. Size clearly isn't everything.
I don't have any proof but the Chrysler Grand Voyager fares appallingly in Euro crash testing. Size clearly isn't everything.
Which is odd given its 5-star rating in the US Safer Car.org
I would be interested in knowing the differences in testing protocols between the US and EU. I would also hope they take into account the difference in driving style and type of accident. I know the EU has been doing a lot for pedestrian fatalities as well, but the US is a spread out group of fat lazy people who don't walk so we have less of an issue with pedestrians.
I guess my point is that the whole SUV market is now incredibly fragile. A few bad odors in the air and it could collapse within 6 months, into a heap of rubble. It's at the end of its cycle and I think any smart automaker is not going to tool up for another gigantic SUV.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, "needs", or EVER needed, a 9-passenger AWD SUV unless you are running a shuttle business. In fact I don't think anybody needs anything bigger than a Mitsubishi Outlander, maximum....and a V-6 hybrid at that would be fine.
They bought 'em because gas was cheap and fear factor was high. Now people understand the volatility of gas prices and the fact that smaller cars are very safe.
No, that's not the same as the US Spec DCX vans, if I'm looking at the right thing. What you are looking at appears to be more of an MPV than a Minivan.
"Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, "needs", or EVER needed, a 9-passenger AWD SUV unless you are running a shuttle business. In fact I don't think anybody needs anything bigger than a Mitsubishi Outlander, maximum....and a V-6 hybrid at that would be fine."
I am so uncomfortable with the whole "needs" argument. It sounds far to close to the PC police to me. Allow anyone else to determine our "needs" and look where it might lead you. There is no reasonable "need" for a sports car ever. And even if you could justify a car that gets bad fuel mileage for its size you could still do away with whole companies like Porsche, Ferrari, Bently and Rolls, Hummer based on needs. Panoz has no "need" to exist nor does Lotus. We didn't need mini vans and we don't need V-6 mid sized Accords. "Need" is almost an evil concept in our country. We don't need 4000 square foot houses and in fact we don't need 1200 square foot houses if we go by European or Asia standards. Go by African standards and 800 square foot houses are huge.
I have also heard that we have seen the end of the SUV in every automotive magazine I have ever read for the last 15 years. But the day we start living like we are in the movie Blade runner and have nothing bigger than a sub compact to look forward to is just depressing. Next it will be like China and someone will tell us we don't "need" more than two children. Then no one would ever need a car bigger that a 4 passenger one. When the lifestyle of someone in Calcutta determines my car choices it is close to time for a dirt nap. The thing that makes the US great is we have always determined our own needs based on our ability to acquire those needs.
I can remember back in the Seventies when the Japanese government wouldn't build a motorcycle bigger than 400 cc for domestic use. They would export bigger ones but not for domestic use. After all, no one "needs" more than 400 cc in Japan. Think about it, you don't "need" a car or truck that will go faster the 70 MPH. In fact based on needs no car should be able to exceed 70 MPH. Yes, it would be a depressing world based on needs.
Yes, I once had a Kawasaki 500 tripple. Fastest 500 on the street. I could drop a 750 Honda 4 like a bad habit in the 1/4. But when I got the 750 tripple not even a RD 400 could catch me even on its best day. 4 Strokes of that time had to have more the 1000 cc just to keep up. But the very idea I could get a 750 tripple from a country where they could not be sold to their own citizens seems almost sinful. We used to have Japanese Students staying at our home in those days. One college student just stood there looking at the bike for hours playing with the clip on and rear sets. He could only dream about it because at home he would never be able to ride one. I only wish I could have found a way to get him an American License.
At the risk of being off topic, I think Dick Cheney said it best: "The American way of life is non-negotiable". :shades: (rose colored shades)
To get back on-topic, let me add, the American way of driving, (bigger is better), is non-sustainable. Some people will cling to their giant SUVs, but they are just hanging on to a bygone era and out of touch with the realities of the present state of the world.
I'm not saying anyone is going to deprive you of the thing you "need", only that one could question that it might be a false need. Besides it was your argument wasn't it? That we get the cars we get because they fill a "need"?
Actually a world without everyone waking up "needing" something every damn minute sounds kind of refreshing. :P
China's a great example. We'd need about 8 earths to allow all of them to live like us. Not gonna happen.
It's a fallacy to think one cannot live exquisitely well with a bit less than they have at the moment. I'm sure I could cull 25% of your possessions and you wouldn't even sweat it. Let's start with the garage! :P
The real question is how many Europeans own vehicles at all. Certainly, the elites do. The "average Joes" generally don't. Also, if you DID apply the same safety standards to many of the European models (look at some of the low end Fiats and Renaults that are around), would they pass?
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, "needs", or EVER needed, a 9-passenger AWD SUV unless you are running a shuttle business. In fact I don't think anybody needs anything bigger than a Mitsubishi Outlander, maximum....and a V-6 hybrid at that would be fine.
Not true, my friend (now deceased ) had 8 kids! They had two older huge 4x4 Chevy Suburbans! The monster ones and I think an older suburban from like 1970 as well. This was 20+ years ago. They certainly needed the 4x4 as their road wasn't paved neither was their driveway and they were in New Hampshire. Wonderful people, they were the type who did need a huge vehicle and this guy was about 350 lbs.! His wife was all of 200 lbs. So yeah there are some exceptions. But for DINK's like I am now, why buy a monster SUV? Still the new STI looks mighty, nice lousy economy but tempting except for price. The MINI is so damn hard to justify. The 2 months wait, the 1.5 hour trip to the dealer for service, the RFT's, have to carry a spare loose in the car as well as a better jack than the poor excuse for a jack they give you with the car and how the heck can I take time off of work to get it there for warranty or service work 3 hours or more travelling, and then however long it takes to fix it! Otherwise it's 1.5 hours there and then 1.5 hours back twice so 6 hours driving in one day even with a rental or a loaner car. :sick: Still not many cars get good economy and are fun to drive.
Ha my friend, I got you there. I live in the mountains and we have very few garages. I have two driveways but not even a car port.
I have been cutting back and still can't make a dent nor can I get in a position where a Sub Compact would work for me unless I decide to get a motor home and pull one behind me. That is with just two of us. But I have been to Europe and Asia and I sure wouldn't trade our lifestyle for theirs. I might give up a big screen TVs for the Underground in London however. But for me that is like giving up Okra for lent.
But truthfully how much smaller than an Accord or Camry or even a Malibu do we need? Put a diesel or Hybrid in a Camry, Accord or Edge for that matter and you get Sub Compact mileage with the comfort of a bigger car. Like I have said before, if a Yaris was 8k or even 10k out the door you have a point. If the xA would have achieved 45 to 55 MPG maybe there was a reason to switch. But if there are people out there getting 35 MPG or better in a 4 banger Accord why get so much less car as most sub compacts if they will only get 35 to 40 MPG? Accords are a lot nicer than Fits no matter how you slice it.
I have been to some of the places where people don't have the things we do. maybe some would say they prove we don't need everything we have but I don't believe it is the people thinking they don't need what we have, it is they have no way of getting what we have.
And yes it is my contention that we buy what we feel we need and can afford. If an American works 40 hours a week and makes 6k a month and has a house payment of 1100 a month why shouldn't he get a SUV if he wants one? The fact that someone half way around the world only makes in a year what he makes in a week should have no effect on what the working person gets here.
I will grant you this. If in the next six years the Fit, Yaris, and maybe even the smart get no bigger or get no more HP or any of them outsell the f series trucks from Ford I will believe there is a change in the US consumer. Or we have entered a Depression.
MINI SUV?? I guess if it's against marketing rules to call it a station wagon (which it would be) then "SUV" it is, in some warped sense of the word...just hope they don't "Cayenne" the thing :P
of the SUV was to combine what people liked about the old full sized station wagon with the utility of a truck. One of the reasons for getting a SUV was its ability to tow your toys. The other was the perception you could go anywhere, even if you didn't go everywhere. Yes I know they were also made to drive through a loop hole in CAFE. But people seemed to like the idea. For years the American consumer has been been told, cajoled, legislated, and attempted to shame into giving up their big vehicles. we have at last made some movement in that direction. But for more than 20 years the cars we like the best have gotten bigger, heavier, and more powerful. Sub compacts may become more popular but not because we like the idea. But because we have to adapt to the cost of fuel. Take that incentive away and we will be back to buying what we like.
Unless our economy goes to heck in a hand basket I don't expect the Yaris to out sell the F-150 in the next ten years. And I don't even expect the Fit to our sell the Accord. Maybe I should say that as a second car there is nothing wrong with a sub compact. As a primary car they just fall short for the majority of the consumers.
I know they were also made to drive through a loop hole in CAFE.
...as well as all passenger car safety standards. This is why the roof crush issue keeps coming up. Incidentally, even mini-vans (and all full size vans) as well as psuedo-SUVs like the Outback fall in the same loophole (while the Legacy does not).
So how did people survive in that climate prior to SUVs. Did they all perish in the snow? Of course not. They put chains on their Model As or station wagons and drove the same places that the monster SUV guy does. They didn't go into 72 month car loans to get seat warmers.
I think using the example of someone with 8 kids is rather extreme as a rebuttal. That's about .000000000001% of the US population.
Very few people genuinely need these rigs. It's a mental trick. It's part of the dreaded term "lifestyle".
"For YOUR active lifestyle, a powerful 7 liter V8 to take you where you want to go"
(cut to monster SUV hauling two bicycles and two people up mountain road--total payload about 350 lbs. )
See? I'm outdoorsy! So's the wife! We go where we want to go because this baby is unstoppable.
When I lived in Colorado, I took my '53 Chrysler shop car (made into a pickup truck) to the same spots as the Jeeps. No we didn't ford streams or boulder-hop but we got to 99% of the places they did
So how did people survive in that climate prior to SUVs. Did they all perish in the snow? Of course not. They put chains on their Model As and drove the same places that the monster SUV guy does.
Oh I'm not suggesting that SUV' are really needed by very many people, just that there are exceptions and there were 9 kids in my Fathers family growing up, but back then cars were rare. I can see the point of an SUV or Minivan if you need one. One of my good friends in a plumber, he's got a 3/4 ton Chevy Van probably overloaded. :surprise: But it's his work, one huge van and one guy driving it. But one person in a huge SUV by themselves is a waste. People today cannot afford to have a lot of kids. As gas climbs ever upward people will switch over from SUV's to smaller cars and it will all be based on income and driving style. I think it will take $8 a gallon gas for the SUV's to all but disappear. I'm in favor of small cars but they really do have to offer value and far better economy for the money. No excuse for a Honda Fit to not get 45mpg on the highway. My friend had one and the best he could manage was 24mpg with it no matter what he did. No excuse for that, no matter how hard you drive it it should still get better mpg than a 1998 LeSabre! People buy SUV's because they are too scared to drive a small car with all the big SUV's around. Subcompacts real;ly need much better fuel economy and they need to help people feel secure when they drive through a forest of SUV's. Until that happens Subcompacts will stay at the bottom with few exceptions. Unfortunately. :sick:
Comments
BMW would be crazy to build it. Smart has never turned a profit.
While the company has never made a profit what about the car as a stand alone?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Smart will make up for it on volume.
Hey, it worked for Detroit for umpteen years. :shades:
I hope the new Isetta's front door is stuffed with airbags.
My friend has a couple of the Italian built Isettas and two of the German BMW models.
all can be safe. Then someone will buy an even bigger SUV to be
above the crowd and Americans will all want the bigger SUV's. That's
ok. We'll just vote for George Bush because he promises to lower
gas prices....DOH!!!
Right now the consumer simply buys what they can afford. If mid sized cars are the most popular there has to be a reason. If the best selling vehicle is a truck there has to be a reason. I don't know anyone that just tosses money at a manufacturer without deciding what they want and what they expect from a car or truck. If you have the money to buy a boat, quad ot travel trailer maybe a sub compact isn't going to work. If you have a family and are required to place three car seats to take your kids anywhere maybe a sub compact won't work.
SUVs and Trucks earned their place with the consumer. They filled a need small cars couldn't. Mid sized cars earned a place with the consumer because they were more comfortable for most consumers. Sub compacts will have to do the same, earn a place on their own merit. It is not a political conspiracy. SUVs may have reached the height of their popularity between 1993 and 2001 and we know Bush wasn't president then.
SUVs are very profitable for a company.
We don't tell automakers what to make. We only can buy or not buy what they have. There's a difference.
NOW we can get an SUV hybrid. But not back when. We had to wait 15 years.
Cheap gas under Clinton allowed the SUV to be popular. Now that gas is
$3/gallon, suddenly Americans discovered they really didn't need the SUV after all.
The Europeans have babies too and they get along fine in their Corolla's.
I blame Clinton and his cursed cheap gas and the era of excessively high wages.
Thank you Republicans for bringing us Americans down a couple of notches
so we can now truly appreciate smaller, greener cars.
The point you made is very valid. But there would be no need to build a SUV hybrid if people had been waiting for a Smart car. They would only have to consider a SUV hybrid if it was to fill a perceived need or want of the consumer. And that is the point. The historical point is that sub compact, low power, basic cars fill the wants of far fewer consumers than bigger more powerful vehicles. Because the bigger the target group the higher the sales share the manufacturers try to find a way to interest the customer in their product. So to attract more customers into buying their sub compact over someone elses sub compact one manufacturer will add a bit more power. To counter that another manufacturer will add more power and a few more features and maybe a little more weight or size. After a while your sub compact is a compact and like in the case of the Accord maybe it even grows to a mid sized car.
Do you believe this historical chain of events is ready to change? Do you believe the American consumer believe things are bad enough that they are willing to settle for what they consider a lower lifestyle like the Europeans? I can't see any of us taking a page from the French can you?
so we can now truly appreciate smaller, greener cars.
Hahahahahhaha, you are such a funny guy! That's the best line I've heard in a while. You should get a spot on the Daily Show! What a card! :P
I think the large V-8 SUV will come, in time, to look as ridiculous to us as the 1979 Lincoln Mark 23 Ralph Lauren Edition (I just made that up).
Now you know me---I never predicted that the subcompact would displace the larger car---only that the subcompact will take a larger market share than ever before. And that already seems to be coming true**
Note to Self: Always predict something just after it happens.
You have to remember--American automakers just don't get it. They will stick with a concept long after the public has turned its back on it. They'll just add colors, size or gadgets, cut price, whatever, to it until it finally sinks like a stone. They'll ride the SUV right into the ground.
Sure, as long as they don't have a crash, since several countries in Europe don't require infant/child seats. Maybe that is how they control population.
Like I mentioned early on in this forum the real issue promoting sub compacts is supposed to be fuel economy. It has never been preference of the consumer. If you look at our country compared with Japan or Europe you see we have "space" and lots of that space is still open and undeveloped. In LA alone our average daily commute exceeds what a Japanese commuter does in a week. Our houses are bigger. We believe in super malls and we spend more on our pets than some countries have to spend on their people.
Having been in the people counseling business for more than 35 years I know of one consistent trait of my fellow US citizen. We will always spend what we make and we will always want just a bit more than our neighbor. If someone offers us that little bit more we will spend what we have to get it. That isn't likely to change in my lifetime. However there are always the few that will buy smaller or decide on needs verses want and they will always hope the majority will change. I wonder if that is what the Indians thought when they first started dealing with the european white men?
Which is odd given its 5-star rating in the US
Safer Car.org
I would be interested in knowing the differences in testing protocols between the US and EU. I would also hope they take into account the difference in driving style and type of accident. I know the EU has been doing a lot for pedestrian fatalities as well, but the US is a spread out group of fat lazy people who don't walk so we have less of an issue with pedestrians.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, "needs", or EVER needed, a 9-passenger AWD SUV unless you are running a shuttle business. In fact I don't think anybody needs anything bigger than a Mitsubishi Outlander, maximum....and a V-6 hybrid at that would be fine.
They bought 'em because gas was cheap and fear factor was high. Now people understand the volatility of gas prices and the fact that smaller cars are very safe.
Whole new ball game, 2008, batter up!
Isn't this the same as the US Spec Dodge Carvan?
Chrysler To Build a VW Minivan for U.S. Market
I am so uncomfortable with the whole "needs" argument. It sounds far to close to the PC police to me. Allow anyone else to determine our "needs" and look where it might lead you. There is no reasonable "need" for a sports car ever. And even if you could justify a car that gets bad fuel mileage for its size you could still do away with whole companies like Porsche, Ferrari, Bently and Rolls, Hummer based on needs. Panoz has no "need" to exist nor does Lotus. We didn't need mini vans and we don't need V-6 mid sized Accords. "Need" is almost an evil concept in our country. We don't need 4000 square foot houses and in fact we don't need 1200 square foot houses if we go by European or Asia standards. Go by African standards and 800 square foot houses are huge.
I have also heard that we have seen the end of the SUV in every automotive magazine I have ever read for the last 15 years. But the day we start living like we are in the movie Blade runner and have nothing bigger than a sub compact to look forward to is just depressing. Next it will be like China and someone will tell us we don't "need" more than two children. Then no one would ever need a car bigger that a 4 passenger one. When the lifestyle of someone in Calcutta determines my car choices it is close to time for a dirt nap. The thing that makes the US great is we have always determined our own needs based on our ability to acquire those needs.
I can remember back in the Seventies when the Japanese government wouldn't build a motorcycle bigger than 400 cc for domestic use. They would export bigger ones but not for domestic use. After all, no one "needs" more than 400 cc in Japan. Think about it, you don't "need" a car or truck that will go faster the 70 MPH. In fact based on needs no car should be able to exceed 70 MPH. Yes, it would be a depressing world based on needs.
You can do a lot with 400cc if you try. 55-60HP and quick as stink.
To get back on-topic, let me add, the American way of driving, (bigger is better), is non-sustainable. Some people will cling to their giant SUVs, but they are just hanging on to a bygone era and out of touch with the realities of the present state of the world.
james
Actually a world without everyone waking up "needing" something every damn minute sounds kind of refreshing. :P
China's a great example. We'd need about 8 earths to allow all of them to live like us. Not gonna happen.
It's a fallacy to think one cannot live exquisitely well with a bit less than they have at the moment. I'm sure I could cull 25% of your possessions and you wouldn't even sweat it. Let's start with the garage! :P
Personally I prefer micro and minicars.
Not true, my friend (now deceased
They certainly needed the 4x4 as their road wasn't paved neither was their driveway and they were in New Hampshire. Wonderful people, they were the type who did need a huge vehicle and this guy was about 350 lbs.!
His wife was all of 200 lbs. So yeah there are some exceptions. But for DINK's like I am now, why buy a monster SUV?
Still the new STI looks mighty, nice lousy economy but tempting except for price. The MINI is so damn hard to justify. The 2 months wait, the 1.5 hour trip to the dealer for service, the RFT's, have to carry a spare loose in the car as well as a better jack than the poor excuse for a jack they give you with the car and how the heck can I take time off of work to get it there for warranty or service work 3 hours or more travelling, and then however long it takes to fix it! Otherwise it's 1.5 hours there and then 1.5 hours back twice so 6 hours driving in one day even with a rental or a loaner car. :sick:
Still not many cars get good economy and are fun to drive.
I have been cutting back and still can't make a dent nor can I get in a position where a Sub Compact would work for me unless I decide to get a motor home and pull one behind me. That is with just two of us. But I have been to Europe and Asia and I sure wouldn't trade our lifestyle for theirs. I might give up a big screen TVs for the Underground in London however. But for me that is like giving up Okra for lent.
But truthfully how much smaller than an Accord or Camry or even a Malibu do we need? Put a diesel or Hybrid in a Camry, Accord or Edge for that matter and you get Sub Compact mileage with the comfort of a bigger car. Like I have said before, if a Yaris was 8k or even 10k out the door you have a point. If the xA would have achieved 45 to 55 MPG maybe there was a reason to switch. But if there are people out there getting 35 MPG or better in a 4 banger Accord why get so much less car as most sub compacts if they will only get 35 to 40 MPG? Accords are a lot nicer than Fits no matter how you slice it.
I have been to some of the places where people don't have the things we do. maybe some would say they prove we don't need everything we have but I don't believe it is the people thinking they don't need what we have, it is they have no way of getting what we have.
And yes it is my contention that we buy what we feel we need and can afford. If an American works 40 hours a week and makes 6k a month and has a house payment of 1100 a month why shouldn't he get a SUV if he wants one? The fact that someone half way around the world only makes in a year what he makes in a week should have no effect on what the working person gets here.
I will grant you this. If in the next six years the Fit, Yaris, and maybe even the smart get no bigger or get no more HP or any of them outsell the f series trucks from Ford I will believe there is a change in the US consumer. Or we have entered a Depression.
I wish Porsche got that memo!
Unless our economy goes to heck in a hand basket I don't expect the Yaris to out sell the F-150 in the next ten years. And I don't even expect the Fit to our sell the Accord. Maybe I should say that as a second car there is nothing wrong with a sub compact. As a primary car they just fall short for the majority of the consumers.
...as well as all passenger car safety standards. This is why the roof crush issue keeps coming up. Incidentally, even mini-vans (and all full size vans) as well as psuedo-SUVs like the Outback fall in the same loophole (while the Legacy does not).
I wonder if a SAAB 9-5 Sport Combi would be considered a light truck as well. :surprise:
I think using the example of someone with 8 kids is rather extreme as a rebuttal. That's about .000000000001% of the US population.
Very few people genuinely need these rigs. It's a mental trick. It's part of the dreaded term "lifestyle".
"For YOUR active lifestyle, a powerful 7 liter V8 to take you where you want to go"
(cut to monster SUV hauling two bicycles and two people up mountain road--total payload about 350 lbs. )
See? I'm outdoorsy! So's the wife! We go where we want to go because this baby is unstoppable.
When I lived in Colorado, I took my '53 Chrysler shop car (made into a pickup truck) to the same spots as the Jeeps. No we didn't ford streams or boulder-hop but we got to 99% of the places they did
Oh I'm not suggesting that SUV' are really needed by very many people, just that there are exceptions and there were 9 kids in my Fathers family growing up, but back then cars were rare. I can see the point of an SUV or Minivan if you need one. One of my good friends in a plumber, he's got a 3/4 ton Chevy Van probably overloaded. :surprise: But it's his work, one huge van and one guy driving it. But one person in a huge SUV by themselves is a waste. People today cannot afford to have a lot of kids. As gas climbs ever upward people will switch over from SUV's to smaller cars and it will all be based on income and driving style. I think it will take $8 a gallon gas for the SUV's to all but disappear. I'm in favor of small cars but they really do have to offer value and far better economy for the money. No excuse for a Honda Fit to not get 45mpg on the highway. My friend had one and the best he could manage was 24mpg with it no matter what he did. No excuse for that, no matter how hard you drive it it should still get better mpg than a 1998 LeSabre!
People buy SUV's because they are too scared to drive a small car with all the big SUV's around.
Subcompacts real;ly need much better fuel economy and they need to help people feel secure when they drive through a forest of SUV's. Until that happens Subcompacts will stay at the bottom with few exceptions.
Unfortunately. :sick: