Time For a Smaller Car Standard?

[DiRF]

Originally Posted by t-rex

Ming, please tell me that this actually exists somewhere on Earth!!!

Originally Posted by skylark68

Someone already mentioned this but the USA has had a type of "Kei" car itself besides the Crosley. The American Bantam was an interesting little lightweight...

Sometimes it feels like people are intentionally ignoring my posts...

[KingElvis]

Originally Posted by Ming

I know the moped drivers on the island of Oahu in Hawaii where I grew up were doing if for the macho image. All the way. Arnold on a Scooter with a biker jacket and shades.

And some are talking here like a Kei car has no safety standards whatsoever. In fact, I'd much rather be in a crash in a WagonR or Kei Truck than on a motorbike.

At least in Texas you can get by on feeder roads, with long distances between stoplights if you take an occasional trip or if you just don't want to pay the toll on your daily commute (Sam Houston Tollway 8). And in places where there is ONLY a freeway (say, like on a trip to San Antonio), there are usually a few twisty old country routes that were there before the highway was put in, sometimes right alongside it for a good portion of the way.

Also, consider that my parents and family managed to survive driving cars unsafe by todays standards. My father drove a Spitfire convertible. Surely it was no safer than a Kei car of today (no this is not my dad).



But as others stated above, this argument some make is a bit like the argument others make regulating against people choosing to buy and drive giant trucks and SUVs.

If I can go out and buy a Monroe Ironhide Edition GMC Topkick (some could argue that I'm "endangering people around me" or using too much fuel), I should have the same freedom to buy a Suzuki Carry minivan with a tiny engine that sips fuel (yes, by DAMD aftermarket conversions ) and isn't a "safety tank" approved by Ralph Nader.

EXCELLENT post Ming.

I've been considering this issue for quite some time.

About eight years ago I was concieving a new class of vehicle that would share similar regulatory status with a motorcyle. A very low, narrow four passenger vehicle with V twin engine that would only be 54" wide.

You take the outside lane of a multilane highway and split it in two. These cars could ride two to a lane - and share this split lane with motorcycles.

Voila - suddenly you've packed double the cars into one lane and relieved traffic congestion without forcing poor people onto public transit.

Perhaps one way to avoid the safety/air bag issue is use four point racing harnesses and roll cages - perhaps even helmets would be mandated where there is a helmet law for motorcylces since these would be like 'four wheel' motorcycles.

I agree with other posters who mentioned that if you can buy Big Gulp Mega Trucks you ought to be able to have the 'freedom' to buy a tiny car.

[rlchv70]

There are a lot of post saying that they should sell kei-class cars in the US, but not a lot saying they would buy them. The US automakers need to have a clear business case. They won't build it just to build it. They need to make a profit on it as well. In order to sell cheap cars and make a profit, you have to make lots of them. However, there isn't a market in the US to sell lots of them.

[benroethig]

I have a problem with my knees bumping into the steering wheel and my head hitting roof with most compacts. There is no way I'm going to fit into a subcompact or city car.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by DiRF

Sometimes it feels like people are intentionally ignoring my posts...

Photos often help draw eyes, as do recognizeable avatars. And some posts will just get lost in the mix in a multi-page thread.

I didn't miss your posts, DiRF.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by 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.

Why regulate where the fortwo can drive? So because someone chooses to drive a smaller, more fuel efficient vehicle, they can't drive it near you? B.S. Why not tell the SUV's they have to take the dirt roads for which they were intended? Why not build motorcycle paths? You can't limit them to where they can drive, that's no different than the people who want to ban SUV's. You can't have it both ways. It's interesting to me to see the hypocrisy come down on small cars when most people on here are of the 'I can afford the gas in my SUV so small-car people need to shut up' mindset. There's room for all of us out there. Small cars are no less safe than a motorcycle (most likely way safer) and yet I don't see you saying anything about motorcycles. Any accident at 75mph is not going to be pretty, and the chances of either set of passengers surviving aren't that good. Maybe the people in the 75mph SUV's should be paying attention to the road and not the nav or bluetooth crap so as not to wipe an entire budget conscious family out of existence. Not everyone can afford, wants or likes SUV's....did we forget that? Narrow-mindedness exists on both sides of the fence.

Originally Posted by EllwynX

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.

And that's the chance small car owners are willing to take. It doesn't affect your life or your family, why worry about it?

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by slowinthefastlane

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.

Actually, the fortwo weighs about 1800 lbs., and it gets a 4-star frontal crash rating/5-star side crash rating. It's a perfectly good commuter car that makes more sense, to me, to use as my work car than a Tahoe, Escape or heck, even my Ion. It will be my next car, oh yes, it will be. Room enough for me and the JRT, good to go, and again my choice isn't what's right for everyone, it's what's right for me.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by member12

I think you are right....cars like the Smart shouldn't be allowed on the freeway unless they are in the right lane only. I think it's, what, a B class car?

They should be able to maintain 85mph uphill if they want to drive it on the interstate in this country.

I's probably perfect for city driving, though....but not in a place that has a good public transit system. Car and Driver tested one that cost $15,000 and gets the same mileage as a honda civic, so I am not impressed. A base MINI Cooper handles better and cost only slightly more.

As for safety, it's easier to make a small car pass a crash test than a large one due to less force being involved. I don't think the Smart is a safe car regardless of crash test. I guarantee you that the Smart driver is in danger if any normal car hits it at even moderate speeds. That's another reason it should stay off the freeway.

The smart can do 85mph uphill. Read about it, don't just assume. And remember, Car and Drivers fuel economy also involved performance testing, not day to day just going to the office fuel economy. But hey, you hate it without trying it so why bother with fact when fear and ignorance will work. A MINI costs about $5K more....that's not 'slightly', that's a lot. Better take motorcycles off the freeway, too. How does this car, or Kei cars, affect your choice in what you drive? What a bass akcward country we've become. Maybe we should ban all cars EXCEPT for SUV's then the safety thing is moot. Interesting that it's okay to drive what you want but you want to regulate what others can drive. Very interesting.

[prowlerjc]

I think as long as they meet the safety standards of 1968, bring them on. I love those little tiny cars, and beeing raised on Type 1 VWs, MG Midgets, Triumph Spitfires, and first generation Civics, the safety issue doesn't bother me too much.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by Wolfman01

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.

Here, here! Great post, especially the last part.

And, to no one in particular:

It's like if it ain't huge, inefficient or ungainly we don't want it here. China and India aren't going to stop their economic growth so we can have cheaper fuel again and we sure as hell aren't going to prosper if we don't learn to use fuel more efficiently, which means most of our cars need to get smaller and/or lighter. Frugality is the key to our longevity and prosperity, not wasteful, wanton consumption simply based on a false sense of entitlement.

[AndrewGS]

I am in total agreement, Ming.

Why can't I make the choice to at least privately import a small, efficient car that's safer and more comfortable than a motorcycle, while motorcycles are perfectly legal? Why do we allow NEVs (Neighborhood Electric Vehicles) with a top speed of 35MPH on our surface streets, but not safer, more capable, small gas vehicles?

I like the idea of riding a scooter or having an NEV for local travel or a motorcycle for commuting, but Houston's weather makes this less than ideal. With frequent, sudden showers, dew points north of 70°F most of the year and the sheer heat we see over the summer, open vehicles are uncomfortable most of the time. Why can't I have a closed vehicle that offers protection from the elements and climate control that I can drive year-round that isn't loaded-down with safety equipment if I chose?

I agree we should start a new class of car like the Kei class of Japan, with a maximum set of dimensions, engine size and power and a minimum fuel economy rating while meeting a basic set of safety regulations (lighting, seat belts, structural integrity) and allowing lower tax and registration rates as standard cars. In addition to surface streets and service roads I say allow them to drive on the first two lanes of the highways as well since they can reach the usual minimum speeds.

Let's remember that it's perfectly legal to sell and drive RHD cars in North America, so to make this class cost effective import RHD models when LHD versions aren't available.

In addition to the cool, retro-styled Kei models, there are the modern cars like the Mitsubishi i and Subaru R1. These are thoroughly modern, safe cars that get between 45MPG and 55MPG and sell for about $12,000 in Japan.

[MonaroSS]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_ac...by-model_basis

Some interesting real life (UK) crash death risk data from the above link:

The statistics show that for popular, lightly built cars occupants have a 6%–8% chance of death in a two car accident. (e.g. BMW 3 series 6%, Subaru Impreza 8%, Honda Accord 6%). Traditional "safety cars" such as the Volvos halve that chance (Volvo 700 4% incidence of death, Volvo 900 3%).

Despite poor performance in theoretical tests and criticism from media pundits SUVs fare much better than 'safety cars' with the Jeep Cherokee and Toyota Land Cruiser giving 2% incidence of occupant death in actual two vehicle injury crashes. However, in multiple-vehicle crashes SUVs are probably between three and six times more likely to kill the occupant of the other vehicle (car, cyclist, or pedestrian) than cars.

Overall the four best vehicles to be in are the Jaguar XJ series 1%, Mercedes-Benz S-Class / SEC 1%, Land Rover Defender 1% and Land Rover Discovery 1%.

Motorcyclist deaths within the England and Wales stand at 65% of the annual road death statistics, however scooters/mopeds up to 50cc only account to 3% of those deaths.

[Saturn69]

Originally Posted by MonaroSS

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_ac...by-model_basis

Some interesting real life (UK) crash death risk data from the above link:

These statistics taken alone are incomplete. They do not take into account the demographics of drivers. The BMW 3 series and Subaru Impreza were both marketed as “performance cars” and more likely to be driven by young males, who were more likely as drivers to be involved (high speed) collisions. In contrast the Volvos were marketed as “safe” vehicles, bought and defensively driven by drivers with families. Similarly, neither Land Rovers were designed to be driven fast; speed being a major contributing factor to the seriousness of collisions. Therefore these are not straightforward guidance on which cars are “safe”.It's not the car that makes it safe or dangerous, it's the driver. Of course, here in America we aren't interested in personal responsibility no-thank-you. If the vehicle can keep us safe so we can motor on without having to pay attention to our surroundings or other drivers, that's great, I mean how can you expect us to have to watch what's going on outside the vehicle? Those other people need to watch out for me, I'm too rich and busy to watch where they're going.

[logansowner]

How bout we jsut have more choice? GM needs to work on this, there is no reason to stop making big vehicles, not everyone is poor, some of us can still afford gas, whether we complain or not. GM's problem is that they don't focus on making a great small car. For example, as much as i like to buy GM, I can't fathom what leads anyone to buy a Cobalt over a Civic for example. The Cobalt is bland, cheaply built and just doesn't have the features of it's competitors, and the resale is lower. I mean I want the Cobalt to be good, but it isn't. My best friend bought a new 2007 coupe and with 7,000 KM on it, the rotors had warped and started shaking the crap out of it under any braking. It rattles and the engine is rough sounding.

SO no, we don't need to downsize everything, but small doesn't have to mean crap.

[benroethig]

Originally Posted by Ming

Thanks T-Rex, and yes, there is a company in Japan that does these packages called DAMD - they do all sorts of body kits and conversions --- the one for this particular van is under $2K, I believe, and is called the DAMD Locoboy Type II. I'd kill for one, too!

They have an English ordering page link as well -- here's the main site: http://www.damd.co.jp/

The one with the beige paint I posted earlier was actually a Honda as mentioned above - Here's the Suzuki Every version of that same "Locoboy" style body kit/conversion in black, including the interior: http://www.damd.co.jp/newcar/new_every.shtml

That is one cool looking little van.