"There is no evidence that anyone will buy energy efficient green cars"

Forget GM's Plan -- Where's The Government's Plan?
by Jane Hamsher
The Nation

When Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi sent the Detroit automakers away and told them to come up with a plan, it made me want to put my head through a wall. Not because the automakers didn't need one, but because they're operating in a black box unless and until the government comes up with their plan.

Our automakers aren't as bad as you think. If you go to Europe or especially China and Asia, you will see excellent small cars produced by Ford and Chevrolet that sell very well. You won't see them in the United States, however, because these are not the cars American have been buying. Like it or not, a major reason that American automakers have built the cars that they've built for the domestic market is that they've had to contend with highly misleading long-term market signals based on cheap gas. While engines have become more efficient over the last thirty years, much of Detroit's ingenuity has gone into giving Americans more power, performance and luxury for the buck rather than more miles per gallon.

We can sit around and wax rhapsodic about highways covered in green cars, but until the government adopts policy that creates demand for them, there is no evidence that anyone will buy them.

You cannot create an effective business plan if you cannot project what the market for your product will be. A market for green cars can only be guaranteed by government action. It's a simple and very basic business principle. If the automakers tell everyone what they want to hear and promise to make small, fuel-efficient cars and yet people continue to want SUVs, Honda and Toyota will supply that market and then everyone will bitch about how GM and Ford are not competitive because they've got shitloads of cars nobody wants.

You can ask them to be profitable, or you can ask them to be energy efficient. If the government wants them to be both, they have to create the market conditions for that to happen.

Please read the entire article at:

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/passingthrough/386733/forget_gm_s_plan_where_s_the_government_s_plan?rel=hpbox

K and R.

You can't sell ugly, expensive "green" cars and expect the American public to gobble them up.

Make them sleek, cool and AFFORDABLE.

Thank God someone finally wrote what I've been espousing here for weeks!

Edited to add this:

Which is better?

Small and bubbly and, frankly, ugly, and $32,000:



OR... sleek and cool and, frankly, hot as fire, and $25,000:



Let's get REAL, people.

It takes a population with available income to buy cars, provide for all other of life's needs, and remain solvent throughout ....

Just like you, no one listens to me: Our incomes have been decimated .... We CANNOT buy doodleysquat if we don't have money .... Workers need raises across the board ....

Henry Ford may have been a lot of undesirable things (a Nazi sympathizer, for one), but he did understand that he must pay his workers well enough to afford to buy his product.

Period.

P.S. Detroit, if you're reading, I work in marketing. I'm a whiz kid ready for a break. I have driven Ford since I was 15. I LOVE them. I'm ready to make it happen. Make me an offer. ;)

Explains everything. Thanks for being honest about your objectives here. And down thread where you call my homestate 'not the real America' gets a major fuck you, Palin. A marketing expert would know a tad about persuasion and would avoid telling people they are not real Americans, as that tends to be off putting. California is the 7th largest economy on the planet. An American company that does not market to California is delusional. Or bankrupt and begging. As they are. The car makers you defend need a loan from the people you are insulting. Without California's purchases and tax dollars, the Big Three are already doomed, so biting the hand that feeds is not the best marketing tactic.
"You are not the real America, but we demand billions from you anyway". Great PR you got going there. A real winner.

"Green" car: $2,000 for one infomercial at 2:30 a.m. in Cody, Wyoming.

Hot muscle car: $20 gazillion. 90-day pre-rollout campaign to generate "buzz." Super Bowl spots. Saturation flooding of the airwaves. Glossy four-color brochures. Magazines by the dozen.

Gee, nobody wanted the "green" car! Just like nobody wanted seat belts. Or air bags. They're too expensive! We can't sell safety!

Detroit likes to sell speed, power and sexy. They don't have, and they haven't had, the foggiest fuck of a notion how to sell safety and dependability. Detroit sneers at those features, and the American public has been well trained to believe it.

Don't believe that last sentence? Quick quiz: What do you think when you hear "Volvo"?

Duh.

Gee, how tough is it to sell candy bars to kids? Not terribly hard. Is that all kids should eat or all they should be offered? Of course not. Grown-ups know that they have to offer other things to kids, and market alternatives to them. In the same manner, if Detroit wanted to, they could offer up safety and reliability as desireable traits in an automobile. But they don't, and when "nobody wants" the more efficient car (until of course they do), Detroit justifies its short-sighted marketing by the choices they've foisted upon consumers and complains about other auto manufacturers who offer a different choice.

Double duh. Pardon me if I don't feel like paying corporate fatcats for their greed.

Prius's (Prii?)and such were selling when gas prices went up and seemed unlikely to lower. Now? Not so much. People KNOW about them, they just DON'T LIKE THEM. It's not 'marketing', it's that people would rather drive something else. But, go ahead. Be the anti-marketing 'savior' here to 'rescue us' from the clutches of those horrible advertising agencies.... It'll be good for a few laughs, if nothing else.

...and think the second is ugly. Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. The price tag, now, that's rather ugly.

The Prius has been recalled far too often for anyone's taste.

There's where beauty and affordablity meet.

(BTW, I don't like all the bubbles and boxes that car companies, including Ford, think are so popular. I like more sleek lines. I'm female and still don't want to arrive in something Glenda the Good Witch would travel in. ;) )

You drive the car from the inside, you can't look at it while you drive it.

And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the Prius is ugly at all.

I've test driven a Prius and they are by no means an uncomfortable or even a slow car, quite responsive and nice handling. And most important to me anyway, they are quiet.

Oh, and the Prius starts at $22,000..

http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/trims-prices.html

I have not heard any complaints from my friends

The difference is that you live in New York. I live in Tennessee. It's not just a red state/blue state thing, it's affordablility. People in the South simply don't make as much money. They can't afford a $32,000 vehicle, on average, but they can afford a $20,000-$25,000 non-hybrid.

I see a few on the road around here, but I don't know a sole who owns one. I'm from here, so I do know quite a few people. And I know there are some people driving them, but, they're not in as much demand as they are in other places.

$32,000 figure from but the Prius starts at $22,000.

It's kind of ridiculous how many people in L.A. have them actually. Dealers in Tennessee are probably not getting them in because they can send them to places like L.A. instead. Wait until they start building them in the US in the next couple of years.

My boss's boss has one and she loves it. And personally I prefer the look of the Prius to the Mustang. Now the '66 Mustang, that would be a different story, but not the modern version.

And they've sold well since they were introduced. When my sister took delivery of her Prious this summer she had to wait 6 weeks for it. When she got it, they were taking orders for 2010 models, and used ones were selling for more than she paid for her new one because you couldn't get new ones for two years. I imagine this has changed a bit in recent weeks.

And to those who claim that people just won't buy the Big Three's cars, on what planet to they live.

Just look at the tens of millions GM, Ford and Chrysler cars on the road.

They sold over 15 million last year.

Are they giving them away or did somebody buy them?

If really cool fuel efficient cars (by all three domestic automakers) at an affordable price are built they will be sold and they will be profitable.

The government has to help out or it won't happen.

The OP makes sense, sadly.

No way I can afford a new hybrid on an educators salary!

In the mean time and until they get it, I'm going to try and keep my 1991 Honda CRX HF - with just 2 seats on board running. Has 240K and gets 45+ MPG --- with a rebuilt engine. I'd love to buy a newer version, but it is neither economically or environmentally practical to go new. Not even close.

Not yet anyway...

If form should follow function, the Prius should take the gold everytime.

The co-efficient of drag on a Prius is .26. Ford does not seem to publish aerodynamic data for the the 2008 Mustang GT you posted. Before the current retro trend, cars were becoming fairly "smooth" designs. What is your opinion of the last generation of Taurus?

That ain't hard to understand, is it?

The Mustang is a handsome thing, no question, even though I'm a GM guy and drive a Pontiac G8 - which is about the same price as said Mustang, BTW - and absolutely love it. :D If I wanted environmental, I'd buy it. But I like having my big sedan. :)

Lots of people here just blast Detroit on and on and on and tell them how they should conduct their business and that they should be making fuel efficient cars and ditching all of the trucks. The question is - WILL PEOPLE BUY THOSE? The answer, historically, has been no because of America's cheap gas and loving big cars. What is so hard to understand about that?

Out of curiosity, how is something shaped like a bubble more aerodynamic than something more, well, sleek?

That has eluded me. Round less aerodynamic, while long and thin is more aerodynamic. Isn't that simply just common scientific fact?

And, I like the new Taurus's better than the last generation - less "round." My mother has one of the round ones. It's a good car, but I don't find it all that pretty. The new ones (2009) are cute, though.

Rounded on the front and tapered at the rear.

Up to a point, the longer the taper the less drag.

The Prius shape is definitely a good bit more slippery than the Mustang, it's designed to slip through the air while disturbing it as little as possible.

Note how the top of the Prius is shaped rather like a short fat wing.

for producing SUVs, full-sized pickups, and hummers at the expense of hybrids and electrics. That's what people were buying. Producing against demand would have already bankrupted the companies.

What I blame them for is campaigning against an increase in CAFE standards as well as exempting certain kinds of vehicles. That was unnecessary and shortsighted.

Who do you think created the demand???

The Hummer was in production starting in 1992. SUVs weren't new, they just became the fad.

were popular in the late 60's early 70's. They are not an '80's' thing at all.

My Dad had the Jeep. It was huge and didn't have power steering. I hated that thing, but I loved his little Jeep pickup!

The Bronco was even bigger. My uncle used it to haul wood and sacks of feed to and from the farm.

created the desire for larger, less fuel-efficient vehicles. It is what 80% of the country would prefer all things being equal. Price barriers and and regulation are necessary to drive people to more responsible vehicles. The auto companies had a chance to get behind that necessary step before a crisis pushed them to the brink, but they chose the easy way of satisfying demand and maximizing profits.

Because, as we all know, auto companies would never do anything to create demand for a given product.

:eyes:

..which doesn't work well when people aren't buying enough above-average MPG cars to make it work. Don't forget that Toyota was fighting CAFE too.

there is no way to cheat a combined fleet average. SUVs destroyed the system because they were exempted.

CAFE is a hell of a lot better than a higher gas tax.

that did not adjust to keep up with the times.

It forced Detriot to make whatever changes they needed to in order to meet the mileage standards, whether by price, marketing, or changes in the models. Making the manufacturers to meet broader mileage goals is much more effective than trying to micromanage the details.

Detriot makes more money on more expensive vehicles, which usually use more gas, so they have a vested interest in fighting the standards. The most successful way was by marketing the hell out of vechiles like full-sized trucks and SUVs that did not fall under the original standards. Those vehcles should have been brought under CAFE even if the mileage standards had to be rolled back a little to compensate. But until the recent gas crisis, there was no political will to do so.

There are Prius', Civic hybrids (and even Honda Insights) everywhere- lots of Mini's too.

Not so many Pony's- but there are a LOT of tricked out Civic's & Corolla's.

Hmmm.

possibly because they're more reliable and last longer than the smaller American cars.

I see many of those "pimped out" cars burning oil or almost falling apart because the owner, be it hispanic or not (usually teens or 20 somethings driving these cars) beats the shit out of them from racing and whatnot.

That reminds me, when my truck was for sale just before I bought it. Their was Mustang GT also for sale sitting next to it that was riced out to hell with the body kit barely staying on, fake air vents on the hood some stupid looking wheels. Now I see that car being driven around by hispanics, oh the irony:rofl:

than in Western Oregon, so it wouldn't surprise me that they would run their cars into the ground, rather than treating them well, tuning and waxing them up and adding expensive wheels and stereos.

And it also wouldn't surprise me that, in North Carolina, people would be street racing them (which isn't all that common in the Portland metro area). As with most everything, folks in your neck of the woods lack good sense- whether with respect to land use planning or with responsible transportation options (which would include the cars that they have to drive).

A huge number of people where I live work in the Hampton Roads area in VA. But I'd say it mostly depends on what jobs are available here. I can make a grand pretty easily cleaning pools and hot tubs at the outerbanks (the beach) like I did the past two summers. Its easy work if you can take the summer heat, and its an easy job to attain if you have some knowledge of swimming pools. And I fuggin LOVE IT!! 5x the pay for only about half the work compared to a dead end minimum wage job.

I dont see much street racing here compared to VA, but being that I do drive a high performance sports car, theirs alot of times when someone in a mustang, modified civic or even an Infinity G35 wants to race me.

I dont care how safe or slow a civic is, I'v hung out with teenagers or someone my age (21) that scares the shit out of me with their crazy driving and they would very well kill themselves if they dont stop. Me, I'm in the minority that dont street race. I have my go fast moments but not often. 5 years of driving and no tickets or accidents :)

:popcorn: The Fiskar Karma and the Tesla are expensive, if built in small quantities with present day batteries. But hey, they are way fast, sexy looking, and, even today, much longer range than Volt. Who wants an ugly car that's only good for 40 miles? OK too expensive, but given high enough production numbers the price would come down. (and maybe pry loose some battery technology from the oil companies) p.s. I'm still in love with my '68 Camaro convertible.

and the engine gives you longer range - for which it will be relatively efficient anyway (not too large, but has the electrics for brief bursts of power if needed). I think the Volt has a decent aim in its design.

'Ugliness' is caused largely by practicality - you want to be able to fit in a family of 4 in comfort, with reasonable luggage space - or 4 adults for shorter trips. Sports cars aren't going to that market - they're a niche.

I don't know how many SUV's I see around with just the driver. In fact I don't recall the last time when I saw a SUV with three people.









BTY: I really can't criticize you because I have one and seldom have any passengers. If I didn't haul my tools or wood around I would (if I had the money) buy something else. Until I get find a job of get my hands on a shit load of money (Lottery), I'm sticking with what I've got.

I'm not proposing an SUV-sized car for 'typical' use; it's just that some people on this thread are saying "a Prius/Volt/Saturn Astra/whatever looks uglier than a Ford Mustang - I'd buy one if it looked prettier". But the lines of the former cars are based on getting proper headroom in the rear seats, and a decent amount of trunk space; they didn't just say "screw what it looks like - it's not worth paying someone design it to look sleek". The Mustang class of cars does expect to carry more than 2 people often.

And I know that probably most rear seats in cars are unoccupied at any given moment - but people want the capacity to be able to take the whole family, or friends, with you, even if the regular commute/shopping trip/business trip doesn't include them.

both, the first for speed and or green, and the secomd for speed and or green, then let the customer decide.


Thats just me :)

The front end has an almost pickup grille look to it.

Oh, it's because I live in San Francisco. We're all so crazy, you know. We actually take that green stuff sort of seriously. We have elictric buses too. Ridiculous, eh?

Japan did street-wise-successfully develop this particular technology first. And for a year or so, they were the only game.

I like the Prius.

But, people need to look at our automakers' products.

a bunch of unhappy people clinging to guns and religion if they were to TOUCH an American make car.

Perhaps they'd deign to purchase a Mazda Tribute instead of a Ford Escape.

It's the same vehicle but with a different name plate.

Funny, I never see the Mazda Tribute advertised.

to afford it.

Sounds like the auto makers want to rip the public off for wanting to go green. :puke:

First of all, I LIKE the way my Prius looks and don't want a butt-ugly muscle car. Secondly, I only paid $24,000 for my Prius.

I just looked on the ford site and saw 18K starting price. My point still stands about the Prius not being a 32K car. The posters whole point was that people could afford a 20-25 car, which the Prius is.

And there is a very long waiting list for new models... I wonder why that is if all Americans want are obsolete muscle cars. :shrug:

You must not pay attention. I see all forms of "muscle" cars on the road around here and very few Prius.

BTW, that's a misnomer. There's no waiting lists for any car anymore around here. Again, it boils down to affordability.

ended up getting poorer gas mileage than the standard 4-cylinder Accord - a marketing disaster on the part of Honda!

at over 25K.

It cost $25,000. And it's not the base model either. Come on down to Austin and I'll show you the bill of sale. I don't know where you got your pricing figures.

I had to sell it so I could go back to school, but it was a great car and I got tons of comments on it. In fact, I was kind of a big shot for the time that I drove around in it. It was black, fully loaded with all the bells and whistles, and a damn cool car. For awhile the Prius was the number one selling car in America. I see them all over the road. The idea that Americans won't buy green cars is horseshit.

My Prius was $23,000 and I love it.

I care more about reliability and gas/pollutant savings than I do about how a car looks.

I also happen to like how it looks.

in order to make American cars look favorable in comparison? The Prius is NOT $32k. I bought one in July (at the peak of the high gas prices) for about 26 in L.A. (probably one of the hottest Prius markets).

I'll try again later. I get tired of my avatars, so I change frequently.

This guy

Drag coefficients and all that malarkey!

Tesha

For some, it's a status symbol or a penile extension.

For some, reliable, affordable, economical, and, yes, green, are more important than "cool."

Green cars aren't yet affordable enough, imo. I don't know about reliable.

I also don't see anyone in a hurry to give me a "green" version of my tacoma. Vehicles that are expected to do more than transport a few people on paved city streets and highways haven't been a target for "greening."

That's right up there with the claim that no one wanted the all-electric cars. The company that made them (I believe it was GM) only leased them, took the leased cars back, claiming they couldn't sell enough of them to be profitable. In reality, they had to pry at least some of the cars from the clutching hands of the drivers who didn't want to give them up. So anytime anyone tries to claim that electric cars were tried here but no one wanted them is either lying or ignorant of the facts.

And in reality, many people will buy green fuel-efficient cars, ESPECIALLY if the manufacturers stop pretending that humongous gas-guzzlers are in any way better than smaller, economical vehicles. And I don't mean everyone has to drive something tiny, just that no one not inside a military zone needs a Hummer, and quite frankly hardly anyone needs a full-sized pick-up truck or one of the enormous SUVs that hold six people and less cargo than my Civic.

You live in LiberalLand, which is great, if you can.

Come down to Heartland. People can't afford these things. Won't buy them.

I counted today. More Fords than any other car, period. Mostly trucks and SUVs.

I didn't see a Hummer, though, and won't.

In reality, people will not spend in excess of $32,000 for something they think is small, ugly and risky.

Nor is any full-sized SUV. Nor for the most part bigger mini-vans. I'm not saying pay 32k plus for a small car.

I've been buying second hand Hondas for a while, and they are not expensive, although they do tend to hold their value a whole lot better than Fords of any stripe. Gee, I wonder why that is.

I still maintain that people have been bamboozled by ads and a lot of misinformation -- such as they're safer -- to buy needlessly large unsafe cars.

I forget what the exact numbers are, but SUVs account for a far higher number of fatal rollover accidents than their percentage of the driving fleet.

and I see lots of Priuses and other older hybrids here. I don't think affordability is exactly the issue.

You sure you're in the right place?

I'm sorry but those electric cars are just butt-ass ugly. I could have paid cash for one and I still don't want one at any price as long as they look like that and only go 40 miles before charging. I do a lot of interstate driving and I do not want to be on the road with 18-wheelers in a tiny little electric car. Safety was my primary concern when I went car shopping this year, comfort was second. I didn't get a SUV but I did buy a luxury sedan and I don't regret it for one single second.

:crazy: :silly:

Anecdotes aside, not that many people were really interested in leasing the EV-1 once they knew both the cost and the range limitations on the car. And that was at the rated price of about $39k and change: the actual cost per unit was more than double that.

the Wiki article on it. Also the piece on PBS called Who Killed the Electric Car. I've also heard reports from Amy Goodman.

And perhaps the real question to ask, if it was all that costly and limited, is why didn't GM work hard to improve the vehicle? In truth, those who got to drove it LOVED it. Yes, it was not very good for lengthy road trips, but most of us drive relatively short distances most of the time.

Keep in mind that if it had been left entirely up to the U.S. auto manufacturers, we'd still be driving the kinds of crap we had in the 50's that wore out at about 50,000 miles and was extremely unsafe in any kind of crashes, no seat belts, and so on. American cars almost never got 100,000 miles on them, and indeed, the odometers turned over and went back to zero after 99,999 miles, because going even that many miles was inconceivable.

And, produce different models to appeal to the different needs of consumers. Yes, even a good plug-in SUV.

American car companies need to think outside of the box.

How about a "muscle" car that's a hybrid? They couldn't keep them in stock!

200 mile range, pure electric plug-in.

It's a killer!!

:eyes:

Rick Wagoner, head of GM, drove one to DC this week.

I have a low opinion of Wagoner, but the Volt has real potential, IMHO.

Also, I believe that Ford will be bringing out a plug-in version of its Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner/Mazda Tribute full-hybrid small SUV. These vehicles were selling well until gas prices took a nose-dive along with the rest of the economy. The Mariner seems to be particularly popular vehicle. There are no incentives for its purchasers, which is a good sign. BTW, Mulally, head of Ford, arrived driving the Escape hybrid.

Nardelli, head of Chrysler, arrived in a prototype Jeep hybrid cross-over vehicle. I used to have a Jeep pickup, and I loved it despite the horrid gas mileage. If a hybrid could up that mileage, I'd consider one once my Taurus eventually dies.

90% of most round-trips people make are 40 miles or under. A car with batteries that can be recharged without the engine and therefore the use of gas will go a long way to increasing mileage.

There probably won't be much difficulty at night, unless at least 1/3 of us get plug-ins. That day is a long way off.

People have to be able to afford them, or they won't buy them.

Every other new car these days is a Prius.

Not to sound all Sarah Paliny and risk calling Los Angeles "fake" America, but most Americans can't afford $32,000+ for a car they find ugly (and most Americans find Prius's ugly and small and risky).

Jane Hamsher has been in the real world and Los Angeles isn't it. "Real" America can't afford, nor wants, those itty bitty bubbles-for-cars. I'm talking anywhere outside of an ultra-large city.

We're not Europe. And you can lament that or celebrate it, but we're not. Cars were the spark for the sexual revolution in the USA - our love affair will taper off only slowly.

that is certainly your implication.

But they don't. And neither does the Civic Hybrid, unless you buy it loaded, but then it would be a Lexus.

However, given the choice between a $22K hybrid that gets ~45mpg in the city and a less expensive (albeit safe) car that gets "good" mileage on the highway, I'll choose the less expensive option and use the extra dollars to pay for the gas.

in fact it's a bit BIGGER than I am used to. I drove a compact American car (Escort) for years, and now I'm driving a foreign car that's a tad bigger (Subaru Forester).

I think that Toyota classifies the Prius as bigger than a Corolla.

FWIW I will only drive small cars. I drove a truck once (my uncle's F-150) and I was very uncomfortable handling it. So much that I could barely park the thing. I'll stick to smaller cars. My next car will be a Subaru Impreza.

Have you ever been inside of one?? Not remotely a little bitty bubble car.

FUCK YOU, BTW, for saying we in Los Angeles are not "real America", SARAH JR!!!!!! We are the majority. Rural Bubba Land is the minority.

You can choke on your fat gas hogs. I hope the Big Three all go out of business. Stupid jerks.

You can bank on it. That's the way it's always been and the way it always will be. So take your "real" America and shove it.

a ny times article said of all hybrids, the prius is most popular b/c it's got the instant status recognition

other hybrids may be better, but many folks are after the sybolism and status

The first electric car to catch on and be a big success is going to be the one that's a trendy status symbol. That's just basic product marketing.

You can sell the american people anything, with good advertising & publicity. As already been mentioned, people new good paying jobs so we can afford to buy these new green products.

People have already proven they would buy green vehicles, and they can put any body style on these car frames. It doesn't have to be a box, and shouldn't be. Why not an electric pickup? or van, it would have to be small but it's doable..



Just my two cent's

Peace!

More people should read Marshall McLuhan to understand the power of Media manipulation

Have Madison Avenue equate a car with macho, sexy, strong, masculine...and BINGO, They buy it.
The auto companies were compelled to advertise these car after being pressure by the oil companies to
continue making big, heavy, gas guzzling cars.

I would bet Detroit was told that if they make the cars, Madison Avenue will convince the public to buy them.

http://www.automotive.com/used-cars/classifieds/11/toyota/prius/index.html

You can buy them all over.

(P.S. That was pre-set for my zip code, but still, they're not lacking in supply)

What about new ones? Only one 2008 was listed in my fairly large town and its used. Why are people talked into buying something else when they ask for a new hybrid that the dealership doesn't have?

there is no evidence that anyone will buy ANY car.

And, if the Big 3 go under and there are no American cars, I will never buy another one as long as I live. I refuse to buy a foreign car.

i won't be buying ANY kind of NEW vehicle for several years. And I may buy used again when i am ready for another vehicle.

There's more to being green/energy efficient than buying a new hybrid or electric. What about all the resources used to make the new vehicle? Does the old vehicle just end up in a junk yard? What if my less fuel efficient vehicle is driven fewer miles than the new hybrid?

heeelllooo...i know there has to be people out there that can design cars that are eco friendly, good on gas or electric or whatever and also look cool, are comfortable and safe.

I mean i was telling my husband while looking at the smart car the other day in seattle for the holidays, why can't they make one for girls pink with white polkadots and have seats with the same colors, shit i would sell my car if they made something like that.

car people just don't get it...i bet more designers are men. if they made chick cars that were good on gas and eco friendly, add some drink holders and seats in the back for moms that are safe were sold.

A small, fwd, under powered compact that accelerates like crap, handles like crap, looks bland and boring to drive . Me being a performance car nut, I dont like any of the econo car on the US market, they dont appeal to me at all. If they make a good sporty RWD coupe that gets 30+mpg and has good performance, then I'd be interested.

It was only done because it was mechanically simple.

Burnouts represent a waste of engine power not meeting the road. All hail the electric motor and the death of the traditional transmission.

Same deal for the Corvettes and the upcoming 2010 Camaro which is based on the G8 platform. Its all in the design. Burnouts are only necessary for old tires :)

The downward force on the rear wheels is not equal to the force on the front pair. Hence loss of traction under many conditions when not carrying a heavy load.

Electric traction motors are a very good engineering solution to applying force equally between all wheels using very little mass. No drive axel, ability to distribute components like battery packs in advantageous locations, linear power curve, etc.

The car of the future is not going to resemble the form conventional cars do today. Even performance vehicles.

But I'm just saying, a RWD car (not truck or SUV) can be a well balanced vehicle. I already put my truck through its paces in an empty parking lot to test its limits. Its quite nimble for truck, not outstanding handling but atleast I know its limits. I did the same thing on my 01 Trans Am, not the best handling sports car either, but atleast I know its limits.

It's called weight transfer. All the weight shifts to the rear under acceleration. Front wheel drive cars are automatically at a disadvantage.

why not apply all that power equally? Weight shifting is a bad thing. Why else do you think mid-engined cars were such a break through in racing in the 1960s?

All these vehicles use/used electric drive

"Weight shifting is a bad thing." It's called 'inertia', moron, and it happens no matter what. Are you high, or just an idiot? No matter WHAT propels a vehicle, it is subject to inertia. Electric cars exist in the real world, and they are not exempt from the laws of physics.

the weight shifts onto the driving wheels which helps. In FWD weight leaves the driving wheels and you get the feeling that the car is clawing at the road but not getting traction. Both have their pros and cons but RWD is essentially the better system for people who like performance.

FWD Pros: A front engined FWD car does not need a long driveshaft which saves on weight and thus fuel economy. The lack of a driveshaft also makes larger interiors with lots of legroom easier to manage because you don't have to run the shaft through the floor of the passeger compartment. This is one of the reasons that the first generation minivans from chrysler were such an improvement over their RWD station wagon ancestors. Both these advantages are not absolute. If you want to do rear engined RWD like the VW bug, then you will have the same fuel efficiency advantage and there will be no space issue concerning the driveshaft. Of course, rear engined RWD is very hard to get a good weight ratio because with the architecture of what we consider a normal car and the weight of the engine in the back, there isn't much that you could do to put weight up front without radically altering cabin layout.

FWD is better in snow. Something about the steering wheels being driven just helps

RWD pros: RWD is safer for performance driving because you can actually feel the car starting to lose control in a turn gradually and take corrective action. FWD cars lose control suddenly.

RWD is justing wasting energy torquing the front of the car upwards. Does that help the driver see or steer? Is that a good use of the engine's power? The output of the engine is being used to lift the car upwards instead of accelerating the the car forward.

Take a look at the fuel efficiency on car models that are offered in FWD and AWD (Audis and Subarus come to mind here) the AWD systems are less efficient.

Wheelies while only possible with RWD are not so much a fault of the drive system as the result of putting an engine with too much torque on the vehicle to begin with. You put a 50 hp engine in a VW bug and you're not going to lose any energy popping wheelies.

Oh I forgot one of the big disadvantages of any system involving FWD is that running power through the wheels used to steer means that a more complicated drivetrain is necessary that can deal with the adjustments needed to steer (CV joints are where this eventually fails)

With rear wheel drive you steer with the throttle to a big extent and slide the rear of the car around the corner if you have a nice neutral handling car, the front wheels may not be pointed all the close to the way you want to go.

With front wheel drive you point the front wheels where you want to go and punch the throttle, the rear of the car is just basically along for the ride like a dog's tail.

You can make very good time with either system if it's set up well, for really tight courses like autocross I prefer front wheel drive, for longer stuff with less tight corners rear wheel drive would be my choice.

Of course, all wheel drive is really where it's at.. Something like an Evo IX maybe.

Who is it that convinces the public that to be macho and manly and sexy, you have to drive a big, gas guzzling, humungous car?

Automakers can make a more fuel efficient car without having to go with tiny bubble shaped death traps with inferior performance and shitty handling. Screw the Prius, me not want. Just to let you know, I test drove one before just out of curiosity, I didn't like it all.

Kind of makes you wonder why in the world they make ADS for that, so it's soooooo gosh-darn ingrained and couldn't possibly be altered?

:rofl:

They waste all that money on ads and marketing to sell something that everyone wants anyway...
:crazy:

Why on earth do people have to be put on waiting lists for cars? If there was ever proof that the market isn't working, that's it.

Not to mention that hybrids haven't gotten the same boost from constant advertising like SUVs have.

I like some of the recommendations in this article but the premise is idiotic.

SOMEBODY with "old thinking' wrote/promotes this article/view

ONE obvious error, and it's too late to list the several that are evident:

"If you go to Europe or especially China and Asia, you will see excellent small cars produced by Ford and Chevrolet that sell very well. You won't see them in the United States"

Yeah, *duh* you won't see them b/c they aren't offered here! Why don't Ford and Chevrolet try offering them here and see how many autos are purchased? I believe the domestic carmanufacturers won't allow that, b/c they would have to back away from their 'high margin' SUV's, which they are loathe to do.

The Fiesta and maybe the Ka will be made in retooled truck and SUV plants.
Ford also will give us the European Focus and Mondeo in an effort to cut development costs. This project was planned a couple of years ago, and isn't a rush job to get taxpayer dough. I've seen the brochures for the new Fiesta and the Ka--snappy cars. There's also the possibility of the new Focus cabrilet that's soon to be offered in Europe. Very spiffy!

GM is starting to do something similar. Just recently, it has begun coordinating and cross pollinating between Saturn and GM's European operations called Opel. I had an Opel Manta in the '70s and I loved it. It'd be great to have something like that manufactured here! Now, if GM can just survive to bring over its Eurocars and mass-produce the volt, dump the way too many product lines, sell Hummer and Saab, it might be viable. Unfortunately, GM has dragged its feet for too long. I blame the GM board and Rick Wagoner, the CEO, for a lot of that. If I were a stockholder, I'd vote that Board out in an instant.

Why? Because they were cheap, reliable, and fuel efficient. Sure, they were ugly and unsafe as hell, but they were best sellers until the Japanese came out with safer, more attractive small cars.

The new bugs aren't doing as well, probably because they're no longer cheap, but that market's still there.

we've also had a jetta, two rabbits and a passat...vw(and audi) seem to have some of the best/funnest overall styling and a colour palette to match.

Saying that there wasn't any demand for green cars, yet never offering any hybrids to test the market? Yet when a foreign hybrid comes along, in a time of plentiful gas, watch as the lines waiting for one go through the roof.

Sorry, but this article is BS. Americans have always wanted smart, thrifty green cars, which is why foreign makes have done so well here. The reasons why US makes haven't is that when they've been offered, the cars were usually crap. Thus, they regularly got their clocks cleaned by small foreign cars. Hmmm.

The market was always there for green cars. However the US automakers took a different path, going for ever larger cars, and in fine capitalist tradition, created an ever growing demand for their behemoths. Meanwhile, that market for small, economical green cars, well, we were pretty much stuck, thus we bought Hondas and Toyotas.

No market conditions my ass. Talk to the foreign auto makers and see if there wasn't a market here for small cars. That's where they made their money, in a market the Big 3 didn't want to get into until just the last few years.

Your post doesn't really explain the existance of these very well:







:shrug:

I'll be one of the first in line to buy, provided my current truck needs to be replaced. Considering it has less and 60K miles and I drove my last one to just over 250k miles, they have plenty of time to design and build a "green" truck I would actually buy. ;)

Peace,
MZr7

They were the ones that used all their influence to keep efficiency down and usage up. They made sure that Detroit did not make cars for the US like they made for Europe, and once the guzzling cars were made, the auto companies were compelled to advertise them and convince the public that THEY were the cars they needed.

The countries in Europe who had utilized small, efficient cars for years did not have a huge oil industry trying to make sure that as much oil was used as was possible.

When Jimmy Carter tried to show us what could be done to end our dependency on foreign oil, he was laughed at, and the first thing that Raygun did was take down the solar panels from the White House roof.

The oil companies have been making record breaking profits for years..and they continue to increase!!! Their influence is overwhelming, and penetrates into every part of the govt.

If we had listened to Jimmy Carter there would be less pollution, a lot more sources of alternative energy, and we probably would never have gotten into the conflicts in the Middle East that involved oil and protecting the interests of private oil companies.

Consumers were stupid and were duped. The auto companies were somewhat willing accomplices. But the real villain, the "Dick Cheney" of this situation, both literally and figuratively, was the OIL COMPANIES!

I'll never buy a car from either of them for any reason whatsoever.

I pretty much agree up to the point about whether there's a market for green cars. A lot of people here know I'm a big proponent of electric vehicles, and I'll tell you this: I think that when people get the option of an EV which performs well and has a good range, there's going to be a lot of interest in them. The performance, speed, handling, and low noise you get with an EV can't be beaten with any other kind of vehicle.

Give people the option of plugging into their wall instead of needing to fill up their gas tank. Show them that an extension cord will give then 20 miles for 20 cents. Then we'll see if they might want a green car.

We own a great big pickup truck. Monster thing. We use it to plow out our 2 businesses and attached apts. But the reason we own a huge one is because when we needed a truck, the government offered us an enormous tax deduction if we bought a big mother. They weren't subsidizing fuel efficiency or green - they were only subsidizing huge machines. Hummers would have been deductible under this and a lot of businesses bought them back then. So don't give me that nonsense that Americans won't buy small, efficient. The government to date has stacked the deck so that American big fat trucks and SUVs are what we've got. They are all in cahoots and many of these same legislators acting holier than thou about auto exec fat cats are hypocritical jackasses because they enabled them.

deductible big truck when i was going to buy what I needed anyway. What it encouraged was people who saw the "up-front write it off this year deduction" and went out and got a hummer for personal use and wrote it off on the company. And they limited the deduction to big trucks and SUV's. If what i had needed for my business was a Prius, it would not have been eligible for a big immediate write-off. That's what is so wrong.

20 miles right now, but as far as power and speed, it's up to par (hubby takes it to the drags for fun--decent numbers). I'm finding that part of the problem is plain old ignorance of what an EV is and isn't. What it can and can't do. We draw a crowd wherever we go, with a ton of people asking questions. When you explain to them that, for the most part, your daily trips are less than 20 miles in a day, and that it only takes about an hour for ours to recharge, they realize that having at least one EV in their driveway doesn't limit their driving abilities.

We have other vehicles for longer range and use that if necessary, but as a daily driving car, to and from work, the EV we have works perfectly. And we're converting a second one, (Ford Probe body) which in the end will have a 40-60 mile range, and allows us more flexibility. We'll keep the gas vehicles, but our daily costs for the EVs will amount to approximately 6 cents a mile.

The problem is that people are full of myths and disinformation. Car companies could solve that, but it's not a slogan, it requires an education of the public and a change in mindset.

Once again, style trumps substance...

Popularity trumps efficiency...

Gratification trumps responsibility...


Sometimes I really dislike our groveling and sniveling at the feet of The Market, as though it were a deity to which we are afraid to voice our displeasure.

Form follows function. Ornament is a crime.


"Falling Water" .. Frank Loyd Wright

Usually change is promoted by progressive citizens. Government always lags behind.
I remember back in the late 60s when one of our neighbors bought a Toyota. People laughed but check the roads today - we have more Toyotas and Hondas than any other cars on our roads.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2006/10/autooil_marriag.html

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/opinions/x1125291758/Bailout-funds-will-only-help-if-auto-industry-changes

November 26, 2008 @ 08:10 PM

The Herald-Dispatch

The days of the internal combustion engine must come to an end. Where's the "Manhattan Project" for finding new technologies?

... gas guzzling SUVs either when those were first introduced, but they were willing to take the chance with those. Why is it the big three only want guarantees when it comes to efficient cars?

Power and performance don't matter that much to me, though. If they can make a car nicer to drive and not charge a lot more for it, that seems like a reasonable way to innovate.

But, putting more HP into an engine when the speed limits are 65mph seem stupid when the innovation ought to be targeted toward giving equal performance for less energy consumption.

The Professor

(I refer, of course, to the author of the article, not to BBI)

Sadly, it is probably true that many Americans won't buy smaller, more effectient cars as long as the price of gas is low. I do think they would gradually do so if it had remained near $4 a gallon. I was seeing fewer larger new cars on the road. I know my next car will be smaller and will be American made.

Put your VIN number on your tax return. If it's a gas guzzler less than 5 years old, pay a penalty. If it's a gas efficient car less than 5 years old, get a tax credit.

If it's older than 5 years old, then you probably can't afford a new car, and shouldn't be penalized. If you can demonstrate that the type of car is required for your JOB, then no penalty either... but that would have to be reflected in a Schedule C or Schedule SE. Or the company would have to offset your car, or give you one.

Very few of us NEED: power, performance and luxury. IF the sole reason for a gas guzzling car is pleasure, then pay for it.

And please don't say that you need it to pull your boat or drive through rough terrain. Unless the boat is your permanent residence or source of livelihood, you don't need it. And if you insist on a truck, PLEASE be using it to plow snow in the winter.

1. Where's the line between what's considered a gas guzzler or not? What if you have a gas guzzler but you only drive it a few hundred miles a year? Meanwhile I have a car that gets classified in the "efficient" category but I drive thousands of miles and therefore consume far more gas than you. How is that fair that you're getting penalized?

2. Why not just purchase and register your car under the name of your 16 year old kid who doesn't file an income tax return?

3. Exemptions for people who file a Schedule C doesn't do anything to solve the problem. These are the very same people who are taking a tax credit on the full amount of a Hummer because it's a "heavy truck" that they need for their "business."

The tax credits should be at the point of purchase. Tax breaks for buying alternative fuel vehicles. NO CAPS on the number of vehicles that qualify. That's ridiculous and unfair. Any tax penalties should at the gas pump. That's the only way for it to remain fair.

The wealthy need not drive. Working stiffs must.

I was just pointing out that the poster's proposal didn't quite make sense. I wasn't actually advocating a raise in gas taxes.

If I want a boat, so what?? Is that any of your business? I drive a sports car, do you wanna tax me to hell too because of my choice and personal taste in a car?

We do not need a fuckin luxury or "trying to have some fun" tax. We simply need more efficient vehicles, not more bullshit taxes like this.

Taxing *choices* rather than necessities is exactly how it should work. If you want to exercize your "personal taste" at the expense of everyone else - then everyone else has the right to exercize THEIR personal taste by making you pay for it.

As for fuel efficiency, it does ok averaging around 22-23mpg. I dont have a boat, but I would like to have a jet ski.

Higher taxes is nothing more than a big "fuck you" to those of us who dont want a bland boring ass little car, and being forced to only having such vehicle.

I hate to break it to you, though, but your Mommy was wrong. You're not special. Anyone your physical age should have fewer feelings of entitlement and more feelings of personal responsibility toward other living creatures. The so-called "big f. you" would be our communal way of telling you gently that we're not your Mommy and that you need to grow up.

Build me a fuel effecient car that I'd like and I'll buy it. Not a damn Prius or a Civic.

cars that are dirt fucking cheap if they hope to survive. Coincidentally, making cars that are dirt cheap has also been one of the most reliable ways of making cars that are fuel efficient. Of course, Detroit sucks at economy cars because they decided that market section was not lucrative enough and left it to imports.

I have a KIA, which gets 28 -30 miles per gallon and a Toyota Scion (not the bread truck style) which gets 40 miles to the gallon. I have been teased about driving my Toy - it is red and has been called a "rolling tomato can". I could give a good rip - I'd much rather spend my money on something besides gas! I was brought up in a home where cars were a necessary evil - not a status symbol. My Dad drove a '49 Ford from the time I was born until I graduated High School. I have NEVER understood the American NEED to trade every 3 years and buy huge vehicles which cost big bucks to maintain and run. But, I agree, Americans ARE a big part of the Detroit problem because of vanity and stupidity! I have a feeling, though, that Americans will be reigning in their lofty expectations in the very near future!

Unfortunately, too many Americans still are interested in driving the biggest gas guzzling SUV they can. That combined with the auto makers refusal to build decent fuel efficent cars means more people are buying foreign cars.

Over here in South Korea, I don't see many American cars at all. When I do, I usually stop and look at it because it's so rare. I'd venture to guess 95% of Koreans drive a Korean brand (Hyundai, SM, Kia or Daewoo). Lots of BMW's and Audi's and the Mini Cooper seems to be the one very common American car here (also the Chrysler PT Crusier as well).

WTO isn't everything its cracked up to be.

I haven't tried to buy a car here nor would I try to drive.

It's the Clinton era all over again as far as gas prices are concerned...

Unless we PUSH green and electric cars we will end up at the same place we were earlier this year in 5-10yrs.

high enough that it forces folks to change

in Europe gasoline is WAY expensive

we lack effective leadership

we need brave, bold leaders who will make those risky moves

let's hope Obama does in his second term

otherwise they will do like we do..drive our 17 year old Honda..

a 40K "efficient" car might as well be a diamond studded aircraft carrier.. we won;t be buying either

The answer doesn't lie in chucking a perfectly good ICE vehicle for a new $30k hybrid or $100k electric. Not only are you creating additional waste (assuming many 'retired' vehicles won't be desirable purchases anymore), but unnecessarily spending money for a new car just to save a bit on gas or to be 'green'.

For a $3300 price, the Poulsen Hybrid system can be added to most current car models in a couple of hours. It consists simply of two electric motors mounted over the rear wheels and connected to the car via a torque arm.
How it works --> http://www.poulsenhybrid.com/poulsen.html

I feel that this technology is going to be the automotive wave of the future, at least near term.

Like it or not, a major reason that American automakers have built the cars that they've built for the domestic market is that they've had to contend with highly misleading long-term market signals based on cheap gas.

I think the idea that American's won't buy small, fuel efficient cars is bollux. Gas prices have certainly played a part, but I think something else is at work here.

Even with the fluctuation in gasoline prices, the Big 3 should have foreseen this eventuality and they should have designs already completed for vehicles that can fit a market where gasoline is expensive. They should have a plan ready to go for producing such vehicles.

I think a bigger problem here is profit margins. Tiny cars demand tiny prices. No one but the enthusiast is going to pay $30,000 for a roller-skate car when they can buy a mini-van or full-sized car for the same price. People will by tiny, limited-range, limited-use commuter vehicles like SmartCars, but they will expect them to be priced like covered motorcycles, which is what they basically are. This means a price of sub-$15K.

But guess what? The profit margins on a $15K car probably aren't as nice as they are on a $30K car.

I strongly, strongly suspect that one of the reasons we have not seen more electric cars is because the barrier to entry into the electric car market will be much much less than for gasoline powered cars. Once the market is broken open for electric vehicles, anyone can make them. Much of the last hundred years of automotive engineering expense has been going into creating highly efficient drivetrains. With an electric vehicle, anyone can pop an electric motor into a rolling chassis. And those electric motors are made all over the world very cheaply and efficiently. Likewise the battery technology will not be some value-add that the auto industry owns - it will simply be purchased from a battery company and will be a commodity cost built into the car. So basically anyone with a sheet metal shop can create a chassis and drop Company X's electric motor and Company Y's batteries in it and make a car. Witness: http://www.greenvehicles.com/specs/triac.html . When companies like this can do it, there is no way a giant industry like the Big 3 can demand premiums for similar cars to support all their bloated manufacturing costs.

So I think the Big 3 don't want to make tiny, efficient cars here in the United States, because the profit margins in them are also tiny. They make bigger, more expensive cars here because people here will buy them. This suits them fine, as they get bigger profit margins off of the more expensive cars. The last thing they want to see here are little tiny electric SmartCars running all around - there's not enough profit in them and anyone can make one.

incentives for gas guzzlers, etc, I'm so tired of their BS!

Prius sales are down 48%!!!

---------------------

Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co. and Nissan Motor Co., Japan's three biggest automakers, said November U.S. sales tumbled more than 30 percent as incentives failed to lure buyers to showrooms in a deepening recession.

Toyota's 34 percent plunge was the most for Asia's biggest automaker since at least 1980, while Honda fell 32 percent and Nissan plunged 42 percent. Combined sales for Asia-based brands including Hyundai Motor Co. slid 35 percent.

``We've probably reached a point where no vehicle is immune from the ravages of the market,'' said Mike Robinet, an analyst at CSM Worldwide Inc. in Northville, Michigan. ``The consumer is not in a very jovial mood when it comes to opening their pocketbooks.''

Models such as Honda's Fit and Toyota's Prius succumbed to the slump after selling for months at or above list prices without incentives. Sales of the Fit subcompact fell 8.4 percent, and the hybrid Prius was off 48 percent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSV3RjQXwyqU&refer=home

from that effect.

and sales are down across the board from the fact that everyone has lost money in their houses, IRA's an jobs...

The CRX sold well, got 65MPG - and they pulled it off the market!

But the automakers refuse to go green because they sit on the same boards with the oil co's.