I would love to buy one of the Maruti Suzuki Jimnys. It's been sold in Europe, but you can't get one in Europe anymore because its not complying with arbitrary eco-guidelines (Which somehow a G-Wagon, a Defender or a Land Cruiser are).
Prices for 50K KM Used Cars are nearly double the price of new ones.
Since also LADA isn't on the European market anymore, you can't get a small off-road capable vehicle anymore.
Okay, there are no dedicated off-road vehicles anymore, only luxury SUVs that no one can afford and no one would take off road.
I guess it is because of EU fleet-wide CO2 averages. From next year on fleets must be below 93 g of CO2 per kilometer or the manufacturer is fined.
Suzuki has a very small fleet without any real low-emission cars, thus struggles to get below this new average. Combine this with the EU Jimny's four-cyclinder 1.5 l engine terrible gas mileage and it is easy to see why Suzuki is pulling this car (and many others) from the EU market.
That's why critics say that the fleet-wide CO2 average regulation favors manufacturer with large fleets. Since actual sales number do not factor into the equation low or no emission vehicles average out the wasteful SUVs and other big cars on a fleet average on paper only.
I'm not completely against fleet-wide averages, but I would like to see a competition. The fleet with the lowest average CO2 emission per kg sets the lower bound for a given year and all others are fined. This would cause a very fast scramble (just to catch up with Tesla, Jaguar, and Honda) and level the playing field for smaller manufacturers.
It was emissions [0]. In fact, it's still being sold as a "Light Commercial Vehicle", having less strict emissions needs, under the names Jimny Pro (at least on Spain), Jimny Mata (Italy, starting to sell in the end of this month IIRC) or Jimny Horizon (Germany).
The electric model seems to be confirmed for the future, and there are rumors of a hybrid model.
Join us in the chorus to get rid of fleet-averages ;)
The crux, however, is that nobody is allowing or disallowing anything. Suzuki has made the choice to withdraw the Jimny in light of the fines, while Mercedes-Benz made the choice to keep the G600 available despite the fines.
Consider, Mercedes-Benz has many cars, esp. Smarts and EVs, in their fleet that significantly lower the fleet average to around 110 g CO2/km. Suzuki, with a small portfolio of ICE cars, in comparison, hovers somewhere 115 g CO2/km (all from the link above). MB is a higher-margin shop, its cars, esp. the G600, are much more expensive then Suzuki's, so MB opts to shoulder the (lower) fine, while Suzuki does not.
I can't really blame Suzuki on this and I'm looking forward to the Toyota-Suzuki co-op on EVs.
But only in the sense that manufacturers are pooled together to reach a certain volume and very small manufacturers are basically excluded from the regulation.
> I'm not completely against fleet-wide averages, but I would like to see a competition.
They seem absurdly silly. Just put a tax for each car of $$$ per g of CO2 per km. Then you're properly targetting the thing you care about rather than a lossy proxy. Or even better, increase tax on fossil fuels!
I think the idea is that car manufacturers are motivated to internally subsidize low emission car development and sales, so that they can sell high margin high emission cars, making the latter even more expensive. Double win?
I just want to interject that "50K KM" was fun to parse out. I like the way two conventions collided here. 50Mm would have been correct, but confusing.50MM more so.
I sometimes see kk on the interwebs when writing the full numbers doesn't make sense ie too many zeroes or to avoid the accidental confusion between k and M.
Eco guidelines apply to manufacturer's fleet sales as a whole, meaning a larger manufacturer which makes EVs and eco friendly ICE variants has the "budget" to offer models that are not eco friendly, such as your examples. Suzuki doesn't have offers on the market that would offset the Jimny's pollution so they can't sell it anymore.
Jimny is in a completely different league than Panda 4x4, not even remotely close. Ladder-frame chassis, no center differential, beam axles, double-range gearbox — none of that typically applies to SUVs (especially cheap ones)
With modern horsepower levels, modern transmissions and modern stiff body/chassis that stuff doesn't matter nearly as much these days as it did 30yr ago.
A modern crossover with ~200-300hp and whatever stupid low first gear they gave it in it's 8-10spd transmission typically has the same 0mph torque as whatever 90s meme-mobile the fanboys are all drooling over at any given minute. Modern unibody chassis are rigid enough ladder frame doesn't really matter. Suspensions mostly get mounted to thicker subframes anyway. Modern clutched center diffs are typically capable of transmitting more power and torque than you have traction to make use of (even with real tires and sometimes chains, trust me I've tried).
The biggest hurdle is that any given model may or may not be neutered in software. Unless the particular vehicle in question has some mode you can put it in to tell it that a little tire spin is fine all the electronic nannies are gonna flip the F out because what works well in sloppy off road conditions is pretty much the exact opposite of what's ideal for preventing some Karen who's got her Gingerbread (gotta pick a winter seasonal flavor for this comparison) latte in one hand and the steering wheel in another from getting ever so slightly sideways in the snow dusted parking lot. This has the hilarious side effect of resulting in "off road" and "sporty rally car" trim AWD subcompact SUVs and small cars running circles around the "soccer mom trim" versions of "proper" SUVs (in real situations, not sand on the beach or parking in a muddy field stuff) because while the latter has a more impressive hardware stack it's software stack won't let it actually use it.
Since we're on safety ratings; the Duster gets a 3/5 from Euro NCAP.
Many of Dacia's newer models get 1/5, some 2/5, and only the Sandero gets 4/5, their highest score (in this market).
In the UK, a Duster starts at £20k for the base model , while something equivalent with a 5 star rating like a Nissan Qashqai or Kia Sportage starts at £30k.
Only Lada Largus which is based on Dacia Logan MCV. There was also Lada Xray based on Dacia Sandero, but it's not produced anymore.
Lada Niva is essentially ancient car from 1977 which changed very little since then. It's awesome cheap car with extreme offroad capabilities, -1 star safety and poor reliability. Interesting and unique combination of properties in modern world.
There's also Lada Niva Travel which was developed in 1998 with a bit different market orientation.
Lada Vesta is most modern Lada development and it's not directly based on Renault tech. Lada Granta is a bit older Lada which is in-house development as well. Those are not 4x4, though.
I have no idea whether those cars are sold in Europe. Probably not.
Nivas (both classic/4x4/Legend niva and travel/chevrolet niva) are not based on Renault tech, they've been developed inhouse (with GM help on Travel one)
Yes, but if you look at the euroncap the low score is not for essential safety stuff, it's more because it doesn't have lane assist and other highly optional whistles and bells (in my opinion).
I mean it's not terrible if the price is a concern, even something I'd consider "simple", like a Ford Focus is £30k these days. 70% for the driver is pretty bad though, you'd want much higher safety for the seat that's going to be occupied for 100% of the car's use, and if like myself you have young children you'll want that 5* rating for their safety (even if that includes bells and whistles like lane-exit alerts etc; they can matter when they need to).
For the sake of £10k I'd take a 5* safety rated car, likely with a better finish and quality overall, over a 3*, and as much as I'd like to be understanding about budgets, there's plenty of reliable, high-quality, safe cars on the used market for much less than their new-price.
Is there any _good_ reason to buy a mediocre car new for £20k, over a £40k+ car with a few years on it for £20k? I'm asking genuinely because I don't know, I'd buy the used car every time.
> there are no dedicated off-road vehicles anymore, only luxury SUVs that no one can afford and no one would take off road.
I saw a classic Willys MB -- an original Jeep -- the other day, and it really brought home to me how far modern "SUV"s have strayed from their roots. It was shockingly small, and open, and, yes, dangerous for modern roads, but also fun-looking. It would be at home next to a tuk-tuk.
They sold for a while the "commercial vehicle version" (Jimny Pro) that removed the two seats in the back. There is a "Jimny Horizon" on a limited edition only sold in Germany and quite expensive.
Until the arrival of the rumored hybrid or electric versions, there isn't anything like that :(
I believe that the Jimny is only sold as a "commercial" vehicle now, which in most EU countries precludes you from actually buying one unless you are a company (probably being sold to farmers and etc). At least, this is the case in Spain. I think it's to dodge some sort of emissions regulations, I guess commercial vehicles are at a lower standard.
It's not arbitrary and it's not just CO2. The Euro 6 and upcoming 7 standards also test for carbon monoxide, unburnt hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide, and particulates from the tailpipe, brakes, and tires. The Jimny couldn't pass on those and Suzuki decided it wasn't worth the price of compliance to add things like gas particulate filters and change the brake pad material.
Mercedes does not make a G600. If you're not talking about Mercedes then you should specify a manufacturer because I can't figure out what car you mean.
I was amazed by the amount of ads on the site -- that's a lot. That's when I have uBlock origin and almost only ever see subtle text based ads occasionally.
Be aware that for global NCAP, safety ratings are dependent on the vehicle class. If a subcompact car receives 5 stars, this does not mean it has the same probability of survivability in full frontal crash as a large executive luxury sedan that received 5 stars.
In fact, if there was a head-on crash between this car and Mercedes E-Class, and you're planning to be in one of the cars, I would advise you to chose the Mercedes.
Yes. Anyone who has worked on conservation of momentum problems in high school physics should recognize this. Even at low collision speeds if there is a large disparity in mass between the vehicles then the lighter one experiences a lot of acceleration.
For an extreme case think of a low speed collision between a bowling ball and a ping pong ball.
In a mismatched collision, the smaller vehicle needs to withstand a higher delta-V than the larger vehicle.
Also, in many cases the bumper heights are mismatched so the larger vehicle's strong structure runs into higher, weaker parts of the small vehicle, further exacerbating the problem.
There are several things you can do to dramatically reduce your risk. Cycle during the day, while sober, with bright colors, with a helmet, and avoiding multi-lane roads. If you do these things you've statistical eliminated most of the risk.
> victim blaming
It's an exercise in reducing risk, not assigning blame.
> the law says I can cycle on those roads
The law can't bring you back to life, but if you want to take the risk that's your decision.
We need to think more game theoretically. Since our courageous cyclist must already have a deathwish to be on the same roads as these vehicles, he should go all in with a vest packed with C4 and ball bearings so that, in the event of a crash (which will cripple him anyway), at least he takes out Starbucks Mom on his way to Paradise.
If you do as I suggest then you eliminate a lot more than 90% of the risk. 62% of cyclist fatalities weren't wearing a helmet, so that alone is a huge thing you can do to improve your odds. 22% are drunk. 50% are on major roads. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyc...
I knew I would get responses about "why don't cars just..." e.g. why should I change, they're the ones who suck. I'm not suggesting or opposing public policy changes here. I'm giving practical advice which makes cycling much safer than the statistical average.
If you do all of what I say, it's a reasonably safe and healthy pastime.
People who bike for transportation, not just fun, sometimes need to bike at night, on less bike-friendly roads, or without high-visibility clothing. It doesn’t seem to me that the sentence for that should be death.
Please, try to get some high-visibility clothing.
The difference in visibility is between hundreds of meters with high-visibility clothing and meters without.
> It doesn’t seem to me that the sentence for that should be death.
Maybe not death but severe injuries.
Being visiblevin the night is a game changer.
"You" is singular as a cyclist. Wearing appropriate gear can drastically improve your (again, singular) safety.
"You" is plural for motorists. A single motorist deciding to own and operate a soft-and-safe-mobile will not affect your (singular or plural are interchangeable here) risk appreciably.
It doesn't mean you're wrong, and you (singular) can pick your battles, but I think I'd prefer to be alive than correct.
With electric bikes there is the possibility of adding safety gear to bicycles since the extra drag can be offset by motor power. Even just the simple example of allowing the rider to wear better, motorcycle-style protective gear would be a massive improvement - since they aren't pedalling so hard. Such gear could be actively heated/cooled as well.
Since the heavier vehicle has higher momentum, it would decelerate slower when hitting a semi-static-object, which decreases the forces on your body. The smaller vehicle would stop much quicker and you would jerk forward. So a heavier vehicle at the same speed would probably be better, all else being equal. And that's neglecting the additional material a larger vehicle typically has that deforms over longer distance than with a shorter car.
So many are and some aren't. So in many cases it doesn't matter which car you're in, and in some cases the heavy car is better. That means the heavy car is still net better.
I still haven't seen a single argument why a smaller car would be better in a collision.
But a small car doesn’t perform better, why would it? Surely a large car is better when driving into an electrical pole than a small car. What advantage does the small car have?
Also, just to clarify, how did I change the problem? The problem with car crashes is rapid deceleration which injures you, and lighter cars are worse in that aspect compared to heavier cars.
And can you explain why less momentum is better for the passengers? The thing that injures you in an accident is acceleration (or more accurately deceleration), so you actually want more momentum.
Imagine sitting in a large truck vs a kei car and driving into a brick wall. One has the chance to deform the wall which decreases the speed comparatively slowly. The other one abruptly stops when hitting the wall.
Unless the collision target doesn't deform at all, the higher momentum is better. And if the target is completely solid, a larger typically has a larger crumple zone which is better, too.
I cant come up with any reason to prefer the smaller car/momentum, except in very constructed scenarios (driving over a cliff with a weak fence for example).
If the object is completely fixed and effectively inelastic, the main determinant in survival is the distance over which the deceleration of the occupant occurs, assuming a lack of cabin intrusion.
So the mass of the vehicle is ideally fixed in relation to its rigidity, and it’s not better to have less, or more, mass except as the ideal ratio to the rigidity of the vehicle.
What you want is a vehicle that decelerates as slowly as possible over the greatest possible time/distance.
A light vehicle that is very rigid is equally terrible as a heavy vehicle that is very rigid. What matters is how many millimeters it takes for each vehicle to come to a complete stop after colliding with the immovable object.
There are a lot of combinations of vehicle mass and rigidity that meet the ideal here, and it is not sensible to assert that a massive or a lightweight vehicle will be ideal in this case.
What you want is a vehicle that, at the speed of the collision, deforms the most completely and to the longest distance possible without incursions into the passenger compartment.
Ideally, the vehicle would have a very long and well engineered crumple zone in front of the occupants. Here, assuming similar material engineering of the impact absorbing structure, length is king. All things being equal, a car with a stubby front profile will expose its occupants to twice the acceleration as one with a 2x longer hood.
Still, the vehicle must have enough mass that the crumple zone is fully compressed at the speed of the collision. If it’s too light, it will decelerate before the impact absorbing distance if fully used.
If it’s to heavy, it will still be moving when the crumple zone is fully exhausted, and either a sudden peak of acceleration or a cabin intrusion will occur when the passenger cage becomes involved in the deformation zone.
I’m going to guess that on average, you’re still better off in a full sized SUV than In a more sensibly sized vehicle, hitting an unmovable object at speed.
You say you have a background in vehicle safety, so maybe you know something I don’t. Please explain where I’m going wrong here?
All things being equal, this is generally a little bit true, even for collisions with rigid, fixed obstacles - but vehicle design is critical here. For instance, a cab forward truck with no real crumple space does not benefit from mass, as the deformation of the pax compartment is the primary concern. A very lightweight vehicle that is very deformable and has a long crumple zone might outperform a heavier vehicle in terms of the acceleration imparted to the passengers.
The problem is that a “fixed” solid object has effectively infinite mass. This applies when the collision displacement of the obstacle can be measured in fractions of a millimeter. In these cases, the ratio of the lightweight vehicle to the effective mass of the obstacle is effectively the same as with the heavier vehicle vs the obstacle. Here, mass pays no dividends. Only the distance / time covered during the sudden deceleration, and the integrity of the passenger compartment. Of course, the efficiency and extent of restraint systems will also play a major role. But it’s not an automatic win for heavier vehicles in this case.
Notably, most collisions are not with immovable objects, but with other vehicles. In that case, mass is going to win almost every time, since the acceleration experienced by a subcompact vs a full sized SUV is about 2x, which means the forces imparted on the passengers in terms of static loads on their bodies and bones will be 4x.
For passenger survivability in most accidents, the incentives fall heavily towards using the heaviest well constructed vehicle that you can afford.
Crumple zones have been a thing for almost a century.
Momentum doesn't matter. It matters in a vehicle on vehicle collision, but since the pole is essentially infinite I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. Acceleration is what impacts the human body, and it's determined by speed and distance. For the same speed, a larger car will have a longer distance to stop, therefore lower acceleration, and less force on the body.
Even if you assume that the pole doesn't move at all, having less momentum doesn't help you. A smaller car isn't better, in the best case it is equal. But a larger car probably also has a larger crumple zone so it is still better. You still haven't given a single reason why a smaller car would have an advantage.
awesome, i will only buy ford f150s from now on so i can have the most mass during any collision and thus will never be on the worse end of a collision. is it really american if you aren't screwing over your peers?
I was curious (but also lazy) so I went and checked Wikipedia. According to that source, the newest model of Ford F-150 is the fourteenth generation one, so let's look at the numbers for the top-of-the-line Raptor (or what I assume is the top, I'm not a pickup person). Assuming largest manufactured dimensions in all cases for the truck and smallest for the tank:
Just a thought process.. how bad would a f150 <~> f150 collision be, compared to say VW Golf <~> VW Golf?
If everybody went with f150, and the chances of colliding with another heavy one increases right? In the end, the edge is only short lived right?
I guess this means "vehicle safety ratings" only take into account the safety of those inside the vehicle? In a better world the safety of those outside of the vehicle would not only be taken into account but weighted more heavily, which would mean small cars that are safe for the occupants would get the highest ratings. Sadly we not live in that world.
relative rating or not, it has been successful at pushing car manufacturers to make safer cars, at least in the region the article talks about.
recently it has become a selling point to have a 5 star safety rating for cars in the market, which has finally made basic aspects like airbags part of the cheaper trims.
This seems like a clear case for government regulation over libertarianism, because who else holds the interest of this sort of social good at the scale of all cars driving the roads?
The personal moral dilemma here is crazy. Are you willing to risk your own life and the lives of anyone else in your car over the lives of the people in the other car? It's so terrible but you also can't fault anyone individually for choosing a larger car for safety reasons. (Those reasons being, I would prefer to kill someone else than kill myself or others in my car.)
You're making it sounds like 100% is the highest possible ceiling for a tariff, when it's a number arbitrarily set to fulfill a specific agenda and can be infinitely adjusted.
Of course if you protect your domestic car industry too much it will slowly become uncompetitive and irelevant on the international free market.
> You're making it sounds like 100% is the highest possible ceiling for a tariff, when it's a number arbitrarily set to fulfill a specific agenda and can be infinitely adjusted.
Yep, the tariffs Boeing got on Bombardier's C-Series that were the final nail in the coffin of that program and Bombardier as a serious player, and gifted a great new jet to Airbus, were 300%.
I hate how true this is. The US might as well peg the tarrif to infinity on any cars coming from China because at this rate that's essentially what we're doing.
BYD is extremelly efficient, but BYD is also beneficiary of an extensive state directed industrial policy. And let's not forget that China keeps their currency intentionally devalued against the west, while the US now have the problem of an over-valued currency.
Just to add some perspective. It is still cheaper than anything Detroit makes, but 10.000 USD is a bit misleading if you ignore currency policies, subsides, incentives and regulatory differentials.
As your article points out, it sells for about $20k in Mexico and Brazil. They're dumping at $10k in China to destroy other Chinese car manufacturers and profitability is not required until subsidies run out. But in other countries those other Chinese manufacturers are mostly not even competing, allowing BYD to price higher and turn a decent profit. If a 100% tariff means they only make Chinese-level profit from US sales, it might not be worth it.
> to destroy other Chinese car manufacturers and profitability is not required until subsidies run out
So the Chinese government is subsidizing BYD in order for them to destroy every other Chinese car manufacturer? I think the Chinese government has far less convoluted and costly schemes to control which businesses live and which die.
If I understand it correctly, your theory is like saying the US set such high tariffs and sanctions so Chinese companies adapt and get so strong they can eventually outcompete any US company and break free of any dependency.
You misunderstand. It doesn't matter much for BYD's pricing whether they're subsidized or not, but it matters very much that their competitors are. They'll charge as much as they can get away with, and competing against other Chinese manufacturers, they need to go a lot lower.
Note that there's two different kinds of Chinese government involved here: the central government primarily wants to build up the EV industry and is mostly agnostic between manufacturers, hence the sales subsidy. Regional governments want to build up their own economy, so they give preferential treatment to companies that manufacture in their region.
So it's not, as you thought, that the central government is specifically subsidizing BYD in order for them to destroy every other Chinese car manufacturer, but that regional governments are subsidizing local competitors in order to protect them from being destroyed by BYD.
But those subsidies won't last forever, and once they run out, many manufacturers will go bankrupt (see original 2019 Zhidou bankruptcy). Once that happens, BYD will most likely be able to cement their market dominance and raise prices to finally be able to make a decent profit even on domestic sales.
I recently got a deal (under $100 for 5 days) on a car rental. After turning down all the offers to upgrade, they gave me a Versa. I loved it. It actually felt like a car again, not a computer on wheels, and I could actually see out the windows on all four sides.
I had a similar experience in a rental. The one feature I missed was a wireless key fob, which is not included in the base trim. I understand the relentless cost pressure in automotive mfg, but that seems like it would have been $2 worth spending.
Are you talking about "keyless ignition" or even for opening the doors?
If it's the former, why did you miss that? My dad's car and most recent rentals I've had were of the keyless go variety, and I don't really see how it's more practical. The one use where I can see it being better is with motorbikes, if you live in a location both with cold enough winters that you gain a lot by putting your thick gloves on while still inside and safe enough that you don't need to bother with a physical anti-theft device.
I've actually had a terrible scare with one such car rental, where the attendant brought up the car, left it running, and forgot to give me the key. My personal vehicles all have keyed ignitions, so to my mind, engine running = key in the ignition. 10 minutes later, the agency called me up, telling me not to turn off the engine because I didn't have the key. Bonus points for being in a foreign, dense city I didn't know during rush hour. Fortunately, it was pretty hot outside, so I didn't turn off the engine to keep the AC running.
I've only ever owned cars with keyless entry and push-start ignition; it's useful because you never actually have to get your keys out and risk losing them, also if your hands are full, you don't need to worry about finding them to open the boot, or worry whether the locks will freeze up in the winter and have to de-ice them.
My car will also not let you lock it, and beep at you like crazy if you leave your keys anywhere inside, so you can't lock yourself out. You also can't lock it from the outside while the engine is running, but I believe that's a safety feature.
I can throw my keys in my backpack, dump it in the boot and drive off, grab my backpack when I reach my destination and walk away.
> or worry whether the locks will freeze up in the winter and have to de-ice them.
A keyless entry is no better than a regular 'push to send unlock signal' fob in this regard. You have to go much further back for cars that require the key to be inserted into the door.
You say you've only ever owned cars that don't have key-turn ignition, but doesn't that mean the advantages you listed are just assumptions? Having used both, I can personally say I have never considered key-turn ignition a problem or disadvantage. I've never lost a car key the same way I've never lost a phone which I also take out of my pocket to use.
I know people who (for insurance compliance) must store their key inside a faraday box. So to use their keyless entry car they still have to "get the key out" anyway. Push button unlock and key-turn ignition are not vulnerable to those kind of attacks/thefts.
> A keyless entry is no better than a regular 'push to send unlock signal' fob in this regard. You have to go much further back for cars that require the key to be inserted into the door.
Apologies, this is what I meant by "keyless", perhaps I have my terminology mixed up. I can either walk up to my car and open the door by pulling on the handle (keyless?), or get the fob out of my bag/pocket/whatever and press the button, but there's really hardly ever a need to do the latter, unless I want to allow someone else to enter the car while I'm at a distance. I can then start it just by being in the car with the fob somewhere also in the car, but without having to have or touch or insert the key (fob), thus keyless(?).
> You say you've only ever owned cars that don't have key-turn ignition, but doesn't that mean the advantages you listed are just assumptions?
Not an assumption, I've driven plenty of key-lock and ignition cars, just not owned them. Again, my earlier terminology mix-up may have been the issue. The advantage I'm trying to address is the ability to unlock the car and start/stop and then lock it again, without having to have anything in my hands (but having something on my person).
> I've never lost a car key the same way I've never lost a phone which I also take out of my pocket to use.
I can't argue with that; I too have never lost a car key, but I'd argue that by never having to take it out of my pocket is perhaps somewhat contributing to that.
> ... must store their key inside a faraday box. So to use their keyless entry car they still have to "get the key out" anyway. Push button unlock and key-turn ignition are not vulnerable to those kind of attacks/thefts
I have to agree with you here, this is certainly one disadvantage, and is absolutely a concern of mine.
At home you throw the fob in a faraday box rather than a drawer or on the side, so it's not a great amount of effort; while you're out and about it's a risk unless you're going to carry a faraday bag on your person (which I do not), so there is a chance someone could steal your car this way while you're sat/otherwise distracted but still fairly near your car.
I'm not sure what the correct term is for this type of entry, but that's what I'm suggesting I prefer over a key I'd have to insert into the door and then into the ignition and turn, it's just more convenient.
Conversely, if you lose one, it'll cost a few hundred £££s to replace rather than a cheap key, and there's the risks of high-tech theft, so it's not without its downsides.
Keyless entry and ignition is extra thing you don't need. But then you get a new car, get used to it and go for a cheap rental and OMG how inconvenient is a legacy key and open with keyfob! Same story with other car upgrades: automatic gearbox, powerwindows, backup camera. You drive a lot without it and it feels okay. But once you got an upgrade...
Keyless ignition and backup cameras are the two recent tech features I think are worth having. Though the latter would be less necessary if cars had better visibility, but even then it’s still useful for things you couldn’t see in any car.
I will also keep power windows, steering, and seat adjustment.
I am not aware of any exceptions. I was speaking generally though about what I believe are car tech innovations that truly are improvements (unlike, say, touch screens).
Probably a remote with buttons to unlock the car (no keyless entry) and a key to insert into an ignition lock to turn it - that's what I've seen in today's entry-level cars.
Car thieves have been using antennas to remotely trigger the keyless entry to great success here in Canada. Many people leave their keys on their doors so you just need to put a range extender against the door and scan cars in front until one of them opens.
> and I could actually see out the windows on all four sides.
I can't believe the modern style is to have the walls of the car so far away from the seats. I assume it fulfills some kind of crash safety mandate? It clearly isn't worth it.
We've gone from "pull up to the machine and take a ticket" to "pull up to the machine, park, get out of the car, take a ticket, get back in the car..."
I know, but the american market is gigantic, there is probably a sizable niche for economical vehicles.
And if nobody is selling cheap cars, how can we be so sure they won't sell?
They would sell, but there is less profit in them so the manufacturers have optimized for a market where they preferably service the wealthy and those willing to overextend themselves on an expensive loan or lease. The bottom end of the market is left to used vehicles.
You frame it like manufacturers have never sold cheap cars. They have and they don't sell anywhere as much as you think they would. Right now the entry point across most manufacturers is ~$20-23k for a brand new vehicle. 9% of vehicle transactions are accounted for by these cars. The market for them is not large, people want crossover suvs and trucks.
And fuel economy regulations encourage larger vehicles with relatively more lenient emissions standards (moreso than the additional size would require) than is applied to smaller cars.
I doubt there are tighter regulation than in the EU. Americans just don't want to buy small vehicles with small motors. They want V8 with 300+hp to sit in the traffic jams.
For example there is a good inexpensive Reanult Clio with 1l 3-cylinder 90hp engine. I doubt any meaningful number of US customers want to buy such car, even if it is less than 20k USD.
You can’t drive a larger car on Medieval streets. US doesn’t have that problem. We also don’t like towing things like caravans and trailers behind sedans with bottomed out suspensions. BMW won’t even sell the EU stealth hitches in the US.
On the contrary, new england has plenty of tiny city streets, and assholes like my dad will still insist on driving their F350 (really) through the heart of downtown. Hell, we had the local cybertruck do it earlier this year.
They will spend all day griping about how hard it is to park in the city, and how much they hate the city.
2.2m wide, In almost all road construction spots, the left lane is mostly only 2.2m wide. This is also the width measured in many small streets with cars parked on both sides.
Same here, our house was built in the early 80s and has a tiny garage. Theoretically you could fit our Skoda Octavia (2 kids) in it, but getting out would prove challenging, even if everybody exited on the same side. Also you wouldn’t be able to use the garage for anything else, like storing gardening tools, bicycles, skateboards, etc.
Not quite that bad, but close. I have to park slightly at an angle and offset, so I can can get out. Any passenger wouldn't be able to get out due to this.
And I don't have a big car, it's basically the same size as a Kia Niro EV or Hyundai Kona.
Part is due to people being fearful of buying something smaller since there are so many colossal vehicles on the road that would be considered military-tier equipment in other countries.
Safety ratings are nice and all, but when faced with the very real possibility that a vehicle 3 times the mass of yours will someday hit you at 80+ miles per hour, you just have to accept the fact that Newton's second law is something that is hard to win against.
Consumers don’t want tiny cheap cars. In the past few years, people have financed progressively more expensive cars over much longer periods, suggesting they don’t want the cheapest options.
Americans view cars as status symbols, not just transport. Hence, car companies sell cars as status symbols, not just utilitarian commodities.
I guess it's a bit of an arms race as well - if a heavier car hits a lighter car, the G forces in the lighter car will be higher, all else being equal.
The tragedy of commons is that if everyone bought a lighter car, everyone would be safer, not just the drivers but pedestrians and cyclists as well. Especially if "crash compatibility" was regulated and enforced.
That's, at least, how it seems to me while not actually living in the US - feel free to let me know if I'm completely off.
I'm living in EU and was fed up with SUV which have high positioned front lights which beam through my tiny car. Bought a small SUV instead to have a higher position and comfortable ride. What a tragedy, I've became the same person who pissed me off previously.
Obviously, it’s a bit of organic demand, manufactured demand, and what is produced. I don’t want to write a tomb on social media every time I desire to explain one concept.
> suggesting they don’t want the cheapest options.
Suggesting that they have no financial education... The average loan duration is something like 70 months right now, with a mind boggling 7%-10% interest rate.
People make dumb decisions if they don't have the knowledge/education, by the time they're done paying their 40k car loan they paid 60k and the car is worth 20k.
Scion and Saturn were both recent entry level brands for major car manufacturers. Both of them were subsumed into their parent companies and most of their models were discontinued. If the models were good for business, those would have continued.
I believe the idea of compact cars being popular in America is more of a Hacker News trope. Over the years, we've repeatedly seen subcompact cars, both EV and ICE, enter the market only to fade away. The reality is that they aren't particularly popular—most Americans simply don't want them.
People in this thread seem to somehow think marketing is pushing people to want xyz.
That _cannot_ be the singular or even primary driver of a movement. Car manufacturers don't just make a car in a vacuum. They make what the market is asking for, and _then_ marketing steps in. Very few companies, like apple and Tesla, can foist weird stuff on consumers and have them like it. And even in those cases, they are really just building something they believe to be the faster horse.
There's a reason Tesla wanted to build and SUV and a model 3. There's a key target price point in the US for a car. No amount of marketing can make people buy a car they simply cannot afford.
I bought a perfectly fine VW Polo in 2011 for £9,500
But after owning it for 2 years I realised totally organically that what I really wanted was almost the same car but for £12,500, with some extra unnecessary features.
I'm so glad VW stepped in and delivered what I had been secretly desiring. A heavier, more complex car at a higher price. Thank you, VW!
Afford doesn't mean the same thing as able to pay for in cash right now. Otherwise you'd say people can't afford houses, when you really mean people can't afford / are unable to get a mortgage that will cover their house.
Nobody forced these people to take our loans. The auto industry bends to trends, it doesn't create them.
The fact is, with or without marketing, people want nice things. And people have historically been willing to buy them on credit/loans. At least for our current capitalist society, that seems to be ab inherent feature.
"Consumers don’t want tiny cheap laptops. In the past few years, people have financed progressively more expensive laptops over much longer periods, suggesting they don’t want the cheapest options.
SWEs view laptops as status symbols, not just tools. Hence, tech companies, like Apple, sell laptops as status symbols, not just utilitarian commodities."
SWEs are not a random demographic. They are FAR more likely than the broader public to care about function than form. And their laptop isn’t seen by everyone in all of their social circles, as a car more likely is.
Anecdotally, my observation is that SWEs are the group of people who are the least likely to think of laptops as status symbols. People buy $1500 laptops because (they think) they work efficiently on those machines. Otherwise, people are very happy to use $300 Chromebooks or framework laptops as long as they get the job done. Many people put very little thoughts into which laptop they buy.
You probably are thinking about a different group of people.
Though I've been in sw dev for nearly a decade I've not seen other software developers brag about their laptops and if anything, scoff at modern consumerist non-repairable equipment.
And yet I'm constantly issued high dollar laptops that are way overspecced to run a web browser (no computer yet built can run Outlook desktop without crying) and emacs. When I point this out I'm told some combination of "this is the standard for your job title" and "developers need zippy machines". My coworkers seem relieved to finally be done with the "junk" they were issued three years ago that is still massively overspecced.
That Versa is the cheapest new car in the US, from any manufacturer. The comparison would be the Citroën C3 Origin at £14,150, so a smidge cheaper than that Versa.
(I don't know why Nissan isn't selling small cars in the UK any more - the Micra was very popular up until about a decade ago)
He’s so right though. They’re almost as poorly thought out as the RR Evoque. The visibility is bad, the clearance for entering and exiting in the rear seats is unnecessarily cramped, and it offers no more storage space than a Clio.
It’s a caricature of a toy 4x4 with all of the compromises that implies. Ecck.
I have a newer Suzuki Swift - great hatchback. All straightforward dials and knobs (no infotainment system, though it has Bluetooth) and no issues for the 4 years I've owned it so far. It was the cheapest new hatchback one could buy when I bought it.
I am an Indian living in Berlin. I always am surprised at the price differences between the countries. A new small SUV in India (e.g. Citroen Basalt) with all bells and whistles is less than 10k Euros (https://www.carwale.com/citroen-cars/basalt/) and here in Germany I cannot get a decent second hand car for less than 20K.
On the other hand, in India any car is probably unusable after 10-15 years, and here in Germany people buy a car for life.
In which Germany are you living? People change car pretty regularly, especially because of the maintenance cost for passing the TÜV. All small cars sold have distribution belt soaked in oil, so you have to change before 10 years, and by that time the cost of changing the belt is more than the car value.
The median car in Germany is 12 years old or so, almost the same as in similar countries. That's a result of cars simply lasting longer than they used to.
First owner is usually a lease customer (company car), second owner will keep it for much longer, third or fourth owner will run the car into the ground, and it'll almost always be crushed in Eastern Europe. Guessing grandparent is seeing a lot of second and third owner cars.
For anyone wondering, a distribution belt is the timing chair (or timing belt in this example). GM has a Duramax 3.0 diesel engine with a timing belt instead of a chain and it’s on the back. People were so angry GM put out a warranty for 5 year 100k miles.
I’ve seen tear downs on YouTube and the Duramax people are livid about a belt.
I think we're getting a little confused here. The Duramax 3.0 diesel has a timing chain, not a belt. The belt people usually bitch about is the oil pump belt.
People used to buy a car for life. These cars from the past were built differently and made a good name for German cars. Golf 4 is a legend. Now it’s crap made for 150000 miles and then time to buy a new one. All brands the same! Source: buddy from Bosch from ECU department sharing the requirements for modern car. And recent sad personal experience.
The requirements from all auto makers, not only for ECU, but every single part is 10 Years/ 100k km for low end, 15 Years 150k km for high end. I think that is no secret. And that is 100% the experience if you buy a car, there is a point where the maintenance per year is more than the value of the car itself. At that point the car is effectively 0 EUR value.
I hear in USA the Toyotas hold much longer... I'm not sure why, if it is true, and what are the conditions.
The maintenance must be seen as per the service value, not the car value. If it's in good condition then maintain it and drive until pistons goes through the head. Keep this gray energy off the scrapeyard.
I’ve take a mid 2000s Corolla and a 4Runner to 250k. The Corolla was still running with a slight radiator leak. The 4Runner had a transmission banging noise I didn’t want to fix.
No salt on my roads and little to no rust on either.
Agreed. When I was a kid (80s/90s), a 15-year-old car was barely worth keeping running and a 20-year-old car was a rusted-out piece of junk. Today a 15-year-old car can be quite nice and there are plenty of unremarkable 20-year-old cars still getting around just fine.
My father has used a car bought in 1973 for about 35 years, most of which it has been used daily for going to his office, while in vacations it has also been used on many mountain roads of very bad quality.
When he has stopped using the car, that has been more because the driver was worn off, not the car.
Obviously, during all those years the car has been repaired many times, but in almost all cases by himself and only a few times at a car workshop.
Similar lifetimes have been typical for many other things bought during the seventies, like washing machines, TV sets and other such household appliances.
The products designed for short lifetimes have become widespread mostly after 1990 and especially after 2000.
I can't speak for Germany, but in the US the average age of personal vehicles has been consistently increasing from 5.6 years in 1977 to 12.6 years in 2024.
(Data from Summary of Travel Trends: 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, and 2024 IHS Markit Co., Average Age of Light Cars and Trucks in U.S)
If over the course of a hundred years, you gradually replace all of the wood that makes up a ship at least once, is it still the same ship?
That was easier to do with 70s cars than with modern cars of course.
I agree that consumer products in most categories have become throwaway crap in recent decades. But quite a few cars, at least in my experience, are still built to last.
With all bells and whistles Citroen Basalt is 15k euro, which is still cheap. But for 15k euro you can get a new Citroen C3 in Germany as well, but with basic configuration.
>>in Germany I cannot get a decent second hand car for less than 20K.
You cannot compare Indian Citroen with German Mercedes.
Its actually sometimes more than 40% and that's not even for luxury cars.
Here's[1] an example for a car costing a million INR, taxes are more than 300K. That's not the final landing price. Final price adds up extra road tax component that is anywhere from 13 to 17%(or even more) which is calculated on top of the 1 Million.
In case you missed it, that's tax on tax i.e. double taxation! Some courts have ruled it illegal but majority of state governments act ignorant and just continue the practice.
Funny thing: during the pandemic, when no one was driving, New Delhi’s air cleared so much that the Himalayas could be seen for the first time in decades.
If pollution is caused by "crop burning", why is it that the worst pollution is in cities?
There are more factors than people not driving during those times:
> The phenomenon is made possible by a dramatic improvement in air quality in recent weeks, after industries shut down, cars came off the road and airlines canceled flights in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
> Delhi saw up to a 44% reduction in PM10 air pollution levels on the first day of its restrictions, India’s Central Pollution Control Board found. The PM10 standard measures airborne particulates 10 micrometers or smaller in diameter.
The Dacia Sandero starts at around 13k in Europe and by all means a pretty good car. I have a friend who bought one new and told me it has been very reliable.
The Dacia Sandero unfortunately gets a 2 star Euro NCAP rating (which is typical for Dacia cars). Not something I personally would feel safe putting my family into!
> The Jogger returned the equivalent of a four-star rating for adult occupant crash protection, and three stars for child occupants. Plenty respectable scores. The Jogger lost marks, however, for its lack of active safety equipment: it doesn’t offer lane-keep assist, pedestrian detection, or seatbelt warnings for the rearmost row. [0]
> The overall NCAP rating is dictated by the lowest score in any individual category, hence that headline one-star result for the Jogger.
Many people actively disable gimmicks like "lane-keep assist", so YMMV on such damning "1 star Euro NCAP rating".
With all the "green" restrictions in place in many european cities - forbidding cars as recent as 2005 to enter them - cars are only for life if you live in the middle of nowhere or have a short life
You can usually retrofit a pre-2005 vehicle for a thousand or so euros. Approx the cost of the annual maintenance on a vehicle of that age, and certainly far less than the cost of a new or used car (either financial cost or embodied emissions cost).
In Germany, people may upgrade from their own will, but even from my window I can see a dozens cars parked which are more than 10 years old. Not to mention a new Merc or VW can probably be stil working well in 20 years (for example see autoscout24 for Mercs from 2014 still selling for 15K).
I have rarely seen a car becoming unusable after 15 years. I have seen taxis with more than 400,000 KM on the odo. Not that they never had issues, but they are pretty much usable if you replace parts.
The 15 year car rule is only applicable for New Delhi NCR Region. You still need to obtain fitness certificate for vehicles every 5 years after the 15th year, but they need not be dumped as long as it passes the evaluation.
Why? 20 ms is a very long time in the world of digital electronics. 1 MHz = 1 microsecond ticks, and most embedded MCUs run 10x to 100x faster than that. Sensors and ADCs commonly have microsecond-range response times, too.
The mechanical part (rapid inflation) is more interesting, but for a long time, they did it the "obvious" way: a precisely-calibrated explosive charge, just enough to fill the bag without tearing it apart. Now, I think they're moving toward compressed air, which probably requires some clever engineering to build a sufficiently responsive electronically-controlled valve.
20ms isn't all that long a window over which to filter all that sensor data and determine that you are actually in a crash (and didn't just take a speed bump a little too fast).
False-positive airbag deployments are not viewed very positively by the affected user (even if its strictly better than a single false negative)
A false positive is essentially a false negative (the airbag cannot inflate twice), plus the consequences of knocking the drivers hands off the steering wheel, obscuring their sight and causing a shock that will in most cases cause an accident.
So a false positive seems strictly worse than a false negative to me.
Yes, I guess at speed that is likely the case. It's more the 5-mile-an-hour fender-bender that tends annoy the user when it harmlessly/needlessly deploys the airbags
I can speak for this. I've worked as a mechE on production lines in India.
The parts quality, worker treatment and environmental considerations are excellent (especially compared to what I came in expecting).
These are well-paying stable jobs for low-skilled labor. The plants were clean and significant precautions were taken before operating risky machines. Unionized plants tend to be more worker friendly but also worse run.
The thing about making $8k cars is they only make sense at scale. And effective operation at scale needs a well oiled workforce with little leeway for the kind of inefficiencies that come with haphazard work.
Now, 3rd party supplier conditions are more suspect. They can range from being at parity to looking like a proper sweat shop. But the mines where Apple's silicon is mined isn't that different either.
Crash rating are "per class". So a 5-star for a mini car is VERY different from a 5-star SUV.
There was once they frontally test crashed the safest mini car against the safest SUV and the mini car kind of evaporated while the SUV had a broken bumper/headlight but still could drive.
It feels almost selfishly evil to buy cars that increase your safety at the expense of others. It also promotes a race to the top, bigger and bigger cars over time, which is indeed what we have seen in the US market over the last 30 years. Does SUV safety ratings include the likelihood of killing others?
I feel the "Race to the top" is also happening with car head lights. They are much brighter nowadays. It's nice for the driver of such a car, but super nasty for other road users. It's almost as if you need tainted glass to go with it (but then you dont see the road users that do not have these super bright lights)
Nope. Only safety for the people in the car is considered. Volvo is quite vocal about wanting to produce a car that is safe for the people outside the car. They have a target that no one should die from a (new) Volvo crashing into them by some year in the future. They want to use auto-braking systems and external airbags iirc.
> I don't want to keep funding Ford and GM shareholder greed.
As a long suffering Ford stockholder, I'd like to understand what you mean by "shareholder greed." Go look at a 30 year chart of their stock price. It's barely changed. They do have a nice dividend. The company's PE ratio is appropriate for a very very mature industrial stock. Its market cap is $43 billion. That's about 20% of Toyota and 4% of Tesla.
Who are these greedy shareholders and why are they managing to extract so little value out of the company despite being so greedy?
You don't say. And maybe it would look a little less greedy if that dividend were slightly smaller, but you guys make them sell the Ford Fiesta in the US instead?
Hell, maybe the dividend wouldn't even be smaller! But nobody knows, since Ford doesn't sell cars for poor people anymore, not even the cars it makes in large numbers anyway.
> You don't say. And maybe it would look a little less greedy if that dividend were slightly smaller, but you guys make them sell the Ford Fiesta in the US instead?
What do you mean "you guys make them." Individual tiny shareholders have 0 ability to change what a company sells.
Also, why pick on Ford? It is one of the smallest of the "large" car manufacturers. As I mentioned in my original comment it's a fraction of the size of Toyota and Tesla in market cap. It has deliberately chosen a niche—trucks and SUVs—to survive. In my opinion, it does not have the brand, marketing, or research and development muscle to compete with Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai, or Honda in the small sedan market and rightly exited it. Few in the USA thought Ford was making good small sedans in the late 2010s compared to their rivals, hence why consumers stopped choosing them and Ford stopped selling them.
> But nobody knows, since Ford doesn't sell cars for poor people anymore, not even the cars it makes in large numbers anyway.
As is stated in this thread, across all manufacturers, the cheapest car sold today in the US is about $20K (Nissan Versa). Ford sells the Maverick pickup for $24K and the Escape SUV for $30K. It chooses not to compete at the very lowest tier of the US market and no longer manufactures any small cars like the Fiesta in the US.
Is it Ford's responsibility to compete at every segment of the market? Or is it okay that they are specializing in trucks and SUVs where they have some competitive advantage and letting other manufacturers like Nissan have the small car market?
This isn't an attack on you personally. OP wrote about greedy shareholders, you said they aren't greedy. But shareholders can collectively direct a company to do something. Wanting an all-American company serve all Americans is understandable.
> It is one of the smallest of the "large" car manufacturers. As I mentioned in my original comment it's a fraction of the size of Toyota and Tesla in market cap.
Using market cap here is disingenuous. Ford sold 2M cars in the US alone last year. More than Tesla, only slightly fewer than Toyota.
> and no longer manufactures any small cars like the Fiesta in the US.
They're still making (and selling) them in Mexico. It would be a very short supply chain to get them to the US. Not great for local jobs, but Ford factories in Mexico shipping parts to the US are nothing new.
> It chooses not to compete at the very lowest tier of the US market
No doubt, the correct decision from a financial point of view. But we're arguing against being greedy here.
All joking aside, it is a factor to consider when you're looking at these much smaller cars from foreign markets how they're going to fare when you get t-boned by a lifted F-350.
This is not an argument against this car or others like it, mind you, this is if anything an argument for them and against bloated American status symbols and the less skilled and less empathetic drivers who find them so appealing.
I don't know why you aim at them in particular. The only subcompacts left in NA I believe are the Nissan versa and the Mitsubishi mirage, and the Mirage gets killed next year.
They all killed their small cars. All of them.
No more Honda Fit, no more Mazda 2 / Yaris, Kia Rios, Chevy Spark, Chevy Sonic, Nissan Micra, Mitsu Mirage. In Canada at least, the Fiat 500 only exists as an overpriced BEV model with such a small range it's unusable except as a pure city car.
If there is one thing Americans show they are amazing at, it's insisting that the simple improvements that Europe has, like affordable small cars, or socialized (or better public/private like germany has), or trains, or consumer protections,
The thing is that cheap cars don't sell well in the US. Are you buying a Nissan Versa for $18k? Are you willing to drive a manual transmission to save $1,500?
Car companies have tried selling cheaper cars in the US. The Suzuki Dzire is 152" long. A Nissan Versa is 177" long - more than 2 feet longer. Toyota pulled the Yaris from the US market because of poor sales (despite being a well regarded car as a rebadged Mazda2; 171" long).
The Suzuki Dzire is the same length as the smallest Mini Cooper - but without the sports-car appeal. It'll do 0-60 in 12 seconds (14 seconds if you want an automatic). Americans want cars that can do 0-60 in half that time.
Companies have attempted to bring cheaper and smaller vehicles to the US, but Americans won't buy them. Even today, Americans will spend an extra $5,000-10,000 to get an SUV. Americans complain non-stop about gas prices, but proceed to buy vehicles that guzzle gas. The average new car price in the US is over $47,000 - way above what you'd pay for a loaded Toyota Camry. Americans don't want a Suzuki Dzire. They want a pickup truck with all the luxury trimmings.
Part of the cost of US cars is regulatory compliance. As the article notes, this was tested by Global NCAP which tests cars from markets with weak or non-existent regulations. Part of it is going to be the cost of labor or import tariffs. Mexico has lower wages than the US, but part of USMCA/NAFTA trade agreement means that their auto industry wages are a lot closer to US/Canada wages. You aren't going to be able to build them in India and import them to the US without facing tariffs. Part of it is that Americans simply don't want a cheap car.
I totally get where you're coming from because I don't want to spend a lot on a car. I also want an iPhone mini. People continually say that a small phone would be a big hit. Companies have tried and failed. There are so many cheaper options for cars in the US and Americans are spending nearly fifty grand instead. And when you start talking about bringing a Suzuki Dzire up to US regulations, import taxes, distribution costs (and the American wages you need to pay to everyone importing, transporting, and selling your cars here), equipment you want, etc. does that $8,000 vehicle look more like $14,000? And then at that price, do you want something that's 80hp and 0-60 in 14 seconds or would you rather spend up for a Toyota Corolla and get a much larger car with a lot more power and an amazing track record?
Toyota sold the Yaris for $16,000, but people didn't want it. We're talking about a car that Car and Driver gave 9.5/10. It was a really good car at a great price and Americans wouldn't buy it. It's easy to think "I'd love an $8,000 car" when you aren't/can't seriously consider buying it. But maybe we're similar and we'd like more affordable cars and are willing to go with something basic.
But most Americans wouldn't be up in arms for this $8,000 car. They're spending double what many great cars cost and they'd rather moan about the cost of gas than drive something efficient. Hell, hybrids today like the Civic or Prius get better 0-60 times than the sports sedans from my youth - but that doesn't matter. Americans will moan about paying for stuff, but the second that you suggest they buy something efficient or affordable or make any compromise and they'll find any reason not to.
...That was the XSE trim with the Premium Plus package, Supersonic Red with Midnight Black Metallic roof, and the upgraded wheels. Not saying that this is what most people are paying for a Camry, but there is a reason the average new car price is so high.
It's just another tax on the working class. ~40% income tax, then on what's left you pay another ~20% VAT, then some luxury tax on top of that because how dare you afford more than bread and water you filthy feudal lord?
Billionaires who buy actual luxuries have a plethora of avenues of avoiding any kind of luxury taxes. Why do you think Monaco exists? Or Dubai?
It’s more expensive because you pay US wages to make the car. PPP is the real reason why it’s cheaper to build in a country where a $1000/month is a really good salary that will afford you a comfortable lifestyle on 1 income.
The reason costs are low is because of scale and automation. Suzuki exports it's India manufactured cars and components across Asia and Africa which helps drive costs down drastically, and leadership make a strategic decision to pivot towards automation.
Maruti Suzuki has been heavily automated for almost 2 decades now, especially after the union killed a plant manager and burnt down the Manesar factory in 2012 [2]
Already in 2017 Maruti Suzuki had 2000 installed units for 10000 employees [0], but the US still had around 1300 installed units for 10000 employees in 2021 [1].
Also, salaries in Maruti Suzuki Manesar and Gurgaon (the flagship factories in suburbs of Delhi) are similar to Dacia's in Romania and the CoL in Delhi NCR is comparable to Eastern Europe in general, yet similar cars in Europe will cost around $10-15k.
I'd love a small car and do have a couple of options, but in an accident, I will lose so hard (see: die quickly), the risk just doesn't seem worth it. Until some intervention starts reducing car sizes en masse, this will just be true.
I'm loathed to even get a Prius with this being true.
My dad logged every single fuel stop with amount, price, odometer, trip when he got his 1990 geo metro xfi. He commuted 120 miles for work and wanted the cheapest new car he could buy to do it in. IIRC the sticker said it got 52mpg highway but he was always bragging that he never got that low of gas mileage in it. We had that car until it was well over 300k miles when it got rear ended.
Yes, it's worth noting for those that are less aware that the Suzuki Dzire in the article is a close relation to the Suzuki Swift, which comes in a 5 door hatchback configuration and is not _quite_ as budget minded.
The Swift is quite popular in many countries outside the USA, being a common choice for both first time car owners and seniors in Australia and New Zealand (and no doubt a number of other countries).
Love my 2015 Suzuki Swift Sport bought new here in New Zealand. Fantastic car. Fun to drive, comfortable, practical, performant, reliable. Surprisingly spacious. Cost $NZ30K ~=~ $US18K.
One thing which helped mine quite a bit was that when I needed tires the correct size wasn't available, so the shop put on tires which were one R-factor larger, resulting in slightly greater ground clearance, and everything which went with that --- looked a lot better too, with more normal proportions.
As someone having owned several.. are you sure about that? I've never seen a Jimny with 5 airbags. Not in Japan either (as a Jimny fan I always check them out whenever I get the chance). I can't see how that could ever have been possible, there's nowhere to design in any more than the two my own has, as far as I can tell.
India's branches of Japanese automakers tend to be essentially independent of the Japanese parent company.
When Japanese automotive FDI in India began in the 1980s, Japanese companies would essentially create a JV with an existing Indian manufacturer and ToT much of the technology and operations.
For example, Maruti Suzuki (Maruti Udyog and Suzuki), Toyota Kriloskar (Kriloskar Group and Toyota), and Hero Honda (Hero Group and Honda, though both ended up splitting in the 2000s).
Korean manufacturers in India do the same, hence why Hyundai Motors India IPOed a couple weeks ago despite technically being a part of Hyundai Motors.
If they try to bring it to the US, it will need to weigh 4,300 lbs and cost $39,900. There are no more cheap, small, light, or basic cars in sold in the US.
