Aston Martin readying Toyota iQ-based city car
Aston Martin has a knack for producing some of the most beautiful cars in the world, but the firm?s latest project could bring that reputation to a screeching halt. In order to pass more stringent upcoming fuel economy regulations, Aston Martin is readying its own version of the Toyota iQ city car.
As strange and blasphemous as it sounds, Aston Martin is indeed working on an iQ of its own, officially dubbed the Cygnet. The tiny hatch is still in its concept phase, but is reportedly being strongly favored for production. To prove the Cygnet is not just a vaporware joke, Aston Martin released a single teaser image of the dressed up iQ.
The teaser image reveals the Cygnet is basically a Toyota iQ in Aston Martin clothing. Up front is Aston Martin?s signature grille, with hood louvers giving the Cygnet way more bark than bite.
Although the standard interior of the iQ is rather sparse, the Aston Martin version will be completely revamped. Expect plenty of fine leather with quality standards up to those of the company?s DBS supercar.
Although the Cygnet wears the Aston Martin badge, don?t expect much in the way of performance. The iQ?s drivetrain will remain essentially intact, which means a three-cylinder will be the Cygnet?s source for motivation.
Although Aston Martin has yet to release specific details on the Cygnet ? such as price and a release date ? company CEO Ulrich Bez is high on the project. ?Much work is still required, but I am confident that this project could become reality in the not-too-distant future,? Bez said of the Cygnet. Surfacing reports suggest the Cygnet will list from 23,000 euros ($32,300), with 2,000 examples slated to be produced each year.
Unlike supercar makers such as Ferrari and Lamborghini, Aston Martin doesn?t have a parent company to leverage fuel economy averages. As such, Aston needs a car like the Toyota-sourced iQ to bring its emission average in line with new standards slated to take effect in 2012. The Cygnet is said to be reserved for current Aston Martin owners, which should give the volume model a bit of exclusivity.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg-1.jpg)
Noooooooooooo! :(
...teaser image...?
Either this is a joke, or those men are working awfully fast.
...It's not April 1st, is it?
:confused:
It's got to be a joke.
What a marriage from hell that would have been. :facepalm:
(http://www.autocar.co.uk/contentImages//Car/AstonMartin/Concepts/2669933047344356x236.jpg)
(http://www.autocar.co.uk/contentImages//Car/AstonMartin/Concepts/2669933046125356x236.jpg)
(http://www.autocar.co.uk/contentImages//Car/AstonMartin/Concepts/2669933139987356x236.jpg)
(http://img.worldcarfans.com/2009/6/large/119339555.jpg)
I like it quite a bit. But then again, I like the idea of a premium supermini, for city use where congestion charges are the norm, and parking is very hard to come by (remember the Top Gear with Clarkson and company taking the big luxury cars downtown London and trying to find parking spaces?). I've always loved the performance versions of the Japanese kei cars (like having AWD, turbocharged 5 valve percyl crazy revving little engines in a tiny car). This thing would still be exclusive, and I'm sure luxurious inside. And I think it looks vastly better than most superminis and kei cars.
Of course, they are only selling it to people that already HAVE an Aston, it's not like it's being marketed to Joe Sixpack down in the trailer park...
Are you legally allowed to determine who can and can't buy your product?
Is the iQ RWD?
This thing better have 250 + hp and a 6 speed manual.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 10:17:07 AM
Are you legally allowed to determine who can and can't buy your product?
Doesn't seem to be a problem...for example, the Stirling Moss edition SLRs were only offered to people who already owned an SLR.
Wasn't the Enzo originally only offered to those who had an F40 and F50 previously?
There is a lot of precedent for limiting who can buy/use your product. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Plus, We're talking European commerce laws anyhow.
I think it looks pretty cool, though I would like to see a performance version with 170 hp.
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 29, 2009, 11:33:46 AM
I think it looks pretty cool, though I would like to see a performance version with 170 hp.
Yeah, it needs a 150-200 hp engine so it can outpower those old turbo Kei cars...
(http://noriyaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/noriyaro_odaiba_rex_kei_car_drifting_001.jpg)
let's see a tuner step up...
hell, I'll take a used one and mod it. Would make a perfect commuter...
Quote from: ChrisV on June 29, 2009, 12:12:42 PM
Yeah, it needs a 150-200 hp engine so it can outpower those old turbo Kei cars...
let's see a tuner step up...
hell, I'll take a used one and mod it. Would make a perfect commuter...
You and I are on the same page here Chris. It's too bad that they have to make them exclusive to keep Aston's image intact, because I would love to see these things mass produced.
These will probably be a buy-one-get-one deal with their other cars. That would drastically reduce their CAFE, get their badge seen more often, and not cost the buyers much more than what they might shell out for custom branded luggage.
Quote from: RomanChariot on June 29, 2009, 01:10:01 PM
These will probably be a buy-one-get-one deal with their other cars. That would drastically reduce their CAFE, get their badge seen more often, and not cost the buyers much more than what they might shell out for custom branded luggage.
It won't be sold in the USA so it won't impact CAFE, but I imagine that the EU has some equivalent. That has to be the reason, I can't imagine they are going to be making enough money on it to bother unless they have another motivation.
I must say I question their ability to move 2000 of these a year if they are only going to sell them to Aston Martin owners.
Quote from: TBR on June 29, 2009, 01:15:49 PM
It won't be sold in the USA so it won't impact CAFE, but I imagine that the EU has some equivalent. That has to be the reason, I can't imagine they are going to be making enough money on it to bother unless they have another motivation.
I must say I question their ability to move 2000 of these a year if they are only going to sell them to Aston Martin owners.
They're selling a subcompact car for $33,000 -- that's not a bad profit margin.
It will indeed be interesting to see where sales come from; maybe dealers will pick them up as loaners.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 01:32:09 PM
It will indeed be interesting to see where sales come from; maybe dealers will pick them up as loaners.
I wouldn't doubt that for a second.
This makes the X-Type almost seem like a bargain. For me to believe the Holocaust is really coming, all I need to see now is a Tata Nano with Connolly leather.
As for the concept and idea behind it, I am in awe of the ingenuity of Aston Martin. I approve of this completely.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 01:32:09 PM
They're selling a subcompact car for $33,000 -- that's not a bad profit margin.
I think the two door 3 Series BMW is classified as a sub-compact and they cost even more. Personally I'd take a subcompact AM over a BMW.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 29, 2009, 12:12:42 PM
Yeah, it needs a 150-200 hp engine so it can outpower those old turbo Kei cars...
(http://noriyaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/noriyaro_odaiba_rex_kei_car_drifting_001.jpg)
let's see a tuner step up...
hell, I'll take a used one and mod it. Would make a perfect commuter...
You do know what kind of car that is, right? There are a handful of legalized ones of those in the States and Canada. I want one.
Quote from: Byteme on June 29, 2009, 01:55:23 PM
I think the two door 3 Series BMW is classified as a sub-compact and they cost even more. Personally I'd take a subcompact AM over a BMW.
The 3 series coupe is 99.6 combined cubic feet, which puts it, just barely, in the compact category (subcompact cuts off at 99, or, if we're rounding, 99.4). It's a hair.
Quote from: TBR on June 29, 2009, 01:15:49 PM
It won't be sold in the USA so it won't impact CAFE, but I imagine that the EU has some equivalent. That has to be the reason, I can't imagine they are going to be making enough money on it to bother unless they have another motivation.
I must say I question their ability to move 2000 of these a year if they are only going to sell them to Aston Martin owners.
Yeah I was just responding to this statement from the original post.
QuoteUnlike supercar makers such as Ferrari and Lamborghini, Aston Martin doesn?t have a parent company to leverage fuel economy averages. As such, Aston needs a car like the Toyota-sourced iQ to bring its emission average in line with new standards slated to take effect in 2012. The Cygnet is said to be reserved for current Aston Martin owners, which should give the volume model a bit of exclusivity.
CAFE may not be the correct term but they are only doing this to keep regulators off of their backs because of their low fuel efficiency averages. Borrow a cheap highly fuel efficient car, put your own badge on it and sell it with your mega-buck exotics and you solve your problem. If you make it a package deal you assure that you meet your goals and your buyers aren't likely to flinch at a minor price increase considering how much they are already paying. Plus the buyer gets a novelty car for running errands or sending the kids to school in.
I would like to see a supercharged engine back in Aston's lineup.
"So I see your Vanquish out in the parking lot today. Nice, sir."
"Thanks. I have a DBS on the way. I ordered it 6 months ago. It should be here anytime now."
"How are the wife and kids? Isn't Junior getting his license soon?"
"Yeah"
"What's he going to drive? Certainly, you're not going to let him drive the S63 or the Range Rover. He'll kill himself."
"Yeah, you're right. Those are a bit much for him right now. But he's getting an Aston Martin, too."
"What do you mean? None of them are particularly suited for a 16-year-old. And I was worried about you letting your kid borrow the Range Rover."
"No, no, Johnson. He's getting the new Aston Martin iQ. It's a two-door, three-seater. It's a neat, little car."
"Ah, yes, British three-seaters. Proper supercars."
"Yup, 1.3 liter 3-cylinder. The kid will love it -- except when the son of the arrogant pricks down the street want to race him against his M3."
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 02:16:32 PM
He's getting the new Aston Martin iQ.
Aston Martin Cygnet
Took too long to get to the punchline.
Comedy, much like life, is about timing.
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2009, 02:35:20 PM
Took too long to get to the punchline.
Comedy, much like life, is about timing.
:lol:
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2009, 02:35:20 PM
Took too long to get to the punchline.
Comedy, much like life, is about timing.
It's been one of those kinds of days. I don't care.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 01:32:09 PM
They're selling a subcompact car for $33,000 -- that's not a bad profit margin.
It will indeed be interesting to see where sales come from; maybe dealers will pick them up as loaners.
$20k if it was simply an iQ with an Aston Martin badge, but it isn't. It will have a significantly revised exterior and a completely different, much posher interior. On an absolute level, whatever is left over will be a relatively small margin.
Wait the iQ is a 3 seater?
WTF...
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 03:17:41 PM
Wait the iQ is a 3 seater?
WTF...
"Other pieces of iQ intelligence? Clever shaping of the dashboard and footwell lets the front passenger sit further forward than the driver, which means there?s space for an adult to sit behind. Anyone aft of the driver needs to be very young and slender of leg, however."
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 03:17:41 PM
Wait the iQ is a 3 seater?
WTF...
3+1. The front seats are staggered with the passenger seat being significantly further forward than the driver seat. This makes the driver side rear seat pretty much useless.
Quote from: TBR on June 29, 2009, 03:15:53 PM
$20k if it was simply an iQ with an Aston Martin badge, but it isn't. It will have a significantly revised exterior and a completely different, much posher interior. On an absolute level, whatever is left over will be a relatively small margin.
It doesn't cost more to build a more stylish exterior, and the interior won't be $20,000 worth of posh. They'll make huge profits per vehicle.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 03:20:37 PM
It doesn't cost more to build a more stylish exterior, and the interior won't be $20,000 worth of posh. They'll make huge profits per vehicle.
Stamping costs are significant for a low volume car.
I am not saying that they won't make money on the cars, they will. But I think their efforts would best be focused on something that would allow bigger margins without tarnishing the Aston Martin reputation (and if you think a 3-cylinder subcompact won't do that then you are insane).
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 03:20:37 PM
It doesn't cost more to build a more stylish exterior, and the interior won't be $20,000 worth of posh. They'll make huge profits per vehicle.
Iffy, there is no jagged question following this, but here it is: Have you ever been to a country club?
After you or whoever else wants to answer answers, I'll explain why I asked that question. It pertains to this car a whole heck of a lot.
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2009, 03:19:41 PM
"Other pieces of iQ intelligence? Clever shaping of the dashboard and footwell lets the front passenger sit further forward than the driver, which means there?s space for an adult to sit behind. Anyone aft of the driver needs to be very young and slender of leg, however."
That seems pretty dumb. Are there any interior pics?
Quote from: TBR on June 29, 2009, 03:20:19 PM
3+1. The front seats are staggered with the passenger seat being significantly further forward than the driver seat. This makes the driver side rear seat pretty much useless.
Won't that be a hindrance to the driver's ability to see out the passenger side of the car? I'm tall so I sit further back then most already. If my passenger is sitting further forward then me, that's going to be a visibility issue.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 03:29:17 PM
That seems pretty dumb. Are there any interior pics?
(http://www.carpages.co.uk/toyota/toyota_images/toyota-iq-24-11-08.jpg)
(http://www.automobilesreview.com/uploads/2008/11/toyota-iq-013.jpg)
In any case, rich people with more money than sense will jump at this on first sight as an urban runabout. And I bet resale value stays incredibly high for a long time to come.
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2009, 03:33:37 PM
(http://www.carpages.co.uk/toyota/toyota_images/toyota-iq-24-11-08.jpg)
(http://www.automobilesreview.com/uploads/2008/11/toyota-iq-013.jpg)
Ah, I see.
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 29, 2009, 03:29:26 PM
Won't that be a hindrance to the driver's ability to see out the passenger side of the car? I'm tall so I sit further back then most already. If my passenger is sitting further forward then me, that's going to be a visibility issue.
Yeah, that's a good point. It's even worse if I'm trying to turn onto a road, and I'm looking both ways to see if there are cars coming and my passenger does the same thing. :rage:
My dad does that and then I yell at him that the view of the back of his head doesn't do me much good while I'm driving.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 04:10:27 PM
Ah, I see.
It kind of looks like a great way to make more people less comfortable, really. I know she's smiling in that picture, but I can't imagine she'd be like that for long outside of a short city trip.
And therein lies the problem with city cars. Why buy a car with such narrowly defined parameters when you could buy a slightly larger car for only slightly more money (Aygo, C1, Fox, et al) that can actually deal with motorway journeys and keep up with traffic that goes over 30?
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
Iffy, there is no jagged question following this, but here it is: Have you ever been to a country club?
After you or whoever else wants to answer answers, I'll explain why I asked that question. It pertains to this car a whole heck of a lot.
Are you suggesting that these should be golf carts?
I've only been to the somewhat downscale country club near my home.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 04:44:51 PM
Are you suggesting that these should be golf carts?
I've only been to the somewhat downscale country club near my home.
No, I'm more talking about Coca-Cola. A can of Coke is .50 in a pop machine. A 12 oz. glass of Coke at your average country club is $2.
Exclusivity breeds exclusivity breeds arrogance breeds frivolous spending. You're paying to get into a hoity toity club, and then you're paying way too much for a drink just because you can. The price of this rinky dink car means nothing. It's the badge. So yeah, it's going to become a completely overpriced urban runabout. But it's going to be completely worth it in interior materials and exclusivity alone.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 04:58:05 PM
No, I'm more talking about Coca-Cola. A can of Coke is .50 in a pop machine. A 12 oz. glass of Coke at your average country club is $2.
Exclusivity breeds exclusivity breeds arrogance breeds frivolous spending. You're paying to get into a hoity toity club, and then you're paying way too much for a drink just because you can. The price of this rinky dink car means nothing. It's the badge. So yeah, it's going to become a completely overpriced urban runabout. But it's going to be completely worth it in nothing more than interior materials and exclusivity.
I don't know what kind of soda machine you go to, but I've NEVER seen a can of Coke for 50?.
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 29, 2009, 04:59:23 PM
I don't know what kind of soda machine you go to, but I've NEVER seen a can of Coke for 50?.
That's because you live in Long Island. Okay, adjust the prices to .75 and $3 for you.
I don't think they're trying to make another Aston Martin. This is an amenity to their actual cars. That's why it's only for already-owners.
I bet it'll end up being a good business move for them.
Aston's watch is more expensive than the Cygnet.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/ultra_luxury_lounge/aston_martin_amvox2_car_news (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/high_performance/ultra_luxury_lounge/aston_martin_amvox2_car_news)
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 04:58:05 PM
No, I'm more talking about Coca-Cola. A can of Coke is .50 in a pop machine. A 12 oz. glass of Coke at your average country club is $2.
Exclusivity breeds exclusivity breeds arrogance breeds frivolous spending. You're paying to get into a hoity toity club, and then you're paying way too much for a drink just because you can. The price of this rinky dink car means nothing. It's the badge. So yeah, it's going to become a completely overpriced urban runabout. But it's going to be completely worth it in interior materials and exclusivity alone.
I didn't say otherwise.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 10:17:49 AM
Is the iQ RWD?
This thing better have 250 + hp and a 6 speed manual.
The iQ's an FF.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 05:00:39 PM
That's because you live in Long Island. Okay, adjust the prices to .75 and $3 for you.
WHAT? Cans are $1 here.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 03:29:17 PM
That seems pretty dumb. Are there any interior pics?
Actually, it's VERY clever. The iQ is only 1 foot longer than the Fortwo.
Quote from: 68_427 on June 29, 2009, 06:26:13 PM
WHAT? Cans are $1 here.
That's retardedly expensive. You can get 20 oz. bottles from the pop machine for $1-1.25 in most places.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 06:30:53 PM
That's retardedly expensive. You can get 20 oz. bottles from the pop machine for $1-1.25 in most places.
Here they are $1.75.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 06:34:47 PM
Here they are $1.75.
That's how much they are at school.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 06:34:59 PM
An FWD Aston Martin? Fail.
An front wheel drive? Yes, that is pretty bad.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 06:30:53 PM
That's retardedly expensive. You can get 20 oz. bottles from the pop machine for $1-1.25 in most places.
A few years ago bottles were $1. Fak NY.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 06:43:31 PM
An front wheel drive? Yes, that is pretty bad.
I said FWD, which means you would say "F", "W", "D", as in the letters. "F" is pronounced "ef", which starts with a vowel, and so I said "An". If I wanted to say front wheel drive I would have said "a front wheel drive". I'm not dumb.
Don't try to be a smartass.
Quote from: 68_427 on June 29, 2009, 06:43:43 PM
A few years ago bottles were $1. Fak NY.
They are $1.57 I think at supermarkets, plus another 9.25% for tax.
This is getting outrageous.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 06:56:02 PM
I said FWD, which means you would say "F", "W", "D", as in the letters. "F" is pronounced "ef", which starts with a vowel, and so I said "An". If I wanted to say front wheel drive I would have said "a front wheel drive". I'm not dumb.
Don't try to be a smartass.
You pronounce it as an abbreviation? Okay.
Quote from: ifcar on June 29, 2009, 06:58:36 PM
You pronounce it as an abbreviation? Okay.
Yes...
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 06:56:02 PM
I said FWD, which means you would say "F", "W", "D", as in the letters. "F" is pronounced "ef", which starts with a vowel, and so I said "An". If I wanted to say front wheel drive I would have said "a front wheel drive". I'm not dumb.
Don't try to be a smartass.
Nice fredurian slip.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 07:00:09 PM
Yes...
I don't believe you.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 29, 2009, 07:00:25 PM
Nice fredurian slip.
I don't believe you.
Where's my "fredurian" slip?
And I don't care if you don't believe me, honestly. Sometimes I say the letters "FWD" and sometimes I just say "front wheel drive".
I don't see what the big deal is. Do you say "Video Home System" instead of VHS? "Digital Versatile Disc" instead of DVD?
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 07:01:46 PM
Where's my "fredurian" slip?
And I don't care if you don't believe me, honestly. Sometimes I say the letters "FWD" and sometimes I just say "front wheel drive".
I don't see what the big deal is. Do you say "Video Home System" instead of VHS? "Digital Versatile Disc" instead of DVD?
Ok.....whatever you say....... :ohyeah: :rolleyes:
Quote from: 2o6 on June 29, 2009, 07:03:25 PM
Ok.....whatever you say....... :ohyeah: :rolleyes:
I like how nowadays everyone has a stick up their ass and has to make a big deal out of nothing. :rolleyes:
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 07:08:47 PM
I like how nowadays everyone has a stick up their ass and has to make a big deal out of nothing. :rolleyes:
In this case, it seems to be the other way around, dude.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 29, 2009, 07:10:42 PM
In this case, it seems to be the other way around, dude.
Actually, it seems like iffy's the one with it up the butt.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 29, 2009, 07:00:25 PM
Nice fredurian slip.
I don't believe you.
Fredurian? :wtf: :facepalm:
Just GTFO now. :lol:
Also, do you even know what a Freudian slip is? That's not a Freudian slip.
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 29, 2009, 07:21:23 PM
Fredurian? :wtf: :facepalm:
Just GTFO now. :lol:
Also, do you even know what a Freudian slip is? That's not a Freudian slip.
:lol:
For the record I do have a lot of Freudian slips when I'm talking for some reason.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 07:24:16 PM
:lol:
For the record I do have a lot of Freudian slips when I'm talking for some reason.
That could be, well, inconvenient. :lol:
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 29, 2009, 07:25:29 PM
That could be, well, inconvenient. :lol:
Good thing they aren't anything inappropriate... :mask: :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 07:26:32 PM
Good thing they aren't anything inappropriate... :mask: :lol:
Well, depending on the situation, that could come in handy. :lol: :devil:
I suffer from acute chronic Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome. It's like Turret's, but worse.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 07:31:32 PM
I suffer from acute chronic Foot-In-Mouth Syndrome. It's like Turret's, but worse.
It's OK, 2o6 suffers from Fredurian slips.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 07:32:55 PM
It's OK, 2o6 suffers from Fredurian slips.
Freduran slips=mental retardation?
I kid, I kid. ;)
Quote from: CALL_911 on June 29, 2009, 07:33:55 PM
Freduran slips=mental retardation?
I kid, I kid. ;)
Durian = Really smelly fruit.
Fre = Prefix for "free"
It means that carspynut slipped and fell on some stanky fruit.
---------------
I'm a wreck when I don't spell check.
On to another irrelevant debate. In most of the south from what I have seen 20 oz drinks are $1.00 from a machine and ~$1.42 from a store. Very few machines carry 12 oz cans anymore.
Quote from: TBR on June 29, 2009, 07:37:42 PM
On to another irrelevant debate. In most of the south from what I have seen 20 oz drinks are $1.00 from a machine and ~$1.42 from a store. Very few machines carry 12 oz cans anymore.
Dang that's cheap.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 07:08:47 PM
I like how nowadays everyone has a stick up their ass and has to make a big deal out of nothing. :rolleyes:
No shit. Must be the weather. :huh: :nutty:
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 04:58:05 PM
No, I'm more talking about Coca-Cola. A can of Coke is .50 in a pop machine. A 12 oz. glass of Coke at your average country club is $2.
Exclusivity breeds exclusivity breeds arrogance breeds frivolous spending. You're paying to get into a hoity toity club, and then you're paying way too much for a drink just because you can. The price of this rinky dink car means nothing. It's the badge. So yeah, it's going to become a completely overpriced urban runabout. But it's going to be completely worth it in interior materials and exclusivity alone.
So, you actually do live in 1975, don't you?
I haven't seen a can of branded soda for fifty cents in at least ten years.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 06:30:53 PM
That's retardedly expensive. You can get 20 oz. bottles from the pop machine for $1-1.25 in most places.
I've seen some $1.25s, but mostly $1.50 here for bottles.
.75 max. Seriously, you guys have some expensive pop in your parts.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 07:01:46 PM
Where's my "fredurian" slip?
And I don't care if you don't believe me, honestly. Sometimes I say the letters "FWD" and sometimes I just say "front wheel drive".
I don't see what the big deal is. Do you say "Video Home System" instead of VHS? "Digital Versatile Disc" instead of DVD?
"FWD" is two more syllables than "front wheel drive". It's a typing abbreviation, not a speaking one. But it's really quite silly to argue over.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 08:11:12 PM
.75 max. Seriously, you guys have some expensive soda in your parts.
75-100 for a can of soda with a real brand on it. Even store brand sodas are running into fifty cents nowadays, and they were only twenty-five a few years ago.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 08:11:12 PM
.75 max. Seriously, you guys have some expensive pop in your parts.
It's 0.80 cents in my area.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 29, 2009, 08:13:56 PM
It's 0.80 cents in my area.
I've seen that one too, and it really pisses me off. Anything bought in a vending machine should be able to be paid for with exact change using only quarters.
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2009, 08:13:47 PM
75-100 for a can of pop with a real brand on it. Even store brand pops are running into fifty cents nowadays, and they were only twenty-five a few years ago.
I'll check when I go shopping again next weekend.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 08:49:08 PM
I'll check when I go shopping again next weekend.
And on top of that, can vending machines are getting rarer and rarer. Everything's bottles nowadays, other than the one near my local supermarket.
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2009, 08:50:10 PM
And on top of that, can vending machines are getting rarer and rarer. Everything's bottles nowadays, other than the one near my local supermarket.
Wal-Mart still has them. Most are in bottles, though, for $1.25 or so.
Quote from: the Teuton on June 29, 2009, 08:53:34 PM
Wal-Mart still has them. Most are in bottles, though, for $1.25 or so.
See, that's something I'd miss, because I never go to Walmart.
I might have to go to buy that $300 MSI Wind, but it depends on my morals vs. my wallet.
I remember the generic convenience store vending machines that dispensed soda in cans that just said COLA on it. $.35 per can made it hard to buy the real versions that were 2-3 times more expensive. :lol:
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 08:59:34 PM
I remember the generic convenience store vending machines that dispensed soda in cans that just said COLA on it. $.35 per can made it hard to buy the real versions that were 2-3 times more expensive. :lol:
I remember those machines. Now I can't seem to find a can of soda for less than $1.00.
Speaking of the AM subcompact, I want to know if it will make a cameo in a future James Bond movie.
Quote from: Speed_Racer on June 29, 2009, 10:15:22 PM
I remember those machines. Now I can't seem to find a can of soda for less than $1.00.
Speaking of the AM subcompact, I want to know if it will make a cameo in a future James Bond movie.
The only getaway Bond could make in that car was if his pursuers were on bicycles... and even then it'd still be close.
:lol:
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 29, 2009, 08:56:30 AM
Aston Martin readying Toyota iQ-based city car
Aston Martin has a knack for producing some of the most beautiful cars in the world, but the firm?s latest project could bring that reputation to a screeching halt. In order to pass more stringent upcoming fuel economy regulations, Aston Martin is readying its own version of the Toyota iQ city car.
As strange and blasphemous as it sounds, Aston Martin is indeed working on an iQ of its own, officially dubbed the Cygnet. The tiny hatch is still in its concept phase, but is reportedly being strongly favored for production. To prove the Cygnet is not just a vaporware joke, Aston Martin released a single teaser image of the dressed up iQ.
The teaser image reveals the Cygnet is basically a Toyota iQ in Aston Martin clothing. Up front is Aston Martin?s signature grille, with hood louvers giving the Cygnet way more bark than bite.
Although the standard interior of the iQ is rather sparse, the Aston Martin version will be completely revamped. Expect plenty of fine leather with quality standards up to those of the company?s DBS supercar.
Although the Cygnet wears the Aston Martin badge, don?t expect much in the way of performance. The iQ?s drivetrain will remain essentially intact, which means a three-cylinder will be the Cygnet?s source for motivation.
Although Aston Martin has yet to release specific details on the Cygnet ? such as price and a release date ? company CEO Ulrich Bez is high on the project. ?Much work is still required, but I am confident that this project could become reality in the not-too-distant future,? Bez said of the Cygnet. Surfacing reports suggest the Cygnet will list from 23,000 euros ($32,300), with 2,000 examples slated to be produced each year.
Unlike supercar makers such as Ferrari and Lamborghini, Aston Martin doesn?t have a parent company to leverage fuel economy averages. As such, Aston needs a car like the Toyota-sourced iQ to bring its emission average in line with new standards slated to take effect in 2012. The Cygnet is said to be reserved for current Aston Martin owners, which should give the volume model a bit of exclusivity.
(http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c342/hemi666/phpThumb_generated_thumbnailjpg-1.jpg)
LOL, oh man that's hilarious.
Oh holy fucking shit on fire, they're serious. :mask:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/aston-martin-cygnet.html
Dear God, please, end the world. Now.
Quote from: Raza on June 29, 2009, 04:34:45 PM
It kind of looks like a great way to make more people less comfortable, really. I know she's smiling in that picture, but I can't imagine she'd be like that for long outside of a short city trip.
And therein lies the problem with city cars. Why buy a car with such narrowly defined parameters when you could buy a slightly larger car for only slightly more money (Aygo, C1, Fox, et al) that can actually deal with motorway journeys and keep up with traffic that goes over 30?
And therein lies the slippery slope that leads us to urban SUVs. "Hey, I might want to run to the country and tow a horse trailer. It could happen!"
Kei cars work just fine in Japan, so cars like this that are more powerful than kei cars will work fine in European cities, as well. And I'd LOVE one as a commuter car here in the US.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1098080#msg1098080 date=1246305869
The 3 series coupe is 99.6 combined cubic feet, which puts it, just barely, in the compact category (subcompact cuts off at 99, or, if we're rounding, 99.4). It's a hair.
According to http://nwautos.nwsource.com/autos/Configurator/Controllers/StepTwoController.php?modelYear=2009&make=5&vehicle_make=BMW&modelId=18792 the two doors are sub-compacts.
I'm too lazy to verify if that information is correct.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 10:16:17 PM
The only getaway Bond could make in that car was if his pursuers were on bicycles... and even then it'd still be close.
:lol:
Bond is a horrible driver. In a DBS, he could barely outrun Alfa 159s and a Defender.
Quote from: Byteme on June 30, 2009, 07:05:46 AM
According to http://nwautos.nwsource.com/autos/Configurator/Controllers/StepTwoController.php?modelYear=2009&make=5&vehicle_make=BMW&modelId=18792 the two doors are sub-compacts.
I'm too lazy to verify if that information is correct.
The combined space of a subcompact (passenger volume + cargo volume) class car ends at 99, and the BMW squeaks by at 99.6 cubic feet. The convertible may technically be a subcompact though.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 05:52:01 AM
And therein lies the slippery slope that leads us to urban SUVs. "Hey, I might want to run to the country and tow a horse trailer. It could happen!"
Kei cars work just fine in Japan, so cars like this that are more powerful than kei cars will work fine in European cities, as well. And I'd LOVE one as a commuter car here in the US.
As would I.
But Raza makes a good point. If a family can afford one car, something like this or a Smart sized car probably isn't the best choice if their usage involves anything other than city driving.
And I think most people probably buy a larger vehicle than they need, but that's their choice.
We went camping last week and were able to put the following in the trunk of a Mazda 6:
10X14 tent
3 sleeping bags
2 queen size inflatable mattresses
pump for above
2 burner propane camp stove
4 cans of propane
propane 2 mantle lantern
28 qt ice chest
3 pillows
3 folding chairs
cooking gear, paper plates, cups, etc
two soft bags of clothing for 7 days for 3 people
7 towels
3 12 packs of soft drinks
5 extra pairs of shoes, flip flops etc.
Dragging all that around + 3 people in the car we still managed 31.5 MPG from Mobile to Houston at an average speed of about 70-75 MPH. I'm really happy with that car. :lol:
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 05:52:01 AM
And therein lies the slippery slope that leads us to urban SUVs. "Hey, I might want to run to the country and tow a horse trailer. It could happen!"
Kei cars work just fine in Japan, so cars like this that are more powerful than kei cars will work fine in European cities, as well. And I'd LOVE one as a commuter car here in the US.
Slippery slope is as silly argument here as it is in political threads. I'm talking about a class of cars smaller than our subcompacts here; smaller than the Yaris, Fit, et al.
Even thought I generally drive alone and have no family, I don't see myself getting anything smaller than a 500 for myself.
Quote from: Byteme on June 30, 2009, 07:18:48 AM
As would I.
But Raza makes a good point. If a family can afford one car, something like this or a Smart sized car probably isn't the best choice if their usage involves anything other than city driving.
And I think most people probably buy a larger vehicle than they need, but that's their choice.
We went camping last week and were able to put the following in the trunk of a Mazda 6:
10X14 tent
3 sleeping bags
2 queen size inflatable mattresses
pump for above
2 burner propane camp stove
4 cans of propane
propane 2 mantle lantern
3 pillows
3 folding chairs
cooking gear, paper plates, cups, etc
two soft bags of clothing for 7 days for 3 people
7 towels
3 12 packs of soft drinks
5 extra pairs of shoes, flip flops etc.
Dragging all that around + 3 people in the car we still managed 31.5 MPG from Mobile to Houston at an average speed of about 70-75 MPH. I'm really happy with that car. :lol:
Sounds like you need the best car ever made for trips:
(http://www.reisemobil-international.de/archiv2/bildGross/200508022.jpg)
(http://media.mississauga.topscms.com/images/7e/e9/38428a80492fa69cedc590c832cf.jpeg)
Ever since I saw one in Car, I've been obsessed with it. They're ridiculously expensive though. In the UK, they cost 35K GBP, or 15K more than a GTI!
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1098853#msg1098853 date=1246367874
The combined space of a subcompact (passenger volume + cargo volume) class car ends at 99, and the BMW squeaks by at 99.6 cubic feet. The convertible may technically be a subcompact though.
Explain it to the EPA. They also say it's a subcompact. And if I'm not mistaken they came up with the classifications.
http://www.mpgfacts.com/?year=2009&class=SUBCOMPACT%20CARS
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1098856#msg1098856 date=1246368112
Sounds like you need the best car ever made for trips:
Ever since I saw one in Car, I've been obsessed with it. They're ridiculously expensive though. In the UK, they cost 35K GBP, or 15K more than a GTI!
Afraid not. I have no desire to drive an oversized tissue box.
Quote from: sandertheshark on June 29, 2009, 11:30:07 PM
Oh holy fucking shit on fire, they're serious. :mask:
http://www.leftlanenews.com/aston-martin-cygnet.html
Dear God, please, end the world. Now.
I'm right beside you with a box of flammable things and something fiery.
Quote from: Raza on June 30, 2009, 07:21:52 AM
Sounds like you need the best car ever made for trips:
(http://www.reisemobil-international.de/archiv2/bildGross/200508022.jpg)
(http://media.mississauga.topscms.com/images/7e/e9/38428a80492fa69cedc590c832cf.jpeg)
Ever since I saw one in Car, I've been obsessed with it. They're ridiculously expensive though. In the UK, they cost 35K GBP, or 15K more than a GTI!
The Multivan/Caravelle range is absolutely brilliant - huge interiors, wide vision, comfortable seats, and really quite handsome in a blocky sort of way.
Quote from: Byteme on June 30, 2009, 07:26:36 AM
Explain it to the EPA. They also say it's a subcompact. And if I'm not mistaken they came up with the classifications.
http://www.mpgfacts.com/?year=2009&class=SUBCOMPACT%20CARS
Interesting. Apparently they round down then. Like I said, it was right on the cusp. The size classes are defined on whole numbers, whereas actual cars aren't that neat and tidy.
Quote from: Byteme on June 30, 2009, 07:27:50 AM
Afraid not. I have no desire to drive an oversized tissue box.
It's a car that sleeps four and has a patio!
Quote from: omicron on June 30, 2009, 08:13:56 AM
The Multivan/Caravelle range is absolutely brilliant - huge interiors, wide vision, comfortable seats, and really quite handsome in a blocky sort of way.
The California in blue is rather attractive, I think. I still don't know how you get into the roof bed, but it seems very interesting.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1098875#msg1098875 date=1246371753
It's a car that sleeps four and has a patio!
Ain't a car , it's a van. I own a set of testicles so daddyvan ownership isn't on my horizon. ;)
Quote from: Raza on June 30, 2009, 08:22:57 AM
The California in blue is rather attractive, I think. I still don't know how you get into the roof bed, but it seems very interesting.
Being far more youthful and flexible than I, I'm afraid.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1098874#msg1098874 date=1246371718
Interesting. Apparently they round down then. Like I said, it was right on the cusp. The size classes are defined on whole numbers, whereas actual cars aren't that neat and tidy.
I've always found the classifications somewhat dubious anyway. If one is comparing mileage one should compare what they want to buy against alternatives they might buy, regardless of classifications.
Quote from: Raza on June 30, 2009, 07:19:25 AM
Slippery slope is as silly argument here as it is in political threads. I'm talking about a class of cars smaller than our subcompacts here; smaller than the Yaris, Fit, et al.
Even thought I generally drive alone and have no family, I don't see myself getting anything smaller than a 500 for myself.
And yet kei cars work very well in cities and urban areas already. As do scooters and small motorcycles. Since this car isn't going to be marketed to everybody, nor marketed as "this is one car for everything" then arguing that it doesn't work for everything is pointless.
Quote from: Raza on June 30, 2009, 08:22:57 AM
The California in blue is rather attractive, I think. I still don't know how you get into the roof bed, but it seems very interesting.
You crawl up. Same as on my old aircooled Westfalia.
Quote from: Byteme on June 30, 2009, 08:36:36 AM
Ain't a car , it's a van. I own a set of testicles so daddyvan ownership isn't on my horizon. ;)
:rolleyes:
Camper vans aren't rolling wombs.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 09:23:04 AM
:rolleyes:
Camper vans aren't rolling wombs.
I'm not sure I uderstand what you are trying to say.
Quote from: Byteme on June 30, 2009, 09:30:53 AM
I'm not sure I uderstand what you are trying to say.
Commenting on your "testicles" comment.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 09:21:45 AM
You crawl up. Same as on my old aircooled Westfalia.
We had an orange one when I was growing up. It was a POS. My dad got hypothermia driving it to Vancouver once. We sold it when we got back.
I remember one camping trip when I rolled off the top bunk and landed right on my dad who was asleep on the lower bunk.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 09:20:04 AM
And yet kei cars work very well in cities and urban areas already. As do scooters and small motorcycles. Since this car isn't going to be marketed to everybody, nor marketed as "this is one car for everything" then arguing that it doesn't work for everything is pointless.
I wasn't aware I was arguing. Just saying that if you live in a manner that takes you out of the city often, it would make sense to go a size class up.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 09:21:45 AM
You crawl up. Same as on my old aircooled Westfalia.
Like you grab a hold of the bed and then swing yourself up there and crawl around? That's what I imagined. Like grabbing the top bar of the monkey bars and then pulling yourself up. Is there a ladder?
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1099270#msg1099270 date=1246394514
Just saying that if you live in a manner that takes you out of the city often, it would make sense to go a size class up.
.
Not exactly how you said it.
QuoteAnd therein lies the problem with city cars. Why buy a car with such narrowly defined parameters when you could buy a slightly larger car for only slightly more money (Aygo, C1, Fox, et al) that can actually deal with motorway journeys and keep up with traffic that goes over 30?
It wasn't phrased like "if you lived a lifestyle that required a larger car, then this isn't for you," or "if you need a bigger car, then buy one," but more of a "city cars are stupid because you can't go highway speeds and you can get a bigger car."
Seriously, you basically said, "don't get a small car when you can get a bigger one." And that's the logic that gets people into Suburbans and Escalades. :lol:
Hell, Smarts go down the freeway just fine, and these are BIGGER and faster than a Smart. So your argument about keeping up with motorway traffic and need to go over 30 mph is just BS.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 02:57:09 PM
.
Not exactly how you said it.
It wasn't phrased like "if you lived a lifestyle that required a larger car, then this isn't for you," or "if you need a bigger car, then buy one," but more of a "city cars are stupid because you can't go highway speeds and you can get a bigger car."
Seriously, you basically said, "don't get a small car when you can get a bigger one." And that's the logic that gets people into Suburbans and Escalades. :lol:
Hell, Smarts go down the freeway just fine, and these are BIGGER and faster than a Smart. So your argument about keeping up with motorway traffic and need to go over 30 mph is just BS.
Okay, so I phrased it belligerently. Nail a guy to a cross, why don't you? :lol:
I've still never seen a Smart on the highway though. Plenty out here in the suburbs, but none on the highway.
And this, gentlemen, is why government mandated emissions regulations (in their current form) suck balls.
Quote from: Raza on June 30, 2009, 02:43:04 PM
Like you grab a hold of the bed and then swing yourself up there and crawl around? That's what I imagined. Like grabbing the top bar of the monkey bars and then pulling yourself up. Is there a ladder?
There can be a ladder, but most don't have one. You just step up on the seat and climb up.
Quote from: Raza on June 30, 2009, 02:58:39 PM
Okay, so I phrased it belligerently. Nail a guy to a cross, why don't you? :lol:
:lol:
QuoteI've still never seen a Smart on the highway though. Plenty out here in the suburbs, but none on the highway.
I've been passed on the interstate by one doing at least 70. And I see them all the time on the beltway and on I-83 into the city.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 03:01:01 PM
There can be a ladder, but most don't have one. You just step up on the seat and climb up.
Interesting. I think I could manage that. I've slept in weirder places.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
:lol:
I've been passed on the interstate by one doing at least 70. And I see them all the time on the beltway and on I-83 into the city.
Heh, and I thought being passed by a Prius was weird.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1099302#msg1099302 date=1246395837
Interesting. I think I could manage that. I've slept in weirder places.
Heh, and I thought being passed by a Prius was weird.
Contrary to popular belief, all cars are made to be able to travel on the freeway. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be for sale.
I hate Smart cars.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 30, 2009, 03:05:52 PM
Contrary to popular belief, all cars IN THE US are made to be able to travel on the freeway. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be for sale IN THE US.
Quote from: ifcar on June 30, 2009, 03:14:48 PM
Other countries do have freeways, you know.
A 1.0L 61HP Corsa may not be very nice on the freeway, but It can do it. It is capable of reaching and sustaining freeway speeds.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 30, 2009, 03:17:17 PM
Other countries do have freeways, you know.
A 1.0L 61HP Corsa may not be very nice on the freeway, but It can do it. It is capable of reaching and sustaining freeway speeds.
There are cars that are not designed in any way for freeway use. I've driven one of them.
Quote from: ifcar on June 30, 2009, 03:26:36 PM
There are cars that are not designed in any way for freeway use. I've driven one of them.
Like what, a NEV? A Quadricycle? (as much of Europe calls it)
This is a stupid argument. Commuter cars don't really make much sense in the USA, period. If you live in such a city (ie: NYC) where they do make more sense than a slightly larger subcompact then public transportation makes even more sense. Our cities have freeways and although the Smart and similar cars are perfectly capable of freeway travel I rather doubt it is a pleasant experience.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 09:54:02 AM
Commenting on your "testicles" comment.
I gathered that was the case. Still don't understand the rolling womb comment.
Quote from: Byteme on June 30, 2009, 03:42:30 PM
I gathered that was the case. Still don't understand the rolling womb comment.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_c0cal4F_s58/Rk1zW2hznVI/AAAAAAAAAAM/eqjpkY7BxAE/s400/VW+Wagoneer.JPG)
!=
(http://www.masharikirentals.com/images/ChryslerBest_000.jpg)
Driving a camper van, especially a Westfalia, != having your testicles removed. ;)
Quote from: 2o6 on June 30, 2009, 03:05:52 PM
Contrary to popular belief, all cars are made to be able to travel on the freeway. If it couldn't, it wouldn't be for sale.
Actually, there is a category of city car in the US that is not allowed to go over 35 mph.
Quote from: 2o6 on June 30, 2009, 03:27:32 PM
Like what, a NEV?
Close, except it's supposed to be more of a real car: the Th!nk City, which has a top speed of 60 mph. That doesn't work on the freeway.
Quote from: ChrisV on June 30, 2009, 03:02:35 PM
:lol:
I've been passed on the interstate by one doing at least 70. And I see them all the time on the beltway and on I-83 into the city.
I get passed by one every single morning. The guy is always doing in excexx of 70 mph. Probably not so hot for his fuel economy.
Quote from: HEMI666 on June 30, 2009, 04:42:46 PM
I get passed by one every single morning. The guy is always doing in excexx of 70 mph. Probably not so hot for his fuel economy.
excexx? :lol:
Quote from: ifcar on June 30, 2009, 04:02:41 PM
Close, except it's supposed to be more of a real car: the Th!nk City, which has a top speed of 60 mph. That doesn't work on the freeway.
Wohoo, Norwegian car ;)
Quote from: 2o6 on June 30, 2009, 03:17:17 PM
Other countries do have freeways, you know.
A 1.0L 61HP Corsa may not be very nice on the freeway, but It can do it. It is capable of reaching and sustaining freeway speeds.
When I was in Japan in 1990, Kei cars were not allowed on the freeways. They had a different color license plate from cars that were allowed on the freeways. Many of these cars had as small as 330cc engines and some were even 2-stroke engines. Some of these cars struggled to make it through hilly parts of town if they had more than just the driver in them.
yeah, cars like the old Mazda 360 were not good for highways. Of course, the kei class limited cars to 660cc engines and 65 hp (which manufacturers got around the same way they got around it for the real performance cars: they rated the engine at whatever point it made 65hp) Cars like the Subaru I posted earlier made more than 65 hp easily.
Don't mean to be nitpickey, but it's 64HP, not 65.
Besides, 64 HP is enough when the car weighs >1500lbs. The 1.0L Corsa is +200-400 lbs more, and it has less HP. The 1.0L Vitz/Yaris has 68HP, and it's a hair under 2000lbs.
I think this is a brilliant idea. Just rework the front headlights, they are to big, like on most subcompact cars.
I think I've read reviews that disparaged the Smart's high-speed stability. Does that sound familiar to anyone?
There was an interview in the latest AMS with Ulrich Bez of Aston Martin and he said this car will be included in a sort of "2 for 1" deal. The idea is that as a wealthy Aston Martin client you buy one of their performance cars and also a Cygnet. Depending on his or her mood or needs, they can choose which car they will drive. The example given is that someone who wants to quickly go shopping in the city can roll up in the Cygnet and thus enjoy better gas mileage and ease of parking. Makes sense, right? The Cygnet will be initially limited to 3,000 / 4,000 models.
Small premium cars like these are quickly becoming a fashion statement and trend in Europe.
Quote from: thecarnut on June 29, 2009, 10:17:49 AM
This thing better have 250 + hp and a 6 speed manual.
:facepalm:
Why does everything have to be about performance and manual transmissions? Even in a potentially small car like this?
Let me tell you. 60-horsepower are completely enough for such a small and light car which can be driven spiritedly around.
I'm sorry, but this is a travesty of biblical proportions. This is a government-mandated Toyota iQ morphed into a bloated caricature of a proper Aston Martin. This isn't stylish, like a Radford Mini; this isn't whimsical, like a Fiat 500 Abarth SS; this isn't clever, cute or desirable - this is a prime example of the inherent ridiculousness of blanket fuel economy regulations slathered upon the entire industry. Forcing a manufacturer of weekend-driven fabulously-expensive GT coupes and convertibles to meet the same fuel economy average as manufacturers of daily-driven commuters and family cars.... my god!
Quote from: omicron on July 09, 2009, 07:09:30 AM
I'm sorry, but this is a travesty of biblical proportions. This is a government-mandated Toyota iQ morphed into a bloated caricature of a proper Aston Martin. This isn't stylish, like a Radford Mini; this isn't whimsical, like a Fiat 500 Abarth SS; this isn't clever, cute or desirable - this is a prime example of the inherent ridiculousness of blanket fuel economy regulations slathered upon the entire industry. Forcing a manufacturer of weekend-driven fabulously-expensive GT coupes and convertibles to meet the same fuel economy average as manufacturers of daily-driven commuters and family cars.... my god!
I drive my Aston 500 miles a day. And when I don't have anywhere to go, I send my reserve butler out to drive it those 500 miles.
Peasant.
Quote from: Raza on July 09, 2009, 07:23:56 AM
I drive my Aston 500 miles a day. And when I don't have anywhere to go, I send my reserve butler out to drive it those 500 miles.
Peasant.
Pshaw. I've had a V-Eleventeen installed in my Aston.
Quote from: omicron on July 09, 2009, 07:09:30 AM
I'm sorry, but this is a travesty of biblical proportions. This is a government-mandated Toyota iQ morphed into a bloated caricature of a proper Aston Martin. This isn't stylish, like a Radford Mini; this isn't whimsical, like a Fiat 500 Abarth SS; this isn't clever, cute or desirable - this is a prime example of the inherent ridiculousness of blanket fuel economy regulations slathered upon the entire industry. Forcing a manufacturer of weekend-driven fabulously-expensive GT coupes and convertibles to meet the same fuel economy average as manufacturers of daily-driven commuters and family cars.... my god!
Well, it could be worse. They could just not make cars at all... That would be sad, indeed.
But government regulations are always for our benefit!
Quote from: 2o6 on June 30, 2009, 03:17:17 PM
Other countries do have freeways, you know.
A 1.0L 61HP Corsa may not be very nice on the freeway, but It can do it. It is capable of reaching and sustaining freeway speeds.
On one of my trips to the UK, I rented a Vauxhall Corsa Club with the 1.0 litre three cylinder. I had no problem whatsoever on the motorways which, like the Interstates in most US states, have a 70 MPH speed limit. Acceleration was no problem, either. Proof you don't need a super-sized engine in a normal car.
Cheers,
Madman of the People
i'll hold out for a ferrari version
Quote from: Madman on July 09, 2009, 10:35:30 PM
On one of my trips to the UK, I rented a Vauxhall Corsa Club with the 1.0 litre three cylinder. I had no problem whatsoever on the motorways which, like the Interstates in most US states, have a 70 MPH speed limit. Acceleration was no problem, either. Proof you don't need a super-sized engine in a normal car.
Cheers,
Madman of the People
Need = want in America, and I need my ~270 hp V6 in my Accord, Camry, Altima, etc...
I seriously don't understand Americans.
They want "200-hp economy cars". What the fuck is a 200-hp economy car!? It's an oxymoron. :huh: :facepalm:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on July 10, 2009, 11:51:08 AM
I seriously don't understand Americans.
They want "200-hp economy cars". What the fuck is a 200-hp economy car!? It's an oxymoron. :huh: :facepalm:
What the fuck is an expensive "economy" car, either? ;)
There are actually a lot of Americans that agree with you. But the fact is, most of us that do also do not buy new cars, as it's false economy to spend $14k+ on a new "economy car" to save a few bucks at the pump, when a $2-3k used car will save you vastly more money annually, even if it doesn't get the greatest fuel mileage. The kinds of people that have no problem putting up with a 100hp or less economy car also have no problem putting up with a 10-20 year old car.
Quote from: ChrisV on July 10, 2009, 12:53:09 PM
What the fuck is an expensive "economy" car, either? ;)
There are actually a lot of Americans that agree with you. But the fact is, most of us that do also do not buy new cars, as it's false economy to spend $14k+ on a new "economy car" to save a few bucks at the pump, when a $2-3k used car will save you vastly more money annually, even if it doesn't get the greatest fuel mileage. The kinds of people that have no problem putting up with a 100hp or less economy car also have no problem putting up with a 10-20 year old car.
Maybe it is just the impression Carspinners are giving me. When there is talk about the Fiat 500 coming over the general attitude is that the lesser engines can go f_ck themselves (:wtf:) while only the Abarth model is welcome here yadda yadda... :nutty: :lol:
I see your point though.
Well, if you're going to buy a new car, then why buy the "lesser version" if there isn't substantial savings in insurance or whatever? Sporty cars can get away with that, becasue they have other things going for them, and the "slow" versions are not necesarily slow overall, merely in comparison to the faster versions. But economy cars really don't offer "economy" if all they really offer is expensive "slow" in comparison to something that will really save you money.
Quote from: ChrisV on July 10, 2009, 03:13:21 PM
Well, if you're going to buy a new car, then why buy the "lesser version" if there isn't substantial savings in insurance or whatever? Sporty cars can get away with that, becasue they have other things going for them, and the "slow" versions are not necesarily slow overall, merely in comparison to the faster versions. But economy cars really don't offer "economy" if all they really offer is expensive "slow" in comparison to something that will really save you money.
Well, not everyone in the US will want an Abarth Fiat 500. Some old lady might find the car cute and will be perfectly happy with the say 1.2 or 1.4 liter engine choices. It suits her driving style. And the Fiat 500 is a car that appeals to a broad range of consumers: young and old, male and female etc. Bringing over the Abarth will limit its appeal.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on July 10, 2009, 02:51:15 PM
Maybe it is just the impression Carspinners are giving me. When there is talk about the Fiat 500 coming over the general attitude is that the lesser engines can go f_ck themselves (:wtf:) while only the Abarth model is welcome here yadda yadda... :nutty: :lol:
I see your point though.
If you're going to put down the money for a new car, why wouldn't you want one that can keep up with the new car crop? I see where you're coming from, and I definitely understand the mindset of the new-car buyer, but if my choice is between the in vogue expensive economy car or a two or three year old used car that will be more practical, outperform it, cost me less in depreciation, et al, I'd be looking at MkIV GTIs or EP3 CSis or SVT Foci instead of spending 10 grand on a car with 69bhp.
And on top of that, there are already cars in that segment that have 100bhp or more; so it would come out uncompetitive. And add to that the fact that American roads are different from European ones, you have a recipe for a market failure for a sub-100hp car that costs as much as one that is more powerful and practical. The "what if I..." scenarios play a lot into the minds of people when they're shopping for a car, trust me. People don't often buy to fulfill their needs, they buy to fulfill a need that they may possibly encounter a few years down the road.
Quote from: cawimmer430 on July 10, 2009, 04:17:22 PM
Well, not everyone in the US will want an Abarth Fiat 500. Some old lady might find the car cute and will be perfectly happy with the say 1.2 or 1.4 liter engine choices. It suits her driving style. And the Fiat 500 is a car that appeals to a broad range of consumers: young and old, male and female etc. Bringing over the Abarth will limit its appeal.
And that's why you sell two versions. You build a car for enthusiasts (say, the M3) to sell cars for everyone else (like the 328i). The Abarth 500 would sell to people like me or Craig or Chris, and then to the people who don't care about performance would buy the lesser versions just to get the looks.
Of course, as I recall, the 1.4L four is the same engine from the Panda 100HP, so that's okay in my book (as long as the 500 doesn't gain weight in the long boat trip across the Atlantic).
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1109314#msg1109314 date=1247265191
And that's why you sell two versions. You build a car for enthusiasts (say, the M3) to sell cars for everyone else (like the 328i). The Abarth 500 would sell to people like me or Craig or Chris, and then to the people who don't care about performance would buy the lesser versions just to get the looks.
Of course, as I recall, the 1.4L four is the same engine from the Panda 100HP, so that's okay in my book (as long as the 500 doesn't gain weight in the long boat trip across the Atlantic).
I don't think you guys are grasping the Size of the Panda and 500. You guys think 80HP isn't enough, but the Panda is 6 inches shorter than a Yaris 3-door.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 10, 2009, 05:37:21 PM
I don't think you guys are grasping the Size of the Panda and 500. You guys think 80HP isn't enough, but the Panda is 6 inches shorter than a Yaris 3-door.
There are diminishing losses you get from making a car smaller. The 500 is not very light.
80 hp could feel quite lively...in an open wheel formula car.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 10, 2009, 06:12:25 PM
There are diminishing losses you get from making a car smaller. The 500 is not very light.
80 hp could feel quite lively...in an open wheel formula car.
The 500 is ~2000lbs, Give or take.
500 = 2200lbs, Yaris = 2295 lbs.
The Modus 1.4 I drove for the better part of a month felt totally adequate around town and on the highways, despite being a taller vehicle. Proper gearing can disguise power deficiencies pretty well.
Quote from: Laconian on July 10, 2009, 06:18:36 PM
500 = 2200lbs, Yaris = 2295 lbs.
The Modus 1.4 I drove for the better part of a month felt totally adequate around town and on the highways, despite being a taller vehicle. Proper gearing can disguise power deficiencies pretty well.
And heavier too!
Quote from: Laconian on July 10, 2009, 06:18:36 PM
500 = 2200lbs,
I'm getting 1907Lbs - 2161lbs.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 10, 2009, 06:15:19 PM
The 500 is ~2000lbs, Give or take.
Hmmm...I'm seeing about 2100-2220 lbs. I thought I read it was more like 2500 lbs.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 10, 2009, 06:24:48 PM
Hmmm...I'm seeing about 2100-2220 lbs. I thought I read it was more like 2500 lbs.
Gosh, no. 2500 is Civic territory.
The Panda is even lighter.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 10, 2009, 05:37:21 PM
I don't think you guys are grasping the Size of the Panda and 500. You guys think 80HP isn't enough, but the Panda is 6 inches shorter than a Yaris 3-door.
I think I really am. Is there any particular reason you think you're the only one with the spatial awareness enough to read a fucking spec sheet and figure out how long a car is?
The Panda 100HP does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. That's not particularly fast, even when compared to the smallest economy cars we have here. And that's the top line sporting version.
Quote from: Raza link=topic=19076.msg1109508#msg1109508 date=1247277859
I think I really am. Is there any particular reason you think you're the only one with the spatial awareness enough to read a fucking spec sheet and figure out how long a car is?
The Panda 100HP does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds. That's not particularly fast, even when compared to the smallest economy cars we have here. And that's the top line sporting version.
I think I quoted the wrong person.
Quote from: 2o6 on July 10, 2009, 05:37:21 PM
I don't think you guys are grasping the Size of the Panda and 500. You guys think 80HP isn't enough, but the Panda is 6 inches shorter than a Yaris 3-door.
1. You haven't seen one in your life. You're grasping it just as well as everyone here is.
2. Stop Randomly Capitalizing things.
Quote from: Raza on July 10, 2009, 04:30:59 PM
If you're going to put down the money for a new car, why wouldn't you want one that can keep up with the new car crop? I see where you're coming from, and I definitely understand the mindset of the new-car buyer, but if my choice is between the in vogue expensive economy car or a two or three year old used car that will be more practical, outperform it, cost me less in depreciation, et al, I'd be looking at MkIV GTIs or EP3 CSis or SVT Foci instead of spending 10 grand on a car with 69bhp.
And on top of that, there are already cars in that segment that have 100bhp or more; so it would come out uncompetitive. And add to that the fact that American roads are different from European ones, you have a recipe for a market failure for a sub-100hp car that costs as much as one that is more powerful and practical. The "what if I..." scenarios play a lot into the minds of people when they're shopping for a car, trust me. People don't often buy to fulfill their needs, they buy to fulfill a need that they may possibly encounter a few years down the road.
:ohyeah:
But my point is that people will hopefully buy what they need. Let's look at me for example. Let's say I am interested in a Mercedes C-Class. I'd buy the model that suits my needs. I want something reasonably quick and fuel efficient. A C220 CDI or a C250 CDI would address that requirement on the diesel side. A C200 Kompressor would be the ideal gasoline model for me, maybe even the C280, maybe. I am realistic when it comes to what I need. I suspect that there are plenty of folks in the US too that think like this. So why bring over only the Abarth version of the 500? How about bringing over the 1.4 and the Abarth model to give people a choice. Those seeking the cuteness factor can have their fun with the zippy 1.4 model while those who want speed and aggressive looks can go for the Abarth. Very simple. :huh:
Quote from: Raza on July 10, 2009, 04:33:11 PM
And that's why you sell two versions. You build a car for enthusiasts (say, the M3) to sell cars for everyone else (like the 328i). The Abarth 500 would sell to people like me or Craig or Chris, and then to the people who don't care about performance would buy the lesser versions just to get the looks.
Of course, as I recall, the 1.4L four is the same engine from the Panda 100HP, so that's okay in my book (as long as the 500 doesn't gain weight in the long boat trip across the Atlantic).
Don't let the 1.4 badge fool you. Most European mini cars with such small engines are quite zippy and agile these days. They feel like little pocket rockets in the city. The only place where their performance begins to falter is on the Autobahn.
I once had to do errands for an advertising firm in Munich with a Volkswagen Lupo 1.0. In the city the thing was quick and agile, but on the Autobahn it was begging for mercy...
Quote from: CALL_911 on July 10, 2009, 08:09:06 PM
1. You haven't seen one in your life. You're grasping it just as well as everyone here is.
:nono: :devil: :evildude:
Fuck youse! I've seen both. :praise: