There has to be something in this. I think that many single breadwinner households would like to own both a large and a small car but are prevented by financing and rego costs which would dwarf fuel savings. It would help if micro-cars had their own special truck-free lanes. If the soccer mom or the bushbasher has to drive a behemoth then maybe it should be painted in camouflage stripes or speed limited to 100 kph. If the cops catch you going any faster you'll need a good explanation.

Ideally public transport should be such that each household should only need one small car. If they need something bigger they could hire it, leaving the small car parked with the hire firm.

Stick around, Valerie, we need you.

There are currently no small cars at all made in Australia. “Australian” (branches of foreign firms) manufacturers have missed the boat, and are now unlikely to get on. There are rumbles of no car manufacturing in Australia.

Serve them right. The writing has been on the wall for many years, as buyers went for more economic vehicles. And, there are the customers who stubbornly stick to big vehicles.

Although the demand for smaller vehicles by erstwhile six cylinder passenger sedan drivers has increased, the demand for the grossest, most unnecessary conveyances – the 4WD’s - has actually INCREASED.

There were rumours that Ford would produce the Focus here. Two days ago it was announced that the Focus would be produced in Mexico.

And, hey. What does Ms. Yule thinks she is up to encouraging people to even have a ‘second car’? How many families really need more than one car? I’ve been driving for 50 years, my wife a few years less; we have managed with one vehicle, despite being treated by multiple car-owners as a bit odd.

The Indian car referred to by the author was recently reported as being the filthiest little thing (environmental-wise) imaginable. To get it up to scratch environmentally would certainly up that seemingly attractive price.

The Smart car, already available, seems to be the closest to Valerie Yule’s requirements that we will see for a long time yet. They haven’t been taken to by consumers – anyone who looks at them must imagine two squashed occupants at a glance – and the traffic conditions Ms. Yule envisages, which might make them safer, will never apply.

It is up to drivers to have fewer cars per household, and cut back on their usage. In cities, the people who drive to work and leave their cars parked all day could solve all of the problems by using public transport.

The keyword is lifestyle; not a type of a “second car”.

We do wish, act and think habitually the most of the time. And to change our lifestyles requires a complete reversal of our values, acts and thoughts.

Sydney, for example, is vast city wasting a lot of energy to run. Everybody wants to have a house and a car to drive to work. Without a car life can be difficult in Sydney and a dream of a house could stay just a dream.

As a one trying to change my lifestyle, I have to point out how difficult it is to swim against the tide. And I’m lucky to live within walking distance of two major shopping centres. Regular shopping in corner shops would be financially crippling.

People will continue to waste and pollute until something hits them back hard. What that will be might be a question of preferences, but tax does seem a better option.

Is there any "case" here for an Australian small (or should we say "micro") car? For any model to be viably built here there has to be not only a local market, but an export market as well (which partly explains why Holden's Commodore has done better than Ford's Falcon). The Tata Nano, if previous Tata models are anything to go by, would be an unreliable piece of junk. 5l per 100kms might sound fabulous, but many "normal" sized petrol cars come close to this, while modern diesels are very close, far greater comfort and safety.

Valerie's piece seems like yet another excuse to get 4wds off the road and further reduce speed limits, just so motorised skateboards would be more readily accepted. While I agree that far too many city slickers own 4wds for no valid reason, simple economics will ensure that mums will look towards more sensible, less "power and image enhancing" vehicles for school duties. Given the increasingly larger posteriors on both men and women these days, perhaps they could even think of walking to school to escort the little ones home! That way they could avoid the madness and mayhem of the school pickup areana... but I digress.

One reason small cars have not been as popular in this country as in others is that few are built for Australian frames. As a tall fellow myself, even medium-sized cars have presented problems, although this is improving. "Micro" cars like the Nano are worse again. It would be interesting to see what saftey rating the Nano achieves too, given that Euro and Japanese cars commonly rate at least 4 stars in crash testing. A recently tested Chinese car (not a small car like the Nano) achieved precisely zero stars in European tests.

It would seem more sensible, at least in the short term (and we are talking medium-long term anyway, "gearing up" to produce a small car here) to encourage car-pooling. Much better four workmates in comfort and safety in a Commodore than a lone commuter in a tiny putt-putt with barely spare room for their lunch.

I am bemused by articles like this. Effectively what the author is saying is that if the cars were built the buyers would come.

Really? The people whose business is to selling cars live or die by how well they forecast people's preferences - just ask Mitsubishi. I don't think its likely that have got it badly wrong, or will do so in the future.

What I suspect the author is really trying to do is entice people buy smaller, more efficient cars. You don't do that by building manufacturing plants. Giving tax benefits to smaller cars would work. Raising petrol prices might have an effect. Building lots of cars and sending their manufacturers broke - I don't think so.

What about speed zone lanes to encourage the purchase of smaller cars, wherein on dual highways trucks and heavier cars would be limited to the slow lane [except over taking] and smaller cars allowed to travel faster, say 10-20 K faster, depending on conditions.

Because small cars ARE snall, a roll bar / cash zone, would need to be incorporated into the design.

The police are always on about speed. Yet the energy released in an accident has, as much to do with, mass and angular momentum.

We could build someting like the BMW 325 or 335 [if it exists]. Power to weight, high. Otherwise, Aussies wont buy.

Maybe non-ministerial pollies could lead the way with being allocated smaller vehicles. Ministers do need status cars.

This is a good article. It's not very often an article on this site even remotely appears to be calling private individuals to some sort of action rather than calling on government to spend someone elses money on their favourite subject. I do disagree with a lot of your means however, if not your ends.

"It may be time to tax urban-based 4WDs to extinction so that small cars were less at risk."

I'm very pro-choice, socially and economically, so I don't agree with the government using the tax system and other peoples money to "tax to extinction" choices that don't really harm other individuals. If its no bad then they should just ban them, but I don't think that's realistic either.

What does majorly affect peoples economic choices is price signals. Small cars and public transport are becoming more popular now because of the very clear signal high petrol prices send to motorists. Unfortunately however, the price of petrol (and the taxes on top of them) are not as equitable as one of their alternatives. Private road tolls have become very sophisticated over the last decade. Not only do the more advanced ones now record (automatically when you drive through a checkpoint) vehcles and charge them based on how many vehicles are already on the road, but some also now record the weight of the vehicle and charge a premium for heavier vehicles cause more damage to the road. Whilst the former very clearly encourages carpooling, the latter also encourages the use of smaller cars.

"To make small vehicles more visible some sort of aerial might be needed such as carried by some scooters."

The rule of thumb is if you can't see another driver directly or in one of their mirrors, they can't see you. Nothing else will change that. Seeing the top of an aerial in ones rear-view mirror will likely do nothing but provide a distracting eyesore to motorists. For scooters, motorcyclists and others, if they can't manage to see another driver in this manner they should generally keep their distance.

"Much single driving is short trips which do not require high speeds. Safe fuel-saving top speed can be set to under 120kph, or for cheap little non-freeway cars, even under 100kph."

The reason most cars are able to go 130kph or more is not so that people can actually do those speeds, but so that the car has the power to quickly increase in speed if the situation demands its. Think of being at a set of orange lights, about to stop but then realising the car behind you is going too fast to also stop behind you. In this situation having a powerful car to get through the lights is a very valuable asset. That's just one example. If the car has a limit at 100 or 120 it's either going to be very sensitive to pressing on the accelerator or it's not going to be able to manage these situations. This is why you don't see many scooters on freeways.

By God Val, Baby Austins and Bull nosed morrises? Well, the Japanese metamorphosed the Austin into a Datsun in the 70’s and the Morris: Better off left laying in State than to resurrect another version of those horrors. However , I have noticed an Indian replica of a Royal Enfield motor cycle buzzing around the roads of late. Lets hope the blue prints of the bull nosed Morris are laying in state, buried with the carcass and not available to the Indians.
But Val, I do not disagree with your motives for suggesting that incentives to own smaller cars are more numerous. But God forbid, we as the long suffering motorists are afflicted by the introduction of a tiny version of the Holden commodore. I hope your not suggesting that possibility.
But seriously, I think there needs to be some form of mass psychoanalysis before we have more of the population subjected to something akin to the nightmares suffered by Dennis Weaver, singled out for destruction by a psychotic truck driver, in the film Duel. Do you remember Val, the Gogomobile of old? The only car on the road that could pass under a double-decker bus, unscathed.

The logical answer, short term, is to import Tata shells off the Indians and fit a custom Australian electric dive and battery system capable of a 200Km range between charges.

A small motorbike 4-stroke could be integrated to ensure operability in emergencies. Generally speaking city-mode driving should be adequately satisfied by a 200Km dialy recharge.

The price should come out around $5000 per vehicle otherwise this idea is probably dead before it gets started.

If I am right then I know I would buy one of these and I think demand woiuld see initial backlogs that will take years to fill.

Overseas marketing is also a possibility, especially to Asia, provided some deterrence to reverse engineering Australian drive train designs are in place. But one step at a time.

Back in the 1950s the bubble car became popular, for a while. A friend of mine actually had one of the Messerschmitt models, where one person sat pillion and the top was hinged to lift off and looked like a aircraft cockpit.

There is nothing new about small cars. Doubtless the desire would be to have then running on four stroke engines (the operational life of two strokes being somewhat limiting) and would still produce significant savings against the modern Aussie sedan.

Provided someone could make an air conditioner which could run off the smaller capacity engine, the safety standards are preserved and the travel range and speed maxims were viable then I see no problem to the resurrection of such vehicles, provided they can stand up economically.

With such potential and the burgeoning price of petrol, car manufacturers should be crawling over one another to invest in the production of more economic cars. However, the responsibility for investing in such ventures is squarely the role of car makers, not the role of government. I have heard Krudd has a half a billion investment fund he is itching to give away. I would rather he gave me back the $20 which is my (per capita) share than sink it into a black hole in my name.

viking13,

I recall reading the Guiness Book of a few decades ago that the tallest man in the world drove a Passat. Don't know the model. Around that time (1976) I had a Passat TS, which with the front seats back, I suspect a very tall person could be seated cormortably. Yet, some small Japanese cars seem cramped to me, I am 5' 10". It's a matter of design, I suspect.

Oliver, I once lived in a place where the local "tall guy" (7'2" or so) drove a Honda Civic. I guess any car can be modified for tall people, my point was that as most tiddlers come from the factory (especially Asian cars) they aren't well-suited for taller people, and this also includes my own 2 tonne 4wd. Some cars have reasonable legroom, but lack headroom. They are improving a great deal though- I can get comfortable in a Toyota Yaris. Whether I'd want to drive such a car any distance is debatable, though.

Given GMH's decision to close its Australian 4-cylinder engine plant down (one which exports, too) it would seem that Valerie's scheme is a non-starter. GM may well be looking at hybrid cars for the future, which quickly discounts "micro" cars because even a small hybrid is quite large. They need to be able to carry the batteries, which are huge compared to the starting battery in normal cars. Toyota's Prius is as big as an early Holden sedan (and probably a deal heavier, too).

Another aspect of these tiny cars is that they don't have the longevity of bigger cars. Their motors work harder and live shorter lives. Their suspensions take a pounding on our god-awful roads. Their crappy cheap interiors fall apart in our searing heat and sun. In short, bigger cars last longer: to my mind it's better to have a true small car (not micro) built properly in the first place, and not waste resources building swarms of tiddlers which would end up on the scrapheap.

As for the micro "cars" (actually many were driven on motorcycle licences) of the immediate post-WWII period: these were built to a specific market, one in which families wanted slightly more than a bike and sidecar. These designs would not pass current safety regulations, although there are some motorcycle-derivative designs around which might fit the bill (safety and weather-proofing).

Why is it that silly little girls like to display their ignorance by going into print about topics of which they know absolutely nothing.

Get a job in a local government planning department, love. They specialise in employing people who have no idea about anything.

Hasbeen

"Why is it that silly little girls like to display their ignorance by going into print about topics of which they know absolutely nothing. Get a job in a local government planning department, love. They specialise in employing people who have no idea about anything."

What patronizing pap this is. It's the blokey love for cars and speed and Big is Best mindset that is the reason our car emissions are still so high. Since when do you have to be an engineer or a revhead to be able to think laterally and come up with solutions? We'll certainly wait a long time if we leave it up to the car industry. Valerie is to be commended on kicking along the debate. Lots of other red-blooded males here are discussing and building on her ideas. They don't seem to have a problem with her gender. What are your suggestions, Hasbeen?

concord

"I'm very pro-choice, socially and economically, so I don't agree with the government using the tax system and other peoples money to ‘tax to extinction’ choices that don't really harm other individuals.”

As pointed out by Valerie, those who choose to drive 4WDs very definitely do impact on the rest of us in many ways. We're all paying a heavy price for this select group to thumb their collective noses at rising greenhouse gas levels and accident statistics. If we can't tax them out of existence, let's shame them off our roads. A rating system similar to the five stars on white goods might work. People would become familiar with comparative fuel usages and buying patterns would change as a result. A red/amber/green coding system visible on all vehicles might do the trick. Driving a fuel guzzler might lose its appeal when it comes with a red mark of shame on the windscreen! I'm only half serious but I definitely think this is the direction we've got to move in. We don't have time to wait for those who currently don't care to start developing a social conscience. Increasing petrol prices will hopefully kick-start the downsizing.

Excellent post Bronwyn.

Just a question, because my knowledge may be out of date, but is there still a rebate on the purchase of new 4WD's? The rebate was intended to assist farmers who have a need for 4WD's, but was exploited by town and city dwellers who have no need of such vehicles. If it is still available, could it be applied to rural garaging of such vehicles? This would help to eliminate most if not all of those frivolous cars from our roads.

Regards the topic, clearly there is a case for an economical low-polluting car. With improving technology, I am sure that in the future even the revheads (like me) will be satisfied.

Fractelle, I believe the "rebate" you are thinking of is the lower tariff (import duty) on 4WDs.

I personally drive a 4WD for several reasons. One is, I live in the bush, and occasionally need the offroad capability. I also need the space when I go to and return from the city (since the shopping is so poor locally). Another reason is wildlife- 4Wds sit higher and are less affected by whacking kangaroos. I've seen smaller cars with the windscreen smashed by roos and emus. Also, when it rain heavily, locally, 4WDs can get through minor floods, while lower cars would stop in their tracks or get washed away.

Gas guzzler? I average better than 10l/100km despite travelling at 110km/hr regularly and with loads up around half a tonne. That's what modern diesel engines can do for you.

City people have little idea of what people in the bush need and want. Having lived in the city myself, I'd not own a 4WD for daily commuting for the simple reason that they are a pain to park, and their capabilities are wasted. "Soccer mums" and the like are wasting money buying a 4WD, as I said in an earlier post it's more about image and perceived safety than logic. If they need to carry half a soccer team they are better off with a people-mover.

There should be no need to increase taxes on 4WDs- the market is already shrinking as people realise that even modern diesels are expensive to run in city environments when they're hauling around 2.5 tonnes unnecessarily, and when they come to replace tyres find they can buy two "normal" tyres for the price of a 4WD tyre. Combine this with mortgage stress and general inflation (and "bowser shock if they own a big petrol 4WD using 20+l/100km in town) and soon 4WDs will be left in the garage or replaced by something more suited to the city.

Viking13

You managed to read a lot into my post that simply isn't there. Apart from answering my question regarding tax break on 4WD.

My points were:

There is no need for town & city dwellers for 4WD. I was not attacking those who have a legitimate need.

I never mentioned the words "Gas Guzzler."

I anticipate that technology will eventually produce efficient and effective vehicles for the diversity of use that we require.

It would be beneficial if Australia could lead the way in development and manufacture - which would be a change instead of letting opportunities slip away. Hence my support for Valerie's article.

Why are we (Australia) aren't getting started on this now is the question.

Yes diesel engines are more efficient. Small diesel engined cars are even better than large diesels, while small diesel engined hybrids would get even better fuel consumption. There are further ways of improving engine efficiency, some of which are already marketed.

I have a brother in law on a farm who drives a small car, and travels a lot in the bush, not all country people need large cars, and small 4WDs exist. Some of the smaller cars come out better in safety tests than big cars.

I do not know of any statistics which show that Australians are bigger than most Europeans, why would we need bigger cars? I understand that higher percentage of our driving is in urban areas than most other countries, the big car for the big country makes no sense at all to me.

Just thought I would share these thoughts.

Fractelle, I answered your point in the first sentence then launched into a general spiel on other's points- sorry for the confusion.

Logic, I'm not an advocate of large cars, far from it. Bigger cars do cruise a lot better on the open road, but not everyone goes needs to go too far out of the major cities. My 4WD is probably a tad larger than I need, but then I was very limited by price and model availability given that I insisted on diesel (and automatic) at the time of purchase. The larger car is great for the longer trips I do though, and as noted earlier I carry big loads at times.

It comes down to horses for courses. A lot of city-dwellers have "too much car" at least from a commuting point of view. Unfortunately for some their vehicle must fulfil multiple roles so a compromise is required. For many though the infrequent need for load carrying or non-urban cruising compared to commuting might lead to a rethink on choice.

Logic, you're quite right, Europeans are much the same as us size-wise. Their cars have only become available at a reasonable price in the last few years though. Prior to that many of us could only afford local stuff or Japanese.

Thanks for the clarification, Viking13.

I understand where you are coming from now.

Another question, whatever happened to the family station-wagon? This was the preferred transport for the kiddies, dogs and golf clubs in times past. They didn't obstruct sight lines in traffic, more stable on highways and winding roads compared to 4WD's, and, finally could be constructed to be far more economical with our improving technology. I am concerned that people will simply switch to LPG 4WD's in the cities and the problems I mentioned above will remain.

Being a carrot rather than stick type of person, incentives could be made for people to make the transition to economical, practical and safer transport.

Fractelle, the "family station wagon" is still around, just not as big outside as they used to be (even small wagons have great interior space these days). There are wagons from the Japanese makers, plus Skoda, Citroen, VW, Mercedes etc. The lines have become blurred with the advent of SUVs and "soft-roaders" as well as people-movers, plus many hatchbacks are effectively a "mini-wagon". I believe Falcon has ceased production of its Falcon wagon (despite popularity in taxi circles) in favour of the Territory, which although a "soft-roader" is available in 2WD.

From a personal point of view, soft-roaders are great. They can travel on our poor outback roads as well as carry loads, and they can be quite fuel-efficient even in petrol form. They aren't as heavy as "proper" 4WDs because they lack a transfer case (in other words they don't have low range, which many 4WD owners rarely use anyway). Having said that, I don't own one, opting for a "proper" 4WD due to living in the outback.

I'd make the comment too that many city-dwellers travel out of town regularly, to the bush. They'd perhaps be looking for a small commuter for town use, as a second car, with fuel becoming so expensive. It's down to personal choice (and finances) since flogging off a "gas guzzler" in time of high fuel prices can lead to big losses- enough to pay for the purchase of a small second car, for instance.

I can't fault Yules thinking.

I'm retired, my wife I share two cars. One a ute, for when we need to move something large or need to travel long distances. This means it doesn't get much work, 10000ks for the year would pull it up. Our other car is a small Diahatsu Alto Hatch. It's great for the two of us to go shopping & visit the family. So it get much more use. The Cuolo is the 4 seater version & that would be fine for a small family. Our arrangement is fine for us & would be a good model to work with.

The day of the huge car with large motors are slowly dying. Of course revheads will always want "the power" but it's a mentality that must be educated out of the community. That would be up to the legislators. Car manufactures will always push "the power" because the large luxury car means more money & for te Oil Companies & more fuel sold. They have an agenda to keep cars large & guzzling gas to the detriment of the ordinary man who is being led by the nose. Mitsubushi large luxury car failed & they closed the plant in South Australia. Has that shown the car manufacturers something. No. Their answer is to reduce the number of small cars so the public has a reduced choice, then denigrate small cars as being unsuitable for Australia.

My choice for our next car would be one about the same size as the Daihatsu, perhaps a little taller, with a hybred engine for about $10-15000. But there is not one available at the moment. Can the Goverment be persuaded to convince car manufacture to make a car along those lines in Australia? I'd like to see that.

Jayb, your Daihatsu is old hat from the point of view of vehicle safety. I wouldn't be seen dead in one, and I'm sure many others would feel the same way, which is why they didn't sell. Having said that, it's still a reasonable choice for ocasional travel around town (as long as you don't have a prang). The ute too would be good for years of use.

Good luck finding a hybrid for $10-15k. The Toyota Prius sells for close to $40k on the road, new, and I doubt there will be much change from $40,000 for the hybrid Camry when it appears in 2010. With inflation it may well be more like $42k.

Viking13, I understand that the Diahatsu not as safe as present day cars. I was considered safe when it was purchased 9 years & 90000ks ago. The Courier is 8 years old & just had its 100000 service. They'll both well maintained & will be good for years yet.

The new Camery is a large car as is the Prius, athough it is smaller. Yes, they are expensive. In fact too expensive for the average person to own a new car. Therefore they always have to have a second hand eco unfriendly bomb as their only car.

If cheaper smaller hybred cars were manufactured more people could afford to own a new car. I would like to see a small car & I'm sure that many others would also. I am asking for an Australian made small 4 seater car as a second car or as a first car and I would like to see it diesel/electric.

Except for the usual revheads who need the extra safty of the big car & buggar everbody else. I had an experience 2 nights ago with a couple of these using the gap between light changes to race down the oncoming lane. A handbrake turn then race ahead of the traffic back to the first set of lights. Entertaining--NOT.

Why are they makin hybreds petrol/electric cars in the luxury range first? Why not snall diesel/electric or HHO? Seeing that HHO is now a proven technology.

Jayb, the Prius was the first hybrid car on the market, followed by the Honda Civic. Neither are "luxury" cars by any stretch of the imagination. The Prius is a glorified Corolla, made a little bigger in the rear so that the car could have boot space after the rest is filled with batteries.

It's not easy to build a "cheap" hybrid, at least using Toyota's technology. Honda's is cheaper but less sophisticated. Both are about $10,000 or more more than an equivalent base model in the respective ranges (and a top range Prius is over $45,000!). This extra cost would buy a lot of fuel.

Not sure what you mean by "diesel-electric", perhaps a supplementary diesel motor charging batteries for electric motor(s)? Cost not much less than a hybrid. HHO? There's no such thing really. The electroysis of water to make hydrogen and oxygen yields less energy than is input to make the gases in the first place!

For my money a small diesel with supplementary LPG injection is the way to go although there is the hassle of refilling two fuels (as well as finding a place for the gas tank!).

It is actually not well known that Toyota Prius uses a more efficient variation of the petrol engine using the Atkinson instead of the usual Otto cycle. The Honda uses a system of switching off some cylinders on low power, as well as a continuously variable gear box to keep the engine at it's most efficient operating point.

It is not possible to run all cars on diesel fuel as that is only one component of crude oil. The popularity of diesels in Europe is already causing a problem in supply of diesel fuel

Logic, the Atkinson cycle engine in the Prius (and other hybrids especially Toyota/Lexus) is not "more efficient" in the usual sense. It produces only around 50kW/120Nm power/torque which is somewhat less than equivalent sized modern Otto cycle engines. The Prius' engine can operate over a fairly narrow power-band and it doesn't have to rev up and down much. This is suited by the Atkinson engine, which gives excellent economy. Manufacturers would stick with Otto cycle engines for non-hybrids because they are more eficient in that role (and power per litre is a gauge of efficiency).

I doubt Europe's love of diesel cars is causing the present hike in demand, since that popularity is hardly a recent phenomenon. What is new is huge growth in demand from India and China.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should go out and grab a diesel passenger car. Petrol engines are getting better, for instance VW's turbosupercharged 1.4 which puts out 127kW (better than many 2.0l motors) with superb economy (not much worse than a Prius, in fact). Hybrids simply aren't for everyone- they lose out in open road cruising, for instance. Great for city commuters though. My issue with hybrids remains the battery packs, which don't last the potential life of the car, and I for one would hate to throw away a 10 year old car just because the battery pack was stuffed.