Now THIS is what I'd like to see in the future

[Irving]

Once the buying public demanded better fuel economy the powers that be started work on smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles.

You, of all people, know that vehicles aren't very likely to get much lighter.

[Jer]

You, of all people, know that vehicles aren't very likely to get much lighter.

They can, will and are getting lighter as the consumers demand a more fuel efficient car since it's hard to sell vehicles to Americans with less power now that they've grown to be accustomed to the current levels of power. The technology to make vehicles substantially lighter are available, just not made at an affordable price. Look at exotic vehicles to see where exotic materials are made to lighten vehicles significantly. Vehicles can, and are, getting lighter either through use if different materials or manufacturers are making smaller vehicles using the same materials. Like most things, innovation is expensive at first.

[Irving]

Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.

[Troublco]

Even if that worked the problems that would arise from all internal combustion engines burning trees to gain power would be substantially worse than what we face now.

The CRX stopped production because they weren't selling enough to be profitable anymore. Car manufactures don't just stop building cars that sell to quell some sort of better technology. Their primary objective is to build vehicles that sell at a profit... the more the better. Supply and demand determines this and each and every one of us has a say based on what we buy. If you think there should be more fuel efficient vehicles then stop buying 4x4 trucks and SUVs for driving around cities. Cracks me up when people think they need huge trucks and don't own a trailer to pull, haul nothing and live in a paved jungle. I know people who NEED trucks and actually use them for what they were designed for and to the it's a must... not a fashion statement.

Actually, if I remember correctly to make the car that fuel efficient they had to make it very light, so it wasn't meeting safety standards at some point. Otherwise, car manufacturers make what sells. Period.

And I wasn't trying to say that everyone should rush out and make their vehicles run on wood. Those that are really concerned about it buy a Toyota Yaris, or something similar. Everyone else buys what they want, or what they can afford.

[Jer]

Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.

I don't agree that safety regulations are a bit strict at times but the idea that eliminating seat belts, air bags and ABS modules for the idea of shaving weight to get better MPG is a good move is debatable.

[ronaldrwl]

I don't agree that safety regulations are a bit strict at times but the idea that eliminating seat belts, air bags and ABS modules for the idea of shaving weight to get better MPG is a good move is debatable.

Side impact, crash regulations, they're good but makes it hard to have both good MPG and total safety

[sniper7]

You, like most people, fail to factor in the amount of power that those trucks have versus what they have now. Keep mind that the standard for power output of a 4dr sedan about 5yrs ago became higher than that of the Corvette of only a couple generations ago. American's wanted bigger and faster and didn't care about price or fuel economy. So, now that we've grown accustomed to a certain level of performance lots of people have a hard time 'down grading' to save on fuel. Some don't. So, while the numbers have only increased ever so slightly they are doing so with much larger vehicles that make a lot more power so just looking at mpg isn't a fair assessment. My in-laws tout how their 4cyl Accord gets almost as good of fuel economy as our Hybrid Camry and saved them a couple grand but I don't have the heart to point out that that car doesn't have enough power to get out of it's own way. The Camry Hybrid gets 40mpg and runs circles around their Accord in acceleration too. That's the key here is to create vehicles that are still drivable AND increase fuel economy.

I know this doesn't lend to a conspiracy theory but I'm pretty sure it's supply v demand at it's root in action here. Manufacturer's designed and built what people bought... why would you waste money developing vehicles that the buying public isn't asking for with their buying dollar? Makes no sense if your objective is to profit. Once the buying public demanded better fuel economy the powers that be started work on smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles and more fuel efficient vehicles. As more and more consumers downsize to smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles the drive for manufacturer's to compete in this arena will grow and cars will get better at what consumers demand. In the end the old adage 'follow the money' holds true.

please don't assume that I fail to grasp anything as that isn't the case.

[sniper7]

Vehicles don't even need expensive materials to be lighter, they need fewer safety regulations. That's what I meant.

not sure i can agree with this one as there are already enough injuries and death related to car accidents...I know you can't save everyone or fix anything but reducing the safety regulations isn't the answer IMO.

But, I say that a law requiring a driver to wear a seatbelt is bullshit. if someone doesn't want to wear a seatbelt that is their own choice and they are not hurting anyone else if they don't wear it.
One of my good friends dad has been saved both ways. He would have died in one accident had he been wearing his seatbelt (in a semi), and he rolled his truck last year and probably would have died or had severe brain damage if he had not been wearing his seatbelt. he just got lucky he picked the right times.

[Irving]

It was a comment to address why the CRX HF got such good gas mileage and Civics now can't match it. The CRX HF weighed like 1,800lbs. Civics now weigh nearly twice as much.

[Jer]

please don't assume that I fail to grasp anything as that isn't the case.

Your statement was absolute and devoid of the facts I mentioned. I'm only operated based on the things you say here.