60mpg micro car four seater, it a toyota

[pfc369]

http://i281.photobucket.com/al...2.jpg

[bigdog]

looks like a deathtrap

[SuperTurbo]

4 seater? Toyota Smart car??

But it does looks funny in somehow

[Versa Madness]

I love the IQ. This is more of the type of cars that we need. I only hope that Toyota does not "Americanize" it by offering a larger displacement engine than is necessary. Performance needs to be measured in MPG not HP.

Make it an EV and I will be the first in line to buy one!

[SuperTurbo]

Nah.... diesel is the way to go. Or those plug & charge + a gas engine car.

if Versa have a SER version, it will be perfect for North America's style of road & speed. (Although we don't have Autobahn, but still, our highway speed isn't slow either)

[audtatious]

I love the IQ. This is more of the type of cars that we need. I only hope that Toyota does not "Americanize" it by offering a larger displacement engine than is necessary. Performance needs to be measured in MPG not HP.

Make it an EV and I will be the first in line to buy one!

That's fine as long as some manufacturers still cater to those who care less about MPG.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »I love the IQ. This is more of the type of cars that we need. I only hope that Toyota does not "Americanize" it by offering a larger displacement engine than is necessary. Performance needs to be measured in MPG not HP.Make it an EV and I will be the first in line to buy one!

[/quote]Define "than is necessary."

Should people only live in houses that are no larger "than necessary?"

Should people stop taking vacations to places "than is necessary?"

Should people only buy products that are necessary? The basic food, shelter and water?

Who is the arbiter of what is necessary?

Driving your family to Disney world may take dozens of gallons of fuel. Is it necessary? It takes an enormous amount of energy to power Disney World. Is it necessary? Is Disney World necessary?

Swimming pools? Recreational jetskis?

The oil, refinining, packaging and transportation of Ipods, 60" widescreens, stereos, CD's, childrens toys, and the tens of thousands of other recreational and entertainment products? Are they necessary?

[Great White Versa]

The oil, refinining, packaging and transportation of Ipods, 60" widescreens, stereos, CD's, childrens toys, and the tens of thousands of other recreational and entertainment products? Are they necessary?

I would argue that iPhones and big TVs are, in fact, "necessary"

[MinisterofDOOM]

I think Toyota's decision to stick with front engine, front wheel drive is wiser than the Smart's rear/rear layout. The Toyota will have a real rear seat and/or real rear storage space this way, though it'll have to have a longer nose, but not by a lot. I imagine the Toyota will have a torquier motor and much better transmission to boot.

I'd bet that the IQ will get ~40mpg-ish and be much more pleasant to drive than the Smart. Will probably cost a lot less, too, since it's not bearing the double-markup of being a cult/niché car AND a Mercedes Benz product.

[somdamon]

I love the IQ. This is more of the type of cars that we need. I only hope that Toyota does not "Americanize" it by offering a larger displacement engine than is necessary. Performance needs to be measured in MPG not HP.

Make it an EV and I will be the first in line to buy one!

Looks great! I agree with you Versa Madness...We should all start focusing more on MPG and more environmental friendly cars.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Looks great! I agree with you Versa Madness...We should all start focusing more on MPG and more environmental friendly cars.

Have fun with that. I'm just glad not everyone thinks that way, because when there are no more fun cars to drive, I might as well not be alive anymore.

[Slither]

I've seen all these arguments before back in 1973 - tells you how old I am.

YES history does repeat itself.

[srellim234]

Yep. Looks quite a bit like the little green three-door hatchback 1973 Honda Civic the wife and I drove when we got married in '78.

From http://www.topspeed.com/cars/h....html

"Prior to 1973, Honda was a company known more for its motorcycles than for its cars, which were tiny two-cylinder 600cc runabouts. This changed when the Civic debuted for 1973. The Civic offered amazing space efficiency in a fun little car that achieved more than 40 mpg on the highway. Room for four passengers was quite a feat for a car that possessed such diminutive dimensions as an 86.6-inch wheelbase and 139.8-inch overall length. A small transversely mounted engine and front-wheel-drive layout (an arrangement that was something of a novelty to the American car market) and 12-inch wheels maximized interior room. Indeed, early ads for the Civic boasted that it had more passenger room than many larger cars. Two similar body styles were available, a hatchback and a "sedan." These Civics were identical, even the rear of the cars looked the same, except that one had a hatchback and the other had a small vertical panel that opened to allow access to the "trunk." The early Civic had a few style quirks, such as turn signal lights that looked as if they were added on after the car was already built and a bulging center divider in the grille. Standard equipment included power front disc brakes, vinyl seating, reclining bucket seats and a wood-grain-accented dashboard. The hatchback added a fold-down rear seat, AM radio and cloth upholstery. Options were minimal, consisting of air conditioning, an automatic transmission, radial tires and a rear wiper for the hatchback.

A 1,169cc (or about 70-cubic-inch) inline four-cylinder engine motivated the first-year Civic and put out 50 horsepower. This was an impressive output when considered in terms of power per unit of displacement: The Civic had 0.71 horsepower per cubic inch. And with a weight of only around 1,500 pounds, a whole lot of power wasn’t needed to propel the Civic. Transmissions offered included a four-speed manual or a two-speed "Hondamatic" automatic gearbox. An all-independent suspension made the Civic an agile econobox that could run circles around American-built competitors like the Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Vega. "

[kcourtad]

still waiting for the clowns to jump out of that car... anyone know when it will happin ???

[Versa Madness]

Have fun with that. I'm just glad not everyone thinks that way, because when there are no more fun cars to drive, I might as well not be alive anymore.

Why do people have to equate HP ---> Fun??

Just because a car gets higher MPG does not mean that it can not be "fun" to drive. I drive a car that gets greater than 45 mpg highway and it is the funnest car that I have ever owned. More fun then my RX-7....

Different strokes for different folks.

[BlueMango]

I don't see why we can't have both MPG and HP.

Some high HP cars are more environmentally friendly than high MPG vehicles. I'm still dying to find out what is going to happen with all of the batteries from the EV's. Switching from Petroleum to Electricity isn't a good trade. It's trading one strained system for another. Does anyone remember the term energy crisis? Rolling black outs? And generating electricity can be just as harmful as the exhaust emissions from our vehicles. In my opinion they need to work on algae (google algae oil) or solar. I also think that the reason there is such an argument though, is because none of the current solutions are truly solutions. They're just band-aids. A solution will be truly revolutionary.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Why do people have to equate HP ---> Fun??

Just because a car gets higher MPG does not mean that it can not be "fun" to drive. I drive a car that gets greater than 45 mpg highway and it is the funnest car that I have ever owned. More fun then my RX-7....

Different strokes for different folks.

Eh, no need to get eye rolling. You're preaching to the choir as far as "power != fun." My last car made 160 hp and I loved it. I totally agree that power alone does not make a fun car, and that cars can be fun without it. The new Camry makes 270-something horsepower and is about as fun as getting stabbed.

However, I'm thinking more along the lines of what's realistically likely to happen from designer's intentions. If they're designing a small "economical" car, it's not likely to be a lot of fun because it'll have the wrong focus. I don't want economical. I don't care about environmental friendliness. I have NOTHING against people who do want those things, and I have no problem with cars to suit those needs existing (quite the contrary, in fact). All I was saying is that I hope we never reach a point where EVERYONE starts focusing more on MPG and environmental friendliness because I frankly don't give a damn about either and would like to continue to be able to buy cars I enjoy rather than cars that will put me to sleep and make me cry when I think about having spent money on them.

I'll give you an example of this:Ford built the Lincoln LS. GREAT fantastic car. Very fun to drive, great powerplants, 5 speed option. Now Ford has replaced it with the MPG-focused, economical Lincoln MKS. They traded a rear-drive V8 sport sedan for a front-drive V6 average sedan as their flagship. These are the kinds of moves this "let's get MPG focused" mindset portend, and they are NO GOOD for people like me.I will NEVER EVER EVER EVER pay more than $40k for a FWD car, and no one else should either. But that's where things are headed.

[Versa Madness]

I'm still dying to find out what is going to happen with all of the batteries from the EV's.

They are recycled the same as your lead acid batteries today, one of the most recycled items in today's cars. Batteries are 99% recyclable, and are one of the most highly recycled products in the country. When you buy a new battery, the dealer will ask for your old ones in trade, or you will be charged a "core charge" if you don't turn them in.

And generating electricity can be just as harmful as the exhaust emissions from our vehicles.

It's much easier to clean up one large stationary smokestack than millions of tiny mobile ones. In fact, where power is generated primarily from hydro sources, EVs are 98%-99.9% cleaner than equivalent internal combustion vehicles. Even where power comes primarily from coal, EVs are 55%-92% cleaner, depending on which gasses you are measuring.

And by the way, if you want a fair comparison to gas cars, you really need to include the pollution from the oil refineries, tanker ships, and tanker trucks.

In my opinion they need to work on algae (google algae oil) or solar.

[Great White Versa]

In fact, where power is generated primarily from hydro sources, EVs are 98%-99.9% cleaner than equivalent internal combustion vehicles.

Lack of pollution does not equate to environmental friendliness. Though Hydro plants do not pollute, they are typically VERY environmentally unfriendly. Billions of dollars have been spent attempting to fix rivers that have been damaged by hydro-electric plants. And billions more trying to alter the dams to allow for a more natural silt, plant and animal migration.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »They are recycled the same as your lead acid batteries today, one of the most recycled items in today's cars. Batteries are 99% recyclable, and are one of the most highly recycled products in the country. When you buy a new battery, the dealer will ask for your old ones in trade, or you will be charged a "core charge" if you don't turn them in.

[/quote]Today's biggest gas guzzler is a hundred times cleaner than cars that were getting 35 mpg back in the 70's. Today's cars are more than 99% clean coming out of the tailpipe.

There comes a time of diminishing returns for billions of dollars for insignificant results.

And you can only recycle so much. Ores are mined everyday. The sanctimonious Pious drivers claim how much more "environmentally friendly" their car is. I don't think these drivers ever look past the tailpipe.

The nickel that is stripped mined for batteries takes an immense amount of energy to dig, mine, separate, transport and finally manufacture into all those batteries. I won't even mention the destruction of the land required to do this. OK, I did mention that.

Even if it were true that 99% of the batteries properties can be recycled, that doesn't mean you'll get back 99% of the materials. Hardly. Not to mention the energy it takes to recycle those materials back to their original form or function.

Great White Versa brings up a good point about the other environmental issues. People look at the internal combustion engine and draw up what they believe are instant solutions. There is no panacea.

One needs to pull back from that tiny thumbprint and look at the entire wall sized picture. Products that take an enormous amount of energy that aren't neccessary to daily life cause just as much or more pollution. No one needs most of the tens of thousands of products or services that contribute to much of the whole picture.

Are you willing to give up going to a concert, Disney World trip, Cruise to Alaska, playing ball at night (lights), professional sports teams, 3000 sq ft homes, recreational boats, planes, ATV's and thousands of other things to be more "environmentally friendly?" Ready to give up your Ipod? Your laptop? Your DVD collection? Your DVD player and wide screen TV?How about the individual choice to drive wherever you want in your Versa and walk or bicycle?

They ALL contribute.