Motors Survival of the US car?

Yes but it wont be the ONLY market: large cars. I would LOVE to drive a 5.8l V8 if I could afford to and you must earn more than average, or have shifted your income accordingly to your car. Id guess you earn far more than your average american and 3l V6 is "normal" over there.

If you start taxing the little cars MORE people will buy other cars and the environmentalists will have a field day. But they you get into the argument about why dont we tax people for farting or farmers for their cows?

When you get your Mustang: SHOTGUN!!

It's also the fact familys LOVE buying suv's cause the "soccer moms" feel "safe" in one regardless of the fact that any normal car (renault scenic or megane) will perform as well or better in a head on crash. They like the feeling of authority being higher up is the crux of it.

 

They're finally starting to get Smart cars here and I wish I could afford one. On the other hand, I think I'm a mini-van person for life. I just haul too much stuff around with me on a daily basis to have much else be suitable. Right now I've got my fire fighting gear, a dozen 6' garden staffs, a couple power tools and I forget what all else floating around in the back. Try fitting any of that in a smart car.

I got to thinking of somthing else readin this thread. My mom drives an 02 Pontiac Trans-Am (The big nostril model). My friend Ron from work drives a similar vintage Hundai Tiburon. Both go fast, but that's about where the similarities end. Mom's Trans-Am is huge, it weighs about two tons and drives like a fast tank. You drive it laying down because it's so short, and it has nowhere near enough legroom for my 6'1" frame. Ron's Tiburon on the other hand is very comfortable, you actually sit upright to drive it, and it takes corners smoothly at speeds I can't discuss

I'm pretty sure the Tiburon is also a lot cheaper to feed.

I guess my point is that the Korean product seems like a much better car to me.

 

to be honest, though, i can see why cars like the smart car, ka, micra, etc don't appeal to people over there - i don't like cars that size myself. far too poky. about the smallest car i'd drive is something escort-sized. but why not, as long as it has a smallish engine and gets decent fuel economy?

my cavalier diesel is about the same size as most medium-sized american saloon cars (ok, maybe slightly smaller) but it still gets 45mpg...so why is the same GM model (with a different name/badge/bodywork) supplied with a minimum of a 2.5 litre petrol engine over there? that's what i'd really like to know.

 

I've got a Chevy Cavalier and on average I get about 30 mpg. It's 3x as much as my old Ford F150 got, but honestly, I loved driving the truck. It was 5.8L, 350bhp @ 450 torque (200,000 dyno) and while my car makes 145 bhp @ 140 torque and weighs much less than the truck, the truck had that extra "oomph" when accelerating.

Part of the difference really is distance traveled. Americans drive, on average, about 15 miles to get anywhere. I drove 70 miles to school every day (about 112 km) in my truck back when gas was $1 a gallon. That was easy, even when I worked fast food. I made tips and it helped me pay gas. Now that gas is $3 a gallon, it would cost $80 on average to fill both gas tanks. But I'd still rather drive the truck.

Interesting to note that recently, truck sales have dropped 50% since last month (or year, not sure). I'm actually happy about this: morons who don't NEED trucks will stop driving them everywhere and will get a vehicle they can see out of - it's amazing how many truck owners have cut me off. Mirrors are bigger on a truck for a reason... ugh, sorry getting off topic.

Ford makes a great car now, which is more than I can say for GM. Ford also owns many popular car makers (even own Land Rover), so they'll do fine. GM, unless it cuts out about 4,003,292 levels of middle management will tank (Saturn and Pontiac are the only companies it has that sell as well/better than Chevy and GMC). Maybe Hummer will stay afloat with its military contracts, but I only see it prolonging GMs water treading.

 

That is to say, i THINK that the Chevrolet Cavalier is similar to the vauxhall cavalier.

Vauxhall:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...p.jpg/250px-1994.vauxhall.cavalier.ls.arp.jpg

Chevrolet:

http://www.leasetrader.com/photos/actual34300/640x480/Chevrolet-Cavalier-Base-Sedan.jpeg

Some of the differences in GM models are laughable though.

Chevrolet Nova = big ol' american muscle car.

http://www.acclassiccars.com/images/vehicles/1758.jpg

Vauxhall Nova = poxy little tin can.

http://www.carsurvey.org/images/vauxhall_nova_3.jpg

 

American cars that try to look like non-american cars just look like ****. That first Chevvy is an absoultely prime example. I'd never ever buy that. Ever.

 

You might not, but students in college with very little cash can afford to make the sacrifice

 

First, in the interest of fairness, that is not a stock Nova! lol that isn't even close to a stock Nova. Second, for most older models, the name does not carry over to different markets. Newer (early 90's) models like the Escort and Civic yes, they led the way in platform sharing, but they are still seldom the same car on the road. Even as late as my mom's 1991 Escort bought in Germany through military sales, was completely different then the one owned by my aunt, bought on the German market. They were the same year, both Ford Escorts and had less then 10% parts commonality. ( that last bit came from the mechanic, who was one of the few master mechanics in southern Germany to have a full set of metric and standard tool sets to work on cars like ours, hence the lack of parts commonality )

Edit:
this is a stock nova.

 

obviously it isn't stock. i don't like the stock one as much

if i was going to have any muscle car i would love a '69 charger in black with a 440ci V8. But then I'd have to shoot myself because I'm supposed to be all environmentally conscious.

(although what would be intresting would be to stick a massive supercharged diesel engine in, running on veg oil. it would probably have quite a similar torque curve and the stock transmission would easily handle it.)

 

And this is a standard Vauxhall Nova http://www.carsurvey.org/images/vauxhall_nova_2.jpg init. 99.9% don't have the boot, they are tiny.

The OP made me laugh with his fair comparison, the cream of one with the shite of another, nice one.

 

well have you ever seen a nice vauxhall nova?

thought not.

that's because they don't exist. no matter what you do to them, they're still poxy tin cans.

(apart from the one with two bike engines.)

 

Pst, you're not the Original Poster

I'm on about they comparison the biased tit made in the first post of this thread.

You need to be on BB so I can hurl some insults, here I would get banned

 

I am on BB - I'm TheBassJunky and I have a (not unreasonable) reputation for owning crap cars

 

GAH I know TBJ

And for driving them like a twunt

 

I have a 307 in my car and spend way less on it than many of my friends. Why? Car payments!

I take stock in numbers.
My car - Blue book value = ~$1,500. 12 miles per gallon city, 24 highway.
Toyota Prius - Blue book value = ~$22,000. 40 miles per gallon city, 50 highway.

Now, let's assume all highway driving.

Not counting repairs (as in, really fancy batteries and electronics), the Prius is really a great deal. At ~220,000 miles, both cars have a total cost of ~$29,000.

Even if we assume all city driving for me (as in, stop and go, 15mph average speed, lots of 0-40), and all highway driving for the Prius, it's still more than 100,000 miles for it to be cheaper.

Moral of the story - Old cars are cheaper than new ones, no matter how bad the mileage of the old one and how good the mileage of the new one.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of taxing people depending on how much they use the car. The car itself, or rather the owner of it, is taxed depending upon how many miles it has done each year. Surely that's better? Otherwise someone who owns a Mustang for example, will pay more in road tax than someone with a 1.4litre eurobox, even if the Mustang owner only does 2000 miles a year.

In fact, owning a mustang WILL help the environment.. or at least it will for me. As it stands, I drive my ST everywhere... it's currently my only everyday car. If I get the Mustang, I'll probably NOT drive it everywhere as the fuel costs will be so much higher. I'll probably end up getting something really crap to drive to work and back in.. VW Lupo or something similar. The result is... I'll produce less carbon emmissions if I buy the 4.6 litre V8, but I'll have to pay so much more tax because I own 2 cars... how unfair is that.

Tax should be based upon usage, not engine size.

 

Yes.

I drive (a well used) one with a 1.2 litre engine in, there's enough room for me to sit in it comfortably, which by my thinking makes it big enough. Its small enough on the outside to dart through gaps in traffic, narrow lanes, narrow bridges when theres an oncoming car (you know the kind, you can fit 2.5 cars in there widthwise but everyone loves to drive down the centre), and due to its unladen weight of circa 800kgs the 1.2 pulls it around with no problems until you start combining speeds over about 60mph with driving uphill.

I'd also love to have a big muscle car, but I don't see the point in the in-between vehicles like your cav, to me you have the benefits of a big car, or the benefits of a small.

 

this is why i like my cav.

- it still gets good fuel economy - i'd say around the same as your nova, and being a diesel it runs on veggie oil too.
- it's big enough for 5 people without getting in each other's space too much.
- you can haul loads of stuff around, especially with the seats folded flat.
- it's quick enough for everyday use
- it's probably safer, being bigger.

 

And therefore is actually greener than the nova (and any petrol / hybrid / electric car) as it's carbon neutral.

 

Hahaha, WRONG.

Doctor Diesels Dirty Invention actually produces a lot more nitrogen oxides, which are the current environmental problem, moreso than carbon oxides. .