Time For a Smaller Car Standard?

[Wolfman01]

Originally Posted by MaxLegroom

Perhaps, Wolfman 01, you should have sued, after all, they let this slip through. Whether you go for monetary damages over potential injuries concerning a accident in this minitruck, or sue to have the decision overturned on constitutional grounds is up to you, though. Freedom of choice is a principal that should be fought for. Perhaps someone should remind Texas just what it is.

If I had the time, I would. I simply have too many irons in the fire now, and too little time to deal with them.

[Ming]

Originally Posted by MCGARRETT

Does anyone know what a Kei car would sell for in the US?

For example in a straight Yen to $$$ conversion, what would some of the more popular Kei cars list for? (and remember thats before import duties and etc)

To have the prices make sense, let's do an apples to apples comparison.

The cheapest, 2WD Suzuki SX4 with an engine comparable to the one used in the US (2.0L) sells for 1,827,000 Yen (taxes included).

by comparison, the MR Wagon Wit Limited (Kei Car) with a 660cc engine goes for 1,205,400 Yen (taxes included).

Assuming 100 yen to the dollar (which isn't far off), that's about $18,000 for a Suzuki SX4, but that doesn't make sense, since a base SX4 2WD sells here for an MSRP $14,770. Note that most consumer goods sell for "MSRP" in Japan, from cars to a bag of rice - the price is usually written right on the package and is non-negotiable.

Now, since the MR Wagon is not offered here, we cannot make the same comparison easily, but I would guess that - if the high pricing of cars and goods sold in Japan is considered ("what the market will bear" - Japanese people often complain about goods that sell overseas for less than what they do in Japan, despite being manufactured in Japan!) - then an MR Wagon could be had for $10,000 US MSRP - not $12,000. The price of a stripper Aveo.

Difference is, Kei cars are a fully socially accepted mode of transport in Japan, and as such are not treated like "penalty boxes for poor people" by Japanese car companies. You tend to see more effort and marketing put into selling Kei cars than other types of vehicles. They also get things like HID headlamps - things an Aveo buyer could only dream of.



Kei cars do have another monetary advantage in Japan - they can avoid certain pricey taxation that owners of larger car classes must pay, and parking space permits cost less. They have their own special yellow license plates as well.

[Ming]

The cheapest Suzuki Kei car I could find is the Cervo, which lists for 988,000 Yen without tax.

Again with the "cost of living tax" in Japan factored out, I think you could see a base model here for $8,900.

http://www.suzuki.co.jp/dom4/lineup/cervo/



Then again, what's up with the price of Scooters?

Suzuki USA sells its cheapest one for over $5,000

2008 Burgman 400
MSRP: $5,949.00

[MCGARRETT]

Sorry but I dont think that $8900 is cheap enough, and again thats without duties, and NO WAY should they be given a pass on meeting safety standards, sorry, but no way. Why not give them a pass on emissions too? If they want to bring a Kei cars here, fine, but they cant get around the rules that everyone else must meet.

[Michael_S]

Originally Posted by Ming

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).

It's not a reasonable argument, really. I think most of us here knew people that did die in crashes while riding in vehicles like those, who might have survived in a more modern vehicle.

The people who got killed in their Spitfire convertibles aren't here to argue their side of the situation.

[EDIT] I'm not arguing that 'nanny state' rigid safety regulations are necessarily the clear solution. I don't know. But saying, "Well, I grew up in 1980s cars and my parents grew up in 1950s cars, so what's the problem" is not a good argument. You and your parents are the lucky ones - what about the people who got killed in their 1950s or 1980s cars?

Now if you have an well-reasoned argument that 1980s vehicles are truly as safe or more safe than modern vehicles, I'm listening. Or if you have an argument that removing safety regulations will save more lives on roads, I'll listen to that too.

[AndrewGS]

Originally Posted by MCGARRETT

Sorry but I dont think that $8900 is cheap enough, and again thats without duties, and NO WAY should they be given a pass on meeting safety standards, sorry, but no way. Why not give them a pass on emissions too? If they want to bring a Kei cars here, fine, but they cant get around the rules that everyone else must meet.

Let's remember that these cars are not tin boxes with holes cut out for the doors and windows. These cars meet Japan's basic standards for both safety and emissions. It's stupid stuff like bumper laws that should be relaxed. If they would just allow the cars to be tested and rated instead of scrutinizing every little detail we might see more fuel efficient cars here.

Read the FMVSS to see what cars sold here have to meet.

[Elk]

Yeah Ming I want to see some numbers. I’m guessing a Kei cars aren’t even close to a 250cc street bike when it comes to performance (and performance includes handling and braking), fuel economy and price. And those mopeds and scooters you were talking about get like 100 mpg city.

From what I see reading the replies people just seem to be assuming that just because they are small and cool looking they must be great. I really doubt a small car with a boxy front end and a turbo engine is going to be affordable and get good fuel economy for it’s size.

[Ming]

Well take a car like the Cervo I posted in #108 above. I've driven a "boxy" WagonR type Kei car before, and it performed like...well...kinda like an Aveo. I say that because, aside from it being a bigger car, that's how I felt when I drove one at the GM Test Drive event here in Houston. A bit sluggish off the line, but in and around the city in Tokyo you rarely floor it. They tool around just fine and when you do get to the highway you notice they are working hard and buzzy, but comfortably. (You don't have Bubba's Dodge Ram tailgating you, so you don't feel the need to maintain a speed over 50MPH or whatever keeps your RPMs reasonable)

But that was back in the early to mid 1990's, so I'm guessing a newer car like the Cervo performs even better.

Would these cars make sense without a special tax advantage like the one they have in Japan? Perhaps not. Perhaps, in order to encourage less wasteful use of resources (including all of the materials that go into making bigger cars), we should consider such breaks here - or at least in cities.

[Ming]

(previously posted in the wrong thread...)

Here's a good and relevant snippet from an article I found from The Engineer Online, a UK site, that touches on the merits of small Kei style cars and the driving experience:

Japanese kei-cars were designed in response to regulations limiting the length, height and engine capacity of cars so that they could manoeuvre in crowded cities. 'Propose that now in Europe and we'd say it would lead to very boring, very slow, very rudimentary cars that are nasty to drive and no fun to own. But the Japanese embraced it and produced absolutely fantastic little cars like the Honda Beat and the Suzuki Cappuccino — miniaturised sports cars with fantastic supercharger technology.'

This, May insists, is where real engineering innovation is to be found — in 'People's Cars', not supercars. 'The world of motoring is moved on by simple cars. Making an interesting small car that costs £8,000 is more difficult than making something exciting that costs over £50,000. Some of the greatest cars in history, and certainly some of the most significant, have been People's Cars — the Austin Seven, the Beetle, the Mini, the Cinquecento. Not the Bugatti Veyron or the Ferrari 599.'

As any Top Gear viewer will know, May puts his ideals into practice with his choice of everyday car, a Fiat Panda. 'The other two always take the piss,' he said. 'But small, simple cars are actually the way to enjoy driving. The sensations of driving, the tactile and visceral stuff, happen at lower speeds and in many ways are exaggerated by the simplicity of the car, the immediacy of the controls and its responses to the road.'

SOURCE

[ARCANGEL]

not to burst everyone who loves those big cars for safety bubble, but the european safety standards are more stringent and strict then ours. There smaller cars ala SMART get netter crash tests then our suv's and can withstand a hit from those cars.

[slowinthefastlane]

Originally Posted by AndrewGS

Let's remember that these cars are not tin boxes with holes cut out for the doors and windows. These cars meet Japan's basic standards for both safety and emissions. It's stupid stuff like bumper laws that should be relaxed. If they would just allow the cars to be tested and rated instead of scrutinizing every little detail we might see more fuel efficient cars here.

Read the FMVSS to see what cars sold here have to meet.

Bumper standards in this country have been relaxed already. In an urban environment that these small cars would thrive in, strong bumpers are an absolute must. I can't tell you how many people in San Francisco parallel park by "feel". I'm glad I don't park on the street at night and during the day. That being said, I don't know how disciplined Japanese parkers are. If parking skills in Tokyo are just as bad as they are in SF, I'm sure that these cars will do fine.

At the end of the day, it won't matter what the feds do. The IIHS results are more important than the federal results in the US. Cars that do not score well in IIHS tests get hammered by insurance companies. High insurance costs will negate any cost savings from fuel. The IIHS is still going to run the same test battery, as they're primarily concerned with costs associated with fixing cars and fixing people after accidents. They aren't going to lighten up in the name of fuel economy, since that does not affect their bottom line in the same way that claims do.

Besides, relaxing the safety standards would only reinforce the notion that small cars are inherently unsafe. That is something that does not need to be planted in the minds of the American consumer.

[slowinthefastlane]

Originally Posted by ARCANGEL

not to burst everyone who loves those big cars for safety bubble, but the european safety standards are more stringent and strict then ours. There smaller cars ala SMART get netter crash tests then our suv's and can withstand a hit from those cars.

EURONCAP isn't much different than IIHS. They both do 40 mph frontal offset tests and a 30 mph side impact. EURONCAP adds a side pole impact and a pedestrian impact test (to protect pedestrians - not passengers).

[Elk]

Originally Posted by Ming

Well take a car like the Cervo I posted in #108 above. I've driven a "boxy" WagonR type Kei car before, and it performed like...well...kinda like an Aveo. I say that because, aside from it being a bigger car, that's how I felt when I drove one at the GM Test Drive event here in Houston. A bit sluggish off the line, but in and around the city in Tokyo you rarely floor it. They tool around just fine and when you do get to the highway you notice they are working hard and buzzy, but comfortably. (You don't have Bubba's Dodge Ram tailgating you, so you don't feel the need to maintain a speed over 50MPH or whatever keeps your RPMs reasonable)

I went to the website and the Cervo fuel economy is listed as 23 km/l or about 54 mpg (tho it would probably be lower in the actual U.S. EPA test). It’s better then any car you can get in American now, but it’s still far-cry from the 70 mpg you can get out of a motorcycle or 100 mpg you can get out of a moped.

To add to the comparison the Cervo is listed as having 63 hp and it weighs what like 1800lbs? The Buell Blast weighs like 700 lbs with a rider and has 34 hp and it gets 69 mpg city.

My point here is making some kind of special class for these small cars like motorcycles/mopeds have doesn’t make sense because they are not on par with them.

[AndrewGS]

Originally Posted by Elk

I went to the website and the Cervo fuel economy is listed as 23 km/l or about 54 mpg (tho it would probably be lower in the actual U.S. EPA test). It’s better then any car you can get in American now, but it’s still far-cry from the 70 mpg you can get out of a motorcycle or 100 mpg you can get out of a moped.

To add to the comparison the Cervo is listed as having 63 hp and it weighs what like 1800lbs? The Buell Blast weighs like 700 lbs with a rider and has 34 hp and it gets 69 mpg city.

My point here is making some kind of special class for these small cars like motorcycles/mopeds have doesn’t make sense because they are not on par with them.

While you may enjoy riding a moped/scooter/motorcycle in Maine, down here it's not as fun. I'd rather get 40MPG in climate controlled comfort than 70MPG exposed to the weather.

[Puzzel]

Originally Posted by AndrewGS

While you may enjoy riding a moped/scooter/motorcycle in Maine, down here it's not as fun. I'd rather get 40MPG in climate controlled comfort than 70MPG exposed to the weather.

That sentiment is contrary to what the majority of TX motorcyclists I've encountered say. And being "exposed to the weather" is a major factor in the enjoyment of 2-wheel travel for most riders, no matter where you live.

Most motorcycles get 40-45 mpg combined -- the 70 mpg bikes are generally small and low power, like the Buell Blast or Kawasaki Ninja 250R. But even the most inefficient bikes (ie large motor choppers) can usually achieve 25+ mpg city driving.