Time For a Smaller Car Standard?

[gardnet1]

Kei cars...bah humbug! What we need is the Ford Ka/Street Ka. The new one will be built along side the highly sucessful Fiat 500 in a JV. I would expect Ford to ensure that the redesigned model will be US compatible. I expect them to make an announcement soon, perhaps at the next big auto show...LA???

If customers want a high seating position, then they can opt for a non-commercial version of the Ford Transit-Connect. Also the upcoming 2010 Ford Fiesta, Saturn Merivia & Saturn Corsa are also great choices for eco-space-efficient green vehicles.

[chakis24]

Originally Posted by poncho1982

Well, I for one, don't see why they haven't developed a street going 4 wheeler (ATV), like they said, you can ride a motorcycle with almost no safety equipment, wht not a 4 wheeler?

That would be pretty cool.

ive actually thought of the same thing and what it would actually take. different tires, some turn signals, and thats really it right? what else would it need. already has a headlight, brake lights, and parking lights. atv's are dirt cheap too.

as for me, i plan on buying either an electric scooter or beater small car.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by gardnet1

Kei cars...bah humbug! What we need is the Ford Ka/Street Ka. The new one will be built along side the highly sucessful Fiat 500 in a JV. I would expect Ford to ensure that the redesigned model will be US compatible.

Someone around where I work has a Ford Ka. It's a bit older with the bubble styling popular 5 years ago, but it looks only a tad smaller than an Aveo.

As for Kei or A-Segment cars, I don't care where they come from, as long as they are somewhat boxy (making the most use of space) and not bubblish with a rounded cargo area, and I like the Ford Transit, too.

[kodos78]

Why not trust people to buy the cars that they want? I can understand engineering cars so that they do not create excessive danger to pedestrians or other vehicles, but if a car is flimsy and gets 150mpg, and weighs 500lbs -- I'm all for it if all I'm endangering is myself!

This safety argument has to stop. For God's sake -- our children are encased in large child seats until they are almost old enough to shave these days!

And there will always be auto makers that pride themselves on safety -- like Volvo. People who are interested in safety will buy a Volvo. Those that don't, won't.

Otherwise, this is the classic protect people from themselves argument, that led to prohibition and in the case of automobiles -- leads to bloated cars where every vehicle requires a safety cage with thick doors and an assortment of airbags. Driving up the cost of the vehicle and the weight while lowering the MPG.

Originally Posted by mikesright

The problem with the argument of doing a smaller class of cars, especially ones with those kinds of limitations, is people would much rather get a decent medium-sized used car than buy a city car. The exception to the rule, the Smart, might sell 30,000 cars in a year, so it is almost a novelty in the car market.

I also hate all this talk about taking out crash standards, there needs to be a certain minimal level of protection for people in a crash, bottom line. We don't need car companies sacrificing safety for price or weight or fuel economy. The reason motorcycles aren't regulated is because there's little any manufacturer can do to make a motorcycle safer to the rider.

[slowinthefastlane]

If Smart can meet the same standards as normal-sized cars, then there's no reason to change the requirements. People in the United States have a different expectation of safety when driving a passenger car than when driving a motorcycle. Lowering the bar for micro cars would only serve to reinforce the notion that all small cars are inherently unsafe.

[kodos78]

Think about how much better gas mileage (and cheaper!) Smart would get if it didn't have to meet some inane safety standard.

How much better would it be if you could get a Smart type car for $5,000 that seats 4 and gets 60mpg instead of 41 (which is pretty low all things considered)?

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

If Smart can meet the same standards as normal-sized cars, then there's no reason to change the requirements. People in the United States have a different expectation of safety when driving a passenger car than when driving a motorcycle. Lowering the bar for micro cars would only serve to reinforce the notion that all small cars are inherently unsafe.

[EllwynX]

Tiny cars such as the Smart car is perfectly fine, but should be regulated as to WHERE they are allowed to drive. Those cars should be limited to city driving only (NYC, Philly, etc.) where high speeds are not reached and the odds of getting hit by a Tahoe going 75mph doesn't exist.

I don't care what their crash ratings claim, those tiny cars won't stand a chance if in a real world accident with a fullsize car/SUV/truck.

[Wolfman01]

Originally Posted by PeterPuck

Because people are aware of the risks inherent with riding a motorcycle. In fact for many, it's part of the "charm" of owning one -- "oooh, you're so fearless!" What do the police call bikers? Donors?

I, for one, would not want my wife and kids putt-putting around in a tiny kei-car, and it would be irresponsible for me to put them in that sort of danger. The driving conditions in North America really are different than they are in Japan and Europe. I don't know many people who are permanent urban fixtures, who don't normally need to take a trip on an expressway.

Problem is Peter, you are treating this like a mandate that would force you to purchase one. I've had the fortune of getting a kei class minitruck registered for on road use here in TX. I've had zero issues keeping up with traffic up to 55 mph. My mini can do a little more, but I've avoided beating the little engine up against it's redline on the highways. I'm now being faced with the reality that the state has now decided to REVOKE the title and tag for my minitruck. I'm insensed that in this "land of the free" I'm being DENIED the freedom to CHOOSE what is right for MY use.

The reality is that the minitruck will do things that my big half ton F150 WON'T do. On top of that, it'll do those things while DOUBLING the fuel economy vs. the half ton truck.

Nah, I guess I should be FORCED to pay OPEC, the oil companies, and speculators all the money that they want, so that I can maintain my rural property, and still keep a truck in the driveway.

I don't care if YOU want one or not. If you don't want one, fine. Don't buy one. I want one, and I say YES, bring us KEI cars.

[Smaart Aas Saabr]

Is there really any size car standard thing in the US? To my knowledge the only reason there are no Kei cars is because their manufacturers never bothered to just federalize them and sell them. Is there really a law that says "car must be more than so big"?

[slowinthefastlane]

Originally Posted by kodos78

Think about how much better gas mileage (and cheaper!) Smart would get if it didn't have to meet some inane safety standard.

Wouldn't matter if the U.S. changes it. They would still need to meet EUROCAP. Besides, Smart markets on the safety of their vehicles. Smart cars are built using a space frame, similar to the way that NASCAR cars are built. They're already pretty light. Compare this:

Smart ForTwo weights about 1600 lbs.
1991 Geo Metro XFi (60 MPG!) weighs about 1700 lbs.
2003 Corbin Sparrow weighs about 1350 lbs.
2006 Honda Insight weighs about 1850 lbs.
2008 BMW 1200RT Touring Bike weighs about 600 lbs.
2008 Chevrolet Aveo weights about 2400 lbs.

Stacks up pretty good - even against the Corbin Sparrow, which is 3-wheeled, single-passenger, electric microcar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Sparrow

These passed DOT tests, BTW.

Like I said before, changing the current regulations would only serve to reinforce the notion that small cars are inherently unsafe and that the bar needs to be lowered for them. The IIHS crash test videos of non-conforming vehicles will be more than enough to scare most consumers away. I'm sure that insurance companies wouldn't treat them so kindly, either - negating any savings in gas versus a well-rated vehicle.

[TORRED1]

It's funny, Europe does not have all the saftey and emission requirements that we have and you can buy just about any class of car you want. Gas is what about $9.00 gallon, and you can buy a tiny scooter, or 50 hp POS car, or a top of the line mercedes. Point is that regulations limit you to seat belts, air bags and smog controls, all of which add cost, and weight to a car.

Maybe we just have to many regulations.

[mikesright]

Originally Posted by kodos78

Why not trust people to buy the cars that they want? I can understand engineering cars so that they do not create excessive danger to pedestrians or other vehicles, but if a car is flimsy and gets 150mpg, and weighs 500lbs -- I'm all for it if all I'm endangering is myself!

This safety argument has to stop. For God's sake -- our children are encased in large child seats until they are almost old enough to shave these days!

And there will always be auto makers that pride themselves on safety -- like Volvo. People who are interested in safety will buy a Volvo. Those that don't, won't.

Otherwise, this is the classic protect people from themselves argument, that led to prohibition and in the case of automobiles -- leads to bloated cars where every vehicle requires a safety cage with thick doors and an assortment of airbags. Driving up the cost of the vehicle and the weight while lowering the MPG.

No doubt, there are some very absurd safety regulations out there that do very little in protecting occupants in a crash, all because the NHTSA wants to pretend they're actually doing something to protect us. A prime example of this is the recent roof crush safety standards, which will add weight and cost to every vehicle to save an estimated 4 people a year. I'm not advocating those standards. However, I fear that manufacturers would sacrifice safety to build a cheaper car in the price-war enviornment that we have right now. Consumers have always shown a penchant for choosing cost savings over safety, even if it is not a prudent choice.

We don't need ridiculously small, unsafe cars in this country to take care of the energy crisis we're having. What we need to do is take better advantage of the resources we have, like making diesel from coal or natural gas. We need to innovate and get phev's out there, and get cellulosic ethanol working. We need to do better getting our goods from a to b, like using our train system to ship goods instead of semis. Those things would effectively change the game, so when there's a major cost increase in the price of oil, we have alternatives to go to, and we would force oil to compete with other resources.

[mikmak]

I'm curious as to how Kei cars are prohibited and the SMART is not. Which design requirements are being missed? That is probably the most important aspect to tackle. As for them not available because they aren't suitable, you buy them because of a requirement, just as you should any other car. I'm not aware of any "minimum monthly dirt" standards that have been applied to SUV's.

Kei cars would do a great deal in reducing GMs Fleet average consumption so why in the world, would anyone here be against them being available?

As Ming already said, Suzuki is JDMs biggest kei car producer and would be a great ally in helping GM meet its CAFE target. Could you imagine that? GM taking the first step and being ahead of its competitors? Preposterous!

[DiRF]

Originally Posted by Ming

I *love* that Honda Acty with the DAMD kit to make it look like an old Dodge van. I've also seen a customized Subaru Sambar made up to look like an old Citroën delivery van.

[edit] Whilst I do love the quirkiness of DAMD's retro bodykits, I'm not really a fan of their front-facias that incorporate Chrysler 300 grilles and Cadillac Escalade grilles. They just look too weird.

[Neanderthal]

Originally Posted by kodos78

Why not trust people to buy the cars that they want? I can understand engineering cars so that they do not create excessive danger to pedestrians or other vehicles, but if a car is flimsy and gets 150mpg, and weighs 500lbs -- I'm all for it if all I'm endangering is myself!

This safety argument has to stop. For God's sake -- our children are encased in large child seats until they are almost old enough to shave these days!

And there will always be auto makers that pride themselves on safety -- like Volvo. People who are interested in safety will buy a Volvo. Those that don't, won't.

Otherwise, this is the classic protect people from themselves argument, that led to prohibition and in the case of automobiles -- leads to bloated cars where every vehicle requires a safety cage with thick doors and an assortment of airbags. Driving up the cost of the vehicle and the weight while lowering the MPG.

BEST POST.

Kudos to kodos.