Models disappearing after 2014

[dan at larescorp]

With all due respect to Americans who complain about "high" gas prices, I humbly suggest that they come to my area and see what we pay. We have the highest gas prices in North America here. Using Dave@Moon's figures for the Crown Vic ($8750 /$3.50 US gal.) that equals 2500 gallons. The price of regular gas here this morning is $1,51/litre. There are 3.78 litres in a US gallon, therefore 3.78 x 1.51 = $5.71/US gal. I live in Canada so converting to Imperial gallons is 4.54 x 1.51 or $6.87/Imp. gallon. Multiplying 2500 x $5.71 = $14,275 or $17,150 for Imperial gallons. Using those figures, the Crown Vic is no longer viable as a taxi here. It is a dinosaur and thankfully has been discontinued. Toyota has a firm grip on taxi fleets here, which are dominated by Priuses and Corollas. Police forces here (RCMP and city) still have some Crown Vics, but are gradually being replaced by Fusions and Explorers. GM has very little presence as a police vehicle here. One city has gone over to Nissan, using Altimas and Maximas.

Again guys, all due repect, but when it comes to gas prices kwitcherbellyakin. You've got it easy.

Terry

I'm only asking this because I do not know the answer. I'm not trying to start an argument.

Aren't gas prices in Canada high because they use higher tax rates to help pay for health care and other various things like that?

[Guest Skyking]

Aren't gas prices in Canada high because they use higher tax rates to help pay for health care and other various things like that?

Probably for better roads and infrastructure too!

[Bleach]

Our roads suck! Our gas taxes keep going up and the roads keep getting worse. Most of these discontinued models wouldn't last long here because of our terrible roads.

[junkyardjeff]

I would like to buy one new vehicle in my life but there is not much out there that I would even consider,I am 53 and the closest to new was a one year old Harley. Want a new mustang but not practical so it will most likely be a truck but if the trucks in a few years turn out to be like the wimpy FWD based,for condo owners only and girly designed Honda ridgeline then I will give up on the dream of something new.

[dictator27]

We have the highest gas prices in North America in the metro Vancouver area because there is a road tax and transit tax on every litre of gas. The road tax is for road maintenance and infrastructure as Bob said. The transit tax goes to the bus company which operates the transit systems in virtually every city, town and village in this province. If we were to take these taxes plus a few others out of the $1.51, we would be paying less than a dollar a litre.

Add to that transportation costs-ask Target and Lowes about this-they seriouslt unerestimated start up costs in Canada. Target lost 1 billion dollars in Canada last year and projected 300 million plus again this year. Target fired their Canadian ceo and the US ceo quit. It is economy of scale; we have 1/10th the population of the US, so costs are higher because we have fewer people to absorb them.

Terry

[junkyardjeff]

The replacements if any are not going to last any longer.

Our roads suck! Our gas taxes keep going up and the roads keep getting worse. Most of these discontinued models wouldn't last long here because of our terrible roads.

[Bleach]

I would like to buy one new vehicle in my life but there is not much out there that I would even consider,I am 53 and the closest to new was a one year old Harley. Want a new mustang but not practical so it will most likely be a truck but if the trucks in a few years turn out to be like the wimpy FWD based,for condo owners only and girly designed Honda ridgeline then I will give up on the dream of something new.

I was a Ford truck dealership a few weeks ago getting a recall taken care of on my 94 F150. The prices of new pick up trucks were jaw dropping. Most were 40K and up. A few basic models were on the lot and they were in low to mid 20s. There were a few Transit Connects on the lot too. They were all over 20K. The similarly equipped E150s were not much more than the TC's. The TC's are tiny compared to the E-vans. I could only imagine the new Transit replacements will cost a lot more than the E150's they replace.

[Guest Skyking]

Our roads suck! Our gas taxes keep going up and the roads keep getting worse. Most of these discontinued models wouldn't last long here because of our terrible roads.

I bet our roads are worst than your roads. Our gas tax and registration fees go towards state pensions. It's a real saw subject here in this state. The roads are beyond patching.:mad:

[junkyardjeff]

I was looking a a new F150 last november and what I was looking at was basicly a modern version of the 87 F150 XLT I bought in 89 and the sticker was 33,000,regular cab,8 foot bed and a V8 and normal comfort options. I just cant spend that much money on a vehicle,I bought the 87 with 21,000 miles for 10 grand and would love to find a 2 year old truck again that is reasonable but they are over 20 now.

I was a Ford truck dealership a few weeks ago getting a recall taken care of on my 94 F150. The prices of new pick up trucks were jaw dropping. Most were 40K and up. A few basic models were on the lot and they were in low to mid 20s. There were a few Transit Connects on the lot too. They were all over 20K. The similarly equipped E150s were not much more than the TC's. The TC's are tiny compared to the E-vans. I could only imagine the new Transit replacements will cost a lot more than the E150's they replace.

[dictator27]

Aren't gas prices in Canada high because they use higher tax rates to help pay for health care and other various things like that?[/quote

Health care is paid for by our income tax. Gas taxes pay for road maintenance and new buses.

Terry

[FLYER15015]

Yea, and Lincoln hasn't made a decent looking Towncar since 1979.............................

Though my '97 was a good runner all the way to 355K. I heard the next owner cut her in half and made a limo out of her.

Now my '02 gets 27MPG and at 145K she is the new light of my life.

Mike in Colorado

[Dave@Moon]

Wow you have really altered the heck out of the dimensions to favor the Prius. These are nothing like what is published in KBB

Here are the three compared which I can verify against the car I personally own.

http://www.kbb.com/compare-cars/specs/2011-ford-crown-victoria-352514-vs-2012-toyota-prius-373440-vs-2012-ford-escape-364411/

My figures were cut and pasted directly from Motor Trend's online specifications. The Kelly specs listed here show the Crown Vic having a 131 cu. ft. trunk, about 10% larger than a 5'x5'x5' cube. God knows where they got that from. The Escape's capacity given int he same comparison is for a vehicle with the rear seats folded, hardly useful for a taxi.

I suspect the Motor Trend figures are a lot more accurate than Kelly's.

[Dave@Moon]

We were talking about the SS Chevy in the showroom.

Noticing the heavy rear brakes and wide based tires I asked if it was rear wheel drive????

"Why, yes it is. It has a Corvette engine, and special suspension!"

Really????? Where does it say that? That's when I asked the stupid question...

"When are you guys going to post the big signs?"

LOOK AT OUR NEW HIGH POWERED SEDAN!

Well, he said that they would not make that many, and.........

So, in other words..."What's the point?"

The SS has a combined EPA MPG rating of 17 mpg, worse than most SUVs. With ever more stringent C.A.F.E. standards being enforced through 2026, there is NO WAY any company, not even GM, could take a major hit by selling large numbers of 17 mpg cars. That's why the darn thing costs $43,475 (msrp) stripped even though it's only a 5 passenger sedan. EVERY Cadillac sedan has a base price less than that! That's also why getting a V8 in a pickup is getting harder and more expensive every year.

If you want one of these things and don't care about the consequences of burning all the gas these things need, get it soon! I wouldn't expect these cars to last on the market more than a few years in significant numbers.

[cahartley]

What gas in Canada costs, or anywhere else as far as that goes, is irrelevant as to what the funds are used for.

It still costs what it costs.

[R W Burgess]

The SS has a combined EPA MPG rating of 17 mpg, worse than most SUVs. ..............

Gas mileage doesn't bother me, Dave. I work from my home. I do not drive a personal vehicle more than 150 miles a week. I'm just tired of ugly vehicles.

That's also why getting a V8 in a pickup is getting harder and more expensive every year.....

A V-8 2 wheel drive pickup will not handle my 30 foot enclosed car trailer, plus it sounds lousy with a modified exhaust system.

If you want one of these things and don't care about the consequences of burning all the gas these things need, get it soon! I wouldn't expect these cars to last on the market more than a few years in significant numbers.

That's what bothers me. So many people think this way to the point that not enough of these cars are being sold anymore.

Wayne

Edited May 30, 2014 by R W Burgess
mistake in mileage (see edit history)

[dan at larescorp]

What gas in Canada costs, or anywhere else as far as that goes, is irrelevant as to what the funds are used for.

It still costs what it costs.

Very true. I only asked to clear up my curiosity. As the recent specs posted to this page will prove not all the data you find with a google search is accurate. I figured it would be better to ask people who live there.

[Bleach]

My figures were cut and pasted directly from Motor Trend's online specifications. The Kelly specs listed here show the Crown Vic having a 131 cu. ft. trunk, about 10% larger than a 5'x5'x5' cube. God knows where they got that from. The Escape's capacity given int he same comparison is for a vehicle with the rear seats folded, hardly useful for a taxi.

I suspect the Motor Trend figures are a lot more accurate than Kelly's.

I would question where motor trend got their figures. I can personally verify that the trunk space of my CV is very commodious. While an actual 5' cube would not fit in my trunk, I feel something with that claimed volume could truly fit.

As far as the Escape is concerned, I could care less about it's cargo capacity. I included it only as a comparison since it was one of the vehicles you listed the taxi system was using.

[superior1980]

I have to wonder what fantasy world some people are living in when they keep a straight face and say something like the Prius and Escape aren't small cars. They are ALL small cars! There hasn't been a proper sized car since the 1979 Lincolns.

[Bleach]

OK Dave@Moon, I'll take my lumps. The trunk of the CV is not 131cu ft.

I'm still thinking there's more than a 21 cu ft capacity. I'll have to try to measure it myself when I get a chance.

[Bleach]

I have to wonder what fantasy world some people are living in when they keep a straight face and say something like the Prius and Escape aren't small cars. They are ALL small cars! There hasn't been a proper sized car since the 1979 Lincolns.

That's not a car, that's a true land yacht.

[1937hd45]

I'm too old to ever buy a new car so none of those ugly cars are a loss IMO. The loss of the Ford E series vans is a shock, but I'll look forward to renting one of those new ones that we'll see the American Pickers loaning unpadded treasures in. Bob

[joe_padavano]

I have to wonder what fantasy world some people are living in when they keep a straight face and say something like the Prius and Escape aren't small cars. They are ALL small cars! There hasn't been a proper sized car since the 1979 Lincolns.

Car "size" is gauged by INTERIOR volume, not EXTERIOR dimensions. If an automaker is more effective at packaging the same interior volume into a smaller overall vehicle, more power to that company.

[Dave@Moon]

Car "size" is gauged by INTERIOR volume, not EXTERIOR dimensions. If an automaker is more effective at packaging the same interior volume into a smaller overall vehicle, more power to that company.

Thanks Joe. I was hoping somebody besides me would have to make this point!

[joe_padavano]

Thanks Joe. I was hoping somebody besides me would have to make this point!

Hey, I'll take a smaller, lighter vehicle with more horsepower ANY day.

[junkyardjeff]

I will take a much larger car over a smaller car with a so called larger interior any day,if it was not for a 71 Olds 88 I would have been pushing up daisies since 79. A big interior in a little car is still a little car no matter how much spin the manufacture puts on it.

[joe_padavano]

I will take a much larger car over a smaller car with a so called larger interior any day,if it was not for a 71 Olds 88 I would have been pushing up daisies since 79. A big interior in a little car is still a little car no matter how much spin the manufacture puts on it.

And yet, the highway fatality rate continues to drop, despite the increasing number of these "smaller" cars. Go figure...

[dictator27]

The arrival of the Ford Transit van in North America is not new. It is actually the return of a Ford UK van to these shores. People in the US just aren't aware of it.

Because of Commonwealth Preference Ford UK, GM UK(Bedford), Chrysler UK(Commer/Karrier) Austin/Morris(BMC) and Leyland all sold trucks in Canada. Ford UK, Morris and Hillman all sold light commercial vehicles in Canada before WW2.

The original Econoline was loosely based on the Ford Thames van. The forward control type of van was very popular in Europe.

www.classicfordmag.co.uk/2010/03/17/ford_thames_van_tribute/

Before the Thames these were sold in Canada

www.oldclassiccar.co.uk/images/ford/fordson.jpg

GM dealers sold these

www.classic-wheels.co.uk/old_bedford_ca_van.htm

Chrysler dealers sold these

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/commer

Morris(current until 1961)

http://morrisjtypes.blogspot.ca/

Austin

http://img.favcars.com/austin/j2/austin_j2_1955_photos._1.jpg

All of these were available in Canada.

Terry

[junkyardjeff]

Still not going to convince me to buy a small car.

And yet, the highway fatality rate continues to drop, despite the increasing number of these "smaller" cars. Go figure...

[Bleach]

And yet, the highway fatality rate continues to drop, despite the increasing number of these "smaller" cars. Go figure...

Because there are more small cars, it's mostly small car vs small car.

I'll continue driving my big cars too to improve my odds.

[Guest Skyking]

I can't understand how anyone can travel state to state in one of those shoeboxes. I want to be comfortable when I travel. And no, I don't travel with my Mets.

[junkyardjeff]

The government wants everyone in those small cars so we can not travel much,its a way to control the people like with government health care and if anyone can not or refuses to see it then we are in big trouble. Just look at Europe for example.

[Dave@Moon]

I thought I'd post a link to the IIHS summary for just about the least safe car to be in an accident in sold recnetly in the U.S. Of course I don't expect some people to believe it, for obvious reasons (see post above), but a little fact is helpful in any discussion.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/ford/crown-victoria

Edited June 1, 2014 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[Bleach]

Dave, the IIHS is one site I give respect as their tests are better than NTSA's.

It's bit of an eye opener seeing some of the poor results on the CV but it does well in areas that I expect.

[joe_padavano]

Because there are more small cars, it's mostly small car vs small car.

I'll continue driving my big cars too to improve my odds.

I just KNEW there would be at least one response like this. First, impact barrier tests factor out the mass of the other car. Survivabiltiy still is going up. Second, nobody is talking about "small cars". The whole discussion was about car size being judged by INTERIOR volume, not exterior dimensions. We aren't talking about (not so) Smart cars here, we're talking about a new Chevy Malibu vs. an old one, for example. While my preference would be to drive a 1960s Malibu, the reality is that a 2014 version is MUCH safer to ride in. I'm an adult, I'll choose to take my chances with the old car, but I'm also an aerospace engineer who understands how new cars are designed with crumple zones and additional structural reinforcement. My recently acquired 64 Vista Cruiser is much larger and heavier than most new cars, but it also has a solid steel steering shaft that doesn't collapse aimed directly at my chest. I understand and accept that risk, but it doesn't make the car safer than a new car. People who deny these facts just don't understand mechanical engineering, I guess.

[Bleach]

Joe, I'll take greater interior volume over being cramped inside a small car especially in the event of a wreck. I prefer as much distance from the surrounding structure as I can get.

I am a tall person and I don't want to end up being part of the crumple zone.

[Matt Harwood]

I know which one I'd rather have a head-on collision in:

My BIG Cadillac:

versus

my "small" Cadillac:

People come up to me all the time and tell me how reassuring it must be to have all that "steel" around me in the '29 and those giant battering-ram bumpers. They think that old car could go through a house without even getting scratched. Instead, I'm terrified of an accident in it because I know there will be no survivors if it's truly a bad accident. Crashes that you could walk away from in a modern VW Beetle would probably kill you in anything older than 1950 and leave you pretty badly wounded in anything pre-1985ish. Anyone remember the impale-O-matic steering columns? Hard steel dashboards and door panels? Crumple zones known as your neck and chest cavity?

The smallest car today is safer to be in than the biggest car of the 1950s. Just because your gut instinct says bigger is better doesn't make it necessarily so. In a crash, all that energy has to go somewhere and the forces are so astronomical that it's hard to fathom--watch a crash in slow motion to watch the ripples and shockwaves travel through SOLID STEEL in milliseconds. In a modern car, the sheetmetal and body structure bends and twists and crumples to absorb and dissipate the energy before it even gets to the passenger compartment. In an old car, the structure stayed rigid and let the energy dissipate using your body as a cushion as you bounced around the interior. People see a modern car after a crash and how wadded-up it is and shake their heads in disgust as if the car was so poorly made that it just fell apart, whereas an old car wouldn't have anything more than a bent bumper and a broken headlight--as if that's some kind of virtue. That suggests a profound misunderstanding of how car crashes and general physics work. The crumpled up car is working as intended to save your life. The uncrumpled old car is working as intended to save itself without any regard for the soft, fleshy humans inside.

[joe_padavano]

The smallest car today is safer to be in than the biggest car of the 1950s.

Someone else who gets it. Thanks.

[Bleach]

I do get it. I don't drive my 56 and expect it to be as safe as today's small cars. I drive an 01 CV which is safe enough for me.

[39BuickEight]

I definitely get it. I'm an insurance adjuster.

[Dandy Dave]

I know which one I'd rather have a head-on collision in:

My BIG Cadillac:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]250927[/ATTACH]

versus

my "small" Cadillac:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]250928[/ATTACH]

People come up to me all the time and tell me how reassuring it must be to have all that "steel" around me in the '29 and those giant battering-ram bumpers. They think that old car could go through a house without even getting scratched. Instead, I'm terrified of an accident in it because I know there will be no survivors if it's truly a bad accident. Crashes that you could walk away from in a modern VW Beetle would probably kill you in anything older than 1950 and leave you pretty badly wounded in anything pre-1985ish. Anyone remember the impale-O-matic steering columns? Hard steel dashboards and door panels? Crumple zones known as your neck and chest cavity?

The smallest car today is safer to be in than the biggest car of the 1950s. Just because your gut instinct says bigger is better doesn't make it necessarily so. In a crash, all that energy has to go somewhere and the forces are so astronomical that it's hard to fathom--watch a crash in slow motion to watch the ripples and shockwaves travel through SOLID STEEL in milliseconds. In a modern car, the sheetmetal and body structure bends and twists and crumples to absorb and dissipate the energy before it even gets to the passenger compartment. In an old car, the structure stayed rigid and let the energy dissipate using your body as a cushion as you bounced around the interior. People see a modern car after a crash and how wadded-up it is and shake their heads in disgust as if the car was so poorly made that it just fell apart, whereas an old car wouldn't have anything more than a bent bumper and a broken headlight--as if that's some kind of virtue. That suggests a profound misunderstanding of how car crashes and general physics work. The crumpled up car is working as intended to save your life. The uncrumpled old car is working as intended to save itself without any regard for the soft, fleshy humans inside.

Ey ey captian. You got her straight as a Pierce Arrow... Dandy Dave!