|
Yeah I hate to be down on trikes because they are legit cool and could be a reasonable alternative to neighborhood bikes/motorbikes for disabled or old people. Plus possibly low-cost track rats. But $7k is a lot of clams. A lot of that seems to be because of weird design choices like a front-mounted 3-cylinder engine + front-wheel drive (maybe taken off of some euro citycar?), power windows, etc. Actually, I might be wrong, because I just looked up the price of a Canned Ham Spyder and they list at loving $17k new  Jesus.
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Hikaki posted:That's what I meant, you can't even fit that family in there so why would you have that picture there. haha my bad, I misread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Yeah I hate to be down on trikes because they are legit cool and could be a reasonable alternative to neighborhood bikes/motorbikes for disabled or old people. Plus possibly low-cost track rats. the campagna t-rex is like 50 grand, trikes are expensive, man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 05:17
|
|
|
Yeah I guess you're right. I like the idea of these smaller cars but since they hold this weird middle ground between bikes and regular compacts, they end up with all the downsides of both and none of the upsides of either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
The whole idea of cheap purpose designed city cars is basically about as practical as those tank destroyers that they built during world war 2. Most of the cost of building a car is in the capital investment of the initial design, tooling, factories, and stuff like that, and the world is currently awash with capital, tooling, factories and even just used cars looking for demand. Who the gently caress in North America is going to buy a $7k trike when you can get a 4 year old ex-fleet Nissan Sentra? Unless some kind of cataclysm happens where all the used cars in the country are crushed, there's just no market for it and there never will be, the market for cars in most developing countries are just saturated like that. No one in poor/developing countries will buy them either, because the tooling and factories and IP that built those old cars are still around and just gets sold to poorer countries. In China there are plenty of people who legitimately have only a few thousand dollars to spend on a car, and there isn't a supply of 4 year old Sentras to fill that demand, so what do they buy - newly built models of VW Jettas and Mitsubishi Lancers from 2 generations ago, that some Chinese company bought the production rights and assembly line to for pennies and just threw into production. Anyone who wants a cheap car can get one of those and there are plenty of floundering developed-world car companies around eager to sell their old poo poo to stay afloat. In this environment no one is going to spend time and money to engineer a *completely new* cheap and lovely car from the ground up, not even in poor countries, any more than they are going to start suddenly producing WW2 tank destroyers to save money. Tata in India tried this with the Nano, because they are idiots, and it was complete flop even in a country full of poor people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 09:06
|
|
|
Case in point. http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/06/bmw-planning-zhi-nuo-chinese-sub-brand-may-export-models/ All the foreign car companies are developing sub brands in China based on older versions of their first world cars, and BMW is no different. The report says they're going to be E90 based, but it seems like the E90 was just here yesterday, maybe an E46 based car would make more sense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Case in point. No, it should be the E30. Now to put together a crash testing fund...
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
I want a Santana 3000 in the worst way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:No, it should be the E30. Now to put together a crash testing fund... If you went through all the work to make an E30 even close to compliant with crash regulations, you'd end up with an E82 1-Series.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Dunno, the problem with city cars like that is that they're only really useful in places like NYC, SF, and other cities You're jumping to a big incorrect assumption. Look at the DOT omnibus stats where they collected data about the populace's commuting habits in the US. A large majority of people that commute by car in the US commute alone, and usually under 20 miles one way. AKA people out in the burbs, where there is no public transport to speak of.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Coredump posted:You're jumping to a big incorrect assumption. Look at the DOT omnibus stats where they collected data about the populace's commuting habits in the US. A large majority of people that commute by car in the US commute alone, and usually under 20 miles one way. AKA people out in the burbs, where there is no public transport to speak of. But of you're going close to 20 miles why not commute in a more normal sized car like a Fit or Yaris? (or even a Civic/Corolla)
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
I'm talking 20 miles there and back. The way that thing is advertising itself is 83 mpg, that's the draw. A normal sized car is not going to do that without hybrid tech. If you want to have a hope of being able to service a car yourself then something really small like that thing is going to be the way to go with ICE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
If you're commuting 5,200ish miles a year then you're not realistically going to be saving much by even doubling fuel economy - it'd only start making sense of the city car was significantly cheaper to purchase (which generally they're not), there were tax incentives or parks for city cars only.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
The problem is that <20 mile commute isn't most of their driving, they're also going shopping, taking the kids to things etc etc which all require a larger car. Most cars do at least 12k a year, some considerably more. The fuel savings etc don't justify the cost of an additional vehicle. Throatwarbler brings up the Nano which reminds that if you're going to be sitting in a car commuting you still want something with good NVH, climate control etc so your misery is entirely traffic based - those things are often the first to go for max efficiency vehicles like this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
dissss posted:If you're commuting 5,200ish miles a year then you're not realistically going to be saving much by even doubling fuel economy - it'd only start making sense of the city car was significantly cheaper to purchase (which generally they're not), there were tax incentives or parks for city cars only. Right now the 13' Mazda 2 starts around $14K MSRP. Same for the '13 Toyota Yaris. A new Ford Fiesta is a lil' over $13K MSRP for a base model. These are some of the cheapest new cars you can get right now. And while they all have what I'd think of as good MPG they're all going to get around half the MPG that the Elio can reportedly do. While selling for around twice the price MSRP-wise. How is that not a significant price advantage both in terms of initial cost and fuel costs? Granted those other regular compact hatchbacks will hold lots more poo poo and at least twice the number of people. But many people drive alone and very few are even willing to consider car pooling with even fewer still actually even bothering to do it even after more than a couple years dealing with our terrible "recovery". So long as it isn't a POS $7K for a 84MPG 2 seater commuter car seems quite interesting, financially and practically, to me. There are scooters that sell for a price close or even higher than that while not having an enclosed cab and are significantly less safe while also carrying some social stigma as being "weird" and/or for "losers who won't learn to ride a real motorcycle". If those scooters can sell well enough despite having some of the same or worse disadvantages vs regular small cars why not this? I'm not gonna bother to address the "well buy a used car" argument cause in this used car market such a suggestion is fairly lol-worthy. Snowdens Secret posted:The problem is that <20 mile commute isn't most of their driving, they're also going shopping, taking the kids to things etc etc which all require a larger car. Throatwarbler posted:Tata in India tried this with the Nano, because they are idiots, and it was complete flop even in a country full of poor people. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Apr 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Right now the 13' Mazda 2 starts around $14K MSRP. Same for the '13 Toyota Yaris. A new Ford Fiesta is a lil' over $13K MSRP for a base model. These are some of the cheapest new cars you can get right now. And while they all have what I'd think of as good MPG they're all going to get around half the MPG that the Elio can reportedly do. While selling for around twice the price MSRP-wise. How is that not a significant price advantage both in terms of initial cost and fuel costs? Granted those other regular compact hatchbacks will hold lots more poo poo and at least twice the number of people. Except the people driving 20 miles on a commute aren't going to save a whole lot of money on fuel because they never spend a lot on fuel anyway. And if they're driving more than that, then they're probably spending most of their time on the highway where something like this is probably miserable or even unsafe. Spread out over 3-5 years, the difference in price isn't that big compared to the significant gain in utility over those years. More generally, people hate serious limitations on their use. It's the same basic principle people buy SUVs - they never actually go off-road, but they like to know that they could if they wanted to. In terms of social acceptability, things like insurance will probably be pretty weird for those vehicles. Not to mention the fact that they're probably less safe than a compact car. Same also with financing. The Nano never became popular for sort-of-similar reasons. Most people who could afford one usually wanted a proper car, and people right on the borderline - that is, the target consumer - often just opted for a cheaper scooter or motorcycle instead, since that's the social default anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 15:16
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Supposedly the Nano flopped because it was a very poorly built car (given the $2K USD or less price this isn't so surprising) and had some bad publicity after there were some incidents of them catching on fire. Its like Tata effectively built a modern day Pinto of sorts, but even more poorly made. The fusebox was an option. The fusebox.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Supposedly the Nano flopped because it was a very poorly built car (given the $2K USD or less price this isn't so surprising) and had some bad publicity after there were some incidents of them catching on fire. Its like Tata effectively built a modern day Pinto of sorts, but even more poorly made. I read somewhere that one of the biggest reasons the Nano flopped was actually down to Tata advertising it as the cheapest car money could buy. You'd think people in India wanted a car like that, but there's a huge stigma attached to driving the cheapest car on the market. By driving one, you are effectively labeling yourself as a very poor person and no one wants to appear poor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
At least now that it's flopped they probably have a bunch of them left over on dealer lots for a spec racing series.Cakefool posted:The fusebox was an option. What do they do if you don't opt for the fusebox? Is it all inline fuse holders? Do they just not bother with fuses at all? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Seat Safety Switch posted:At least now that it's flopped they probably have a bunch of them left over on dealer lots for a spec racing series. They burst into flames, so, guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I read somewhere that one of the biggest reasons the Nano flopped was actually down to Tata advertising it as the cheapest car money could buy. You'd think people in India wanted a car like that, but there's a huge stigma attached to driving the cheapest car on the market. By driving one, you are effectively labeling yourself as a very poor person and no one wants to appear poor.  - even if it's a model you can buy in RHD anyway.Cakefool posted:The fusebox was an option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Except the people driving 20 miles on a commute aren't going to save a whole lot of money on fuel because they never spend a lot on fuel anyway. And if they're driving more than that, then they're probably spending most of their time on the highway where something like this is probably miserable or even unsafe. Spread out over 3-5 years, the difference in price isn't that big compared to the significant gain in utility over those years. If you're trying to argue someone would go with a motorcycle over a super cheap and efficient $7,000 car, no. Motorcycles make a TINY TINY porting of the US driving market. Plus there's a pretty big stigma against motorcyles (deathtraps) or even more sensible scooters (gay lol). I mean look at the thread title for the scooter megathread. Yeah I know its written in jest but its satire on a very real stigma against scooters. Plus there's the fact that if someone was looking for a new or used vehicle, here's one that sits at $7k, will have enough space for 90% of their driving, and get's 83 mpg.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Yeah, there have been similar issues in Japan where a company tries to lower the price of their "premium" product (I think the example I read about was whisky), and the sales actually drop because it's no longer seen as being quite so exclusive, but isn't actually cheap enough to compete purely on price. On the opposite end, there's sometimes this weird thing with a left-hand-drive car being a sign of exclusivity, because it shows you drat well had to import it, and are thus So I could bring my MSP over to Japan and be Tokyo Ballin'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Coredump posted:If you're trying to argue someone would go with a motorcycle over a super cheap and efficient $7,000 car, no. Motorcycles make a TINY TINY porting of the US driving market. Plus there's a pretty big stigma against motorcyles (deathtraps) or even more sensible scooters (gay lol). I mean look at the thread title for the scooter megathread. Yeah I know its written in jest but its satire on a very real stigma against scooters. I was speaking specifically of the Tata Nano in India, where motorcycles and scooters are way more mainstream and make up a huge chunk of the driving market. The problem with the super cheap and efficient car is that if it's not good on the highway, the majority of Americans won't buy it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Fucknag posted:So I could bring my MSP over to Japan and be Tokyo Ballin'?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:The problem with the super cheap and efficient car is that if it's not good on the highway, the majority of Americans won't buy it. Bingo. I have a 32 mile round trip commute. My car, depending on how I drive it, gets around 20-21 mpg average. So, I'm driving 8320 miles a year to commute and burn about 416 gallons of gas. An 84 mpg car would only burn 99 gallons of gas. At $4 /gallon for gas, I would only be saving $1268 a year on fuel, so it would take me 6 years to break even on buying something like that do do my commuting in. In reality, I probably couldn't use it all that much for 4 months out of the year since I would be terrified to drive that thing in snow or ice. So, the savings would be even less. All these pie-in-the-sky alternative vehicles are neat for niche markets for novelties, but 4 wheels and 4 seats for 4 adults is going to remain the minimum car spec that will have a mainstream market. Things like plug in hybrids (provided that we fix our electrical generation woes) are a much better alternative to remove the base load of commuting from internal combustion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Those mini's are good for places like Paris, Japan or Manhattan but, yeah, impractical for highways which his how a good chunk of America is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
bull3964 posted:Bingo. What I find particularly interesting is that a diesel really suits the "partial throttle and early upshifts" driving style an awful lot of people seem to have, especially people who grew up on older, lower-revving petrol engines and don't drive modern small-capacity multi-valve engines "properly". I've said several times that I don't particularly like diesels with manual boxes, but with a traditional auto or a DSG I really find they're not much different to a petrol save for being more economical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Those mini's are good for places like Paris, Japan or Manhattan but, yeah, impractical for highways which his how a good chunk of America is. At least in Manhattan your problems are parking and congestion. This does nothing to solve either issue. To the degree fuel economy is relevant at all in stop-and-go city traffic this thing is a non-starter against an electric or hybrid. A tinier, more crippled car is a 20th century solution to 21st century problems. The real answers are things like Zipcar timeshares and Uber-type ride-sharing, and telecommuting / online shopping to reduce unnecessary trips.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 22:52
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:And this is where diesels really come into their own, like a 3-series. Drive it like any other car, and that 32 miles (which I'm guessing involves a lot of sitting on a highway at about 70) will be quite happily sticking a 50% increase on your MPG without even trying. Willing to cut yourself down to a smaller hatchback, you'd double it. My seven year old Volvo V50 gets 43 mpg average (in real life, not on paper), so I'd say doubling the mpg wouldn't even require a smaller car (than a 3-series, I mean).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:My seven year old Volvo V50 gets 43 mpg average (in real life, not on paper), so I'd say doubling the mpg wouldn't even require a smaller car (than a 3-series, I mean).
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Except the people driving 20 miles on a commute...never spend a lot on fuel anyway...they're probably spending most of their time on the highway where something like this is probably miserable or even unsafe. Spread out over 3-5 years, the difference in price isn't that big compared to the significant gain in utility over those years...More generally, people hate serious limitations on their use. It's the same basic principle people buy SUVs....In terms of social acceptability, things like insurance will probably be pretty weird for those vehicles. Not to mention the fact that they're probably less safe than a compact car. Same also with financing....The Nano never became popular for sort-of-similar reasons. I mean if you're trying to argue that no way will the Elio sell hundreds of thousands of cars a year then I'd have to say you're almost certainly right. But if so why is that the bar for success for a tiny car like this? Why can't it do well enough selling say 10K a year? Motorcycles and scooters are still around despite low volume sales, why not this? IIRC Tesla became profitable after selling cars at a rate of somewhat over 12K a year. Sure its a lots more expensive car but its also lots more expensive to produce too. As for how miserable or not this car is on the freeway we don't really know at this point, it could be crap it could be decent or even good. What is clear to me at this point is that with a enclosed cabin it'd certainly be a better ride than a scooter or motorcycle in any weather on or off the freeway while also being safer with its multi air bag crash system. Social acceptability is definitely something that could work against this car, it is after all very different looking than most cars, which could be good or bad. That being said the financial aspects of it are highly interesting, and are what IMO, could make this vehicle successful. Yes people like their SUV's and such but even for a few year old used one the prices on those things is getting to be so high few can afford them. With the "recovery", job market, and wages such as they are right now people might just be willing to accept something different and with less utility for a cheap price. I'd disagree with you totally about the Nano's failure though for reasons already posted. Snowdens Secret posted:The real answers are things like Zipcar timeshares and Uber-type ride-sharing, and telecommuting / online shopping to reduce unnecessary trips. I like diesels too guys but the increased cost of the motor + necessary emissions controls seems to drive the cost up juuust enough to put it in the "too expensive" category in the US for most cars. PC LOAD LETTER fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Apr 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
With Telecommuting I get to work and stay at home in my jammies, have TV in the background, save on gas, bang my wife at lunch hour if she's home, make a short run if I need to somewhere at my convenience like a pharmacy, don't have anyone looking over my shoulder, etc. etc. ? Why the hell isn't this the new wave already? EDIT: Ooooohhhh....employers are opposed. Okay then. Until they implant chips to track you that is. EDIT 2: Well I suppose the employers would save on infrastructure like office buildings and poo poo. Gatts fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Apr 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Is it like the thing with the old British market, where the heater was technically an option, but gently caress you, it'll come with one and you're paying for it? Nope, it was literally an additional cost item not fitted to the majority of cars. I read about it when the fires were happening & it was a hundred-quid-or-so option on a car that cost less than £2k. Not surprisingly it wasn't a popular option.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 12:00
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:
Well to be honest they were more ventelation fans with a few levers marked warm and hot, neither positions doing anything different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
Well, the car itself isn't new, but anyways. Why Australia, Polestar? Sweden wants its halo cars too!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
Bentley has an SUV. The current version looks like a Arnage or something but the supposed 2015 version looks like it's more based off the Continental.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
So I actually saw the new Cherokee at the Edmonton motor show yesterday, and I have to say, it actually looks pretty good. It's certainly different, but it didn't stand out as some horrible looking thing compared to all the other vehicles there. The new Ford Atlas is also MASSIVE.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
asmallrabbit posted:The new Ford Atlas is also MASSIVE. Well it is supposed to weigh 100 tons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Ford Escort concept.  Huh. That actually looks pretty decent, if you squit it does kind of harken back to the old Escort, so the Heritage nameplate probably makes me like it more. Presumably it will be based on the Fiesta wheelbase with a lengthened body. Throw the 1.0l turbo 3 cylinder in it and I would drive it. http://www.autoblog.com/2013/04/19/ford-escort-concept-goes-back-to-basics/#aol-comments
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2013 04:32
|
|