Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Ford Launches EcoSport Mini-CUV  
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3280 posts, RR: 6
Posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

2014 Ford EcoSport


This new B-segment crossover, which is based on the popular Ford Fiesta, will go on sale in Europe with SYNC AppLink, which is enabling voice control on smartphone applications, SYNC emergency assistance, automatically connecting to local emergency services in the event of a crash and some other interesting features. Interestingly, the EcoSport was designed and engineered primarily by Ford of Brazil, where the EcoSport has been on sale for some time.

The European version of the Ford EcoSport has been unveiled at a show in Barcelona, Spain, and the above official Ford photo is providing a first look into the production model which will go on sale in Europe later on this year as a 2014 model. Rumors are saying that the Ford EcoSport will get a 1.0 liter EcoBoost engine under its hood, in two outputs, 100 HP and 120 HP, along with a 1.5 liter diesel. There have been EcoSport variants shown with Ford's 2.0 liter Ecoboost 4 cylinder engine as well, which would likely be the engine used in any North American version of the EcoSport. The model will go on sale against the Nissan Juke, the Opel Mokka, and the Buick Encore (the Mokka's badge-engineered cousin in China and North America).

There are rumors in the press that the EcoSport could be moved upmarket with luxury appointments and sold ONLY as a Lincoln in the USA, clearly targeting the upscale Buick Encore as its competition. Lincoln is also launching another SUV based on the new Ford Escape later this year, which will be badged as the MKC - which will compete with the higher variants of GMC Terrain.

GM could also bring their current Chevrolet Trax mini-CUV to market in the USA - Chevy currently sells the Trax (which is also based on the Opel Mokka) in Canada and Mexico.

Source: http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-unv...ion-spec-ecosport-compact-suv.html

[Edited 2013-02-25 21:59:54]


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
83 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2762 times:

Is this just a new product to keep within government mandated CAFE regulations?

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
There are rumors in the press that the EcoSport could be moved upmarket with luxury appointments and sold ONLY as a Lincoln in the USA

Why?
Is there really a market expensive econo-CUVs?

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
Lincoln is also launching another SUV

Geez, just what Lincoln needs....NOT! :=I



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
Geez, just what Lincoln needs....NOT! :=I

Do tell, what do Lincoln need?


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 1):
Is this just a new product to keep within government mandated CAFE regulations?

No. It is originally from South America where small CUVs like this are popular and with this generation moving to Europe because small CUVs are a growing market there.

Believe it or not not every decision an auto company makes is based on CAFE regulations and there are people out there, worldwide, who actually want small cars/CUVs.


User currently onlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1322 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2695 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 3):
Believe it or not not every decision an auto company makes is based on CAFE regulations and there are people out there, worldwide, who actually want small cars/CUVs.

Thank you!

It is rather amusing to see many folks, both in these boards and elsewhere, who bemoan the proliferation of small, efficient vehicles as if it were the result of some larger government conspiracy. However, as you rightly point out, there is a growing market for efficient, easy to drive/maneuver vehicles, particularly as fuel prices keep rising and more people navigate towards the (often) crowded cities and urban areas where parking and space are at a premium. When you add to that the fact that most drivers value ride comfort and electronic gadgets over off-roading, towing, and power, then it should be no surprise that the "traditional" SUVs are slowly being replaced with car-based platforms (witness the new Jeep Cherokee).

That said, I do think that stretching this vehicle into a Lincoln is a step too far IMHO. Lincoln's identity is still going through some painful changes - is it a manufacturer of large, traditional luxury cars and SUVs or is it a seller of hip, trendy, iPhone-like premium vehicles? Adding such a small (most likely gadgets-full) CUV with yet another non-descriptive alphanumeric nameplate to its sales brochure (without sorting first the identity issue) is like trying to repair a broken knee with a bandage.

This vehicle will probably work great in the North American market as a Ford; I can already see them in funky shades of green, brown, and yellow, oh and 90% of them being sold with front-wheel-drive.


User currently offlineakiss20 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 580 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2691 times:

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 4):
Quoting Polot (Reply 3):
Believe it or not not every decision an auto company makes is based on CAFE regulations and there are people out there, worldwide, who actually want small cars/CUVs.

Thank you!

It is rather amusing to see many folks, both in these boards and elsewhere, who bemoan the proliferation of small, efficient vehicles as if it were the result of some larger government conspiracy. However, as you rightly point out, there is a growing market for efficient, easy to drive/maneuver vehicles, particularly as fuel prices keep rising and more people navigate towards the (often) crowded cities and urban areas where parking and space are at a premium. When you add to that the fact that most drivers value ride comfort and electronic gadgets over off-roading, towing, and power, then it should be no surprise that the "traditional" SUVs are slowly being replaced with car-based platforms (witness the new Jeep Cherokee).

  



Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 3):
No. It is originally from South America wh

So it's being imported to the US to comply with CAFE rules?

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 4):
However, as you rightly point out, there is a growing market for efficient, easy to drive/maneuver vehicles, p

Therefore no need for government mandated CAFE rules if the market already dictates a demand (want) for small vehicles.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 4):
is it a manufacturer of large, traditional luxury cars

Not since 2011.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2628 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):

So it's being imported to the US to comply with CAFE rules?

Get over your prejudices, it's probably being imported because Fords marketing department have worked out that there is a market for small cheap to run SUV's.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
Not since 2011.

Because nobody wanted it anymore, pretty simple isn't it.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 7):
Get over your prejudices

????
I'm just asking a question.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 7):
Because nobody wanted it anymore, pretty simple isn't it.

Which means Lincoln is no longer a manufacturer of large, traditional luxury cars as Charles79 claims.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
So it's being imported to the US to comply with CAFE rules?

No. It is not. There is a market here for these types of vehicles and Ford wants to have access to it. This is the best and most effective way for them to do so.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
Therefore no need for government mandated CAFE rules if the market already dictates a demand (want) for small vehicles.

Great! Work to get it repealed. However the CAFE standards do not bother me at all and in general I support them. But if you want them repealed then work to get them repealed. It is your choice. But not everyone will agree with you (or me) so you may not be able to garner sufficient support to repeal them if enough people are OK with them, and that is how it should be. For now, I am content with them in place.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
Which means Lincoln is no longer a manufacturer of large, traditional luxury cars as Charles79 claims.

From how I read it, Charles79 didn't say that, he was commenting that Lincoln is in the middle of an identity crisis as to "what they actually are". Hence his statement:

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 4):
Lincoln's identity is still going through some painful changes - is it a manufacturer of large, traditional luxury cars and SUVs or is it a seller of hip, trendy, iPhone-like premium vehicles?

They may not be currently making them but they are still identified with "large luxury" and there is a market in that and they don't want to lose those customers. So there is a question out there of "What should they do?", "How do they best keep what they have and grow new markets?"

Tugg

[Edited 2013-02-26 12:17:27]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2599 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 7):
it's probably being imported because Fords marketing department have worked out that there is a market for small cheap to run SUV's.

Which is why it would be more fitting for this EcoSport to be offered as a Ford product vs. a Lincoln product. The Lincoln was never intended to be the cheap bargain brand.

With regards to this EcoSport being a Lincoln-only model in the US market as well as the Buick Encore; while the demand for smaller SUVs/CUVs might be the upcoming wave, selling them only as upper/luxury brands could backfire. Selling a very small Lincoln for the price of a medium-sized Ford may not sit too well; especially since both brands are now under the same roof in a lot more locations since the Mercury brand was terminated a few years ago. IMHO, this EcoSport could've been a Mercury (which was more of direct rival to Buick than Lincoln is).

The Buick Encore might have a little more breathing room since most new Buick & Chevy dealerships aren't under the same roof; thereby eliminating any internal competition.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2585 times:

Some of you guys are jumping the gun a bit. Ford is not importing the Ecosport to the US. Rumors that it will come over as a Lincoln are just that- rumors. The Buick Encore has been on sale for a month. If it is a success you will probably see a response from Ford (and other luxury carmakers). If not then you will probably see nothing.

User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2557 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Thread starter):
Lincoln is also launching another SUV based on the new Ford Escape later this year,

We actually rented an Escape when we went to Michigan at Christmas and I was fairly impressed with it. I would actually consider it if it had a rear camera (because of two cervical disc fusions - I need that rearward vision) and the center console didn't look like a Hyundai reject. Far too much crap there - actually had a hard time using the radio.

Lincoln could probably do a decent job upgrading the interior and (maybe) the ride, Only problem is that they will probably overcharge by a mile. Pity they dumped the Mercury brand.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
So it's being imported to the US to comply with CAFE rules?

Unless the Ford Engineers in Brazil come up with something better . . .   

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
Therefore no need for government mandated CAFE rules if the market already dictates a demand (want) for small vehicles.

Sadly we have a lot of big cars & SUVs & trucks. I live in BubbaLand (Oklahoma) where smaller cars don't have a lot of hope. Every time I see a Fiat 500 I say a little prayer for the folks in it.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2031 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2527 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
I would actually consider it if it had a rear camera

Well, come 2014, thanks to the Government, ALL cars and passenger trucks sold in the USA will have rear cameras. The more expensive cars will have them in the dash/entertainment center, while the cheaper cars will have a little 2-3" camera screen in the rear view mirror.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2501 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 2):
Do tell, what do Lincoln need?

Mercy killing maybe?

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 4):
It is rather amusing to see many folks, both in these boards and elsewhere, who bemoan the proliferation of small, efficient vehicles as if it were the result of some larger government conspiracy.

The proliferation of smaller, more efficient vehicles isn't a problem. The punishment of people who buy other vehicles, however, is.

Quoting Charles79 (Reply 4):
Lincoln's identity is still going through some painful changes

Lincoln has a very clear identity. They are far and away the most popular brand among people who think that Fords are not expensive enough.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Sadly we have a lot of big cars & SUVs & trucks. I live in BubbaLand (Oklahoma) where smaller cars don't have a lot of hope. Every time I see a Fiat 500 I say a little prayer for the folks in it.

Truck and SUV drivers became as safe as car drivers only in the very recent past.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 13):
Well, come 2014, thanks to the Government, ALL cars and passenger trucks sold in the USA will have rear cameras.

You've got to be kidding. Seatbelts are good, ABS and traction control is understandable, but rearview cameras? Is there an epidemic of smashed bicycles? How many people really want or need such things, and why can't they just get it themselves if they want it so badly? Instead every new car is going to be saddled with the extra cost. Better to just buy used I guess, or rip the thing out to save weight if you must pay for it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2481 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 6):
So it's being imported to the US to comply with CAFE rules?

It's not being imported and from what I read, is unlikely to be.


User currently offlineaf773atmsp From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2633 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

Don't like the look of the EcoSport, but I don't really like CUVs in general. I prefer wagons, hatchbacks, and MPVs. Instead of bringing the EcoSport to the U.S. bring the S-Max and/or Galaxy over from Europe.


It ain't no normal MD80 its a Super 80!
User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 367 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
You've got to be kidding. Seatbelts are good, ABS and traction control is understandable, but rearview cameras? Is there an epidemic of smashed bicycles? How many people really want or need such things, and why can't they just get it themselves if they want it so badly? Instead every new car is going to be saddled with the extra cost. Better to just buy used I guess, or rip the thing out to save weight if you must pay for it.
http://www.dailytech.com/Backup+Came...+Completed+Dec+31/article29423.htm

The US Government is working towards it. Article states that 300 deaths 16,000 injuries per year are caused by drivers who "can't see" behind them. I guarantee that the majority of those wouldn't have been any different with a rear view camera. Those who are truly cautious,like myself, always look over their shoulder and use their mirrors anyways.

If I (back when I was 15) could back up a 3/4 ton long bed diesel truck with no camera, I think a soccer mom in her Ford Escape is perfectly capable of doing the same.

Another article I found says that this will increase car prices by $200. I wonder if this camera breaks, would you be required by law to have it fixed?


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2031 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
You've got to be kidding.

Nope. Not in stone yet, but you can bet it will happen.... maybe not 2014, but 15 or 16. Yep. Will be there.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/01/03/n...-delays-backup-camera-rules-again/



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 17):
The US Government is working towards it. Article states that 300 deaths 16,000 injuries per year are caused by drivers who "can't see" behind them.

I'd like to see the data of "can't see" versus "didn't bother looking."

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 17):
If I (back when I was 15) could back up a 3/4 ton long bed diesel truck with no camera, I think a soccer mom in her Ford Escape is perfectly capable of doing the same.

Exactly, plus just trying to park so that you don't have to do that as much. I don't see why it shouldn't be left up to manufacturers anyway, as I imagine it will be virtually universal among higher end cars and optional on others. I just don't see why they should increase the costs of all cars across the board.

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 17):
I wonder if this camera breaks, would you be required by law to have it fixed?

Certainly not in states with no inspection. As far as others, I don't know.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 18):
Nope. Not in stone yet, but you can bet it will happen.... maybe not 2014, but 15 or 16. Yep. Will be there.

What a joke. Hopefully this will die with LaHood's departure. He was big on pushing ridiculous amounts of stupidproofing technology into cars.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1393 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2458 times:

Ford is planning to release this in India too. CUVs or mini-SUVs are becoming very popular in India too. Renault Duster which was launched recently in India has got good response. EcoSport is supposed to be launched in India too later this year.

User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):

Ford is planning to release this in India too. CUVs or mini-SUVs are becoming very popular in India too.

They have to be, considering the conditions there. India is kind of the wild west of motoring. I'd never consider the EcoSport myself, but it definitely beats a scooter.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2438 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 2):
Do tell, what do Lincoln need?

While I know some will roll their eyes at me for commenting this AGAIN, this is exactly what "Lincoln Motor Car" needs..... with proper functioning infotainment system and high output powertrain options!

2002 Lincoln Continental Concept



2015 Lincoln MKR sedan (official Lincoln photo - concept vehicle)


 



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 8):
Which means Lincoln is no longer a manufacturer of large, traditional luxury cars as Charles79 claims.

They still make large luxury cars, they just don't make dinosaur RWD body on frame cars anymore.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 10):
Which is why it would be more fitting for this EcoSport to be offered as a Ford product vs. a Lincoln product. The Lincoln was never intended to be the cheap bargain brand.

No reason why it couldn't be spruced up with a luxo interior and targeted at the Countryman.


User currently offlineSkydrol From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 932 posts, RR: 10
Reply 24, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 19):
What a joke. Hopefully this will die with LaHood's departure. He was big on pushing ridiculous amounts of stupidproofing technology into cars.

What a joke, back up cameras would be necessary for a Mattel plastic play toy like this:




Many of us learned to drive (and reverse, and park) in vehicles without rear cameras which actually had rear quarter panels, meaning the rear of the car extended past the rear wheels:

Ford:




Lincoln:




∙ ---{--« ∙ ----{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ---{--« ∙ --{--« ∙ --{-« ∙ ----{--« ∙
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 25, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 11):
Some of you guys are jumping the gun a bit.

Exactly!
This sort of jumping the gun and attempting to start flame-wars over a discussion as Innocent of a topic as a car is why many stop posting and leaving the site all together.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 10):
Which is why it would be more fitting for this EcoSport to be offered as a Ford product vs. a Lincoln product. The Lincoln was never intended to be the cheap bargain brand.

  
Exactly

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 10):
Selling a very small Lincoln for the price of a medium-sized Ford may not sit too well; especially since both brands are now under the same roof in a lot more locations since the Mercury brand was terminated a few years ago. IMHO, this EcoSport could've been a Mercury (which was more of direct rival to Buick than Lincoln is).

Well said. This vehicle IF sold in the US would be better off as a Mercury level brand.

Quoting tugger (Reply 9):
you may not be able to garner sufficient support to repeal them

I have no desire to be a politician what so ever. Besides, government does what they want to do regardless of what the people want.
If you aspire to be a politician, more power to you and good luck.   

Quoting tugger (Reply 9):
It is your choice.

I've never seen CAFE on the ballot.  
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 12):
Sadly we have a lot of big cars & SUVs & trucks. I live in BubbaLand (Oklahoma)

Well you can move to San Francisco where many people drive the cars you like.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 15):
It's not being imported and from what I read, is unlikely to be.

Thanks!
That was the answer I was looking for. Others chose to jump the gun.

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 22):
While I know some will roll their eyes at me for commenting this AGAIN, this is exactly what "Lincoln Motor Car" needs..... with proper functioning infotainment system and high output powertrain options!

  

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 24):
What a joke, back up cameras would be necessary for a Mattel plastic play toy like this:

I was thinking the same. Another government imposed law to protect us from ourselves.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 26, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 25):
Quoting Skydrol (Reply 24):
What a joke, back up cameras would be necessary for a Mattel plastic play toy like this:

I was thinking the same. Another government imposed law to protect us from ourselves.

Ditto here. IMHO, what's really hindering visibilty on many today's new vehicles are the wider side pillars (containing airbags) and the taller, higher 2nd & 3rd row (if so equipped) seat head restraints. 10, even 5 years ago, most vehicles had either smaller, less intrusive head restraints for the rear seats or had ones that could be easily folded or removed when no in use. In many of these smaller, narrower vehicles; these larger head restraints litterally block one's rear window vision thereby forcing the need for these backup cameras among most drivers. Clearly, this is another example of the cure being worse than the disease situation.

Heck, my father removed the rear seat head restraints from his 2007 Escape for that very reason; he couldn't see through the back window w/them on. Thankfully, my '07 Mustang ragtop only has minor rear seat bumps-ups for head restraints; likewise for my '97 Crown Vic. Today's Mustangs have larger rear head restraints that block more of the rear window.

My solution, change the window lines and modify the head restraints or make them foldable/removable across the board not just on certain models.

Quoting Skydrol (Reply 24):
Many of us learned to drive (and reverse, and park) in vehicles without rear cameras which actually had rear quarter panels, meaning the rear of the car extended past the rear wheels:

Amen, it's also worth noting that those rear windows are unobstructed from any rear-seat head restraints (the above examples didn't have them) and the front seat head restraints (mandated since the late 60s (either 1968 or 1969)) were much smaller and less intrusive.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 27, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2396 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 13):
Well, come 2014, thanks to the Government, ALL cars and passenger trucks sold in the USA will have rear cameras.

Sounds good to me and I bet the insurance companies are also smiling.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
s there an epidemic of smashed bicycles?

If it was just trikes no one would worry and it wouldn't be mandated.

There are legitimate problems and rear visibility reduced by styling is a pretty big factor.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14):
or rip the thing out to save weight if you must pay for it.

Pull out your airbags and you can sell them for a lot more than the rearview camera system. And those modern bumpers weigh a lot more than the old style ones they replaced.

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 17):
I guarantee that the majority of those wouldn't have been any different with a rear view camera.

I think you're wrong there. When I've been in cars with a rearview camera i've paid attention to how it performs and the views that it delivers. People who won't use them are the ones that don't use rear view mirrors or windshield wipers.

Quoting GSPflyer (Reply 17):
Another article I found says that this will increase car prices by $200.

$200 is about the price to add one on when ordering a car today. It''s "retail" price for an add on. When you look at economies of scale for mandated systems you can get the manufacturer's costs down to $50 or less. They sure as hell aren't going use a Nikon lens or Retina displays. Or a quad core processor to run it. What the car company adds on to the costs is pure guess


User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 25):
I have no desire to be a politician what so ever. Besides, government does what they want to do regardless of what the people want.

You don't need to be a politician. You need to be active in telling those that are your representatives your views and continue expressing them and support those groups that support your views on specific topics. And actually the government does not just "do what it wants" it generally does what the majority wants or what the law requires them to do. If you are on the other side on certain issues then often it is portrayed as the grapes must be sour.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 25):
I've never seen CAFE on the ballot.

Every single one of the politicians that voted for it and that continue to support it are on the ballot. That is have it works.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 29, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2393 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
There are legitimate problems and rear visibility reduced by styling is a pretty big factor.

Not for everybody. If it is a problem, just check the box when you buy the car or get an aftermarket system rather than forcing everyone to shell out more for a car.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
Pull out your airbags and you can sell them for a lot more than the rearview camera system.

I'm sure a lot of cars could do with fewer airbags.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
When you look at economies of scale for mandated systems you can get the manufacturer's costs down to $50 or less.

Then leave those decisions to the manufacturers and customers. If the customers want it, they'll get it from somewhere.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6114 posts, RR: 9
Reply 30, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

Quoting blrsea (Reply 20):
Renault Duster

That's really a Dacia, aka a low cost car. Not sure the EcoSport can be made as cheaply.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
but it definitely beats a scooter

Not with the horrendous traffic !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 31, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
the insurance companies are also smiling.

The insurance companies are always smiling.

Quoting tugger (Reply 28):

Already have and it's not much of an important issue for them to tackle. Most people aren't even aware of this law.

Quoting PHLBOS (Reply 26):
Ditto here. IMHO, what's really hindering visibilty on many today's new vehicles are the wider side pillars (containing airbags) and the taller, higher 2nd & 3rd row (if so equipped) seat head restraints. 10, even 5 years ago, most vehicles had either smaller, less intrusive head restraints for the rear seats or had ones that could be easily folded or removed when no in use. In many of these smaller, narrower vehicles; these larger head restraints litterally block one's rear window vision thereby forcing the need for these backup cameras among most drivers. Clearly, this is another example of the cure being worse than the disease situation.

Seems like a serious design flaw if a camera is required to see behind you. Seems as though they're designing cars for the dumbest of drivers today.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineMD11junkie From Switzerland, joined May 2005, 3136 posts, RR: 58
Reply 32, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2322 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):

A Ford Fiesta.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 30):
That's really a Dacia, aka a low cost car

The fact that 'Dacia' is associated with low cost does not mean is shit. Logan and Sandero, two Renault-Dacia line up - share platform - and they are pretty reliable and regular made.

Saludos



There is no such thing as Boeing vs Airbus as the queen of the skies has three engines, winglets and the sweetest nose!
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8045 posts, RR: 8
Reply 33, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 29):
Not for everybody. If it is a problem, just check the box when you buy the car or get an aftermarket system rather than forcing everyone to shell out more for a car.

So you're 6'5" and will never have a visibility problem with any design - now or in the future.

And, of course, at that size no one will fail to see you when backing up. Or any of your kids.

My preference is to have something besides a 100 year old rearview system.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 34, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 33):
My preference is to have something besides a 100 year old rearview system.

Then check the box for the option package that includes it next time you buy a car. Or buy a car that has it standard. And if you want a car that doesn't have it available (which is unlikely) get an aftermarket one installed.

If it's a feature you want, by all means get it. But don't force all car buyers across the country to do it too.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 35, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2272 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 34):
If it's a feature you want, by all means get it. But don't force all car buyers across the country to do it too.

By your reasoning safety devices like airbags, ABS brakes, seatbelts, stability control systems (not sure if this is law right now) should not have been made mandatory, it should have been up to the buyers discretion?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 36, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 35):
it should have been up to the buyers discretion?

I'll go along with seatbelts and crumple zones, but beyond that it should be mostly buyers' discretion.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

So you don't think that airbags and ABS are valid safety devices which should be manditory?

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6114 posts, RR: 9
Reply 38, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2226 times:

Quoting MD11junkie (Reply 32):
The fact that 'Dacia' is associated with low cost does not mean is shit. Logan and Sandero, two Renault-Dacia line up - share platform - and they are pretty reliable and regular made.

Well I didn't say it was shit, but the cheapness definitely shows. My father drives the highest end Sandero and it lacks features and comfort my entry level 10 years old Citroën C3 has. For example the electric windows are not automatic, you need to press the button all the way. That's not even a cost cutting measure since the same electronics can in fact be made automatic. Also, there is no filter for the interior air, so sometimes the ventilation sends stuff your way !



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2217 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 36):
I'll go along with seatbelts and crumple zones, but beyond that it should be mostly buyers' discretion.

You wouldn't see much difference. The general public has spoken and determined that they love very safe cars- automakers don't go above and beyond the requirements just because they feel like seeing how many airbags/cameras/sensors/lines of computer coding they can stuff into a car. There is no rule that says an automaker has to get 5 stars on its crash tests- but they all strive to do so and promote the hell out of it when they do.

The number of people who are happy with just seatbelts and crumple zones is so low that all but niche automakers (such as Lotus...and look how they are doing) will ignore them and continue putting in 20 airbags, electronic nannies, backup cameras, etc. Just like how they ignore every other American enthusiast's dream of a diesel powered manual RWD station wagon.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 40, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2204 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 37):
So you don't think that airbags and ABS are valid safety devices which should be manditory?

Not government mandated, no. If the manufacturers want to make them standard equipment, fine.

Quoting Polot (Reply 39):
You wouldn't see much difference

Which is why such regulations are dumb. At best they are redundant, and at worst they are wasteful and add unnecessary expense.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 41, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2178 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 40):

The problem is that your choice then can a detriment effect on someone else. YOU may not want ABS, but without them you are more likely to hit someone else (who would have probably preferred that you checked the ABS option). YOU may not want airbags, the passenger riding in the car with you might have a different opinion. You are sharing the road with everyone else. Your decisions can have a major impact on other people's lives (whether they are in the same car as you or not). Why does your right to do whatever you want trump their right to safety?

Then there is the question as to what is acceptable government regulation and what is not. Why are crumple zones and seat belts okay, but not airbags and ABS?

Yes, cars would be simpler and cheaper in your world- too bad your insurance rates won't.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2031 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 35):
By your reasoning safety devices like airbags, ABS brakes, seatbelts, stability control systems (not sure if this is law right now) should not have been made mandatory, it should have been up to the buyers discretion?

Here is the difference. Airbags and ABS brakes are automatically deployed. Same with stability. For the "mandatory" camera to work, one must USE it. Case in point. Went to visit the brother and sister-in-law last month. Parked our SUV in the back corner of his driveway. We left for dinner in his Audi that had the back-up camera installed and activated in the dash. As we backed out of the garage, I had to tell him to stop before he backed into our SUV. He missed our SUV by less than a foot. CAMERA DID NOTHING.

Why mandate something that does nothing if not used? Now, maybe mandate a backup warning system that many cars have... thats something different. But a camera that you may never use? No... let's move on.

Oh, and seatbelts, I think they are the law in all states now. So all cars must have them installed.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 43, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2171 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 41):
Why does your right to do whatever you want trump their right to safety?

It doesn't unless I run into them.

Quoting Polot (Reply 41):
Why are crumple zones and seat belts okay, but not airbags and ABS?

It's just a mostly arbitrary line in the sand. The proliferation of expensive government regulation of cars needs to stop. If customers want it, they'll get it.

Quoting Polot (Reply 41):
Yes, cars would be simpler and cheaper in your world- too bad your insurance rates won't.

Insurance companies have the VIN, so they know exactly how the car is equipped. They can adjust.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2170 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
Insurance companies have the VIN, so they know exactly how the car is equipped. They can adjust.

What I was getting at was that your insurance rates will shoot throw the roof. Honestly things probably wouldn't be cheaper in the end. Doesn't matter if you equip your car with the safety equipment or not- they will still be higher as there is an increased risk of someone else not having those features to help prevent an accident.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 45, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2169 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 44):
What I was getting at was that your insurance rates will shoot throw the roof.

...at which people will seek out cars with such safety features. Problem solved with exactly zero government regulations and zero government bureaucracy.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 45):
...at which people will seek out cars with such safety features. Problem solved with exactly zero government regulations and zero government bureaucracy.

But the mere possibility of being able to buy a car without those features will automatically make your insurance higher. So now you are where we are currently at, with cars costing exactly the same. But your insurance will be higher. Nice huh?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 47, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 46):
But the mere possibility of being able to buy a car without those features will automatically make your insurance higher.

How many such cars do you think will be built anyway? You're talking a relatively small number for use on tracks and weekends. There's no reason for government interference. The manufacturers and customers know what they're doing: features that are worth it will become ubiquitous and those that won't will become historical footnotes. I think you're way overestimating the effects.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 48, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):

No, this is what will happen:

Automakers will do what they currently do and build a stripper trim level lacking most of the safety features people want. It will be virtually impossible to find, and the automaker will produce next to zero of them, but the will still do it in order to advertise that nice low base price in newspaper, in commercials, and on the internet. They won't all immediately do it, but all it takes is one looking to increase sales and all the others will follow to stay competitive.

The actuaries at the insurance companies (who are in the business of making money, not doing what is right or fair) will go, "hmm, the risk of hitting or getting hit by a car lacking safety equipment to minimize injury or damage just increased from X% to Y%. In order to help maintain the company's financial health, insurance rates need to increase by $Z for everyone, and more if you choose to insure a car without additional safety features."

John and Jane Doe will get cranky and start complaining to anyone who will listen about those evil insurance companies and how they ruin everyone's lives. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the auto insurer's powerful lobbying group, will say: "Hey, we completely agree. But don't blame us, blame your politician. If they required airbags and ABS and whatnot (all the safety features basically every car already has) to be standard on new vehicles we will be more than happy to adjust our rates according."

Mr. and Mrs. Doe will then start complaining to anyone who will listen about how evil the government is and how they ruin everyone's lives. A congress(wo)man, hoping to score political capital from the public in order to further his or her career, will then submit a bill in attempt to make these safety features mandatory. The automakers, who are building basically all their cars with these safety features anyways, will cave to avoid negative PR and the possibility of excessively harsh government oversight.

And now we are right where we are today.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 49, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2148 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 48):
Automakers will do what they currently do and build a stripper trim level lacking most of the safety features people want. It will be virtually impossible to find, and the automaker will produce next to zero of them, but the will still do it in order to advertise that nice low base price in newspaper, in commercials, and on the internet. They won't all immediately do it, but all it takes is one looking to increase sales and all the others will follow to stay competitive.

Nothing wrong with that. Customers should do their homework. This day in age, there is no reason why anyone should walk onto a dealer lot and not know at least as much about the cars as the salesman.

Quoting Polot (Reply 48):
The actuaries at the insurance companies (who are in the business of making money, not doing what is right or fair) will go, "hmm, the risk of hitting or getting hit by a car lacking safety equipment to minimize injury or damage just increased from X% to Y%. In order to help maintain the company's financial health, insurance rates need to increase by $Z for everyone, and more if you choose to insure a car without additional safety features."

Those same actuaries, and pretty much everyone really, will know that there are nearly zero of the stripped out cars on the road. The insurance companies will know it's a drop in the bucket at best, and the customers will know that an insurance using the presence of a handful of stripped out cars to increase premiums is full of crap.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 50, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
Those same actuaries, and pretty much everyone really, will know that there are nearly zero of the stripped out cars on the road. The insurance companies will know it's a drop in the bucket at best, and the customers will know that an insurance using the presence of a handful of stripped out cars to increase premiums is full of crap.

Yeah, and what are the customers going to do about it? Remember government regulation is wrong, so that is not the answer.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 51, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2145 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 50):
Yeah, and what are the customers going to do about it?

Nothing. If insurers want to raise rates they will, whether it's for no reason or a bullshit reason. I'd at least prefer to have more options as far as what to drive.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2144 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 51):
Nothing. If insurers want to raise rates they will, whether it's for no reason or a bullshit reason. I'd at least prefer to have more options as far as what to drive.

But you won't have more options. Automakers don't make decisions purely based on government regulations- they also take into account market demand. You are arguing that everyone will still want the safety features, and that we're:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
talking a relatively small number for use on tracks and weekends.

That is not a large market. Most major automakers will not make all new cars catering to that market. Sports cars are already difficult enough to make profitable.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 53, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2143 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 52):
But you won't have more options.

In many cases, yes. In which case the government is just wasting paper.

Quoting Polot (Reply 52):
Most major automakers will not make all new cars catering to that market.

It's not just the major manufacturers though. Rolling back a bunch of government regulations will lower the barriers to entry for new boutique manufacturers. The small shops will have a much better shot without having to jump through as many hoops.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 54, posted (1 year 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2095 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 42):
I had to tell him to stop before he backed into our SUV

But that's not the problem with the camera, that's just user incompetance, plus the story sounds like fantasy to me as the reversing sensors would have been beeping like mad if he was that close to your RV.

It's like idiots not using seatbelts, and getting killed in accidents which they would have survived had they been wearing them, as you say you can make somethihng manditory but you can't make people use it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
It's just a mostly arbitrary line in the sand. The proliferation of expensive government regulation of cars needs to stop. If customers want it, they'll get it.

Govt safety regulations have saved millions of lives.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 43):
It doesn't unless I run into them.

But you might. Makes me think of a situation I had with a Ukranian taxi driver, they always lock the seatbelts so you can't use them, I insisted that I use my seatbelt, he informed me that he was a safe driver and had never had an accident, I said you might be a safe driver but what about everyone else. He unlocked my belt, a few minutes into the drive he then put on his own belt. He said he always thought being a safe driver would keep him accident free, but he never thought of somneone else hitting him.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
You're talking a relatively small number for use on tracks and weekends.

A lot of track day cars aren't insured for road use, or even have any insurance at so, so what's you point?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 49):
This day in age, there is no reason why anyone should walk onto a dealer lot and not know at least as much about the cars as the salesman.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 53):
Rolling back a bunch of government regulations will lower the barriers to entry for new boutique manufacturers.

But small manufacturers already have exemptions, low volume type approval in Europe, I'm sure there might be something simialr in the US, that's how come we still get to buy Caterhams, Morgans and the like.


User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2079 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 54):
But that's not the problem with the camera, that's just user incompetance, plus the story sounds like fantasy to me as the reversing sensors would have been beeping like mad if he was that close to your RV.

I wondered about that too. Cars have had sensors for years, at a cost of tens of dollars.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 56, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 54):
Govt safety regulations have saved millions of lives.

And costs millions of dollars.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 54):
I'm sure there might be something simialr in the US, that's how come we still get to buy Caterhams, Morgans and the like.

We get Caterhams too, but those might be grandfathered in, but no KTM XBow. I know that for a while, and maybe still, the Pagani Huayra was not US certified because they didn't want to throw away more cars in crash testing.

The point is that cars are complicated enough as it is, and it's time to draw the line on the government forcing them to become more expensive and complicated. Manufacturers and customers do a pretty good job of sorting out which features are worth it and which aren't.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2031 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2052 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 54):
But that's not the problem with the camera, that's just user incompetance, plus the story sounds like fantasy to me as the reversing sensors would have been beeping like mad if he was that close to your RV.

Wow. That's a whole lot of know it all there. But you're wrong. On many levels.

It's not user "incompetence" if the user IS NOT USING IT. Apparently you need help in defining words. User "incompetence" would mean that the driver looking at the camera can't understand that the object appearing on the video screen is an some sort of obstacle that he/she needs to avoid. In this case, the user was looking at something else besides the camera. Distracted driving? Maybe.. Backing out of his garage thinking nothing is behind him simply as a result of habit? More likely. But not user "incompetence."

That's the whole point. The car had a backup camera, BUT NO BACKUP SENSOR. I say make the sensors mandatory and skip the camera. The sensors will work every time. The cameras only work when people are using them. So think all you want about it being a fantasy. Next time, read more closely. For example, it was an SUV, not an RV.

Heck, I left the political threads just for this very reason alone, know it all's that have all the answers and are wrong about what they post.

Wait. Maybe I should just chalk it up to reader "incompetence" because clearly you weren't "looking" at what I wrote. Maybe you were distracted. Maybe you, out of habit, just don't have to read everything because you know you are right every time, and everyone else is wrong.

Oh, and one more thing, I guess I can just call it user "incompetence" of you not knowing how to use the "Check Spelling" function since you can't even spell, wait for it, "INCOMPETENCE" correctly...

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 54):
that's just user incompetance,


[Edited 2013-03-01 15:29:39]


As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2010 times:

I do think that Ford may sell both the EcoSport and B-Max here in the USA with the next few years. Mind you, the US-market version of the EcoSport will likely be a Lincoln model, powered by a de-rated version of the Ford Fiesta ST's turbocharged engine (probably around 165 bhp).

I don't think GM will sell the Chevrolet Trax in the USA, since a model based on the same Gamma II platform used by the Trax--the Buick Encore--is already on sale here.


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2031 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1996 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 58):
I don't think GM will sell the Chevrolet Trax in the USA, since a model based on the same Gamma II platform used by the Trax--the Buick Encore--is already on sale here.

Why not? That's the way GM does its business in a lot of cases. See the Chevy Traverse/Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia line for an example.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1995 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 59):
Why not? That's the way GM does its business in a lot of cases. See the Chevy Traverse/Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia line for an example.

The large CUV is a big market in the US though. The mini-CUV market is too small at this point for GM to start cannibalizing their own sales.


User currently onlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5256 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1977 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 31):
Already have and it's not much of an important issue for them to tackle. Most people aren't even aware of this law.

Fair enough, but often a reason why people are not aware of it is because it has not adversely affected their lives, or at least affected them in a way where it matters, or the benefits at least match the "intrusion".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 54):
Govt safety regulations have saved millions of lives.

And costs millions of dollars.

Then that is fully worth it. From impacts to insurance rates to medical costs and impacts on traffic and local services, those laws have saved billions in costs to the greater public and allowed more business to proceed. Definitely a good deal.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 58):
I do think that Ford may sell both the EcoSport and B-Max here in the USA with the next few years. Mind you, the US-market version of the EcoSport will likely be a Lincoln model, powered by a de-rated version of the Ford Fiesta ST's turbocharged engine (probably around 165 bhp).

Why on earth would they de-rate the engine? Keep it where it is now (or increase it even) and put effort into making it smoother, quieter, more efficient. People like power and if you can spend extra money to develop an engine and get the buying public to pay more (paying back the cost for that development faster) then it is a good business decision. (Then the new developments flow to new lower models over the years and continues to make more money for the company.)

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 62, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1967 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
And costs millions of dollars.

I'm sure when all added up the cost of these additional safety devices pails into insignificance when compared to the savings made by people surviving accidents which would have killed them in decades past.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 56):
the Pagani Huayra was not US certified because they didn't want to throw away more cars in crash testing.

Pagani have sold 18 Huayras in the US and are only waiting on NHTSA to complete the paperwork, the car has apparently exceeded all the requirements for US certification. The story about them not being able to afford to crash test a Huayra isn't true.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57):
Wow. That's a whole lot of know it all there. But you're wrong. On many levels.

I like Audi, I'm looking to buy an A6 Avant or Allroad, I have the brochure sitting in front of me, it told me all I need to know.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57):
It's not user "incompetence" if the user IS NOT USING IT. Apparently you need help in defining words. User "incompetence" would mean that the driver looking at the camera can't understand that the object appearing on the video screen is an some sort of obstacle that he/she needs to avoid. In this case, the user was looking at something else besides the camera. Distracted driving? Maybe.. Backing out of his garage thinking nothing is behind him simply as a result of habit? More likely. But not user "incompetence."

I still think your story is BS, rear parking sensors are standard on the A6 and have been since 2007; for his one to have a reverse camera (Parking System Advanced) fitted without the sensors that would make it an anomaly; according to the US website if the car comes with a reverse camera it also has audio tones. So I still say if your brother in law wasn't using the camera and didn't notice the loud beeping and nearly hit your RV he was incompetent!


Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57):
That's the whole point. The car had a backup camera, BUT NO BACKUP SENSOR. I say make the sensors mandatory and skip the camera. The sensors will work every time. The cameras only work when people are using them. So think all you want about it being a fantasy. Next time, read more closely. For example, it was an SUV, not an RV.

See above, before you make BS statements maybe you should fact check first.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 63, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1951 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 61):
Then that is fully worth it.

Let customers and carmakers figure out what is or is not fully worth it.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 62):
Pagani have sold 18 Huayras in the US and are only waiting on NHTSA to complete the paperwork, the car has apparently exceeded all the requirements for US certification. The story about them not being able to afford to crash test a Huayra isn't true.

That same article does say that the Zonda was never approved for the US. And Huayra buyers have to wait longer than others to get their cars because of all of the the rules and bureaucracy.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 64, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
That same article does say that the Zonda was never approved for the US.

That would be true but you weren't talking about the Zonda, you were talking about the Huayra.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2048 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1940 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 63):
That same article does say that the Zonda was never approved for the US. And Huayra buyers have to wait longer than others to get their cars because of all of the the rules and bureaucracy.

Europe has just as many rules and bureaucracy. The difference is that Zonda is from there so their cars were built to follow them first, not the US's. Now whether Europe and the US should have identical standards is a completely different question.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 66, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1936 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 64):
That would be true but you weren't talking about the Zonda, you were talking about the Huayra.

Both are relevant here.

Quoting Polot (Reply 65):
Europe has just as many rules and bureaucracy.

I have no love for their rules and bureaucracy either.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 67, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1933 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
Both are relevant here.

No you clearly said Huayra, the Zonda isn't relevant at all when discussing selling Huayra's in the US.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15494 posts, RR: 26
Reply 68, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 67):
No you clearly said Huayra, the Zonda isn't relevant at all when discussing selling Huayra's in the US.

They're both relevant to why American rules are excessive and not helpful to low volume manufacturers.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 69, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1924 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 68):
They're both relevant to why American rules are excessive and not helpful to low volume manufacturers.

And European rules aren't just as tricky?


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6114 posts, RR: 9
Reply 70, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

European rules aren't unified by the way. Many niche cars made in the UK are illegal in France for example. As for the US, I don't understand how hot rods and similar DIY things can be legal.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3280 posts, RR: 6
Reply 71, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1884 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 58):
I don't think GM will sell the Chevrolet Trax in the USA, since a model based on the same Gamma II platform used by the Trax--the Buick Encore--is already on sale here.

I agree that Chevy may not sell the Trax here in the future , but they COULD if gasoline prices skyrocket to $5/gallon even more (regular unleaded gas is about $3,90 a gallon here in Phoenix at the moment). The Equinox is a solid seller for Chevy, and Chevy also has the Captiva fleet-only model for sale in the USA. The Buick Encore has gotten very good reviews from the auto press, but it is pricey - about $27000 USD with average equipment, and over $33000 USD loaded with every option. That's a lot of money for a compact CUV with only 138 horsepower that's based on a Sonic platform. So there is room for the Trax in GM's pricing structure.

Of course, there's also the Chevy Orlando mid-sized CUV that's also NOT sold in America, but its sold in Canada, which makes NO sense to me because I see the Orlando as the natural replacement for the now discontinued Chevy HHR wagon. I have no idea how popular the HHR was in other areas of the USA, but I see a fairly good number of them on the freeways around PHX.



"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 72, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 1809 times:

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 57):
The sensors will work every time.

No they won't, sensors fail all time.

Quoting tugger (Reply 61):
Then that is fully worth it. From impacts to insurance rates to medical costs and impacts on traffic and local services, those laws have saved billions in costs to the greater public and allowed more business to proceed. Definitely a good deal.

There are costs that we never hear about, and that I doubt are ever included in the numbers, and that is the costs to maintain all those systems by the consumer. Those costs are huge. All we hear about however is it will only add $xx to sale price. One example, my ABS light has been lit on my worktruck for years because it will require a trip to a technician and several hundred dollars for a probable ABS module replacement.

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 62):
I like Audi, I'm looking to buy an A6 Avant or Allroad, I have the brochure sitting in front of me, it told me all I need to know.

Speaking of Audi....this is the required dissasembly to replace the alternator on an A6...I'm sure we won't get that labor bill included in most of the studies about the cost of modern cars.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b105/slimshady02/P1010181.jpg


User currently offlineGuitrThree From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2031 posts, RR: 8
Reply 73, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 62):
I still think your story is BS, rear parking sensors are standard on the A6 and have been since 2007
Quoting kiwirob (Reply 62):
See above, before you make BS statements maybe you should fact check first.

Let's talk facts.. When did I say it was an A6? I didn't. When did I say the model year? I didn't. Before you make BS statements about the car in question, I think you need to be sitting in it to do so. That's all I'm going to say about it because that's all that needs to be said about it. You again, think you know it all and yet have no clue to the year or model of the car but you still claim it's all BS because you're looking at a pretty brochure of a brand new Audi A6. In your words, not mine, "I have the brochure sitting in front of me, it told me all I need to know." Good to know your brochure of a car on sale in 2013 can tell you exactly what happened during this incident involving a car made some years ago.

Oh, love that picture of the alternator swap out mham001 posted. Still want that A6 you've been lusting over? Have fun with that shop queen.



As Seen On FlightRadar24! Radar ==> F-KBNA5
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 74, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1748 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 72):
Speaking of Audi....this is the required dissasembly to replace the alternator on an A6...I'm sure we won't get that labor bill included in most of the studies about the cost of modern cars.

WOW!  Wow!
That is insane! The alternator should be one of the easiest parts to replace.

Quoting GuitrThree (Reply 73):

  
Well said sir!



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 72):
Speaking of Audi....this is the required dissasembly to replace the alternator on an A6...I'm sure we won't get that labor bill included in most of the studies about the cost of modern cars.

If you buy new you don't have to worry about labour costs, it's all covered under warranty. I haven't bought a second hand car in a long time, not after my last one stung me big for a bill due to defective parks which should have been replaced under recall, but didn't fail in my case until 2 months after the warranty ended. Had I owned it from new I would have recieved the recall notice and not had a very expensive problem.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 74):
Well said sir!

Well said, why, he is wrong. He won't even say which model it is, because he knows he's wrong!


User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1707 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 76):
If you buy new you don't have to worry about labour costs, it's all covered under warranty. I haven't bought a second hand car in a long time,

So this limits you and anybody else with a brain to only keeping the car for 4 years or 50,000 miles before dumping it at the wrecking yard door. This probably explains the abysmal resale values of premium cars. I could not do that, it epitomizes gross waste. The Germans salute you however.


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1695 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 77):
So this limits you and anybody else with a brain to only keeping the car for 4 years or 50,000 miles before dumping it at the wrecking yard door.

It's my choice, I'm not interested in owning an old car as a daily driver and family transporter. New car warranty in Norway for most cars is 5 years, 7 if your buy Korean.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39478 posts, RR: 75
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 76):
So this limits you and anybody else with a brain to only keeping the car for 4 years or 50,000 miles before dumping it at the wrecking yard door.

I agree and a 4 year öld car should not be headed for the wrecking yard unless it was in a severe accident.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 76):
I could not do that, it epitomizes gross waste.

  

Quoting mham001 (Reply 76):
The Germans salute you however.


[Edited 2013-03-05 19:13:36]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

Quoting kiwirob (Reply 77):
It's my choice, I'm not interested in owning an old car as a daily driver and family transporter. New car warranty in Norway for most cars is 5 years, 7 if your buy Korean.

Coming from the guy who proclaimed Chrysler as viable product simply because it has a diesel.....

I assume you believe that only a new car less than 5 years old is reliable enough to use as a family transporter. I can fully appreciate the desire for reliability, but if that is the criteria, you seem to have a habit of choosing the wrong products. Even at 3 years, Audi is ranked far below industry average in that category....



User currently onlinemham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1443 times:

Back on subject, as we learn more, the doubts about ever seeing this model in the US grow...

EcoSport shows flaw in Ford's global design policy
March 6, 2013 06:01 CET


Ford is downplaying sales expectations of the EcoSport subcompact SUV in Europe because the vehicle was designed with emerging markets in mind.

The European EcoSport unveiled at the Geneva auto show keeps the same robust format as the original car designed by Ford's design team in South America, complete with a rear-mounted spare wheel.

"It was meant to project a rugged character because the vast majority of places they will be sold will require tough vehicle, like South America and India," Martin Smith, executive design director for Ford of Europe, told me.

Under Ford's global design philosophy, Smith and the other design directors provided input into the car, but the demands of buyers in emerging markets won out...............................



http://www.autonews.com/article/2013...306/BLOG15/303069818#ixzz2MsFxyECS


User currently offlinekiwirob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 6680 posts, RR: 3
Reply 81, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

Quoting mham001 (Reply 79):
Coming from the guy who proclaimed Chrysler as viable product simply because it has a diesel.....

And when did I say that, however if you're talking about the European market, Chrysler would need to offer diesels to be viable, which they do.

Quoting mham001 (Reply 79):
but if that is the criteria, you seem to have a habit of choosing the wrong products. Even at 3 years, Audi is ranked far below industry average in that category....

I've never had a problem with a new car, i've never owned an Audi either, but might, however I have owned two VW's both bought new, still own one of them, neither of them ever had any issues.

I also live in Norway, the cost of owning an older car here is horrendous, any trip to a dealer, because there are very few independent mechanics, will cost a fortune, so it makes sense to buy new or near new and flick on with a year or so left on the warranty. As an example tyre shops don't even do wheel alignments, you have to go to a dealer.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6114 posts, RR: 9
Reply 82, posted (1 year 1 month 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

I don't know how it'll play out but some people like "fake rugged" for some reason. As an example the Dacia Sandero, a mainstream city hatchback, is quite successful in the "Stepway" trim with cosmetic changes, nothing being done on the drivetrain :

http://hfr-rehost.net/self/f47dab4234187a6153f1a4f49b84daca838b77a6.jpg

With a rear-mounted spare wheel there was the Renault Scénic RX4 compact MPV, although this one had a revised drivetrain with partial AWD :

http://hfr-rehost.net/self/ba290592dc00622682210ee284dadc68aa572a07.jpg

Its successor is back to only cosmetic changes :

http://hfr-rehost.net/self/c53c32c18f054ad823d558381de816b6bc904f64.jpg



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 83, posted (1 year 1 month 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1371 times:

A couple of comments:

Quoting tugger (Reply 61):
Why on earth would they de-rate the engine? Keep it where it is now (or increase it even) and put effort into making it smoother, quieter, more efficient.

The problem is that the Fiesta ST's 1.6-liter "Ecoboost" engine is a very "high strung" engine, with more power at the top end of the rev range. By de-rating it from 193 to 165 bhp, Ford could flatten the torque curve, which would make it more adaptable for the EcoSport as a real mini-SUV. Indeed, there are rumors that a Lincoln-badged version of the EcoSport may make it to the US market.

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 71):
I agree that Chevy may not sell the Trax here in the future , but they COULD if gasoline prices skyrocket to $5/gallon even more (regular unleaded gas is about $3,90 a gallon here in Phoenix at the moment). The Equinox is a solid seller for Chevy, and Chevy also has the Captiva fleet-only model for sale in the USA. The Buick Encore has gotten very good reviews from the auto press, but it is pricey - about $27000 USD with average equipment, and over $33000 USD loaded with every option. That's a lot of money for a compact CUV with only 138 horsepower that's based on a Sonic platform. So there is room for the Trax in GM's pricing structure.

The thing is that the Trax is a VERY small vehicle by SUV standards, something that American buyers in the Chevrolet market may not like. The Buick Encore--because it can accommodate the "niche" market for such a small SUV---would probably have a better chance of success.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chevrolet Launches "4 Door Corvette"-2014 SS Sedan posted Sat Feb 16 2013 11:48:32 by stasisLAX
Surprising Reveal Of The Next-Gen Ford F-150 Truck posted Tue Jan 15 2013 15:01:13 by stasisLAX
NRA Launches Gun App For Children! posted Mon Jan 14 2013 20:48:52 by TheCommodore
Never Aired 1976 Gerald Ford Campaign Ad posted Tue Nov 6 2012 11:17:37 by AeroWesty
Invitations For Rumoured IPad Mini Sent Out posted Tue Oct 16 2012 13:56:32 by virginblue4
Fiat 500X Mini-SUV Goes After The Mini Countryman posted Wed Oct 10 2012 12:04:22 by stasisLAX
BBC: IPhone Launches; Nobody Cares posted Wed Sep 12 2012 13:58:48 by Asturias
Ford Launches Econoline Replacement With T-Series posted Sat Sep 8 2012 21:05:19 by stasisLAX
A.net Mini Meet: Bye Bye MD-90 Flight From ZRH posted Fri Jan 7 2011 06:04:16 by ManuCH
Harrison Ford Speaks For Climate Change-Hypocrite? posted Mon Nov 15 2010 18:44:28 by ua777222