This is why Ford of Europe make money......

[jamesb121]

As the topic says, who wouldnt want to buy either of these small cars right now with the way the economy and enviroment are going?

Are these not just fantastic looking little cars? The KA is the baby and new Fiesta slightly bigger, plus for the first time the Fiesta is coming to the US.

Who needs an SUV now?

[hondarobot]

Those micro cars are actually kinda freaky. A go-cart with a roof. Now that Russia has just stormed into South Ossetia, I'm sure gas prices will not be going down soon, though, so I suppose we'll be seeing more of them.

[muhmuh]

the ka looks even worse than the old one
the fiest is the first one that looks good... although this is largely thanks to taking a 206 blueprint and streching it a bit

[rvince]

My 1st car was a 1979' Ford Fiesta... Nice little car and had a great mileage too...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FiestaFestival01.jpg

[Richctdude]

Yeah im stilling holding out for a plug in hybrid

[dbev]

If US vehicles had the average mileage of European cars, you would save two thirds of your money, that is, you would keep it in your pocket.

Plus, the environmental effects...

[hondarobot]

Those little cars seem like death traps to me. A semi-truck could roll right over one of those. I say for economy and the enviroment, bring back the Zeppelin. In my case, I'd have to fly very close to the ground, but it could still be workable.

:)

[muhmuh]

Those little cars seem like death traps to me. A semi-truck could roll right over one of those.

too bad that just about all pickups and suvs crumple into a complete mess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB0araA0T_k

[hwbs]

i am str8 with all of that...studies show that hybrids lose more of their value than most cars....u are only really truly saving money if u are driving the car over 5 years....most of these cars u pay 5-7k more for the hybrid engine....

[SarahG]

Those little cars seem like death traps to me. A semi-truck could roll right over one of those.

too bad that just about all pickups and suvs crumple into a complete mess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB0araA0T_k

Crumple zones and crumple away zones are an intentional part of American car design in recent decades.

There is real physics behind the crumple zones, it absorbs a lot of the energy from the impact and mitigates it, to protect the occupants. Sure beats a lot of the older cars that would survive a wreck physically, but leave the driver's internal organs in a shattered state. Around WW2 the safety test for even European cars was rolling them off cliffs, if the car ended up intact on all 4s at the bottom, then it was deemed safe.... sure, the car survived, but that didn't mean its drivers would have. :shock:

The problem with crumple zones is when they are designed improperly or are in a wreck so bad that the forces exceed the design specifications. In this situation the crumple zones crumple away and you're left with the occupant compartment which then either continues to crumple away, or folds up into a collapsed coffin killing and/or trapping its occupants inside.

These small cars do not have the room for crumple zones, so they don't have any. I think this is why people complain that they look unsafe. You don't have 3 or more feet of car in front & behind you to absorb wreck forces. So what happens here is you have to make the tiny car bounce out of the wreck- this is what Chrysler did with the Smart car.

The next problem is that if the car re-focuses the forces of the wreck by bouncing, you're doubling the gforces that the passengers have to live through. So you have to put in a pile of hi-tech airbags, restraints and other devices & hope that its enough to protect the passengers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbBo1UPbloI

The problem is that if you don't have the technology right, it really does make small cars a major death trap. Some of the Chinese and Russian economy cars of recent years have had such difficulties, and if you look at the older Chery crash tests on youtube you will see just how bad these eco cars were before Chery "got it right".

If a semi were to fall onto you, I think you're pretty much fucked even in the "sacred suv" especially since most suvs are just pickup trucks with custom bodies made to make them look strong (h2 and h3 are prime examples of this, it's really not anything like the military hummer).

But the big difference between the US and Europe is geography. The US is fairly vast, it has significantly larger rural areas- and it takes more distance to go to place to place. There are European countries you can drive across in a day's time without difficulty and so small eco cars are a better fit logistically. You're not going to be going 75+ miles to get to work in many cases in these tiny European countries, which can't be said for everyone in America. If you live in a city, work in a city, and rarely go beyond the near by suburbs fine, I can see a small eco car being a good fit (or even an electric) in the US, but if you have to commute long distances you're going to probably find a preference prevailing in favor of bigger vehicles even when those vehicles are never used for towing, offroading, or the things they're advertised doing.

[TomSelis]

I've been seeing a lot of smartcars lately.

http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshh34p069T9nzC1kP5w

[Fu Manchu]

http://www.carmagazine.co.uk/News/Search-Results/First-Official-Pictures/Ford-Focus-RS-the-first-pictures

[muhmuh]

Crumple zones and crumple away zones are an intentional part of American car design in recent decades.

There is real physics behind the crumple zones, it absorbs a lot of the energy from the impact and mitigates it, to protect the occupants.

yeah i know all this but proper modern cars are built in a way that makes sure the cabin is virtually impossible to deform while everything around it crumples up and flies everywhere
same idea that makes modern single seaters so incredibly safe... if any bit of the cabin shows noteable deformation the car is essentially crap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0kB2SqZqZ0


You don't have 3 or more feet of car in front & behind you to absorb wreck forces. So what happens here is you have to make the tiny car bounce out of the wreck- this is what Chrysler did with the Smart car.

i think you mean mercedes but anyway theres a lot of ways to build structured that can safely shave of massive amounts of momentum in tiny amounts of space... sadly its a bit of a money issue with anything other than racing


The next problem is that if the car re-focuses the forces of the wreck by bouncing, you're doubling the gforces that the passengers have to live through. So you have to put in a pile of hi-tech airbags, restraints and other devices & hope that its enough to protect the passengers.

normally id prefer 6 point harnesses and head restraints as a safety measure but with the spacial awareness of most drivers all that would achieve is making people crash more


but if you have to commute long distances you're going to probably find a preference prevailing in favor of bigger vehicles even when those vehicles are never used for towing, offroading, or the things they're advertised doing.

personally is rather sit in a focus st or something similar that gives me a fair chance of avoiding a crash in the first place and has a 5 star ncap rating instead of some gigantic suv or pickup which will just roll over if i try to swerve out of the way at 160-200kmh

[jamesb121]

I must be getting old, im looking at the new KA and thinking hmm i quite fancy a 1.4 70bhp diesel one of them, 65mpg and more power than you'll really ever need and 102g/km of CO2.

One of these days the US will catch on......

[dbev]

Frankly, each and every SUVs and Pick-Up trucks performed very badly in EuroNCAP tests:

http://www.euroncap.com/

Those vehicles are not as safe as other cars, they only seem safer because they are bigger.

The best example is the Nissan Navara, that scored HALF A STAR:

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/nissan_navara/317.aspx

It even managed to do worse than the FIAT Seicento, a previous generation car also built in a period of deep crisis for FIAT:

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/fiat_seicento_2000/73.aspx

And what I have read about US SUVs and pick-up trucks is even worse, especially for the heavy duty ones...

The truth is that they have an enormous consumption of fuel ...

The undeniable fact is that engines sold in Europe, even for very large cars such as Audi and Mercedes, do have a much lower fuel consumption due to a widespread use of modern technology and smaller displacements.

If you need a vehicle for working, Mercedes-Benz, FIAT and IVECO produce suitable models:

http://www.iveco.com/en-us/Pages/Home.aspx

http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/content/unitedkingdom/mpc/mpc_unitedkingdom_website/en/home_mpc/van/home/new_vans/new_vans_showroom/sprinter.html

http://www.dodge.com/en/2008/sprinter/index.html?context=vehiclePage&type=vehicleLink

http://www.fl-sprinter.com/

http://www.fiatprofessional.co.uk/cgi-bin/lcv.dll/LCV_UK/home.jsp

[Lick UR Lovely]

I'll take my big honking F-150 and Silverado over a compact anyday!
TRUCKS RULE! :D

[Trogdor]

Cute, I'd try 'em :)