I just think that there sedans and hatchs put together would've made more then the f150 and America wont have any more car companies cause the only one that they have right now is cadillac
and most American trucks are starting to look worse and worse and the escape has went to a suv to more if a minivan
Nearly all of that is stuff that tells how you should do the deep technicalities of something already on the car. Design standards for stuff like locks, airbags, tires... basically "How to make a safety component and not make it fall apart in a crash".
True, but it doesn’t account for the fact that many cars are safe in the hands of competent drivers, and they make many cars far too easy to drive, allowing people to text and drive. Take the MR2, for instance. If you drove it like an idiot, you would spin. But if you drove it like a sane, normal, human, you wouldn’t. Also, pedestrian safety standards make cars look boring and impossible to see out of. The solution to pedestrian safety? Avoid crashing into people, and for god’s sake, don’t walk into a moving car! Also, we now have obnoxious safety features like lane departure warning. If you’re too moronic to realize you’re drifting in your lane, you shouldn’t be driving. Crash safety standards did bring about modern safety and airbags, but they also sometimes over-regulate and destroy automotive creativity. I cannot think of a modern car that is wonderfully different or a regular car that pioneers any modern tech. Manufacturers have slowly become accustomed to playing it safe and stifling their creativity, and a lot of it traces back to modern regs. Then again, every time I drive a modern car, I am safe, comfortable, and going fast, but never am I really interested in what I’m driving. Let me go drive my old car, now. /rant
And mid-engined sports cars are still legal. If life was as simple as it is in your head, we'd have a 0% accident rate. If you can't keep in the lane, you need it, if you can, why care? And "wonderfully" is? Well, it simply isn't good business to put possibly rotten eggs in your biggest basket. No, it traces to people wanting a car that will just go from A to B as easily and comfortably as possible. Which proves you are not the target market. --- Post updated --- People simply realized that it's a bit stupid not to have rear doors with so much space for them.
If people like you are given the power, then not for long, together with any human-operable vehicles. Do you know that some countries impose high taxes on aging cars or even ban them from certain zones? Combined with that, everyone who's not the target market doesn't deserve to drive. Pay shit ton of money and suffer inconveniences, or buy a car that doesn't suit you, which means paying money and suffering inconveniences, too.
[ What do you mean by that? I do, and I never agreed with that. Though every time I think about it in an objective way, cars aren't necessarily the best hobby. It's one centered around relatively expensive and dangerous items that require quite a lot of storage space and a road network, and can very rarely be used in their full potential. Plus, what the average hobbyist wants is usually at odds with the average buyer.
Technically, the Ion didn't really kill the company, since there's a 3-year gap between when they actually died and when the Ion died. It was when Penske ended their deal with GM that murdered the Saturn brand.
yes but the ion was there least successful and probably was a cause or there dimise and gm is not that smart killing off good car brands like Pontiac geo Saturn and all of there car are starting to get killed off
1. Still, it only hurt the brand, not kill it. It was the Penske-GM break up that truly broke Saturn's back. 2. The 2008 recession was why they had to kill off a few more brands (Oldsmobile doesn't count, as they were killed off 6 years before Saturn and the others). 3. They had to kill off the brands that were the least successful. Just because they made good cars (though Geo was more insignificant than Saturn and Pontiac IMO) doesn't mean they killed them off for that reason. 4. Some of these markets are already on their way of dying, so that's why they had to kill off those cars (though I don't understand why the Volt have to be involved, since GM is trying to be electric-focused, yet decides to kill off the Volt for some reason).
IIRC they had a bargain with the Obama administration that they would be bailed out if they cut their brand number to four. So they left Chevrolet (main brand), Buick (emerging market sales), Cadillac (luxury brand) and GMC (profits, I guess)? Saturn's days were numbered by the virtue of making small cars in the days of small car profits shrinking, Pontiac was made unnecessary by making Chevies sportier. I think Saab and Hummer had decent futures in store for them with some investment, but the politicos had to step in.
Pontiac because they became less focused on muscle cars, I mean if you think about it if Pontiac was revived, they could put a muscle car twist on other cars. (ex. minivan)
Pontiac was no more muscle than other brands. The changes occured when the US performance crowd turned to more refined imports, and insuring a muscle car would cost an arm and a leg, so nobody was buying them anymore. Then, when the performance crowd returned, the non-performance one had already shifted FWD, so there wasn't much in the way of pre-existing RWD platforms.
