Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
and to jeff7, that tiny little car still needs to meet federal safety regulations whether it gets 100 or 1000 mpg. what about transporting 5 people at the same time? a small 2 person car won't do it. and don't forget luggage space! Something like the Smart ForTwo (sp?) sacrifices all practicality for decent mileage, yet a 2008/2009 Jetta TDI will get 40city/60hwy (so claims VW, anyway)
A small car such as this would be intended to be a one or two person transport, and that's about it. That's what most people use their cars for - drive to work and home again, at least 5 days a week. How much luggage do you take when you drive to the office, or to work as a cashier? A lunchbox doesn't take up much space.
Most families have multiple cars now anyway. Make one of those cars a dedicated "cargo" vehicle, with enough space to go grocery shopping for a family of 10, or to bring home a few air conditioners from Lowes. To get to work though, bring your small car.
Really, what's the primary objective of a car used to get you to work? It's to transport your body from home to the place of employment, that's it. That aside, the car you're in is just tagging along for fun, sucking up fuel and your money. Why not slim it down?
Originally posted by: SampSon
OP, are you serious? Simple physics will answer your questions.
Jeff7 your professor sounds like the stereotypical pencil-neck nerd. No one that drives today wants to spend 2 minutes getting from 0-60. What would be a happy medium? 1 minute? 30 seconds? We already have vehicles that make thoes types of time with high efficiency. The reality is that no one wants to drive a scooter or a go-kart around. See people want to be comfortable, not crammed into a metal and plastic box like a sardine. Most people also need vehicles to tote around more than one person and mabey some luggage, or groceries. Ya know, the stuff that you need in daily life. I drive a compact car and most likely could not tolerate anything smaller.
That was part of his point, that of course nobody wants to spend 2 minutes getting from 0-60. That's one reason that the companies don't roll out those 150mpg cars tomorrow. Something like that would take decades of R&D, with alternate fuels or something, to get acceptable acceleration AND good mileage.
The primary reason was the first thing I said: "Because you guys keep buying low-mileage cars, year after year."
Why should the companies go where there's not enough money to justify millions upon millions of dollars of R&D? "Hey, look at this great car we spend $100M making!" *crickets* Well, that was a waste.
Instead, invest that $100M in making an H4 that has the guaranteed lowest mileage in the industry or your money back, or a car that emits 200dB when it accelerates. They'll earn back that $100M in a week.
They go where the money is, simple as that. Right now, the steady revenue streams are found in conventional cars.
You can get your hands on a smart car, go buy a fortwo. Just pray that you don't get hit by anyone else, even if they are driving a VW golf.
More efficient ICEs are not the answer. ICE's are inefficient in nature and can only be stretched so far. A different fuel source is what the goal should be.
Add all that on to the fact that gasoline is a small fraction of the typical US income, and highly efficient cars become a non-issue for most.
The problem with this sort of argument is, if safety is the absolute paramount issue, then what size car is truly acceptable? In any collision, the energy needs to be absorbed by something, to lengthen the amount of time it takes for your body to decelerate.
One solution is to drive a bigger car. But how big? Do we all get SUV's to even the playing field? Should someone then start using reinforced bumpers like those found on police cars or military vehicles, so that their vehicle is safer? Does everyone then upgrade to this, to again even the playing field?