Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, I hear you. My old Geo Metro Convertible got 50 - 52 in town and 46 on the highway. (little motor was wound tight to maintain highway speeds, so it actually got worse mileage on the highway.) Of course I wouldn't have wanted to hit a loose beer can with it though.
remember back then there was no real safety equipment. There is no way they could make a car like that today.
Very true. Those little CRX's might be light and gas efficient but the first time you got in an accident, you might as well have your will made out.
Seat belts don't mean squat if the car is made of plastic and breaks away when hit. Not to mention theres no meat for the car to take any of the accident when it does get hit.
SUVs killed the sport car market...I remember when the only SUVs you would see were Suburbans and Explorers and hardly any families had them-most had minivans-Dodge Caravans...then pretty much EVERY manufacturer started making oversized SUVs...people started buying SUVs instead of little sports cars-hence the death of the CRX...smaller cars are now coming back though because of the crazy gas prices...you can still find CRX used-they are HUGE with the "ricer" crowd-guys put an updated turboed engine in them and FLY.
Yeah , what I really want is a two door , two seat sports car. But you know that 6000# suv that handles like dog squeeze and is slow. Yeah , that is what I really wanted. Time to upgrade to an suv!
What killed the sports car was the sports car. Remember back in the late 90s when the RX-7, 3000gt, 300z, and the supra dropped off the US market? They were costing 40k+ in some cases. They killed themselves off because they were costing so much money and they were tough to work on for the dealers.
And at the same time you claim the suvs killed the sports car the Miata was selling really really well.
And then there was no real horsepower race by the manufactures.
And maybe about 4 years ago it really went hard. Audi's 400hp+ twin turbo car, Volvos 300+hp awd car, bmw m5 500hp v10....blah blah blah....the sports car is back and it had nothing to do with suv's.
The only the suvs can do to a sports car is tow it to the track.
Hi! I had a Honda CRX in the 1980's that routinely got 49 mpg. It wasn't a hybrid, it was just a great little car. If Honda could make a car that got 49 mpg in the 1980's why don't they make cars that do better than that now? I really thought in the intervening decades Honda, or some other auto maker, would have developed cars that would get at least 60 mpg. What happened?
gas was cheap and gigantic gas guzzling trucks were cheaper to produce. i think very few people realise that to build a small car which is fuel efficient and goes through safety testing is infinitely more challenging and expensive than barbarically chucking together a few chunks of steel, fitting wheels and a 1960's big block, without regard for fuel efficiency, braking performance, cornering etc. gigantic suvs are to modern automobiles what these
gas was cheap and gigantic gas guzzling trucks were cheaper to produce. i think very few people realise that to build a small car which is fuel efficient and goes through safety testing is infinitely more challenging and expensive than barbarically chucking together a few chunks of steel, fitting wheels and a 1960's big block, without regard for fuel efficiency, braking performance, cornering etc. gigantic suvs are to modern automobiles what these
<snipped photo>
are to the modern cell phone!
What a dumb post. I have a Suburban, and it sure doesn't have a 1960's big block in it. But you know that already, just on a SUV bashing kick lately as anybody can tell by reading through your recent posts. You bash people for not showing facts, so go ahead, show where the SUV makers are putting in old big blocks. Also show where they toss out all safety standards as well as breaking and handling. Oh yeah, you can't. Get off the soap box, nobody is listening and you are just making yourself look foolish. Welcome to ignore.
my 86 si is currently getting 43 mpg. with a bigger integra motor! f you opec.
cars like these just aren't practical now. two seaters can be used for few things other than the commute or grocery getter. vehicles like these are bought or kept as a novelty or for a dedicated purpose. how many lotus elises to you see going to work? however, you have to take off your shoes to count them and miatas at trackdays and autocrosses.
The american companies better get on the stick and start ramping up their subcompact offerings. With the gas price increases, it is what people are going to have to commute in if they want to keep themselves financially stable.
Chevy has the aveo. Toyota has the yaris, Nissan = versa, honda = fit... where are ford and chrysler's subcompacts? Come on guys.
I had a vw diesel rabbit back in the day that got 52mpg. had to sell it though, bought it used and found out it had a rusty frame (not so safe) a couple years later. I guess these are really popular on the used market for the "diesel from chinese restaurants" afficionados.
What a dumb post. I have a Suburban, and it sure doesn't have a 1960's big block in it. But you know that already, just on a SUV bashing kick lately as anybody can tell by reading through your recent posts. You bash people for not showing facts, so go ahead, show where the SUV makers are putting in old big blocks. Also show where they toss out all safety standards as well as breaking and handling. Oh yeah, you can't. Get off the soap box, nobody is listening and you are just making yourself look foolish. Welcome to ignore.
and here we have a poster who would argue that suv's require shorter stopping distance than smaller cars. that many suv's with their high centre of gravity would perform better when required to swerve rapidly at anything over 60 mph. what may i ask is the significant improvement between yours and a 1960's engine? i'd wager that it isn't fuel economy.
now i would hazzard a guess and say that you haven't compared gas to performance to safety ratios with foreign automakers like bmw, toyota or vw. they might give you an indication of how far our auto industry has fallen behind or stagnated.
if you read my post carefully you'll also note that i never said that they toss out safety standards. i merely made the point that it is more challenging and costs more to make a smaller car safe.
with all the strides that we have made in engineering, our auto industry(in terms of what it puts on the market) is lagging way way behind.
regarding all my other posts on other threads, do you not agree that our excessive dependence on oil exacerbates our already gargantuan trade deficit?
I also like how all SUVs are conflated together as if there's no practical difference between an Expedition and a RAV-4. Most "SUV" models on the market today are basically tall cars with unibody frames and the same V6 engines (sometimes even 4-cylinders) used in the same standard passenger car that the SUV shares a platform with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
