Vehicles THEY Are Not Building
05-08-2008 | 11:22 AM
#12
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,857
Likes: 438
From: MAHT-O-MEDI
Originally Posted by Scot,May 8 2008, 01:17 PM
If we could go back to an EVO IV or the old old STI's - 300hp and 2600lbs... that was before 800 airbags and sensors, etc....
Now the Evo is a porky 3400lbs.... blaaa
Now the Evo is a porky 3400lbs.... blaaa
05-08-2008 | 11:27 AM
#14
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
From: Mid-Town Toronto
Originally Posted by vader1,May 8 2008, 11:13 AM
If I were a billionaire I would launch a car company called "Commuter" and sell sporty 1500 pound cars that basically are rolling racing safety cages with about 150 hp and air conditioning. The cars would be small two seaters made to be fun, stylish, and efficient but just to be a family's second car for running to and from work.
No bells and whisltes to keep the cost down. Basically I have just described a slightly safer version of my brothers old CRX.
No bells and whisltes to keep the cost down. Basically I have just described a slightly safer version of my brothers old CRX.
Have you every seen a Mazda AZ-1 "Autozam"? How about a Honda Beat? These are mid-engined, turbo 3 cyl., weighing in at 750 kg. Sure, they only have around 62 hp, but you would get great gas mileage and have fun doing it!
http://www.japanoid.com/cardata.php?carNo=20
05-08-2008 | 11:31 AM
#15
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,309
Likes: 0
EVO and STi are no longer even medium weights... they're fat porkies. And the MR2 could have been much better with the GTS, but still wouldn't have been anywhere near on par with the Elise. It would have been a Miata killer instead of just a poor alternative. Heck, even the Miata is getting up there... although I'm not enough of a purist to complain too much. The new bigger more luxurious Miata is worth the 400 pounds they've added over the years.
05-08-2008 | 11:49 AM
#16
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,440
Likes: 1
From: NORCAL
lightweight rwd is unrealistic. rwd is not as efficient as fwd and for most commuters, fuel ecomomy is key. a lightweight rwd car would be for enthusiasts only, and from the s2000 honda has learned those dont make money.
these days consumers demand gadgets and knicknacks. the current civic weigths 2700 dry. if that were converted to rwd, figure you would lose power from the engine and add on 200 lbs. the fuel economy would drop signicantly.
these days consumers demand gadgets and knicknacks. the current civic weigths 2700 dry. if that were converted to rwd, figure you would lose power from the engine and add on 200 lbs. the fuel economy would drop signicantly.
05-08-2008 | 12:14 PM
#17
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,243
Likes: 1
From: NA
Originally Posted by trainwreck,May 8 2008, 11:49 AM
lightweight rwd is unrealistic. rwd is not as efficient as fwd and for most commuters, fuel ecomomy is key. a lightweight rwd car would be for enthusiasts only, and from the s2000 honda has learned those dont make money.
these days consumers demand gadgets and knicknacks. the current civic weigths 2700 dry. if that were converted to rwd, figure you would lose power from the engine and add on 200 lbs. the fuel economy would drop signicantly.
these days consumers demand gadgets and knicknacks. the current civic weigths 2700 dry. if that were converted to rwd, figure you would lose power from the engine and add on 200 lbs. the fuel economy would drop signicantly.
Also, although I understand the S2000 wasn't the most profitable car for Honda, you have to think of it in terms of what it did for the brand. In my opinion, it did a great job of elevating the general opinion of Honda (a company mostly known for boring FWD cars...at least here in the states). Like I said earlier, for me, the S2000 was a gateway drug...if you will
...for falling in love with Hondas. Also, it acted as a device to bring people in to their showrooms which is never a bad thing.
05-08-2008 | 12:20 PM
#18
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,409
Likes: 0
Car makers aren't as dumb as we think. They pay millions in market research. They make mistakes but the real issue here is that we are a small market. "We" make up less than 1% of the driving population with our combination of financial resources and wants. There is no 240 because it's not cost effective. Perhaps that will change.
05-08-2008 | 12:37 PM
#19
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Originally Posted by Fuggles,May 8 2008, 01:54 PM
A Ford Ranger or Tacoma are small trucks, but not what I am talking about. Trucks, just like cars, have become heavier and larger over the years. I am talking about a truck the size of a Honda Civic. Granted, this wouldn't make a lot of sense in most US states, as a truck this small can't haul much, but I think it would make a great utilitarian alternative to an econo hatchback (Yaris , fit etc.)I'm thinking this could be really funky (maybe I'm the only one who thinks this would be neat).
