Let the real debate begin!

[Bored of Pisteon]

At what point are you willing to sacrifice your safety in a small car just for fuel efficiency?

 

That's the question that really needs to be addressed because THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL NOBODY IS GOING TO FORCE MY ASS IN A SMALL CAR PERIOD!

 

 

What are your thoughts folks?

[papilgee4evaeva]

I'm with you. I grew up driving nothing smaller than midsize, so I'm kinda set in my ways. At age 24. :lol:

 

Probably the only compact I'd drive would be a Jetta, and that's large for a compact.

[the_spaniard]

I really don't like large cars, and have no need for one (no family, etc).

 

Looking at my vehicles:

 

2006 Honda Civic

Driver's Side 5 of 5

Front Occupant 4 of 5

Passenger's Side 5 of 5

Rear Occupant 5 of 5

 

2006 Nissan Xterra

Driver's Side 4 of 5

Front Occupant 5 of 5

Passenger's Side 4 of 5

Rear Occupant 5 of 5

 

2000 Ford F150

Driver's Side 4 of 5

Front Occupant 5 of 5

Passenger's Side 4 of 5

 

So according to the safety ratings, I'm (the driver) safest in my Civic. Now would I be safer in my civic if I plowed headlong in an F350SD going the other way? Probably not. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy a blue-hair panther-mobile to cruise around in, or drive my F150 in bumper to bumper traffic getting a whopping 7MPG.

 

But that's just me. Many people value safety above everything, and they should probably stick to a large car. Personally, I don't want to sacrifice utility, style, and real-word use for safety. I wouldn't want to head on a YUGO in my Civic, much less anything larger. But I'm not going to drive a large car I don't like on the off-chance I'm going to get in an accident.

 

Smaller vehicles compliment my driving style, and I'll be in the market for a two-seater sports-car shortly. Depending on the time-frame it looks like it will be between a Honda S2000 or a Lotus Elise. (Assuming I don't get motorcycle fever for a VFR800). Both of these are small vehicles, but no way would I sacrifice the performance in the twists for anything larger.

[xr7g428]

I

 

Want an F150 to pull my bass boat, my quads, and anything else I want to take with me. Make that a Super Crew!

 

YOU

 

Need to drive a practical little spec that gets 50 miles to the gallon.

 

I

 

want a vehicle that can do what I want to do.

 

YOU

 

Need to drive a vehicle that compromises your safety and limits your ability to enjoy your life.

 

I

 

Want to be able to make my own choices about how much of my income I can spend on gas.

 

YOU

 

Need to reduce your carbon foot print and reduce our dependence on foriegn oil.

 

Are we all clear on this?

[syrtran]

At what point are you willing to sacrifice your safety in a small car just for fuel efficiency?

 

That's the question that really needs to be addressed because THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL NOBODY IS GOING TO FORCE MY ASS IN A SMALL CAR PERIOD!

What are your thoughts folks?

To misquote "The Incredibles":

 

If all cars are small cars, then no cars will be small cars.

 

Besides, no one is being FORCED into a small car. The CAR COMPANIES are being forced to have a higher FLEET mileage. They can sell all the sub-35mpg cars they want, as long as they also sell enough over-35mpg cars to balance it out.

 

- Actual opinion follows -

 

I think the mandate is stupid. A car's mileage is more directly related to its mass than almost any other variable. Cars of equivalent mass have gotten reasonably equivalent mpg for the past 30 years (since the original CAFE). F. Ex. from my December 1980 Motor Trend(*), the 1981 Citation X11, 2.8L V6, carb, 4-speed manual, 2700 lbs, gets 25mpg on MT's 73-mile test loop. From Edmunds - 2008 Jetta S, 2.5 I5, computer FI, 5-speed manual, 3200 lbs, gets 21 city, 29 highway (EPA mpg). Okay, the Jetta is 20% heavier, so technology has made -some- difference.

 

I have a feeling that all companies that make anything bigger than a Civic (i.e. everyone but Suzuki) is going to demand that Congress either repeals or delays the law. Even Honda is going to have trouble meeting 35mpg fleet, no matter how advanced the technology.

 

(and I'm a friggin' Democrat)

 

 

(*) I've still got a 1980 MT, 'cause it's got the McLaren Mustang M81 on the cover and inside. It's a direct ancestor of the SVO.

[the_spaniard]

I

YOU

 

Is that directed to the general population, or anyone in particular? Who is the YOU in all this?

Edited February 29, 2008 by the_spaniard

[retro-man]

At what point are you willing to sacrifice your safety in a small car just for fuel efficiency?

 

That's the question that really needs to be addressed because THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL NOBODY IS GOING TO FORCE MY ASS IN A SMALL CAR PERIOD!

What are your thoughts folks?

You know, I've always regarded you as the type of person with two grandparents. Not two surviving grandparents, just two grandparents. But good topic! You have really put the matter succinctly. Around here, predictably, whenever someone posts a thread about some small car, someone else will inevitably weigh in with "Well, I'd like to see how that thing would do when I T-Bone it with my Canyonero" (smells like a steak and seats 35).

 

Personally, I want to drive what I want to drive. I'm not going to let some possible, but unlikely, scenario dictate what I drive. I am knocking on wood as I type this, but I let my own son get a '65 Mustang (289, 4-speed) for his first car. Now this is not a safe car. But it cost about what a well-used Civic, or Hyundai, or whatever would have cost - and it is so much cooler. Sure I contemplated what might have happened had he gotten in an accident in it: rigid steering column, no shoulder harnesses, let alone airbags, drum brakes, ball and worm steering........ but he didn't get in an accident. When he moved away to college, rather than parking the Mustang out in the weather in a gravel lot, we persuaded him to leave it at home in the garage - but he needed something else. His choice? A '68 VW Squareback. Totally hip car, but, squirrelly handling, no power, and the only thing between him and a head-on? The gas tank. Do I worry? Yes. Do I let that dictate what he's gonna drive? No. Me either. I disdain the way of thinking that would have us all - if we followed it to its logical conclusion - driving Mack trucks out of fear for our own safety. But, if your own sense of security requires it, then go ahead and drive whatever. I choose to drive joyfully, not fearfully.

Edited February 29, 2008 by retro-man

[xr7g428]

Is that directed to the general population, or anyone in particular? Who is the YOU in all this?

 

 

Not directed at any one in particular.

 

People tend to want what they want, and then try to tell other people what they need.

 

In order to build the vehicles that people want to buy, the manufacturers will be forced to find a way to sell cars that people don't want. Consider this: There are plenty of cars that get 30mpg plus. If people wanted to buy them then there would be no problem with a fleet average of 30MPG.

 

CAFE is really a way to get YOU to buy what some one else believes you need, in stead of letting you make your own choice. A more honest approach would be to tax the larger vehicle, and then use the money to subsidize the smaller vehicle. The silly part is that the whole concept revolves around the idea that each manufacturer builds vehicles across the entire spectrum.

 

It is hard to imagine a scenario that could have been better for the imports than the combination of reduction of the national speed limit to 55mph and CAFE. I think we are still dealing with the repercussions of that policy blunder. The law of unintended consequences once again rules the day. Be careful what you ask for.

Edited February 29, 2008 by xr7g428

[Shipwright]

You know, I've always regarded you as the type of person with two grandparents. Not two surviving grandparents, just two grandparents. But good topic! You have really put the matter succinctly. Around here, predictably, whenever someone posts a thread about some small car, someone else will inevitably weigh in with "Well, I'd like to see how that thing would do when I T-Bone it with my Canyonero" (smells like a steak and seats 35).

 

Personally, I want to drive what I want to drive. I'm not going to let some possible, but unlikely, scenario dictate what I drive. I am knocking on wood as I type this, but I let my own son get a '65 Mustang (289, 4-speed) for his first car. Now this is not a safe car. But it cost about what a well-used Civic, or Hyundai, or whatever would have cost - and it is so much cooler. Sure I contemplated what might have happened had he gotten in an accident in it: rigid steering column, no shoulder harnesses, let alone airbags, drum brakes, ball and worm steering........ but he didn't get in an accident. When he moved away to college, rather than parking the Mustang out in the weather in a gravel lot, we persuaded him to leave it at home in the garage - but he needed something else. His choice? A '68 VW Squareback. Totally hip car, but, squirrelly handling, no power, and the only thing between him and a head-on? The gas tank. Do I worry? Yes. Do I let that dictate what he's gonna drive? No. Me either. I disdain the way of thinking that would have us all - if we followed it to its logical conclusion - driving Mack trucks out of fear for our own safety. But, if your own sense of security requires it, then go ahead and drive whatever. I choose to drive joyfully, not fearfully.

 

I echo your opinion, I'm 45 and my first card was a 75? Pontiac Ventura II, an automatic V8 with terrible brakes, nebulous steering and minimal road feel, which was eventually totaled by my sister (no injuries). My second car was a Chev Monza 2+2, 4 speed stick with a transplanted Chevelle 350 V8, again a not very safe vehicle by anyones definition (talk about brake fade and understeer), oh I forgot, it was also standard steering and had an undersized steering wheel, again totaled by sister (bumps and bruises). Third car was a brand new 88 Mustang GT, drum brakes in back, heavy nose, going around corners at speed and hitting a pot hole definately had a pucker factor attached to it. I had that car for 15 years before it was stolen never to be seen again. My other vehicles include a 90 Mazda B2200 5 speed manual (totaled by wife in 2000), a 1999 Mazda Protege 1.6L 5 speed (wifes), 2003 Mazda B3000 5 speed (mine) and finally a 2008 SHELBY GT 500 Convertible (ours). My point is that in all my purchasing decisions I bought what I wanted or needed. I don't really care about safety features, to me they are secondary or tertiary features. I don't base my purchases on fear or paranoia but on what suits my needs and desires. If we are going to make our car buying decisions on what is the safest car available then we may as well go for totally automated systems and let computers wheel us to our cubicles.

[armadamaster]

Besides, no one is being FORCED into a small car. The CAR COMPANIES are being forced to have a higher FLEET mileage. They can sell all the sub-35mpg cars they want, as long as they also sell enough over-35mpg cars to balance it out.

 

Nice spin, but inevitably the choice is being TAKEN AWAY from the consumer.

 

CAFE is really a way to get YOU to buy what some one else believes you need, in stead of letting you make your own choice. A more honest approach would be to tax the larger vehicle, and then use the money to subsidize the smaller vehicle. The silly part is that the whole concept revolves around the idea that each manufacturer builds vehicles across the entire spectrum.

 

I believe someone else on here put it best and I'm probably not quoting it right word for word: It's like trying to make an obese person skinny but selling only skinny people clothes.

[mlhm5]

Oh, I think the American consumer can make up his or her own mind on this matter. Some will and some will not depending on the circumstances.

 

What scares the crap out of auto manufacturers, who have abandoned this segment, is that many city dwellers or short commuters into a metro area, among others, just might opt out for a smaller, less expensive, high mileage, easy parker as the go to car to drive to work or run errands.

[RaZor]

I suspect that most, if not all of us, will make the decision somewhere down the line to purchase an efficient fuel mileage vehicle if the fuel cost continues to spiral up, whether we like it or not. Here is a chart of the gas prices (US & Canadian) for the last six years.

6 year average retail price chart

 

Let’s just suppose that we extend that trend (roughly a 237% increase) out for, say, another six years. My guess is that it would be a safe assumption that it would be, at least, similar to the past six years, or could easily be a greater rate of change. Unless, of course, they hit that alleged 22 trillion barrels under the Rockies, or some similar find.

 

I am sure we all have heard the expectations that gas is expected to hit $4/gal (US) by this summer. If we just use the past six years as an indicator (insert past performance as an indicator blah, blah, blah here), and using that for just an example, we might be looking a gas prices over $7/8 per gallon six (let alone 12 ) years out. Obviously, no one knows, but it is definitely a possibility.

 

If that were the case, my guess is that most of us, somewhere along the line, will buy a high fuel efficiency vehicle for our every day use and many of us will keep the vehicle that we really like/want, and use it for weekend nostalgia drives, or as in the case of the pickup, only when we actually are hauling something. Given that scenario, it doesn't take too much imagination to assume that most of the vehicles that we might see during the rush hour might be of the smaller vehicle class. Once that occurs, the safety issue (dissimilar sized vehicles concerns) would most certainly become mute for most.

 

Pure speculation, of course, but should the above occur, it is also very likely that there will be some sort of tax credits program enacted such as one to offset the fuel taxes for businesses involved in the distribution of the necessities of life. That could help offset the obvious inflationary/economy choking pressures of such an increase.

 

For example, a company might have to keep very exacting records for fuel usage for its delivery vehicles of products of necessity (food etc) and then receive a rebate/tax credit back from either Fed or State taxes (or both), in an attempt to keep the inflationary spiral from breaking the economy’s back. That really wouldn’t be hard to do and hopefully it would be implemented in a way that that only the direct cost of fuel for long/short haul delivery vehicles would be used. . . but not the office gopher using a company car and going to local Chinese restaurant to pick up lunch for the office crowd.

 

Of course, 'green' technology advancements could minimize those kind of increases in fuel costs and minimize the pain of having to make this type of personal choice adjustments. Either way, my guess is that we are close to the end of the high performance gas-gulping vehicle for more than just occasional use. The vehicle manufacturers that are on the leading edge of advancements and that can provide the best product line of desirable vehicles will profit the most. Hasn't it always been like that? Humans tend to be a resilient lot and most adapt to a changing environment. Those that don’t, either suffer greatly or perish.

[kpc655]

At what point are you willing to sacrifice your safety in a small car just for fuel efficiency?

 

That's the question that really needs to be addressed because THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL NOBODY IS GOING TO FORCE MY ASS IN A SMALL CAR PERIOD!

What are your thoughts folks?

 

I wonder how closely the higher repair costs/insurance costs balance out any fuel savings. it's been my experience that the safer the car is, the more ridiculously expensive it becomes to make any repairs. exotic materials, crumple zones etc. etc...cars are becoming disposable.

[Bored of Pisteon]

You know, I've always regarded you as the type of person with two grandparents. Not two surviving grandparents, just two grandparents. But good topic! You have really put the matter succinctly. Around here, predictably, whenever someone posts a thread about some small car, someone else will inevitably weigh in with "Well, I'd like to see how that thing would do when I T-Bone it with my Canyonero" (smells like a steak and seats 35).

 

Personally, I want to drive what I want to drive. I'm not going to let some possible, but unlikely, scenario dictate what I drive. I am knocking on wood as I type this, but I let my own son get a '65 Mustang (289, 4-speed) for his first car. Now this is not a safe car. But it cost about what a well-used Civic, or Hyundai, or whatever would have cost - and it is so much cooler. Sure I contemplated what might have happened had he gotten in an accident in it: rigid steering column, no shoulder harnesses, let alone airbags, drum brakes, ball and worm steering........ but he didn't get in an accident. When he moved away to college, rather than parking the Mustang out in the weather in a gravel lot, we persuaded him to leave it at home in the garage - but he needed something else. His choice? A '68 VW Squareback. Totally hip car, but, squirrelly handling, no power, and the only thing between him and a head-on? The gas tank. Do I worry? Yes. Do I let that dictate what he's gonna drive? No. Me either. I disdain the way of thinking that would have us all - if we followed it to its logical conclusion - driving Mack trucks out of fear for our own safety. But, if your own sense of security requires it, then go ahead and drive whatever. I choose to drive joyfully, not fearfully.

 

Indeed, enjoy whatever you desire. But as you look at the history of these small cars for example. And one that really stands out the most in my mind was a tragic incident back on the Mackinac Bridge. In October 1989, a gale storm, (strong wind storm) came in and literally blew a Yugo right off of it! Now you tell me... WHY SHOULD I BE DRIVING A CAR THAT SMALL IN THOSE KIND OF WEATHER CONDITIONS?

[Bored of Pisteon]

I wonder how closely the higher repair costs/insurance costs balance out any fuel savings. it's been my experience that the safer the car is, the more ridiculously expensive it becomes to make any repairs. exotic materials, crumple zones etc. etc...cars are becoming disposable.

 

Indeed! A lot of assholes who drive these smaller cars don't think (due to lack of common sense) of how much money they are getting pulled out of their asses everytime they take their newer cars to be worked on...

 

And you wonder why this country's economy is in serious trouble.

[joihan777]

At what point are you willing to sacrifice your safety in a small car just for fuel efficiency?

 

That's the question that really needs to be addressed because THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL NOBODY IS GOING TO FORCE MY ASS IN A SMALL CAR PERIOD!

What are your thoughts folks?

Safe designs are heavy. The only way to keep a car design safe while providing a modicum of fuel economy and performance is to have less vehicle in the first place. I believe we'll be seeing more and more small cars on the road. Especially for commuting purposes/ A-B transportation. However small doesn't need to mean 'econo." I'd WANT a small car if it were exciting AND it saved me a few bucks at the pump. (The less going to our enemies the better!)

 

I personally hope Ford intros a small 2-seat roadster that's a little bigger than a Miata, is made here, is very safe, performs well (not blistering mind you) with the standard powertrain and still manages 30mpg.

 

I'll still buy a larger, safer car for the whole family. (I hope the Flex ends up with 5-stars all the way around.)

 

Sadly, I think one way Ford will deal with the CAFÉ rules is to simply tack on $5000 to all the V-8s/GTs as a dis-incentive. The extra cash will go towards reducing the smaller cars' prices. Why buy a Corolla for $20k when a new Focus or Fiesta comes better equipped and safer for $15000?

Edited March 4, 2008 by joihan777

[xr7g428]

The saddest part of the issue is that if we successful in reducing oil consumption, the oil we will stop consuming first will be that produced here in the USA. This will actually increase our dependence on foreign produced oil, and do nothing to reduce our trade deficit. A lot of the oil produced in the US requires expensive recovery techniques and more costly refining than what can be imported for less.

 

The LosAlamos National Laboratory has developed a way to make gasoline from air borne Co2 and Hydrogen from treated waste water. If we can start making our own gasoline, we are on the road to self reliance. Importing all of our fuel is every bit as dangerous as importing all of our food. To me it seems that after providing for our national defense, self sufficiency in Food and Fuel should be our governments highest priority.

 

The LANL program is called Green Freedom.

 

Gasoline from CO2 and Hydrogen