What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

There's enough room, you just have too much stuff...THAT'S the problem

You can easily stuff a cat and a cantaloupe into a MINI, no sweat.

snakeweasel · October 2007

Well I know they have a lot of head room and leg room but they are sadly lacking in elbow room. When I sit in one and close the door there is no room what so ever to my side.

goodegg · October 2007

Who cares how they do it in France or England?

humblecoder · October 2007

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.

I live near one of the biggest cities in the US (New York City), and most people that I know of who live in that urban environment don't own cars at all! That is due to the fact that owning a car, ANY CAR, in NYC is very expensive (insurance, parking, tolls, etc). Meanwhile there is an excellent system of public transit that fills the void. One could argue that even a subcompact in a big city like NYC is "superficial and not justifiable".

snakeweasel · October 2007

I live near Chicago and I have to agree with you. While not as bad as NYC owning a car in the city can be expensive, especially if you live near the Loop. Some people pay more for their parking than they do for their cars. We do have an excellent public transit system (at least for now) and many people do live carless in the city.

There is even a car sharing service if you occasionally need a car, here is the link.

humblecoder · October 2007

If I weren't so thick-skinned, I'd find your post insulting!

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 don't follow your logic here. So if somebody dares to buy a car that doesn't fit YOUR conception of what a car should be, then they are stupid?

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.

I am sure Honda is glad you aren't their marketing manager! "The Honda Fit. Only those under six feet tall and 170 lbs need apply."

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.

Actually, I can see your argument here that there should be some sort of incentive to move people into more socially-beneficial vehicles, I must admit. Not sure where your anger towards overweight people comes from, though. Did an overweight teacher give you a failing grade in school or something? :-)

Just trying to stir some thinking. People's actions affect the world around them.

Like I said, I see where you are coming from. However, I think you might get better results if you try to see where everyone else is coming from as well.

Many people don't buy subcompacts not because they are fat and lazy, and not because they want to burn gas in excess, and not because they have been "brainwashed" into buying big cars. I would guess that there are a lot of people who buy larger cars because it meets their needs better than a subcompact car.

I, myself, own a small car and a station wagon. The small car I purchased before this resurgance of subcompacts, so it is possible that I might have looked at one of them. However, at that time, it was one of the few smaller cars that I could fit into (I am thin, but tall), that was reasonably priced. The station wagon I purchased because I needed something that could haul two kids along with all of the stuff that goes along with kids, and was safe.

To be honest, my next car purchase will probably be something a little bigger than the station wagon (minivan or CUV) because now we have my mother-in-law living with us, and to go anywhere with the five of us, we have to take two cars, which seems MORE wasteful than a minivan/CUV.

I'll probably keep the station wagon, as it gets better gas mileage than the small car. This car I will use for commuting. Then the minivan/CUV we can use for hauling the family.

In summary, I totally respect your decision to drive a subcompact, as it makes a lot of sense. However, please respect the fact that there are people who don't buy subcompacts not because they are stupid or fat or lazy, but because they have rational reasons as well.

sellaturcica · October 2007

Except that turbocharged engines take a hit in fuel efficiency. Is there actually any benefit to turbocharging a 1.8 vs just sticking a 3.0 liter in there to begin with?

And no, there should not be the choice to drive big ol' SUVs. Americans have had freedom of choice for a long time now, and they have chosen badly, per scientists and growing environmental theory. So, those choices need to be modified. The easiest way to do this is to tax people out of inappropriate vehicles, much the same way that cigarette taxes work. There is no right to a Suburban people, grow up and start conserving.

lemonhater · October 2007

I agree with your points to a point. I live in Chicago, but in an area far enough away from downtown that parking is not an issue. If I lived in Lincoln Park, Downtown or Greek town I would strongly consider going car less but going car less is not easy. It greatly limits your ability to travel and to carry stuff. And most places in the city are not quite so bad for parking.

The CTA is great when you want to get downtown during the day but not so good when you want to travel at night or to places other than downtown. Many bus routes and some El trains do not run at all night which may increase the distance you need to walk to get to from your house. And lets not go into shopping by CTA, caring bags of groceries down the street in a cart or into a bus is not fun! Plus there is the danger of getting robbed while waiting for a buss/train. The occasional nuance of running into mentally ill or rowdy person on the train and the hassle of being exposed to the elements while waiting for the train. Even in Chicago a car is not easy to do without.

Parking is not as big an issue in most areas the city. It can be a problem but not quite so bad. Where I live you probably wont be able to park in front of your house most of the time but you can probably find a place on the block. In Lincoln Park, you would be lucky to get within three blocks of your destination if youre a visiting the area and of you live there, you require a sticker in order to park on certain blocks!

Now having a sub compact can give you and advantage in that you can squeeze into little spaces but that is about it. Many houses have garages. However gas prices in the city are almost the highest in the country. Right now 87 Octane is going to cost you $2.85-$2.95 a gallon in most parts of the city. Which, is cheaper than the $3.00+ it has been running for most of this year and last.

However there is enough traffic in Chicago at all times that even the most underpowered sub-compact will have little trouble keeping up with traffic. Frankly if your car has trouble keeping up with traffic in Chicago it is most likely due to serious mechanical problems.

Subcompacts are not a bad choice, but they are not the only one.

bobw3 · October 2007

"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?

It's helping conserve because perhaps the incentive influenced the fictitous person to buy the smaller car getting 32/40MPG instead of a car like you're driving with worse MPG. So the amount of fuel conserved by the fictitous driver is the amount of fuel saved by him buying the smaller car.

In this example, you choose not to buy the more efficient vehicle and get the tax incentive, while the other drive did. That's a free choice. In fact, it does more for conversation for the person driving the most miles to drive the more efficient vehicle, since there will be a greater reduction in gas usage.

"It is a bad idea to force people out of their needs. It is a good idea to let people understand their needs. "

How about social security...it's "forced" out of our paychecks because it's cheaper in the long run to "force" people to save for their retirement then it is just to educate people on retirement planning. Then you'd have situations of the government bailing out folks who didn't save anything, or a lot of old people on the streets.

Or we could educate people on the need for seatbelts, or force them to wear them for their safety.

Or we could educate people to conserve gasoline for the good of the environment, and for our national security by eliminating the need for middle east oil, or we could "force" them to buy fuel efficient vehicles. But I'm not advocating "forcing" folks to buy only cars that get at least 30MPG, but just thinking of ways to provide incentives so down the road we don't have to "force" people to buy only fuel efficient vehicles because we're in a real crisis.

qbrozen · October 2007

still ignoring the gas tax, huh?

perhaps the incentive influenced the fictitous person to buy the smaller car getting 32/40MPG

so why is this fictitious person so incredibly short-sighted that he/she doesn't realize saving gas saves money but realizes a hidden income tax incentive saves money?

british_rover · October 2007

Oh please god stop. People that don't know anything about engines just shouldn't comment on what should or shouldn't be in an engine design.

A4 2.0T VS A4 3.0 VS 325xi

All AWD sedans: T

he A4 with the 2.0T makes almost the exact same HP as the the 325xi with 1.0 less displacement weighs almost exactly the same yet gets better gas mileage.

22/31 for the A4 and 19/28 for the BMW

The V6 A4 gets even less gas mileage but it does make a lot more power so that is understandable. Turbos are a good thing as long as they are done right. One problem with older turbo systems is that the turbo was too large of a heat sink and it took longer for the cat to light off. Placing the turbo and cat closer to the engine helped that problem. I know some people have suggested coating the inside and outside of the turbo housing with that ceramic jet hot coating that is put on headers. The ceramic coating keeps heat in the exhaust so the turbo does not absorb as much and helps the cat light off faster. Another idea is to coat just the outside of the cat with jet hot and leave the inside untouched. This would also help the at light off faster.

Then

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

Turbos also work great with diesels + automatic transmissions...almost the ideal three-way combination. There's not much sense in revving up a diesel engine, so the turbo gets the engine into the power band quickly without requiring that the driver waste fuel by trying to mash the gas pedal to get somewhere fast.

lilengineerboy · October 2007

Except that turbocharged engines take a hit in fuel efficiency. Is there actually any benefit to turbocharging a 1.8 vs just sticking a 3.0 liter in there to begin with?

Yes, there is.
2002 VW Passat 1.8t4 20/29
2002 VW Passat 2.8v6 18/26
10-15% increase in fuel efficiency.

And no, there should not be the choice to drive big ol' SUVs. Americans have had freedom of choice for a long time now, and they have chosen badly, per scientists and growing environmental theory. So, those choices need to be modified. The easiest way to do this is to tax people out of inappropriate vehicles, much the same way that cigarette taxes work. There is no right to a Suburban people, grow up and start conserving.

While I disagree with the majority of your rhetoric, I would think a tax based on GVWR could be put in place. That would make sense as the heavier vehicles do more damage to the roadway, etc. I still think gas tax is the best way to go. Tax on usage.

bobw3 · October 2007

"still ignoring the gas tax, huh? "
No, that's a good thing too.

"so why is this fictitious person so incredibly short-sighted that he/she doesn't realize saving gas saves money but realizes a hidden income tax incentive saves money? "
Because it's on the sticker of the car they're looking to buy...right in their face. Because most people ARE short sighted. That's why they don't save for retirement, think about the long term affects of diet and smoking, and on and on...

Don't forget, people in this forum are a lot more interested in cars, fuel economy, etc., by the very fact that they're reading and posting to these forums. That's a very different mindset from the millions of folks buying cars every year. I think for the vast majority of car buyer, a rebate right on window sticker will will be more incentive than the MPG rating. The MPG rating, even if it's really good, doesn't have the immediate impact of a rebate.

texases · October 2007

Re: turbos, recent C/D described using them with ethanol injection to get true biofuel payback by having both high compression and turbocharging. And yes, I agree they should get better mileage, but...why do the Acura RDX and the Mazda CX-7 seem to get V6 types of mileage in tests (16-17 mpg)?

qbrozen · October 2007

but the rebate would most likely be hidden, not on the window sticker, because income taxes are not black and white. Just like the hybrid rebate was not posted on the cars because it was a tiered rebate with certain restrictions, etc.

bobw3 · October 2007

"In Europe, cars on average get 40 mpg, compared with 20.4 mpg for U.S. cars."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17344368/

Good graphic at the bottom of this one:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0826/p01s03-woeu.html

You think we could be a LITTLE closer! At least 25MPG average! Turbos with clean diesels are how a lot of European cars get their great MPG.

Does anyone have any suggestions/ideas how to improve America's MPG average...other than oppose mine

bobw3 · October 2007

In my example the rebate is right there on the sticker.

And if the gas tax is the way to go, then why isn't it working over the past 20 years and why would anyone expect that over the next 20 years the gas tax will have any impact? If a guy is going to by a vehicle that gets 20mpg and he drives 20,000 miles/year, for every dollar the price of gas goes up, he'll end up paying an extra $1000 for gas per year, or $2.73/day.

Or if the guy has the choice between the 20mpg or 30mpg car, they'll pay $2,000/year in gas ($3/gal 20,000 miles) vs $3,000/year for the 20mpg car. The problem is that people don't look at the per/year costs. They look at per/month or now with bi-monthly car payments even less.

Now if instead of putting MPG on the sticker, the EPA mandated they put down the actual cost of gas for driving this vehicle a specific amount of miles with gas at a specific price, then that might help the consumer better than just the MPG number...another idea!

Actually, a better idea would be if a car dealer would have to put a separate sticker on the car window that shows the MPG, actual dollars of gas used annually based on a set miles and set gas cost (sort of like they do with water heaters), and list the average cost of gas for driving other vehicles that beat this one, so right on this additional sticker you could compare this car with other cars, big or small. The idea is that the consumer could look at that sticker of a civic and and see that a Corolla or diesel Golf gets better MPG and how much in dollars you'd save by buying the other car. But you wouldn't list any car that got worse MPG, only better, so the Odyssey sticker would list a whole lot of other cars (in some sort of grouping to make it easier to read), since it was showing all cars that got better MPG. And the car with the best MPG wouldn't show any.

And this additional sticker wouldn't cost the tax payer anything. How about this idea?

texases · October 2007

Like the sticker idea, cheap, non-invasive, informative. Hell, we get more info on a candy bar than on a car! I do think states/feds need to up the gas tax to the point where reasonable maintenance can be done on the infrastructure (see bridge collapses, etc.). Any encouragement of high mpg cars would be secondary. I very much oppose the growing push for surveillance-based usage taxes (see Oregon and now Texas, of all places).

lilengineerboy · October 2007

And yes, I agree they should get better mileage, but...why do the Acura RDX and the Mazda CX-7 seem to get V6 types of mileage in tests (16-17 mpg)?

You have to compare it with like vehicles. The Ford Edge is listed at 18/25 but Edmunds got 17.8 in mixed driving. I would also keep in mind how automotive journalists drive vehicles and factor that into the fuel economy ratings. So yes, the RDX (19/24) and CX-7 (17/23) get V6 like fuel economy.

lilengineerboy · October 2007

I very much oppose the growing push for surveillance-based usage taxes (see Oregon and now Texas, of all places).

I feel tracking is a bit too big-brother for me as well, but does that include those "fast-passes" for toll roads or the tap-to-buy-gas things?

texases · October 2007

No, I'm talking about adding GPS units to cars to pay a per-mile fee where ever and when ever you drive. Oregon is pushing it because they aren't able to get agreement to increase gas taxes. I don't know if it has a chance of being adopted.

qbrozen · October 2007

then why isn't it working over the past 20 years and why would anyone expect that over the next 20 years the gas tax will have any impact?

Well, first, it was FAR less than 20 years ago that gas was 99 cents/gallon. I don't know what the tax rates were at that time, but they had to have been quite a bit less than they are now.

Anyway, as I stated before when you posted this same opinion, the cost of gas IS having an effect, hence the popularity of subcompacts.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

I'm old enough to witness "gas panic" from 1979. If gas prices go high enough, and especially if it becomes scarce enough, Americans will abandon big cars like cockroaches scattering when you turn the kitchen light on.

I remember a really funny story about the "gas crunch". I was talking to a used car guy who owned a BIG lot in Denver Colorado. As we were chatting we heard sirens in the distance---lots of them.

I said "I wonder what that is?"

He didn't skip a beat: "Oh, those are Cadillac owners being rushed to the hospital after filling up their gas tanks and having their heart attacks".

Cruel but true. For about 8-12 weeks there, people with big cars were practically giving them away to used car lots. You could buy a huge V-8 car for 50 cents on the dollar.

Then it all settled down to "normal" again when everyone realized the world was not in fact going to end.

Giving the price of gasoline NOW, the "panic" of 1979 seems tame in comparison.

But back then the fear and the economic impact was real enough.

Of course, I should add that in the "panic of '79" there was NO gas to be had--not quite the same as mere higher prices.

texases · October 2007

Of course, I should add that in the "panic of '79" there was NO gas to be had--not quite the same as mere higher prices.

That's the BIG difference. I was working at a gas station during the prior increases (not a popular guy), but the big changes happened with the '79 'panic', where you couldn't get gas. That's why charts comparing prices just don't capture what went on. Sure, gas is about $3/gallon now, but you can get all you can afford. Limit that to 10 gallons, say, and watch the Escalades drop!

bobw3 · October 2007

That's the problem...doing nothing until the crisis occurs like in the '70s. This country always works on a crisis mentality...wait for the bridge to collapse before raising the gas tax to fix bridge is a perfect example. Why not just double the gas tax now and get everything fixed and at the same time reduce the gas usage.

The problem is that most Americans wouldn't buy it...they need to have something in their face before agreeing to spend any money. It would be nice to try and prevent a crisis. That's why a rebate or at least a lot more information posted on the car about emmisions, gas usage, etc on car window might help a little bit. Or at least easier to swallow than doubling the gas tax, which I would be in favor of too.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

I still think there is a "steady stream" of buyers drifting away from bigger cars to smaller ones (not necessarily subcompacts) and if there were the added panic of shortages the stream would become a torrent.

The so-called "global economy" is much more fragile than some people would have you think. With such inter-connectedness, events halfway around the world can end up being manifested right on your corner gas station, in a red hot minute.

Given the excellent resale value of most mainstream gas-sippers these days (you'll pay a premium for a high mileage VW TDI, MINI, Scion, etc) one has to suspect that there's a new consciousness in America about little cars.

bobw3 · October 2007

"I still think there is a "steady stream" of buyers drifting away from bigger cars to smaller ones"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/05/20/MNG2NPU9FD1.DTL

"Americans, however, are not shunning these beasts. Far from it. Auto industry figures show that after a two-year slump, sales of the gas guzzlers are up over 2006 -- in some cases, way up.
The numbers for large SUVs rose nearly 6 percent in the first quarter of 2007, and the April figures were up 25 percent from April 2006, according to automakers' statistics provided by Edmunds.com, an automotive research Web site."

Like I said, Americans have a crisis mentality. Gas prices jump and SUVs sales drop...for a little while. Then Americans get used to the high prices as being normal, so the behavior reverts back to the bigger-is-better mentality. So much for pure market forces...

texases · October 2007

That Wall Street Journal article showed increasing small car sales, but forecast SUV sales were flat. So as a %, they're dropping, but the total numbers aren't. Doesn't look like total consumption can go anywhere but up.

cjshow · October 2007

All this gas talk back and forth is making me dizzy! Some of you on this forum need to take a breath and notice when posters are being sarcastic...

My husband wrecked his Avenger (30 mpg) and got a Yaris (40 mpg). He's saving about $20/month in gas costs.

I sold my Probe (25 mpg) and currently have no car (0 mpg) but am looking at possibly getting Yaris hatch or Scion xD (30-35 mpg). So I'd go from 0$/week to probably $4 since I'd only fill up once/month. I am that mythological creature that only drives her car once/week to go to the store

Either way, the benefits of having a small car aren't limited only to fuel cost:

* Overall cost of car is less, making an affordable payment
* Size of car easily fits in our garage, leaving room for a "lounge" at the rear of the garage for cooler, arm chair, and radio in addition to regular garage stuff (tools, lawnmower, shelving).
* Small car is easier to maneuver through all driving situations--turning is sharper, small car is lighter and more responsive, etc.
* We don't carry that much stuff in our cars. Yaris sedan trunk is huge, though. We've been on a $40/week budget for groceries for 2.5 years. That many groceries doesn't take up that much space in the trunk.
* We usually drive with 1 or 2 people only.
* If we have a baby a car seat will easily fit in the back seat. We're both short (5'2" and 5'6"), so moving front seats up is no prob.

* Can't deny that the Yaris is darned cute. It smiles at us across the parking lot.
* Yaris hatch is also cute, though a little on the "egg" side which may date it prematurely. xD styling is a little more edgy and modern, making it age more gracefully.

That's all for now. Chill, CarSpacers!

bobw3 · October 2007

"SUV sales were flat."

Maybe...but the actuals are going up, unless the Edmunds stats are wrong. :P

bobw3 · October 2007

I agree with your reasons 100%. We have a Fit with 2 kids in carseats in the back and we enjoy the same small-car benefits as you post above.

de77 · October 2007

I think most compact European cars have 1.3 Liter engines don't they? We just keep making our bigger and bigger

robertsmx · October 2007

How is the fictitious driver conserving by burning 1.5 gallons/day, while my less fuel efficient car burns 1 gallon/day for the same purpose?

When we talk conservation, perhaps we should worry more about how much we burn as opposed to what we drive to burn. For that reason, I see no reason to penalize a person for buying a family vehicle that is used, may be once a week for family affairs, while that person uses public transportation to commute.

There is a reason a car like Fit is garnering respect. The reason is buyer recognition based on its strengths. But let us be real, it can't meet everybody's needs. And that need may be occasional or frequent.

By imposing taxes based on static numbers based on assumptions, you're not really conserving anything. When gas prices go up, people reduce their wants and seem to tread closer to their needs. And there is no bigger "incentive" than that.

bobw3 · October 2007

"When we talk conservation, perhaps we should worry more about how much we burn as opposed to what we drive to burn. For that reason, I see no reason to penalize a person for buying a family vehicle that is used, may be once a week for family affairs, while that person uses public transportation to commute."

So what do you propose...free bus passes for everyone? I'm looking at ways to reduce the gas consumption based on the current driving patterns in our society today. I'm trying to be a little realistic.

Focusing on people who drive only once a week or take the bus won't encourage manufacturers to build more efficient vehicles, nor will it encourage the millions of non-bus riders or people the drive only once a week to buy them. I'm more concerned with getting millions of people to buy more efficient vehicles than penalizing the handful of folks that drive a big car once a week.

"By imposing taxes based on static numbers based on assumptions, you're not really conserving anything."

EPA MPG estimates are based on tests, not assumptions. And anytime a person decides to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, you have conserved something. And it's more than just individual incentives, but about manufacturer incentives as well, for example making CAFE standards apply to minivans, trucks and SUVs.

lilengineerboy · October 2007

So what do you propose...free bus passes for everyone? I'm looking at ways to reduce the gas consumption based on the current driving patterns in our society today. I'm trying to be a little realistic.

How far is your commute?

And anytime a person decides to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, you have conserved something.

Not if they start driving more.

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

The stats might be right but the conclusion might be wrong---probably is wrong I'd say. First of all, we don't know if SUV sales are driven by huge incentives, we don't know the regional data, and we don't know if this is a glitch or a sustained trend.

I'd say if you went to the average showroom and asked, that huge SUVs are a harder sell right now than ever before.

bobw3 · October 2007

"And anytime a person decides to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, you have conserved something.

Not if they start driving more. "

So you think if someone buys a car that gets better MPG, they're going to sell their house and move further from work? Or move further from their kid's school, or start driving to the grocery store more often? Let's be realistic.

lilengineerboy · October 2007

So you think if someone buys a car that gets better MPG, they're going to sell their house and move further from work? Or move further from their kid's school, or start driving to the grocery store more often? Let's be realistic.

I think a person has $X to spend...if they spend $X-Y on a car, they have $Y to spend on other things, like that vacation home, which is further away, or that boat, which uses fuel, etc.
I also thing a person with a 'burban and a 3 mile commute is less harmful than someone with a Fit and a 40 mile commute. That would show up with a tax based on usage, such as a gas tax.

robertsmx · October 2007

I'm looking at ways to reduce the gas consumption based on the current driving patterns in our society today. I'm trying to be a little realistic.

The moment you pick static numbers (not dynamic), you lose sight of reality. Do you think my cars get me EPA rated mileage? If they dont, what could be the reason? And give me a good reason that I should be okay to be subjected to taxes based on something I dont experience.

EPA ratings are based on assumptions. The assumptions that people drive at a set acceleration rate, to set speeds and have a defined braking style. These assumptions also leave room for automakers to engineer vehicles to excel in EPA ratings but one may never see it translate in real life. Give me a reason why a car that is EPA rated 26 mpg but gets 23 mpg be given a break over a car that gets 26 mpg and is rated 23 mpg. And Im ignoring miles driven for now.

Doesnt it make sense to see the difference at the pump than to come up with differences based on window sticker?

if someone buys a car that gets better MPG, they're going to sell their house and move further from work?

It is quite possible that living closer will be less of an incentive with higher fuel economy car, and something else might get higher priority, like finding a better, less crowded locality. Getting a higher fuel economy vehicle makes sense if it is by choice.

In fact, it might also reduce the incentive to live close to public transportation grid. Given a choice, people prefer to be on their own. If it costs me $1 to take a train and spend a few minutes on the platform versus $1.25 to get the same job done in a car, why wouldnt I drive instead?

bobw3 · October 2007

So then you don't think that just because a person buys a car with better MPG that they're going to start driving more, so then there will be less gas consumed.

Since I have more $$ to spend on other things now that I've bought my small car, how am I going to tow the boat that I'm supposed to buy

So maybe I'll have to buy a vacation home with the money from the hypothetical rebate I got from buying a Fit!

Mr_Shiftright · October 2007

You don't need a boat...you just need to suck up to someone who owns a boat. :P

texases · October 2007

Or a motorhome, or a beach/lake house, or ....

bobw3 · October 2007

"And give me a good reason that I should be okay to be subjected to taxes based on something I dont experience." Because you made the free choice of buying the vehicle with poorer MPG. The rebate to gas guzzler tax would have to be based on some standard, not on individual driving habits. We're going to assume that the Yaris owner isn't going to put a brick on their gas pedal every night just to burn gas because he got a rebate.

"Give me a reason why a car that is EPA rated 26 mpg but gets 23 mpg be given a break over a car that gets 26 mpg and is rated 23 mpg" Because right now it's the best test out there. Some cars may do better or worse then the EPA estimates, so the chance of a person getting a car that does better is just as likely as the chance a person getting a car that does worse than the EPA standards. You have to have a line somewhere, and there will always be a few complainers right in the gray areas.

"Doesnt it make sense to see the difference at the pump than to come up with differences based on window sticker? " That's like saying, "Don't show me the calories on the boxes of anything I eat...I'd rather wait until I see it in my bigger stomach!" I'd say it makes more sense to see on the sticker BEFORE you see it on the pump. Why are you afraid of extra information on the window sticker? Will it make you feel a little more guilty or something?

And I'm all for encouraging public transportation for those that have the option. But that doesn't change my views on encouraging folks to buy more efficient vehicles.

lilengineerboy · October 2007

So then you don't think that just because a person buys a car with better MPG that they're going to start driving more, so then there will be less gas consumed.

Or maybe they will with all that new found discretionary income they have from getting 40 mpg instead of 34 mpg. They can use that lower purchase price for road trips, as long as they pack light.

So maybe I'll have to buy a vacation home with the money from the hypothetical rebate I got from buying a Fit!

Ah yes, and then you can use the money you save to drive there and back.

bobw3 · October 2007

This is probably the same opposition when the first income tax was proposed!

lilengineerboy · October 2007

This is probably the same opposition when the first income tax was proposed!

No, they are fundamentally different. Income tax is used to generate capital to provide services on the federal, state, and local level. You are talking about a penalty to give people a spanking for purchasing a vehicle you deem unworthy.

Luxury tax was another poor idea executed badly (punitive tax), ruining the domestic boating industry (and ruining the economy of several east coast towns), hurting sales of high end vehicles, etc.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

robertsmx · October 2007

You have an interesting take on choices. In your opinion, I would be smarter to pick a car whose window sticker showed 26 mpg but got 23 mpg than getting a car that showed 23 mpg but got 26 mpg. Choices aside, it clearly shows a complete disregard for conservation. You prefer chance, I prefer reality.

It is fine if you draw a line using numbers from a standard. To me it is simply an arbitrary number as it doesnt reflect the reality. If it were the reality, I couldnt take a car and get different mileage from it. Even better, I could take a car and engineer it to get different mileage from it but using that standard that is your arguments lifeline.

That's like saying, "Don't show me the calories on the boxes of anything I eat...I'd rather wait until I see it in my bigger stomach!"

Good example, as it actually helps make my point. Your stomach will grow not based on what is written on the carton, but based on how much you consume. The former is a static measure that you are relying on. The latter is the reality.

In case youve missed it, Im not opposing the idea of conservation. In fact, quite the opposite, and were on the same page. However, where we differ is your reliance on chance based on an arbitrary number taken from a standard that can be fiddled with. I am sticking with the reality.

It is never a good idea to force people to make choices that few things they must. This is not how smaller cars have regained some respect. Cant you see that?

PS. On the boat thing. Don't you think they are among the worst offenders when it comes to oil consumption?

thegraduate · October 2007

So I'd go from 0$/week to probably $4 since I'd only fill up once/month. I am that mythological creature that only drives her car once/week to go to the store

I'd buy a year or two old vehicle in your case then. It's not as if the miles you put on it will add up fast.

Look into a 2-year old car, you can buy more car for the $. At the Honda dealership near my house, they have a Malibu Maxx LT (a midsize V6 car, 23,000 miles, 2006 model) for $12,990 (would probably take $12k). That is a LOT of car for the dough. For as little as you drive, the extra gas you'd use (20/28 vs 27/33) is very negligible for a small amount of driving. Also, buying that $13k midsize buys a heavier, (likely safe), more sturdy automobile to haul the babies in.

Just a thought from someone on the outside looking in.

british_rover · October 2007

Yeah I was going to add that into the post and then my hard drive crashed. :mad:

:sick:

What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles