Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aurornis | Hacker News Reader

> I don't think small cars are getting made for the US because of SUV mania and something like a 67 MPG requirement for the Honda Fit based on it's build.

The famous 67MPG requirement was for a hypothetical 2026 model year car

But Honda discontinued the Fit in the United States in 2020, long before the hypothetical 2026 target.

The reason is consumer demand. People weren't buying them. There are thousands of lightly used Honda Fits on the used market for reasonable prices, but they're not moving.

Yes, the regulations are flawed, but that doesn't change the lack of consumer demand.

View on HN

> The reason is consumer demand. People weren't buying them.

I think this over-simplifies things. Strict milage standards force a set of compromises on ICE car design that make them both shittier and more expensive[1]. Why would anyone buy such a product when they can get an SUV instead?

[1] Some examples: turbochargers, CVTs, start/stop systems. All of these increase both the cost and complexity of building as well as repairing the car. And with higher complexity comes higher chances for something to fail as well so reliability suffers.

> Why would anyone buy such a product when they can get an SUV instead?

Isn't this just a circular way of admitting that people actually wanted SUVs?

This doesn't explain why the used car market is full of very cheap cars like the Honda Fit for much less than a new SUV.

> [1] Some examples: turbochargers,

Have to disagree. These are a great way to downsize the engine and maintain the same torque output. Yes it's more parts, but modern OEM turbochargers are very reliable. If you can reduce the number of cylinders from 6 to 4 or 3, that's a net win in moving parts, consumables, and repair costs.

> This doesn't explain why the used car market is full of very cheap cars like the Honda Fit for much less than a new SUV.

Is it really? Just to check I looked at carmax and found this kind of price:

2016 Honda Fit LX $16,998* 26K mi

You can get cheaper ones in the $11k range with like 110k+ miles on them, is this really a meaningul price difference?

But they only wanted SUVs because government nerfed sedans.

> both shittier and more expensive

> Some examples: turbochargers

I disagree that turbochargers are shittier. For most people, hell even for a large subset of people that only want to race their cars on a track, turbochargers provide huge benefits. Yes, they add complexity and cost; they also vastly improve fuel efficiency, create the best torque curve possible on an ICE vehicle, and substantially improve power output. Sometimes you actually need more complexity to build a better system. I think turbochargers are a marvel of modern engineering.

And while it's subjective and admittedly more enthusiasts prefer naturally aspirated to turbocharged, I personally prefer the character of a turbocharged engine. I'd rather hear turbo whistles than a whining V10.

If what you want is a reliable commuter, because knowing you can get yourself to work is more important than even fuel efficiency, then turbochargers are a clear net negative. I think most people view their car as a tool first and foremost, and don't have the luxury to view it as a toy.

> V10

Lmao what

Turbocharged cars have been reliable for a while now. There was a time when people said the same thing about fuel injection - because it is objectively more complicated than carbureted engines. But as time went on and they became more reliable and cheaper the only people that care about carburetors now are enthusiasts because they have so many drawbacks. It's the same thing with turbo engines today, except they're already reliable and better to drive (assuming you ever want to merge onto a highway). If you consider the higher RPM typical for NA vehicles they're arguably less reliable over time. If you include rising fuel costs turbocharged is arguably cheaper over the lifespan of the vehicle.

Buy whatever you want. But most people's perceptions of 'reliable' for cars is based entirely on rumors and hearsay and has nothing to do with data. Most awards for reliability are marketing gimmicks and aren't based on useful data.

What I know for sure is anybody talking about V10 engines is obviously utterly divorced from normal person reality, and I can't take any of their suggestions seriously.

Performance does not matter to the majority of car buyers. Reliability and capability are what matters. Whether you can count on the car doing what you need it to do. Even fuel economy is second to those. Anybody talking about the sound of turbochargers, performance and V10 engined (seriously, WTF) is totally out of touch.

I am happy with my 1.6L EcoBoost Ford Mondeo. It gets good fuel efficiency and has plenty of power to climb hills.

The Honda Fit had none of these. It was just a tiny car with a tiny engine.

It's just that Americans do not buy tiny cars or tiny engines.

“Reasonable prices” open to some debate. There’s such a premium to the Honda nameplate that the prices that “lightly used” ones go for make them a tough proposition over buying new. (Which of course, is no longer an option for the Fit.) From a look at prices in Canada, used 5-year-old 2020 model Fits are going for more than they did new.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com