Fuel Efficient Cars

Those vehicles are allowed on highways in oregon if classified as farm machinery.

Usually it takes a little "creative" paper work to make this happen.

We had one on a farm I worked on. It WAS a complete waste of our money. The drive train was non-serviceable and parts were very expensive if we could find them at all.

And along came the Shahs. I believe it was 60 minutes that had the Saudi prince on and he did state that they do everything they can to discourage electric and fuel efficient vehicles because their economy depends on Americans to buy their oil and finance their economy. I guess there's more than one fly in the ointment!

h

American consumer opinion and preference has changed from what I have seen (both on the Web and in person). I think my last post on the subject summed it up nicely, just look at what is driving down the city streets.

As a side note I was in Chicago a month ago for two weeks. About half the cars I saw there were NOT American at all but a mixture of European and Asian models.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/307968

An example is a small van/flatbed style vehicle made in Japan. They are very economical and have been imported by the U.S. government for use on military installations and shiopyards. They can't be used on public highways because they don't meet highway codes.

This is purely because they are right-hand drive, correct? There was a case that was explained to me that only specially trained personnel were allowed to drive certain vehicles on base and were not allowed to drive these vehicles off-base (but this was due to internal NZ military bureaucracy).

In Japan, vehicles over a certain age, have to be disposed of. They end up on the used market in other Asian countries and now in the U.S.

Same as in NZ down here (I drive one, a Japanese import sports car about 2-3 years old when purchased). The main reason (as it was explained to me) was not that the vehicles are at their end of life, or unsafe, but that due to Japanese regulations and taxes certain vehicles become too expensive to own and run on Japanese roads once they get to a certain age and so it is cheaper to sell them and buy newer. This is a rather simplified explanation.

Don't know if it is still in effect today, but Japan had a law that all weatherstripping on a vehicle had to be replaced after a certain time went by. It was cost prohibitive to do this so they just junked or traded the vehicle in for a newer model. Nice way to promote the economy and sell new autos don't you think?

NHTSA and IIHS statistics show that small cars are more dangerous than larger cars, as would be expected based on mass: in a head-on colllision, other things being equal, the little car looses.

However, I have never found it difficult to find small, efficient cars. The problem is not Detroit, the problem is the undeducated, egotistical population. No one needs a huge SUV. People were perfectly happy with ordinary station wagons years ago. But with large SUVs available, people will buy them to compensate for inadequacies, to show off, to feel safe (even though data shows that many of them are not as safe as most mid size and large sedans), etc. Some of us will continue to buy small efficient cars -- they are readily and widely available, and even cost less than big cars.

It is expensive to tailor the smallest cars to the American market, due to crash test standards and other structural and equipment standards. The Tata Nano, if it makes it here, will be $8,000 rather than the $2500 it costs in India.

"small cars are more dangerous than larger cars" -- but if all cars were small cars??????????

"...small cars are more dangerous than larger..." That MAY be true for those inside big cars, but what about safety in GENERAL, hence including pedestrians and other road users, what about the impact of shape, materials and mass/weight in case of collision? And why should environmental aspects (production, use and recycling) be excluded from being considered as aspects of general safety?

Big missunderstanding here from just about ALL the people posting.

You don't have to have small cars, YOU NEED ECONOMICAL MEDIUM AND LARGE ONES TOO!!

My car is a 6 seater, the cheaper version (without leather) is actually a 7 seater.

You can see more details here:-

http://www.mitsubishi-motors-europe.com/models/grandis/

It exceeds 100MPH easily, and generally uses between 40 to 50 MPG of Diesel. Even towing a 1.5 metric ton Caravan trailer, it drops to 30 to 35 MPG only.....

It is not alone, there are several other makes and models around that achieve this too.....

I disagree with the conspiracy theory. I do not believe there is a concentrated effort to keep the public from getting what they want. Example: A company could sell (Option A) 1,000,000 vehicles that the public wanted or sell (Option B) 50,000 vehicles that they forced upon the public. Their economies of scale would decrease and their profit margin would decrease with Option B eventually leading them to backruptcy or government takeover. Option B would only make sense if they had spies in leadership positions within the company that were working to ensure the destruction of the company.

With that said, I do believe that there are people within the automotive sales departments who are misinformed about what people will buy. Ford would not release the 60 MPG diesel Festiva here because they believed the American public would not buy them. Instead, they are building the 40 MPG gas Festiva in Mexico for sale here.

Diesels in the 70s were noisy and smelly. The European diesels are good clean automobiles. The US has embraced hybrids instead of diesels. Note: I believe this is similar to embracing Betamax tapes over VHS). Sales departments do not believe people can learn. Another example is hamburgers. The hamburger chains were considering selling 1/3 pound burgers. They surveyed some population, found out that 73% of the population thought a 1/4 pounder was bigger than a 1/3 pounder and the Big Buford was born.

I personally do not plan to buy a hybrid. My last purchase was a 2004 Civic that gets 40 MPG. The hybrid was rated at 53 MPG. It costed about 35% more than my Civic and would probably cost as much to replace the battery pack as I could save in gas. I would definitely consider buying a diesel.

History keeps repeating and reinventing itself. When the Rickenbacker car company developed an automobile with brakes on all 4 wheels, the major US auto companies put out a media blitz stating that brakes on 4 wheels were dangerous because in an emergency stop someone could put their head through the windshield. This, in part, led to the bankruptcy of Rickenbacker.

I think Ford's seeing the light. Their Euro models are coming. Even my big Flex gets over 30 mpg on a flat highway at moderate speeds.

I think everyone here understands most of the diesels good points, but here is one you may not have considered:-

The fuel is far far less "Flammable" than Gas/Petrol. In an accident, this can give extra valuable seconds to get out of the vehicle.....

A bad point is getting it on your hands and then onto the steering wheel, always keep "wipes" handy just in case......also Diesel stinks (and that makes me seasick on some diesel boats!!)