Here is a link to the Cost and Weight Added by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for Model Years 1968-2001 in Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.
@JoesGarage
Though I am in the total minority, I personally feel it is possible to market a reasonably priced electric car with out rebates with a range of over 100 miles. But, it’s not a profit maker for car companies and neither are very cheap efficient little petro burning cars. IMHO, it’s that simple. As far as safe cars are concerned; it’s a dream world to think any car that failed all crash tests of today for lack of airbags or structural integrity would sell at all. It would be panned so quickly, you would be lucky to sell them as anchors. That’s a mute point as all cars, regardless of what ever weight is added, WILL be made demonstratively safe enough to sell by any manufacturer. All cars wll have pollution controls and have to last longer in the systems that support these mandates. The bottom line is, Metros, regardless of their performances and cars like them…just aren’t good enough overall compared to what else is now available. Columbo types including our own and anyone else nostalgically remembering the best of the past can say what ever they want about a Metro being a “good” car. They just like them like I really miss the Fiat Strata (aka Yugo) too. It ain’t selling now either. It’s another case of. “the older we are, the better we were”…probably cause of our failing memories. ;=)
Oh, I really miss my old 1982 Mazda B2000 over my present 4Runner because it got 4 more miles per gallon and put my back in perpetual traction. Noooooooo !
Thank you Garage for the link. I’m sold, as least as far as the added weight and cost of safety systems.
@db4690, I had no problem fitting into the Move, nor did my associate. I said nothing about cramped quarters, It is a noisy tin can with a very small engine. And I think most people have a misconception about Japanese bodies. While they and most other foreigners are generally thinner than Americans, they aren’t shorter. I saw a lot of men and a few women ove 6’ tall.
@jtsanders
Fine . . . so the Japanese are tall
I still say those tiny cars are too wimpy to haul an average overweight American family, or four overweight american adults . . . without being an obstruction to other traffic
I don't think it's trolling. I do think meanjoe is a pot calling the kettle black.@cigroller: You and I have been on opposite ends of some pretty intense debates, ones where each of us has stepped away for a breather. That's all well and good, and in the spirit of a healthy debate. I have no quarrel with that, or you.
MY quarrel with Joes Garage is that 1) He comes here asking us to ANSWER a question for him. No “let’s have a debate…”, “what are the pros and cons…” etc. He asks; we attempt to answer; he smacks down all comers (who, it should be noted, ALL gave him roughly the same answer). 2) When his personal biases become revealed–in this and other threads–it becomes clear that his intent in posting this question is to proselytize.that IS trolling, by definition. 3) The snarky comment about “getting priorities in order” when he didn’t get the answer he had hoped for. For a “johnny-come-lately” to get kvetchy to long-standing members IN HIS FIRST THREAD is beyond the pale, and WHOLLY consistent with troll behavior. Frankly, I think he owes all of us an apology!
I think there is some industry pressure that markets what we want rather than what we need.
Really?? Wow. That “some…pressure” you refer to is called MAXIMIZING SHAREHOLDER PROFITS. It’s the whole purpose behind any corporation…not improving society, not saving the whales, or whatever. You seem to suggest that firms could maximize profits by selling cheap rolling hairshirts that US consumers have consistently failed to buy over the last 60 years.
If I put a numerical value on the ratio between “my faith in every automotive CEO’s plan to maximize shareholder revenue” : “my faith in YOUR plan to maximize shareholder revenue,” it would need to expressed in exponential form: something like 2.47 X 10^77!
(@Joes Garage: You really should take an ECON 101 course sometime…it would keep you from making nonsensical comments like “why don’t manufacturers make cars everybody needs, but nobody wants?”)
“I think there is some industry pressure that markets what we want rather than what we need.”
Yep, that’s the beauty here, we can buy what we “want” not necessarily what others think we “need”. I’m detecting a little “from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs” philosophy.
I'm detecting a little "from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs" philosophy.No kidding...though I heard they've changed their credo to "THIS time, it's gonna be different!"
It really isn’t about price, btw. With rebates, year-end clearances, etc. the cheapest cars aren’t much over $12k. But those are slow sellers like the Spark and Nissan Versa. The problem is that the smallest cars aren’t much cheaper than the next size up. Size alone isn’t what makes cars expensive, or the Scion IQ would be absurdly cheap, instead of just absurdly small. Most of the time I could get by with a Sonic or Fiesta or Yaris, but we do sometimes have visitors and do longish trips with them, of several hours, at least. For around $16k you can get a Fit that will carry four tall people in decent comfort. For a couple of thousand more you can get a nicely equipped small car with satellite radio and seat heaters that will be quiet and relaxing for long days on the freeway. That’s very affordable for most people. A Metro that met current safety regs would be $12k, maybe discounted to $10k at times. Its freeway gas mileage (mostly a matter of aerodynamics) would not be any better than more powerful cars, it would ride badly and be blown into the next lane by passing trucks. A friend still has, and loves, his Metro, but he is a little guy and rarely leaves San Francisco.
Interesting report from NHSTA but way outdated. Since that report, we’ve added TPMS, Stability Control (effectively adding ABS) and improved crash protection. The EPA has mandated stricter emission controls since 2001 and we can’t forget CAFE standards. Each department mandates have added cost to each car being built. Add in the IHS testing done privately that no manufacturer wants to disappoint. All add cost.All add weight. CAFE regs force the use of more expensive, lightweight materials in the smallest and cheapest cars pushing prices up. This makes new cars and trucks cleaner and safer, by far, than any Metro, Yugo or Tata Nano (super cheap car from India) could ever achieve.
Another point to consider; compare a $60,000 Lexus with a Scion iQ for $16,000. The basic car has essentially the same bits needed to make a car. The Lexus has a few more because it is larger and has more gadgets. Arguably, the engineering development is similar because small cars are tough to package and source since they are so price sensitive while the Lexus has cool, highly engineered features. The Lexus has more and somewhat better materials used to make it but not 3.8 times more. The labor required to build the Lexus is not 3.8 times more. On the ground, the total COST to create the Lexus is not 3.8 times that of the iQ. The PRICE is based on what the car is worth to the people who buy. A big fancy car is worth $60K, the itsy little car is worth $16K. The profit made on the Lexus is big, the iQ is very small.
The iQ can’t be made cheaper yet meet regs and the customer’s demands for a safe car with OK power, A/C, automatic, cruise, iPod dock, fancy radio. The carmaker wants to sell a bunch of the little cars because they need the mileage credits to be able to sell more high profit, low mileage luxury cars and they can’t MAKE people buy the little cars.
My point in all this is, government regs, peoples expectations and engineering/manufacturing reality all converge in one place, the cars being offered to the public. For all the folks that whine about the lack of simple, cheap, reliable cars, there are 100 buyers who actually BUY the iQ’s of the world, 75 of whom would really rather have the Lexus someday.
Ok @meanjoe75fan, I can see where you’re coming from on that. Perhaps I didn’t think of it as so “ornery” because I’m not as unsympathetic to what I “read” Joes Garage concerns to be. I just think he’s not articulating it much, so I suppose that may be the problem. Or perhaps I’m reading into it too much. Who knows.
But as someone who would probably not be considered a basic “mainstream” consumer, my own experience with getting what “I want” in the world is just plain frustrating. And many discussions on this board can be frustrating - largely because there is too much Econ 101 in it. By that I mean a lot of things, but one of them is just this faith that all markets can do is provide what consumers demand. Well, sort of.
“Demand” isn’t some spontaneous natural force of the billions expressing their will. And awful lot of money is spent on a regular basis to produce and shape demand. Every marketing professional knows this so it’s not some kind of renegade or “uninformed” thought. I don’t think of the economy as most driven by spontaneous consumer “demand.” I actually think of it as the reverse and the auto industry has actually been integral in building the demand to meet its supply. That’s the job of marketing professionals, after all. And, as stuck up as it may sound, most consumers are basically sheep, but at least partly owing to the huge asymmetries in many market sectors. The auto sector is certainly one of those.
Nor is much of the economy organized as true “markets” to begin with I don’t think of an economy as being either a market or not. Places times and sectors have more or less market to them. And there’s a lot less market in autos than there is in, say iPhone apps or music. But more than in, say, utility provision.
Now please don’t “straw man” all of this. Simplistic Econ 101 stuff has its place. But it produces distorted half-pictures of the real, lived economy.
Blah blah blah…anyway, the thing about “industry pressure,” for example, does express something very real. In most every econ sector with at least some market to it, yes, companies get dragged around by consumers, but consumers also get dragged around by companies. And the less market there is, the more it is the industry dragging around the consumers (recalling that I do see them as sheep, so they are happy while they get dragged around because they get bling). The auto sector is not one that lends itself to companies easily getting dragged around by consumers, and I think Joes Garage is feeling a little dragged around. And as always they spend very large parts of their budgets in marketing.
Cig, I’m comfortable with the push-pull that goes on between the consumers and the manufacturers. That’s the way the industry works. My frustration is when the governments (federal, state, and local) abuse their power to drag both the consumers (who have limited ability to counter the abuse) and the industry (who has the power of lobbying and, in many cases, the power of the media to counter the government).
A clear example relevant to this thread is the dealer lobbies getting state legislators to pass statutes preventing Tesla from selling under a different business model than the one their locked into. A different business model may be a factor in whether Tesla, an ultimately EVs, can compete in the marketplace. Trying a different business model should not be prohibited by protective regulations. Doing so is artificial manipulation of the market. IMHO that is not what our legislators should be doing.
In fairness, while I made this comment in response to Joes Garage’s post, I don’t think that was his point. If I understood him correctly, I believe he was suggesting additional government support of EVs and perhaps hybrid technologies. As much as I’m averse to government manipulation of the marketplace, I’m also averse to using our tax dollars to artificially support a particular player in the automotive marketplace. I don’t believe that’s the purpose of, or a legitimate function of, our tax dollars. I know from experience that this post runs the risk of bringing up old debates about bailouts, government backed loans, other subsidies, and maybe even the financial industry, but I sincerely hope the replys are kept within the realm of the title of the thread. I believe I’ve kept true to my principles in all cases.
mountain, I’m completely with you on the Tesla issue. That’s just industry using its ample resources to try to rig things in its favor. I’d also mention though, that this has been an integral part of the story of business in the US. Not in all sectors, but certainly in the major industrial sectors. If there was any “golden age” of reasonably free markets it was prior to about 1850.
It’s actually for that reason that I’m not necessarily opposed, in principle, to any and all forms of state action. The state action has actually been there all along, even if people try to erase that part from memory, and even if historians don’t tell it very well. So left alone, a lot of things actually do become industry dragging things around - even more so. For the regular folk of the world, without the same kind of ability to control markets and influence the state, the only real chance is - ironically - the state. So I simply don’t see a world where there is an economy without the state in it. And I know you and I have been here before, so I’m just trying to make sure I explain why I’m not just a straightforward “no state action” kind of guy.
Where we would probably part ways even more, of course, would be on other kinds of state activity. So meanjoefan wants to be able to buy a Nissan without a catalytic converter (at least that’s what I read into his thing about the Tsuru). Well, I don’t want him to be able to. My libertarian neighbor wants to disable his EGR system as soon as his truck is out of warranty. I don’t want him to. It’s not about my interests in impinging on anyone else’s freedom. It’s about keeping the fists of others from hitting me in the face - methaphorically speaking or not. I was very young during the early 70s, but I remember the Cuyahoga river on fire, and the dying Hudson, and the smog so thick you couldn’t see more than a block. Clean Water and Air Acts were pretty cool for protecting my “freedom from” the externalities (unintended consequences) produced by others decisions (and “our” decisions). My interests there can sometimes meet up with my second point.
In any case, hopefully none of that is taken as any intent to rile or set things off. It’s far from my intention, so apologies in advance if I inadvertently create crankiness on anyone’s part.
Cig, I agree that it’s always been a part of business. But I still don’t believe that’s a valid function of governments large or small, and I still think it inhibits potential progress. It’s always existed, long before this country was founded, but I still don’t like it. It doesn’t comfort me to say “well, it’s wrong, but that’s the way it’s always been”.
I have mixed emotions about the role of government in regulating. There are 33 states that don’t have regular state inspections, and the statistics no matter how they’re sliced and diced are indistinguishable from the states that do. My state does, and I can tell you that its purpose is to generate revenue. The data shows that it does not improve safety.
Regarding emissions equipment, there are 19 states that don’t have emissions testing. Why should some suffer while others do not? I realize it was portioned based on air testing, but emissions travel across state borders. We in NH have emissions testing because of emissions coming from the Great Lakes industries.
There’s no argument that the EPA did a tremendous job. I was in LA in '71 on a military layover, and the air was so thick you could butter it on bread. I remember the pollution problems, and they were serious. However I would argue that the real progress came at the federal level with manufacturer requirements and with requirements and enforcement for industry itself, and not at the state level.
Cig, your post speaks only to the subject at hand. That’s the good, honest way to debate and disagree. I salute you.
Well we can only buy the cars that are made available to us. Manufacturers use a number of methods to try and determine what will sell, with what features, style, and pricing. Lots of times they get it wrong, and sometimes they get it right. Cars that sit on the lot unsold don’t do anyone any good but I kinda like they way we do things and there is always a small minority that wants something different than the market will bear-cars or otherwise.
“The problem is that the smallest cars aren’t much cheaper than the next size up.”
Very true.
And that is perhaps part of the reason why the Colorado and Ranger are no longer around. With all the rebates, factory incentives, etc. on the Silverado and F150, it didn’t make much sense buying a new Colorado or Ranger.
Not to mention that the Colorado had atrocious build quality compared to the Silverado
Let’s hope the new Colorado does a much better job
Cheaper ?
I don’t want a truck that big. Period.
All the half ton manufacturers keep trying to one-up the others in bed and towing capacity so they have gradually gotten bigger and bigger. Nowadays grandma can’t hoist the laundry basket up over the bed rail anymore. And THAT"S our cutomer demographic here on the rez. For years my customers have complained about not being able to get a plain-jane truck ( so this thread about plain-jane cars fit right in. ).
I agree with the op.
Just give me some basic transportation.
mountain, I’m sure we’ve been through this all before, but no reason not to revisit…I’m with you in sentiment on the role over government. Libertarian at heart. But only if there’s no corporate business form. And I don’t mean some sensible and useful things like some degree of limited liability or capital pooling. I’m much more comfortable with the idea of the old charter system.
The thing is that corporate laws that came to be through the 19th Century in the U.S. created the potential for the quite unlimited pooling of capital, unlimited functions and unlimited lifespans for businesses that aren’t even “people”. We created a monster there - a whole new kind of actor in the world that is immensely powerful - and NOT a “person” regardless of what the Supreme Court keeps saying. And the large state actually grew in response to issues created by that. If it wasn’t for the rise of the massive corporation, our state simply wouldn’t have the form or character that it does. In the end, I just don’t think the mess can be dismantled, so I think my “sin” would be in giving up on the hopes that drove the Classical Liberals.
On more concrete matters - yes, the right kinds of regs and how much and how to design them is nothing if not sticky. And I’m sure we’d disagree more often than agree. I’m pretty sure that Garrett Hardin wrote “The Tragedy of the Commons” to try to show why “the commons” was a bad idea. I think what it really shows is the disaster that ensues when every individual acts only in his/her own self-interests and there is no sense of connections to others and no way for communities of people to manage themselves as people who are simultaneously stuck on the same planet. I would have called it “The Tragedy of Pure Self-Interested Individualism” instead. But Hardin was an economist, and frankly, I really do have little respect for economics as a discipline. Anyway, point being, I’m quite sure I’ll often be more open to regs than you - which actually has nothing to do with lacking respect for economics since there are plenty of economists we could each have supporting what we’re thinking.
Just to let you guys know, not that you might care; but for some reason, I find you all very interesting reading. My wife says I’m getting easier to please in my old age. Maybe it’s because I’ve forgotten so much I’m just relearning it again from you all. Keep it up and don’t worry about repeating yourselves. It will seem knew and interesting to me again tomorrow. ;=) Seriously !
Cig, I know we’ve debated this before, but my view on the pooling of capital is that it makes greater things possible than not allowing pooling of capital. My feeling is that the problem occurs when our “representatives” become enticed by the pooled capital for the purpose of getting elected. The capital then gets used for the wrong reasons, and inappropriate controls emerge. The legislation being proposed (and in some states already enacted) becomes to protect the politicians’ money source rather than to benefit the people the “representative” represents. I believe the corporate form is beneficial. I believe lobbyists are not. I believe the lobbyists and the politicians that dance their dance in order to get the funding of the industries they represent are the problems.