Keith wrote: I'm not sure you could sell a 58 hp car anymore, even if did only weigh 1800 lbs
If the price was right, you'd sell every one you could make.
I was thinking that (the time is ripe for another group of cheap, simple imports to come along) the other day when I saw this
Good times 
I WANT A KEI CAR DAMNIT
go karts are annoying and golf carts suck. I wanna tiny stupid little fun box that I can thrash around a parking lot like a doofus. It's not fair.
z31maniac wrote:Twin_Cam wrote: Also, the original CRX could do upwards of 50 mpg on the highway if driven correctly, and all these new car makers are really stoked about their 40 mpg cars. Really, guys? A car from the late '80s can do (much) better. I understand some of the weight increase is from gubment-mandated safety crap (Tire pressure monitoring on all new cars? This is what I fund their paychecks for?), but not every car needs sat-nav and power everything standard. And further proving the point of this thread, park a '90s Subaru Outback next to a new Subaru Outback. Or a '90s Ford Taurus next to a new Ford Taurus. It's amazing these things are still classified as 'cars' and not 'tour buses.'The EPA also killed the lean-burn engine technology that Honda used in these as well, thanks to the NOx emissions, IIRC.
When the EPA mandated LEV, the lean burn went away. Around the time of OBDII.... Mid 90's. ULEV made fuel consumption even worse.
My 94 dx 4 door got 50mpg on my ME to MD trip. My 2.3L NA mustang got 35mpg normally, the turbo 2.3 I had got 28mpg or so, the 318ti automatic gets 32-35 and my 2003 protege with all the ULEV and a 5 speed struggles to get over 30mpg....
BMW is a good example of making a car "better" by making it "bigger"
two generations ago.. (90s) they would not have needed the 1 Series.. now that the 3 is the same size that the 5 used to be.. they need the smaller 1 series as entry level.
What ever happened to keeping a car the same size and making the buyer "move up" the next class car when they wanted something bigger?
mad_machine wrote: BMW is a good example of making a car "better" by making it "bigger" two generations ago.. (90s) they would not have needed the 1 Series.. now that the 3 is the same size that the 5 used to be.. they need the smaller 1 series as entry level. What ever happened to keeping a car the same size and making the buyer "move up" the next class car when they wanted something bigger?
My buddy once pointed out how each generation seemed to grow to the next size up size. Like the 3 becomes the 5, 5 becomes the 7. My friend had a 85 ish 7 series and I swear the current 3 series behomouth is about the same size.
Joey
And its almost true!
2012 328:
71.5 wide
55.9 Height
178.2 Length
108.7 W.B.
E23
71 Width
56 Height
191 Length
110 W.B.
Joey
jrw1621 wrote: It is also sad that Ford puts little to no effort into marketing the Transit Connect as a passenger vehicle. My guess is that Escapes and Edges are more profitable.
Chicken tax. It's a stupid thing where we tax imported trucks, such as the Transit.
Both Honda Accords. I am older than you think!
In reply to Javelin:
Actually, it is the reverse of the Chicken Tax. The Tax is charged on light trucks. Every Transit Connect arrives as a "passenger vehicle" complete with rear seat and side door windows. Once landed they are stripped of the rear seat and sold as trucks. Really seems odd that Ford does not market more as a passenger vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax
Javelin wrote:jrw1621 wrote: It is also sad that Ford puts little to no effort into marketing the Transit Connect as a passenger vehicle. My guess is that Escapes and Edges are more profitable.Chicken tax. It's a stupid thing where we tax imported trucks, such as the Transit.
You're wrong, but for the correct reason. Transits are imported as passenger vehicles, then turned into trucks stateside, because of the Chicken Tax. So really, it'd be cheaper to make a passenger Transit than the cargo version.
jrw1621 wrote: This very popular '80's econo car was far from luxurious. A center armrest was not offered and typically had to be sourced from the aftermarket. Same for the e30 which required going out to the aftermarket to get an armrest.
I think most people are thinking late 80's/early 90's. My firefly had a nicer interior than that turd you posted :p
Compare dashes though, new dash plastics are ATROCIOUS (look at a 2004 gmc full load vs a 2011 gmc full load).
Edit-
familytruckster wrote: My 94 dx 4 door got 50mpg on my ME to MD trip. My 2.3L NA mustang got 35mpg normally, the turbo 2.3 I had got 28mpg or so, the 318ti automatic gets 32-35 and my 2003 protege with all the ULEV and a 5 speed struggles to get over 30mpg....
Your mustang and turbo 2.3 did not, EVER, get anywhere close to that mileage. My 1995 STi could squeek out maybe 27usmpg on the highway, and it was a much better, more efficient car than a 2.3l turbo mustang/xr4ti could ever claim to be.
I wonder if it's a case of decades gone by....
What the hell is a "gmc full load"?
I posted another thread about this coincidentally, but I think the hotlink is appropriate.
Osterkraut wrote:Javelin wrote:You're wrong, but for the correct reason. Transits are imported as passenger vehicles, then turned into trucks stateside, because of the Chicken Tax. So really, it'd be cheaper to make a passenger Transit than the cargo version.jrw1621 wrote: It is also sad that Ford puts little to no effort into marketing the Transit Connect as a passenger vehicle. My guess is that Escapes and Edges are more profitable.Chicken tax. It's a stupid thing where we tax imported trucks, such as the Transit.
which is why they don't market them as passenger vehicles, they can make more profit shipping them over outfitted as passenger vehicles, pulling the interior and shipping it back to europe where they're built, to be put in another transit connect and then shipped back over here again, than they can just shipping over and selling transit connects as passenger vans.
According to WSJ, all the unused parts are scrapped rather than returned to be used again. I know, it seems crazy!!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125357990638429655.html
HiTempguy wrote: Your mustang and turbo 2.3 did not, EVER, get anywhere close to that mileage. My 1995 STi could squeek out maybe 27usmpg on the highway, and it was a much better, more efficient car than a 2.3l turbo mustang/xr4ti could ever claim to be. I wonder if it's a case of decades gone by....
Can't say that... the Subaru engines are notorious drinkers of fuel.. especially the STi's
mad_machine wrote:HiTempguy wrote: Your mustang and turbo 2.3 did not, EVER, get anywhere close to that mileage. My 1995 STi could squeek out maybe 27usmpg on the highway, and it was a much better, more efficient car than a 2.3l turbo mustang/xr4ti could ever claim to be. I wonder if it's a case of decades gone by....Can't say that... the Subaru engines are notorious drinkers of fuel.. especially the STi's
And gearing.
I do quite a bit better than 27mpg on the highway in my horrible outdated inefficient highly modified MX6 GT Turbo.
If i would fix what's throwing a check engine light and dumping fuel and timing, i could likely get around 35mpg quite easily. But i'm lazy.
No decades gone by here. I drove the car to work today.
not a fair picture.. should have had a MINI clubman and a Mini Clubman for comparison
As for efficency.. I can get 35mpg out of my 318ti too... but with it's gearing, I get better MPG at around 50 mph than I do at 65mpg
Otto Maddox wrote: What the hell is a "gmc full load"?
How could you not know that?
mad_machine wrote: not a fair picture.. should have had a MINI clubman and a Mini Clubman for comparison
Is this better?
The new Countryman should be called a MAXI. There's nothing 'mini' about it. 
In reply to HiTempguy:
Yes, yes they did. That's all highway MPG ....The NA car did average 30 though. I commuted the turbo car from Westminster, MD to Capitol Hill in DC for 2.5 days.....Same size tank as my protege and same fillup schedule.....Boy was I annoyed after dropping all that cash on a "new and efficient" car.
My buddy got around 30 mpg in his 79 2.3 stang to.
STi? AWD? drivetrain losses.... My Mustang had 3.45's gears, 79 5th gear and 225/60/15 tires.
You'll need to log in to post.
