The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: RWD on July 17, 2020, 06:50:20 PM
-
Sad day for Mustachians
https://jalopnik.com/dead-honda-fit-1844418117
-
That is sad. At least the corolla and Prius are still being made.
-
This makes me sad even though I just replaced my Civic with an insight instead of a fit. I always thought I'd buy a fit someday!
-
The toyota yaris has also been discontinued in North America after 2020. That was a very reliable and cost-effective little car.
Everybody wants to buy a giant vehicle instead. The cognitive dissonance between what people want and want they can afford makes my head hurt. Same thing for climate change.
-
I am always sad when another small car disappears from the market, especially the hatchbacks which are so much better for loading than the sedans.
-
The popularity of the hausefraupanzerwagen strikes again!
-
no!!!!!!
At least my Fit is good for a long time. No one cream it for me, ok?
-
Kia Soul is similarly priced...much better looking...much better warranty. Slightly worse gas mileage though.
-
Kia Soul is similarly priced...much better looking...much better warranty. Slightly worse gas mileage though.
Not to totally derail this thread but the Soul is extremely ugly and I would never buy one because looking at it makes me sad.
-
Kia Soul is similarly priced...much better looking...much better warranty. Slightly worse gas mileage though.
Not to totally derail this thread but the Soul is extremely ugly and I would never buy one because looking at it makes me sad.
I guess I wouldn’t call any compact car “good looking”, but at least the Soul has...some redeeming factor if only because it actually tries. The Fit and most other compact cars are the most depressing segment in the car market in terms of looks. I’ll concede that the Soul is probably a “love it, hate it, or at least they’re trying” sort of reaction but it outsold the Fit last year about 3 to 1.
-
What the heck are you all sad about? Almost no one should be buying one new and you have at least 5-9 years of being able to buy finely depreciated used examples!
-
Kia Soul is similarly priced...much better looking...much better warranty. Slightly worse gas mileage though.
Not to totally derail this thread but the Soul is extremely ugly and I would never buy one because looking at it makes me sad.
I guess I wouldn’t call any compact car “good looking”, but at least the Soul has...some redeeming factor if only because it actually tries. The Fit and most other compact cars are the most depressing segment in the car market in terms of looks. I’ll concede that the Soul is probably a “love it, hate it, or at least they’re trying” sort of reaction but it outsold the Fit last year about 3 to 1.
Have you seen the new Fit? This is the one we aren't getting (pictures attached).
-
What the heck are you all sad about? Almost no one should be buying one new and you have at least 5-9 years of being able to buy finely depreciated used examples!
Yeah, and by the time I’m ready to replace my 8-year-old Prius C (also discontinued), the used market will be glutted with suburbitanks and I won’t be able to get another little hatchback (the Prius C, bought used, replaced my 13-year-old Focus ZX3).
-
What the heck are you all sad about? Almost no one should be buying one new and you have at least 5-9 years of being able to buy finely depreciated used examples!
Some of us are long term planners!
-
What the heck are you all sad about? Almost no one should be buying one new and you have at least 5-9 years of being able to buy finely depreciated used examples!
There are definitely things to be sad about. Future Mustachians 10 years from now will have less selection for practical efficient vehicles. It indicates a fall in demand for efficient vehicles. Honda went through the trouble to design a brand new Fit and decided we weren't worthy of it. Its discontinuation means one less vehicle I can recommend to less Mustachian people that insist on a new vehicle.
-
This really sucks. Everyone I know with one loves it. I have a 2010 Hyundai Accent (similar size) and it's really the perfect little car for the 99% of the time you don't need more space. When I bought it, a coworker was checking it out and seemed to surprised to say "It looks like it could fit groceries in it without a problem!" Yeah, no shit.
-
This really sucks. Everyone I know with one loves it. I have a 2010 Hyundai Accent (similar size) and it's really the perfect little car for the 99% of the time you don't need more space. When I bought it, a coworker was checking it out and seemed to surprised to say "It looks like it could fit groceries in it without a problem!" Yeah, no shit.
Bwaaahaaa. I have had many occasions to buy groceries for very large groups, and they always fit in my sub compact cars! I did own a Cavalier for several years, I think that was merely compact..
-
This really sucks. Everyone I know with one loves it. I have a 2010 Hyundai Accent (similar size) and it's really the perfect little car for the 99% of the time you don't need more space. When I bought it, a coworker was checking it out and seemed to surprised to say "It looks like it could fit groceries in it without a problem!" Yeah, no shit.
Bwaaahaaa. I have had many occasions to buy groceries for very large groups, and they always fit in my sub compact cars! I did own a Cavalier for several years, I think that was merely compact..
Yep. Never had a problem with my tiny cars and big Costco shops. If needed, I could fit my bike in the back of my Prius C if I put down the rear seats.
-
The popularity of the hausefraupanzerwagen strikes again!
No need ot be uber German, Hausfrauenpanzer is all you need ;)
That is a real pity for you guys on the other side of the big water!
Mabe by the time the market goes scarce you may be able to buy a real mustachian car. Something like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=li33TrYeziA
(A lot better in the winter when it's cold and slippery)
Or maybe get inspired by this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eRdsUCAwis
and start making things yourself?
-
We already have pedal electric hybrids. The battery's in the part of the frame labelled recon:
(https://content.abt.com/image.php/big-RANGER.jpg?image=/images/products/BDP_Images/big-RANGER.jpg&canvas=1&quality=80&min_w=600&min_h=400)
You'll notice the SUV motif has moved into electric bicycles! In the winter you can use studded tires...
-
Very sad. The excesses of our ever-growing vehicles feels like witnessing a slow motion tragedy.
-
DW asked me today what we'd get if our fit got totaled (2k9, so pretty much any real damage would do it. We lucked out with the hail last weekend not doing serious damage). I said I didn't know. Maybe a used fit?
I don't know that I think the HR-V is a great replacement for it. Mostly I hope someone will get a 300+ mile small (fit-sized) EV by then. The Bolt would be great with another 60-100 miles on its range... Its very similar in size...
-
Kia Soul is similarly priced...much better looking...much better warranty. Slightly worse gas mileage though.
Not to totally derail this thread but the Soul is extremely ugly and I would never buy one because looking at it makes me sad.
I guess I wouldn’t call any compact car “good looking”, but at least the Soul has...some redeeming factor if only because it actually tries. The Fit and most other compact cars are the most depressing segment in the car market in terms of looks. I’ll concede that the Soul is probably a “love it, hate it, or at least they’re trying” sort of reaction but it outsold the Fit last year about 3 to 1.
Have you seen the new Fit? This is the one we aren't getting (pictures attached).
I like the new look. It really is too bad it’s getting discontinued.
-
Americans are not fit enough to squeeze into a Fit.
-
So sad! It was my first car and I really loved it. I especially like how good the visibility is. A lot of the alternative hatchbacks that people recommend seem to be shorter and have smaller windows, which makes me sad.
I was thinking I'd buy another one next time we needed to own a car. Well, I could always get a used one, at least for the next few years...
-
Rumours are that it'll be dropped here too...
https://www.caradvice.com.au/813574/honda-australia-considers-dropping-jazz/
It seems as though they can't be bought in at the right price to be profitable and sell in decent numbers. If it can only be sold within a couple thousand of vehicles from the next size up, it's a bit of a tougher sell. As long as the Corolla/i30 (Elantra)/Cerato (Forte)/Mazda3 class still exists it's not the end of the world.
Of course once fuel prices go back up there'll be a gap in the market again for small fuel efficient cars. Do Kia still sell the Rio there? Have MG/SAIC set up operations Stateside yet?
'Your margin is my opportunity' and all of that.
-
Bummer about them dropping the manual Accord too!
-
This really sucks. Everyone I know with one loves it. I have a 2010 Hyundai Accent (similar size) and it's really the perfect little car for the 99% of the time you don't need more space. When I bought it, a coworker was checking it out and seemed to surprised to say "It looks like it could fit groceries in it without a problem!" Yeah, no shit.
Bwaaahaaa. I have had many occasions to buy groceries for very large groups, and they always fit in my sub compact cars! I did own a Cavalier for several years, I think that was merely compact..
Yep. Never had a problem with my tiny cars and big Costco shops. If needed, I could fit my bike in the back of my Prius C if I put down the rear seats.
Indeed. We have a regular-sized Prius (not the C), but I can fill the Costco-sized shopping cart to overflowing and it all fits in the trunk. Lately because I've been trying to space out shopping trips and get a month's worth of food in one go I've even gotten two carts full. For that I do need to use the back seat. Do people actually think they need something bigger just to buy food? I don't understand.
-
This really sucks. Everyone I know with one loves it. I have a 2010 Hyundai Accent (similar size) and it's really the perfect little car for the 99% of the time you don't need more space. When I bought it, a coworker was checking it out and seemed to surprised to say "It looks like it could fit groceries in it without a problem!" Yeah, no shit.
Bwaaahaaa. I have had many occasions to buy groceries for very large groups, and they always fit in my sub compact cars! I did own a Cavalier for several years, I think that was merely compact..
Yep. Never had a problem with my tiny cars and big Costco shops. If needed, I could fit my bike in the back of my Prius C if I put down the rear seats.
Indeed. We have a regular-sized Prius (not the C), but I can fill the Costco-sized shopping cart to overflowing and it all fits in the trunk. Lately because I've been trying to space out shopping trips and get a month's worth of food in one go I've even gotten two carts full. For that I do need to use the back seat. Do people actually think they need something bigger just to buy food? I don't understand.
Before my son was born when it was just my wife, the dog and me I'd regularly buy all our groceries and take them home on my bike. Including large orders (including 60 lb bags of dog food) from Costco. :P
-
The Fit is a nice car. However, we have teen drivers coming up and they will eventually have cars (probably a few years from now). Loooking at crash ratings, a bigger car is a safer car, and with all the distracted driving, safety in crashes is paramount, so I will recommend midsize cars for our family members.
But the civic is a top safety pick for smaller cars:
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/top-safety-picks
Older and larger is better for teens than newer and smaller:
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/iihs-used-car-lists-help-families-choose-safer-larger-vehicles-for-teens
"Bigger vehicles provide greater protection," Cicchino says. "If you're riding in one of the smallest vehicles on the road, you'll be at a disadvantage in a crash with almost any other vehicle around you."
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
-
Of course once fuel prices go back up there'll be a gap in the market again for small fuel efficient cars. Do Kia still sell the Rio there? Have MG/SAIC set up operations Stateside yet?
Yes, the Rio is still listed on Kia's USA website (https://www.kia.com/us/en/rio-5-door). It is heavier and less powerful than the Fit though. Also not available with a manual transmission.
MG cars haven't been sold in the US since 1980. We've never had any of the other SAIC exclusive brands as far as I'm aware.
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Right. Crash safety for whom? The person on the receiving end of the crash is going to be less safe the more massive the object that just hit them.
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Both. I don't want my teens in a subcompact out on the road with huge SUVs.
-
I guess it wasn't a good "fit" for the US.
-
The Honda HR-v is basically a taller Fit. With a slightly larger, more powerful engine than the Fit, and higher entry/exit height, you lose 1 mpg (fwd only).
The HR-v is more expensive up front than the Fit, but for a Mustachian that's thinking about buying a depreciated one a few years into the future, that initial price difference probably isn't going to make much difference.
You can also get used hybrid hatches that will get far better fuel economy than a Fit if that's a big factor. Cheap, used hybrids (along with cheap gas) have eroded the primary benefit to owning a small, gas sipping ICE economy car like the Fit.
-
The Honda HR-v is basically a taller Fit. With a slightly larger, more powerful engine than the Fit, and higher entry/exit height, you lose 1 mpg (fwd only).
The HR-v is more expensive up front than the Fit, but for a Mustachian that's thinking about buying a depreciated one a few years into the future, that initial price difference probably isn't going to make much difference.
You can also get used hybrid hatches that will get far better fuel economy than a Fit if that's a big factor. Cheap, used hybrids (along with cheap gas) have eroded the primary benefit to owning a small, gas sipping ICE economy car like the Fit.
The HR-V is about 29-41% more expensive than the Fit. That's about 3-4 years of depreciation to get to the same point as the Fit. It also weighs 500 lb more and isn't available with a manual transmission... Fuel economy isn't the only redeeming point of the Fit. There's something to be said for an ultra simple, lightweight compact car. Also, the new Fit (the one we aren't getting) has a hybrid version so it would have been able to fill the role for excellent fuel economy too.
-
Also not available with a manual transmission.
Yeah well honestly manual transmissions in ordinary commuter cars are a dying breed. Nobody is buying them new, and they're hard to sell used.
I'd struggle to select the three-pedal option for anything short of an MX-5 or 86/FRS/BRZ (or maybe a hot hatch) these days. On a base model Civic or Corolla? Auto every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Do you still get the Mitsubishi Mirage Stateside? It's bare bones but it's going to be as close to 'simple small basic car' as one can for a while.
-
The HR-V is about 29-41% more expensive than the Fit. That's about 3-4 years of depreciation to get to the same point as the Fit. It also weighs 500 lb more and isn't available with a manual transmission... Fuel economy isn't the only redeeming point of the Fit. There's something to be said for an ultra simple, lightweight compact car. Also, the new Fit (the one we aren't getting) has a hybrid version so it would have been able to fill the role for excellent fuel economy too.
The big weight gain with the HR-V comes with the added functionality of AWD. The weight difference for FWD models is under 390lbs, not that it matters. The general public doesn't care about added weight and they don't want manual transmissions. Those who care more about driving dynamics or driver engagement than things like H points and ingress/egress are few and very far between these days.
Small hatches have always been purchased by those on a tight budget and/or those who prioritize great fuel economy. But with cheap gas, improving fuel economy in other vehicle segments, and cheap used hybrids that get 45+mpg, a lot of the luster has faded on new econoboxes. Add the fact that they're typically low margin for the manufacturers and the writing is on the wall.
The new Corolla hatch looks like a reasonable stand in for the Fit to me, offers a manual trans and has a hybrid model as well.
-
AWD is not added functionality for the vast majority of drivers. It's of little to no real value if you're not driving off-road or through extremely deep snow (and for snow, snow tires are much better than AWD with all-seasons anyway).
-
Also not available with a manual transmission.
Yeah well honestly manual transmissions in ordinary commuter cars are a dying breed. Nobody is buying them new, and they're hard to sell used.
I'd struggle to select the three-pedal option for anything short of an MX-5 or 86/FRS/BRZ (or maybe a hot hatch) these days. On a base model Civic or Corolla? Auto every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Do you still get the Mitsubishi Mirage Stateside? It's bare bones but it's going to be as close to 'simple small basic car' as one can for a while.
Yeah, it's a minor thing.
Yes we still get the Mirage and it's absolutely junk compared to the Fit. Discussion here (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/antimustachian-car-review-mitsubishi-mirage/).
The HR-V is about 29-41% more expensive than the Fit. That's about 3-4 years of depreciation to get to the same point as the Fit. It also weighs 500 lb more and isn't available with a manual transmission... Fuel economy isn't the only redeeming point of the Fit. There's something to be said for an ultra simple, lightweight compact car. Also, the new Fit (the one we aren't getting) has a hybrid version so it would have been able to fill the role for excellent fuel economy too.
The big weight gain with the HR-V comes with the added functionality of AWD. The weight difference for FWD models is under 390lbs, not that it matters. The general public doesn't care about added weight and they don't want manual transmissions. Those who care more about driving dynamics or driver engagement than things like H points and ingress/egress are few and very far between these days.
Small hatches have always been purchased by those on a tight budget and/or those who prioritize great fuel economy. But with cheap gas, improving fuel economy in other vehicle segments, and cheap used hybrids that get 45+mpg, a lot of the luster has faded on new econoboxes. Add the fact that they're typically low margin for the manufacturers and the writing is on the wall.
The new Corolla hatch looks like a reasonable stand in for the Fit to me, offers a manual trans and has a hybrid model as well.
You are right, it's more like 300-350 lb when comparing FWD to FWD. I missed that when I was grabbing numbers. Still a pretty big difference. The general public isn't what this thread is about. It's about a loss of a good option for Mustachians. The Fit was the first listed car in MMM's top cars blog post (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/03/19/top-10-cars-for-smart-people/). In fact, with the Yaris also being discontinued after the 2020 model year all seven six out of seven of his top recommended vehicles are no longer being sold new.
The Corolla hatchback is not available as a hybrid currently.
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
-
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Vacation in Mexico
buy used car
drive 2 years
sell for more
rinse and repeat
-
Man, I was JUST thinking last night that I want to trade my Elantra for a new Fit. I hate the Elantra, it was a terrible decision.
Someone mentioned the Kia as similiar, but I won't buy a Kia- I can't get past the name- I immediately think of the military implications of KIA.
The back row configurations of the Fit were brilliant. Like a mini van for a tiny car.
I feel like the Civic Coupe is a huge loss too. (I had one for 12 years. It was an amazing car.)
-
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Vacation in Mexico
buy used car
drive 2 years
sell for more
rinse and repeat
Importing vehicles to the US is very difficult. You're essentially limited to vehicles you could have bought here anyway or over 25 years old.
-
The Corolla hatchback is not available as a hybrid currently.
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Well by raising the suspension and tweaking the styling a little, you get a HR-V, C-HR, Venue, Kona or CX3 that people will pay more for. Margins are fairly thin for automakers on commuter cars, so I guess that's their strategy. I guess they'll be the closest thing to Mustachian used cars down the track.
-
RIP Honda Fit
-
I have mixed feelings about the Fit - I have had two of them and currently have a 2013 Fit. It is extremely reliable and has an insane amount of space (among other things, I have pulled up to a Lowe's and stuffed a snowblower into the back of it while two guys in a giant pickup were loading up their snowblower and smirking/gawking at me). I can't emphasize enough how much stuff you can cram into a Fit. It's like a TARDIS.
However, prior to the Fit I had an Echo (sadly also discontinued) which is still running for my parents and is extremely reliable as well. You couldn't fit a snowblower into an Echo, but it did get better gas mileage (around 40 mpg, which my parents love). That is my one complaint with the Fit - I have not been impressed with the mileage. It's true that I tote around kayaks and bikes and stuff on it that reduces the mileage, but even without the kayak and bike racks it only got mid-30s for mileage for me. In the dead of winter it's low 30s. So my parents will probably inherit my Fit eventually when the Echo dies, while I will move on to a Prius or a Hyundai Ionic. I just want my next car to get in the 50s for gas mileage, and maybe some electric range as well if I end up getting solar panels on our tiny house (we had solar panels on the old one before we downsized).
So, RIP Echo, RIP Fit. Let's hope the Prius soldiers on.
-
What the heck are you all sad about? Almost no one should be buying one new and you have at least 5-9 years of being able to buy finely depreciated used examples!
There are definitely things to be sad about. Future Mustachians 10 years from now will have less selection for practical efficient vehicles. It indicates a fall in demand for efficient vehicles. Honda went through the trouble to design a brand new Fit and decided we weren't worthy of it. Its discontinuation means one less vehicle I can recommend to less Mustachian people that insist on a new vehicle.
Isn't Toyota going to make basically everything hybrid in the short to medium term?
Many of (all?) their sedans are available hybrid (MPGs from mid 40s to early 50s). As is the Rav4 (~ 40 MPG). All of these vehicles have higher MPG than the FIT (high 30s).
The new Venza (40 MPG) and Sienna (33 MPG) will be hybrid only.
On that list, the only vehicle with lower MPG than the fit is the Sienna and it's pretty clear that they aren't exactly competitors.
The way I see it the main advantages of the Fit were low cost, fuel economy, and flexibility via the hatchback. But something like the Corolla Hybrid would be significantly better in terms of fuel economy and still at a fairly low cost. I wish they would make a Corolla Hatchback Hybrid, but I think they're worried about cannibalizing the Prius market.
Anyway, I think we will have way more selection for fuel efficient vehicles with high reliability in 10 years. I've got a 2011 Venza that I'm hoping lasts till 2025 or so. I think we'll have lots of great options by then.
I'd bet in a decade the standard will be more like plug in hybrid than just the current hybrids that generally have a higher MPG than the fit.
-
What the heck are you all sad about? Almost no one should be buying one new and you have at least 5-9 years of being able to buy finely depreciated used examples!
There are definitely things to be sad about. Future Mustachians 10 years from now will have less selection for practical efficient vehicles. It indicates a fall in demand for efficient vehicles. Honda went through the trouble to design a brand new Fit and decided we weren't worthy of it. Its discontinuation means one less vehicle I can recommend to less Mustachian people that insist on a new vehicle.
Isn't Toyota going to make basically everything hybrid in the short to medium term?
Many of (all?) their sedans are available hybrid (MPGs from mid 40s to early 50s). As is the Rav4 (~ 40 MPG). All of these vehicles have higher MPG than the FIT (high 30s).
The new Venza (40 MPG) and Sienna (33 MPG) will be hybrid only.
On that list, the only vehicle with lower MPG than the fit is the Sienna and it's pretty clear that they aren't exactly competitors.
The way I see it the main advantages of the Fit were low cost, fuel economy, and flexibility via the hatchback. But something like the Corolla Hybrid would be significantly better in terms of fuel economy and still at a fairly low cost. I wish they would make a Corolla Hatchback Hybrid, but I think they're worried about cannibalizing the Prius market.
Anyway, I think we will have way more selection for fuel efficient vehicles with high reliability in 10 years. I've got a 2011 Venza that I'm hoping lasts till 2025 or so. I think we'll have lots of great options by then.
I'd bet in a decade the standard will be more like plug in hybrid than just the current hybrids that generally have a higher MPG than the fit.
A little unfair to compare fuel economy of the ongoing Toyotas to the discontinued Fit. As I mentioned earlier the new Fit has a hybrid version. It's using the powertrain from the new Insight so I would expect fuel economy numbers to be similar to that (52 mpg).
-
This makes me sad. I'm still lusting after a 2nd gen with a manual trans, but I don't expect any of my current cars to die anytime soon.
-
You are right, it's more like 300-350 lb when comparing FWD to FWD. I missed that when I was grabbing numbers. Still a pretty big difference. The general public isn't what this thread is about. It's about a loss of a good option for Mustachians. The Fit was the first listed car in MMM's top cars blog post (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/03/19/top-10-cars-for-smart-people/). In fact, with the Yaris also being discontinued after the 2020 model year all seven of his top recommended vehicles are no longer being sold new!
Fair enough. The MMM blog was from 2012 and discussed cars that were 3-5 years old back then. It would be interesting to do a modern update. I don't think ride height or vehicle weight were heavily weighted criteria in his comparison because driving dynamics fall way down the list of priorities for most people, Mustachian or not. The vehicles on his list were just the only cheap, flexible, efficient vehicles available when that post was written. While the low riding hatch backs and manual transmissions are going away, they're being replaced with high riding hatch backs that are easier to get into/out of and load/unload for most people.
The Corolla hatchback is not available as a hybrid currently.
Bummer! Maybe they'll add it in a year or two. There's still the Ford CMax available for a song on the used market if you want cheap, 5 door hybrid capability.
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Chevy Sonic: was just cancelled, but there are still some being made and sold. MSRP starts under $17k. It looks like they lost their manual trans option for 2020MY though.
Kia Soul: starts <$17.5
New Kia Venue (5 door CUV): starts at $17.3
Ford Ecosport: starts @ $19.95
Chevy Trax: MSRP starting over $21k, but Autotrader is showing over 1000 of them selling new for under $20k
Jeep Compass: Like the Trax, has an MSRP over $20k, but there are dealers asking under $15k NEW for them on Autotrader
Hyundai Elantra GT: Again, MSRP over $20k, but hundreds for sale in new condition for under $20k. Some as low as $16xxx
Fiats: They probably pay you now right? I'm certain there are tons for under $20k out there but I don't want that in my browser history.
So while some vehicles have exited the market segment, there are some new vehicles that have entered the Sub $20k, 5 door bracket that didn't exist when MMM wrote his original blog post 8 years ago. They're pretty much just lifted versions of the hatches they're replacing. Low end buyers looking for 5 door capability still have plenty of viable options, most of them just sit higher up now. I get the #savethemanuals reason why losing the sporty and capable Fit sucks but I'm not sure that's actually related to MMM at all as it's more about enjoyment/engagement than practicality/functionality. There are still Mustachian options available that would have a lot of overlap in a VENN diagram with the Fit.
-
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Vacation in Mexico
buy used car
drive 2 years
sell for more
rinse and repeat
Importing vehicles to the US is very difficult. You're essentially limited to vehicles you could have bought here anyway or over 25 years old.
Damn Socialism that allows us Europeans to buy whatever car we want.
On a more serious point: I thought car maker protection was bad in Germany, but that tops it.
-
Rumours are that it'll be dropped here too...
https://www.caradvice.com.au/813574/honda-australia-considers-dropping-jazz/
It seems as though they can't be bought in at the right price to be profitable and sell in decent numbers. If it can only be sold within a couple thousand of vehicles from the next size up, it's a bit of a tougher sell. As long as the Corolla/i30 (Elantra)/Cerato (Forte)/Mazda3 class still exists it's not the end of the world.
Of course once fuel prices go back up there'll be a gap in the market again for small fuel efficient cars. Do Kia still sell the Rio there? Have MG/SAIC set up operations Stateside yet?
'Your margin is my opportunity' and all of that.
My impression is that new Mazda 3s are a bit bigger than mine (2010). No Mazda 2 any more in Canada. A friend of mine traded in her old rusty SUV for a used Mazda 2 and loves it.
-
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Chevy Sonic: was just cancelled, but there are still some being made and sold. MSRP starts under $17k. It looks like they lost their manual trans option for 2020MY though.
Kia Soul: starts <$17.5
New Kia Venue (5 door CUV): starts at $17.3
Ford Ecosport: starts @ $19.95
Chevy Trax: MSRP starting over $21k, but Autotrader is showing over 1000 of them selling new for under $20k
Jeep Compass: Like the Trax, has an MSRP over $20k, but there are dealers asking under $15k NEW for them on Autotrader
Hyundai Elantra GT: Again, MSRP over $20k, but hundreds for sale in new condition for under $20k. Some as low as $16xxx
Fiats: They probably pay you now right? I'm certain there are tons for under $20k out there but I don't want that in my browser history.
So while some vehicles have exited the market segment, there are some new vehicles that have entered the Sub $20k, 5 door bracket that didn't exist when MMM wrote his original blog post 8 years ago. They're pretty much just lifted versions of the hatches they're replacing. Low end buyers looking for 5 door capability still have plenty of viable options, most of them just sit higher up now. I get the #savethemanuals reason why losing the sporty and capable Fit sucks but I'm not sure that's actually related to MMM at all as it's more about enjoyment/engagement than practicality/functionality. There are still Mustachian options available that would have a lot of overlap in a VENN diagram with the Fit.
The Soul is classified as a station wagon on fueleconomy.gov (which is what I used for my search) so I missed it.
The CUVs are certainly what people are buying. The future looks both boring and inefficient.
-
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Vacation in Mexico
buy used car
drive 2 years
sell for more
rinse and repeat
Importing vehicles to the US is very difficult. You're essentially limited to vehicles you could have bought here anyway or over 25 years old.
Damn Socialism that allows us Europeans to buy whatever car we want.
On a more serious point: I thought car maker protection was bad in Germany, but that tops it.
Yup, it's tough to be a car enthusiast here.
https://jalopnik.com/why-are-the-feds-obsessed-with-seizing-these-peoples-ol-1672381729
https://jalopnik.com/watch-the-feds-crush-an-imported-nissan-skyline-1753280296
https://jalopnik.com/here-are-the-four-legal-ways-to-import-a-car-to-the-uni-1682067632
-
What the heck are you all sad about? Almost no one should be buying one new and you have at least 5-9 years of being able to buy finely depreciated used examples!
There are definitely things to be sad about. Future Mustachians 10 years from now will have less selection for practical efficient vehicles. It indicates a fall in demand for efficient vehicles. Honda went through the trouble to design a brand new Fit and decided we weren't worthy of it. Its discontinuation means one less vehicle I can recommend to less Mustachian people that insist on a new vehicle.
Isn't Toyota going to make basically everything hybrid in the short to medium term?
Many of (all?) their sedans are available hybrid (MPGs from mid 40s to early 50s). As is the Rav4 (~ 40 MPG). All of these vehicles have higher MPG than the FIT (high 30s).
The new Venza (40 MPG) and Sienna (33 MPG) will be hybrid only.
On that list, the only vehicle with lower MPG than the fit is the Sienna and it's pretty clear that they aren't exactly competitors.
The way I see it the main advantages of the Fit were low cost, fuel economy, and flexibility via the hatchback. But something like the Corolla Hybrid would be significantly better in terms of fuel economy and still at a fairly low cost. I wish they would make a Corolla Hatchback Hybrid, but I think they're worried about cannibalizing the Prius market.
Anyway, I think we will have way more selection for fuel efficient vehicles with high reliability in 10 years. I've got a 2011 Venza that I'm hoping lasts till 2025 or so. I think we'll have lots of great options by then.
I'd bet in a decade the standard will be more like plug in hybrid than just the current hybrids that generally have a higher MPG than the fit.
A little unfair to compare fuel economy of the ongoing Toyotas to the discontinued Fit. As I mentioned earlier the new Fit has a hybrid version. It's using the powertrain from the new Insight so I would expect fuel economy numbers to be similar to that (52 mpg).
My comment was mainly to disagree with the idea that "Future Mustachians 10 years from now will have less selection for practical efficient vehicles".
I think 10 years from now we'll have an abundance of vehicles that offer better fuel efficiency and more space than the Fit. [Assuming we still "need" personal vehicles, which I think is still a safe bet for most of the US.]
-
I really hope in 10 years we have more interesting vehicles. Preferably something like the bio-hybrid, podbike, etc. at mass manufactured prices, not the crazy bespoke $9k for a 3-wheel tadpole trike with a tall seat and a plastic shell that was/is the elf/pebl.
While I'm wishing, I suppose I should include a separate bike network like the road network. Make every third road bike-or-local-traffic-only?
-
I really hope in 10 years we have more interesting vehicles. Preferably something like the bio-hybrid, podbike, etc. at mass manufactured prices, not the crazy bespoke $9k for a 3-wheel tadpole trike with a tall seat and a plastic shell that was/is the elf/pebl.
While I'm wishing, I suppose I should include a separate bike network like the road network. Make every third road bike-or-local-traffic-only?
What's that, your wish is for even bigger trucks? You got it!
-
I really hope in 10 years we have more interesting vehicles. Preferably something like the bio-hybrid, podbike, etc. at mass manufactured prices, not the crazy bespoke $9k for a 3-wheel tadpole trike with a tall seat and a plastic shell that was/is the elf/pebl.
While I'm wishing, I suppose I should include a separate bike network like the road network. Make every third road bike-or-local-traffic-only?
What's that, your wish is for even bigger trucks? You got it!
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore? Yes, they're excessive for commuters but the relatively poor fuel economy and higher emissions are really my only gripe with them from a Mustachian perspective. Hybrids and full EV trucks will solve those beginning in the next couple of years, so they'll be available used in our 5-10 year MMM timeline.
-
I really hope in 10 years we have more interesting vehicles. Preferably something like the bio-hybrid, podbike, etc. at mass manufactured prices, not the crazy bespoke $9k for a 3-wheel tadpole trike with a tall seat and a plastic shell that was/is the elf/pebl.
While I'm wishing, I suppose I should include a separate bike network like the road network. Make every third road bike-or-local-traffic-only?
What's that, your wish is for even bigger trucks? You got it!
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore? Yes, they're excessive for commuters but the relatively poor fuel economy and higher emissions are really my only gripe with them from a Mustachian perspective. Hybrids and full EV trucks will solve those beginning in the next couple of years, so they'll be available used in our 5-10 year MMM timeline.
Well, they're presumably more expensive to begin with. I can get a gently used Fit or a used Prius for $7-$10k or less; I don't want to spend twice that much on a larger vehicle that I don't need.
-
i wish they would just replace the fit with their new electric car, the honda e. that looks like a fun car to drive. it's not coming to the u.s. though.
-
I really hope in 10 years we have more interesting vehicles. Preferably something like the bio-hybrid, podbike, etc. at mass manufactured prices, not the crazy bespoke $9k for a 3-wheel tadpole trike with a tall seat and a plastic shell that was/is the elf/pebl.
While I'm wishing, I suppose I should include a separate bike network like the road network. Make every third road bike-or-local-traffic-only?
What's that, your wish is for even bigger trucks? You got it!
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore? Yes, they're excessive for commuters but the relatively poor fuel economy and higher emissions are really my only gripe with them from a Mustachian perspective. Hybrids and full EV trucks will solve those beginning in the next couple of years, so they'll be available used in our 5-10 year MMM timeline.
I'd call it a win if 'light trucks' (which currently engulf pickups, most SUVs and other cars that have high ground clearance, aka the Subary Forester) were included in the passenger 'fleet vehicles' which require an average 37.8mpg (moving towards the Obama 54.5mpg), rather than getting their own seperate category of 28.8mpg.
In other words, if they had the same fuel-standard rules it would do quite a lot on the environmental front. By necessity we'd stop seeing pickups with sub 6.00 second 0-60 times, and standard HP ratings not even available in the 1990s. In short - people would stop expecting their full-sized pickup to perform like a mid-level sedan. But there are other issues, including vehicle weight and physical space. Heavier vehicles destroy roads much faster, and I can't begin to stress how annoying it is to have massive pickups parked in small parking-lots or on narrow city streets where they create blind spots and hazards for everyone else.
-
I really hope in 10 years we have more interesting vehicles. Preferably something like the bio-hybrid, podbike, etc. at mass manufactured prices, not the crazy bespoke $9k for a 3-wheel tadpole trike with a tall seat and a plastic shell that was/is the elf/pebl.
While I'm wishing, I suppose I should include a separate bike network like the road network. Make every third road bike-or-local-traffic-only?
What's that, your wish is for even bigger trucks? You got it!
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore? Yes, they're excessive for commuters but the relatively poor fuel economy and higher emissions are really my only gripe with them from a Mustachian perspective. Hybrids and full EV trucks will solve those beginning in the next couple of years, so they'll be available used in our 5-10 year MMM timeline.
As noted elsewhere, trucks are more expensive. Also, I don't like driving them. Call me a terrible American or whatever, but I actually love being able to maneuver and park my tiny car in spaces that would be off-limits with a big truck.
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Both. I don't want my teens in a subcompact out on the road with huge SUVs.
My son's first car was a Honda CRX. Like a FIT but with only 2 seats and smaller with no airbags. I did teach him the basics of driving (I'm a racetrack instructor and know that 99% of people on the road have zero idea how to drive). His biggest threat was a deer on the other side of a hill on a tight, back road. He was able to threshold brake and steer around the deer (cool rhyme, eh?) and steer back to avoid the big oak tree on the side of the road (no abs either). If he had been in some ginormous SUV, he'd have run into the deer who could have come through the windshield into his lap.
I always liked the FIT and considered buying one several times. It's a fun car to drive and makes use of space as well as a 60's MINI. I can see why it's going away. With gas prices near zero, why not just get a freaking F-150 because....you know....in the next 5 years, you might have to bring lumber back home from Home Depot once.
I don't know if Mazda will bring back the Mazda 2 (branded Toyota Yaris) with the discontinued Toyota badged car.
-
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore? Yes, they're excessive for commuters but the relatively poor fuel economy and higher emissions are really my only gripe with them from a Mustachian perspective. Hybrids and full EV trucks will solve those beginning in the next couple of years, so they'll be available used in our 5-10 year MMM timeline.
As noted elsewhere, trucks are more expensive. Also, I don't like driving them. Call me a terrible American or whatever, but I actually love being able to maneuver and park my tiny car in spaces that would be off-limits with a big truck.
Sure, but I feel like a big reason why trucks are so polarizing here and other places is because they're seen as wasteful. "They're wasting our resources and hurting our environment so they can drive their trucks." seems to be the backdrop of the discussion in many places.
But if most of those negative impacts are eliminated with full or partial electrification, then the only thing that big trucks are wasting is the buyer's money. They go from being communally wasteful to being individually wasteful. They're like giant, rolling $5 daily frappucino's at that point where they may not be financially advisable, but they're also not really hurting anybody but themselves.
-
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore? Yes, they're excessive for commuters but the relatively poor fuel economy and higher emissions are really my only gripe with them from a Mustachian perspective. Hybrids and full EV trucks will solve those beginning in the next couple of years, so they'll be available used in our 5-10 year MMM timeline.
As noted elsewhere, trucks are more expensive. Also, I don't like driving them. Call me a terrible American or whatever, but I actually love being able to maneuver and park my tiny car in spaces that would be off-limits with a big truck.
Sure, but I feel like a big reason why trucks are so polarizing here and other places is because they're seen as wasteful. "They're wasting our resources and hurting our environment so they can drive their trucks." seems to be the backdrop of the discussion in many places.
But if most of those negative impacts are eliminated with full or partial electrification, then the only thing that big trucks are wasting is the buyer's money. They go from being communally wasteful to being individually wasteful. They're like giant, rolling $5 daily frappucino's at that point where they may not be financially advisable, but they're also not really hurting anybody but themselves.
As I said upthread, improving their fuel economy (either with better MPG or via electrification/hybridization) would go a long way, but large vehicles are still really annoying for other reasons. Relative to smaller cars, they occupy more space, tear up roads and pose additional hazards. I can't tell you how many times a large parked truck produces a blind spot for me at intersections, and a common refrain (repeated above!) is how parents don't want to let their kid drive a smaller car because of the perceived vulnerability when the road is dominated by larger vehicles. In most parking lots the big pickups stick out and frequently can't make the tight turns when other cars are present.
So yes, they do impact other drivers beyond their environmental footprint.
-
As I said upthread, improving their fuel economy (either with better MPG or via electrification/hybridization) would go a long way, but large vehicles are still really annoying for other reasons. Relative to smaller cars, they occupy more space, tear up roads and pose additional hazards. I can't tell you how many times a large parked truck produces a blind spot for me at intersections, and a common refrain (repeated above!) is how parents don't want to let their kid drive a smaller car because of the perceived vulnerability when the road is dominated by larger vehicles. In most parking lots the big pickups stick out and frequently can't make the tight turns when other cars are present.
So yes, they do impact other drivers beyond their environmental footprint.
I think this really depends on where you drive. Big vehicles in small spaces will always be a problem. If people want to select the wrong tool for their use, and deal with the consequences and hassles I'll get over that pretty quickly. I can definitely respect people not wanting to own them for any reason. No vehicle is perfect. There's always a compromise. But I don't know that large trucks and SUVs would be villified in the same way they currently are just because of their size. I think most people will more or less shrug their shoulders when we start seeing trucks and SUVs with actual, good fuel economy/emissions.
The heavy vehicle on roads thing seems pretty easily solved by a fee @ registration. A Tesla model S weighs 4900lbs. The lightest F150 weighs under 4100lbs. While both are seen as financially wasteful around here, they have vastly different mental images of the driver for many, many people. I think those mental images start to change a bit in the next decade.
Anyway, sorry for derailing the thread subject. Losing the Fit is bad for those that want an inexpensive, reliable, decent handling 5 door hatch with a manual trans option. If the manual trans is not as much of a priority, and "decent" handling is good enough, there are still plenty of options, and I think we'll have more options for inexpensive, capable vehicles in the coming years.
-
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Vacation in Mexico
buy used car
drive 2 years
sell for more
rinse and repeat
Importing vehicles to the US is very difficult. You're essentially limited to vehicles you could have bought here anyway or over 25 years old.
Damn Socialism that allows us Europeans to buy whatever car we want.
On a more serious point: I thought car maker protection was bad in Germany, but that tops it.
Yup, it's tough to be a car enthusiast here.
https://jalopnik.com/why-are-the-feds-obsessed-with-seizing-these-peoples-ol-1672381729
https://jalopnik.com/watch-the-feds-crush-an-imported-nissan-skyline-1753280296
https://jalopnik.com/here-are-the-four-legal-ways-to-import-a-car-to-the-uni-1682067632
Yep - 'Murica! Land of the Free! (NOT!)
I've bene car sitting a nearly new Nissan Leaf Plus with the 62kWh battery (220 mile range). NICE car. Is capable of most of the hatchback/TARDIS tricks. Only problem is the price.
I hear Nissan is possibly canceling the Leaf too in favor of the ARIYA (CUV EV) which is more expensive, more refined engineering (water cooled battery), etc.
-
I really hope in 10 years we have more interesting vehicles. Preferably something like the bio-hybrid, podbike, etc. at mass manufactured prices, not the crazy bespoke $9k for a 3-wheel tadpole trike with a tall seat and a plastic shell that was/is the elf/pebl.
While I'm wishing, I suppose I should include a separate bike network like the road network. Make every third road bike-or-local-traffic-only?
What's that, your wish is for even bigger trucks? You got it!
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore? Yes, they're excessive for commuters but the relatively poor fuel economy and higher emissions are really my only gripe with them from a Mustachian perspective. Hybrids and full EV trucks will solve those beginning in the next couple of years, so they'll be available used in our 5-10 year MMM timeline.
Huge trucks are still a PITA to deal with in driveways and parking lots. Sure, out on the interstate - no problem. Give me a smallish car or CUV b/c we're moving around town far more than traveling the interstate - especially since COIVD. We haven't left the county since January or February.
-
Sure, but I feel like a big reason why trucks are so polarizing here and other places is because they're seen as wasteful. "They're wasting our resources and hurting our environment so they can drive their trucks." seems to be the backdrop of the discussion in many places.
But if most of those negative impacts are eliminated with full or partial electrification, then the only thing that big trucks are wasting is the buyer's money. They go from being communally wasteful to being individually wasteful. They're like giant, rolling $5 daily frappucino's at that point where they may not be financially advisable, but they're also not really hurting anybody but themselves.
The SUV/Truck class has problems with safety -- which is to say everyone else's safety. If you look at pedestrian/cyclist collisions with vehicles, the bigger and tougher they look the worse -- much worse -- the pedestrian/cyclist do. SUV/Trucks could be powered by unicorn farts and they would still deserve derision in 90% of cases.
Solve that and electrify and we can start to talk. Until then, clown cars.
-
Sure, but I feel like a big reason why trucks are so polarizing here and other places is because they're seen as wasteful. "They're wasting our resources and hurting our environment so they can drive their trucks." seems to be the backdrop of the discussion in many places.
But if most of those negative impacts are eliminated with full or partial electrification, then the only thing that big trucks are wasting is the buyer's money. They go from being communally wasteful to being individually wasteful. They're like giant, rolling $5 daily frappucino's at that point where they may not be financially advisable, but they're also not really hurting anybody but themselves.
The SUV/Truck class has problems with safety -- which is to say everyone else's safety. If you look at pedestrian/cyclist collisions with vehicles, the bigger and tougher they look the worse -- much worse -- the pedestrian/cyclist do. SUV/Trucks could be powered by unicorn farts and they would still deserve derision in 90% of cases.
Solve that and electrify and we can start to talk. Until then, clown cars.
The places where pedestrians and cyclists are most common is also the worst place for large vehicles. No doubt about that. In that context, I'd agree that a large vehicle is probably a foolish choice unless it's vital for work or there's justification like a large family to haul around. The problem is,as an outside observer I don't know if the driver of that large vehicle has a large family or not. I don't know if they use their truck to generate income or not (although one could probably observe visual cues and guess). A blanket statement that "big vehicle = clown car" seems like painting with a pretty broad brush.
Risk can be different. Specific situations and odds matter. Most places outside of dense cities have very few pedestrians and cyclists. These places tend to have poor or non-existent public transit. There are fewer pedestrians/cyclists. The drawbacks of owning a large vehicle are lower in these places. People in these places are probably more likely to collide with a deer (Deer collisions kill around 200 vehicle occupants in America/yr) than a pedestrian/cyclist.
-
I may be wrong about this, but my understanding was that the deer collisions cause fewer fatalities than swerving to avoid hitting a deer, losing control of the vehicle, and then colliding with a stationary object (tree/building/etc).
-
I may be wrong about this, but my understanding was that the deer collisions cause fewer fatalities than swerving to avoid hitting a deer, losing control of the vehicle, and then colliding with a stationary object (tree/building/etc).
My government job required me to take a defensive driving course in order to drive government vehicles often in remote locations. We were taught never to swerve if an animal was in our path. Stop if possible but otherwise hit the deer head-on, and to release the break just before impact so that the front of the vehicle didn't dip down due to excessive braking force.
The explanation given was similar ^^: a head-on collision with a large mammal was unlikely to result in serious injury, whereas hitting a deer on the side of the car (or over-steering) was far more likely to result in our deaths. Or as our instructor put it: 'it's far cheaper to repair a vehicle than to have you in the hospital for even one day'.
-
I may be wrong about this, but my understanding was that the deer collisions cause fewer fatalities than swerving to avoid hitting a deer, losing control of the vehicle, and then colliding with a stationary object (tree/building/etc).
That would not surprise me at all but I can't find data either way.
That makes me wonder if (hypothetical) deaths by drivers that swerve to avoid pedestrians/cyclists are included in the stats for those situations...
-
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore?
They need more fuel than small hybrids. They need more resources to build (and for MMM types that means mor than half of the environmental costs). They need more space that is taken away from everyone. They need more resources for infrastructure. They endanger other drivers by being so tanky and impossible to look around or through.
Hm.... yes, they would still be pretty bad.
-
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore?
They need more fuel than small hybrids. They need more resources to build (and for MMM types that means mor than half of the environmental costs). They need more space that is taken away from everyone. They need more resources for infrastructure. They endanger other drivers by being so tanky and impossible to look around or through.
Hm.... yes, they would still be pretty bad.
They also consume more tires and brake pads due to their large mass which makes them more polluting and more expensive to maintain than a lighter vehicle, even if they get the same gas mileage.
People also act like a big truck or SUV is fine if you haul lumber or tools or multiple people, but unless you need a serious amount of ground clearance, a van will work as well or better in many circumstances (but people think vans are lame).
-
People also act like a big truck or SUV is fine if you haul lumber or tools or multiple people, but unless you need a serious amount of ground clearance, a van will work as well or better in many circumstances (but people think vans are lame).
I still say station wagons need to make a comeback. Our 2001 Volvo V70 is our "big car" to our 2010 Hyundai Accent "small car." Largest cargo capacity I ever owned though was our 1992 Buick Roadmaster Wagon. That thing was basically a living room on wheels yet still sat low enough to drive like a normal car.
-
People also act like a big truck or SUV is fine if you haul lumber or tools or multiple people, but unless you need a serious amount of ground clearance, a van will work as well or better in many circumstances (but people think vans are lame).
I still say station wagons need to make a comeback. Our 2001 Volvo V70 is our "big car" to our 2010 Hyundai Accent "small car." Largest cargo capacity I ever owned though was our 1992 Buick Roadmaster Wagon. That thing was basically a living room on wheels yet still sat low enough to drive like a normal car.
A giant 'yes' to this. One of our biggest frustrations is that there are so few wagons out there... and 'crossover hatchback' is a far cry from a true wagon. The 2000 Jetta Wagon was one of the best cars I've ever had, held more any crossover-hatchback sold today and could tow 1500# safely.
-
People also act like a big truck or SUV is fine if you haul lumber or tools or multiple people, but unless you need a serious amount of ground clearance, a van will work as well or better in many circumstances (but people think vans are lame).
I still say station wagons need to make a comeback. Our 2001 Volvo V70 is our "big car" to our 2010 Hyundai Accent "small car." Largest cargo capacity I ever owned though was our 1992 Buick Roadmaster Wagon. That thing was basically a living room on wheels yet still sat low enough to drive like a normal car.
Toyota is releasing a new Venza.
I have an old one (2011).
They called them "cross-over" vehicles when I bought the one I have, but that has to be because "station wagon" didn't test well in focus groups or something (i.e. invokes images of faux wood paneling on the outside of the vehicle). I have referred to ours as a station wagon since we bought it.
And even "mid-sized" SUVs are really just trying to bring some level of "cool" to station wagons. Something like a Rav4 is basically just a different iteration of a station wagon.
-
The places where pedestrians and cyclists are most common is also the worst place for large vehicles. No doubt about that. In that context, I'd agree that a large vehicle is probably a foolish choice unless it's vital for work or there's justification like a large family to haul around. The problem is,as an outside observer I don't know if the driver of that large vehicle has a large family or not. I don't know if they use their truck to generate income or not (although one could probably observe visual cues and guess). A blanket statement that "big vehicle = clown car" seems like painting with a pretty broad brush.
Risk can be different. Specific situations and odds matter. Most places outside of dense cities have very few pedestrians and cyclists. These places tend to have poor or non-existent public transit. There are fewer pedestrians/cyclists. The drawbacks of owning a large vehicle are lower in these places. People in these places are probably more likely to collide with a deer (Deer collisions kill around 200 vehicle occupants in America/yr) than a pedestrian/cyclist.
I live in the corn belt. There's plenty of "compensating" trucks. I also live in a college town. There's plenty of pedestrians/cyclists.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that, according to 2015 fatality data, SUVs are deadlier for pedestrians than cars. A new report, citing 12 independent studies of injury data, said pedestrians are two to three times “more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup than when struck by a passenger car.”
https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety-pulse/2019/march-2019/death-on-foot-americas-love-of-suvs-is-killing-pedestrians
Clown cars.
A Detroit Free Press/USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found that the SUV revolution is a key, leading cause of escalating pedestrian deaths nationwide, which are up 46 percent since 2009.
Almost 6,000 pedestrians died on or along U.S. roads in 2016 alone — nearly as many Americans as have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. Data analyses by the Free Press/USA TODAY and others show that SUVs are the constant in the increase and account for a steadily growing proportion of deaths.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/
Clown cars.
The rising tide of pedestrian deaths is primarily an urban plague that kills minorities at a disproportionate rate.
Same article. Black lives matter.
Clown cars.
-
People also act like a big truck or SUV is fine if you haul lumber or tools or multiple people, but unless you need a serious amount of ground clearance, a van will work as well or better in many circumstances (but people think vans are lame).
Agreed. But Vans suffer from the same size/weight/inefficiency issues as a pickup or SUV though, so I'm not sure how that really helps. And with their larger profile, they're harder to see around, which is apparently a common issue. A 5k-6k lb vehicle with large frontal area is going to go through consumables no matter what.
-
I live in the corn belt. There's plenty of "compensating" trucks. I also live in a college town. There's plenty of pedestrians/cyclists.
How many pedestrian collisions occur in your college town?
I'm not saying that compensating trucks don't exist. I'm not saying that those drivers couldn't be better served by something else. I'm saying that I'm glad that I live in a place where there's choice in the matter, and when those unnecessary trucks/SUVs/vans are hybrid or fully electric, they deserve less ire. Not no ire, just less. The primary drawback of large vehicles is fuel economy/emissions. By improving those things, we greatly reduce the drawbacks of those vehicles. That doesn't completely eliminate all drawbacks, but these other issues seem minor to me in relation.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has found that, according to 2015 fatality data, SUVs are deadlier for pedestrians than cars. A new report, citing 12 independent studies of injury data, said pedestrians are two to three times “more likely to suffer a fatality when struck by an SUV or pickup than when struck by a passenger car.”
https://www.codot.gov/safety/traffic-safety-pulse/2019/march-2019/death-on-foot-americas-love-of-suvs-is-killing-pedestrians
Clown cars.
Yeah, that's physics. Bigger, heavier things can be more difficult to stop and transfer more force upon impact. Nobody is arguing that. But if you need a large vehicle for some reason, then is it still a clown car? How do you know when you're standing on a corner if the driver of that large vehicle has a legitimate need for it, and does that change your outlook?
A Detroit Free Press/USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found that the SUV revolution is a key, leading cause of escalating pedestrian deaths nationwide, which are up 46 percent since 2009.
Almost 6,000 pedestrians died on or along U.S. roads in 2016 alone — nearly as many Americans as have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. Data analyses by the Free Press/USA TODAY and others show that SUVs are the constant in the increase and account for a steadily growing proportion of deaths.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/06/28/suvs-killing-americas-pedestrians/646139002/
Clown cars.
You know what else is up a ton since 2009? Texting and driving. Touchscreen controls for cars. And miles driven:
(https://wolfstreet.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/US-auto-averages-total-miles-driven-2019.png)
People need to pay attention to their surroundings when they're behind the wheel, regardless of their location. Is a large vehicle with an attentive driver more or less dangerous to a pedestrian or cyclist than a Fit with an inattentive or incapacitated (or both) driver?
Also from your Freep article: "The need for steps such as lower speed limits, more midblock crosswalks and better lighting grows in urgency as automakers move strongly toward truck and SUV production"
That's got nothing to do with the vehicles involved, and it jives with what the CDC says about pedestrian accidents mostly occurring in low visibility situations where pedestrians aren't expected to be crossing streets.
The rising tide of pedestrian deaths is primarily an urban plague that kills minorities at a disproportionate rate.
Same article. Black lives matter.
Clown cars.
CDC says:
"Most pedestrian deaths occur in urban areas, at non-intersection locations, and at night."
"Almost half (47%) of crashes that resulted in a pedestrian death involved alcohol for the driver and/or the pedestrian. One in every three (33%) fatal pedestrian crashes involved a pedestrian with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 grams per deciliter (g/dL), 17% involved a driver with a blood alcohol concentration of at least 0.08 g/dL, and some fatal pedestrian crashes involved both."
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html
I think everybody agrees that it's mostly an urban issue. Urban areas have more pedestrians and crosswalks. Urban areas also tend to have higher non-white populations. They're also more likely to have vehicles and things on the side of the road that can obscure visibility and make it easier for a pedestrian to suddenly step out and "appear" in the road in front of an oncoming vehicle.
I fully support an empathetic and holistic viewpoint that considers how these things may affect various demographics differently. But tying pedestrian deaths to systemic racism seems tenuous. It's more about the situation and poor choices made by individuals than a systemic problem based on skin color. COVID also disproportionately impacts non-whites, but the virus isn't racist. It's killing poor people of all colors because they're less likely to be able to stay home, more likely to live in densely populated areas, and more likely to have comorbidities. It's a socioeconomic issue more than a skin color issue. I'm not sure that pedestrian deaths are much different in that regard.
-
I cannot make sense of the above due to the embedded quotes. Care you summarize what you are trying to say here Paper Chaser?
-
Fixed formatting issue
-
This cracks me up, companies produce what the consumer wants and what they can do at a profit. Some companies are able to produce compact cars at a profit, but the margin is razor thin and the capital investment is outrageously high.
SUV's and Trucks are profitable and the consumers actually want to purchase them. If Honda attempted to sell the FIT for what would be an acceptable margin (a good business decision) they would not sell at all.
How many of you would sell a product at a loss at the expense of using your finite resources for producing something more profitable? Zero, because you'd be out of business.
The fact that the Fit is an amazingly practical, high quality, reliable automobile unfortunately has nothing to do with if it makes sense to manufacture in today's marketplace.
-
This cracks me up, companies produce what the consumer wants and what they can do at a profit. Some companies are able to produce compact cars at a profit, but the margin is razor thin and the capital investment is outrageously high.
SUV's and Trucks are profitable and the consumers actually want to purchase them. If Honda attempted to sell the FIT for what would be an acceptable margin (a good business decision) they would not sell at all.
How many of you would sell a product at a loss at the expense of using your finite resources for producing something more profitable? Zero, because you'd be out of business.
The fact that the Fit is an amazingly practical, high quality, reliable automobile unfortunately has nothing to do with if it makes sense to manufacture in today's marketplace.
My counter-argument is that we've allowed a two-tiered system of regulations that skews decisions towards SUVs and light trucks. A common tactic by car manufacturers is to take an existing vehicle and tweak it so that it no longer is categorized as a 'passenger vehicle' - Subaru famously did this by raising the ground clearance of the Forester.
It makes no damn sense to me that under CAFE we allow all of these SUVs, non-commerical trucks, 'Crossovers" and most hatchbacks to meet a lower fuel and emission standards than full-sized sedans and other cars - particularly when their usage is in reality identical (i.e. commuter vehicles on paved roads).
-
Perhaps build the smallest cars overseas and import? Enough margin left over?
-
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore?
They need more fuel than small hybrids. They need more resources to build (and for MMM types that means mor than half of the environmental costs). They need more space that is taken away from everyone. They need more resources for infrastructure. They endanger other drivers by being so tanky and impossible to look around or through.
Hm.... yes, they would still be pretty bad.
They also consume more tires and brake pads due to their large mass which makes them more polluting and more expensive to maintain than a lighter vehicle, even if they get the same gas mileage.
People also act like a big truck or SUV is fine if you haul lumber or tools or multiple people, but unless you need a serious amount of ground clearance, a van will work as well or better in many circumstances (but people think vans are lame).
Not to mention the fact that applying the same technology to a small or mid-size car, minus mostly-unnecessary AWD would produce a vehicle getting 50 or 60 mpg. I have to laugh at the mindset that brags about 20mpg or so in a modern vehicle. Yeah, that's impressive mileage. For 1976.
-
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore?
They need more fuel than small hybrids. They need more resources to build (and for MMM types that means mor than half of the environmental costs). They need more space that is taken away from everyone. They need more resources for infrastructure. They endanger other drivers by being so tanky and impossible to look around or through.
Hm.... yes, they would still be pretty bad.
They also consume more tires and brake pads due to their large mass which makes them more polluting and more expensive to maintain than a lighter vehicle, even if they get the same gas mileage.
People also act like a big truck or SUV is fine if you haul lumber or tools or multiple people, but unless you need a serious amount of ground clearance, a van will work as well or better in many circumstances (but people think vans are lame).
Not to mention the fact that applying the same technology to a small or mid-size car, minus mostly-unnecessary AWD would produce a vehicle getting 50 or 60 mpg. I have to laugh at the mindset that brags about 20mpg or so in a modern vehicle. Yeah, that's impressive mileage. For 1976.
This is a critical point that many often seem to miss. Due to physics, if a big/heavy vehicle can be made more fuel efficient . . . a small/light vehicle can be made WAY MORE fuel efficient. 40+mpg isn't terrible for a big truck, but it will always suck when you compare the same optimizations made for a smaller car.
-
Not to mention the fact that applying the same technology to a small or mid-size car, minus mostly-unnecessary AWD would produce a vehicle getting 50 or 60 mpg. I have to laugh at the mindset that brags about 20mpg or so in a modern vehicle. Yeah, that's impressive mileage. For 1976.
This is a critical point that many often seem to miss. Due to physics, if a big/heavy vehicle can be made more fuel efficient . . . a small/light vehicle can be made WAY MORE fuel efficient. 40+mpg isn't terrible for a big truck, but it will always suck when you compare the same optimizations made for a smaller car.
Force = mass * acceleration
Power = Work/Elapsed Time
Work = Force / distance
It's physics people! Reduce a vehicle's mass and you can get the same Force and Power with less energy.
-
Yeah, I have 40MPG real driving with my 10 year old, low-tech car. Means even if a 3 times (or more) more expensive hybrid SUV gets 50MPG, it will still be more environmentally bad because even if both cars manage 200'000 miles, the SUV has used up so much more resources I will still come ahead.
While at the same time having lower costs for insurance etc. and 100$ a month of passive income per 4% rule.
Even if you tell them and do the math in front of them, most people still don't get it that their clown car habit costs them the equivalent of a house in their working life. Or 10 years of life time.
-
Even if you tell them and do the math in front of them, most people still don't get it that their clown car habit costs them the equivalent of a house in their working life. Or 10 years of life time.
This is what boggles my mind, and a subject I've been having with my less-than-mustachian neighbor.
Most "standard" budgeting recommendations tell you to spend no more than 1/3rd of your income on your home and 1/3 of your income on your car(s) (and recommend keeping it around 30%). And in reality most people spend about this much on both categories. Yet people think their home is a much larger expense... probably because they make one single payment each month rather than a car payment + insurance + 3-5x fuel + maintenance each month.
AAA released a white paper last year that said the median cost per vehicle exceeded $10k/year in 2018.
-
Yeah, I have 40MPG real driving with my 10 year old, low-tech car. Means even if a 3 times (or more) more expensive hybrid SUV gets 50MPG, it will still be more environmentally bad because even if both cars manage 200'000 miles, the SUV has used up so much more resources I will still come ahead.
While at the same time having lower costs for insurance etc. and 100$ a month of passive income per 4% rule.
Even if you tell them and do the math in front of them, most people still don't get it that their clown car habit costs them the equivalent of a house in their working life. Or 10 years of life time.
I think this is the point.
Mindlessly making purchasing decisions is what makes consumerism thrive.
I don't even think it's necessarily bad to make that decision if it's done knowing the.consequences.
And its not like this is an issue exclusive to large cars. Pretty sure people still end up leasing small cars which has enormous cost over the long run.
Sales tactics are really good and it's not hard to get loans that put you on the cusp of bad financial positioning.
-
I'd call it a win if 'light trucks' (which currently engulf pickups, most SUVs and other cars that have high ground clearance, aka the Subary Forester) were included in the passenger 'fleet vehicles' which require an average 37.8mpg (moving towards the Obama 54.5mpg), rather than getting their own seperate category of 28.8mpg.
While we're at it, let's use the EPA MPG numbers not the weird inflated special one for CAFE. Very misleading.
-
While we're on the subject- here's the Mustachian's* Small SUV/ CUV Buyer's Guide (*for 2030 LOL)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/autos-suvs/16-small-suvs-with-the-best-gas-mileage/ss-BB179KiI?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=BHEA000#image=17
I was surprised to see how diverse and inexpensive these things were. Not that i'm in the market, but still.
-
You are right, it's more like 300-350 lb when comparing FWD to FWD. I missed that when I was grabbing numbers. Still a pretty big difference. The general public isn't what this thread is about. It's about a loss of a good option for Mustachians. The Fit was the first listed car in MMM's top cars blog post (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/03/19/top-10-cars-for-smart-people/). In fact, with the Yaris also being discontinued after the 2020 model year all seven of his top recommended vehicles are no longer being sold new!
Fair enough. The MMM blog was from 2012 and discussed cars that were 3-5 years old back then. It would be interesting to do a modern update. I don't think ride height or vehicle weight were heavily weighted criteria in his comparison because driving dynamics fall way down the list of priorities for most people, Mustachian or not. The vehicles on his list were just the only cheap, flexible, efficient vehicles available when that post was written. While the low riding hatch backs and manual transmissions are going away, they're being replaced with high riding hatch backs that are easier to get into/out of and load/unload for most people.
The Corolla hatchback is not available as a hybrid currently.
Bummer! Maybe they'll add it in a year or two. There's still the Ford CMax available for a song on the used market if you want cheap, 5 door hybrid capability.
These are the remaining sub-$20k hatchbacks for sale in the USA: Toyota Corolla hatchback, Mitsubishi Mirage, Kia Rio 5-door, Hyundai Veloster, MINI Cooper (and there aren't many more even up to $30k). That is really limited choice which is sad for Mustachians (especially future ones looking for solid used cars).
Chevy Sonic: was just cancelled, but there are still some being made and sold. MSRP starts under $17k. It looks like they lost their manual trans option for 2020MY though.
Kia Soul: starts <$17.5
New Kia Venue (5 door CUV): starts at $17.3
Ford Ecosport: starts @ $19.95
Chevy Trax: MSRP starting over $21k, but Autotrader is showing over 1000 of them selling new for under $20k
Jeep Compass: Like the Trax, has an MSRP over $20k, but there are dealers asking under $15k NEW for them on Autotrader
Hyundai Elantra GT: Again, MSRP over $20k, but hundreds for sale in new condition for under $20k. Some as low as $16xxx
Fiats: They probably pay you now right? I'm certain there are tons for under $20k out there but I don't want that in my browser history.
So while some vehicles have exited the market segment, there are some new vehicles that have entered the Sub $20k, 5 door bracket that didn't exist when MMM wrote his original blog post 8 years ago. They're pretty much just lifted versions of the hatches they're replacing. Low end buyers looking for 5 door capability still have plenty of viable options, most of them just sit higher up now. I get the #savethemanuals reason why losing the sporty and capable Fit sucks but I'm not sure that's actually related to MMM at all as it's more about enjoyment/engagement than practicality/functionality. There are still Mustachian options available that would have a lot of overlap in a VENN diagram with the Fit.
Updated list from MMM on his YouTube channel.
Includes Rav4 and because it's older vehicles.he recommends, it's not even the hybrid version.
Depends on your financial position, but I'd say that the environmental benefit of the hybrid might overcome the financial one depending on how much you drive.
https://youtu.be/atiltnc1icY (https://youtu.be/atiltnc1icY)
I also think the reason many people should buy older instead of newer is that many people get bored of their cars. My dad would usually buy a 3 year old car off a lease then keep it for 12 years or so. If you get a reliable vehicle, I thunk this is also a viable strategy if your not the kind of person that needs a different car every 3 to 5 years.
-
I realize this is a joke, but if huge trucks are hybrids that get 40+mpg, are they really such a bad thing anymore?
They need more fuel than small hybrids. They need more resources to build (and for MMM types that means mor than half of the environmental costs). They need more space that is taken away from everyone. They need more resources for infrastructure. They endanger other drivers by being so tanky and impossible to look around or through.
Hm.... yes, they would still be pretty bad.
They also consume more tires and brake pads due to their large mass which makes them more polluting and more expensive to maintain than a lighter vehicle, even if they get the same gas mileage.
People also act like a big truck or SUV is fine if you haul lumber or tools or multiple people, but unless you need a serious amount of ground clearance, a van will work as well or better in many circumstances (but people think vans are lame).
Not to mention the fact that applying the same technology to a small or mid-size car, minus mostly-unnecessary AWD would produce a vehicle getting 50 or 60 mpg. I have to laugh at the mindset that brags about 20mpg or so in a modern vehicle. Yeah, that's impressive mileage. For 1976.
This is a critical point that many often seem to miss. Due to physics, if a big/heavy vehicle can be made more fuel efficient . . . a small/light vehicle can be made WAY MORE fuel efficient. 40+mpg isn't terrible for a big truck, but it will always suck when you compare the same optimizations made for a smaller car.
On the surface that makes sense, but I don't know that it holds when it comes to hybridization/electrification. Things like batteries add weight, cost and packaging constraints, so putting them in a small car can reduce the biggest advantages of a small vehicle by making the small car heavier, more expensive and reduce some of their functionality as well with things like less cargo space.
A modern Prius, a Camry Hybrid, and a Corolla Hybrid are very different form factors for a vehicle, but they all get the same fuel economy:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=41915&id=42016&id=42585
Fuel economy and associated emissions also get into diminishing returns the more efficient you get. Americans drive about 13k mile per year on average. A vehicle that gets 30mpg will consume 433 gallons of fuel over that distance. A vehicle that gets 40mpg (Efficent ICE) will consume 325 gallons. A vehicle that gets 50mpg (Hybrid) will consume 260 gallons. A vehicle that gets 60mpg (PHEV territory) will consume 216 gallons.
For a Mustachian that likely drives less than that average, the difference in fuel economy and associated emissions, as well as wear/tear will be lower.
-
The annual fuel consumption isn't what's important here. It's consumption over the life of the vehicle.
Yes, if you only drive 5k miles/year the fuel savings won't make a big difference to your budget. But as you noted the median mileage driven is more than double this.
Also, we aren't comparing Prius/Camry/Corolla (all of which are 'passenger vehicles' by the CAPE standards), but larger vehicles currently categorized non-sensically as "light trucks".
-
The Toyota example was only to illustrate that doing the same things to small cars as large ones doesn't mean that the small vehicles will see the same level of benefit. And that's a big reason why small cars are losing favor. The Toyotas in the example are standard hybrids. The difference is smaller, across a larger range of vehicles as the amount of electrification increases.
If you can take a half ton truck or a mid-size CUV that currently gets 25mpg and do a PHEV trim to get it to 40mpg, that's a massive reduction in fuel used and emissions created. For the 13k mile average annual distance, that would reduce fuel usage from 520 gallons to 325 gallons. That 195 gallon reduction in fuel used per year is equivalent to 4 people improving their fuel economy from 50mpg to 60mpg. It's the same net benefit as 3 people trading in their 40mpg vehicle for 50mpg vehicles.
Common hybrid features like reducing total powertrain components, extending oil change intervals, and having regen braking, also lessen their environmental impact and maintenance costs.
-
The Toyota example was only to illustrate that doing the same things to small cars as large ones doesn't mean that the small vehicles will see the same level of benefit. And that's a big reason why small cars are losing favor. The Toyotas in the example are standard hybrids. The difference is smaller, across a larger range of vehicles as the amount of electrification increases.
If you can take a half ton truck or a mid-size CUV that currently gets 25mpg and do a PHEV trim to get it to 40mpg, that's a massive reduction in fuel used and emissions created. For the 13k mile average annual distance, that would reduce fuel usage from 520 gallons to 325 gallons. That 195 gallon reduction in fuel used per year is equivalent to 4 people improving their fuel economy from 50mpg to 60mpg. It's the same net benefit as 3 people trading in their 40mpg vehicle for 50mpg vehicles.
Common hybrid features like reducing total powertrain components, extending oil change intervals, and having regen braking, also lessen their environmental impact and maintenance costs.
Ok, I agree that there's more to be gained from making larger vehicles more efficient, as small hybrids are already fairly efficient.
...and these changes would happen by necessity if we simply made the standards the same. The appeal of modern SUVs and light Trucks has been that they have equivalent acceleration and handling as most sedans but with more cargo space and a higher vantage point. The only reason they can offer this is because they don't have the same limitations.
Back as early as the 1990s it was accepted that a stock pickup or SUV (which were just becoming a thing) would not outpace a generic sedan - if you wanted/needed a pickup or SUV you sacrificed acceleration and top speed. But as the fuel standards tightened the manufacturers lobbied to have their own category, ironically arguing that it would "hurt sales" if these larger vehicles could not match the performance of smaller vehicles. And of course they were right, as they've collectively increased their market share over the last three decades.
The 'free-market capitalists' might argue that 'market forces' should dictate here, and I get the sentiment. Large vehicle sales do track with gasoline prices. But currently we're not even letting market forces decide, as we've given a big advantage in terms of lower standards for larger vehicles.
-
Not to mention the fact that applying the same technology to a small or mid-size car, minus mostly-unnecessary AWD would produce a vehicle getting 50 or 60 mpg. I have to laugh at the mindset that brags about 20mpg or so in a modern vehicle. Yeah, that's impressive mileage. For 1976.
This is a critical point that many often seem to miss. Due to physics, if a big/heavy vehicle can be made more fuel efficient . . . a small/light vehicle can be made WAY MORE fuel efficient. 40+mpg isn't terrible for a big truck, but it will always suck when you compare the same optimizations made for a smaller car.
Force = mass * acceleration
Power = Work/Elapsed Time
Work = Force / distance
It's physics people! Reduce a vehicle's mass and you can get the same Force and Power with less energy.
Haven't you heard: science is no longer a valid topic for a portion of the population.
-
last night watched the CarWow review of the 2021 Honda Jazz (EMEA name for the Fit). Outside of Japan and China, it is a 1.5L hybrid with dual electric motors (eHEV is what Honda calls it). At GBP 19,000 equivalent, that's USD 24,400, which is Honda Insight price territory, and gets you a larger car, more space, etc. Honda would rather push the Insight as it's entry-level hybrid. Also, I think the ICE Fit's sales were impacted significantly by the HR-V.
-
.
-
Ok, I agree that there's more to be gained from making larger vehicles more efficient, as small hybrids are already fairly efficient.
...and these changes would happen by necessity if we simply made the standards the same. The appeal of modern SUVs and light Trucks has been that they have equivalent acceleration and handling as most sedans but with more cargo space and a higher vantage point. The only reason they can offer this is because they don't have the same limitations.
Back as early as the 1990s it was accepted that a stock pickup or SUV (which were just becoming a thing) would not outpace a generic sedan - if you wanted/needed a pickup or SUV you sacrificed acceleration and top speed. But as the fuel standards tightened the manufacturers lobbied to have their own category, ironically arguing that it would "hurt sales" if these larger vehicles could not match the performance of smaller vehicles. And of course they were right, as they've collectively increased their market share over the last three decades.
The 'free-market capitalists' might argue that 'market forces' should dictate here, and I get the sentiment. Large vehicle sales do track with gasoline prices. But currently we're not even letting market forces decide, as we've given a big advantage in terms of lower standards for larger vehicles.
Don't disagree that here's a legislative bias at work. But I'll also point out that vehicles like today's CUVs have existed and sold in very good numbers for pretty much as long as there have been vehicles.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/uqUXzI68Nu3KumHL7zxw_Zb2eguY2X3scbJEWPDpciHEz7nRyfdL6K3tPhGk5ETpQE9wZP0vvF7vRiEjofPQ0dUe8V_Rgg4vK6gl-lbWn6gw2Fo939PpDxu9_3G8i4Nn0Di5ku_t2NyxOW5NnExNmnw)
Look at that ground clearance, step in height, loading height, upright seating position, etc. It's pretty easy for me to see a direct lineage between that Ford Model A and a new Ford Escape. The combination of functionality and ease of use has been popular since long before the 90s.
Then consider that the majority of the new-car buying population is 55+ with all of the physical limitations that often tag along:
(https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/20048.jpeg)
So the system may be rigged a bit, but buyers clearly want the SUV/CUV/Truck form factor because they deem it to be a reasonable compromise of functionality and ease of use. And as the drawbacks of the large vehicles are reduced (poor fuel economy, low power, minimal luxury features, etc) I'd expect that trend to continue.
-
So the system may be rigged a bit, but buyers clearly want the SUV/CUV/Truck form factor because they deem it to be a reasonable compromise of functionality and ease of use. And as the drawbacks of the large vehicles are reduced (poor fuel economy, low power, minimal luxury features, etc) I'd expect that trend to continue.
This is the crux of the problem.
First we have to decide where the acceptable limit is for "large vehicles". Currently one cannot operate a passenger vehicle over 22.5' total length or 8' width or a gross weight of over 10,000lbs without a special permit (i.e. commercial driver's license). We could debate whether this should be kept the same or increased/decreased.
Second, how will the "drawbects of the large vehicles" be reduced. In recent decades we've allowed them to be reduced at the expense of emissions and fuel consumption (i.e. different CAPE standards). 'Technological advances' can only close the gap so far, as physics will ultimately play a heavy hand at keeping a large heavy truck less efficient than a smaller, fuel efficient vehicle.
-
Ok, I agree that there's more to be gained from making larger vehicles more efficient, as small hybrids are already fairly efficient.
...and these changes would happen by necessity if we simply made the standards the same. The appeal of modern SUVs and light Trucks has been that they have equivalent acceleration and handling as most sedans but with more cargo space and a higher vantage point. The only reason they can offer this is because they don't have the same limitations.
Back as early as the 1990s it was accepted that a stock pickup or SUV (which were just becoming a thing) would not outpace a generic sedan - if you wanted/needed a pickup or SUV you sacrificed acceleration and top speed. But as the fuel standards tightened the manufacturers lobbied to have their own category, ironically arguing that it would "hurt sales" if these larger vehicles could not match the performance of smaller vehicles. And of course they were right, as they've collectively increased their market share over the last three decades.
The 'free-market capitalists' might argue that 'market forces' should dictate here, and I get the sentiment. Large vehicle sales do track with gasoline prices. But currently we're not even letting market forces decide, as we've given a big advantage in terms of lower standards for larger vehicles.
Don't disagree that here's a legislative bias at work. But I'll also point out that vehicles like today's CUVs have existed and sold in very good numbers for pretty much as long as there have been vehicles.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/uqUXzI68Nu3KumHL7zxw_Zb2eguY2X3scbJEWPDpciHEz7nRyfdL6K3tPhGk5ETpQE9wZP0vvF7vRiEjofPQ0dUe8V_Rgg4vK6gl-lbWn6gw2Fo939PpDxu9_3G8i4Nn0Di5ku_t2NyxOW5NnExNmnw)
Look at that ground clearance, step in height, loading height, upright seating position, etc. It's pretty easy for me to see a direct lineage between that Ford Model A and a new Ford Escape. The combination of functionality and ease of use has been popular since long before the 90s.
I can't agree with the above rationale. Ground clearance and the associated ride height of a 1920's vintage vehicle was dictated not by consumer preference but by the roads of the time, many of which were unpaved and prone to turn to quagmires when rain and vehicle traffic combined. High ground clearance was a necessity ( though AWD would have been a useful option had it existed at the time!) That doesn't change the fact that "longer, lower, wider", whether or not it was articulated as such, has been the trend for most of the years since this photo was taken. I'm pretty sure that even the Model A pictured rode lower than the horse-drawn carriages it replaced.
While a higher-sitting vehicle has some obvious benefits, I suspect that the popularity of "big, tall and boxy" has more to do with the power of American advertising that a sudden realization on the part of the buying public that this is what they neeeeded all along- after decades of wanting the exact opposite.
-
So the system may be rigged a bit, but buyers clearly want the SUV/CUV/Truck form factor because they deem it to be a reasonable compromise of functionality and ease of use. And as the drawbacks of the large vehicles are reduced (poor fuel economy, low power, minimal luxury features, etc) I'd expect that trend to continue.
This is the crux of the problem.
First we have to decide where the acceptable limit is for "large vehicles". Currently one cannot operate a passenger vehicle over 22.5' total length or 8' width or a gross weight of over 10,000lbs without a special permit (i.e. commercial driver's license). We could debate whether this should be kept the same or increased/decreased.
Second, how will the "drawbects of the large vehicles" be reduced. In recent decades we've allowed them to be reduced at the expense of emissions and fuel consumption (i.e. different CAPE standards). 'Technological advances' can only close the gap so far, as physics will ultimately play a heavy hand at keeping a large heavy truck less efficient than a smaller, fuel efficient vehicle.
The drawbacks of large vehicles from a consumer standpoint used to be lack of luxury or features, poor power, poor road manners, poor safety (for occupants) and poor fuel economy. This meant that those who actually needed the large vehicles were the primary buyers as they had no choice but to put up with the many drawbacks. Now, those drawbacks are pretty much all gone now, with fuel economy being the last remaining deterrent (even though it's improved a lot in the last 10 years). The truck/SUV/CUV market is competitive enough that it's improving these vehicles very quickly. You can get trucks that are just as fast, luxurious, and docile on the street as many new sedans. They have all of the same safety features. Half ton trucks are nearing 30mpg highway, which a large sedan would've struggled with 10-15 years ago. Cheap gasoline has allowed sales of large vehicles to balloon already. If you can then improve fuel economy on top of that enough that the average consumer doesn't feel much if any financial hardship, then that's the tipping point.
For a very long time, if you wanted good fuel economy, you had to buy a small car.
Hybrid tech came along and made it so that large cars now get small car fuel economy (Camry hybrid vs Corolla hybrid example). A big drawback for driving a large car was reduced, or to look at it another way, a big advantage for the small car was negated.
PHEV tech is making it so that large CUVs can get the same fuel economy as hybrids (Lincoln Aviator/Ford Explorer PHEV, Toyota Rav 4 Prime, etc). When a Prius owner sees a new CUV that's more capable and easier to use getting the same fuel economy, they might rethink buying another Prius next time they're in the market.
Full electrification takes it even further and narrows the gap even more. (Full electric, mainstream pickups and CUVs are expected in the 2022-2025 range).
If a person is new car shopping, and the choice between a larger vehicle and a smaller vehicle comes down to the larger vehicle costing $50/yr more in electricity, most will shrug their shoulders and opt for the larger option. Yes, the larger one is less efficient, but the gap has narrowed enough that it's not a detriment for most buyers. Since we're MMMers, we can still benefit from this on the used market 3-10 years after these vehicles are sold new. That's why I'm not too upset about losing the Fit as an option over that same timeline. We'll have plenty of Mustachian options. They just won't offer manual transmissions or as much driver engagement as the Fit. But like the general public overall, most MMMers don't really care about those things in a vehicle.
-
Don't disagree that here's a legislative bias at work. But I'll also point out that vehicles like today's CUVs have existed and sold in very good numbers for pretty much as long as there have been vehicles.
Look at that ground clearance, step in height, loading height, upright seating position, etc. It's pretty easy for me to see a direct lineage between that Ford Model A and a new Ford Escape. The combination of functionality and ease of use has been popular since long before the 90s.
I can't agree with the above rationale. Ground clearance and the associated ride height of a 1920's vintage vehicle was dictated not by consumer preference but by the roads of the time, many of which were unpaved and prone to turn to quagmires when rain and vehicle traffic combined. High ground clearance was a necessity ( though AWD would have been a useful option had it existed at the time!) That doesn't change the fact that "longer, lower, wider", whether or not it was articulated as such, has been the trend for most of the years since this photo was taken. I'm pretty sure that even the Model A pictured rode lower than the horse-drawn carriages it replaced.
While a higher-sitting vehicle has some obvious benefits, I suspect that the popularity of "big, tall and boxy" has more to do with the power of American advertising that a sudden realization on the part of the buying public that this is what they neeeeded all along- after decades of wanting the exact opposite.
Have you driven on American roads lately? Especially in a place that sees winter and frequent road salt use? They're not pristine ribbons of smooth asphalt. Having room for more suspension articulation can make a difference in ride quality. Especially as brakes and wheels grow larger and tire sidewalls shrink.
The car pictured was likely lower than the horse drawn carriages it replaced. I'd argue a big reason for that was because it was difficult for many to climb up into those carriages, just like it's difficult for most old, wealthy, new vehicle buyers to get into/out of modern sedans and small cars. They're just different extremes of the same issue: ease of use. The first rule of making a product is that it should be easy to use. If your buyer struggles to get in/out, and they have any other options, guess what they're going to choose?
If you look at a family sedan from the 50s or 60s (seemingly when sedans really took over the market), they sat higher than modern family sedans, and perhaps more importantly, the seating position was a more natural and upright one, rather than having your backside closer to the floor with legs extended far out in front. Vehicle designers call this an "H Point", and I think there's a pretty ideal range where if you go any higher (Ox carts) or lower (Modern small cars) they become a hindrance to usage. Modern cars have gotten so low, after decades of chasing performance and fuel economy that they're being largely rejected now by buyers for taller options that get worse fuel economy. Another unintended consequence of CAFE regulations that Nereo mentions.
That being said, I do agree with you that marketing, "image", and not wanting what was popular 20 years ago all come into play as well.
-
why do you keep referencing vehicles built 50-89 years ago? How are those applicable to today? I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Yes, I have driven on American roads lately. Yes in places with winter and salt. As you one would expect given my profile.
Seating positions of sedans from decades past were not conducive for long-distance driving, or to survive an impact.
-
why do you keep referencing vehicles built 50-89 years ago? How are those applicable to today? I don't understand the point you are trying to make.
Yes, I have driven on American roads lately. Yes in places with winter and salt. As you one would expect given my profile.
Seating positions of sedans from decades past were not conducive for long-distance driving, or to survive an impact.
I guess I'm trying to illustrate that I think modern sedans and small cars have gone so far chasing fuel economy, handling, etc that they're no longer as easy to use as they once were. And that at least a part of the surge in CUV/truck popularity is because they took a lot of the best things that people like about old vehicles and put them into modern packaging. They had a comfortable ride. They were easy to use. You sat more upright which helped visibility. These are all areas where different vehicles in the past have performed well. These are also areas where most modern small vehicles and sedans receive frequent complaints.
Seating position has little to do with crash safety. Old cars had terrible crash safety because there was no engineering development of crash structures, not because driver's butts were higher off the floor boards. Most modern CUVs have crash safety on par with small cars because they share the same platforms as their sedan and hatchback counterparts. The IIHS crash testing for the Fit and the HR-V (which is just a taller Fit) are identical, with the HR-V undergoing more tests in more categories than the Fit. You can now get many of the same accident avoidance features and safety tech in big trucks that you'd find on other vehicles too.
So again, the loss of the Fit sucks for the small number of people that want a small, tossable hatchback with a manual trans option. But how many people here were buying them new in order to maintain strong demand for them? In order for us to buy cheap used cars that we want, somebody has to buy them new first. If you aren't willing to vote with your wallet in the marketplace, and buy a new vehicle now, then you get to take your chances with whatever is available on the used market in a few years.
-
Well this be an example own cognitive biases at play, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard someone allege that new sedans are somehow less comfortable than cars of decades past, or that enhanced efficiency is somehow a net negative. I’ve even known a few classic car enthusiasts that spend their hours restoring antiques but will admit that in terms of comfort and reliability the newer models are simply better. I personally found the fit to be far more comfortable than other compact cars from the 80s or 90s
That said, this apples to oranges comparison of the Fit to larger vehicles makes little sense to me. I don’t think anyone on this forum is arguing that Americans favor large cars, particularly when fuel prices remain low. But we’ve also actively encouraged this through favorable emission standards, and through not adjusting the gas tax, and by keeping gasoline prices low, by offering cheap financing and government bailouts, requiring minimum numbers of parking spaces, permitting 22.5’ non commercial vehicles, etc.
In other words, vehicle demands largely matches the world we’ve designed. It’s also telling that in countries which have taken a different approach smaller cats thrive. Generally, we get the results we have planned for.
As for blaming this forum and its members For the demise of the Honda Fit - that seems ludicrously out of line. As I outlined in another thread, fewer than a thousand members are responsible for the bulk of posts, and there is less than ten thousand who have made at least one post in the last three years (and About 40% of those are outside the US). Collectively we are such a negligible fraction of the car buying public.
-
Well this be an example own cognitive biases at play, but this is the first time I’ve ever heard someone allege that new sedans are somehow less comfortable than cars of decades past, or that enhanced efficiency is somehow a net negative. I’ve even known a few classic car enthusiasts that spend their hours restoring antiques but will admit that in terms of comfort and reliability the newer models are simply better. I personally found the fit to be far more comfortable than other compact cars from the 80s or 90s
New cars are objectively better in all kinds of ways. I'm not suggesting otherwise. They're far more fuel efficient, but to achieve that they had to sculpt rooflines so much that it's easy to hit your head getting into/out of the front and rear seats. They can be very comfortable once you're in a seat, while at the same time they can also be difficult for people to get into/out of due to the low step-in height, and the relationship between the seat bottom and the floor of the vehicle. Thicker pillars (crash safety) and laid back windshields (Fuel economy) combined with raised beltlines (crash safety) and lower seating positions (packaging) can make visibility more difficult than in the past. These are all very noticeable drawbacks for old people with reduced mobility. And guess who's buying the largest percentage of new vehicles these days? They're also noticeable drawbacks for people with young kids in modern car seats to be loaded into the back of a sedan. Guess who has historically bought lots of new vehicles as family needs dictate? If it's a battle to get their pride and joy into the back of a vehicle, people will grow tired of it pretty quickly. It's easier to get kids into/out of things with larger door openings like vans, trucks and CUVs.
These people could be buying small cars or sedans that are more fuel efficient than the trucks and SUVs they ultimately end up with, and if something with a body shaped like the sedans of the 70s or 80s were still available I think you'd see some reduction in the migration to large trucks and CUVs. Instead, they're buying bigger things because they're easier to use than the smaller things. Or perhaps "bigger" isn't the right word. Maybe I should say "taller" ie the Fit ---> HR-V example. They're more comfortable to get into/out of, or load things into/out of for the majority of people buying them new. I'm not so sure why that's a controversial statement.
That said, this apples to oranges comparison of the Fit to larger vehicles makes little sense to me. I don’t think anyone on this forum is arguing that Americans favor large cars, particularly when fuel prices remain low. But we’ve also actively encouraged this through favorable emission standards, and through not adjusting the gas tax, and by keeping gasoline prices low, by offering cheap financing and government bailouts, requiring minimum numbers of parking spaces, permitting 22.5’ non commercial vehicles, etc.
In other words, vehicle demands largely matches the world we’ve designed. It’s also telling that in countries which have taken a different approach smaller cats thrive. Generally, we get the results we have planned for.
I guess wording may be contributing to some miscommunication here. This tangent about larger vehicles kind of started when I brought up that the Fit is effectively being replaced in the US market by the HRV. The HRV isn't benefitting from any loop holes in regulations. They're classified the same as the Fit because they're largely the same thing. They're the same platform underneath. They get nearly the same fuel economy. The same is true for larger CUVs that share platforms with larger cars. Obviously, if somebody is going from a Fit to a Suburban, that's a huge change. But the market is shifting more subtly than that, and small, inexpensive and fuel efficient options still exist for buyers that want or need those things. They're just taller.
And ultimately, hybridization and electrification are greatly reducing the gap between smaller and larger vehicles too.
As for blaming this forum and its members For the demise of the Honda Fit - that seems ludicrously out of line. As I outlined in another thread, fewer than a thousand members are responsible for the bulk of posts, and there is less than ten thousand who have made at least one post in the last three years (and About 40% of those are outside the US). Collectively we are such a negligible fraction of the car buying public.
I'm not blaming those here specifically for anything. Sorry if it seemed like I was. My point was that the product being eliminated from our market was not purchased by enough people for it to remain on sale in our market. It's being replaced with a similar product with a slightly different set of benefits and drawbacks that appeal to more people. It's also more likely to increase profits for the manufacturer at the same time (yay shareholders).
It comes off the same way to me as people who don't vote, but then complain about elected officials. If you're going to have an opinion about these things, you need to do your best to influence the situation while you still have the chance. Complaining about the result of a situation that you did nothing to influence is just complainypants behavior that I find unproductive. If people here are ardent buyers of new, small vehicles like the Fit and they want to complain that seems totally fair to me. But I think we both know that's not the case. It's the same story on any car website anytime something for enthusiasts is cancelled due to slow sales, and poor profits. People that never had any intent to buy them new complain about having their options reduced. Cool. Did you do your part to prevent that thing you didn't want from happening?
-
New cars are objectively better in all kinds of ways. I'm not suggesting otherwise. They're far more fuel efficient, but to achieve that they had to sculpt rooflines so much that it's easy to hit your head getting into/out of the front and rear seats. They can be very comfortable once you're in a seat, while at the same time they can also be difficult for people to get into/out of due to the low step-in height, and the relationship between the seat bottom and the floor of the vehicle.
Are modern cars really all that much lower than cars from the 70s-90s?
I've just done a couple of comparisons. 2020 Corolla and 1990 Camry, close enough on most external dimensions, the Corolla is 35mm higher. 1995 Accord and a new Civic? The Civic is higher, and there's not much in the other exterior dimensions. The 1980's Ford Falcons that I was driven around in as a kid likely had a lower height than any modern passenger car. I don't remember very many SUVs on the roads back then, and people did just fine.
-
I'm not blaming those here specifically for anything. Sorry if it seemed like I was. My point was that the product being eliminated from our market was not purchased by enough people for it to remain on sale in our market. It's being replaced with a similar product with a slightly different set of benefits and drawbacks that appeal to more people. It's also more likely to increase profits for the manufacturer at the same time (yay shareholders).
It comes off the same way to me as people who don't vote, but then complain about elected officials. If you're going to have an opinion about these things, you need to do your best to influence the situation while you still have the chance. Complaining about the result of a situation that you did nothing to influence is just complainypants behavior that I find unproductive. If people here are ardent buyers of new, small vehicles like the Fit and they want to complain that seems totally fair to me. But I think we both know that's not the case. It's the same story on any car website anytime something for enthusiasts is cancelled due to slow sales, and poor profits. People that never had any intent to buy them new complain about having their options reduced. Cool. Did you do your part to prevent that thing you didn't want from happening?
It's OT, but this is the same for video games for me.
I like single player, story driven video games. Since video games depreciate faster than just about anything, and there is no real difference in playing a game when it releases or 6 months after release I buy games long after they release when prices are 1/3 or less of the original price.
Not surprisingly, the market makes fewer of the games I like because people like me make the rational choice to wait and buy at a fraction of the cost when the developer doesn't make much (if any) money at that point.
Also not surprisingly, they make a shit ton of FPS or annual sports games where young players play on line and pay ridiculous amounts of money on micro transactions. I'd imagine that these games have insane profits because they require less effort to make and must make so much money based on initial and recurring revenue.
Given these behaviors, it's rational for game makers to go against my personal interest in order to maximize profits. And my purchasing choices drive at least part of their decision.
-
Are modern cars really all that much lower than cars from the 70s-90s?
I drove a '67 Mercury Cougar in High School and it was quite low to the ground.
-
New cars are objectively better in all kinds of ways. I'm not suggesting otherwise. They're far more fuel efficient, but to achieve that they had to sculpt rooflines so much that it's easy to hit your head getting into/out of the front and rear seats. They can be very comfortable once you're in a seat, while at the same time they can also be difficult for people to get into/out of due to the low step-in height, and the relationship between the seat bottom and the floor of the vehicle.
Are modern cars really all that much lower than cars from the 70s-90s?
I've just done a couple of comparisons. 2020 Corolla and 1990 Camry, close enough on most external dimensions, the Corolla is 35mm higher. 1995 Accord and a new Civic? The Civic is higher, and there's not much in the other exterior dimensions. The 1980's Ford Falcons that I was driven around in as a kid likely had a lower height than any modern passenger car. I don't remember very many SUVs on the roads back then, and people did just fine.
If you read the entire sentence that you quoted, I also mentioned aspects other than height that can make it more difficult to get into/out of modern vehicles. There's more to it than just height alone (I'm not sure if you're referring to ground clearance, or total vehicle height, but it doesn't really matter). It's not just a single factor, it's several factors and their relationship to one another. Step in height, the seat height, door opening, pillar/roof shape, pillar/roof thickness etc all come into play. I referenced "H points" once already in this thread, and it's a legitimate factor in modern vehicle design. But an ideal H point doesn't matter if the step in height is too low or too high, or if the door opening is a bizarre shape that requires people to contort themselves, or if the pillar shape and thickness mean tall people frequently hit their heads on it etc.
There are completely legitimate reasons why modern vehicles are shaped the way they are. There are engineering meetings and design briefings and tons of decisions made that impact this. None of those decisions are perfect. They all have trade offs. Most modern windshields are laid back much further than most older vehicles to improve aerodynamics. This has the benefits of reduced wind noise and better fuel economy. But it can have drawbacks too if it intrudes on the door opening or pushes the base of the A pillars too far into the driver's sightlines. Maybe that drawback can be reduced by changing the seating position, but that obviously has consequences too. Same for back windows, which if sloped too much can reduce rear seat headroom, make it tough to load/unload, and alter the trunk shape. Even hatchbacks aren't immune to this as tons of hatches have gone from pretty upright and functional to increasingly laid down/sloped forward for better aero.
-
Large vehicles have other negative externalities besides emissions. Road maintenance, safety, sight-lines, and space. It would be nice if states counteracted this with registration fees by weight.
That said, replacing Fits with HRVs and Insights isn't a big problem.
I'm interested to see if the trend for larger vehicles persists if/when fully electric cars become mainstream. Large vehicles will have either less range or bigger batteries making them even more expensive and heavier. Consumers appear to be sensitive to range, so perhaps they will prefer smaller electric vehicles with longer range. Perhaps consumers will adjust range expectations or improved infrastructure will reduce range requirements.
-
Large vehicles have other negative externalities besides emissions. Road maintenance, safety, sight-lines, and space. It would be nice if states counteracted this with registration fees by weight.
That said, replacing Fits with HRVs and Insights isn't a big problem.
I'm interested to see if the trend for larger vehicles persists if/when fully electric cars become mainstream. Large vehicles will have either less range or bigger batteries making them even more expensive and heavier. Consumers appear to be sensitive to range, so perhaps they will prefer smaller electric vehicles with longer range. Perhaps consumers will adjust range expectations or improved infrastructure will reduce range requirements.
I am curious about this too. The Cybertruck and new Hummer don't make me very optimistic though. At least with the Hummer I expect the price to be outrageous, so that might help a little, but the Cybertruck will be large, have decent range, and a reasonable price (for non-mustachians).
-
Good discussion. Paper Chaser I understand the points you are trying to make.
I compare the mid-1930s cars to crossovers. The Model A was so small. The mid-1930s car had similar size, similar seating position, similar entry space if the running boards are ignored. Clearly the 2020 crossover is far better at everything but perhaps style. ;)
We chose a medium size crossover last time we needed a family vehicle b/c the sedan we were driving (still driving at 21 years old) is just not as comfortable or spacious. It requires more effort to enter and exit b/c the seating position is lower to the ground.
FWIW the crossover gets nearly the same gas mileage as the older sedan on the highway.
People don't want to compromise their wants for needs if they can afford to.
-
Not to mention the fact that applying the same technology to a small or mid-size car, minus mostly-unnecessary AWD would produce a vehicle getting 50 or 60 mpg. I have to laugh at the mindset that brags about 20mpg or so in a modern vehicle. Yeah, that's impressive mileage. For 1976.
This is a critical point that many often seem to miss. Due to physics, if a big/heavy vehicle can be made more fuel efficient . . . a small/light vehicle can be made WAY MORE fuel efficient. 40+mpg isn't terrible for a big truck, but it will always suck when you compare the same optimizations made for a smaller car.
Force = mass * acceleration
Power = Work/Elapsed Time
Work = Force / distance
It's physics people! Reduce a vehicle's mass and you can get the same Force and Power with less energy.
Haven't you heard: science is no longer a valid topic for a portion of the population.
It's kind of all of the population, no?
We all just take it on an issue by issue basis.
Does it confirm my bias seems to be the only question most people care about these days.
-
Easy button alternative to a fit is a post-dieselgate VW. They are coming off the fix and can be had very cheap with a 155k mile powertrain warranty. Combine that with their reliability and fuel economy and it's really a no brainer.
I bought a 2013 Golf with 104k miles on it for $7000, which means it's still under warranty for another 51k miles. All the maintenance is easily DIY-able including the upcoming 130k mile timing belt service. You can also buy all of your parts from FCP Euro which has a lifetime warranty on everything they sell, including oil. Just pay to ship the old stuff back which works out to ~$20 every 10k miles for oil changes, and my 260k mile timing belt service will basically be free.
Had mine for less than a month before I took it on a 7200 mile road trip out to California with the dog visiting a bunch of national parks. Credit card rewards covered all of the hotels so my only real cost was food and fuel. And fuel wasn't that bad despite cruising at 80mph the whole way and doing some off-road trails in Moab and northern California. 40mpg average for the entire trip. I have no doubt I can get 300k reliable miles out of this car, although I'll probably have to replace the DPF once.
-
Easy button alternative to a fit is a post-dieselgate VW.
[...]
40mpg average for the entire trip.
Diesel has a higher energy density (and is more expensive) than gasoline so this is equivalent to 34 mpg in a normal vehicle.
This isn't really relevant to the discussion of what will be available new (and used in the future). VW is no longer selling diesel vehicles here.
-
So, I'm coming off a truck (Chevy Colorado) and the Fit is on my radar (as is the Camry). Local dealer seems to have more than a few on the lot. I'll be looking to buy new (NOT used--I'm retiring in two and will hopefully keep the vehicle a long time).
I'm all for saving money, but is there one trim that might be better than the next? I don't need a sunroof (don't even know if that is an option). Really all I need is Apple Carplay. I had that in my Civic Si and really loved the integration of Apple/Google maps.
-
So, I'm coming off a truck (Chevy Colorado) and the Fit is on my radar (as is the Camry). Local dealer seems to have more than a few on the lot. I'll be looking to buy new (NOT used--I'm retiring in two and will hopefully keep the vehicle a long time).
I'm all for saving money, but is there one trim that might be better than the next? I don't need a sunroof (don't even know if that is an option). Really all I need is Apple Carplay. I had that in my Civic Si and really loved the integration of Apple/Google maps.
For the 2020 Fit you'll need to get at least the Sport model to get Apply CarPlay. If you want the manual transmission then you can't get any trims higher than the Sport (i.e. EX and EX-L only have the CVT automatic). The EX adds some safety tech, adaptive cruise (depending on your use case a must-have), moonroof, etc. The EX-L adds leather bits, heated seats, heated side mirrors, etc.
For a full list of features scroll down to Trims & Specs here:
https://automobiles.honda.com/fit
-
Easy button alternative to a fit is a post-dieselgate VW.
[...]
40mpg average for the entire trip.
Diesel has a higher energy density (and is more expensive) than gasoline so this is equivalent to 34 mpg in a normal vehicle.
This isn't really relevant to the discussion of what will be available new (and used in the future). VW is no longer selling diesel vehicles here.
Pretty sure that's backward. The higher the octane number the higher the energy density. Diesel is below regular gasoline which is below premium gasoline.
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale.png)
Diesel should be about 45 on this picture...
-
Easy button alternative to a fit is a post-dieselgate VW.
[...]
40mpg average for the entire trip.
Diesel has a higher energy density (and is more expensive) than gasoline so this is equivalent to 34 mpg in a normal vehicle.
This isn't really relevant to the discussion of what will be available new (and used in the future). VW is no longer selling diesel vehicles here.
Pretty sure that's backward. The higher the octane number the higher the energy density. Diesel is below regular gasoline which is below premium gasoline.
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale.png (https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/log_scale.png)
Diesel should be about 45 on this picture...
That image is for specific energy (energy per mass). For comparing miles per gallon (a unit of volume) you should be comparing energy density (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Tables_of_energy_content) (energy per volume). Diesel is 38.6 MJ/L while gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L and E10 gasoline is 33.2 MJ/L (what you'd find at a normal pump). Premium gasoline doesn't contain more energy (https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/whats-the-difference-between-premium-grade-and-regular-gasoline/), it just burns at higher pressure/temperature which is more efficient.
-
Pretty sure that's backward. The higher the octane number the higher the energy density. Diesel is below regular gasoline which is below premium gasoline.
Diesel should be about 45 on this picture...
Octane Number states how easy something will ignite. It has nothing to do with the inherent energy.
That is also the reason why this "ultra" "premium" or whatever the name does save fuel if you use it for a normal (unadjusted) engine, because that property is not used.
Contrary, if you use normal fuel in an high octane engine, you may get not fully burned fuel, which is bad. (Ask your local mechanic for the details, I don't know them.)
-
Actually, I believe both RWD and LennStar are incorrect, although LennStar. Higher octane fuel is required for higher-compression engines (which usually correlates to high-performance cars), because lower-octane fuel will autoignite at the higher compression, and cause knocking in your engine. Premium (higher-octane) fuel often comes with more additives for various purposes, but won't give you any additional fuel economy in a car that burns low-octane fuel.
One thing that hasn't been pointed out is how badly trunk lids have been affected by the push for higher fuel economy. The smoothly-sloping roof line, plus a desire to retain rearward visibility, means that the rear glass has crept inexorably toward the rear of the vehicle, cutting into the space formerly used by the trunk. Compare, for example, a good ol' Crown Vic to...well, just about any current sedan. It's comical.
Paper Chaser's point about pillar size is a good one--I daily drive a '95 Corolla, and every time I sit in something newer, I am struck by how badly visibility has degraded over the last 25 years, due to tightening safety regulations (note: this is not a judgement on the value of these regulations, I'm just pointing out the cause for the change).
-
Actually, I believe both RWD and LennStar are incorrect [...]
Where was I incorrect?
-
Paper Chaser's point about pillar size is a good one--I daily drive a '95 Corolla, and every time I sit in something newer, I am struck by how badly visibility has degraded over the last 25 years, due to tightening safety regulations (note: this is not a judgement on the value of these regulations, I'm just pointing out the cause for the change).
You sound like DW. She longs for something like the mid-90s mazda mpv she/we had as a grandma hand-me-down in grad school and for a few years while we were first married. I have to admit it had great visibility -- it just wasn't very comfortable to drive for me. I never found a good position no matter how much I moved things around. The fit is much better in that reguard.
-
Actually, I believe both RWD and LennStar are incorrect, although LennStar. Higher octane fuel is required for higher-compression engines (which usually correlates to high-performance cars), because lower-octane fuel will autoignite at the higher compression, and cause knocking in your engine. Premium (higher-octane) fuel often comes with more additives for various purposes, but won't give you any additional fuel economy in a car that burns low-octane fuel.
Oh yes, surely that way round. Sorry, I only had it exlained to me once I am far away from being a car freak ;)
Actually, I believe both RWD and LennStar are incorrect [...]
Where was I incorrect?
Where you stated that Octane is a measurement of fuel energy density, which it isn't.
-
Actually, I believe both RWD and LennStar are incorrect [...]
Where was I incorrect?
Where you stated that Octane is a measurement of fuel energy density, which it isn't.
I definitely did not state that. That was scottish.
-
Actually, I believe both RWD and LennStar are incorrect [...]
Where was I incorrect?
Where you stated that Octane is a measurement of fuel energy density, which it isn't.
I definitely did not state that. That was scottish.
I believe you were incorrect in saying that the higher-octane fuel provides greater efficiency. Unless I misunderstood you, which is certainly possible!
-
Actually, I believe both RWD and LennStar are incorrect [...]
Where was I incorrect?
Where you stated that Octane is a measurement of fuel energy density, which it isn't.
I definitely did not state that. That was scottish.
I believe you were incorrect in saying that the higher-octane fuel provides greater efficiency. Unless I misunderstood you, which is certainly possible!
Thanks for the response. Technically I said that burning at a higher pressure/temperature is more efficient not the higher octane itself. Higher-octane fuel allows for that without pinging/knocking but the vehicle itself needs to have higher compression to take advantage of the higher octane fuel. From the article I linked, emphasis mine (I think we can trust MIT on technical stuff):
It allows performance-oriented engines (specifically, those with higher compression ratios) to burn gasoline at higher pressures and higher temperatures. These conditions at the moment of combustion create better thermodynamic efficiency, so a greater percentage of the gasoline’s heat energy gets converted into motive power.
-
So, I'm coming off a truck (Chevy Colorado) and the Fit is on my radar (as is the Camry). Local dealer seems to have more than a few on the lot. I'll be looking to buy new (NOT used--I'm retiring in two and will hopefully keep the vehicle a long time).
I'm all for saving money, but is there one trim that might be better than the next? I don't need a sunroof (don't even know if that is an option). Really all I need is Apple Carplay. I had that in my Civic Si and really loved the integration of Apple/Google maps.
For the 2020 Fit you'll need to get at least the Sport model to get Apply CarPlay. If you want the manual transmission then you can't get any trims higher than the Sport (i.e. EX and EX-L only have the CVT automatic). The EX adds some safety tech, adaptive cruise (depending on your use case a must-have), moonroof, etc. The EX-L adds leather bits, heated seats, heated side mirrors, etc.
For a full list of features scroll down to Trims & Specs here:
https://automobiles.honda.com/fit
Just pointing out that you can install an aftermarket receiver that will give you Apple CarPlay for under $300, and it'll be a 'better' stereo than the OEM ('better' defined by potential audio quality, particularly if you replace the POS factory speakers with even a basic $40 pair).
In other words, I wouldn't pay several hundred extra for a trim line just to get ApplePlay.
-
So, I'm coming off a truck (Chevy Colorado) and the Fit is on my radar (as is the Camry). Local dealer seems to have more than a few on the lot. I'll be looking to buy new (NOT used--I'm retiring in two and will hopefully keep the vehicle a long time).
I'm all for saving money, but is there one trim that might be better than the next? I don't need a sunroof (don't even know if that is an option). Really all I need is Apple Carplay. I had that in my Civic Si and really loved the integration of Apple/Google maps.
For the 2020 Fit you'll need to get at least the Sport model to get Apply CarPlay. If you want the manual transmission then you can't get any trims higher than the Sport (i.e. EX and EX-L only have the CVT automatic). The EX adds some safety tech, adaptive cruise (depending on your use case a must-have), moonroof, etc. The EX-L adds leather bits, heated seats, heated side mirrors, etc.
For a full list of features scroll down to Trims & Specs here:
https://automobiles.honda.com/fit
Just pointing out that you can install an aftermarket receiver that will give you Apple CarPlay for under $300, and it'll be a 'better' stereo than the OEM ('better' defined by potential audio quality, particularly if you replace the POS factory speakers with even a basic $40 pair).
In other words, I wouldn't pay several hundred extra for a trim line just to get ApplePlay.
The Sport trim also adds two speakers (6 vs 4) over the LX model. And has alloy wheels instead of hubcaps. Whether that's worth the $1,410 premium depends on you.
-
Easy button alternative to a fit is a post-dieselgate VW. They are coming off the fix and can be had very cheap with a 155k mile powertrain warranty. Combine that with their reliability and fuel economy and it's really a no brainer.
I bought a 2013 Golf with 104k miles on it for $7000, which means it's still under warranty for another 51k miles. All the maintenance is easily DIY-able including the upcoming 130k mile timing belt service. You can also buy all of your parts from FCP Euro which has a lifetime warranty on everything they sell, including oil. Just pay to ship the old stuff back which works out to ~$20 every 10k miles for oil changes, and my 260k mile timing belt service will basically be free.
Had mine for less than a month before I took it on a 7200 mile road trip out to California with the dog visiting a bunch of national parks. Credit card rewards covered all of the hotels so my only real cost was food and fuel. And fuel wasn't that bad despite cruising at 80mph the whole way and doing some off-road trails in Moab and northern California. 40mpg average for the entire trip. I have no doubt I can get 300k reliable miles out of this car, although I'll probably have to replace the DPF once.
Sorry to bring this back up as it's a bit off topic to the original point of the thread, but as a counter point to anybody considering these, for the same money you can get a hybrid or even PHEV Ford of similar vintage with similar miles. It will use a more common, and less expensive fuel. Being hybrid, it will have lower maintenance costs and frequency. It will have a timing chain instead of a belt that needs maintenance. It will not be a complex German car with German car needs. And you don't give your money to a company that lied to consumers, cheated the competition, and knowingly harmed the environment that we all share.
-
Easy button alternative to a fit is a post-dieselgate VW. They are coming off the fix and can be had very cheap with a 155k mile powertrain warranty. Combine that with their reliability and fuel economy and it's really a no brainer.
I bought a 2013 Golf with 104k miles on it for $7000, which means it's still under warranty for another 51k miles. All the maintenance is easily DIY-able including the upcoming 130k mile timing belt service. You can also buy all of your parts from FCP Euro which has a lifetime warranty on everything they sell, including oil. Just pay to ship the old stuff back which works out to ~$20 every 10k miles for oil changes, and my 260k mile timing belt service will basically be free.
Had mine for less than a month before I took it on a 7200 mile road trip out to California with the dog visiting a bunch of national parks. Credit card rewards covered all of the hotels so my only real cost was food and fuel. And fuel wasn't that bad despite cruising at 80mph the whole way and doing some off-road trails in Moab and northern California. 40mpg average for the entire trip. I have no doubt I can get 300k reliable miles out of this car, although I'll probably have to replace the DPF once.
Sorry to bring this back up as it's a bit off topic to the original point of the thread, but as a counter point to anybody considering these, for the same money you can get a hybrid or even PHEV Ford of similar vintage with similar miles. It will use a more common, and less expensive fuel. Being hybrid, it will have lower maintenance costs and frequency. It will have a timing chain instead of a belt that needs maintenance. It will not be a complex German car with German car needs. And you don't give your money to a company that lied to consumers, cheated the competition, and knowingly harmed the environment that we all share.
The concept of a 'complex German car with German car needs' is prejudiced. Modern cars - particularly PHEVs - are complex machines regardless of the manufacturer. Neither repair history data nor service requirements supports the blanket notion that a 'German' (or even VW) cars are more repair prone and finicky. Rather, individual models can have great or lousy servicing needs and repair history. As an example VW's GTI has had a better than average history of repair cost, whereas the 2014/15 Ford Flex and 2014-2016 Ford Flex had below average reliability and high repair costs.
I'm still pissed about VW's willing subterfuge in the 'dieselgate' scandal. But that extended beyond just VW (it included Fiat Chrysler - makers of Jeep and Ram, Nissan and a few others). Ford is under investigation right now by the DOJ for its testing procedures, and has been accused of using unrealistic modeling to achieve lower emission figures. Domestic carmakers aren't immune from scandals either. Ford had their utterly awful Firestone tire blowouts which was the subject of a coverup and did actually kill people.
-
Sorry to bring this back up as it's a bit off topic to the original point of the thread, but as a counter point to anybody considering these, for the same money you can get a hybrid or even PHEV Ford of similar vintage with similar miles. It will use a more common, and less expensive fuel. Being hybrid, it will have lower maintenance costs and frequency. It will have a timing chain instead of a belt that needs maintenance. It will not be a complex German car with German car needs. And you don't give your money to a company that lied to consumers, cheated the competition, and knowingly harmed the environment that we all share.
The concept of a 'complex German car with German car needs' is prejudiced. Modern cars - particularly PHEVs - are complex machines regardless of the manufacturer. Neither repair history data nor service requirements supports the blanket notion that a 'German' (or even VW) cars are more repair prone and finicky. Rather, individual models can have great or lousy servicing needs and repair history. As an example VW's GTI has had a better than average history of repair cost, whereas the 2014/15 Ford Flex and 2014-2016 Ford Flex had below average reliability and high repair costs.
I'm still pissed about VW's willing subterfuge in the 'dieselgate' scandal. But that extended beyond just VW (it included Fiat Chrysler - makers of Jeep and Ram, Nissan and a few others). Ford is under investigation right now by the DOJ for its testing procedures, and has been accused of using unrealistic modeling to achieve lower emission figures. Domestic carmakers aren't immune from scandals either. Ford had their utterly awful Firestone tire blowouts which was the subject of a coverup and did actually kill people.
Hybrids and PHEVs have fewer components that need frequent maintenance. Especially compared to a modern diesel. That saves the owner time and money. Cheaper fuel cost, no DEF, cheaper oil changes, cheaper replacement parts etc all help the case for a hybrid/PHEV over a diesel too. Just pointing out that there's more than one option available for a person shopping for a fuel efficient ride in the <$15k price bracket.
-
Sorry to bring this back up as it's a bit off topic to the original point of the thread, but as a counter point to anybody considering these, for the same money you can get a hybrid or even PHEV Ford of similar vintage with similar miles. It will use a more common, and less expensive fuel. Being hybrid, it will have lower maintenance costs and frequency. It will have a timing chain instead of a belt that needs maintenance. It will not be a complex German car with German car needs. And you don't give your money to a company that lied to consumers, cheated the competition, and knowingly harmed the environment that we all share.
The concept of a 'complex German car with German car needs' is prejudiced. Modern cars - particularly PHEVs - are complex machines regardless of the manufacturer. Neither repair history data nor service requirements supports the blanket notion that a 'German' (or even VW) cars are more repair prone and finicky. Rather, individual models can have great or lousy servicing needs and repair history. As an example VW's GTI has had a better than average history of repair cost, whereas the 2014/15 Ford Flex and 2014-2016 Ford Flex had below average reliability and high repair costs.
I'm still pissed about VW's willing subterfuge in the 'dieselgate' scandal. But that extended beyond just VW (it included Fiat Chrysler - makers of Jeep and Ram, Nissan and a few others). Ford is under investigation right now by the DOJ for its testing procedures, and has been accused of using unrealistic modeling to achieve lower emission figures. Domestic carmakers aren't immune from scandals either. Ford had their utterly awful Firestone tire blowouts which was the subject of a coverup and did actually kill people.
Hybrids and PHEVs have fewer components that need frequent maintenance. Especially compared to a modern diesel. That saves the owner time and money. Cheaper fuel cost, no DEF, cheaper oil changes, cheaper replacement parts etc all help the case for a hybrid/PHEV over a diesel too. Just pointing out that there's more than one option available for a person shopping for a fuel efficient ride in the <$15k price bracket.
I'm not arguing any of those established points. I'm pointing out that the perception that 'German Vehicles' are (all else being equal) more expensive to own and repair is incorrect, and that domestic automakers have had their own share of scandals.
-
RIP Honda fit ! I've always loved these cars ! Bought a 2nd gen , manual trans with high miles. Never had an issue with it before it was sold to a co worker for peanuts. Great vehicles !
My wifes fiesta - also (while not as reliable as the fit) is a great small car.
America hates small cars. Always has and probably always will.
This is the land of big...i don't think that is changing even if gas hits $5 / gallon...dunno ?
Besides the mirage - what else is out there that is qualified as basic / simple / (easy to work i imagine) on transportation ?
Honda getting rid of the manual transmission in the accord is also another nail in the coffin.
I think in my lifetime - (38 yrs old) we will see a major shift in how we commute,(if level 5 autonomy becomes real that is)- that is when things will really start changing. Possibly being mandated by the government that you can no longer drive your vehicle between these - insert heavy traffic hours, inclimate weather, etc....leased / subscription vehicle service is already becoming popular in some areas
I imagine future vehicle cost will be much like a cell phone cost - you have a contract for 2 yrs, make your monthly subscription payment and have no other charges - possibly even in some areas public transport that actually works ? Who knows...just rambling now haha
Que - Red barchetta...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIZ73q9M-Gk
-
Honda getting rid of the manual transmission in the accord is also another nail in the coffin.
Can you car folks explain to me the focus on manual transmissions? My first 15 years of driving was with manual transmission cars and I do find them fun, but...
my understanding is that automatic transmissions have improved so much that the percieved benefits of a manual are almost non-existant in modern cars, including a negligible boost in fuel economy and better acceleration/handling. Automatic transmissions no longer seem to need replacement any more frequent than manuals (and manual clutches can suffer from 'operator error'). It seems to me that most drivers are better served with automatics
The only remaining advantage I can see is a slightly lower price point. But pretty much all features have gotten 'fancier' - particularly in the US. Even the "base trim' model has features that were luxuries a decade+ ago (and still are in poorer countries)... almost impossible to find a new(ish) car sold in the US that doesn't have power windows, a/c, a decent stereo that syncs with your phone and a bunch of other nice but unnecessary n'luxuries'/
so... why not automatics?
-
Sorry to bring this back up as it's a bit off topic to the original point of the thread, but as a counter point to anybody considering these, for the same money you can get a hybrid or even PHEV Ford of similar vintage with similar miles. It will use a more common, and less expensive fuel. Being hybrid, it will have lower maintenance costs and frequency. It will have a timing chain instead of a belt that needs maintenance. It will not be a complex German car with German car needs. And you don't give your money to a company that lied to consumers, cheated the competition, and knowingly harmed the environment that we all share.
The concept of a 'complex German car with German car needs' is prejudiced. Modern cars - particularly PHEVs - are complex machines regardless of the manufacturer. Neither repair history data nor service requirements supports the blanket notion that a 'German' (or even VW) cars are more repair prone and finicky. Rather, individual models can have great or lousy servicing needs and repair history. As an example VW's GTI has had a better than average history of repair cost, whereas the 2014/15 Ford Flex and 2014-2016 Ford Flex had below average reliability and high repair costs.
I'm still pissed about VW's willing subterfuge in the 'dieselgate' scandal. But that extended beyond just VW (it included Fiat Chrysler - makers of Jeep and Ram, Nissan and a few others). Ford is under investigation right now by the DOJ for its testing procedures, and has been accused of using unrealistic modeling to achieve lower emission figures. Domestic carmakers aren't immune from scandals either. Ford had their utterly awful Firestone tire blowouts which was the subject of a coverup and did actually kill people.
Hybrids and PHEVs have fewer components that need frequent maintenance. Especially compared to a modern diesel. That saves the owner time and money. Cheaper fuel cost, no DEF, cheaper oil changes, cheaper replacement parts etc all help the case for a hybrid/PHEV over a diesel too. Just pointing out that there's more than one option available for a person shopping for a fuel efficient ride in the <$15k price bracket.
I'm not arguing any of those established points. I'm pointing out that the perception that 'German Vehicles' are (all else being equal) more expensive to own and repair is incorrect, and that domestic automakers have had their own share of scandals.
I'm not sure I understand the hang up? The TDI (the vehicle being discussed) is a complex German car compared to the Ford hybrids (the other vehicles being discussed). It has expensive components like a turbocharger, direct injection and a diesel aftertreatment system that the other vehicles in the comparison lack. Something like a hybrid Fusion or CMax will likely have far lower operating costs than the TDI over it's lifetime. Did I just not provide enough context to discern that I was referring to the vehicles being compared with that statement?
As for automaker scandals, you're correct that they all have some skeletons in the closet. Some are worse than others, and some are fresher in memory than others. I don't really care to debate whether a supplier issue that killed nearly 300 people and the subsequent cover up is better or worse than systemic emissions cheating that had less severe effects on a much larger number of people. I will say that the Ford thing happened before I had my driver's license, and the VW thing is far fresher in mind.
-
Honda getting rid of the manual transmission in the accord is also another nail in the coffin.
Can you car folks explain to me the focus on manual transmissions? My first 15 years of driving was with manual transmission cars and I do find them fun, but...
my understanding is that automatic transmissions have improved so much that the percieved benefits of a manual are almost non-existant in modern cars, including a negligible boost in fuel economy and better acceleration/handling. Automatic transmissions no longer seem to need replacement any more frequent than manuals (and manual clutches can suffer from 'operator error'). It seems to me that most drivers are better served with automatics
The only remaining advantage I can see is a slightly lower price point. But pretty much all features have gotten 'fancier' - particularly in the US. Even the "base trim' model has features that were luxuries a decade+ ago (and still are in poorer countries)... almost impossible to find a new(ish) car sold in the US that doesn't have power windows, a/c, a decent stereo that syncs with your phone and a bunch of other nice but unnecessary n'luxuries'/
so... why not automatics?
all of what you said is true. automatics used to be = less mpg,less reliable - over the 100k mark.
Now though it's one of the true mechanical connections to a car - for an enthusiast driving a manual is much more fun - unless i'm stuck in traffic.
My daily driver is a manual transmission ranger. I thought by now i'd hate driving manuals but i prefer them. For me they are easier to manage in inclimate weather, easier to work on - no trans cooler lines to pull off when i drain coolant, easier (for me) to replace a clutch,resurface flywheel as opposed to replacing torque converter, rebuilding trans, etc.
Now though - these new manual transmission - alot of them don't even have direct linkage - look at the new bronco for example.
My personal opinion though is manual trans has it's place - fun to drive cars (at least for me) will always be a manual transmission.
Even my base single cab 4 cyl ranger is fun (kinda) because of the manual transmission.
Take any base economy car - put in an automatic and 9/10 times it's less fun to drive than that same car with a manual trans.
Now i will see the dsg / auto trans where you can hold the gear is really fun to drive.
Recently drove a charger scat pack -that zf trans is amazing ! no reason for a manual in that car imho.
Also for faster shifts, drag times, etc - auto is always going to win.
I'm just an automotive purist. I like crank windows, manual locks, manual trans, cruise control as an option...old school i guess ? haha
Still though i'm not 100 % crazy - points ignition, carburetors, cars without a/c, power steering, crank starting, etc all are outdated and have no place in a daily vehicle.
-
Honda getting rid of the manual transmission in the accord is also another nail in the coffin.
Can you car folks explain to me the focus on manual transmissions? My first 15 years of driving was with manual transmission cars and I do find them fun, but...
my understanding is that automatic transmissions have improved so much that the percieved benefits of a manual are almost non-existant in modern cars, including a negligible boost in fuel economy and better acceleration/handling. Automatic transmissions no longer seem to need replacement any more frequent than manuals (and manual clutches can suffer from 'operator error'). It seems to me that most drivers are better served with automatics
The only remaining advantage I can see is a slightly lower price point. But pretty much all features have gotten 'fancier' - particularly in the US. Even the "base trim' model has features that were luxuries a decade+ ago (and still are in poorer countries)... almost impossible to find a new(ish) car sold in the US that doesn't have power windows, a/c, a decent stereo that syncs with your phone and a bunch of other nice but unnecessary n'luxuries'/
so... why not automatics?
From a purely practical standpoint there is not much reason to get a manual anymore. Maybe for better control in ice and snow? Brake pad wear is probably slower on a manual as well since you can engine brake easily (can be useful on long downhill section especially).
From an enjoyment perspective a manual transmission is much more engaging than an automatic. You feel much more connected to the car by always selecting the gear you want. You can skip gears when it makes sense (hard acceleration in 2nd followed by cruising in 6th, for example) which isn't matched even by automatics with a manual-mode. The clutch is an additional level of engagement for which there is no equivalent. Executing a perfect heel-toe downshift is one of the best drivings feelings there is.
From a performance perspective manual transmissions tend to be lighter and will also transmit a higher percentage of power. This doesn't matter much in your heavy luxury cars but in a small light car like the Honda Fit this can be a noticeable difference. For the 1st and 2nd generation Honda Fit this meant 0-60 mph took 20% longer in the automatic. And around 10% for the 3rd generation.
I should note that there are quite a few different types of automatics which have varying levels of engagement. Dual-clutch transmissions with a fully manual mode (like my PDK) are almost as good from an enjoyment perspective. Single-clutch automated manuals (e.g. older Ferrari paddle shift systems) are similar to DCTs but you get more of a lag between shifts and clutch replacement becomes a worry. Traditional torque converter automatics are just boring though some give you a manual-mode which can help. Newer ones have a ton of gears and quick shifts so they aren't as noticeably annoying to drive (ever mash the throttle to try and make a yellow light only for the transmission to not finish downshifting until you're almost through the intersection?). Then there is the hated CVTs with their rubber-banding. Fine in hybrids were there is an additional source of propulsion but otherwise they are the worst transmission for driving enjoyment. Which is unfortunately because they are the best for fuel efficiency.
Yes, most people are better served with automatics. Automatics work better with all the fancy new tech too like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking, automatic parallel parking, etc. But if you want to enjoy driving a manual transmission will often help a lot more than a ton more power.
-
A couple of years ago I rented a VW Polo with a DSG and a 1.2L turbo. Not only did I get 5L/100km (47 MPUSG) for much of the 2000km I drove it, but I didn't miss a manual transmission when driving it. Great little car.
The concern I've had with many of the modern automatics is repair/servicing costs, especially with CVTs and dual clutch transmissions (although maybe the PowerShift Fords and VW DSGs have affected my opinion there). Yes, clutches on a manual are expensive (and I suspect dual clutch ones are similarly so), but at least with a torque converter auto it should last the lifetime of the car if the fluid is changed regularly.
In the days of 4 speed automatics, I'd take the manual transmission. With modern cars, I'd take the automatic.
-
From a purely practical standpoint there is not much reason to get a manual anymore.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I've seen about three too many automatics fail with $2~3K repair bills. Manuals are more mustachian because they rarely fail before the engine. In my experience automatics typically fail before the engine.*
* - EDITed to add: I think that part of this has to do with fuel economy and only caring about the first buyer. The car companies are going to make the lightest automatic with the most gears that will last 100K miles, because the first owner will be long gone and they will meet CAFE.
-
From a purely practical standpoint there is not much reason to get a manual anymore.
I wholeheartedly disagree. I've seen about three too many automatics fail with $2~3K repair bills. Manuals are more mustachian because they rarely fail before the engine. In my experience automatics typically fail before the engine.
And I had to pay $1500 a year and a bit ago to replace a clutch. The manual vehicles aren't maintenance-free.
Something something so called 'sealed for life transmissions'...
-
And I had to pay $1500 a year and a bit ago to replace a clutch. The manual vehicles aren't maintenance-free.
Yup, absolutely. I've also replaced one in my one car garage over Christmas break. It's cheaper and easier than an automatic transmission rebuild.
EDITed to add: I have also paid for clutch replacements on a Toyota Corolla and a Subaru Impreza.
-
A couple of years ago I rented a VW Polo with a DSG and a 1.2L turbo. Not only did I get 5L/100km (47 MPUSG) for much of the 2000km I drove it, but I didn't miss a manual transmission when driving it. Great little car.
The concern I've had with many of the modern automatics is repair/servicing costs, especially with CVTs and dual clutch transmissions (although maybe the PowerShift Fords and VW DSGs have affected my opinion there). Yes, clutches on a manual are expensive (and I suspect dual clutch ones are similarly so), but at least with a torque converter auto it should last the lifetime of the car if the fluid is changed regularly.
In the days of 4 speed automatics, I'd take the manual transmission. With modern cars, I'd take the automatic.
Run as fast as you can away from early build vw dsg , all ford selectshift,powershift - complete garbage as well as early nissan cvt products and you should be ok.
The new stuff vw is putting out isn't nearly as bad as it was 8-10 yrs ago...but i still wouldn't trust a VAG product to save my life.
-
Something something so called 'sealed for life transmissions'...
I have one of those! 2001 Volvo with 203k miles and "lifetime" ATF. Literally not listed as maintenance in the owners manual. I'm afraid of it. I bought it at 140k and haven't touched the ATF. I've heard doing a drain and fill with super old fluid can kill it, but I've also heard it'll die prematurely if I don't do that.
-
RIP Honda fit ! I've always loved these cars ! Bought a 2nd gen , manual trans with high miles. Never had an issue with it before it was sold to a co worker for peanuts. Great vehicles !
My wifes fiesta - also (while not as reliable as the fit) is a great small car.
America hates small cars. Always has and probably always will.
This is the land of big...i don't think that is changing even if gas hits $5 / gallon...dunno ?
Besides the mirage - what else is out there that is qualified as basic / simple / (easy to work i imagine) on transportation ?
Honda getting rid of the manual transmission in the accord is also another nail in the coffin.
I think in my lifetime - (38 yrs old) we will see a major shift in how we commute,(if level 5 autonomy becomes real that is)- that is when things will really start changing. Possibly being mandated by the government that you can no longer drive your vehicle between these - insert heavy traffic hours, inclimate weather, etc....leased / subscription vehicle service is already becoming popular in some areas
I imagine future vehicle cost will be much like a cell phone cost - you have a contract for 2 yrs, make your monthly subscription payment and have no other charges - possibly even in some areas public transport that actually works ? Who knows...just rambling now haha
Que - Red barchetta...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIZ73q9M-Gk
Geez i hope autonomous cars don't become mandatory. available for those who aren't interested in driving? Sure! Available to me when I want to go long distances to the beach and catch a snooze? Definitely!
I have a couple of collector cars who would instantly be illegal to drive.
-
Honda getting rid of the manual transmission in the accord is also another nail in the coffin.
Can you car folks explain to me the focus on manual transmissions? My first 15 years of driving was with manual transmission cars and I do find them fun, but...
my understanding is that automatic transmissions have improved so much that the percieved benefits of a manual are almost non-existant in modern cars, including a negligible boost in fuel economy and better acceleration/handling. Automatic transmissions no longer seem to need replacement any more frequent than manuals (and manual clutches can suffer from 'operator error'). It seems to me that most drivers are better served with automatics
The only remaining advantage I can see is a slightly lower price point. But pretty much all features have gotten 'fancier' - particularly in the US. Even the "base trim' model has features that were luxuries a decade+ ago (and still are in poorer countries)... almost impossible to find a new(ish) car sold in the US that doesn't have power windows, a/c, a decent stereo that syncs with your phone and a bunch of other nice but unnecessary n'luxuries'/
so... why not automatics?
B/C our automatic transmission watches how I drive and incorrectly decides it need to downshift as I descend a couple of hills on our commute. I'm not riding the brakes hard, just touching the brakes to slow slightly but the car sees that as riding the brakes (looking only at the brake switch for sensing I think) and abruptly shifts down. If I pump the brakes then sometimes it will shift down twice bringing the REVs up near 3K RPM.
Wear and tear on brakes are cheaper than transmission clutches. I don't want to drive with the paddle buttons or use "sport mode" (manual shift).
Meanwhile our 20 year old manual transmission car just waits for me to decide when shifting is due. I like that better on my commute.
When we visit the big city or get stuck in tourist traffic then of course the automatic wins.
-
Geez i hope autonomous cars don't become mandatory. available for those who aren't interested in driving? Sure! Available to me when I want to go long distances to the beach and catch a snooze? Definitely!
I have a couple of collector cars who would instantly be illegal to drive.
I doubt autonomous cars will become mandatory in the next 20 years, but I do think they will become the norm. After all the average lifespan of a car is currently 11.4 years (and many cars last longer than that), so even if all cars had auto-mode starting next year there would still be tons of NON automatic driving cars on the road in 2035.
Honestly, each time I drive I look around at other drivers and think "jeez, I can't wait for automatic driving cars to get these jokers off the road!"
My suspicion is that insurance will be a driving (pun) factor in converting people to self-driving cars. If the actuaries decide you are more likely to cost money driving your own car it will be reflected in what you pay monthly, and that could be hundreds ofr high-risk drivers.
-
My .02c
By the time the current supply of used cars dies down, you will be able to get cheap and powerful EVs in used forms.
Also, the Chevy Volt exists today, a roomy hatchbacky car, and it doesn't NEED gas but can take it. No tears shed from me.
-
My .02c
By the time the current supply of used cars dies down, you will be able to get cheap and powerful EVs in used forms.
Also, the Chevy Volt exists today, a roomy hatchbacky car, and it doesn't NEED gas but can take it. No tears shed from me.
Uhh...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/chevy-volt-discontinued-chevrolets-last-volt-rolls-off-the-assembly-line/
You'll find used fits far long than volts, simply based on the sheer number of them. Peak volt was 24k. Peak fit was 79k. The least (full year) of fits was 27k.
-
The volt was one of my favorite cars - even more so after reading Snyok’s careful evaluation of the battery pack and balance between thermal management, size and range.
Given its scarcity and limited production to begin with our best option will probably be a Prius Prime in ~2 years when it comes time to replace our Civic, but I’ve liked the Volt more.
-
The volt was one of my favorite cars - even more so after reading Snyok’s careful evaluation of the battery pack and balance between thermal management, size and range.
Given its scarcity and limited production to begin with our best option will probably be a Prius Prime in ~2 years when it comes time to replace our Civic, but I’ve liked the Volt more.
I'd imagine that the Prius Prime would have better longevity too given how long lived Priuses are. And I'm of the opinion that longevity is the most important characteristic of a vehicle. Holding for a long time is how you "win" at car buying IMO.
I think that's the thing that would stop me from potentially getting an EV or PHEV. I live in a place where temperatures swing between -30 C and 30 C. I wonder what longevity of the large batteries looks like in an environment like that over a decade or so. I know warranties are good, but I'd be worried about getting a massive bill for replacement right after it expires.
I'd probably be much more comfortable getting a traditional hybrid (especially from Toyota) because the track record is there.
-
The volt was one of my favorite cars - even more so after reading Snyok’s careful evaluation of the battery pack and balance between thermal management, size and range.
Given its scarcity and limited production to begin with our best option will probably be a Prius Prime in ~2 years when it comes time to replace our Civic, but I’ve liked the Volt more.
I'd imagine that the Prius Prime would have better longevity too given how long lived Priuses are. And I'm of the opinion that longevity is the most important characteristic of a vehicle. Holding for a long time is how you "win" at car buying IMO.
I think that's the thing that would stop me from potentially getting an EV or PHEV. I live in a place where temperatures swing between -30 C and 30 C. I wonder what longevity of the large batteries looks like in an environment like that over a decade or so. I know warranties are good, but I'd be worried about getting a massive bill for replacement right after it expires.
I'd probably be much more comfortable getting a traditional hybrid (especially from Toyota) because the track record is there.
My initial impression of the Prius Prime is that it's substantially smaller inside than the Volt. Testing and specs show it's EV range is slightly less as well.
ETA: The 2019 Volt (last year of production) had a 53mi rated on battery only, vs 25mi for the Prius Prime. In practical terms if your commute is ≤ 10 miles each way you can drive a Prius Prime on battery-only with some room for side-errands and the occasional less-than-100% charge.
With a Volt your commute can be 20+ miles and you'll be well within battery-only.
The volt also gives some flexibility for using standard 110v charging.
The Rav4 Prime has a range much closer to the Volt, though the two cars are completely different in form-factor and cost, with the new Rav4 costing ~$33k after rebates and low-mileage volts (there is no new) around $18k.
Regarding temperature, there's a lot of data on that now. Short version (from my research) is that some companies have done a very good job with thermal management (e.g. Chevy's Volt) whereas others have not (e.g. the first several years of the Nissan Leaf). How the battery's capacity is managed is also a big deal, and the Volt is particularly conservative (draining them completely and/or charging them fast is a recipe for early failure).
That said, I lived in Quebec where -30ºC to 30ºC happened each year, and a number of my neighbors drove and loved their EVs. Can't say if they lasted a decade...
Cold will cut back range as the cabin is heated from the battery and not an engine. Dpending on 'how cold' the range penalty is generally in the 10-20% ballpark.
-
Geez i hope autonomous cars don't become mandatory. available for those who aren't interested in driving? Sure! Available to me when I want to go long distances to the beach and catch a snooze? Definitely!
I have a couple of collector cars who would instantly be illegal to drive.
I doubt autonomous cars will become mandatory in the next 20 years, but I do think they will become the norm. After all the average lifespan of a car is currently 11.4 years (and many cars last longer than that), so even if all cars had auto-mode starting next year there would still be tons of NON automatic driving cars on the road in 2035.
Honestly, each time I drive I look around at other drivers and think "jeez, I can't wait for automatic driving cars to get these jokers off the road!"
My suspicion is that insurance will be a driving (pun) factor in converting people to self-driving cars. If the actuaries decide you are more likely to cost money driving your own car it will be reflected in what you pay monthly, and that could be hundreds ofr high-risk drivers.
I think you are right... Maybe I'll switch to motorcycles to get my thrills when cars are mandated to be autonomous. ;)
I know one of the motorcycle companies built a concept bike that was autonomous but I don't expect anything like that to reach the market in my driving lifetime.
-
The volt was one of my favorite cars - even more so after reading Snyok’s careful evaluation of the battery pack and balance between thermal management, size and range.
Given its scarcity and limited production to begin with our best option will probably be a Prius Prime in ~2 years when it comes time to replace our Civic, but I’ve liked the Volt more.
I'd imagine that the Prius Prime would have better longevity too given how long lived Priuses are. And I'm of the opinion that longevity is the most important characteristic of a vehicle. Holding for a long time is how you "win" at car buying IMO.
I think that's the thing that would stop me from potentially getting an EV or PHEV. I live in a place where temperatures swing between -30 C and 30 C. I wonder what longevity of the large batteries looks like in an environment like that over a decade or so. I know warranties are good, but I'd be worried about getting a massive bill for replacement right after it expires.
I'd probably be much more comfortable getting a traditional hybrid (especially from Toyota) because the track record is there.
My initial impression of the Prius Prime is that it's substantially smaller inside than the Volt. Testing and specs show it's EV range is slightly less as well.
ETA: The 2019 Volt (last year of production) had a 53mi rated on battery only, vs 25mi for the Prius Prime. In practical terms if your commute is ≤ 10 miles each way you can drive a Prius Prime on battery-only with some room for side-errands and the occasional less-than-100% charge.
With a Volt your commute can be 20+ miles and you'll be well within battery-only.
The volt also gives some flexibility for using standard 110v charging.
The Rav4 Prime has a range much closer to the Volt, though the two cars are completely different in form-factor and cost, with the new Rav4 costing ~$33k after rebates and low-mileage volts (there is no new) around $18k.
Regarding temperature, there's a lot of data on that now. Short version (from my research) is that some companies have done a very good job with thermal management (e.g. Chevy's Volt) whereas others have not (e.g. the first several years of the Nissan Leaf). How the battery's capacity is managed is also a big deal, and the Volt is particularly conservative (draining them completely and/or charging them fast is a recipe for early failure).
That said, I lived in Quebec where -30ºC to 30ºC happened each year, and a number of my neighbors drove and loved their EVs. Can't say if they lasted a decade...
Cold will cut back range as the cabin is heated from the battery and not an engine. Dpending on 'how cold' the range penalty is generally in the 10-20% ballpark.
Thanks for the info Nereo.
-
I think that's the thing that would stop me from potentially getting an EV or PHEV. I live in a place where temperatures swing between -30 C and 30 C. I wonder what longevity of the large batteries looks like in an environment like that over a decade or so. I know warranties are good, but I'd be worried about getting a massive bill for replacement right after it expires.
I'd probably be much more comfortable getting a traditional hybrid (especially from Toyota) because the track record is there.
Another thing to consider is the total cost of maintenance for a PHEV / EV vs a more conventional, non-plug in ICE or Hybrid
If you have to replace the battery pack that can run anywhere from ~$2,200 (Prius) to as much as $8,500 (Leaf). For whatever reason Tesla comes in midway despite being larger.
Anyway, a while back I considered the total maintenance necessary (per manufacturing guidelines) on a full ICE Honda Civic with normal driving (~15k/year) over a 10 year period (150k miles total).
It would require: 20 oil changes, 4 - 8 fuel filters, 3 engine air filters, 1 set of spark plugs + wires, 3x transmission fluids, 4x engine coolant, 5 clutch fluid replacement, 1 new water pump, 3 new 12volt batteries, 1 serpentine belt and 1 timing belt. Brakes would also need to be replaced ore frequently (3x vs 2x for an EV due to regenerative braking). Other items (e.g. cabin air filters, alignment) would be roughly the same, though EVs hacve a reputation for going through tires more quickly do to higher low-end torque.
IIRC I ballparked 'typical' repair shop prices for the above and it came in to a bit over $3k in maintenance. Obviously if you do all these things yourself you could get the costs to be substantially less (rough estimate of $1k for all the parts and fluids).
Ergo - if you had to replace the battery pack (unlikely but possible) within 150k miles most or all of your cost would be offset by the money you didn't spend doing all the other thigns listed above. It does suck to have an unexpected 4-figure bill for a battery pack, but as mustachioans we ought to plan ahead and have the resources to cover such an expense.
The biggest drawback for me of a PHEV is that you still carry a small ICE, but since most drivers would run on battery 70-80% of the time (especially with the logner-range Volt) a PHEV with 150,000 miles on it might only have 30,000 engine-miles. Fluids (particularly oil) will still need to be changed, but most other parts should last 10+ years.
-
I think that's the thing that would stop me from potentially getting an EV or PHEV. I live in a place where temperatures swing between -30 C and 30 C. I wonder what longevity of the large batteries looks like in an environment like that over a decade or so. I know warranties are good, but I'd be worried about getting a massive bill for replacement right after it expires.
I'd probably be much more comfortable getting a traditional hybrid (especially from Toyota) because the track record is there.
Another thing to consider is the total cost of maintenance for a PHEV / EV vs a more conventional, non-plug in ICE or Hybrid
If you have to replace the battery pack that can run anywhere from ~$2,200 (Prius) to as much as $8,500 (Leaf). For whatever reason Tesla comes in midway despite being larger.
Anyway, a while back I considered the total maintenance necessary (per manufacturing guidelines) on a full ICE Honda Civic with normal driving (~15k/year) over a 10 year period (150k miles total).
It would require: 20 oil changes, 4 - 8 fuel filters, 3 engine air filters, 1 set of spark plugs + wires, 3x transmission fluids, 4x engine coolant, 5 clutch fluid replacement, 1 new water pump, 3 new 12volt batteries, 1 serpentine belt and 1 timing belt. Brakes would also need to be replaced ore frequently (3x vs 2x for an EV due to regenerative braking). Other items (e.g. cabin air filters, alignment) would be roughly the same, though EVs hacve a reputation for going through tires more quickly do to higher low-end torque.
IIRC I ballparked 'typical' repair shop prices for the above and it came in to a bit over $3k in maintenance. Obviously if you do all these things yourself you could get the costs to be substantially less (rough estimate of $1k for all the parts and fluids).
Ergo - if you had to replace the battery pack (unlikely but possible) within 150k miles most or all of your cost would be offset by the money you didn't spend doing all the other thigns listed above. It does suck to have an unexpected 4-figure bill for a battery pack, but as mustachioans we ought to plan ahead and have the resources to cover such an expense.
The biggest drawback for me of a PHEV is that you still carry a small ICE, but since most drivers would run on battery 70-80% of the time (especially with the logner-range Volt) a PHEV with 150,000 miles on it might only have 30,000 engine-miles. Fluids (particularly oil) will still need to be changed, but most other parts should last 10+ years.
Thanks again.
I certainly agree that it's important to consider lifetime costs and not just acquisition costs. I'd probably want to discount future costs by at least 4% too.
I'm hopefully at least 5 years away from making a purchasing decision and I think the landscape will look pretty different by then.
-
Another thing to consider is the total cost of maintenance for a PHEV / EV vs a more conventional, non-plug in ICE or Hybrid
If you have to replace the battery pack that can run anywhere from ~$2,200 (Prius) to as much as $8,500 (Leaf). For whatever reason Tesla comes in midway despite being larger.
That's great analysis, and super convenient to see all those numbers together. I bought a Leaf three years ago, and the numbers looked pretty much the same then.
Two things to add. One is speculation, but battery replacements could get cheaper. The Leaf came out in 2011, and many of the early ones had their batteries replaced under warranty because of its poorly designed cooling system. So far, there hasn't been a lot of demand for third-party replacements (for the Leaf or other EVs). With more EV sales and the aging of the existing EVs, battery replacements should become more common, and third-parties could introduce cheaper alternatives. My understanding is this normally happens with new ICE models. When a new generation is introduced, replacement parts are expensive, but the price comes down when more people start making those repairs.
Two, your range requirements will drive how soon you need to replace your battery. If your EV is a second-car you use to make a ten-mile commute, you'll hopefully be retired before you need a replacement. If you need 95-100% of your car's range, you might need a replacement within a couple of years.
-
I think that's the thing that would stop me from potentially getting an EV or PHEV. I live in a place where temperatures swing between -30 C and 30 C. I wonder what longevity of the large batteries looks like in an environment like that over a decade or so. I know warranties are good, but I'd be worried about getting a massive bill for replacement right after it expires.
I'd probably be much more comfortable getting a traditional hybrid (especially from Toyota) because the track record is there.
Another thing to consider is the total cost of maintenance for a PHEV / EV vs a more conventional, non-plug in ICE or Hybrid
If you have to replace the battery pack that can run anywhere from ~$2,200 (Prius) to as much as $8,500 (Leaf). For whatever reason Tesla comes in midway despite being larger.
Anyway, a while back I considered the total maintenance necessary (per manufacturing guidelines) on a full ICE Honda Civic with normal driving (~15k/year) over a 10 year period (150k miles total).
It would require: 20 oil changes, 4 - 8 fuel filters, 3 engine air filters, 1 set of spark plugs + wires, 3x transmission fluids, 4x engine coolant, 5 clutch fluid replacement, 1 new water pump, 3 new 12volt batteries, 1 serpentine belt and 1 timing belt. Brakes would also need to be replaced ore frequently (3x vs 2x for an EV due to regenerative braking). Other items (e.g. cabin air filters, alignment) would be roughly the same, though EVs hacve a reputation for going through tires more quickly do to higher low-end torque.
IIRC I ballparked 'typical' repair shop prices for the above and it came in to a bit over $3k in maintenance. Obviously if you do all these things yourself you could get the costs to be substantially less (rough estimate of $1k for all the parts and fluids).
Ergo - if you had to replace the battery pack (unlikely but possible) within 150k miles most or all of your cost would be offset by the money you didn't spend doing all the other thigns listed above. It does suck to have an unexpected 4-figure bill for a battery pack, but as mustachioans we ought to plan ahead and have the resources to cover such an expense.
The biggest drawback for me of a PHEV is that you still carry a small ICE, but since most drivers would run on battery 70-80% of the time (especially with the logner-range Volt) a PHEV with 150,000 miles on it might only have 30,000 engine-miles. Fluids (particularly oil) will still need to be changed, but most other parts should last 10+ years.
It should be mentioned that high voltage battery packs in the current crop of hybrids and EVs are composed of a bunch of small batteries, and a "battery pack failure" is often the result of just a small number of bad cells. Prius owners have been replacing individual cells for a long time to repair the battery pack and save a bunch of money compared to replacing the entire pack. YouTube has some good tutorials. As always, if you can DIY your maintenance and repairs, you can save yourself a decent amount of money.
-
Stay away from fast charge infrastructure - especially in the Leaf. I spent two weeks with my employer's Leaf recently and a 50kWH charge rate really heats up the battery - heat that takes hours for the air cooled battery to shed. Pushed the needle right up to the overheat zone before it slowed the charge rate.
Normal driving in ~95F heat was no a problem, even at highway speeds, hill climbing, with the a/c on were not a problem.
Heat is supposed to be bad for the battery chemistry. The factory engineer told me when I watched the battery being assembled that their chemistry took higher temps into account but...
Nice car all the same. ~215 miles per charge in the Plus version. Yes, I'd own one.
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Yes.
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Yes.
Only if everyone does it?
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Yes.
You can try, but teenage hormones and inexperience are pretty hard to overcome. In the last two weeks, this has happened close to me:
- Nephew who recently got his license took a corner waaay too fast, understeered into a ditch, hit a tree and flipped the car. He and his younger brother escaped bloodied and bruised, but not seriously hurt.
- Teenage girl smashed into my brother's van because she wasn't looking as she backed out of the driveway.
- Teenage kid a few blocks from my coworker took is BMW down a 45mph road at 80-ish, lost control, took out two telephone poles, and was killed.
Yeah, yeah, coincidence, statistics, yada yada yada, but hopefully it serves as a wakeup call to my 15-year-old kid who's learning to drive (and my 14-y-o who wishes she could).
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Yes.
You can try, but teenage hormones and inexperience are pretty hard to overcome. In the last two weeks, this has happened close to me:
- Nephew who recently got his license took a corner waaay too fast, understeered into a ditch, hit a tree and flipped the car. He and his younger brother escaped bloodied and bruised, but not seriously hurt.
- Teenage girl smashed into my brother's van because she wasn't looking as she backed out of the driveway.
- Teenage kid a few blocks from my coworker took is BMW down a 45mph road at 80-ish, lost control, took out two telephone poles, and was killed.
Yeah, yeah, coincidence, statistics, yada yada yada, but hopefully it serves as a wakeup call to my 15-year-old kid who's learning to drive (and my 14-y-o who wishes she could).
I'm not arguing that teenagers do stupid stuff. But which of these events you listed would have been helped by giving the teenager a heavier, larger vehicle though? (Arguably the larger/heavier vehicle would have caused more of a problem in all listed.)
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Yes.
You can try, but teenage hormones and inexperience are pretty hard to overcome. In the last two weeks, this has happened close to me:
- Nephew who recently got his license took a corner waaay too fast, understeered into a ditch, hit a tree and flipped the car. He and his younger brother escaped bloodied and bruised, but not seriously hurt.
- Teenage girl smashed into my brother's van because she wasn't looking as she backed out of the driveway.
- Teenage kid a few blocks from my coworker took is BMW down a 45mph road at 80-ish, lost control, took out two telephone poles, and was killed.
Yeah, yeah, coincidence, statistics, yada yada yada, but hopefully it serves as a wakeup call to my 15-year-old kid who's learning to drive (and my 14-y-o who wishes she could).
I'm not arguing that teenagers do stupid stuff. But which of these events you listed would have been helped by giving the teenager a heavier, larger vehicle though? (Arguably the larger/heavier vehicle would have caused more of a problem in all listed.)
No argument there! My point is that a heavy emphasis on driving safely often feels like a Sisyphean task. Not that we should throw up our hands in despair and stop trying, but we should recognize that hormones and adrenaline can cause lapses in both memory and judgment :)
Maybe a few days on a racetrack would be a helpful addition to a driver's ed curriculum, so that student drivers can find out how terrifying it is to lose control when they drive recklessly, with less risk of serious injury? Or maybe require some simulator time with a shock collar that activates when they get in an accident? :P
-
Better than expecting your teen to drive recklessly and then giving them a heavier larger vehicle with which to kill others, wouldn't a heavy emphasis on the need to drive safely be more sensible?
Yes.
You can try, but teenage hormones and inexperience are pretty hard to overcome. In the last two weeks, this has happened close to me:
- Nephew who recently got his license took a corner waaay too fast, understeered into a ditch, hit a tree and flipped the car. He and his younger brother escaped bloodied and bruised, but not seriously hurt.
- Teenage girl smashed into my brother's van because she wasn't looking as she backed out of the driveway.
- Teenage kid a few blocks from my coworker took is BMW down a 45mph road at 80-ish, lost control, took out two telephone poles, and was killed.
Yeah, yeah, coincidence, statistics, yada yada yada, but hopefully it serves as a wakeup call to my 15-year-old kid who's learning to drive (and my 14-y-o who wishes she could).
I'm not arguing that teenagers do stupid stuff. But which of these events you listed would have been helped by giving the teenager a heavier, larger vehicle though? (Arguably the larger/heavier vehicle would have caused more of a problem in all listed.)
I get so frustrated by parents who want their teenagers to drive big heavy vehicles "for their protection".
My response is often - "you do realize heavier vehicles take longer to stop, are harder to turn, more difficult to park, have larger blind spots and are more prone to rolling over, right??"
Why you would give a beginning driver a much harder-than-normal vehicle to drive and think its 'for their protection' is flawed thinking IMO.
-
I'm not sure I understand the hang up? The TDI (the vehicle being discussed) is a complex German car compared to the Ford hybrids (the other vehicles being discussed). It has expensive components like a turbocharger, direct injection and a diesel aftertreatment system that the other vehicles in the comparison lack. Something like a hybrid Fusion or CMax will likely have far lower operating costs than the TDI over it's lifetime. Did I just not provide enough context to discern that I was referring to the vehicles being compared with that statement?
As for automaker scandals, you're correct that they all have some skeletons in the closet. Some are worse than others, and some are fresher in memory than others. I don't really care to debate whether a supplier issue that killed nearly 300 people and the subsequent cover up is better or worse than systemic emissions cheating that had less severe effects on a much larger number of people. I will say that the Ford thing happened before I had my driver's license, and the VW thing is far fresher in mind.
It's a hangup because it's pretty much entirely false. A turbocharger is not expensive nor is it unique to the VW products. Almost every single car made today has direct injection including the VWs and Fords. The MK6 TDI does not have a DEF system, although it does have a DPF. None of these things are expensive if, as this forum tends to do, you DIY everything. It's pretty clear you have a fundamental misunderstanding of vehicle architecture by your statements.
I used to have a 1.0T Fiesta that got the same fuel economy as the TDI and was thus cheaper because of lower fuel cost (although they are within 0.15/gal at the work pumps). However, those engines were developing a reputation for cooling issues and thus blown head gaskets after 100k miles. Additionally, they also have a timing belt for which you cannot buy any service parts for outside of a dealership here in the US. Nor would I trust a dealer tech to replace one on a powertrain they have zero experience with. There is not a single doubt in my mind that long term cost of ownership will be far lower on the VW.
I'm not against hybrids or EVs. I hope my TDI is the last ICE powered vehicle that I purchase. However, there is not a single hybrid/EV on the market available used or new under 10k that wouldn't make me want to blow my brains out the moment I hopped in it. And the same goes for the gas alternatives. The cars that do get 40+mpg just either aren't something I could drive everyday are just too new and expensive.
-
I'm not sure I understand the hang up? The TDI (the vehicle being discussed) is a complex German car compared to the Ford hybrids (the other vehicles being discussed). It has expensive components like a turbocharger, direct injection and a diesel aftertreatment system that the other vehicles in the comparison lack. Something like a hybrid Fusion or CMax will likely have far lower operating costs than the TDI over it's lifetime. Did I just not provide enough context to discern that I was referring to the vehicles being compared with that statement?
As for automaker scandals, you're correct that they all have some skeletons in the closet. Some are worse than others, and some are fresher in memory than others. I don't really care to debate whether a supplier issue that killed nearly 300 people and the subsequent cover up is better or worse than systemic emissions cheating that had less severe effects on a much larger number of people. I will say that the Ford thing happened before I had my driver's license, and the VW thing is far fresher in mind.
It's a hangup because it's pretty much entirely false. A turbocharger is not expensive nor is it unique to the VW products. Almost every single car made today has direct injection including the VWs and Fords. The MK6 TDI does not have a DEF system, although it does have a DPF. None of these things are expensive if, as this forum tends to do, you DIY everything. It's pretty clear you have a fundamental misunderstanding of vehicle architecture by your statements.
I used to have a 1.0T Fiesta that got the same fuel economy as the TDI and was thus cheaper because of lower fuel cost. However, those engines were developing a reputation for cooling issues and thus blown head gaskets after 100k miles. Additionally, they also have a timing belt for which you cannot buy any service parts for outside of a dealership here in the US. Nor would I trust a dealer tech to replace one on a powertrain they have zero experience with. There is not a single doubt in my mind that long term cost of ownership will be far lower on the VW.
I'm not against hybrids or EVs. I hope my TDI is the last ICE powered vehicle that I purchase. However, there is not a single hybrid/EV on the market available used or new under 10k that wouldn't make me want to blow my brains out the moment I hopped in it. And the same goes for the gas alternatives. The cars that do get 40+mpg just either aren't something I could drive everyday are just too new and expensive.
Modern diesel engines pay a very large part of the bills around my house, so I understand them pretty well. I understand the Ford hybrids pretty well as I own one. I'm not as uneducated and uninformed as you presume.
Is having a turbo charger more or less expensive than not having one at all? Is servicing a DPF (and eventually replacing one) more or less expensive than not having one at all? How does replacing direct injection fuel injectors in a gasoline or diesel engine compare to the cost of replacing port injectors? My point was that those parts (while certainly becoming more and more common) cost money to maintain that you wouldn't have to spend if you had a basic hybrid. That's true if you're DIYing it and especially true if you'd be paying to have the work done. The Ford hybrids (and Toyotas too) are port injected, naturally aspirated engines that run on atkinson cycle. They have timing chains rather than belts that will need replacement. They run on widely available, cheap, regular unleaded fuel. The CVT transmissions are incredibly reliable as they're basically just two electric motors and a planetary gear set. There's no reality where a TDI is cheaper or less complex from a maintenance standpoint than a traditional hybrid in the Toyota/Ford mold. There are very good reasons why Ford and Toyota hybrids are used in large scale taxi fleets and TDIs aren't. When cost per mile matters most, the simplicity and reliability of the regular hybrids is difficult to even approach with something like a TDI.
If you want to own a TDI because you find the driving experience preferable compared to a hybrid, that's completely ok. It's good to have choice. But I really don't see how you can argue that it's not more complex and expensive. If you're happy with your choice, and understand that you're likely to pay more for the privilege that's fine with me. I'm not trying to make you feel too bad about your car. I just wanted to point out to other forum readers that there are options besides a TDI for those looking for fuel efficient vehicles in that price range, and they'll likely have lower running costs.
-
Companies use hybrids for taxis because that's the perfect use case for a hybrid. I would never assert that a diesel is the right tool for that job, and if anything it's a pretty damn terrible tool for that job.
If you 1. think it's likely for a TDI turbo or injectors etc to fail (it's not common) and 2. aren't willing to grab an used set of either for under $100 then maybe it will be more expensive long term. A replacement DPF will cost far less than a new battery pack. To think that a timing chain will not need a replacement over a long time period is a fallacy as well. All chains stretch, they just don't fail at the same mileage rates as a belt. And if you manage to break a manual trans in any reasonable use I will be quite impressed.
I never contended that it was the only choice. But for something in the same price range as a Fit, in the same form factor, and similar size, I'm not aware of a better option. And if you are like me and put 25k/year on the car the long term cost will 100% be less than that of a hybrid once you factor in vendors like FCP with lifetime warranties on everything they sell. It basically eliminates all of the increased regular maintenance costs that a diesel would normally have. And in the mean time I don't feel like I'm driving around in a mobile Walmart. YMMV
-
So now you have to find used fuel injectors and/or turbochargers for cheap, or depend on an aftermarket company to honor a free replacement warranty in order to make it financially comparable? The goalposts seem to keep moving here. Even if you're relying on free parts for life thanks to a generous warranty, you're still having to take your time and do those jobs which occur more frequently than they would with a hybrid. I'm very supportive of DIY efforts to save some money, but not having to do the jobs at all is far superior in my opinion. That's where the TDI loses out. Working on your daily driver so you can get to work the next day sucks (ask me how I know). I just want my daily driver to work with as little interruption and maintenance as possible. That's what hybrids do really well. Even if they're boring.
I'm not suggesting that a timing chain won't eventually need replacement, but by the time it does, you'll probably have done 2-4 timing belts. I'm not suggesting that a turbo charger can't last 300k miles without an issue, but you can't have any issues with a component that's not present either. And if a turbo has problems, it's usually tough to keep the damage contained to only the turbo which is when costs really go up. Same sort of thing with fuel injectors. They'll eventually go bad, but it's a lot cheaper and typically easier to replace port injectors than direct injectors (assuming parts are of the same condition and you're not comparing new port injectors with used direct injectors).
Plenty of hybrids out there with 300-400k miles on their original battery packs. If you want to shift the discussion by using used parts, a used battery pack replacement can be installed by a shop for under $1k in some cases:
https://www.torquenews.com/1083/can-toyota-prius-battery-last-250000-miles
And if we're going to talk about DIY-ing every repair to save a buck, you can usually replace a handful of bad cells (for $25/piece) instead of the entire battery pack. There are tons of youtube videos to walk a handy person through it:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2014/04/09/replacing-a-dead-prius-hybrid-battery-doesnt-have-to-cost-thousands-of-dollars/#690fd4be3ee9
You're clearly comfortable with a TDI and you're willing to do the work and spend any extra $$ in order to justify it because you prefer the driving experience. Good on you. It's not a bad choice. Many people wouldn't have that persistence or willingness to do those things, and a hybrid is probably a better choice for that majority. I'm not saying that you can't take steps to make TDI ownership cheaper, I'm just saying that it's not likely the cheapest/easiest option available. To compare it to another common topic around here: Paying off your mortgage early isn't necessarily a bad financial choice, but it's probably not the optimal choice either if your goal is to have the largest stache possible. That mortgage free security comes with a cost. TDI ownership falls into the same category for me. Can you do worse? Absolutely. Is it the best? Probably not if keeping total cost of ownership to a minimum is the primary transportation goal as it is for most MMMers. The benefit of driving enjoyment comes with the cost of increased maintenance and repair costs.
-
For the amount of miles many of us drive, the cheapest option is often just a smaller used gas-powered ICE vehicle.
Hybrids are great but cost more upfront even used, and yeah some of the parts on a modern turbodiesel are expensive.
Even an early third generation Prius here is still over $10,000. If a Corolla is $3000 cheaper used than an equivalent Prius, then $3000 buys a lot of fuel.
-
For the amount of miles many of us drive, the cheapest option is often just a smaller used gas-powered ICE vehicle.
Hybrids are great but cost more upfront even used, and yeah some of the parts on a modern turbodiesel are expensive.
Even an early third generation Prius here is still over $10,000. If a Corolla is $3000 cheaper used than an equivalent Prius, then $3000 buys a lot of fuel.
I think this is a really important point. Mileage / year matters a lot when determining if hybrids make sense for you.
-
FCP has been around for a long time with that warranty and it was part of my original statement. They make most of their money off people paying a bit more for the warranty only to sell the car 1-2 years in. No goalposts have been moved. Two timing belt replacements at ~$300 total gets that motor to 390k miles so I'm not sure why you think thats some big cost. And I want no part of anything runnjng an original chain at that mileage. If I want used parts I just open up Facebook marketplace and throw a rock. I'd have to try not to hit 3 complete engines all listed for $300 or less. Individual parts are a cakewalk.
Anyway, once again the point is that it is something worth considering and way cheaper than you are giving it credit for. It is not the only option.
-
We have an ‘07 Fit with 105,000 on it that I use to get around town and haul stuff. I love that car. We’ve thrown some money at it for non-routine stuff (broken axle, oxygen sensor) and it’s got some superficial rust. We just carry liability on it and the tags for it are so cheap in my state. I’m not ready to replace it, but really wanted to replace it with another Fit. Now I’m going to have to think about it.
-
We have an ‘07 Fit with 105,000 on it that I use to get around town and haul stuff. I love that car. We’ve thrown some money at it for non-routine stuff (broken axle, oxygen sensor) and it’s got some superficial rust. We just carry liability on it and the tags for it are so cheap in my state. I’m not ready to replace it, but really wanted to replace it with another Fit. Now I’m going to have to think about it.
If you love the car so much, what makes you hesitant to replace it with a 2018-2020 Fit in a few years?
-
You know what I love about the fit (I have a 2008 model now) that the seats fold down flat and even the front seat can fold onto the back so I can haul furniture and 8 ft lumber in there. Are there any other compact cars that have the same seat folding arrangement?
-
We have an ‘07 Fit with 105,000 on it that I use to get around town and haul stuff. I love that car. We’ve thrown some money at it for non-routine stuff (broken axle, oxygen sensor) and it’s got some superficial rust. We just carry liability on it and the tags for it are so cheap in my state. I’m not ready to replace it, but really wanted to replace it with another Fit. Now I’m going to have to think about it.
If you love the car so much, what makes you hesitant to replace it with a 2018-2020 Fit in a few years?
Just hoping there will be a plentiful supply of used models.
-
You know what I love about the fit (I have a 2008 model now) that the seats fold down flat and even the front seat can fold onto the back so I can haul furniture and 8 ft lumber in there. Are there any other compact cars that have the same seat folding arrangement?
I know! That little beast hauls everything! And I just think it’s a zippy little car for doing grocery runs. The magic seats are, well, magic!!
-
We have an ‘07 Fit with 105,000 on it that I use to get around town and haul stuff. I love that car. We’ve thrown some money at it for non-routine stuff (broken axle, oxygen sensor) and it’s got some superficial rust. We just carry liability on it and the tags for it are so cheap in my state. I’m not ready to replace it, but really wanted to replace it with another Fit. Now I’m going to have to think about it.
If you love the car so much, what makes you hesitant to replace it with a 2018-2020 Fit in a few years?
Just hoping there will be a plentiful supply of used models.
Model years 2010-2016 each sold >50,000 vehicles. There’s over 400k on the roads of model year 2010 or newer. There should be quite a few used models available for the next several years.
-
You know what I love about the fit (I have a 2008 model now) that the seats fold down flat and even the front seat can fold onto the back so I can haul furniture and 8 ft lumber in there. Are there any other compact cars that have the same seat folding arrangement?
Agree. I can't believe the flatness!
I came back here to resurrect this thread since today I took delivery of a new 2020 Fit Sport. Yeah, it's new. BFD. I could not find one I liked used, they all smelled like grandpa and were overpriced to boot. So I bought a new one from a friend that works for the local Honda dealership.
Impressions: Car and Driver is wrong. This car is a blast to drive.
Fuel economy: Super nice! I was playing with the instantaneous econ readout and the green econ button and was getting 40 mpg on the way home from the dealer. My 2019 Civic Si would get the same on looong drives, so I know I have a winner.
Handling: not a Civic, but it handles great. there is a flat spot in the acceleration, but I can live with it. (no manuals were available, so I went with the sucky CVT.) I would have preferred a manual.
Interior: supportive seats, great visibility. Tons of headroom. Dash is super easy to navigate. Carplay is an added bonus.
Negatives: low on legroom. needs floormats.
Pluses: takes regular gas and inexpensive oil. And I got rid of the truck.
-
Another subcompact bites the dust, Hyundai is no longer producing the Accent. They make 8 SUV models now though.
-
Another subcompact bites the dust, Hyundai is no longer producing the Accent. They make 8 SUV models now though.
That's called a subcompact in the US? I wonder what really small cars are called then, handbags? ;)
My car is smaller, and bigger than I need to get from A to B with several persons. But those cars don't make a lot of profit...
-
Another subcompact bites the dust, Hyundai is no longer producing the Accent. They make 8 SUV models now though.
That's called a subcompact in the US? I wonder what really small cars are called then, handbags? ;)
My car is smaller, and bigger than I need to get from A to B with several persons. But those cars don't make a lot of profit...
The next size down is classified as "minicompact" per the EPA (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#sizeclasses). Probably equivalent to A-segment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-segment) in Europe. Not many of these are available in the US though. Smart cars stopped sales a few years ago. Fiat 500 was also pulled out of the market (though apparently the 500e is coming back soon). Looks like the Mitsubishi Mirage, Mini Cooper, and Chevy Spark are still selling (https://carsalesbase.com/us-minicars-2022-q3/).
-
You know what I love about the fit (I have a 2008 model now) that the seats fold down flat and even the front seat can fold onto the back so I can haul furniture and 8 ft lumber in there. Are there any other compact cars that have the same seat folding arrangement?
Agree. I can't believe the flatness!
I came back here to resurrect this thread since today I took delivery of a new 2020 Fit Sport. Yeah, it's new. BFD. I could not find one I liked used, they all smelled like grandpa and were overpriced to boot. So I bought a new one from a friend that works for the local Honda dealership.
Impressions: Car and Driver is wrong. This car is a blast to drive.
Fuel economy: Super nice! I was playing with the instantaneous econ readout and the green econ button and was getting 40 mpg on the way home from the dealer. My 2019 Civic Si would get the same on looong drives, so I know I have a winner.
Handling: not a Civic, but it handles great. there is a flat spot in the acceleration, but I can live with it. (no manuals were available, so I went with the sucky CVT.) I would have preferred a manual.
Interior: supportive seats, great visibility. Tons of headroom. Dash is super easy to navigate. Carplay is an added bonus.
Negatives: low on legroom. needs floormats.
Pluses: takes regular gas and inexpensive oil. And I got rid of the truck.
In 2012 when I suddenly and unexpectedly needed to replace a car, the Fit was one of the ones I was considering. I ended up going with a Scion xB instead - another great discontinued smaller car that's fun to drive. I just recently went over 90K miles on it, and plan to have it for another decade at least.
I've got a friend who drives a Fit and loves it and wishes they were still being made so they could buy a new one.
-
Thats a coincidence.
I was dating a woman who had a Honda Fit ... Honda Jazz in Europe.
She told me early on, she was a frugaloop.
It was an instant attraction.
Turns out she was tighter than a gnat's ass.
It became very competitive.. every spending decision was a "frugal-off".
-
Turns out she was tighter than a gnat's ass.
*Don't make a sex joke and get banned, don't make a sex joke and get banned, don't make a sex joke and get banned*
-
Turns out she was tighter than a gnat's ass.
*Don't make a sex joke and get banned, don't make a sex joke and get banned, don't make a sex joke and get banned*
Did somebody start a conversation about sex based on a well-worn frugality metaphor?
-
By tight, I mean either of the following definitions...
careful with money
careful about how you spend money so that you do not waste any
not costing or spending much money
spending very little money and only on things that are really necessary
spending money only when it is necessary
not willing to spend money. The usual American word is cheap
someone who is tight likes to avoid spending money
-
Double entendres are the best entendres. :P
-
Double entendres are the best entendres. :P
How many entendres fit in a gnat’s ass?
Oh, and I really enjoy sending this picture out when people complain about expensive gas prices-
-
38.3 mpg ave fuel economy isn’t that great these days.
-
38.3 mpg ave fuel economy isn’t that great these days.
I live in traffic jammed Houston, land of the single digit mpg.
-
38.3 mpg ave fuel economy isn’t that great these days.
What is great MPG these days?
I've been averaging 35-45 mpg in our Pruis and cold ass weather.
Consumer Reports records the new Prius gets same or worse MPG than the previous gen, but it looks better : /
For cold weather, not much progress. A 50% drop in MPGe isn't good, and no real progress on Hybrid/ICE.
-
For combined ratings, the best EVs today are in the 120-140 MPGe range. Best hybrids are 50-59 mpg (only slightly better than the Honda Insight of two decades ago). Per fueleconomy.gov (EPA). Actual economy of course varies based on environment and driving style.
-
38.3 mpg ave fuel economy isn’t that great these days.
I live in traffic jammed Houston, land of the single digit mpg.
I got the worst fuel economy of my life driving through urban/suburban texas last spring. The pattern was accelerating to 60 mph before coming to a complete stop at the next traffic light 1/2 mile ahead.
-
38.3 mpg ave fuel economy isn’t that great these days.
I live in traffic jammed Houston, land of the single digit mpg.
I got the worst fuel economy of my life driving through urban/suburban texas last spring. The pattern was accelerating to 60 mph before coming to a complete stop at the next traffic light 1/2 mile ahead.
I think some of it comes from this legacy - https://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/let_the_bastards_freeze_in_the_dark_drive_80_mph_and_freeze_a_yankee
Texans had other reasons (besides environmental restrictions on energy) for “freezing Yankees” in 1973-74. Federal regulations had required supplying Northeast customers with oil and natural gas at regulated prices. Also, Northeast politicians had suggested that Texans should have conserved energy during this out-of-state energy giveaway. The “Drive 80 mph and freeze a Yankee” bumper stickers were popular in Houston at this time.
-
38.3 mpg ave fuel economy isn’t that great these days.
What is great MPG these days?
I've been averaging 35-45 mpg in our Pruis and cold ass weather.
Consumer Reports records the new Prius gets same or worse MPG than the previous gen, but it looks better : /
For cold weather, not much progress. A 50% drop in MPGe isn't good, and no real progress on Hybrid/ICE.
I get pretty good mileage on my bike.
-
One's fuel costs rapidly diminish in a non-linear way as MPG goes up. The difference between 15mpg and 16mpg is much larger than the difference between 40mpg and 42mpg.
If we were logical creatures, we'd measure fuel economy not with miles per units of gasoline, but with units of gasoline per mile, or gallons/liters per X number of miles.
Cost to go 1,000 miles:
15mpg: 67g
20mpg: 50g (a 17g reduction from 15mpg!)
25mpg: 40g
30mpg: 33g
35mpg: 29g
40mpg: 25g
45mpg: 22g
50mpg: 20g
55mpg: 18g (a 2g reduction from 50mpg)
Once we get above about 40mpg, the differences get really small and the engineering sacrifices required to reach the next level of efficiency get even harder (e.g. vehicle capacity, acceleration, cost, complexity, aerodynamics versus ease of use).
It follows that the U.S. land of land yachts could cut its fuel consumption in half just by changing the types of cars we drive. Going from a 20mpg SUV/Prettytruck to a ~40mpg commuter car (like an improved version of a gasoline car like the Fit or a hybrid) should end all complaints about gas prices. Even at $10/gallon, 1,000 miles of transportation is still relatively cheap in a ~40mpg car.
-
If we were logical creatures, we'd measure fuel economy not with miles per units of gasoline, but with units of gasoline per mile, or gallons/liters per X number of miles.
This is exactly how it is done in many other countries, and a system that would be more intuitive to use. Fuel ratings are typically expressed in how many liters of fuel it takes to drive 100km in Canada. Lower is better. Since we think of trips in distance (“it’s about 200km to grandmas”) it’s easy to estimate how many liters of fuel it will take.
We could express our estimated fuel economy in gallons per 100 miles, but we rarely do.
-
Gallons per 100 miles is so much superior to MPG for intuitively showing fuel consumption differences.
-
It follows that the U.S. land of land yachts could cut its fuel consumption in half just by changing the types of cars we drive. Going from a 20mpg SUV/Prettytruck to a ~40mpg commuter car (like an improved version of a gasoline car like the Fit or a hybrid) should end all complaints about gas prices. Even at $10/gallon, 1,000 miles of transportation is still relatively cheap in a ~40mpg car.
My 10 year old car takes ~6 liter per 100km, which is 39mpg. And that is cheap, old technology, not something super expensive.
But you can't roll coal.
-
It follows that the U.S. land of land yachts could cut its fuel consumption in half just by changing the types of cars we drive. Going from a 20mpg SUV/Prettytruck to a ~40mpg commuter car (like an improved version of a gasoline car like the Fit or a hybrid) should end all complaints about gas prices. Even at $10/gallon, 1,000 miles of transportation is still relatively cheap in a ~40mpg car.
My 10 year old car takes ~6 liter per 100km, which is 39mpg. And that is cheap, old technology, not something super expensive.
But you can't roll coal.
The US version of the Fit / Jazz uses (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42396) about 33mpg or 7L per 100km. However, the Australian version is said (https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/honda-jazz-2019-review-119802/) to burn 6.1L/100k and owners of pre-hybrid UK versions report 51mpg or 4.6L/100k.
It is typical for cars to have a bigger engine, more tuned for acceleration in the US market. There is a mindset in the US that the only reason a person would want a small car is if they want something sporty to drive, whereas people elsewhere seem to have more common sense.
However there might be something wrong with this math because all the non-hybrid Fits/Jazzes I compared have a 1.5L gasoline engine. How could the UK Fit/Jazz with the same engine be de-tuned to the extent it got over 30% better fuel economy?
-
It follows that the U.S. land of land yachts could cut its fuel consumption in half just by changing the types of cars we drive. Going from a 20mpg SUV/Prettytruck to a ~40mpg commuter car (like an improved version of a gasoline car like the Fit or a hybrid) should end all complaints about gas prices. Even at $10/gallon, 1,000 miles of transportation is still relatively cheap in a ~40mpg car.
My 10 year old car takes ~6 liter per 100km, which is 39mpg. And that is cheap, old technology, not something super expensive.
But you can't roll coal.
The US version of the Fit / Jazz uses (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42396) about 33mpg or 7L per 100km. However, the Australian version is said (https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/honda-jazz-2019-review-119802/) to burn 6.1L/100k and owners of pre-hybrid UK versions report 51mpg or 4.6L/100k.
It is typical for cars to have a bigger engine, more tuned for acceleration in the US market. There is a mindset in the US that the only reason a person would want a small car is if they want something sporty to drive, whereas people elsewhere seem to have more common sense.
However there might be something wrong with this math because all the non-hybrid Fits/Jazzes I compared have a 1.5L gasoline engine. How could the UK Fit/Jazz with the same engine be de-tuned to the extent it got over 30% better fuel economy?
UK gallons are bigger than US gallons by 20%. The rest of the difference is probably different testing methodology.
-
It follows that the U.S. land of land yachts could cut its fuel consumption in half just by changing the types of cars we drive. Going from a 20mpg SUV/Prettytruck to a ~40mpg commuter car (like an improved version of a gasoline car like the Fit or a hybrid) should end all complaints about gas prices. Even at $10/gallon, 1,000 miles of transportation is still relatively cheap in a ~40mpg car.
My 10 year old car takes ~6 liter per 100km, which is 39mpg. And that is cheap, old technology, not something super expensive.
But you can't roll coal.
The US version of the Fit / Jazz uses (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42396) about 33mpg or 7L per 100km. However, the Australian version is said (https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/honda-jazz-2019-review-119802/) to burn 6.1L/100k and owners of pre-hybrid UK versions report 51mpg or 4.6L/100k.
It is typical for cars to have a bigger engine, more tuned for acceleration in the US market. There is a mindset in the US that the only reason a person would want a small car is if they want something sporty to drive, whereas people elsewhere seem to have more common sense.
However there might be something wrong with this math because all the non-hybrid Fits/Jazzes I compared have a 1.5L gasoline engine. How could the UK Fit/Jazz with the same engine be de-tuned to the extent it got over 30% better fuel economy?
UK gallons are bigger than US gallons by 20%. The rest of the difference is probably different testing methodology.
Jesus Christ, this information makes me want to go all-metric ASAP.
-
Metric is truly superior in every way... Not idea what it would take for things to change in the USA now with the "culture wars".
-
Metric is truly superior in every way... Not idea what it would take for things to change in the USA now with the "culture wars".
Technically, you could argue that the US measurements are based on the metric system - admittedly the worst implementation I have ever heard of - but US Customary units were officially defined in metric terms in 1893.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendenhall_Order
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Conversion_Act
-
Interesting!
-
Metric is truly superior in every way... Not idea what it would take for things to change in the USA now with the "culture wars".
I’m a scientist and I’m all in for the metric system and agree we ought to be using it. But there is one advantage (now largely obsolete) with the imperial system and that is that it’s designed to easily be divisible without an accurate scale. Us humans are pretty darn good at being able to divide something pretty equally in half with just our eyes and hands. You can take a gallon jug of milk and divide it into two half gallons and then that into four quarts and then those into eight pii I nuts and chances are you will be very close to the real value. But it’s very hard to accurately divide a liter into 10x 100ml, or a kg into 100g segments with a scale of measuring cups (which now everyone has and ate dirt cheap to buy). But a baker can tell you how easy it is to divide dough into eight equal parts but it’s very difficult to divide by 10 by eye.
Anyway, just an historic perspective.
-
Metric is truly superior in every way... Not idea what it would take for things to change in the USA now with the "culture wars".
I've had to do projects in both. Metric units seem to always be too big or too small, i.e. a foot and an inch are much more useful sizes than a meter, centimeter, and millimeter (even more so for square and cubic feet vs. meter equivalents). Psi are a more useful size than bar or kilopascal. For whatever reason, a pound just seems right compared to a kilogram, ounces are better than grams... But metric units are much easier to actually use (10m H2O ~ 1 bar, 1000kg=1metric ton, etc), that's for sure. People would lose their minds if we had to use Celsius for the weather, even though 0 and 100 are pretty straightforward.
-
Metric is truly superior in every way... Not idea what it would take for things to change in the USA now with the "culture wars".
I've had to do projects in both. Metric units seem to always be too big or too small, i.e. a foot and an inch are much more useful sizes than a meter, centimeter, and millimeter (even more so for square and cubic feet vs. meter equivalents). Psi are a more useful size than bar or kilopascal. For whatever reason, a pound just seems right compared to a kilogram, ounces are better than grams... But metric units are much easier to actually use (10m H2O ~ 1 bar, 1000kg=1metric ton, etc), that's for sure. People would lose their minds if we had to use Celsius for the weather, even though 0 and 100 are pretty straightforward.
Clear case of confirmation bias.
I mean even for bread (the only thing that feels like pounds would be useful), it's easier to think of 1kg or 1,5 kg breads instead of 2 pound or 3 pound breads.
-
Metric is truly superior in every way... Not idea what it would take for things to change in the USA now with the "culture wars".
I've had to do projects in both. Metric units seem to always be too big or too small, i.e. a foot and an inch are much more useful sizes than a meter, centimeter, and millimeter (even more so for square and cubic feet vs. meter equivalents). Psi are a more useful size than bar or kilopascal. For whatever reason, a pound just seems right compared to a kilogram, ounces are better than grams... But metric units are much easier to actually use (10m H2O ~ 1 bar, 1000kg=1metric ton, etc), that's for sure. People would lose their minds if we had to use Celsius for the weather, even though 0 and 100 are pretty straightforward.
Clear case of confirmation bias.
I mean even for bread (the only thing that feels like pounds would be useful), it's easier to think of 1kg or 1,5 kg breads instead of 2 pound or 3 pound breads.
Yeah, people obviously use metric and get by just fine!
I’ve also been on international projects where we carry both units, total nightmare and almost always a mistake…. It’s like they were set up to be wholly incompatible.
-
Metric is truly superior in every way... Not idea what it would take for things to change in the USA now with the "culture wars".
I've had to do projects in both. Metric units seem to always be too big or too small, i.e. a foot and an inch are much more useful sizes than a meter, centimeter, and millimeter (even more so for square and cubic feet vs. meter equivalents). Psi are a more useful size than bar or kilopascal. For whatever reason, a pound just seems right compared to a kilogram, ounces are better than grams... But metric units are much easier to actually use (10m H2O ~ 1 bar, 1000kg=1metric ton, etc), that's for sure. People would lose their minds if we had to use Celsius for the weather, even though 0 and 100 are pretty straightforward.
Clear case of confirmation bias.
I mean even for bread (the only thing that feels like pounds would be useful), it's easier to think of 1kg or 1,5 kg breads instead of 2 pound or 3 pound breads.
Yeah, people obviously use metric and get by just fine!
I’ve also been on international projects where we carry both units, total nightmare and almost always a mistake…. It’s like they were set up to be wholly incompatible.
...well, there was that time that NASA lost a $327MM Mars orbiter because the spacecraft was reporting burn times in Newton Seconds but the software back on earth was reading it as Pound-seconds, making NASA's calculations off by a factor of 4.45. The net result was we made a small, $0.3B crater on Mars.
https://everydayastronaut.com/mars-climate-orbiter/ (https://everydayastronaut.com/mars-climate-orbiter/)
-
...
...well, there was that time that NASA lost a $327MM Mars orbiter because the spacecraft was reporting burn times in Newton Seconds but the software back on earth was reading it as Pound-seconds, making NASA's calculations off by a factor of 4.45. The net result was we made a small, $0.3B crater on Mars.
https://everydayastronaut.com/mars-climate-orbiter/ (https://everydayastronaut.com/mars-climate-orbiter/)
I'll have to file that away for future reference. We had a project where a centrifugal fan in an enclosed room was sized in acfm but purchased in am3h. The result was that the room had a strong vacuum and you couldn't open the door or run the fan for very long, which became a safety and operating hazard. Pretty embarrassing at the time (you'd think someone would have noticed the massively oversized equipment before it got to that point), delayed things and pissed people off, but not quite a NASA...
-
Clear case of confirmation bias.
I mean even for bread (the only thing that feels like pounds would be useful), it's easier to think of 1kg or 1,5 kg breads instead of 2 pound or 3 pound breads.
What an asinine line of argument. Meat is sold 400g and 500g at a time in Europe. Sometimes even 454g at a time.
So is pasta. Everyone can pull out an arbitrary example of a thing sold in exactly or nearly one unit of a measurement system.
-
European cars are another level of efficiency (and smallness) compared to US cars. I think I drove a Seat Ibiza last year while roaming around France and the internet tells me it can get about 54mpg. Granted it's only a 1L engine with 74hp and a top speed of 104 but what more do you need. I like my Honda Civic but this car would use less gas I would buy something smaller to get the gas mileage benefit. They are less expensive too, making a Prius a bit less desirable. But unfortunately I live in the land where bigger is deemed better.
-
European cars are another level of efficiency (and smallness) compared to US cars. I think I drove a Seat Ibiza last year while roaming around France and the internet tells me it can get about 54mpg. Granted it's only a 1L engine with 74hp and a top speed of 104 but what more do you need. I like my Honda Civic but this car would use less gas I would buy something smaller to get the gas mileage benefit. They are less expensive too, making a Prius a bit less desirable. But unfortunately I live in the land where bigger is deemed better.
Again, Imperial gallons are bigger than US gallons and EPA testing methodology is typically harsher than in Europe. If you look at user-reported data on Fuelly (which allows you to correct for units) the Ibiza is only slightly better than a Civic.
https://www.fuelly.com/car/seat/ibiza
https://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic
-
European cars are another level of efficiency (and smallness) compared to US cars. I think I drove a Seat Ibiza last year while roaming around France and the internet tells me it can get about 54mpg. Granted it's only a 1L engine with 74hp and a top speed of 104 but what more do you need. I like my Honda Civic but this car would use less gas I would buy something smaller to get the gas mileage benefit. They are less expensive too, making a Prius a bit less desirable. But unfortunately I live in the land where bigger is deemed better.
Again, Imperial gallons are bigger than US gallons and EPA testing methodology is typically harsher than in Europe. If you look at user-reported data on Fuelly (which allows you to correct for units) the Ibiza is only slightly better than a Civic.
https://www.fuelly.com/car/seat/ibiza
https://www.fuelly.com/car/honda/civic
And if you don't trust that, you can also just look up the Europe/UK economy numbers for the Civic for a more direct comparison. According to carbuyer.co.uk the Ibiza gets 48.7, 53.3, or 54.3 mpg and the Civic gets 56.6 mpg (UK gallons). So actually officially the Civic is more efficient than the Ibiza (at least for the most current models).
https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/seat/ibiza/mpg
https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/honda/civic/mpg
-
It follows that the U.S. land of land yachts could cut its fuel consumption in half just by changing the types of cars we drive. Going from a 20mpg SUV/Prettytruck to a ~40mpg commuter car (like an improved version of a gasoline car like the Fit or a hybrid) should end all complaints about gas prices. Even at $10/gallon, 1,000 miles of transportation is still relatively cheap in a ~40mpg car.
My 10 year old car takes ~6 liter per 100km, which is 39mpg. And that is cheap, old technology, not something super expensive.
But you can't roll coal.
The US version of the Fit / Jazz uses (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42396) about 33mpg or 7L per 100km. However, the Australian version is said (https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/honda-jazz-2019-review-119802/) to burn 6.1L/100k and owners of pre-hybrid UK versions report 51mpg or 4.6L/100k.
It is typical for cars to have a bigger engine, more tuned for acceleration in the US market. There is a mindset in the US that the only reason a person would want a small car is if they want something sporty to drive, whereas people elsewhere seem to have more common sense.
However there might be something wrong with this math because all the non-hybrid Fits/Jazzes I compared have a 1.5L gasoline engine. How could the UK Fit/Jazz with the same engine be de-tuned to the extent it got over 30% better fuel economy?
UK gallons are bigger than US gallons by 20%. The rest of the difference is probably different testing methodology.
Jesus Christ, this information makes me want to go all-metric ASAP.
If you really want to be annoyed @ChpBstrd -consider “how many gallons are in a barrel?” Both a gallon and a barrel are official units of measurement in several industries. A barrel of crude oil is 42 US gallons or almost 35 imperial gallons. But if it’s a barrel of beer it’s 31 US gallons or about 26 imperial. Most US distilleries use 53 gallon barrels for whiskey and bourbon, but wine can range considerably between 30 and 60 gallons. And if you order a barrel of almost any refined oil, lubricant or solvent it will be 55 US gallons (about 48 imperial).
-
It follows that the U.S. land of land yachts could cut its fuel consumption in half just by changing the types of cars we drive. Going from a 20mpg SUV/Prettytruck to a ~40mpg commuter car (like an improved version of a gasoline car like the Fit or a hybrid) should end all complaints about gas prices. Even at $10/gallon, 1,000 miles of transportation is still relatively cheap in a ~40mpg car.
My 10 year old car takes ~6 liter per 100km, which is 39mpg. And that is cheap, old technology, not something super expensive.
But you can't roll coal.
The US version of the Fit / Jazz uses (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42396) about 33mpg or 7L per 100km. However, the Australian version is said (https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/details/honda-jazz-2019-review-119802/) to burn 6.1L/100k and owners of pre-hybrid UK versions report 51mpg or 4.6L/100k.
It is typical for cars to have a bigger engine, more tuned for acceleration in the US market. There is a mindset in the US that the only reason a person would want a small car is if they want something sporty to drive, whereas people elsewhere seem to have more common sense.
However there might be something wrong with this math because all the non-hybrid Fits/Jazzes I compared have a 1.5L gasoline engine. How could the UK Fit/Jazz with the same engine be de-tuned to the extent it got over 30% better fuel economy?
UK gallons are bigger than US gallons by 20%. The rest of the difference is probably different testing methodology.
Jesus Christ, this information makes me want to go all-metric ASAP.
If you really want to be annoyed @ChpBstrd -consider “how many gallons are in a barrel?” Both a gallon and a barrel are official units of measurement in several industries. A barrel of crude oil is 42 US gallons or almost 35 imperial gallons. But if it’s a barrel of beer it’s 31 US gallons or about 26 imperial. Most US distilleries use 53 gallon barrels for whiskey and bourbon, but wine can range considerably between 30 and 60 gallons. And if you order a barrel of almost any refined oil, lubricant or solvent it will be 55 US gallons (about 48 imperial).
Make. It. Stop.