New Volkswagen Beetle Convertible opens up

[bhtooefr]

How long do convertible covers last 'til they need replaced?

bhtooefr: I guess that means if I want a 2000 Lupo 3L, I should just wait until 2025 and then import it without any hassle. ;-)

5-10 years, I'd say, for a convertible top, at least a vinyl one.

I know my Miata's top was looking pretty sad at 12 years old, when it got replaced.

As far as import... it's based on the year it was made, and it's 25 years after the year it was made, not 25 years old. So, the first Lupo 3Ls came off the line in calendar year 1998 (as model year 1999), meaning that you can bring one in legally on January 1, 2023.

 

[booksgamesvideos]

How much was the convertible replacement? And cool. I could buy a 2005 Lupo 3L in 2023..... only 18 years old! LOL.

Europeans get so many more choices than USA. Why? My guess is we are a pain in the butt regulation-wise....

I'd say the EU is stricter. Also more costly. It's kind of ironic since the USA is a car culture and the EU is not. I bet the reason so many variants exists in Europe is due to the high gas prices..... people want to have the option for a tiny 1.2 liter engine that saves money and registration taxes (which increase with larger engines). One thing Europe doesn't have is electric hybrids. We now have several dozen models of hybrid cars, while Europe only has 2 or 3.

Yesterday the CAFE was increased from 27 to 54 effective 2025, so I bet the U.S. will see a lot more versions of cars as companies try to release econoboxes that get 70-80mpg. That means more EVs, more plug-in hybrids, and more diesels.

 

[bhtooefr]

No, you can't buy a 2005 Lupo 3L in 2023. You can buy a 1999 Lupo, if it was made in 1998, in 2023. It's not based on generation, it's based on the year the actual car you're importing was built.

As for the cost of the top replacement... I sprung for a Robbins glass window top with defroster (and then never got around to installing the defroster), and paid about $550 for the top, and about $150 for install. Although, I'm not convinced that this one was a good design (it wasn't a copy of any OE Miata top, unlike the cheaper plastic window one or the more expensive NB Miata clone top), the rear window only took two years to start separating from the rest of the top.

And, I'd say that the EU is stricter on some things, but on automotive regulations, they tend to be more lax on safety and emissions standards, and they influence the market by making fuel more expensive (one could argue, however, that fuel is heavily subsidized, and European fuel is, once you back all the subsidies out, very lightly taxed, especially if you consider that European fuel taxes are designed to account for externalities of the fuel usage).

 

[blaz]

...
It's kind of ironic since the USA is a car culture and the EU is not.
...

???? What? That's total nonsense.

There are many European car nuts (if that's what you mean by "car culture").

Where do you think BMW Porsche, Ferrari, Mercedes, Aston Martin, to name a few, come from?

 

[bhtooefr]

Actually, car culture usually refers to the fact that cars are so prevalent in our society, an outside observer might think cars are the dominant lifeform and humans are their pets. And the impossibility of living without a car.

But, in that case, many parts of Europe would actually be a bigger car culture, by that metric (even though many European countries have far more diverse alternatives to driving): http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/15/u-s-has-fewer-cars-per-person-than-europe-but-still-uses-twice/

 

[dubStrom]

No for both, Škoda used to have the "Felicia Fun", which was a weird semi-convertible version of their very utilitarian pickup, only available in yellow and with a frog seat pattern.

(Probably designed after one too many Czech beer)

Shocking. Any data on how many they (didn't) sell?

Reminds me of the ORANGE Thing, My mom bought one, I drove it. It looked like this, but without the "thing" black decal The Thing would have sold more in bug beige.

We got about 30mpg in the THING on average. It got about 33mpg highway. But what can you expect from a horizontally opposed air head!!

 

[blaz]

Actually, car culture usually refers to the fact that cars are so prevalent in our society, an outside observer might think cars are the dominant lifeform and humans are their pets. And the impossibility of living without a car.
But, in that case, many parts of Europe would actually be a bigger car culture, by that metric (even though many European countries have far more diverse alternatives to driving): http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/15/u-s-has-fewer-cars-per-person-than-europe-but-still-uses-twice/

Yes, it occurred to me after my outburst that perhaps he was thinking along those lines. Or perhaps how so many of our cities, and the suburbs in particular, are designed around the automobile. I don't think there's anything quite like that in Europe.

But that Autoblog article is surprising.

 

[kjclow]

Actually, car culture usually refers to the fact that cars are so prevalent in our society, an outside observer might think cars are the dominant lifeform and humans are their pets. And the impossibility of living without a car.

But, in that case, many parts of Europe would actually be a bigger car culture, by that metric (even though many European countries have far more diverse alternatives to driving): http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/15/u-s-has-fewer-cars-per-person-than-europe-but-still-uses-twice/

I would say that it is more our (American) obsession with the auto. Most of our states are bigger than many Eurpoean countries. I grew up being able to get in a car and head for over 1000 miles about any direction without having to cross a boarder and display a passport. Up until a few years ago, we did not even have to have a passport for getting into Canada. The cars here have been about size and power. You would fill the tank, check the oil, and go. Gas mileage was an after thought. The European makes listed are about driving experience.

 

[booksgamesvideos]

Okay let's put it this way. Average number of miles driven:
EU 3,500
US 15,000
The reason this is the case is because the U.S. doesn't have any viable alternatives to the car. I can't walk or bike to work because it's too far (and I'd likely get run over on the interstate). I can't take the bus or train because neither serves my town. Hence America's commute revolves around the car.

 

[blaz]

Exactly. Europe is much more population dense, very few car-centric suburbs, so they drive less, use mass transport more.

But it is odd that they have more cars/person according to the autoblog article. Maybe because they use them less (a lot fewer Europeans commute by car), they love them more.

 

[German_1er_diesel]

I feel like I'm pretty average for my age group in Germany, and I put 35,000-40-000 km on my car every year. It used to be more before I started getting rental cars for business trips with lots of distance covered. I guess the average number is so low because many urban people have cars, but don't use them much.

Contrary to popular belief, if you don't live in one of the big cities in Europe, a car is a must to get around.

 

[DPM]

^^ Yup. I do around 30k miles a year for business. Wifey commutes to work and visits the inlaws occasionally but still manages 10k/yr. Dad OTOH only has 11k on his 9yo Yaris...

 

[booksgamesvideos]

Contrary to popular belief, if you don't live in one of the big cities in Europe, a car is a must to get around.

I wish you would tell that to the pro-"let's build a train to nowhere" people. They have misled us Americans to believe you don't need a car in Europe, because the mass transit system "goes everywhere". And they are taxing cars/gasoline to fund their train utopia in the States. I have no objections to trains per se, but they will never eliminate a person's need for a car to travel between the city and the suburb, or the city and the mountains.
Plus I don't want to pay for something I never ride. Let the train be sustained by ticket sales & not gasoline/diesel tax.

 

[German_1er_diesel]

I like the trains I have access to, and I chose the place where I live in order to have access to good train connections to the next large city (Hamburg).
It would just not be very realistic to have train station and tracks to every village of three houses. I guess everybody understands that.

 

[bhtooefr]

But, trains can be used for a sort of hub/spoke solution - have trains between major city centers, with stops at towns that are on the way. Then, have Zipcar-like solutions at the towns.

Also, trains can serve as a substitute for air travel that's more efficient.

 

[kjclow]

Efficiency is a key factor here in the US and probably Canada. Our rail systems are built for maximum speeds of about 50 mph for freight and around 70 for passanger trains. A commercial airliner is between 250 and 400 mph (IIRC). If I can't get there any faster than driving, why would I pay for the train. Give us a TGV or bullet train at 300 kph (~190 mph) and then you have something to compare to. However, that would require a major overhaul of most of our current rail system and also cut out the stops at the little burbs.

 

[booksgamesvideos]

Also, trains can serve as a substitute for air travel that's more efficient.

Funny you mention that. I will be riding a train from CA to PA. The plane ticket is only ~$150 and a mere 5 hours. The train is almost $700 with a room or $250 without (gotta sleep in your chair), and the trip is 3 days! ----- The short trip from my hotel to the actual station is 8 hours by train but only 1 hour by plane. Trains may be more "efficient" for fuel but not for money and definitely not for time. Americans will continue riding the planes.

Also I looked at the Acela which is the American version of a bullet train (upto 200mph). The price is very high (~$300) and the travel time is only 30 minutes shorter than the regular train, because even fast trains have to stop & pickup passengers. That slows-down the overall speed.

 

[dubStrom]

no light rail in KC

In Kansas City, there are NO light rail lines at all. City bus service is dependable, and cheap. There used to be a decent trolley system that actually worked well, and you can still see where it went, converted to bike trails, jogging paths, exactly where light rail would be accomodated if it were still there! Rail tracks were covered or pulled out long ago. Most burbs are inaccessible by bus, and those that are, have difficult schedules.

But I can cross the state to St. Louis for under $40 by Amtrak, runs twice a day.

 

[bhtooefr]

Trains may be more "efficient" for fuel but not for money and definitely not for time. Americans will continue riding the planes.

Until air travel subsidies are changed into more train travel subsidies.

 

[booksgamesvideos]

Until air travel subsidies are changed into more train travel subsidies.

Air travel receives subsidies? I've never heard that.
It's certainly much less than the subsidies Amtrak receives to keep tickets about 3/4 actual cost. Plus no amount of subsidy is going to shorten my crosscountry train ride. Even the Acela bullet train takes 6.5 hours to do 430 miles. A crosscountry Acela would take 37 hours versus just 5 hours by plane. (Trains still have the disadvantage of being too slow for people in a hurry.)

 

[Tin Man]

There was a study in the mid 1970's that basically found rail transport to be 10 times more costly than that of a subcompact gasoline car. Europe has chosen to heavily subsidize rail while the US did not. There is not one financially successful passenger rail system in the US without heavy public support. Roads, however, are necessary with or without rail. Its a political and economic debate. Both have merit. I prefer a rail system in places where it will be utilized the most.

In the development of US suburbia, rail access was considered a negative due to the elevated crime rate associated with inner cities and access to criminals a rail system would provide. Those were days of cheap gasoline and behemoth Detroit iron too.

TM

 

[bhtooefr]

Question: Costly as in dollar amount, or costly as in resource usage?

 

[dubStrom]

It should come as no surprise that once tracks were torn up, it is WAY more expensive to invest in light rail. Labor, insurance, steel, all more expensive than it was LONG ago.

Light rail requires vision and committment (along with very good planning, now that cities have sprawled out).

Cities that held onto their light rail like Cleveland, DC area, NYC, Chicago, San Francisco (invested on top of good start), have some advantage. If you plan accordingly, you can save thousands annually by exploiting light rail. But North America is not light rail friendly, and even now, fully dedicated to the automobile. It will continue to suck more and more dollars from every driver out there. Even if alternative fuels help, the spiral of energy costs will not end. Fusion? Who knows, but don't count on it!

Fuel efficient ragtop ? Has to be small, and the "Beetle convertible is hardly the most efficient beetle". My oldest brother bought a "champagne edition" convertible bug more than three decades ago. It used about the same amount of fuel (gasoline) as the new Beetle TDI. Gas was, and is, cheaper.

 

[Tin Man]

Question: Costly as in dollar amount, or costly as in resource usage?

I'd have to find the study - long time ago. Thinking its a bit of human resource as well as fixed costs - the huge investment in machinery, construction, and manpower. But modern cities now require a lot of $$$ for tar based transport, so comparing the two is a bit more complex today. I can't imagine someone is in charge of DC traffic with how long it took to go 1.5 blocks the other day!

TM

 

[bhtooefr]

Human resource?

As in labor?

I should've been more specific... costly as in nonrenewable resource usage and energy (which can come from renewables or nonrenewables) usage.

 

[kjclow]

It should come as no surprise that once tracks were torn up, it is WAY more expensive to invest in light rail. Labor, insurance, steel, all more expensive than it was LONG ago.

Light rail requires vision and committment (along with very good planning, now that cities have sprawled out).

Charlotte just finished a $25 million project to put trolley tracks back in that run about 6 blocks. I think the overall idea is to tie the trolley line into the uptown bus depot to one of the major hospitals and the community college, but right now it basically goes no where and disrupted a lot of businesses while they tore up the street to put tracks back down. We also have one branch of light rail and are in the process of adding two to three more. The first one used part of an old freight line, so at least they did not have to evicte people for the train.

 

[Tin Man]

Human resource?

As in labor?

I should've been more specific... costly as in nonrenewable resource usage and energy (which can come from renewables or nonrenewables) usage.

There should be a modern study of cost/benefit for rail. Certainly improvement in transport can be balanced with environmental and social/economic concerns. The electronic age is changing the workplace and social dynamic very rapidly, so its not such a simple task it seems.

I just think the entire Northeast corridor is a waste of human resource sitting in traffic, punching that throttle to gun it to the next stop light only to hurry up and wait. I'm glad I'm not driving the rat race nowadays of the big cities, at least for the time being. Serious improvements in rail and traffic coordination would make life much more bearable IMO.

TM

 

[powerfool]

These subsidies in the US that are discussed around oil & gas and airlines are misnomers. The industries receive special tax breaks, but that is no different than essentially every other industry. Our tax code is a farce, and the tax breaks that are given out fairly evenly to disparate industries are called subsidies for specific industries by folks that like to use rhetoric to skew, or those that don't realize, reality.

I would like to see some d'town of a decent sized city look into using the moving walkways instead of having buses or auto traffic. They work great in airports. You can be lazy (and annoying) and just stand on it, or you can use it to walk much faster. Put bike lanes on one extended side walk with space for regular foot traffic, and moving walkways on the other side of the road with space for regular foot traffic. Then, take the roads to a lane or two fewer.

If they still want buses and such, people will have to walk to the buses that are on the edge of d'town and can use the moving walkways to get there faster.

 

[Tin Man]

These subsidies in the US that are discussed around oil & gas and airlines are misnomers. The industries receive special tax breaks, but that is no different than essentially every other industry. Our tax code is a farce, and the tax breaks that are given out fairly evenly to disparate industries are called subsidies for specific industries by folks that like to use rhetoric to skew, or those that don't realize, reality.

Yes! What is even less well known, is that oil and gas "subsidies" are only for environmentally friendly improvements and specifically responsible exploration, not "fat cat" profiteering as so often the industry is portrayed.

The idea that oil is bad should be tempered by the history of how nations poor in resources fare in times of conflict and industrial competitiveness. Witness how Japan was motivated into WWII, how the US was able to win, and how resource rich countries are able to create environmentally responsible working environments compared to underdeveloped, centrally planned totalitarian ones.

We all like TDI's for similar reasons, no?

TM

 

[cevans]

If they still want buses and such, people will have to walk to the buses that are on the edge of d'town and can use the moving walkways to get there faster.

NYC closed a few blocks in the times square area and made them open walking areas. Really great.