What would it take to make small cars desirable?

[jcp123]

Better interior room
Better torque
Shake the Hollyweird stigma from fuel saving
More interesting styling
Bigger range of options - bare-bones to full-on luxo-mobile
Maintain affordability (many more economical cars are getting quite expensive)
How about better towing? With the spread and equipment we have here, we can't live without a pickup, and can't afford to have a vehicle sitting around that isn't a DD...

[trebuchet03]

Is it just an oversight? I mean, back in the 1970's I can understand this assumption. But for today, what is the reasoning behind it?

They test both belted and unbelted scenarios
NHTSA

Unbelted tests are key for airbag design - as airbags of yore would cause an unbelted occupant to submarine under the dash in an accident :/ However, for safety ratings - NHTSA uses belted data on crash and sled tests

consumer Reports on Testings...

IIHS also tests both scenarios - but I'm not sure if they use unbelted data in their ratings (I'm having trouble finding that information on their website).

Really, the testing most of us need to worry about is the IIHS elevated side impact crash test... The one they designed to simulate an SUV crashing into the side of your car o.0

[cfg83]

trebuchet03 -

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

They test both belted and unbelted scenarios
NHTSA

Unbelted tests are key for airbag design - as airbags of yore would cause an unbelted occupant to submarine under the dash in an accident :/ However, for safety ratings - NHTSA uses belted data on crash and sled tests

consumer Reports on Testings...

IIHS also tests both scenarios - but I'm not sure if they use unbelted data in their ratings (I'm having trouble finding that information on their website).

Really, the testing most of us need to worry about is the IIHS elevated side impact crash test... The one they designed to simulate an SUV crashing into the side of your car o.0

Ok, that's better. That makes sense. My incense-o-meter has been deactivated. El Diablo est? en los detalles,

CarloSW2

[oneinchsidehop]

Originally Posted by Nerds laugh at me

So what would my Photoshopped version be a symbol of ?

Coffee though nose to keyboard!!!!!





I'll tell ya, I'd like to have one (for about ten minutes) just to offend the snot out of folks at the burlington earth day parade.

Then.... umm. Then it goes back to being wastefull and pure evil.

[GasSavers_Ryland]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Unfortunately... They have physics on their side :/ The more mass you have in a collision - the less percentage of the energy you'll have to absorb. Mass becomes an instant selling point regardless of actual safety standards :/

Who was it that pointed out that the Mini Cooper had a better crash test rating then a full size 1 ton Ford pickup truck? I would think that running a simple ad to that affect would kill truck sales to soccer moms.
yes, having more mass in a vehicle will help it plow thru other objects, but it's hard to make a full frame vehicle that also has crumple zones, and light trucks don't have to pass the same safty standards, even mini vans are in the light truck class, I think in most states it's still the case that a light truck doesn't need safty equipment like rear bumpers (loads varry ride hight), because the light truck catigory is there for vehicles designed for doing work, thus the lower EPA mileage.

[trebuchet03]

Who was it that pointed out that the Mini Cooper had a better crash test rating then a full size 1 ton Ford pickup truck? I would think that running a simple ad to that affect would kill truck sales to soccer moms.

Sure, that's completely possible - but it doesn't change that a salesperson can claim "it weighs more, so you'll receive less impact energy" - in a more eloquent way of course

That, and crash test ratings are not comparable over different weight classes :/

I understand where you're coming from - and I also understand that it's very well within engineering capability to make a lighter car handle impacts better. But that's not what a great deal of the people buying cars are thinking - it's also not the sales line that's being pushed in the states :/

[itjstagame]

Originally Posted by northboundtrain

I think it is total bs to say that the american public doesn't want fuel efficiency. We have come to expect a certain degree of performance/acceleration and safety from our cars to be sure, but it is the manufacturers who are not delivering. Here's the car I would design and build if I were in charge of a major manufacturer:

- Basic sedan or hatch/wagon.
- Four doors, seats 5
- 1.3/1.4 liter engine 85-95 hp
- 6 speed manual tranny with typical gearing for 1-5 and 6 being the highway gear that puts the overall final drive ratio at approx 2.25:1
- 2,200 - 2,400 lb. curb weight
- 4-5 star crash ratings
- 0.25 drag coefficient (same as Insight, not hard to do)
- offered in base, no frills model
- starts at $15k, same as a civic or corolla.

EPA MPG would easily be 40 city / 50 highway. This is such a no-brainer, it would sell like crazy, and there isn't a single manufacturer doing it. Why not!!?? I say it's because they want us to think we have to pay $20k+ for the "fuel efficient technology" of hybrids. If they offered the car I just spec'd then guess what would happen to prius and civic hybrid sales and their profits?

I have a recent posting that compares gear ratios in hybrids vs non-hybrids, and what I've found leads me to believe that the manufacturers are deliberately witholding a very basic fuel saving concept from their "economy" line ups: http://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=5204

My thoughts exactly and to me that'd be baseline and on up we'd offer a 1.0L Turbo Diesel with hybrid electric motors to the other set of drive wheels. Hybrid really is a great technology and significantly helps with city driving.

Another issue is that most Americans do not drive standard anymore. I think in this regard the CVT is a great help. It seems to me they should be more efficient then standard even, I really like the prospect of this technology.

I worry you can't make a car that can comfortably seat 5 that is that light and still safe 'enough' now a days. I mean cars were VERY light in the 80s but now you need extra steel and crumple zones and air bags and air bag computers. Safety equipment adds a lot of weight and now people are coming to expect that equipment.

I really hate the mentality that driving a large SUV or truck is safer, that's ONLY true BECAUSE they drive it. What I mean is, if no one drove such vehicles then smaller vehicles would be safe. I mean the only thing bigger on the road is an tractor trailer or construction vehicle and they'll destroy an SUV no problem anyway.

As for trucks, they always cost $30k.

I think the angle of showing that thinner, healthier people drive smaller cars has some merit. Our country has a big stigma when it comes to being overweight. This reminds me of the local police chief (friend of the family) telling me once that they hated Chevy for stopping the full size caprices. They tried using the new Impalas but some of the officers... need more room :-). So they stick with Crown Vics.

As for Americans wanting luxury.... what is with the sunroof craze? The ONLY vehicles I see now a days WITHOUT sunroofs are pickups, and even now, Cadillac and the Avalanche have sunroofs. Why? That's a fair bit of extra weight, not to mention the frame and body strengthening to keep the crash tests up to snuff with a sunroof installed. And of course power windows (which are basically standard on all cars at this point) add at least 10-30lbs/door. I don't know why these are so common now a days, they're not even my idea of luxury, fake wood panelling and leather seats do not add all that much weight comparetively.

[MorningGaser]

Originally Posted by northboundtrain

I think it is total bs to say that the american public doesn't want fuel efficiency. We have come to expect a certain degree of performance/acceleration and safety from our cars to be sure, but it is the manufacturers who are not delivering.

Sorry but I think you have it backwards....car companies make the cars the market demands, not the other way around. These days the US market still demands too big, too heavy, and too powerful.

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by MorningGaser

Sorry but I think you have it backwards....car companies make the cars the market demands, not the other way around. These days the US market still demands too big, too heavy, and too powerful.

You can't just say something like that either way. There is much more too it than can be summed up in one sentence, and anyone who tries to talk about such relationships and pretends to know the answer is likely full of crap anyway...

[swng]

IMHO,the Toyota Yaris is already selling quite well in North America. I think if it can be ordered with electronic stability control and more other safety features (the Canadian version has, as yet, no side/curtain air bags), it can become even more popular among the students and their parents, and many other drivers. A turbo or supercharged version will make it hotter among the younger buyers, and an all wheel drive version will make it more welcome in the northern parts of N.A. A luxurious version, say with things like a GPS guided navigating system, a good sound system and more other automated features and gadgets will make it more desirable to the well to do people. A technically advanced version, say with a hybrid drive and/or the CVT will make it more sought after by the technically/envirnomentally minded ones. A diesel version will make FE minded people like me drool.
I think the same should apply to other similar small cars, like the Honda Fit and the Chevy Aveo.
This far, I think the Mercedes B Class is one that may have the necessary attributes to ensure its own success in the states when it becomes available there (I think it has become so or is becoming so soon). Too bad, its price is relatively high.