I was thinking this over last night.
Since this ever so popular goverment seems to take exception to every car we want to buy and complains endlessly that we all buy the wrong cars, should the government put their money where their mouth is and design and build a 'peoples car' that meets all their wishes for us the motorist?
Herr H wasnt a nice fella its true, but his idea for a Peoples Car, especially with the persecution of the motorist on account of our 'bad choices', is as relevant now as it was back then even if our reasons for needing such a car are somewhat different.
Id say something priced £3-5000, not so small it would be useless for a family, so about Fiesta sized, no toys but a design focussed on economy, emissions and green credentials.
Not suggesting it would be a fun car by any means, but one which would give people a real option to go green.
Its not like they havent got the cash to do this either and could create many jobs for all these immigrants they are so fond of inviting over here.
|
.....could create many jobs for all these immigrants they are so fond of inviting over here....
Very enlightened view, Stu.
|
|
|
Sorry stunorthants, but the last time the government got in involved in car manufacture, we ended up with British Leyland and its various incarnations. And as for the comment about 'invited immigrants', personally I don't think a motoring forum is a place for this type of discussion.
S6 1SW
|
Ignoring the rather E Powell-esque content, I am assuming here we are thinking a UK equivalent to the Dacia Logan.
We'd end up with 2006's version of the Marina.
In fact, we'd probably end up with the Marina itself.
|
|
|
Sorry stunorthants, As for the comment about 'invited immigrants', personally I don't think a motoring forum is a place for this type of discussion. S6 1SW
NO. It's not right to comment anywhere is it? Don't be so soft. Facts are facts...Accept it. Carry on Stu.N.
vbr........................MD.
|
I don't want to get into an endless back and forth argument, but as far as I'm concerned, a motoring discussion site should be about motoring. Last post on the matter.
S6 1SW
|
I was simply suggesting where labour could be sourced since UK workers do have a bad history with car making and the government is in the perfect position to bring in as much labour as they want. Dont be so cynical.
As for governments making cars, just because one lot fails doesnt mean another will.
|
As for governments making cars, just because one lot fails doesnt mean another will.
The odds (and history) are against it though.
|
The odds (and history) are against it though.
Hmm.. Renault, VW, SEAT, Proton.....?
|
|
VW after WW2 wasn't government owned (was it ?) SEAT's car making history under the Spanish Goverment was hardly the acme of automotive design (re-warmed fiats mainly), the only places that government owned car makers blossom was either a Communist State or in a fiercely protected market. We live in a free market economy in reality who would buy a C21 Trabant or the suchlike - unless we're forced to
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking this over last night. Since this ever so popular goverment seems to take exception to every car we want to buy and complains endlessly that we all buy the wrong cars,
I haven't heard these endless complaints.... Its true that the government offers incentives (i.e. lower road tax for smaller cars, lower taxes on LPG) but beyond that they have done remarkably little to influence consumers - much less than some other governments.
Id say something priced £3-5000, not so small it would be useless for a family, so about Fiesta sized, no toys but a design focussed on economy, emissions and green credentials. Not suggesting it would be a fun car by any means, but one which would give people a real option to go green.
Yes, I agree with this. I cheap and basic low-emissions car would be a good idea. There are already some small cars that fit the bill though (think of the small Daihatsu, Perodua etc).
Its not like they havent got the cash to do this either and could create many jobs for all these immigrants they are so fond of inviting over here.
>>
Well, I think its the CBI and employers who want workers to fill jobs that "British people don't want to do" (i.e. us bolshy Brit workers don't want to sleep five to a bed in a caravan and work for 50p an hour). The goverment (being 'business friendly') play along. According to Digby Jones we would not be able to get this year's food harvest in if it were not for immigrants - he doesn't explain how we managed to do it five or six years ago though.
|
I read alot in the paper about what the government thinks we are doing wrong car wise.
The Perodua is cheapish, but is really old technology and I am suggesting something fairly cutting edge in terms of design but without the associated development costs of building in the latest toys which Im sure costs a huge amount.
Yes it needs to have basic comforts so it can be most things to most people, but nothing that is suplus to A-B transport, ie no electric windows or power steering for example, but comfortable seats and easy to drive.
|
|
|
|
Id say something priced £3-5000, not so small it would be useless for a family, so about Fiesta sized, no toys but a design focussed on economy, emissions and green credentials. Not suggesting it would be a fun car by any means, but one which would give people a real option to go green.
R reg Almera, capital value £1,000 on a good day, 40mpg, no toys, stereo and a sunroof and keeping an older car is a very environmentally sound option, as the purchase of such a car reduces the demand for newer ones, which is when most of the damage is done.
And it's metallic green
|
Its not the place of government to build cars. Building cars is purely an economic based activity, If its (a) good enough and (b) affordable enough then people will buy them.
Government frequently throws hurdles in the way of (b) tho
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
Are you under the impression governments are not about making money? Besides, looking at Ford, maybe car making isnt about making money!
|
If there was a market for such a car, one of the manufacturers would have cottoned on by now.
A government sponsored project would end up producing a modern day Allegro, probably without the reliability and performance of the old one. It would cost £32,000 to make each one and there would be a waiting list of two years, though delivery could not be gauranteed on time.
The less governments actually do, the better for all of us.
--
Robin Reliant, formerly known as Tom Shaw
|
|
|
Are you under the impression governments are not about making money?
You are confusing "makeing profits" with "raising money for self perpetuation"
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
|
|
Gov't should not make things .(See BL and that car made in N Ireland by now hwat was his name? DeLorean) But if some things are better for the environment /use less fuel , the Gov't through taxation policy should encourage them.
All right. Now lets see.
Tax on diesel is higher than petrol although diesels cars use less fuel.
Gov't has cut Home Improvement Grants for insulating homes.
Tax on lowest CO2 emitting cars reduced to zero but cars are not available in UK.
Airlines use lots of fuel and it is tax free.
No 10 has just had low energy lightbulbs from Mr Blair - 5 years after everyone else.
Hm.. Words are cheap.
Actions speak...
madf
|
....I was simply suggesting where labour could be sourced since UK workers do have a bad history with car making and the government is in the perfect position to bring in as much labour as they want. Dont be so cynical.....
Will your people´s car have an overdrive reverse gear too, Stu..... ;-)
Regards all,
Barchettaman
|
If this bunch or fools in government made a people's car, it would...
Cost £70,000
Arrive in 2018 and be a 2006 design
Would be discontinued after a year or two
Some private company would build it and get a huge fixed amount no matter how few were sold.
There would be a waiting list to own one but indegenous people would be continually put to the back of the queue
It would be a tram.
|
|
......and they'd send a pofessional army to war in it.
|
>>VW after WW2 wasn't government owned (was it ?) SEAT's car making history under the Spanish Goverment was hardly the acme of automotive design (re-warmed fiats mainly), the only places that government owned car makers blossom was either a Communist State or in a fiercely protected market. We live in a free market economy in reality who would buy a C21 Trabant or the suchlike - unless we're forced to
After WWII VW was touted around by the Allies as potential war reparations. Henry Ford rejected the company as 'not worth a damn', as did GM, Renault, Citroen, Rootes etc etc. It was hence left in German government hands. It is still under the control of the state of Lower Saxony, who IIRC, have majority ownership. VAG has never been privately controlled.
SEAT was a joint venture between FIAT and the Spanish government - it was actually in pretty good shape at the time of sale to VAG. Proton is a similar arrangement between Mitsubishi and the Malaysian government. There is so much government involvement in the Korean 'Cheabol' companies (hyundia/kia, Samsung etc) that it is difficult to disentangle public from private funds.
In fact almost every major vehicle manufacturer owes its existance to government intervention or 'lucky breaks' (like government suddenly put in a big order just as the co was about to go under). Toyota of Japan had this happen several times...Ironically in the end it was the Americans that saved Toyota - when the Korean war broke out they weren't able to get trucks from the US quickly enough - so had to place a big order with Toyota who were in pretty sickly condition at the time - that order probably saved them.
These days there is a lot of macho talk about free markets etc., but in reality almost all government offer enormous help to their car makers, either overtly or covertly. Of course one of the best known big public bail-outs was in the US - Chrysler Corporation.
|
Germany must give up 'golden share' in VW, says European Commission
The difference of opinion between the European Commission and Germany over the lawfulness of the State's golden share in car manufacturer Volkswagen culminated today when the Commission announced that it was taking the matter to the European Court of Justice.
Volkswagen, the car manufacturer that started as a State-owned company under the Third Reich, was privatised in 1960. A 1970 amendment prevents a shareholder from acquiring more than 20% of the voting rights and gives shareholders with 20% of the voting rights a blocking minority. The Law also reserves 2 seats on the company's Supervisory Board for the Land of Lower Saxony, which, with approximately 20% of the voting rights, is the largest shareholder. The State itself would remain entitled to two seats as well on the simple purchase of two shares in the company.
Earlier this year, the Commission opened talks with Germany asking the government to repeal the VW legislation as the combination of restrictions on shareholding with automatic public representation were contrary to EU law on freedom of establishment and free movement of capital. According to the Commission, these provisions dissuade potential investors or bidders and is a restriction on cross-border direct investments.
Germany has so far refused to amend the Law, saying that it is necessary to maintain employment in a depressed sector. This argument however has had little weight before the Court of Justice in previous cases where the measure was anything more than transitory.
Armed with the findings of the Court in earlier cases involving golden shares held by France in the oil company Elf, by Belgium in gas company Distrigaz, and by Portugal in certain energy and telecom companies, the Commission has now stepped up the pressure on Germany. The Court recognised that golden shares could be valid in certain circumstances, such as the State's security, but on the back of these earlier judgments, it is now difficult to imagine that Germany's arguments in relation to VW will stand before the ECJ. Germany's case will not be helped either by the UK's recent announcement that it will dispose of its golden share in the airport services operator BAA after a Court ruling in May 2003.
------------------------------
TourVanMan TM < Ex RF >
|
Any basic people's car, even if it undercuts its competitors in new price, might still find itself competing with secondhand examples of other makes.
The Citroen 2CV became pointless once early diesel Ford Escorts, Vauxhall Astras etc. entered the secondhand market in significant numbers - more economical and superior in almost every way to the 2CV.
|
|
Which os why the Mini became a pile of poo.
|
I have to say that some of you guys with your philistine utilitarian attitudes might almost pass for people who weren't stirred by for example the yowl - I believe that's the expression? - of a tuned straight six.... Honestly, the Mini is an all-time automotive classic and never became a pile of poo...
See it for what it is, don't compare oysters with tomatoes.
|
The point of this car that im suggesting is that it is far superior on economy - around 90ish would seem possible if the car was low weight through being as basic as humanly possible, more so than current cars.
Also designed to fall into the lowest tax bracket, especially if they hike it up as has been suggested.
It would have to be superior in terms of running costs over and above whats already available.
Your also forgetting that used cars dont come with quite the same warranties that new cars come with and this is a car that would be aimed at people who want to buy a new car.
Mind you, it could work the other way and people who would have bought a used car, could afford a new one.
|
|
|
|
It wouldn't matter who built the 'people's car' - State-owned or private: the venture would make money only if the product were any good - in particular, better than, say, a second-hand Ford.
It would need to:
- be rewarding to drive
- have room for a family plus their luggage
- be reasonably good to look at
- allow enough options to make people feel they were getting a choice whilst restricting them enough to make the whole thing profiable.
Something like the Skoda Fabia perhaps comes nearest. Made in much greater bulk, the price could come down.
|
|
I should of course have added that it would need to break new ground in economy without being a slug to drive.
|
The Mini was a classic in its time but by the end of its run it was outclassed in every respect except for compactness.
A peoples' car would have to be in the small hatchback 4/5 seater class, and capable of motorway use. For economy it would probably be a diesel, even if that added to the price. So we're looking at something along the lines of the Skoda Fabia 1.4 TDI, with its 3-cylinder VW engine.
Smaller cars, like the Peugeot 107 / Citroen C1 / Toyota Aygo, the VW Fox or the tinies like the Smart or Aixam have limitations of size and / or performance that rule them out of the 'peoples' car' category.
|
|
As we know, 'volks wagen' means 'people's car', so is it to be the Phaeton or the Touareg?
|
|
|
I used a Daewoo Matiz for motorway use and it was fine even though it took a while to get up to speed, you get used to that unless you have male ego problems, so I wouldnt say that there are many cars that cant be taken on the motorway, it just depends on ones expectations.
I drive my Suzuki van on the motorway at 70. Not the most comfortable way to get around for sure, but its acceptable and if I bought a car for exceptionally low running costs, id accept a loss of comfort in the aim of economy. The sort of car im suggesting would want a great emphasis on economy and running costs, otherwise, it would present no real advantage over any other small diesel hatch.
The Fabia is a nice car, so if you used that as a benchmark to improve on, you would really want atleast 35% better economy and purchase price to make it worth sacrificing some of the big car feel.
Id happily pay 4 grand for a car with acceptable comfort but very high MPG and lightweight body.
The Citroen AX was a flimsy little car, but did produce some great economy figures and it wasnt so flimsy that it couldnt be used everyday and wasnt bad to drive either.
It comes down to having a car that first meets all the regulations and then presents an overwhelming cost advantage to offset the fact that its not the most fantastic car in the world to travel in, although lightweight cars are often fun as the lack of weight can help with handling.
|
|
|
|
|
