Just 8.8 feet long and slightly wider and taller than 5 feet, the Smart car is the prototypical micro-car envisioned by Congress.
Years ago the political joke was, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” Now the joke is, “I’m from the government and I’m here to save you.” The government has gone from help mode to save mode. I can’t recall when government made the transition but it has been in full force for several decades. I first realized it when the government started to save us from smoking. The first smoking regulations seemed reasonable but now in some areas you can’t smoke in your own business or home. Seatbelt and helmet regulations appeared soon after. I’m a great believer in using seatbelts and I think folks that ride a motorcycle are crazy if they don’t wear a helmet. But why does government need to mandate it? The simple answer is that politicians believe that it is their duty to save us from ourselves.
Government continues to venture into mandating our means of transportation. The political mantra is to conserve fuel. Our Congress Critters are considering mandating that the American public drive hyper-efficient cars and trucks, even if it means these vehicles will be less safe. By increasing the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) standards from 27 miles per gallon to 35 mpg, the manufacturers will be forced to produce more micro-cars and fewer mid-size and full-size sedans, trucks, vans, and SUV’s to meet the fleet requirement.
Remember the station wagon?
Previous CAFÉ standards led to the end of the station wagon and the birth of the popular SUV. Station wagons were categorized as cars and because they were bigger, heavier and required larger engines it was impossible to meet the CAFÉ standards for the manufacturer’s passenger car fleet. But the public weren’t interested in a micro-car, they wanted a vehicle that could carry the family. American ingenuity came to the rescue and by using a truck chassis, the SUV was born. SUVs was born out of necessity and have become the hottest selling vehicles. The SUV satisfies the consumer’s desires but satisfying consumers has irritated the environmental extremists. To these people, the freedom to buy what you want is not as important as saving some mythical bird, bug, reptile, rodent or weed.
The prototypical micro-car envisioned by the Congress Critters is the tiny two-seat Smart car. The Smart ‘fortwo’ is just 8.8 feet long and slightly wider and taller than 5 feet. The standard ‘fortwo’ is powered by a three-cylinder 700cc engine and you can get air conditioning, MP3 capability and a six-disc CD changer. At 1,700 pounds it is already one of the smallest cars on any road in any country. If you haven’t seen a Smart, imagine a Honda Civic cut in half.
The Smart is reminiscent of other micro-cars like the 1937-1952 Crosley, the 1950's-era BMW Iseta, Fiat 500 and Nash Metropolitan, and the late 60's Honda 600 and Renault 4CV. All of these micro-cars never really caught on with the public since they couldn’t carry a family in comfort and they weren’t suitable for long trips.
But now the micro-car will be given a new life by mandated legislation. You may have to make several trips to take the soccer team to practice, but our Congress Critters know best. You may have to forgo that cross-country trip with the family, but you can watch the Travel Channel and save lots of gas.
While the Smart will meet the CAFÉ standards, it hasn’t been subjected to the required crash tests yet. The current full-size sedans are about twice as long and heavy as the Smart so while the Smart might be nice for going to the grocery store, it will put you at a significant disadvantage if you are involved in an accident. Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reminded us that “the laws of physics can't be repealed.” “Even with modern safety features like multiple air bags, people in small, light cars are always at a disadvantage in crashes.”
So the question that remains to be answered is can our Congress Critters successfully force drivers to buy the Smart or other similar cars? History tells us no. So will drivers keep their cars longer? The auto industry depends on people buying a new car every few years. When people quit buying new cars regularly the automobile industry will eventually collapse. But I can’t wait to see our politically elite loading their entourage into a micro-limo.
quixote@covad.net
Read more articles by Jack Ward
I'm old enough to remember the Crosley, the Iseta, the Fiat, the Nash Metropolitan, the Honda, and the Renault.
These cars were not meant to carry a family in comfort — that task was for the family sedan. The above cars were a second vehicle for the family breadwinner to commute to and from work (hence the name "Metropolitan").
I think the reason they never caught on is, being very small, they were not very stylish nor comfortable.
Comment by sedonaman | September 1, 2007
we do not need smart cars or small cars. The Republicrats in congress are only interested in being re-elected and we go merrily down the tube with no oil. If we were to put a "Manhattan" style project into effect we could dump the Middle East in total. There are enough alternative alternatives being researched that with a real push from Congress we could have freedom from the oil cartels. Just think of the billions of dollars that we spend each and every year for foreign oil. If that were spent here our economy would soar even more. And for the nettering nabobs of negativism, don't tell me we don't have a delivery system for the new fuel. The gas stations are the obvious answer as gas won't go away as an automotive fuel. We need leadership and will not get it from our current crop of selfish politicians.
Comment by hvance | September 1, 2007
On my daily commute, I observe that about 50% of the vehicles are oversized pickup trucks and SUVs which are overwhelmingly occupied by only the driver. American are voting with their checkbooks for large vehicles; I cannot imagine that many will change to smaller ones any time soon.
(I drive a tiny 2-seat car, and I am always worried that the drivers of those trucks will not see my car. If it didn't have great brakes, it would be a grease spot on the road, due to all the drivers who don't seem to look before they change lanes.)
The US auto manufacturers have made great progress in developing vehicles that give the performance Americans want, while achieving big improvements in fuel economy over the last few years. But the manufacturers cannot force their customers to buy the smaller vehicles with engines and lower fuel usage. I hate the idea of increased fuel taxes, or taxes on engine or vehicle size, but that's how the Europeans and Japanese governments drove their post WWII populations to small cars.
I think it was Bob Lutz at GM who said something like this - if Americans are obese, the solution is not to sell only size small clothing - similarly, forcing American vehicle manufacturers to build only small vehicles won't cause Americans to stop buying full-size cars, SUVs, and pickup trucks.
It seems to me American vehicle preferences and market forces are in conflict with CAFE, as well as basic physics. So long as the media continues to tell Americans that cars are ruining the air and causing global warming, and so long as our Congress is drinking the same Kool-Aid, irrational legislation like CAFE will get passed into law.
Remember the push for electric cars? They used about 30% more energy than internal combustion vehicles - which is why they aren't all over the roads today. If hydrogen powered cars are really in our future, you would think we would have identified a source for the stuff! I have yet to see any documentation of the total energy usage cycle for hydrogen fueled vehicles.
Comment by gz9gjg | September 4, 2007