What car does the world need? Let's hear your suggestions

  • Thread starter Thread starter homeforsummer
  • 90 comments
  • 4,379 views
M5Power
Unaffordable, unlike the Prius? Aren't Priuses like $28k?
Click to expand...

Read it again, he said affordable, unlike the Prius.

Sniffs
oh, and i think the reason americans have a distaste for the small cars that europeans love...they aren't powerfull enough to get up the 2 or 3 mile long hills that prevade parts of the US (we go straight UP the hills instead of curve-switching around them).
Click to expand...

How steep are these hills, and on what sort of roads?

There are plenty of motorway inclines going over the Pennines in the UK that last for a couple of miles at the least, the sort that grind lorries down to 40mph, and my 60bhp, 10 year old Fiesta will happily do 80mph up them (and 40mpg happily too), with even a little bit more acceleration to call on if it's needed, albeit not much.

I'll admit that you'd probably be struggling in something smaller, 1.0 litre or so (though many 1.0 cars made now have as much power as my Fiesta does, though probably not as much torque) but it also depends how you define "small car". I'd expect Joey's MINI wouldn't struggle too badly on steep hills, and that's a fairly small car.
 
It depends on what speed you need to do going uphill. Gone are the days when any engine under 2.5 liters would struggle for breath on an uphill climb... with modern fuel injection, that isn't going to happen. I remember laughing out loud at that part of the Italian Job, where the police car stalls chasing the Mini up the dome...

We used to have a 2-liter carbureted 10-seater Nissan Vanette. That was a piece o' crud. You would lose speed up a parking ramp, even if you were redlining it in first gear.

But nowadays, even a 1.3 liter fuel-injected engine can pull a seven-seater Toyota Avanza up a mountain. With a full passenger load. Without trouble. Small engined cars are no longer "underpowered". Slow, yes. That matters if you're trying to merge into freeway traffic going over 60 mph... but otherwise, they have more than enough power to do the job they're meant to do.

Three-row vehicles with small engines which can get over 30 mpg are very popular in Europe and Asia. The Opel Zafira. The Ford C-Max. But prior to this crisis, there was no market for them in the US. They're too "small"... they're not "fuel efficient" at typical US highway speeds (the problem with low EPA highway ratings for the Fit come to mind...) and they're not perceived as "safe" compared to the hulking SUVs and laughingly named "minivans" that the buying public loves.

Well... you get the Mazda5, but not really with an economical engine. I'd like to see that or the C-max in diesel... and I'm waiting to see what Honda's seven-seater Fit is going to look like... but unless it's a mini-van or a mid-sized SUV (like the Hyundai Santa Fe), the third row seat is always going to be penalty-box seating.
 
niky
We used to have a 2-liter carbureted 10-seater Nissan Vanette. That was a piece o' crud. You would lose speed up a parking ramp, even if you were redlining it in first gear.
Click to expand...

Is that the same thing we got in the UK under the "Serena" moniker? The non-turbo diesel version of that was the slowest car in the UK for a long, long time. Took something like 25 seconds to get to 60mph...

Small engined cars are no longer "underpowered". Slow, yes. That matters if you're trying to merge into freeway traffic going over 60 mph... but otherwise, they have more than enough power to do the job they're meant to do.
Click to expand...

True that. But I think it depends on gearing too. My car does motorway speeds quite happily, even accelerating at those speeds. 4th gear is perfect for entering a motorway as you're in the bulk of the power from around 60mph to around 85mph, and in that range you can choose whether to slot it into 5th to cruise onto the motorway if it's clear, or whether to keep it at higher revs to get past a lorry or something without holding up other traffic or quicker cars behind.

Three-row vehicles with small engines which can get over 30 mpg are very popular in Europe and Asia.
Click to expand...

If I was ever, ever to buy an MPV-type thing, it'd be a Honda Stream. All the magazines at the time said it was actually fun to drive, and still fairly economical. Even looked pretty good. It's just unfortunate the UK doesn't get the new version. I don't normally condone the buying of MPVs because they're awful vehicles, but it's surprising that Honda doesn't currently offer one over here. EDIT: Apart from the FR-V, I guess... :dopey:

Heading back on topic:

I've had another thought for something that we need in more cars. Stop-Start technology. For those unaware of what that is, it means that, when you come to a rest and slot the car into neutral, the engine turns off to save petrol. When you dip the clutch to engage first again, the engine is quickly started again.

Modern starter motors and fuel injection systems are more than strong enough to handle these starts quickly and smoothly, and contrary to popular belief, starting the car doesn't use a big glug of fuel - that's harking back to the old carb days. Stop-start is a bare minimum of what cars should have as concessions to improving fuel economy and reducing emissions, especially considering the amount of time someone in a city spends at a rest in traffic, for example. Vans and busses should certainly have some form of the technology - think of the amount of time they often sit there, going nowhere, with their engines running.

So ideally, my "economy coupes" would utilise this technology too, to further improve their town/city fuel economy, given that small cars like those would likely spend a fair bit of time in the city.
 
homeforsummer
So ideally, my "economy coupes" would utilise this technology too, to further improve their town/city fuel economy, given that small cars like those would likely spend a fair bit of time in the city.
Click to expand...

My guess would be that as we see more and more hybrid technology applied in "lower" vehicles, I'd assume stop/start technology will eventually be standard across the board... But I can't be certain. I know GM is tinkering with the way the cylinders fire here in America, I think Mercedes is doing the same thing, trying to copy the way a diesel engine works and doing it with petrol. So far, I believe they've got a few cars that do it, but as of now, the NVH levels are far too high for it to be acceptable.

I would champion the installation of small, lightweight, and "powerful-ish" electric motors to drive cars forward in the city. Kinda like what you have in the back of a Golf cart, on the rear axle. That way the engine can stay shut off when in a stop/start mode, and anything less than 10-15 MPH, you only move with electric power.

However, I'm uncertain of what kind of power would be required in something like that. My guess is that regenerative breaking and a small PHV pack wouldn't be enough for someone who would be stopped in Chicago, Manchester or Milan.
 
Toronado
We need to call up Isuzu: We need another Impulse.
Click to expand...

That car was awesome, a buddy of mine from Thunder Bay, ON had an Asüna Sunfire and when I would go up there in the summer we'd cruise around in it. Looked pretty cool too.
 
YSSMAN
I know GM is tinkering with the way the cylinders fire here in America, I think Mercedes is doing the same thing, trying to copy the way a diesel engine works and doing it with petrol.
Click to expand...

You mention tinkering with the cylinders actually, there's a car coming out soon that's being designed to shut down two of it's four cylinders when cruising or in slow traffic, and annoyingly I can't for the life of me remember what car it is! I know the technology has been tried before with much bigger engines, but this seems a good move forward too.
 
I learned an interesting fact about CAT engines: the crank journals are divided, split and offset slightly. They do this for their V8s. Wonder what that does.
 
Home: from what I've seen, our little back roads are wider than the one UK motorway I've seen. unfortunately, you'd have to see for yourself. it's also the gearing in my 4runner... it won't let me go over 2500 rpm outside of first gear, and wont go over 3100 for all that and 145 hp pushing an overloaded 4200 lbs EMPTY...well...

and, FYI, when they introduced fuel injection in the US in ALL makes, it was in the middle of the emissions strangled three speed autos eighties :P

Toronado: you know better. Isuzu got out of cars completely several years ago, and are now commercial vehicles ONLY
 
homeforsummer
You mention tinkering with the cylinders actually, there's a car coming out soon that's being designed to shut down two of it's four cylinders when cruising or in slow traffic...
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, they've been doing that on/off for years. I'm thinking of their tinkering with the Atkinson (?) cycle... Bad-ass.
 
M5: if i remember right, Sterlings were rebadged Rovers, which were rebadged, badly assembled HONDAS. I wish americans had figured out that merkur's were simply rebadged fords from europe...hell, they couldn't figure out what the name ment.

why are a lot of americans "foreign dumb"? (at least, those of us not on the net)
 
Mhmm... Isuzu automobiles... I saw a Bellet GT-R once at the racetrack... awesome machine. 1970's sports sedan with a twin-cam (DOHC! In the 70's!) engine... lining up a dinky 1.6 liter Japanese sedan against a brace of Porsches in a historic race? Wonderful. Having it outsprint a 2.7 911 Carrera into first place at the first corner? Priceless. It lost places on the succeeding laps to more powerful cars, especially as the carbs and cooling system couldn't keep up, but for all of ten seconds, that little Isuzu was the star of the race.

Yeah, the Vanette eventually became the Serena, but none of the diesel versions were quite as bad as that original gasoline one. One of the worst engines I've ever driven.
 
Sniffs
M5: if i remember right, Sterlings were rebadged Rovers, which were rebadged, badly assembled HONDAS. I wish americans had figured out that merkur's were simply rebadged fords from europe...hell, they couldn't figure out what the name ment.

why are a lot of americans "foreign dumb"? (at least, those of us not on the net)
Click to expand...

They were not rebadged Honda's, the Rover-800 was co-developed with Honda. I think it was the Legend that was developed with, which we also got here under the Acura brand.
 
Sniffs
M5: if i remember right, Sterlings were rebadged Rovers, which were rebadged, badly assembled HONDAS.
Click to expand...

Some Rovers were rebadged Hondas, but the one model that we got was more of a joint effort rather than a straight-up rebadging.
 
The best Honda/Rover effort was the Domani-based Civic/Rover 400.

R45.jpg
Civic1.jpg
Mg_zs_180_2003.jpg

45, Civic VTi, MG ZS​

The 400 was a fairly good-looking 5dr and handsome sedan, and the Honda version, sold alongside the EK range, included a 1.8 VTi version with around 180bhp, which could also be had in Aerodeck estate form. When MG was brought back the platform was also used for the ZS, which is supposed to be a very good car indeed, especially in V6 form. Apparently the plaform was originally a Rover/Honda joint effort, but Honda went back to Japan and basically designed the whole thing themselves, which annoyed Rover a bit!

Anyway, I'm taking us further off topic. More ideas?
 
first off i think the cars are out there, but the marketing hasnt caught up.

we really need to take out all the crap that comes in cars. reduce the weight.
then we can use the smart 900cc engine and couple that with a supercharger for extra power, and use it to power something like a honda civic. you really only need power for acceleration and climbing. cars use very little power when actually cruising, certainly at legal speeds. when you start getting into the realm of very high speeds is where you need real horsepower.

so imagine a (light) hybrid honda civic/ ford focus/ powered by electric motors at low speed, say up to 20mph. the IC engine kicks in at higher speeds, just like a hybrid. in acceleration mode it has a supercharger. in light cruising mode it runs the atkinson cycle, has stop/ start when cruising, and elecctrically disengages the supercharger when not needed.
with proper gearing, an (EK weight) hybrid would easily do 50mpg combined.

in fact, i cant understand why someone hasnt already taken a 93 civic DX coupe ( not quite the lightest (HX hatchback) but better aerodynamics) and done something similar.
use a supercharged smart engine. 185/ 70-14 tires. you may not even need to change the gearing at all as the smart has much smaller tires than the honda civic. the bigger honda civic tires would essentially multiply the gearing for freeway cruising. use golf cart motors (as suggested) for the rear wheels, place some capacitors and odyssey batteries under the back seat. clean up the aero a little (with a front air dam, side skirts, underbelly enhancing, hidden wipers (raised trailing edge on hood.) smaller side mirrors etc) and youd end up with a car that should easily beat the fuel consumption of todays cars (which are beaten by yesterdays cars) and still be remotely desireable.

then you have the normal series of engines. for more excitement/ conventionality as it were.

moreover, if honda does a ford transit connect with thier stream, you have multiple variants which could be powered by the same drivetrains.

Jim Prower
I learned an interesting fact about CAT engines: the crank journals are divided, split and offset slightly. They do this for their V8s. Wonder what that does.
Click to expand...

i think the offset crank journals reduce piston slap. obviously there is only pressure on the pistons on one downstroke, the compression stroke. because of thermal expansion there has to be a slight gap between the piston and the cylinder walls. but that introduces piston slap. offset the crank slightly towards the rotation/ pressure side and you reduce piston slap.

its more noticable when the engine is cold.
 
neanderthal
we really need to take out all the crap that comes in cars. reduce the weight.
then we can use the smart 900cc engine and couple that with a supercharger for extra power, and use it to power something like a honda civic.
Click to expand...

I think we're getting there, slowly, but its going to be a long time before we're back to seeing small cars that consistently weigh in at less than 2500 lbs. Safety testing and platform sharing are likely what we can blame for some of the weight increases, particularly as the cars grow larger each generation, but nevertheless, some have manged to trim down... Slightly... From model to model.

The only car I can think of that kinda does what you're talking about is the Nissan Versa 1.6, which essentially offers the buyer the absolute basics of transportation and power at a low-low-price. Thing its, its pretty much a race for everyone to see who can build the cheapest car in the segment.

If anyone is going to do what you're talking about, my best guess is that it would come from either Honda or Toyota first, but that seems increasingly less-likely as the Civic and Corolla begin to transform slowly into even more mainstream cars. Perhaps the Fit and Yaris would work out best to do such a thing, but that is going to depend (mostly) on what Ford ends up doing with the Fiesta. I suppose to be even more honest, I think the Fiesta is going to determine a lot of things with small cars here in the US.
 
yss. said what I wanted to. american cars, for example are toting around about a thousand pounds of safetey braces, hardened steel and occupant protection devices required in the lawsuit happy United States. not only that, i think people wouldn't be happy losing their radios, ABS, etc...
 
neanderthal
in fact, i cant understand why someone hasnt already taken a 93 civic DX coupe ( not quite the lightest (HX hatchback) but better aerodynamics) and done something similar.
use a supercharged smart engine. 185/ 70-14 tires. you may not even need to change the gearing at all as the smart has much smaller tires than the honda civic. the bigger honda civic tires would essentially multiply the gearing for freeway cruising. use golf cart motors (as suggested) for the rear wheels, place some capacitors and odyssey batteries under the back seat. clean up the aero a little (with a front air dam, side skirts, underbelly enhancing, hidden wipers (raised trailing edge on hood.) smaller side mirrors etc) and youd end up with a car that should easily beat the fuel consumption of todays cars (which are beaten by yesterdays cars) and still be remotely desireable.
Click to expand...

I like your idea, but just a few points I need to pick out on.

With regard to wheel/tyre size, I wouldn't be surprised if the standard smart fortwo wheel and tyre combination is actually bigger than that offered on the Civic DX. Most smarts come with 14" and 15" wheels, with the option of 16" and even 17" on the Brabus. The DX, as you've pointed out, had 14" wheels and the tyres were fairly high profile. So ideally you'd be trying to fit some narrow 14" wheels to the DX. Smart front wheels/tyres are narrower than those at the back, so you'd go for those (though the stud pattern used by the smart isn't too common either).

As for supercharging the engine, I think a turbo would be more beneficial. The supercharger would require some of the engine's limited power and torque to drive, and although the response might be slightly quicker than a turbo, it would probably use more fuel too. Smart already have some good turbocharged engines (again, the roughly 100bhp of the one they but in the Brabus Roadster would be ideal or even the normal 80-ish bhp, easily enough to move the light Civic body) so it would make more sense to use one of those.

As it is though, I certainly like your concept. The standard DX is capable of 45mpg (US gallons too, just in case anyone was wondering whether I was referring to UK gallons) with careful driving and is a favourite with the "ecomodding" crowd.

It would also be an interesting alternative to the economy coupes I suggested in my original post.

Sniffs
yss. said what I wanted to. american cars, for example are toting around about a thousand pounds of safetey braces, hardened steel and occupant protection devices required in the lawsuit happy United States. not only that, i think people wouldn't be happy losing their radios, ABS, etc...
Click to expand...

With modern technology, people probably wouldn't have to lose their radios, ABS, aircon etc. As electronics improve the weight of these systems goes down. The aircon system in the upcoming Toyota iQ is half the size of a normal unit yet supposedly powerful enough for a Dubai summer. Lotus has shown (with the Elise) that it's possible to have light yet comfortable seats too, with the "Probax" technology they currently use. So comfort wouldn't have to suffer in the pursuit of shedding weight. Manufacturers are also finding that by using the right materials structurally in the right places, they can make cars lighter and yet even safer.
 
I keep wondering how "heavy" the GM Delta-II platform is, but based on its size, I assume its more than the current crop of cars. Those will be shipping-out with 1.4L Turbo engines here in the US come 2011, which should cater a bit to what hes suggesting... But its still not quite the same thing as the old Honda Civic CXs of yesteryear.
 
i picked the earlier civics because they were light and structurally strong and moreover, they were really desirable now, they are more apppliances.

as for the tires, i suggested using the taller 70 profile tire to increase highway economy

i picked the supercharger as part of a (w)holistic system.
a) you can disengage it. not so much with a turbo
b) you'd only use the supercharger for acceleration. the purpose of only using it for acceleration is to use the miller cycle for efficiency. if you keep the power adder running you use more fuel, even if keeping it engaged will give you more torque and allow you to cruise at lower rpms.

i didnt use the the cobalt because its been an afterthought on the market. it was poorly received poorly marketed, designed, executed, even though it had its own following
 
we switched to lower profile tyres for better handling and tighter turning. I think that talls are considered "old fashioned" throw in the fact that they were used as standard equipment on our loxury barges AND tied to the whimpy-slushbox .28 CoD era...
 
neanderthal
as for the tires, i suggested using the taller 70 profile tire to increase highway economy
Click to expand...

I knew why you were picking them, but the smart's wheels/tyres wouldn't be the best choice for the reasons I mentioned, namely the wheels are bigger than you'd expect, and conversely the tyres are lower profile than you'd expect too.

i picked the supercharger as part of a (w)holistic system.
a) you can disengage it. not so much with a turbo
b) you'd only use the supercharger for acceleration. the purpose of only using it for acceleration is to use the miller cycle for efficiency. if you keep the power adder running you use more fuel, even if keeping it engaged will give you more torque and allow you to cruise at lower rpms.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean now, that is a good idea. I still have an issue with the supercharger though, and thats that even if you can switch it off, the engine is still using some power to turn the belt, isn't it? The fewer things you have absorbing the power of the engine, the more efficient it is. A small, low pressure turbo will spool up really easily to give good torque and very little, if any lag (wouldn't necessarily give you much at the top end, but then top end isn't really an eco car relevance anyway), whilst enabling you to keep a small, economical engine without much of a performance penalty.

As a European too, I'd like to see a small turbodiesel powering the car too, for the ultimate economy. My ideal unit here would be something like the 75 or 90bhp 3-cyl VAG turbodiesel that was used in the Lupo/Fabia/A2/Polo etc. The smart's 45bhp turbodiesel is economical but really not powerful or torquey enough, at least not with the smart's transmission. VAG use the 1.4 in the Polo Bluemotion, and we all know that can get some pretty impressive economy - and the Polo isn't a particularly small car.
 
no mate. dont lose the plot now.

the car is a honda civic with a smart drivetrain. we've changed the tires to 185/70-14 tires for the HONDA. we are NOT using the smart wheels/ tires.
cheers

id add that the belt is going to be running regardless, powering the alternator etc. the added pulley that is disengaged will add negligible drag to the belt system.
 
A turbocharger won't use power if it's not boosting, and thanks to variable vane/geometry construction, you can have turbochargers now with the linearity of superchargers and the higher boost capacity of turbos.

For a small three to four cylinder engine, a turbocharger is a better choice than a supercharger... less moving parts, mechanically simpler, more efficient. A supercharger becomes a better option when you move up to Vees to avoid plumbing complications.

----

I forgot to add earlier... one thing I'd like to see the market get isn't in the car platform itself, but in the electronics.

OBDII has really helped to standardize automotive diagnostics, but one thing I'd like to see is ECU standardization. In other words, cross-platform ECU sharing, as a way of bringing down costs.... and even cross-manufacturer ECU sharing. An open-architecture system with its own operating system which vehicle owners can customize to their needs.

Think about it... want an extra 5-10 mpg? Reprogram your car... sacrifice 10 hp for 5 mpg. Want a soft limiter for when people borrow it? Program that in. Want extra power in case of emergencies? Program an "overboost" mode into it.

Now you can adjust your speedometer and odometer to bigger/smaller tires... monitor your oil's "health"... tweak your vehicle assists.

This is available now to anyone who has a piggyback computer or a "plug-in", but it would be nice to see it integrated into new vehicles, too.

---

Oh, and wheels... can manufacturers please make up their minds already and standardize lug-spacing and off-set for each class of vehicle already? When you have a dozen same-size / same-class vehicles with different off-sets, lug-counts and lug-spacing, despite having the same sized wheels... it can get confusing.
 
set aside cool new cars. Hell american car makers never even took the time to make a minivan cool, a muscle car affordable or an SUV green.
Now that we pay for their failure, maybe we can impliment some creative calls as board members.
no?
well that means our system waists revenue and rewards lazyness. That couldnt be right.
lol
Bailing out those idiots lost a lot of freedoms for us. Now cars will be govt-issued.
We seem to dislike empowering ourselves as a society. I'll have to tell my grandchildren about how we use to be able to shop for different kinds of cars, mod em and actually enjoy them as more than a means of transportation.
and they most likely will not understand this as it'll be gone.

thank you mr bush. Nice job. In just 8 years, you toppled more economies than any other douche in history.
 
On a side note there... nobody but the Americans and Australians actually make affordable muscle cars. The closest the Japanese get to an "affordable muscle" car is the 350Z/370Z... and that's already on the same price point as American V8.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back