Japanese manufacturers ready to throw their subcompacts into U.S. market

[hans007]

Originally posted by: SampSon

Originally posted by: Ornery
Less square feet to heat, cool and light obviously uses less energy to build and live in.


They have been doing it for a number of years now, and are only getting better at it...

Oh please. Name me one, single, full sized import that has a RWD, V8 for less than the cost of a small home. Those were a dime a dozen from Detroit before consumers switched to econoboxes.

Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to todays housing trends.
Reality is that the cost per square foot has only gone down sice the 1950s. Cost of manufacturing has only gown down since 1950. Also, the cost to build per square foot is the same if you build a 1000sqft house or a 5000sqft house. Also with todays HVAC technology the cost difference in minimal. Unless you're talking about a huge disparity of size like 4000+ sq feet. Even then the cost to heat per square foot is nearly the same and heating costs will not differ extremely in a property engineered system.

I didn't know you were referring to full sized imports that have RWD and a V8. The imports don't manufacture that type of product, so what's your point? Good job at pigeonholing.
I was alluding to the fact that overall import manufacturers do a better job than detroit in making vehicles.

Guess what, as I said before, THIS ISNT THE FIFTYS AND SIXTYS ANYMORE, DEAL WITH IT! Houses cost more, cars cost more, everything costs more. Mabey the only thing that didn't go up is your income? Pull your head out of your ass that's stuck in the 60s and get with the program.

i dont get how you are comparing everything to 1970s dollars.

sure there are no rwd v8 sedans now that are that cheap. because v6s and inline-4s have even more power than those 1970s v8s had.


not to mention your specifiying it has to be rwd. which really doesnt matter for 99% of people anyway. there werent any v8 fwd cars either.

while you are at it why not ask for , say a $.10 loaf of bread, well obviously making bread has been ruined by imports or something since a load of bread is like what $2 now.


seriously youare argument is the worst ever.

plus cars now are FAR FAR safer than 1970s ones. especially for similarly sized. they are "keeping up" with 1970s fuel economy because they have to have much more pollution controls , using lower octane unleaded than leaded gas, etc etc.

and they have airbags, much stronger frames for safety which can add probably nearly 1000 pounds to every car that is made now compared to a similarly sized 1970s car.

are the new cars better . of course they are? if we could use leaded gas, with no catalytic converters and no noise regulations or smog regulations, we coulud probably build a 3 L v6 with 500 hp . but we dont because we'd be dead from pollution.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Ornery
...everything costs more.

A full size, RWD V8 can still be built for the same price as any other car. Therefore everything DOESN'T cost more. It's still relatively the same price adjusted for inflation, that it was before the oil crisis. Yet, when imports are configured as V8, RWDs, the cost goes through the roof. Why? Everything doesn't cost more. Only imports with a proper platform!


If foreign competition truly wanted to break into the full size, RWD V8 market, they would beat detroit at it.

Thanks to our fvcktard consumers of the early '70s, there is no more market for those cars. Detroit had that market sewn up, and our consumers just gave that advantage away overnight. When reality finally set in, all that was left to buy were trucks in their place. That's how things are. The same lame-brained consumers who pissed away our dominance in cheap boulevard cruisers, are now stuck with the glut of SUVs they despise so much... GOOD! I hope they choke on it!

Stuck with SUVs? I ain't stuck with sh!t. I drive a mid-sized car that has more than enough passenger space for me and 4 friends. When me and my roommates went down to the beach for the weekend earlier in the summer, we all hopped in my car (instead of my roommate's Trailblazer) and loaded up the trunk with our luggage. Even with 5 people aboard, I averaged between 28-30MPG on the trip between Raleigh, NC and Myrtle Beach, SC.

Nobody complained, nobody was uncomfortable. Everyone had plenty of legroom and the ride was rather compliant.

Now, I want to go to a Mazda 3s Hatch Grand Touring for my next car for three reasons:

1) I want a newer car. My Camry is 11 years old and I want a newer vehicle. The '06 Mazda 3s comes with a 4-year warranty and 3 years Roadside assistance IIRC.
2) I want something that allows me to carry bulky objects. I can carry somewhat large boxes in my Camry, but they have to go in the back seat where they dirty up my beige leather seats. With a 3s Hatch, I can just fold down the rear seats and stick in whatever I want.
3) I think it just looks cool

Why the hell would I need something bigger? What am I going to do with all that extra space by buying something like a Crown Vic or a 300C or a Magnum or a Tahoe or an Explorer? Wasted space to me.

 

[SailorSpoon]

I want Hyundai (pronounce the Y properly) to bring the Atoz to America.
I had one living overseas. It was a pretty crappy car, but I love the character.
Great gas milage, and you sit high when driving.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: hans007

i dont get how you are comparing everything to 1970s dollars.

sure there are no rwd v8 sedans now that are that cheap. because v6s and inline-4s have even more power than those 1970s v8s had.


not to mention your specifiying it has to be rwd. which really doesnt matter for 99% of people anyway. there werent any v8 fwd cars either.

while you are at it why not ask for , say a $.10 loaf of bread, well obviously making bread has been ruined by imports or something since a load of bread is like what $2 now.


seriously youare argument is the worst ever.

plus cars now are FAR FAR safer than 1970s ones. especially for similarly sized. they are "keeping up" with 1970s fuel economy because they have to have much more pollution controls , using lower octane unleaded than leaded gas, etc etc.

and they have airbags, much stronger frames for safety which can add probably nearly 1000 pounds to every car that is made now compared to a similarly sized 1970s car.

are the new cars better . of course they are? if we could use leaded gas, with no catalytic converters and no noise regulations or smog regulations, we coulud probably build a 3 L v6 with 500 hp . but we dont because we'd be dead from pollution.

Adjusted for inflation, full size, RWD sedans were the same price as today's Accords, Corollas, and Mazda 3. They were the normal mode of transportation, and built by Detroit cheaply and easily. No foreign car could compete with their value.

Along comes the oil crunch, and consumers shifted from Full size safety, comfort & power to cramped, buzzy, deathtraps. Those are facts, not an argument.

After consumers put the last coffin nail in the full size, RWD casket, they realized econoboxes kinda sucked. But, what was there left to buy but trucks and SUVs?


Stuck with SUVs? I ain't stuck with sh!t.

Want some quotes?

• Explain why so many folk hate 4WD's/SUV's...
  • I do though, dislike people who buy them just because it's a status symbol or something
  • I only have problems with people who buy SUV's because they're fookin' dik-holes who feel so insecure that they have to have a bigger beast, and post things on stupid computer forums that no-one taes seriously, with the intention of starting sh1t because something happened on a Saturday night.
  • a) the extra demand for gas causes higher prices
    b) the extra weight causes the road to wear out faster
    c) the extra gas burnt causes more environmental problems
    d) you can't see around/over/through the damn things if you're not at the same height as them
  • -take up more street parking space than a sedan
    -headlights are often aimed so that they're hitting me right in the eye
    -can't see around them on a road to see the road ahead (especially since 99.9% of them seem to have their rear windows tinted)
    -too many people who don't know how to drive drive suv's, giving the rest of the drivers a bad name
  • I do find them to be lacking in common sense when they use them as single occupant commuter vehicles.
  • I wouldn't hate them as much if
    
    1. They're held to the same pollution / mileage standards as cars
    2. They forced to have crash systems that give other cars a fair chance
    3. They don't get special exemptions like being able to use light guards where cars can't
    4. People stop claiming they're bought for space / function when there are cars that are better
    5. Suburban houswives would quit buying a car that gets 12/18 mpg for trips to the supermarket just so she doesn't have to pay attention to her driving while she's painting her nails or talking on the cell phone.
  • people who drives SUVs drive like they own the road, cutting people off, speeding, etc...

Yes, STUCK WITH SUVS! All brought on by the shift to econoboxes in the early '70s.

Now, when an import, or even domestic release a vehicle that's got a RWD V8, it's like some kind of icon or something. :roll: Oh, and the price is in the stratosphere! And you wonder why the current state of affairs pisses me off? Well, at least listening to our econobox consumers bitching about sharing the roads with SUVs is somewhat cathartic...

 

[TomKazansky]

Originally posted by: jammur21
If Toyota throws Yavis Soccer tournaments, I might be tempted

NO ONE CAN BEAT ME IN IT!!! I WAS ON TOPGEAR!!!

jk.

 

[tooltime]

say goodbye to gm and ford and their suv's i heard sales of suv's dropped by 50% in october...hard times are hear for them

 

[tooltime]

with gas prices the way they are they're going to kick the tails of american car makers...but competition will produce some good american cars i predict

 

[tooltime]

i recall for has some hybrids in the works already

 

[daddyrief]

Originally posted by: Ornery
Adjusted for inflation, full size, RWD sedans were the same price as today's Accords, Corollas, and Mazda 3. They were the normal mode of transportation, and built by Detroit cheaply and easily. No foreign car could compete with their value.

Along comes the oil crunch, and consumers shifted from Full size safety, comfort & power to cramped, buzzy, deathtraps. Those are facts, not an argument.

After consumers put the last coffin nail in the full size, RWD casket, they realized econoboxes kinda sucked. But, what was there left to buy but trucks and SUVs?


Stuck with SUVs? I ain't stuck with sh!t.

Want some quotes?

• Explain why so many folk hate 4WD's/SUV's...
  • I do though, dislike people who buy them just because it's a status symbol or something
  • I only have problems with people who buy SUV's because they're fookin' dik-holes who feel so insecure that they have to have a bigger beast, and post things on stupid computer forums that no-one taes seriously, with the intention of starting sh1t because something happened on a Saturday night.
  • a) the extra demand for gas causes higher prices
    b) the extra weight causes the road to wear out faster
    c) the extra gas burnt causes more environmental problems
    d) you can't see around/over/through the damn things if you're not at the same height as them
  • -take up more street parking space than a sedan
    -headlights are often aimed so that they're hitting me right in the eye
    -can't see around them on a road to see the road ahead (especially since 99.9% of them seem to have their rear windows tinted)
    -too many people who don't know how to drive drive suv's, giving the rest of the drivers a bad name
  • I do find them to be lacking in common sense when they use them as single occupant commuter vehicles.
  • I wouldn't hate them as much if
    
    1. They're held to the same pollution / mileage standards as cars
    2. They forced to have crash systems that give other cars a fair chance
    3. They don't get special exemptions like being able to use light guards where cars can't
    4. People stop claiming they're bought for space / function when there are cars that are better
    5. Suburban houswives would quit buying a car that gets 12/18 mpg for trips to the supermarket just so she doesn't have to pay attention to her driving while she's painting her nails or talking on the cell phone.
  • people who drives SUVs drive like they own the road, cutting people off, speeding, etc...

Yes, STUCK WITH SUVS! All brought on by the shift to econoboxes in the early '70s.

Now, when an import, or even domestic release a vehicle that's got a RWD V8, it's like some kind of icon or something. :roll: Oh, and the price is in the stratosphere! And you wonder why the current state of affairs pisses me off? Well, at least listening to our econobox consumers bitching about sharing the roads with SUVs is somewhat cathartic...

wonderfully said....

i'm not really against small cars, hell i drove an 89 corolla before my new truck...but i do agree on many of your points...and too bad FWD replaced RWD...since fwd is so much cheaper to build, everyone is stuck with it.

 

[desy]

FWD drive produced better traction in snow and lowers vehicle weight for better gas mileage. It might be cheaper to build but the repair and maintenance costs are higher.

Pop Mechanics had an interesting article about what traction control is doing and why its returning RWD back to the mainstream. Basically they perform identically to FWD with traction control and with the newer designs even with traction control off there was something like a 3% difference in favour for FWD, not nearly the gap it used to be.
Its why GM has commited to traction control in all cars by 2010 I beleive.

Don't worry your going to see a lot more RWD vehicles in the future

 

[JungleMan1]

I'm not a truck or SUV fan but I would happily give up gas mileage for the enhanced driving experience and better crash ratings of a larger, more powerful, rear-wheel-drive midsize coupe or sedan as opposed to some tin-can hatchback from Europe...

 

[daddyrief]

long live rwd

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: desy
FWD drive produced better traction in snow and lowers vehicle weight for better gas mileage. It might be cheaper to build but the repair and maintenance costs are higher.

Pop Mechanics had an interesting article about what traction control is doing and why its returning RWD back to the mainstream. Basically they perform identically to FWD with traction control and with the newer designs even with traction control off there was something like a 3% difference in favour for FWD, not nearly the gap it used to be.
Its why GM has commited to traction control in all cars by 2010 I beleive.

Don't worry your going to see a lot more RWD vehicles in the future

i think this really depends where gas prices are going. probably up though.

fwd cars weigh less, and at sub 100 mph speeds it probably really doesnt matter if you have a rwd or fwd car.

i have had a rwd car with traction control, and well in the rain it still isnt as good. not nearly. traction control is also not that great if it cuts out your power and you go into a slide because of that power being cut.

rwd is only coming back because of the HP war and that it is far more immune to torque steer. this is always on much more expensive and heavier cars, which are for people which gas milage is less of a concern.

i dont expect rwd to really ever come back to the mainstream sub 30k standard sedan market. most people buying sub 30k cars, would rather have the higher gas milage, and better rain / snow traction at low speeds, plus lower initial costs of fwd. it is also really hard to package rwd into a very small car because it kills trunk space and rear seat area because of differentials and drive shafts and such.


and as for the servicing of a rwd vs fwd car. it is a hard comparison to make since most rwd cars are in the higher end of the market. most rwd cars would have a more ease of repair as the parts are more spread apart, but it is still more likely they will cost more as one of the primary goals of rwd is weight balance. but doing so in the more expensive cars uses a lot of aluminum and specially designed frames etc, so your average rwd car having all this extra stuff in it still probably costs more to repair than your average fwd car (since fwd cars do not tend to have all this "extra" stuff that the almost always more expensive rwd cars have)

anyways, as we move to smaller cars, and a more european / japanese type automotive landscape due to energy etc, we will probably have more fwd cars not less as a percentage of the car population. trucks are rwd and their sales are already falling, and only luxury cars which well most people do not buy because they are more expensive will be rwd (and they for the most part already all are rear wheel drive so probably no unless a large number of people suddenly switch from fwd economy cars to rwd luxury cars and sports coupes)

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Ornery
...everything costs more.

A full size, RWD V8 can still be built for the same price as any other car. Therefore everything DOESN'T cost more. It's still relatively the same price adjusted for inflation, that it was before the oil crisis. Yet, when imports are configured as V8, RWDs, the cost goes through the roof. Why? Everything doesn't cost more. Only imports with a proper platform!


If foreign competition truly wanted to break into the full size, RWD V8 market, they would beat detroit at it.

Thanks to our fvcktard consumers of the early '70s, there is no more market for those cars. Detroit had that market sewn up, and our consumers just gave that advantage away overnight. When reality finally set in, all that was left to buy were trucks in their place. That's how things are. The same lame-brained consumers who pissed away our dominance in cheap boulevard cruisers, are now stuck with the glut of SUVs they despise so much... GOOD! I hope they choke on it!

Stuck with SUVs? I ain't stuck with sh!t. I drive a mid-sized car that has more than enough passenger space for me and 4 friends. When me and my roommates went down to the beach for the weekend earlier in the summer, we all hopped in my car (instead of my roommate's Trailblazer) and loaded up the trunk with our luggage. Even with 5 people aboard, I averaged between 28-30MPG on the trip between Raleigh, NC and Myrtle Beach, SC.

Nobody complained, nobody was uncomfortable. Everyone had plenty of legroom and the ride was rather compliant.

Now, I want to go to a Mazda 3s Hatch Grand Touring for my next car for three reasons:

1) I want a newer car. My Camry is 11 years old and I want a newer vehicle. The '06 Mazda 3s comes with a 4-year warranty and 3 years Roadside assistance IIRC.
2) I want something that allows me to carry bulky objects. I can carry somewhat large boxes in my Camry, but they have to go in the back seat where they dirty up my beige leather seats. With a 3s Hatch, I can just fold down the rear seats and stick in whatever I want.
3) I think it just looks cool

Why the hell would I need something bigger? What am I going to do with all that extra space by buying something like a Crown Vic or a 300C or a Magnum or a Tahoe or an Explorer? Wasted space to me.

i agree that the mazda 3 hatch is a great car, especially the way you can load cargo into it. hatches are great in europe, maybe cars like the 3 and the matrix etc are getting americans to enjoy hatches.

i think you are about to get hated on since all the large rwd sedans you just listed are well american cars.

in my opinion the magnum is all style over substance, the roof line is too low in the back for loading taller objects and it obstructs the rear view mirror. same with the 300c , its about style because as snoop dogg says "it looks like a bentley". i hope you enjoy the 3, that is a fantastic car. you can even get nav on it.

 

[Ktulu]

Originally posted by: tooltime
say goodbye to gm and ford and their suv's i heard sales of suv's dropped by 50% in october...hard times are hear for them

You do realize that GM and Ford are not the only manufacturers that produce full size RWD trucks and SUV's, IIRC Toyota produces a few behemoths as well

 

[desy]

Mkay. . . Dug out the article for you

Conclusion
ALL SAID AND DONE
Neither front-wheel drive nor rear-wheel drive is really better than the other. Today's sophisticated traction and stability control systems are so good they can mask or enhance the true driving dynamics of a vehicle. That
said, through most of this test we found the effectiveness of these systems had more to do with a car's performance than which wheels were actually doing the driving.

So with that in mind unless you were comparing two VERY similar RWD and FWD vehicles I don't discount your experience but I think I'll trust PM's more.
The cost of repair in an accident is a lot more for FWD systems and insurance companies are pushing RWD back into the mainstream.
I had an article on that somewhere too, give me some time to dig it up!

 

[rh71]

yay for high gas prices ?

 

[earthman]

Originally posted by: Ornery
What's wrong with small cars?

If they're so great, they would have STAYED small, but they didn't. Why?


Because continuous improvement has allowed the car to evolve into something larger and safer...

And yet, here we are looking at new tiny-mobiles. Are they going to grow again too?

Have you taken a look at your average american? Most peoples' asses are so fat these days they need an SUV to haul themselves around. Heh.

 

[daddyrief]

Originally posted by: desy
Mkay. . . Dug out the article for you

Conclusion
ALL SAID AND DONE
Neither front-wheel drive nor rear-wheel drive is really better than the other. Today's sophisticated traction and stability control systems are so good they can mask or enhance the true driving dynamics of a vehicle. That
said, through most of this test we found the effectiveness of these systems had more to do with a car's performance than which wheels were actually doing the driving.

one is more fun in the rain/dirt though .