Down On Main St.

[Brassmask]

You're telling me that there is a law against cars having higher gas mileage?

No, there is a law against having single cylinder diesel engines.

To what purpose?

[Amianthus]

To what purpose?

Err, EPA.

Environmental Protection Agency.

I would say it has something to do with the environment.

[crocat]

Brass applies his fuzzy logic when he utters,"I blame the auto industry's failure to make cars that get 100 miles to the gallon on its demise."

I cannot believe that you are so naive.  People power what the car manufacturers produce.  When we decide that we don't want to drive gas hogs... they stop producing them.   We when decide that we want to drive big cars, the build them.  Why you insist on blaming manufacturers for building items that are demanded by consumers.

Please don't give me the crap about foreign manufacturers being better either.

Every foreign manufacturer went out of their way to produce a car that would satisfy us as consumers.  You have the opportunity to purchase any car that you can afford that fits within the realm of your criteria.


The Thrifty 50
Model   Base MSRP   Mileage (city/highway)   Strong Points   Weak Points
ECONOMY CARS
Honda Fit   $13,950   28/34   Versatile seating; good standard features; fun to drive   Subpar seat comfort and support
Kia Rio   $10,890   27/32   Six air bags; good gas mileage; perky engine   Spartan interior; spotty crash-test results
Toyota Yaris   $11,300   29/36   Cute design; decent storage; spacious front seats   Slushy pickup; poor crash-test results without optional curtain air bags
Hyundai Accent   $10,775   27/32   Good entry-level value; strong set of safety features; long warranty   Weak acceleration; dull design; cramped rear seat
Nissan Versa   $12,630   26/31   Seats five comfortably; decent cargo space; cool six-speed manual   Wimpy engine; noisy; worse mileage than competitors
Honda Civic   $15,010   26/34   Stable, comfortable, and quiet ride; chipper interior; good handling   Minimal storage space
Hyundai Elantra   $13,525   24/33   Fun to drive; comfy seats; lots of safety features; strong crash-test results   Iffy handling; tricky manual transmission; bland interior
Mazda3   $13,895   24/32   Peppy pickup; sporty handling; bold design   Cramped interior; weak crash-test results without curtain air bags
Saturn Ion   $12,300   23/32   Better power than some competitors; dent-resistant polymer body   Bland interior with low-quality materials
MIDSIZE CARS
Nissan Altima   $18,230   23/32   Sporty; good 4- and 6-cylinder engines; stylish interior   Antilock brakes not standard; cramped back seat; complex options
Mazda6   $18,990   21/29   Sporty, zippy acceleration; good handling   Cramped interior compared with competitors
Hyundai Sonata   $17,670   21/31   Spacious; good standard features and safety features; long warranty   Spongy handling; weak base engine; generic design
Honda Accord   $20,360   22/31   Roomy; stylish; superb engine choices   Limited trunk space; no folding rear seat
Chevrolet Malibu   $19,345   22/30   Bold, sporty styling; spacious rear seat; tasteful interior   Outdated 4-speed transmission
Kia Optima   $16,995   21/31   Good mileage; spacious; cheaper than competitors   Sluggish on highway; key safety features optional instead of standard
Ford Fusion   $17,770   20/29   Pleasant Euro-handling; classy interior; large trunk   Fine-print instrumentation; no standout qualities
Saturn Aura   $19,745   22/30   Pleasant road manners; good power for the price   Plasticky interior parts
LARGE CARS
Hyundai Azera   $24,535   18/26   Luxury feel; loads of features; good engine choices   Squishy handling; no navigation or Bluetooth options; not a Bimmer
Dodge Charger   $21,675   18/26   Bossy styling; spacious cabin; decent handling   Weak base engine; some cheap materials; poor rear visibility
Chevrolet Impala   $21,310   18/29   Can seat six; thoughtful interior; good engine options   Blasé design; ho-hum handling; old 4-speed transmission
Chrysler 300-Series   $24,595   15/22   Vast interior; dramatic styling; tasteful interior   Lethargic base engine; some key safety features not standard
UPSCALE CARS
Audi A4   $28,900   20/31   Great handling and acceleration; classy cabin   Gets pricey with options; requires premium fuel
Lexus ES   $33,720   19/27   Quiet ride; luxurious cabin; top safety features   Bland styling; uninspiring handling
BMW 3-Series   $32,400   18/28   World-class performance; great safety features   Complex electronics; gets very pricey with options
SPORTY CARS
Mazda MX-5 Miata   $20,585   22/27   Primo handling; easy-to-manage convertible roof; high fun-per-dollar ratio   Cramped (duh); weak base stereo
Hyundai Tiburon   $16,875   20/28   Good power and handling; sleek design; good value   Small rear seats; key safety features not standard
Volkswagen GTI   $22,730   21/29   Powerful; great handling; strong standard features; convenient hatchback   Economy-car design; requires premium fuel
WAGONS
Toyota Matrix   $15,510   26/33   Versatile seating; good mileage; higher seating than other wagons   Noisy engine; inscrutable gauges
Kia Rio5   $12,915   27/32   Six air bags; good mileage; funky design   Spartan interior; options quickly inflate price
Scion xB   $15,650   22/28   Good safety features; spacious cabin; cheap, oddball design   Noisy, underpowered engine; oddball design
Subaru Outback   $21,995   19/26   Powerful engines; right height; smooth carlike handling   Tight rear seat
Volkswagen Passat-Wagon   $25,115   21/29   Fun to drive; friendly cabin; strong safety features   Pricier than competitors; spongy brakes; spotty reliability history
COMPACT SUVs
Ford Escape   $18,770   22/28   Muscular styling; quiet interior; comfortable seats   Stale driving dynamics
Honda CR-V   $20,700   20/27   Lots of space and storage; sleek design; smooth ride   Lacks third-row seat option; no V-6 available
Hyundai Tucson   $16,995   20/25   Cheaper than CR-V or RAV4; decent features; long warranty   Sluggish engine; cheap materials; road noise
Jeep Patriot   $15,475   23/28   Boxy Jeep styling; versatile and roomy interior; simple controls   Cheap interior materials; uncomfortable rear seat
Toyota RAV4   $21,100   21/27   Great handling; feisty 4-cylinder engine; optional (if cramped) third row   Hinged rear door can be awkward; no navigation option
Honda Element   $18,980   20/25   Cargo space; easy-to-clean interior; low ownership costs   Awkward "suicide" doors in rear; uncomfortable rear seats
Kia Sportage   $16,050   19/25   Sound handling; stylish, classy interior; roomier than most small SUVs   Weak base engine
MIDSIZE SUVs
Hyundai Santa Fe   $20,945   17/24   Good standard features; strong crash-test results; long warranty   Subpar handling and braking
Toyota FJ-Cruiser   $22,545   16/20   Cool retro design; real off-road capability; decent ride on pavement   Big blind spots; awkward rear "suicide" doors; marginal gas mileage
Mazda CX-7   $23,750   17/23   Sporty, carlike handling; quick engine; aggressive styling   Cramped rear seat; sleek design compromises cargo space and visibility
Nissan Murano   $27,750   18/23   Smooth handling; modern styling; strong engine with good mileage   Sleek design cuts into cargo space
Ford Edge   $25,330   16/24   Quick acceleration and smooth ride; intuitive controls; roomy   Gets expensive with options; no third row available
Honda Pilot   $28,395   16/22   Loaded with standard features; spacious; carlike ride   Bland design; mediocre fuel economy
Saturn Outlook   $27,820   16/24   Strong engine with decent mileage; spacious; third row; nimble handling   Clunky transmission
Toyota Highlander   $27,300   18/24   Versatile seating; third row; good standard safety features   Soft handling; little cargo room with all seats in use
MINIVANS
Chrysler Town & Country   $22,460   17/24   Smooth ride; buslike interior space; numerous seating configurations   Sluggish base engine; nerdy square styling
Kia Sedona   $20,695   16/23   Generous standard features; strong safety ratings; long warranty   Middling cabin; no navigation system available
Honda Odyssey   $25,860   16/23   Great handling for a minivan; versatile seating; can fit eight passengers   Bland styling; it's a minivan

[Xavier_Onassis]

Again, not one gets close to 100 mpg.

[Brassmask]

To what purpose?

Err, EPA.

Environmental Protection Agency.

I would say it has something to do with the environment.

What?

[Amianthus]

What?

The engine violates EPA regulations.

[Brassmask]

cro,

Prius' have like a three month waiting period last I heard.

I get emails still about how some Toyota dealership here in Memphis finally has ONE Prius available for sale.

[crocat]

cro,

Prius' have like a three month waiting period last I heard.

I get emails still about how some Toyota dealership here in Memphis finally has ONE Prius available for sale.

That wasn't the point, Brass.... that is just your quick response.  My point is that until the price of gas went up the public demanded bigger and better cars.  It is impossible for a car manufacturer to switch out tooling in order to change from an SUV to a tiny compact car in a week or two....it takes months to come in and retro fit.  Even the foreign car makers had to gear up for large car production be cause their sales were off.

Nothing is selling right now big or little.   People are watching their jobs go away, their life savings go away, and their reckless managing of the credit history come home to roost by not being able to get the credit they once had.

[Xavier_Onassis]

My point is that until the price of gas went up the public demanded bigger and better cars.

Since when is a bigger car a better car in any respect? Since when is a monsterous SUV or truck that gets 13 MPG in any way a responsible or safe purchase for anyone? Please.

It was totally irresponsible for Detroit to manufacture huge SUVs and trucks to sell as family vehicles. The results of this are easy to see, both for the environment, the consumer and the automakers themselves.

No one forced Ford to come up with rolling, deadly crap like the Expedition. Trucks have their place, but the damned things are not family cars.

[crocat]

My point is that until the price of gas went up the public demanded bigger and better cars.

Since when is a bigger car a better car in any respect? Since when is a monsterous SUV or truck that gets 13 MPG in any way a responsible or safe purchase for anyone? Please.

It was totally irresponsible for Detroit to manufacture huge SUVs and trucks to sell as family vehicles. The results of this are easy to see, both for the environment, the consumer and the automakers themselves.

No one forced Ford to come up with rolling, deadly crap like the Expedition. Trucks have their place, but the damned things are not family cars.

Edited for bad manners.... strike dumber than a box of rocks. 

Insert, don't be so literal, XO... I meant...

People wanted BIGGER.... People wanted better (as in better than their neighbors buy one get one free prius)

I never implied that bigger was better....

[Xavier_Onassis]

The public may or may not have "demanded" bigger cars, which were of course not officially cars, but trucks. SUVs are all classified as trucks, which allows them to gulp more gas and still meet cafe standards.

The US automakers decided to pimp their pickups and specialty vehicles, like the Suburban, with leather upholstery and the sort of fancy crap women like, because they were not successful at making reliable economical vehicles or even reliable luxury vehicles. Nearly every Toyota is more reliable and superior in most ways to every Chevrolet, Dodge or Ford, and a Lexus is far better than tired old crap like Lincoln towncars and the old Couple de Villes. Cadillac has improved the line quite a bit of late, but they stil push the huge Escalade more than they do there technically superior sport sedans and coupes.

Before the Great Pimping, pickup trucks were farm equipment, and most Suburbans were bought to ferry corpses around between embalmers, morgues, hospitals and funeral parlors.

GM had the engineering knowhow to develop and produce good economical sedans and coupes, but chose not to, because there was less competition and expense in pushing pimped-up trucks.

[crocat]

The public may or may not have "demanded" bigger cars, which were of course not officially cars, but trucks. SUVs are all classified as trucks, which allows them to gulp more gas and still meet cafe standards.

The US automakers decided to pimp their pickups and specialty vehicles, like the Suburban, with leather upholstery and the sort of fancy crap women like, because they were not successful at making reliable economical vehicles or even reliable luxury vehicles. Nearly every Toyota is more reliable and superior in most ways to every Chevrolet, Dodge or Ford, and a Lexus is far better than tired old crap like Lincoln towncars and the old Couple de Villes. Cadillac has improved the line quite a bit of late, but they stil push the huge Escalade more than they do there technically superior sport sedans and coupes.

Before the Great Pimping, pickup trucks were farm equipment, and most Suburbans were bought to ferry corpses around between embalmers, morgues, hospitals and funeral parlors.

GM had the engineering knowhow to develop and produce good economical sedans and coupes, but chose not to, because there was less competition and expense in pushing pimped-up trucks.

Right.... and that is exactly why Ford was forced to make more than BLACK cars....NOT.   People like to be different... wait that make that 'demand' to be different.  If I am selling apples and people get sick of apples but are wanting oranges... don't you think it would be stupid of me keep stocking apples?

[Xavier_Onassis]

If I am selling apples and people get sick of apples but are wanting oranges... don't you think it would be stupid of me keep stocking apples?
================
I think anyone was stupid that bought an Escalade and other pimped out trucks. I think the manufacturers were triple stupid to make so many of these grotesque things and stake their entire business on selling them. And I don't think that they need to be bailed out, either.

It's more like this. If you are selling aspirin and people are tired of aspirin, then you really need to stock heroin. Why? Because people LIKE heroin. It makes them feel good, just like cruising down the street in a Hummer H3 pimped out super ugly truck, blocking everyone's vision in traffic and taking up way to much space to compensate for one's teensy penis.

There was NO REASON to push, not just offer, but push, in every conceivable way, huge gashogs as some sort of fashion statement to the copycat hicks, rubes, yokels and putzes. This was nothing  at all like offering cars in a different color. This was totally irresponsible. No one needs a Hummer H2 or H3, a Navigator or an Escalade. It was like putting tapeworms in diet pills, except that it wasn't even effective.

[crocat]

If I am selling apples and people get sick of apples but are wanting oranges... don't you think it would be stupid of me keep stocking apples?
================
I think anyone was stupid that bought an Escalade and other pimped out trucks. I think the manufacturers were triple stupid to make so many of these grotesque things and stake their entire business on selling them. And I don't think that they need to be bailed out, either.

It's more like this. If you are selling aspirin and people are tired of aspirin, then you really need to stock heroin. Why? Because people LIKE heroin. It makes them feel good, just like cruising down the street in a Hummer H3 pimped out super ugly truck, blocking everyone's vision in traffic and taking up way to much space to compensate for one's teensy penis.

There was NO REASON to push, not just offer, but push, in every conceivable way, huge gashogs as some sort of fashion statement to the copycat hicks, rubes, yokels and putzes. This was nothing  at all like offering cars in a different color. This was totally irresponsible. No one needs a Hummer H2 or H3, a Navigator or an Escalade. It was like putting tapeworms in diet pills, except that it wasn't even effective.

you can be so small minded.   While  you flap your yap about greedy bastards that make tanks trucks or what ever the hell you want to call them, you are trying to usurp my ability to buy what I can afford, drive what I want to drive and support what I want to support.  Of course THIS of all things should not come as a surprise to me.  It is the liberal mantra....

you are free, we will look after you... fuck all the greedy bastards.  Followed by... you can't drive a big car, you can't make a living at the plant that manufacturers big cars, or RV's, or boats because they waste our resources.  The list of things that you would have not be able to do far exceeds any of the crap you base your cyclopic eyesight on.

One has to wonder at the impact of making all large vehicles illegal in regards to manufacturing, marketing and extraneous markets that these production employ?  Let's go one step forward and think... ok, we did away with those greedy bastard big vehicles and although our unemployment rose substantially, we have good government welfare programs in place so no worries.  No let's look toward all of these plants that manufacture  the new efficient small although similiar products... we should disallow that and make it that we have minimal choices in small cars, so let's say we can have X amount of small vehicles and we can close all the other plants and that should help with the green house gas.  Yeah... that's the ticket.  Another plus to that would be less people would be employed and so there would be less cars on the road and that too would have a significant impact on green house gas.  Wow... a win win...


Give me a break.   I get sick and tired of your blame tirades, bitching about lies and trickery by 'the government' and yet you want to give government more of our freedoms.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Gee, I didn't realize that suggesting that people actually use their heads was a "liberal" position.

When did I ever say I was for banning anything?

The government is not responsible for tricking stupid people into buying SUVs and trucks who have no real use for SUVs and trucks. That was the admen and the manufacturers they work for. I am not in favor of banning advertising or these things, nor of preventing people from buying the damned things, either. It is a matter of logic and personal responsibility.

People who bought these are stuck with them. That was their decision, and they should make the best of it.

The companies who decided to lure dolts into buying them knew that the price of gas was going to go up, they knew that they were screwing their customers, and knew that they were putting the country on the wrong track. Now they want taxpayers to buy them out of the mess that anyone with the intelligence God gave a grapefruit. I am opposed to this. That is all I was saying.

Hell, buy a semi truck and drive that to work. Or a Sherman tank. I'm not taking away your freedom or anyone's freedom. I am just a guy commenting on the current mess in a chat forum. There is no way that I could "take away your freedom" if I wanted to, and I don't want to. We never get to vote on whether to ban any sort of vehicle. I just think people, both consumers and manufacturers should think things through before they create a big mess. Or to put it in perspective, they should have thought things through before they created the big mess.

Just as people who were told by Realtors that they could afford a $200K house when anyone with the brain of a common gecko could have told them that a $100K house was all they could swing. They should have told that Realtor to go f*ck herself. But they didn't. The banks had no reason approving loans to people who could never repay them, either, but they did. When I bought my first house, 90% of all the houses Realtors showed us were $10K more than the most I told them I wanted to pay. Eventually, I just hung up on them before they could say anything else beyond "Hello".  I assumed a mortgage and bought my house without a Realtor. These are matters of personal responsibility. I am proud to believe in these and also proud to support "liberal" positions. But as a rule, personal responsibility is supposed to be a conservative mantra, isn't it?


It was immoral for Detroit to foist these things on people. People have a right, of course to ignore advertising. It is rare when they do, but it has happened. Take the bazillion dollars they spent trying to get people to drink Zima, "an alcoholic malt beverage with a hint of lemon-lime flavoring". It didn't work. But on the other hand, they manage to force thousands of people who would prefer a 7-up to drink a Sprite or a Sierra Mist every day. Not giving people six-ton Escalades to drive is like depriving them of 7-up or Zima. Big Deal.

Any really good rapper could buy a Bentley, anyway.