Re: Now I Want this Cute Little Smart Hybrid Car Coming to US in2007

What relation does it have to Studebaker (or a Toyota for that matter
crossposter)and why would I want to spend $20,000 for a car that could
go in the bed of my truck, wouldn't want to take out on the Interstate,
and generally doesn't do the things normally expected of a car better
than a $13,000 Kia?

There is a reason those things haven't even been able to make money in
Europe!

They are cool looking little things but just don't make sense in real life.

Jeff DeWitt

[email]kangaroojoey@email.com[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> Introducing the new Chrsyler Smart Crosstown. BTW, you can let the top
> down as well as the windshield like Jeep's. Compact smart hybrid cars
> have been in Europe since 1998. US is a decade behind. Compact hybrids
> are great to travel in for work, light loads and seats two people. I
> love it. Forget the ForTwo. This is a lot cuter. It's only 15,000 Euros
> (Approx. $20,000 USD).
>
> [url]http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/frankfurt/0509_smart_crosstown_concept/[/url]
>
> [url]http://www.auto-power-girl.com/photo_gallery/smart/smart_crosstown_hybrid_showcar-834[/url]
>
> Joey
>[/color]

"Brooksie" <brooksie1@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JVjah.376464$5R2.113528@pd7urf3no...[color=blue]
> The one my dear wife and I would like is the "Carver" - sort of a triked
> motorcycle with a body and it tilts 45° to either side as you corner.
> Still around $40,000 Euros though. Maybe we'll just get our GoldWing
> triked and put on the electric vests for now...
>
> Brooksie[/color]

Check this out . . . looks a lot more fun than a Carver. :) -Dave

[url]http://www.go-t-rex.com/videos.asp?nav=en-us[/url]

Jeffrey DeWitt <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>They are cool looking little things but just don't make sense in real life.[/color]

how so?

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:47:47 +0000, Jeffrey DeWitt wrote:
[color=blue]
> What relation does it have to Studebaker (or a Toyota for that matter
> crossposter)and why would I want to spend $20,000 for a car that could
> go in the bed of my truck, wouldn't want to take out on the Interstate,
> and generally doesn't do the things normally expected of a car better
> than a $13,000 Kia?[/color]

For commuting around town, or driving the 17 miles to work, I could see
where it would be useful.

Also, you have to realize, that for 3 mile drives for cups of coffee, etc,
it makes NO sense to fire up an IC engine. Talk about asking for trouble!

If this thing runs mostly on batteries/electric motor, it would be a good,
um, 'vehicle' for short trips to the store, etc!

[color=blue]
>
> There is a reason those things haven't even been able to make money in
> Europe!
>
> They are cool looking little things but just don't make sense in real life.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
> [email]kangaroojoey@email.com[/email] wrote:[color=green]
>> Introducing the new Chrsyler Smart Crosstown. BTW, you can let the top
>> down as well as the windshield like Jeep's. Compact smart hybrid cars
>> have been in Europe since 1998. US is a decade behind. Compact hybrids
>> are great to travel in for work, light loads and seats two people. I
>> love it. Forget the ForTwo. This is a lot cuter. It's only 15,000 Euros
>> (Approx. $20,000 USD).
>>
>> [url]http://www.automobilemag.com/auto_shows/frankfurt/0509_smart_crosstown_concept/[/url]
>>
>> [url]http://www.auto-power-girl.com/photo_gallery/smart/smart_crosstown_hybrid_showcar-834[/url]
>>
>> Joey
>>[/color][/color]

"Jeffrey DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Tyjah.54174$39.14260@southeast.rr.com...[color=blue]
> What relation does it have to Studebaker (or a Toyota for that matter
> crossposter)and why would I want to spend $20,000 for a car that could go
> in the bed of my truck, wouldn't want to take out on the Interstate, and
> generally doesn't do the things normally expected of a car better than a
> $13,000 Kia?
>
> There is a reason those things haven't even been able to make money in
> Europe!
>
> They are cool looking little things but just don't make sense in real
> life.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
> [email]kangaroojoey@email.com[/email] wrote:[color=green]
>> Introducing the new Chrsyler Smart Crosstown. BTW, you can let the top
>> down as well as the windshield like Jeep's. Compact smart hybrid cars
>> have been in Europe since 1998. US is a decade behind. Compact hybrids
>> are great to travel in for work, light loads and seats two people. I
>> love it. Forget the ForTwo. This is a lot cuter. It's only 15,000 Euros
>> (Approx. $20,000 USD).[/color][/color]

Chrysler has to be kidding. If the EV-1 had been this ugly, GM could have
killed its electric car in 20 minutes, at whatever lease fee they'd asked
for it. Driving one of these monstrosities would force me to wear a mask
so that no one would recognize me and thus embarrass me!
and at 20 grand, it's just ludicrous....maybe a new one out the door for
$7,000 would make a bit of sense, but for $20,000, I'd sooner get a four
year old Lexus with all the bells and whistles and hang the gas expense. I
have to think that if a Chrysler salesman had an interested buyer and
mentioned in conclusion that it cost "only" 20 big ones, the customer would
have every right to laugh and say "yeah, right....what is it REALLY?"
To my mind, the latest bunch of Chrysler products have been designed by
someone who doesn't like cars much....the small windowed "armored car" look
leaves me cold. The last halfway decent looking Chrysler was (IMO) the
Sebring convertible, except that the back seat was suitable only for five
year olds and double amputees.

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:35:45 -0600, me wrote:
[color=blue]
> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Also, you have to realize, that for 3 mile drives for cups of coffee, etc,
>>it makes NO sense to fire up an IC engine. Talk about asking for trouble![/color]
>
> This is something I'm debating abt.
>
> Does it really make sense to have specialized vehicles
> for different kinds of trips?[/color]


He don't know me well, do he? ;)

I have:
A Scion tC I just bought. It gets drivein in the rain...only when it has
to, because I don't wnat to drive my...

'88 Supra "SportRoof" (Targa) in the rain. Bsaically because the roof
leaks, but also because I don't WANT it getting wet!

So, on those days, I drive my...

'92 Grand Voyager. AWD. Mostly rain and snow. It goes on the road in
November when the Supra comes off, and vice-versa in April. I was running
all three, but got sick of owing my soul to the Ins Co. ($1925 for all
three...)

I traded a '92 LHS for the Scion. I think I should have kept it, but I
also had my...

1985 Toyota Celica GTS. I ran this car daily for 3 years (except in the
snow) until I got the Supra and decided to quit fixing the Celica. Sorry I
did. It was a good car!

So, the Scion is for longer trips (7 miles or more), the Supra is a
"Summer Beater" the van is a "Winter Beater" (I was playing in a band when
I bought it, but our guitar player hasn't been heard from since
July...)and for driving those 3 mile trips, since it really IS a beater
much more than the other two.

Now, about the "Hachiroku" (Corolla GTS Twin Cam) I have sitting in my
backyard, awaiting restoration...


[color=blue]
>
> IOW...... a city car or scooter such as for three mile
> trips....and then a bigger car for the long distance
> highways trips?
>
> Could it be that having a highway car and using it for
> all trips makes for better economics than owning
> specialized vehicle and having to maintain different
> vehicles, have multiple insurance policies, etc?
>
> I once flew from Dallas to Austin. I was surprised
> when I got on a full size jet to make this "hop". We
> no longer got up to altitude when it seemed as tho we
> were starting the decent down.
>
> I asked someone why they did have much smaller commuter
> jets for such a trip and the answer was that it is more
> effective to have only one jet.....maintain one set of
> parts..... one set of mechanics....etc.... than have
> multiple jets and the assorted "infrastructure".
>
> Is this true? Could it really be more cost effective
> to use one highway car for all trips rather than have
> separate specialized vehiclea?[/color]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:35:45 -0600, [email]me@privacy.net[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
>Could it be that having a highway car and using it for
>all trips makes for better economics than owning
>specialized vehicle and having to maintain different
>vehicles, have multiple insurance policies, etc?
>
>I once flew from Dallas to Austin. I was surprised
>when I got on a full size jet to make this "hop". We
>no longer got up to altitude when it seemed as tho we
>were starting the decent down.
>
>I asked someone why they did have much smaller commuter
>jets for such a trip and the answer was that it is more
>effective to have only one jet.....maintain one set of
>parts..... one set of mechanics....etc.... than have
>multiple jets and the assorted "infrastructure".[/color]

If that jet was full for the trip, it makes more sense to run two
flights a day with the seats full (150 people at a shot), than a dozen
flights with smaller planes that only hold 25 passengers.

Just look at the Passengers To Crew Costs ratio for openers, then
the seat-miles per gallon of fuel burned, and the seat-miles per
maintenance dollar. The little plane only gets to divide the costs
among 25 passengers, but the bigger plane divides them among 150.

The airlines aren't going to deliberately do things in a way that
loses them money.

--<< Bruce >>--

Bruce L. Bergman <blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> If that jet was full for the trip, it makes more sense to run two
>flights a day with the seats full (150 people at a shot), than a dozen
>flights with smaller planes that only hold 25 passengers.[/color]

So am I not sure if you are agreeing with my
observation or not?

Would you say that there is SOME merit...sometimes....
to having one vehicle and use for all trips vs higher
efficient MULITIPLE vehicles?

I'm not saying I be live this or not....I really don't
know. Id just like you guys opinions

Bruce L. Bergman <blPYTHONbergman@earthlink.invalid>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> If that jet was full for the trip, it makes more sense to run two[/color]

If I remember correct.... the flights was maybe half
full..... but VERY short.

I bet its only a few hundered air miles between Dallas
and Austin yet we were in a 727

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:fs8km255qggn0gpri3ldlh5kdttvfadv3j@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> Hachiroku ???? <Trueno@AE86.gts> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Also, you have to realize, that for 3 mile drives for cups of coffee, etc,
>>it makes NO sense to fire up an IC engine. Talk about asking for trouble![/color]
>
> This is something I'm debating abt.
>
> Does it really make sense to have specialized vehicles
> for different kinds of trips?
>
> IOW...... a city car or scooter such as for three mile
> trips....and then a bigger car for the long distance
> highways trips?
>
> Could it be that having a highway car and using it for
> all trips makes for better economics than owning
> specialized vehicle and having to maintain different
> vehicles, have multiple insurance policies, etc?
>
> I once flew from Dallas to Austin. I was surprised
> when I got on a full size jet to make this "hop". We
> no longer got up to altitude when it seemed as tho we
> were starting the decent down.
>
> I asked someone why they did have much smaller commuter
> jets for such a trip and the answer was that it is more
> effective to have only one jet.....maintain one set of
> parts..... one set of mechanics....etc.... than have
> multiple jets and the assorted "infrastructure".
>
> Is this true? Could it really be more cost effective
> to use one highway car for all trips rather than have
> separate specialized vehiclea?[/color]

The answer to the question from a cost perspective depends on how many
highway trips and short hops the owner makes. For example, if the owner
makes 20 trips under 3 miles per week and only takes trips longer than 1
hour once a year, then the highway cruiser does not make economic sense - it
is probably less expensive to rent a larger car for a week than to own it
for a year. On the other side of the spectrum, if the owner spends most of
the time on the highway and takes 2 or 3 short trips a week, then the
highway cruiser makes more sense.

Besides cost, there are other things to consider when purchasing a vehicle,
like comfort, safety, people and cargo capacity, poor-weather capability,
and personal driving preferences.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
[color=blue]
>The answer to the question from a cost perspective depends on how many
>highway trips and short hops the owner makes. For example, if the owner
>makes 20 trips under 3 miles per week and only takes trips longer than 1
>hour once a year, then the highway cruiser does not make economic sense - it
>is probably less expensive to rent a larger car for a week than to own it
>for a year. On the other side of the spectrum, if the owner spends most of
>the time on the highway and takes 2 or 3 short trips a week, then the
>highway cruiser makes more sense.[/color]

Thanks

That logic make sense

It depends on the "type" of driving.

Just to be devils advocate....what if the mix above is
roughly half and half tho?

I currently own a Mazda Protege which has been a good
car and gets good mileage.

But I guess in my mind I'm trying to analyze if I'm
better served at buying a moped for my 3 mile trips to
the coffee shop, library, etc.

Or....am I better served by only have ONE motorized
vehicle and using it for ALL trips regardless of the
type of trip.

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:sr6mm291anofog4c9icqed401jkc5t779u@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>The answer to the question from a cost perspective depends on how many
>>highway trips and short hops the owner makes. For example, if the owner
>>makes 20 trips under 3 miles per week and only takes trips longer than 1
>>hour once a year, then the highway cruiser does not make economic sense -
>>it
>>is probably less expensive to rent a larger car for a week than to own it
>>for a year. On the other side of the spectrum, if the owner spends most
>>of
>>the time on the highway and takes 2 or 3 short trips a week, then the
>>highway cruiser makes more sense.[/color]
>
> Thanks
>
> That logic make sense
>
> It depends on the "type" of driving.
>
> Just to be devils advocate....what if the mix above is
> roughly half and half tho?[/color]

If the mix is half and half, then the owner needs to determine whether to
choose a vehicle based more on economy or on comfort and performance. Even
"economy" cars have come a long ways in comfort and performance, especially
on the highway, and highway cruisers have improved greatly on fuel economy.

We have a Sequoia, and I drove 5 college kids back to school after
Thanksgiving break yesterday. It was packed to the gills, including a
luggage carrier on the roof. A smaller vehicle would not have fit 5
passengers, a semester's worth of laundry each, and the driver. I do not
cart our 3 kids plus their friends around as much as I used to, so we really
only need the Sequoia's capacity once a month or so. I also suspect that we
end up as the transporter or large loads and lots of people because we have
the capacity, and would not be the driver as often if we had a smaller
vehicle. Perhaps a Highlander or Rav4 would make more sense for our next
vehicle.
[color=blue]
> I currently own a Mazda Protege which has been a good
> car and gets good mileage.
>
> But I guess in my mind I'm trying to analyze if I'm
> better served at buying a moped for my 3 mile trips to
> the coffee shop, library, etc.
>
> Or....am I better served by only have ONE motorized
> vehicle and using it for ALL trips regardless of the
> type of trip.[/color]

A moped or motor-driven cycle uses so little fuel and requires so little
maintenance that it may make economic sense for frequent short trips, but
then, a bicycle would make even more economic sense.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

"Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
[color=blue]
>If the mix is half and half, then the owner needs to determine whether to
>choose a vehicle based more on economy or on comfort and performance.[/color]

So does having ONE vehicle still make better cost
effective sense than having two specialized vehicles?

Again assuming you've chosen the one vehicle for the
BULK of your driving?

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:f1amm2lotob2156erikdhap1n1eb6fsgkj@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>If the mix is half and half, then the owner needs to determine whether to
>>choose a vehicle based more on economy or on comfort and performance.[/color]
>
> So does having ONE vehicle still make better cost
> effective sense than having two specialized vehicles?
>
> Again assuming you've chosen the one vehicle for the
> BULK of your driving?[/color]

In this example,

Car "A" is a $15,000 compact car that gets 20 MPG and gas is $2.00/gallon.

1 year cost to drive 15,000 miles:
Insurance: $1,000
Depreciation: $1,000
Gas 750 gallons @ 20 MPG x $2.00/gallon = $1,500
Maintenance: $100
Total to drive 15,000 miles not incl. car cost: $3,600

1 year cost to drive 30,000 miles:
Innsurance: $1,000
Depreciation: $1,500
Gas 1500 gal @ 20 MPG x $2.00/gal = $3,000
Maintenance: $200
total to drive 30,000 mi. not incl. car cost: $5,700

Additional cost to drive Car A 30,000 miles instead of 15,000 miles =
$2,100.

*************************************
Car "B" is a $10,000 sub-cocmpact car that gets 40 MPG and gas is
$2.00/gallon
1 year cost to drive 15,000 miles
Insurance: $1,000
Depreciation: $1,000
Gas 375 gal @ 40 MPG x $2.00/gal = $750
Maintenance: $100
Total to drive 15,000 miles not incl. car cost: $2,850
**************************************

In this example, the cost to drive Car A 15k miles = $3,600 and to drive the
same car 30k miles costs $2,100 more, or $5,700

If you do not put those miles on Car A and buy Car B the cost of driving
each car 15,000 miles combined costs = $3,600 + $2,850 = $6,450, and that
doesn't take into account the additional money invested to acquire the
second car.

The break-even point to acquire a second econobox is probably around 50,000
or 60,000 miles on the second car.
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 11:11:10 -0600, me wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>The answer to the question from a cost perspective depends on how many
>>highway trips and short hops the owner makes. For example, if the owner
>>makes 20 trips under 3 miles per week and only takes trips longer than 1
>>hour once a year, then the highway cruiser does not make economic sense - it
>>is probably less expensive to rent a larger car for a week than to own it
>>for a year. On the other side of the spectrum, if the owner spends most of
>>the time on the highway and takes 2 or 3 short trips a week, then the
>>highway cruiser makes more sense.[/color]
>
> Thanks
>
> That logic make sense
>
> It depends on the "type" of driving.
>
> Just to be devils advocate....what if the mix above is
> roughly half and half tho?
>
> I currently own a Mazda Protege which has been a good
> car and gets good mileage.
>
> But I guess in my mind I'm trying to analyze if I'm
> better served at buying a moped for my 3 mile trips to
> the coffee shop, library, etc.
>
> Or....am I better served by only have ONE motorized
> vehicle and using it for ALL trips regardless of the
> type of trip.[/color]


Depends on what you need to do and what you have the $$$ for.

If you see another of my posts in this thread, you'll see I have a Van for
hauling music equipment (and as a Winter beater...it's AWD) and a Scion tC
for my 'main' car (although it gets driven less).

I also have a Supra "SportRoof"...just because! ;)