Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
VW Beetles were effectivly two seat economy cars of the 1960's. We had one and it lasted a very long time. The original Honda Civic of the 70's was another.
I expect my old motorcycle to get over 50 mpg this summer at a bit more than 55 mph.
I've often wondered if all the gas guzzling SUV's shoved down the American consumers throats
*** LIBERAL ALERT ***
We occasionally see posts like this, perversely announcing that some larger car was "shoved down the throats" of buyers. It's a dead giveaway, that the poster is trying to smear and vilify someone for something they didn't do.
When I bought the minivan I drive, no one "shoved anything down my throat". I looked at the econo-cars, and the midsized cars, and all the rest, And I decided of my own accord, that I wanted the larger van that could carry four people and four bicycles, or my son's entire Cub Scout den, or my entire family plus camping equipment, etc. And the Sienna's quiet, smooth ride was a big plus, too. And, of course, Toyota's excellent reliability record - something unaffected by the current accelerator problems.
Car companies don't build larger cars because they want to do some throat-shoving. They build them because people like me will freely pay them a lot of money for those larger cars.
Next time you hear some leftist hysteric trying to claim some company is trying to "shove their products down people's throat", check to see what "shoving" program the company has put in place. You'll invariably find there isn't one... except for the rare occasions when government is mandating things the people don't want.
People who claim a non-government company is "shoving it products" down people's throat, are simply lying, pretty much 100% of the time.
We occasionally see posts like this, perversely announcing that some larger car was "shoved down the throats" of buyers. It's a dead giveaway, that the poster is trying to smear and vilify someone for something they didn't do.
When I bought the minivan I drive, no one "shoved anything down my throat". I looked at the econo-cars, and the midsized cars, and all the rest, And I decided of my own accord, that I wanted the larger van that could carry four people and four bicycles, or my son's entire Cub Scout den, or my entire family plus camping equipment, etc. And the Sienna's quiet, smooth ride was a big plus, too. And, of course, Toyota's excellent reliability record - something unaffected by the current accelerator problems.
Car companies don't build larger cars because they want to do some throat-shoving. They build them because people like me will freely pay them a lot of money for those larger cars.
Next time you hear some leftist hysteric trying to claim some company is trying to "shove their products down people's throat", check to see what "shoving" program the company has put in place. You'll invariably find there isn't one... except for the rare occasions when government is mandating things the people don't want.
People who claim a non-government company is "shoving it products" down people's throat, are simply lying, pretty much 100% of the time.
Keep it in mind.
I just abought one of these Caddy's
It was not pushed down my throat. But she is a beauty isn't she.
16 MPG city 22 HWY. Like I said, I would rather have this and have my families safety peace of mind than to risk it to save fuel.
I do agree that we need to get off the teet of foreign oil, that is why I take public transportation every day to work. I just have the car for road trips, grocery runs, etc.
Living in Chicago, lots of people drive mini coppers and smart cars. I have no problem with that. Just don't tell me what to drive, or worse tell me I am wrong for driving the car above.
I think it would sell quite well. It would be a 2nd car for most that bought it, but for someone that commutes 50+ miles per day round trip, the fuel savings would add up quite fast.
Look at the Prius - those things couldn't be kept in stock for the first couple of years, and the mileage they got (in the real world - not on the window sticker) wasn't much better than non-hybrid tin cans. Something like this would take off like a rocket, IMO.
As for the safety issue, this isn't a family car. It's a commuter car, and it's no more dangerous than riding a motorcycle, which many people (including myself, for a number of years) use as a commuter vehicle. Personally, I think that our car safety standards should be relaxed considerably and the government should let consumers decide how safe they want their cars to be.
I think it would sell quite well. It would be a 2nd car for most that bought it, but for someone that commutes 50+ miles per day round trip, the fuel savings would add up quite fast.
Look at the Prius - those things couldn't be kept in stock for the first couple of years, and the mileage they got (in the real world - not on the window sticker) wasn't much better than non-hybrid tin cans. Something like this would take off like a rocket, IMO.
As for the safety issue, this isn't a family car. It's a commuter car, and it's no more dangerous than riding a motorcycle, which many people (including myself, for a number of years) use as a commuter vehicle. Personally, I think that our car safety standards should be relaxed considerably and the government should let consumers decide how safe they want their cars to be.
Well, if you are comparing to a motorcycle in terms of safety, other than maybe some price concerns, etc... it may be an alternative. Neither are particularly safe and being that you have driven a motorcycle, you realize that you have an entirely different outlook and approach to things when you enter traffic. So, in that simple comparison, the car may even be better as a motorcycle has some weather limitations and the like, so this again "may" be a good choice. Though for commuter who wouldn't consider a motorcycle as a choice, this offers no real choice in and how it concerns safety.
Although I think the 25k price tag combined with the limited supply will actually mean they will go for much much more which to me is a waste of cash.
We occasionally see posts like this, perversely announcing that some larger car was "shoved down the throats" of buyers. It's a dead giveaway, that the poster is trying to smear and vilify someone for something they didn't do.
When I bought the minivan I drive, no one "shoved anything down my throat". I looked at the econo-cars, and the midsized cars, and all the rest, And I decided of my own accord, that I wanted the larger van that could carry four people and four bicycles, or my son's entire Cub Scout den, or my entire family plus camping equipment, etc. And the Sienna's quiet, smooth ride was a big plus, too. And, of course, Toyota's excellent reliability record - something unaffected by the current accelerator problems.
Car companies don't build larger cars because they want to do some throat-shoving. They build them because people like me will freely pay them a lot of money for those larger cars.
Next time you hear some leftist hysteric trying to claim some company is trying to "shove their products down people's throat", check to see what "shoving" program the company has put in place. You'll invariably find there isn't one... except for the rare occasions when government is mandating things the people don't want.
People who claim a non-government company is "shoving it products" down people's throat, are simply lying, pretty much 100% of the time.
Keep it in mind.
Why dont we have electric cars?
I know, pondering those reasons is enough to make your brain overheat (yours, not mine).
Better stick to yer gas guzzlers, you'll be nice and comfy and safe, and Exxon will thank you for your continued support.
When I bought the minivan I drive, no one "shoved anything down my throat". I looked at the econo-cars, and the midsized cars, and all the rest, And I decided of my own accord, that I wanted the larger van that could carry four people and four bicycles, or my son's entire Cub Scout den, or my entire family plus camping equipment, etc. And the Sienna's quiet, smooth ride was a big plus, too. And, of course, Toyota's excellent reliability record - something unaffected by the current accelerator problems.
This "leftist" has a Sienna as well. Our 11-year-old Previa was finally starting to show its age, and I needed to replace it with something that was good for hauling people (our carpool) or lots of stuff, or a combination of people and stuff. I also wanted to get something that got decent gas mileage, and our '04 Sienna has a lifetime average of 25mpg. Great on long trips as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swagger
Look at the Prius - those things couldn't be kept in stock for the first couple of years, and the mileage they got (in the real world - not on the window sticker) wasn't much better than non-hybrid tin cans.
I don't know about the 1st generation Prius, but our 2nd generation (2006) Prius has a lifetime average of 47mpg.
I think the true value of something like the VW one-seater is to develop and to prove in the real world that a particular design and/or combination of materials and/or new technologies actually work. Personally I don't see a one-seater being a big seller in this country, but I applaud VW for developing this, and I look forward to what this vehicle may spawn in the future.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
