Safer drivers
 

It would take a paradigm shift in the way people drive their battle cruisers.

I have plenty of friends who drove smaller Saturns or Civics through college, but as soon as they could afford it (car payment wise) got big SUVs. Why? They always felt like they were going to get smashed by a battle cruiser driving 80mph on their rear bumper.

I don't think the price of gas is going to make a big enough difference. For example, Nissan is building trucks in the US because it's the only real market they have. This happened while the price of gas was edging up to $3 a gallon.

MA4T

BS. Shared some design w/323... but not built by Mazda. Very much a Ford. Which owns a big chunk of Mazda.

BS again. I had a friend who had a mid-80s Lynx wagon; I drove it, and at the time liked it (my ride at the time was a 67 289 Mustang). Her Lynx was pretty decent, and she put a LOT more that 70K on it.

My experience with 2 mid-90s Escort/Tracer wagons... is that they're pretty good cars. Engines aren't as smooth/refined as 16V Toyotas/Nissans of the time, but it is reliable and works well. A failed time belt won't destroy the motor, and it is easy to replace. The Wagons are a good value, with excellent FE. My last tank returned 38.48mpg.

Expensive fuel, apparently.

He stole my line. :D

The only other thing would be to offer a 100 MPG car^H^H^H SUV with A/C and multiple DVD players.

Honestly sheeple buy whatever the talking box tells them to. Now that Japanese cars are designed and built in the US, they have wide acceptance. Hondas are now huge, not gas sippers. Only another oil crunch will make small cars acceptable.

They need to make them not look so damn ugly. Most of the good gas mileage cars are disgusting the exceptions would be the civic hybrid and the prius.

Most people including myself don't want to drive an ugly car. Call it what you like, but most people are not going to spend 15k on something they think is ugly. I don't see why they can't make beautiful looking small cars.

Hmmm yes the Battle Cruiser problem...

I definitely get cut off and tailgated less in the Voyager than the Escort. When BC tailgaters make me sufficiently nervous though I just lift off the gas until they come past, right off, slow down to 30, 20, whatever until they come past. Or I start tossing empty coffee cups out the window muhuhahahaaaaa.

I have an idea though. Anybody ever watch "Robot Wars" or a similar show, where quite often, these relatively small, manoeuverable, low to the ground, wedge sided robots would run rings around the big, battering, multi weaponed behemoths and tip and flip them, and push them around.... That's what we need in a small car... low, wedge sided and reinforced, then advertised like "Look how it tears the undercarriage right off this SUV and launches it into a concrete overpass, rendering a horrific flaming death on the careless SUV driver...."

white90crxhf -

That's a very good point. There are a lot of cars that I think would be good candidates for economy drivetrains. Why not make a "green" Scion TC with a base Corolla drivetrain? The closest I saw to this was the last Toyota Celica, which got 28/33 (old EPA) MPG in a base model.

I really wish the current Mitsubishi Eclipse came in a "green" version :
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/photo..._Eclipse_2.jpg

I'm not a Mini fan, but at least they are offering a 37/40 MPG version this year.

CarloSW2

The Mazda MX-3 with the 1.6 wasn't too bad, that one might respond to some tinkering. Don't forget you could have the Saturns in coupe form too. Since you can put the BP engines in MX3s, I wonder also if you could put the 1.9 Escort motor in them, since the Escort GT has a 1.8 BP motor. Not sure there would be a whole lot of point doing that over just driving it in the Escort, would have to compare Cd etc. There was the ZX2 escort of course, but it got a slightly sportier and thirstier motor.

Edit: oh the Probe was meant to have a very low Cd, wonder what options there are for a sippier drivetrain in that.

Edit2: Hmmm just looked the 93 up 2.0 was better for mpg, it appears that 93 only had the F4EAT auto tranny, I know you can get different final drive ratios for that, so it's potentially possible that a different final drive would improve it. Also, motor was set up for sporty midrange pull, some playing with the cam timing might give it low end lug. Yep I'd figure 35mpg in a '93 auto is possible with some relatively minor tinkering, swap GT body mouldings to it for better aero too..

RoadWarrior -

That is egg-zactly why my first Saturn was the 1997 SC2 coupe. A 27/37 (old EPA) MPG right out the door. The best of both worlds, *and* made in the USA.

Right now I am talking about new cars with 0 mods, i.e. choices in the marketplace. Other than the Mini, I can't think of any "sporty" car that delivers the goods. My criteria is the same as my 1997 coupe, 27/37 (old EPA) MPG.

CarloSW2

whats that saturn sky 2 seater roadstaer thing? i kinda like the looks and it has like around a 25K pricetag which isnt bad at all for a sporty looking car:)

VetteOwner -

Yeah, the Sky would be a another good candidate for an "economy" commuter version. But just like the Scion TC, it's base configuration is 20/28 old EPA MPG, or 17/26 new EPA MPG. My first test for a car is the city MPG. I won't even look at a car below 25 MPG city. Obviously, my choices end up being few and far between, :o .

CarloSW2

Wrong parameter. The question is: ?what would it take to make fuel-efficient vehicles more desirable??

There are small cars that get disgraceful mileage. Even pickups and SUVs have the potential for fairly good fuel economy. Even the high-performance Corvette is easily capable of 30+ MPG if driven conservatively. All of the various types of vehicles exist to fill a perceived niche. Manufacturers build cars because people buy them. Before we get too wrapped around the axle, please note that Prius and Yaris are selling briskly. Used Prius, Insights, and VW TDIs command a premium while SUVs languish on the lots. Note what every manufacturer is advertising hard ? SUVs. They are trying desperately to sell these sales turkeys. The truly fuel-efficient vehicles get snapped up as fast as they arrive.

Gas and diesel prices are working this magic as we palaver.

I think the association of small, slow, uncomfortable and unsafe cars with high fuel economy does the latter a huge disservice. Rather than to force ?Soccer-Mom? into a Yaris (that she thinks is a death-trap) why not refine the minivan into a fuel efficient vehicle? It is a whole lot easier to work with people?s perceptions than to reform them.

I do agree with part of beatr911?s initial post. A big part of the problem is the fuel-wasting torque-converter automatic transmission. I personally would not have an automatic, but it is not the manual shifting I foavor but the positive lockup you get from a clutch as opposed to a torque converter. Locking torque converters are only a halfway measure that drastically reduce the service life of the automatic transmission. The long term answer is a transmission that mates the positive lockup of a clutch with a shifting mechanism that does not require the dexterity of a manual. People prefer to drink coffee or blab on the cell phone than shift gears. You can?t change people. Change the vehicle. F1 cars shift gears without using the clutch (the clutch is only for the initial launch). When the driver shifts the ignition interrupts the power delivery long enough for the transmission to shift. Something like that needs to be worked out for the street. Just losing the torque converter would probably raise fleet fuel economy by 2 MPG.

Rather than convincing everyone to buy a Prius, why not endeavor to make cars that can do more than just the commute mission that get good MPG? It is an axiom of automotive design that ?anybody can make a Ferrari but it takes genius to make VW or Model T.? where that analogy speaks to cost, the same can be applied to vehicle size. Any knucklehead can make a itty-bitty deathtrap that gets 60 MPG. What takes skill is a vehicle that carries out a wide range of missions and still get 35 MPG. And that vehicle is exactly what is needed.

BTW, vehicles in the US are designed assuming unbelted occupants due to litigation. The assumption of unbelted occupants and the weight penalty are just the price of (legal) defensive engineering.

An obstacle to more efficient automatics is consumer perceptions of what an auto should feel like. An auto for maximum efficiency and longevity should shift firmly, not spend two seconds grinding clutches and bands together as it slushes out of one gear into another. Wastes energy and grinds off friction material. Lost count of the number of aquaintances that come boasting of a great deal they got on a car, "shifts like butter" they say, then a couple of months later they're getting it towed to the wreckers or getting a $$$ tranny job, as I'm giving them a ride somewhere, due to their brokenass car, they'll politely comment that maybe they could get Fred their favorite transmission guy (who makes $$$ off them like as not) to take a look at mine for me, since they can...SHOCK...HORROR...feel it shifting... at which point I laugh somewhat hysterically and inform them I did severe duty shift kit modifications to my transmission and filled it up with Universal Tractor Fluid that has a superior package of friction modifiers... they kind of go silent at this point and look at me like I'm mad.... Honestly I've tried to help them... they mention they might have detected a faint slip, and I haul them down to a parts store, buy new fluid and filter, help 'em change it, and add a bottle of Lucas transmission fix for good measure... and they are mortified to find out that it now seems to shift somewhat firmly OMG nooooooo!!!!!! So they think I've messed up their car and drive it around for the next 2 years (which is usually some sort of record for them keeping a working car) expecting it to explode at any second....

Well eventually we will all be in FE vehicles but just like always we will be 10 years behind the rest of the world. If we could jump 10 years ahead right now by bringing over the high mileage vehicles the rest of the world enjoys, it would sure help...but US Makers need to build them to keep our economy stable. We just don't need to import more than we already do.

The ability to fit 2 adults, 2 kids and 2 giant dogs.

AND luggage

I've said it before, but...I'd like to see the el-strippo models make a comeback. Getting rid of 200lbs worth of power crap that's just waiting to break at some point or another anyway would have so many benefits it's not even funny. The cars would be lighter, cheaper to buy, cheaper and easier to maintain, quicker, and get better economy.

my thoughts too... ESPECIALLY power seats i mean my god how hard is it to lift/slide a lever and go from full forward to full backward in 1/2 a second?:mad:

but anyways, people are lazy VERY lazy nowadays...turning a crank to get some arm excersize is now a huge deal, rolling down the window and adjusting the mirrors (i LOVED the interior knob of the 70-80's cars best idea ever) that you usually only have to do what once a year? power locks ehh don't really need em but good safety thing. but like power side doors and rear hatches no screw that, get some arm muscle!!! or power fold seats wtf... pretty soon were going to have power rear view mirrors...

really to make small cars more desirable only way to do that is to have sime incentives to have ppl come test drive them/people ride in em.

like i keep saying from the outside the chevette looks TINY yet im 6'3" and can fit comfortably in the back seats with the fronts all the way forward...

to get people to like small cars they have to be in em, its like people say they don't like chineese food but have never tried it but have heard "stories" about it lol

also car companies have to make em look sporty, super neat interior design, available power features and whatnot... they have to look appealing...

Actually, power seats have their virtues...the ability to raise/lower the seat, front or back or both at the same time as well as move the seat. A good way to stay just a little more alert on long drives. Saves legs from going to sleep. Also like tilt/telescoping steering wheels. Unfortunately there is not always a rest stop when you need one...

Whadadya mean soon? My '84 Lincoln came with one! Well...an automatic headlight sensing power day/night mirror, anyway. Power locks...well, on my Geo that would be like power steering on a Corvair...but they make sense on a big car. Power outside mirrors make some sense...especially for the passenger side. Other mentioned items are good for handicapped or elderly people...most of us can probably get by without them just fine.

But can someone the same height as you drive and you still be comfortable in back? When I had my Chevette, a certain 5'10" passenger I often carried in back would wind up playing footsie w/my butthole! Ugh! (BTW, I have nothing but respect for Chevettes...mine, while it broke often, was just so easy to fix that it kept on like the Energizer Bunny! Drove it for seven years, put nearly 200k miles on it~~it had over 250k on it when I sold it--still running. A rare thing for me...I usually completely wear out cars!)

Also make them easier for handicapped/elderly/overweight people to get into and out of...I can get into and out of my Geo just fine, but some people close to me unfortunately cannot...that's why I still keep my Cadillac...

I don't think that power options are really that significant when it comes to weight. Small high speed motors with very low gear ratios add only ounces to each power accessory.

Most of the added weight in vehicles today is structural.

That may be true. Still, just as a "lifestyle" choice, I prefer no a/c, no radio, manual brakes and steering, no carpet, maybe no heat, etc. This POV came to me from getting into ol' skool 50's hot rods built out of '20's and '30's cars which were far from ornate to begin with and further stripped of everything from carpet to fenders (remember, these were the ol full-fendered bodies), hoods, door panels and door glass for weight savings. Plus it's amazing how reliable a car becomes when there's nothing on it to break ;)

As someone who is 6'8" 300lbs . Don't really need bigger, just a different dash layout. :)

I once tried to squeeze into a Dodge Neon. Plenty of head room, seat all the way back Fit into the car right nicely. The Dash board was so low, I could not touch the gas petal. :mad:

The Saturn Station Wagon. Head room :thumbdown: , I did manged to fit behind the wheel in that one. After the sales weasel laid the seat all the way back. Yep, talk about safety.

The passenger side of small cars are not much better. I do not relish the idea of the airbag exploding into my knees which are pressing into the dash. Or my femur being shoved through my hips shattering those.

My favorite is the time a Toyota Pirus owner cut into me about my gas hog. A V-8 Cadillac Eldarodo 1989. (As a side note, best gas millage I've ever had in a car.) I politely asked if I could see the interior of the car. There was no way the seat could be all the way back. It was. Asked the driver if he thought I had any chance of fitting behind the wheel. He sheepishly said no. Turned into a rather nice eco conversation. All I ask is safety, no leg fatigue or cramps. (I can force it by holding my leg at an odd angle on some cars but after about 30 miles, I just want to die.:eek: )

I hope to have an 2000 to 2003 Impala by this fall. My driving habits should have me around 25 MGP AVG. 7 more than I get now. I can't comfortably sit behind the wheel of the 2004 - 2008. I've tired.

OM

My wife's brother was an inch or two shorter than you and maybe fifty pounds heavier.. He didn't fit into cars either.. Mostly he rode motorcycles, a Honda V45 Magna was his last one, I think he had about 150K miles on it when he passed away a few years ago.

Seat belts aren't designed for someone your size either.. :thumbdown:

Tell me about it. My poor neck. Things have been better in the Caddy.

1980 Olds Cutlas. Nice friendly (donkey) police officer :thumbdown: pulled me over because he could not see my seat belt from behind. :eek: I do wear the thing. I'm uncomfortable without it.

Well anyway, once he saw I was wearing it, suggested I have the car modified so it would be easier to see, and I would not get pulled over.

I had a better idea. I just stayed out of that county. No problems since.:cool:



1989 Cadillac Eldorado 15 / 24 ~ 18 New EPA 18 Avg with E10

Yeah, I find those tight, have to drive with my knees splayed or I can't get the pedals for my shins hitting the bottom of the dash.

Fit okay in my Escort, kept trying to headbutt the sun visor when leaning forward to see out of intersections, but got used to it. Rearview mirror could use an inch or two more height, seems like it's in the middle of the windshield sometimes.

To me, the problem with the smaller cars is a lack of RWD and features. The Civic is by far the closest though (Hyundai is pretty close behind) with navigation, great sound system, moon roof, leather trimmed seats (Hyundai has full leather seats in the Elantra), great mileage and a good fit and finish: almost enough to make me look past the FWD platform.

The economy cars (american makes anyways) always seem to have a crappy fit and finish and never enough features. They make them as a 'Point A to Point B' car which is boring for most.

ok, I dont even fit comfortably in a neon, feels like im sitting on the floor lookin over my knees to drive...

ive rode in the back seat of a prius numerous times and was not satisfied at all... i had to spread my knees out and they were still diggin into the sides of the seat while my butt was going numb:(

my student driver car was a 2001 impalla, i liked the ride and the general layout of stuff. seemed the seat was always in an odd position and took 5 years (so it seemed) to adjust the seat so i could climb in the car. I liked how the power steering was there but not so crazy, you still had to give it a bit of force which is what i like, i hate cars with such powerful power steering it feels like your in an arcade racing wheel...id recommend one.

LOL.. My wife's first car was a '72 Toyota Corolla, tiny little thing with a 1.6 that looked just like half of a Chrysler Hemi, she got it when she graduated HS and I taught her to drive in it (4 spd)..

Five of us drove six hundred miles to Florida in it, the only person under 6' was my wife and she is 5' 9"..

That was a great little car.. RWD too, fwiw.. No AC, no power anything, but I put the very first Pioneer Supertuner cassette deck ever made in it along with four two way speakers (Jensen?)..

Had great tunes for the era..

You do know that thing did it fact have hemispherical chambers right?

The 'T' series engines used in those corollas were true HEMI engines. A friend of mine put a Dodge bumper sticker on his with the ram cut off that said 'Yeah, it's a hemi'. I'll tell you tho, that little OHV engine can really take a beating. He overrevved that engine and overheated it like 5 times because of a bad radiator before it got replaced and everything at like 230K miles and it still never burned oil or lost a head gasket.

The 89 Cadillac is a FWD, and I've really enjoyed the handling over a RWD. I don't really see the need to go back, other than more room to do the basic maintenance myself. I hate not being able to change all the spark plugs. While my arms are small for my body type, I just can't reach down on the back side of the motor.

I bought a 72 BMW 2002 hit in the rear for $300 with $1200 in reciepts in the glove box from the last month.

Also had a Hemi engine I think, nice running and driving car.

What will make small cars desirable?

$5 a gallon gas and 57 MPG.

regards
gary

I figured it did but wasn't completely sure.. Wouldn't make much sense to build such a complicated and large cylinder head/valve train for just a wedge chamber..