As I said before you are entitle to your opinion but that does not mean it is the most valid. When I owned my fleet service business we serviced thousand of vehicles monthly, of nearly every brand you can name. With our meticulous service, as recorded in the records we accumulated, we saw little discernable differences on average among the vehicles on the market today. The only real difference is style and price and one need not spend at lot more money to buy a good dependable vehicle. Just a note, the manufacture with the most vehicles recalled so far for 2006 is Toyota. ;)
Among my collection of old cars there is a 1971 Pinto. Currently there is
305K on the clock. Looks and runs as good as new. It even wins it class at old cars shows. Know what I have yet to see at an old car show? ANY Japanese cars, in my class, except for a low mileage XR7 or a 'Z' car on occasion in the sport class. Lots of British, German, even French and Italian small cars from that era but hardly ever see a Jap car ;)
designed, not made. However, if you can keep the rust monster at bay, an old FIAT will actually last quite a long time; when I was a kid a neighbor down the street had one of those little red boxy looking FIAT coupes, and his wife drove the wheels off of it. It was a cute little thing, and since he kept up with the maintenance (and squirting oil up into all the nooks and crannies apparently,) last I heard it was handed down to his daughter.
Apparently you can make a neat little GTI type racer by mixing and matching FIAT and Yugo parts...
Just remembered, I've seen a couple of those little Datsun 2-seat convertibles (pre-Z car) nicely restored as well. At least one at each of the last couple local car shows I've been to.
That's right, when a commodity is expensive because it's scarce, the solution is to just make more money and consume, consume, consume and don't give a second thought to what would happen if everyone acted like you.
Apparently you do not know much about the US if you believe that. ;)
mike hunt
We are all entitled to our opinions I guess. What makes you believe the 'fuel(s) of the future' will be less expensive than gasoline? Hydrogen is currently around $20 a gallon
I've been in all three sides of the automotive business for a long time and in the real world people buy what they want. History repeatedly tells us what they ALWAYS want is their vehicles to be bigger and more powerful. Look at what both Toyota and Honda have marketed over the past ten years. They are ALL bigger and more powerful, with more new trucks and SUVs than small cars. Todays Corolla is a bigger car than the Camry of yore. Where the import have the advantage is that can import the midget cars the make and sell around the world. They can't afford to build them in the US anymore than domestics can. Even though the imports have much lower labor and benefits cost than the domestics in the US. When buyers warm to the higher gas prices they will shun smaller cars just as they did after the last big gas price jumps. Teh fact is we use far more gas at $3 than we did when it was $2
Even if we could develop an alternative fuel to replace gasoline, the cost of a delivery system alone would be in the billions, IF we can get it built under the current pollution laws. If we did all that OPEC can simply lower the price of crude and make ANY new fuel a more expensive option. We sill never see any fuel for our cars that is less expensive, so the sooner you become accustomed to it you can buy the big powerful car vehicle you want. ;)
As you should well know, fleet use and private use are two different animals. Someone with a fleet car doesn't care about it as long as it is still functional and safe to drive. However, they would never put up with the junky feel and increased NVH of worn components in their own personal cars. Thus a cheaply made car will cost a private owner much more over the long term than a well built one, unless the owner
*acts* like a fleet manager and trades it in every couple years.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Fleet buyers do a far better job of maintaining their vehicles than the average owner. How may owners do you know that do things like changes brake fluid, do pressure tests monthly, take off door panels to lubricate window actuators, take apart and clean electrical connectors etc?
To a corporate fleet a vehicle is a 'tool' needed to run their business. Down time costs money. They generally keep them in service for five years or 300K WOF, because of federal deprecation tax laws. Many keep them even longer. To government fleets, maintenance is primary as well. To a police officer his patrol car is as important as his weapon, it has to work properly or it could cost him his life One state police department that we serviced, has Jeeps Cherokees from the eighties, with over 200k on the clock and still in tip top shape, in use in mountainous parts of the state.
The only high volume buyers that don't care about their cars are most of the rental car companies. Top fluids and get it back on the road. The difference is to a rental car company vehicles are NOT a tool, but their product that they get rid off in a year or less.
I do that, and I try to remind those that I care about to do that as well. Not done on fleet vehicles IME.
Nobody does that, not even the fleet managers. I should know, having a fleet car. Well, I do, when I have to, on my own cars.
Not true; I turn in my car at 70K miles, I think the service trucks are kept a little longer but not much, maybe 100K or so.
That's the exception not the rule.
IME the fleet services treat the cars exactly like rental cars. When they are turned in at 70K miles they are just about smack wore out (well at least the Impalas the company that services the company that I work for uses are!) Before I got my company car, I drove my predecessor's car for a few days that was actually over the 70K cutoff. Aside from the ludicrously loud noises from under the hood, the shimmy, and the disconcerting creaks and clunks from the front end, it was just fine. I would find this totally unacceptable in a personal vehicle.
Horse shit. Size and power are always a compromise between needs/desires of the buyer for capacity, price, fuel economy, maneuverability and other factors. Otherwise we would all be driving cars the size of the Queen Mary by now.
Well, I guess you have now obliquely defined what a "midget car" is. It must be the Yaris and Fit class of cars. No, these are not built here, at least not yet. (Where are they built?)
You imply that these cars are why Honda and Toyota sales are booming while GM and Ford are in the dumper. The Yaris and Fit constitute only a tiny sliver of Toyota and Honda sales. They certainly don't explain why Pilot outsold Explorer last month.
I have to doubt any "fact" you post, but I do know for sure that truck-based SUV sales have been falling for the last four years.
The average American's wages haven't been keeping up with inflation since W got into office. Lots of Americans can't afford the gas for the Suburban they foolishly bought three years ago no matter how accustomed they become to $3/gal. The truck-based SUVs which kept GM and Ford afloat will not come back until gas drops below $2. Don't hold your breath.
Where did I say I believed that in the first place? I think you are confused (again).
I don't even know which "fuels" you are even talking about. I know that one "fuel" is already cheaper - electricity. Not too practical for cars (although it might work for some people), but it works pretty well for commuter trains. I also understand that EtOH from sugar cane is at least competitive if not actually cheaper than petroleum fuels in Brazil.
Hydrogen is a sham. If anyone doubted that before, they must realize that now that Bush is promoting it.
Did I say the want small underpowered cars? No, they want vehicles that are bigger >>Size and power are always a compromise between
Here is my prediction:
With high prices and short supplies of fuel (and possibly CO2 restrictions) ahead, Suburbans will become niche vehicles for people who need to transport >6 people all the time. The engine will become anemic, because these buyers won't care about acceleration but will care about fuel economy. The vehicles will gradually become more car-like because the heavy duty frame and off-road capability will be readily sacrificed for greater fuel economy.
The SUV will evolve into stylistic treatment on a car - basically a macho station wagon. What few "real" SUVs remain will be niche vehicles with tiny sales numbers.
And they are doing a lot better with them than GM and Ford.
When fuel was cheap, the compromise (see above) favored size and power over fuel economy (especially since technology was improving mechanic al efficiency to minimize the penalty.) Now that fuel is no longer cheap, the trend will reverse. Actually, it already has. Sales of truck-based SUVs peaked in 2001.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.