My wife’s co-workers were absolutely puzzled as to why I held out for a stick shift when buying my Cruze a couple of years ago. To this day, most people still can’t believe I didn’t ge the auto.
I’ll bet @DrRocket you remain steadfast in your decision that the stick was and is the better choice.
Of course. I learned to drive in my dad’s '62 Ford Falcon with a 6 cyl and “three on the tree” and later his '65 Chevy half ton with same setup. The only reason that some of my car purchases (My 2001 Buick Regal, for example.) had automatics was that they never were offered with a stick.
Oh yeah, I recall those 60’s Ford Falcons. It was a quite popular car. A lot of them on the road at the time. I had an old 62 Ford Galaxy straight-6 w/3-on-the-tree. Easy to shift, an overall good car to learn on, for a beginning driver, and a beginning shade tree fix-it-yourselfer.
I have never owned a new car or made a car payment, but I would love to have a brand new, old style vw bug, that I could afford to save for and pay cash. much safer than a motor cycle, as rod knox suggested. …and triedac , I cookout with fallen branches and tree trimmings, charcoal is so expensive!
You can get a new(er) classic Beetle via Latin America. Made until '03, IIRC.
Problem is, they aren’t legal for import due to not meeting a whole bunch of EPA/DOT regs. So, you have to buy a US used bug, import “auto parts,” and either swap all the new stuff over to the old frame (legal) or swap the US vin over to the Mexibug (illegal!)
Our current federal government is repleat with enormous regulating agencies focused on growing themselves and on generating more and more regulations, regardlesss of their cost. I believe their approach is counterproductive. It adds so much to the cost of new cars that millions who might be driving a newer vehicle can no longer afford to buy, and are thus driving old beaters.
In summary, I believe the regulations in this country are far too ubiquitous and overbearing to allow the manufacturers to produce inexpensive basic cars, like VW did many decades ago. If they could, I blieve there are millions of low income and college-student types who would welcome and buy such vehicles. And I bleive the manufacturers could sell them profitably. But if you need to spen $4000 per vehicle meeting government regulations, it’s pretty tough to make a profitable $8000 vehicle. You have to make a $30,000 vehicle to amortize those regulatory costs. NOTE: numbers are to il;lustarte the point; I make no claim to their accuracy.
You make the point quite lucidly, @tsm. There is surely a market for simple, reliable, practical vehicles but the efforts to improve safety and increase fuel mileage have become so twisted by the bureaucracies meant to protect us that we are letting the tail wag the dog. Who recalls when and why lawn mowers were required to have the “dead man switch” on the handle. The regulating agencies do seem to make a great ($$$$) effort to justify their existence by continuously adding to their volumes of regulations.
It seems strange to me to assume government bureaucrats are anything but dedicated public servants. Yes, there are corrupt public servants, but why would anyone assume they are anything more than a minority? Some might say that modifying regulations and administrative laws is their job. It’s what the people’s elected Congress gave them the power to do.
@Whitey…leaving aside the issue of corruption, what about competency? Remeber the adage “when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail?” Well, when you pass legislation as a full-time job, every problem looks amenable to a legislative solution…regardless of whether or not legislation is the most “elegant” solution to the problem, or any sort of unintended consequences.
Leaving the US aside, surely we can all agree that leislation with crippling perverse incentives were passed in several East-bloc nations. I do not doubt that most of these were approved in good faith by somewhat myopic apparatchicks.
@TSM, good point about too-stringent regs backfiring by keeping folks out of a “safer” new car because they can’t afford a “safest” one. “The beat is the enemy of the good” and all that.
…which brings me back to myopic legislators, almost all of whom belong to a socioeconomic class where, if they WANT a new car, they get one. They can be expected to be pretty tone-deaf to the dowsides of costly legislation, because said downsides aren’t anything they’re likely to have experienced personally.
@GeorgeSanJose
I found your bare bones car without A/C and a manual transmission sold in the US market:
Porsche Boxster Spyder.
No A/C. No radio.
Doesn’t even have door handles, just pull straps.
Manual convertible top that you have to unfold and rig it into place.
I would have recommended the Porsche Cayman R, but I think you would have been upset to learn that it costs more than the Boxster, even though it has an integrated roof, unlike the Boxster.
So there you go.
If you want basic transportation in the US market that doesn’t include A/C and a radio, you have to pay $60k+ for it.
BC.
Most government agencies eventually devolve to become fiefdoms with self preservation and aggrandizement being their primary functions.
@Bladecutter … I was looking at used Porsche Boxsters actually. CR says they are quite reliable as used cars, and for the reason you mention, frills took second place in the car’s engineering design considerations. And being a cheapo myself, these used Boxsters are really quite cheap. A 10 year old Boxster is about the same price as a restored, daily driver air cooled (60’s, 70’s) VW Beetle, often the Boxsters are even less pricey than the Beetles. The downside to the used Boxster is that future repair and maintenance is going to cost considerably more than the air cooled Beetle. But I totally agree, the Boxster deserves consideration from those of us looking for a car that delivers the performance & reliability you get with a manual xmission, no AC, manual door locks, and without unnecessary add-ons.
@RodKnox & those commenting on excessive regulations for auto vendors … you folks definitely have a good point. While I may differ on one issure or another – for example I think it is good to require that auto vendors take reasonable steps to keep air pollution to a minimum – one reason I have to agree w/you that cars have become over-regulated is that the regulations are not consistent. By this I mean if a car is required to have electronic tire pressure guages, 8 airbags, anti-lock brakes, and stability control, then why are these same requirements not put on motorcycles? Even further, if the gov’t believes it best that everybody to be absolutely safe no matter what it costs to achieve, why even allow motorcyles, known to be less safe to drive than cars, on the road?
“Most government agencies eventually devolve to become fiefdoms with self preservation and aggrandizement being their primary functions.”
How do you know that? Which ones, exactly, do it, and how is it done?
I’ll start at the top, @jtsanders. The Pentagon has been a financial black hole for several decades as it added layer after layer of near useless bureaucrats who were tasked with justifying virtually useless programs and weapons systems. How many of the WW II bases that remain in use sucking up $billions annually are worthwhile? How much of the Pentagon’s budget is spent on what should be called lobbying? How often are decisions on base closings and weapons procurement used to squeeze objectionable votes from senators and representatives? Currently there is an effort to consolidate the uniforms across the military branches
but consider what has already been wasted on the vanity of the stars at the Pentagon.
@GeorgeSanJose - assuming you’re not joking, you’d undo the safety improvements that have cut automotive road deaths by 80% since 1960, simply because you can’t do the same for motorcycles? Sounds like cutting off your nose (actually, killing a lot of folks) despite your face…
When does it stop? I think besides the shoulder belts,occupant cage and crumple zones ,the rest is superfluous.WHY NOT LIMIT THE TOP SPEEDS OF AUTOS?( I realize that speed causes no more deaths then a static gun,but think opportunity and circumstance.Alot of fun things are illegal now,because a few couldnt be reponsible and behave themselves as far as big brother deciding what we can have,I’m not for it.I see all these pompous individuals.pontificating often(while oft times they will indulge in the pleasures,they deny the masses,can only think hippocrite.A lot of these individuals have never soiled their hands in honest toil-Kevin
I would use a golf cart for in town driving if it was legal, Thinking a propane heater for winter using the prefab plastic windows available.