Why Automakers Don't Sell a Car That Gets 50 MPG

Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
TrainTrac

TrainTrac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2002
Messages
6,262
Reaction score
37
Location
Mahomet, IL
This is a Newsweek article from last spring. The full article is too long to post here, so I've included an excerpt, along with a link to the full article.



Still, all the major automakers are putting their cars on a crash diet. Ford wants to drop 250 to 750 pounds in all its models by 2012. Toyota and Nissan want to cut the fat by 10 to 15 percent. But this slim-fast campaign is running into the drive for more safety features in automobiles. Back in the 1980s, the Honda CRX-HF and the Geo Metro each got more than 50mpg, but they didn't have airbags or steel beams in their doors to protect occupants in a crash. These days, cars are equipped with six air bags, steel safety cages and electronic stability control to prevent spinouts.* That makes cars much safer—but a lot fatter. "We are working in two directions," says Toyota's Reinert. "One is to make cars as safe as possible, and that generally makes them heavier. And the other is to make cars as fuel efficient as possible."
Click to expand...



*Like the CAFE standards, these safety features are gov't mandated.



Gotta love that gov't regulation of private industry!:wacko:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
and then are guys like me who would rather have a truck that gets 16 mpg then drive a metro or a honda...





I'd also prefer a tank over a smart car.
 
I'd like a smart car that would take me home if I get too tired! Oh, wait, they used to have those. They called them horses!:lol:
 
Right. Because there aren't as many gov't regulations to comply with, and those are what make such vehicle cost-prohibitive in the US.
 
When I had my Yugo, it got 47 mpg's.....wish I still had that car since I haven't seen one on the road since around '91
 
iF THEY COULD, THEY WOULD. if a car could get 50mpg, it would be a hot seller, that is what the automakers want to do after all, SELL CARS! Also, the old Metro and CRX would NOT GET rated at 50mpg by today's strict measuring standards. Probably more around 40.
 
~ 50 mpg. Suzuki Wagon R+ 1.3L Turbo Diesel. The Suzuki Swift with the same engine gets even better MPG...almost 60 MPG. It has amazing pickup for such a small engine. If I could, I would bring my Suzuki to the US when I go back.



This car may not look like much, but it has all the normal safety features of a US car, to include side airbags. I would have to change the lenses on the turn signals though, since they are clear, instead of amber. I'm not sure about the bumpers. As far as emissions, the engine won an international award for design and is one of the cleanest diesels on the road. Suzuki and Opel (European GM) have a joint venture building these vehicles for Europe. The plant is here in Poland.



[Broken External Image]:





[Broken External Image]:
 
Not a bad looking little buggy, Nelson.

Sounds like something that would sell here, especially nowadays.

I wouldn't mind driving one (as long as no one sees me! LOL)
 
Weith is only one factor in the quest for more MPG. Vehicles can be made lighter and still retain their safety cages and airbags etc. The Government want the manufacturers to come up with more innovative ideas to make the engines more efficient



Todays cars have as much or more HP than they did back in the 2960's but get nearly twice the mileage. That all came from making the engine and transmission designes that make the vehicle operate much more economically and still have plenty of HP.



They could make more parts out of aluminum but that is more costly now. If the care is too expensive then it defeats the purpose of an economy car?



...Rich
 

Latest posts

Top