Good Permie Cars...

Knowing that this is not really a car forum, permies often do rely on cars to get around, and I think a sound way is to think in terms of longevity and reliability (as little inputs as possible for maximum output). I'm looking to change out my trusty Civic to get some more ground clearance as I'm doing quite a lot of mountain driving. Thought I should also aim for some more interior space, so stumbled upon a Skoda Yeti petrol, also looked at some compact vans like the Ford Transit Connect / Courier as well as some of its direct European rivals, but since it's hard to find a reliable engine (and transmission) nowadays, and having such a good experience with Hondas, my eyes took a liking to the Honda CR-V, although the Diesel version which I often try to avoid. With a little trailer on the back I could easily haul around organics, and it would double as a family car / weekend camper.

What are your permie car experiences and what is a good permie car to you?

I have a ToyotaBZ4x (= Subaru Solterra).
Great ground clearance, good on logging roads.
Good rear cargo room with seats down.
Charging is a bit slow for an ev.
There are multiple cool ev available in Europe.

I think a lot of people would suggest living in an area where you can minimize or completely get rid of a car. Unfortunately in my climate where it gets very cold... and living in a very rural area... cars are needed for now.

A lot of people would suggest EV cars... though again, in my case, they are not a good fit yet.

In the USA, Honda, Toyota, and Subaru have the best track record for longevity.

Living rural and where everybody drives on the roads, I cannot forego a vehicle. I’d rather be able to use a bicycle or horse, but that’s not doable where I live. I’d last less than 5 minutes on our roadways here. Sooooo, I drive a vehicle.

4 wheel drive truck.  Being a homestead farmer, it’s the only way to go.

Truthfully, not a day goes by that this truck isn’t justifying its existence. Every, and I mean EVERY, trip I make, there is something being hauled in the bed. And these are things that I’m not gonna put into a cute, clean, pretty sedan or SUV. ……….
… manure to the gardens
… compost being delivered to the second farm location
… firewood
… produce to the farmers market or local soup kitchen
… dead feral hogs going home to be butchered
… live sheep or piglets or chickens
… equipment having been purchased or being taken for servicing/repairs
… supplies for the homestead such as lumber, roofing, piping, etc
… greenhouse supplies such as potting soil, pots, etc
… our farm dogs
… trash/debris/recycling materials  heading to the dump
… large items being hauled for friends or neighbors
… pig traps
… water (330 gallons at a time) during dry spells
… several trapped feral cats heading to the local spay/neuter clinic

Every 3 months or so we make the 2 hour (one way)  trip into either Kona or Hilo where we take care of chores/services we can only do there, such as doctor or dentist trips or dropping off packages at UPS. So we will stop at Costco and other stores to load up on supplies.  Not just for ourselves, but also for friends who cannot or should not drive that far. The truck bed and back seat gets fully loaded, so as not to have to go shopping again for a few months. While we could stuff a nice car with such items, we can load 3 or 4 times as much into a truck. Small things going into the bed get stuffed into black trash bags to protect them from the rain we almost always encounter on our way home. Makes us look like we are making one humongous trip to the trash transfer station! And before anyone has a spasm over the use of black trash bags, we reuse them over and over until they finally get too many holes in them. Then they get one last use when we deliver compost/mulch/maure to home gardeners.

The one concession I make is that the truck is a small one. Right now it’s a Nissan Frontier. At my age, it’s just too difficult dealing with a big truck. And sorry guys, bigger is not always better!

There are many variables here.   What is right for one person and situation may not be right for another.  Although I have a 10 year old Nissan Murano, I would stay away from CVTs.  They tend to bread down sooner than conventional transmissions.  Why do I have one?  First, I bought it at $10,000 under list price, and I have a low mileage pickup truck that is 15 years old.   Presently, I probably drive less than 5000 miles a year.

I never shop for a vehicle.. I keep a list of 10 vehicles I find acceptable, and I keep aware of their prices.

I am shopping for new vehicles ( I avoid focusing on one specific model) …. For me that is a multi-year process.  I look for targets of opportunity.  When I was traveling a great deal, I would regularly stop at dealerships, say I was from outside the area, and give them one chance for the sale.  Most of the time I would get a phone call  the next day wanting me to drop by and talk.  I would explain they were bad listeners and I was hundreds of miles away and not coming back.  But rarely, I would get an incredibly cheap offer …like the $10,000.00 off.

John, that’s a great strategy.   My own method—— determine what I want before stopping at the dealer. And I always go on my birthday. I tell them up front that I’m buying a new truck that day for my own birthday present to myself and they know that’s true when they look at my drivers license. I tell them that they are my first stop and if I can’t find what I want, I’ll be going to another dealer down the road. To add a bit more credibility, I show them the title of the truck I’m trading in and they see that it was purchased on my birthday a few years ago.        That’s the set up. Now the pressure is on them to make a deal that will entice me to buy a truck from them and not their competitor. And the beauty of the set up is that it’s all true.  The result is that I usually get the truck I intended to buy at a fair deal. I have no objection to them making money on the sale. I just don’t want to be fleeced.

John F Dean wrote:There are many variables here.   What is right for one person and situation may not be right for another.  

Although I have a 10 year old Nissan Murano, I would stay away from CVTs.  They tend to brea(k) down sooner than conventional transmissions.

Agreed.  Firstly, none of our vehicles were purchased new.  My Toyota RAV4 has been pretty good, even for a salvage car.  My wife's Nissan Xterra gets pretty bad mileage for its size, but has been amazingly reliable and she likes the clearance and true 4X4.  It gets used once or twice per week.  She's also a die-hard manual transmission user, so likes the stick.  The Toyota Tundra 4X4 is the hauler and towing rig and actually gets fair highway mileage with the smaller V8.  Like others, and not to ignore our dear neighbors in Canada to the north, circumstances (rural and cold) would make using an EV 'worrisome'.  Which leads to a question for you John....

I'm aware as well of the issues with the Murano CVT, but also have observed that most hybrids (standard and plug-in) use CVTs.  I've been told by one mechanic that at lease Toyota has been refining the hybrid drivetrain (with CVT) for some time now and is pretty robust.  Also learned that some of the recent Subarus now are using the Toyota drivetrain in their hybrids and am keeping that in mind if one of our current vehicles is ready for trade or scrap.  So do you think CVTs in general suffer from early decline or perhaps the one used in the Murano and perhaps others was just not up to snuff?

Finally, although mileage isn't great I'm also leaning towards Nissan Frontier or Honda Ridgeline (used) if our truck is kaput.  We don't use these larger vehicles much, whick keeps cost and fuel usage down, but they are indispensible when needed.  If wife wants to stick with used Nissan, I would probably look at Pathfinder which holds reliability while having rather high cost depretiation.

Posted this thread, went to sleep and woke up, and was glad to see all this engagement. Pick ups are ideal, the Honda Ridgeline would be my number one choice if it weren’t that expensive. I get it that we should all be mindful of how we use cars, but I also don’t think we should feel ashamed or guilty for having cars. Cars have been a miracle. Anyhow, I’m looking for another car that will last ‘forever’, and would love to have a truck bed where I could load all kind of shit (literally speaking) in the back any very reliable, inexpensive trucks come to mind ?

From what I have read on the forum, I got the impression that electric vehicles were the permie way to go.  Am I wrong?

Your location says Spain and West Africa and I have not idea what are good brand for that area.

Do Toyota and Subaru have good value there?

Are there any vehicle manufactured there?

I agree with those that suggested that it is horses for courses. The smallest, most reliable vehicle that will fit your needs, used responsibly. I'm lucky to not really need a vehicle for day to day use, and my husband plays with cars (Land Rovers only these days) for a hobby and a living, so we always have lots of vehicles in states of disrepair, but rarely much on the road! However we only drive 3 or 4 thousand miles a year even including the business use...I'm hoping to get my little jiffy on the road, but it is likely to be a few years yet unless I can get some help with some seized fixings...

Most modern vehicles are just too complex to last well though. If not a Landrover (old Defenders have just got stupidly expensive unfortunately) then hubby suggests an older Toyota as they tend to be fairly ubiquitous and have good spares availablility.

I'd have to say an 80's-90's Toyota SR5 or Hilux pickup truck with a long bed. Just make sure you keep up with oil changes and it will run for 500k+ miles.

I avoid electric and hybrid passenger size vehicles at any cost, not permie at all in my opinion. For one, the battery systems are an environmental castasrophe. No electricity to re-charge something like that here where I live anyways.

Besides, nearly all the electricity produced around here comes from coal burning powerplants that are responsible for eating mountains a couple hundred miles east and south of me, ewww.

Plus, good luck trying to diagnose and repair the powertrain on an electric vehicle after they inevitably start acting up some years down the road! All machines do. And let alone the initial cost of even trying to buy a decent one??

Newer stuff is full of so-called enviro-friendly features that compromise reliabilty, and in my opinion actually put more trash into the planet with excess components (typically plastic), modules, and even fluids that are failure and replacement prone...ever pay attention to the trash cans around the diesel pumps and see the big empty plastic jugs of "diesel exhaust fluid" piled around?

I quit my full-time mechanic job over 10 years ago because of the way the auto industry was going, it literally made me become a permie I was in such turmoil over the situation and where I saw things heading.

To me, the best permie vehicles are early 2000's era and prior. Japanese made 4 cylinder gas engine cars, and American made 4x4 gas or diesel V8 trucks. One of each, done!

Mayyyybe an electric motorcycle that friction charged, and/or solar charged that had a removable battery that doubled as a portable power bank would be useful?

about 15years ago, cousins of mine ran missionary hospitals in Sierra Leone area used 1980's land rover 2.5  non turbo diesel and also had a Toyota land cruiser of similar age in gasoline. parts were easier to find since locals had them and they proved to be resilient to the environment. be aware of your surroundings while making roadside repairs cousin had a strange feeling while changing a tire and turned to find a lion sneaking up on him. he and his wife decided to wait in the car until the lion left later that evening. best advice I can give to you is see what the locals are driving (not the rich folk) because they will know what is frugal to maintain in the area. the small Toyota pickups were becoming popular about the time they were rotating back to USA.

Hi Anne,

Like others, I am suspicious of electric vehicles.  I would not rule them out completely. I do consider the environmental costs …and dollar costs…of those batteries x2.   I expect my truck to last me well over 20 years.   How long will a battery last in years?  What will it cost to replace it?  Everyone I have known with an EV trades it in within 5 years.  I don’t make trips over 250 miles one way more than once a year …so they carry some attraction to me.

But I suspect a 1969 Impala ( or similar)with a trailer might be the better choice for a low mileage homesteader.  If I am only driving a couple thousand miles a year, the mpg has considerably less importance.

A huge impact on the vehicles I do have is that I was driving 50,000 miles a year for a part time job. I was getting reimbursed about O.55 a mile. There had to be zero likelihood that the vehicle would break down, and it had to meet middle class visual standards.  I went through 5 vehicles during that period period. But, in two years, the mileage generally covered the transportation costs.  If the vehicle lasted 3 years, I was ahead on mileage alone.

Oh yes, since mpg is often a concern, I found I had considerable influence on the mileage. My 2012 truck gets better than 30 mpg on long trips when I pay attention. It gets 18 when I don’t.   I had a BMW I would regularly pull 42 mpg from. No, it was not a hybrid.

I was beaten to the punch here; i say please stay with older vehicles,  make it Toyota.

 I paid cash for my 99 Toyo tacoma with 200 miles on it , 26 years ago and have made  one repair over 220k miles. Hade use a grinder to get that alternator loose.  Of course I don't miss any routine maintenance , that helps too
Manual windows,  fm radio with one speaker, still on original clutch. A corrola sure gets better mileage,  but my 1/4 ton truck is tolerable. Up to you, good luck.  My two spark plugs.

This thread landed on the dalyish, so if you already got something, feel free to skip the rest!

First consideration is always getting parts, followed by experience mechanics have fixing the model in question.

But considering your location a Skoda is definitely a contender
We had one in England in the mid 70s. Super reliable.

Personally , being remote, where electric isn't there yet, an alternative eco solution is to fix/upgrade what you have. So my two cents follows accordingly because you have a Civic.

If your civic is still going strong, another option might be after market rally shocks, like I have on my carTruck, a 91 Corolla sedan with the back seats removed , and will hold 5 hay bales -- in the back.

Anywhere that the roads are terrible, you will have noticed you have to replace shocks as well as exhaust frequently, and fortunately both are cheap on any Civic.

Once the car is completely rotted out, those shocks are going on my 88 AWD civic wagon (low 1 plus 5 speed) because they are generic shocks made to fit several models, the wagon which will be getting a lift, which should also help the saggy rear end to which the wagons are prone.

I would say keep what you have if it's still reliable and upgrade it. A hitch is always an option.

If you want to change vehicles because other parts are worn out too, I would be looking for a civic in the year range of your existing civic, and arrange with your scrap yard to remove all easy to remove parts worth saving, and keep driving a civic! You will know what you recently repaired and will have a good idea about this, and add to that computer, get on rockauto.com and price the parts for your Civic, and remember the scrap yard can easily remove parts underneath while they have it on the fork lift..

If you plan on a lift, you probably will be changing rims, but your scrap yard can probably advise you.

Personally , being remote, where electric isn't there yet, an alternative eco solution is to fix/upgrade what you have. So my two cents follows accordingly because you have a Civic.

Ra Kenworth: I'm definitely keeping that option in mind that fixing my Civic might be better than buying another car. It's not in bad shape, but parts are wearing out and I recently got a high quote from a mechanic since there are various repairs required, some urgent and some aren't. It's a 08' 1.8 petrol semi-automatic (i-Shift as Honda calls it), now pushing 203,000km and I have it since 140,000km.

Recently learned that the CRV 2012 is Civic's big brother and it is more suited for not-so-smooth road driving given its height and it being AWD. I never go for Diesels, but I found one at a dealer in Barcelona which I might go for. A 2012 Honda CRV diesel will surely keep me going for years to come (it has driven less than 100k miles)

I'm so happy how much input I got from all of you on this thread.

Rico Loma wrote:I
 I paid cash for my 99 Toyo tacoma with 200 miles on it , 26 years ago and have made  one repair over 220k miles. . A corrola sure gets better mileage,  but my 1/4 ton truck is tolerable. Up to you, good luck.  My two spark plugs.

I agree! In addition to my 91 Corolla carTruck, I have an 86 Toy 2x4 pickup with the small 22R gets great mileage and I always pay cash -- this one paid for itself on the one move it hauled. But I have owned 88-91 civics for 20 years too! And all the rims are interchangeable!!

If a CRV had been available near me I would have bought it, but went with a Honda Jazz/Fit instead. Maybe a 4x4, or 2CV, will follow later.

Be aware that the all wheel drive system of Crvs varies with year, so some engage an electric drive once the wheels have started spinning, all as far as I remember. A Toyota Rav 4 has a more "proper" 4x4 system, tho older crvs may too?

You don't need to look far to discover folks looking for a replacement battery for their eV realising the manufacturer just isn't interested and theyre stuck. The Prius maybe an exception to that because of how many there are and how long they've been sold for. Personally I aim to be EV free.

As some others have said, reliability is a top consideration. I won't consider a full EV for that reason and for a number of others, especially since I live in a cold climate (rural Ottawa, Canada). A hybrid, such as my brother's Prius, is a possibility if my current vehicles become expensive to maintain, but just for the fuel economy. The cheapest option, and the one with the lowest overall environmental impact, is to buy a well-maintained -- and preferably low-mileage -- used vehicle known for reliability.

I once owned a Reliant, which made a mockery of its name, but I'm still driving a 2009 Hyundai Elantra that I bought with low mileage in 2010. My wife's 2012 Touring (small station wagon) version seems just as reliable and, with a trailer hitch, gives us the ability to haul almost everything we need. Having parts readily available at reasonable cost makes long-term maintenance practical and minimizes the impact on the environment and my bank account. Barring a serious collision, I expect to be driving these vehicles for at least another decade.

My only vehicle is a '97 F-250 Heavy Duty, 4WD, short-bed, extended cab (two doors with a bench seat in the back) pickup truck. I bought it when it was ten years old, so have been driving it for nineteen years now, and - as long as we can keep it running - I plan to continue driving it for the rest of my life, hopefully. Or until I can't drive anymore (I'm 68). I would have preferred a long bed, but even with the short bed, it can, and has, hauled a ton of hay at a time (and other than not being able to see through the rear-view mirror, you wouldn't have known there was anything back there). I've hauled trash to the transfer station, firewood, livestock, moved house with it (three times), carried nine small passengers down to the river to swim, and much more. When I got it, the 4WD was absolutely necessary where we lived, 46 miles from town in the high elevations of Klamath County, Oregon. I could live without the 4WD now, but am not going to trade the truck in just to get rid of that. Now I keep a cap on the bed, and store my animal feed in there; normally, I only go to town once or twice a month, so the 12 mpg isn't so hard to swallow.

If we lived in town, we could probably get by with a car of some kind - an SUV or minivan, probably. But if you have more land than a suburban lot, a pickup of some kind is really a necessity. If the whole world went back to using horsepower, or oxen, I'd be fine with that, but until that happens, I'll keep my ugly old truck. It's paid for, it runs, and, as little driving as I need to do most of the time, the mpg isn't an issue.

Quite honestly, I don't think the EV's are ecologically sound - I think they are LESS ecologically sound than a gas or diesel-powered vehicle, on several counts. Starting with the manufacture of those big batteries, through to the additional power plants needed to keep them charged, following up with disposing of the things when their life is over. I do WISH people would think things through, rather than just jumping on whatever faddish bandwagon is being touted as the newest, greatest thing to 'save the environment.' I could go on a nice, long rant on this topic (solar farms? Wind farms?), but let's just end with, a good old-fashioned pickup truck is one of the most useful tools you can have, and it's very appropriate for permaculture!

but let's just end with, a good old-fashioned pickup truck is one of the most useful tools you can have, and it's very appropriate for permaculture!

Well said!

Anne--

I, too, am just a bit suspicious about EV vehicles.  Overall reliability aside, I still have to ask myself about how good these vehicles are for the environment. I can address that question two ways--The (environmental) costs of manufacture & transport to site and the cost of fuel and operating.

The cost of manufacture are significant.  The batteries involve a lot of metals like cadmium, cobalt.  Cobalt is particularly troubling from a mining & extraction standpoint.  Most Cobalt mining is done under conditions that are about one small step away from human slavery.  They also really wreck the land around them.  I am sure that cobalt mining could be done much more efficiently, humanely and safer for the environment, but at present most comes from some locations that have dubious reputations at best.

Then there is the environmental cost of running on electricity.  On the surface, an EV sounds like THE perfect vehicle--what could be better than a vehicle that has no emissions.  But that electricity has to come from somewhere and depending on where you are located, that electricity could come from a source like a dam which emits no CO2 at all or you could be like me and live in the middle of coal country and use the most CO2 intensive fuel possible.  Most people live in a place where the electricity they consume comes from a mix of generating sources.  But for these purposes, I will pretend that all the electricity is produced by coal (NOTE:  Natural Gas is quickly displacing coal as the #1 source of energy for the United States so that change alone is a good, positive step.  Now we need to continue moving further away from CO2, but a step in the right direction is nice indeed!

In a gas (and diesel) engine, the fuel is combusted to produce heat which then immediately causes an expansion of gasses that drives the piston and thus the engine and therefore the car.  Heat to Motion happens in just a couple of steps.  My understanding is that energy losses from the point of combustion to the running of the tire (called the tank-to-tire ratio) are about 90%, making the Tank-to-Tire ratio 10%.

In an EV, things get a little different.  Assuming coal, the coal (which inherently burns dirtier in the CO2 sense than gasoline because the coal is pure carbon whereas gasoline is a mix of burning carbon and hydrogen--actually quite a lot of hydrogen.  Anyhow, that coal burns to boil water to produce the steam that will run a steam turbine that will then turn the generating portion of the power plant.  Those steam turbines optimistically run at about 35% efficiency.  In a newer power plant, that 35% is achievable.  In an older system, that efficiency drops to 25%.  From there, the alternator that actually produces electricity has a variable efficiency, ranging from 50% to 98% or even slightly higher.  The reason for the huge discrepancy is based on whether or not the alternator is running at their designated load--a sort of sweet spot where they perform optimally.  For these purposes, I will 90% as the total efficiency of the alternator, though this can vary tremendously based on electrical load.  And since coal plants can easily adjust to different load conditions, right here is a place where estimates will break down if examined thoroughly.  From there, the electricity is then sent out over high voltage lines to substations where the voltage drops to 120/240 volts.  This is another place where energy is lost, but I will say that the losses are only about 5% so the overall efficiency here is 95%.  That load then get transmitted to your house where the AC is converted to DC (probably another 5% loss so 95% efficiency) to run the car charger.  Things get really complicated here.

Lithium Ion battery charging is one of the most efficient chemistries to charge, in ideal condition exceeding 99% efficiency.  But that is under really specific condition.  Firstly, the temperatures are in a Goldilocks zone--neither too hot nor too cold.  Deviate either way and the efficiency drops quickly.  Next, the SOC--State of Charge matters.  Is the car charging below 80% SOC (so say from 50% maybe), then the charging is rather efficient, but above 80%, the charging gets much more inefficient.  Fast charging matters as well as fast charging heats the battery which then causes it to be less efficient.


From what I can gather, the overall efficiency of home charging looks something like this:



Level 2 240v charging--90-95% overall efficiency

Level 1 120v charging--75%-85% overall efficiency

DC fast charging--90%-95% or even a bit higher

So anyone who charges from their home no doubt wants a 240v fast charger.  Its faster and more efficient.  But if you are charging from 120v, the efficiency drops quite a bit.  If you are doing direct DC, then you have the best option, but this likely requires a solar panel setup and full sun.

So to add all this up, I will use some back-of-the envelope calculations and guesses.

100% energy--straight from the coal

35% remaining after the steam engine               35

4% from the alternator                                         31

5% from transmission losses                               29

10% from charging losses                                    26%



So at this point, with a combination of some calculation and some guesswork, I have the overall losses from the coal to the battery as being about 75% (I show 74% here, but I will round to 75% as these are very vague figures).  And with 25% of the energy remaining as opposed to 10% of the energy remaining from the gasoline, it should look pretty clear that the coal-to-battery efficiency is not only very high, but over twice that of gasoline.  Granted, these are some pretty optimistic figures and they assume 100% coal, but these are numbers we can work with.  But we really want to know about CO2 production and after some poking around I found that coal produced about 40% more CO2 than gasoline, so that still makes coal-to-battery look good.

Gasoline                 2.5   x    1 (unit of co2)=2.5
Coal                           1    x   1.4(units of co2)=1.4

Coal still wins

But what if this is NOT the most optimistic charging condition?  What if we change conditions to look like the following:

100% energy straight from the coal

25% after steam engine (maybe an old steam engine.  Maybe not running at optimal conditions)
                                                                                  25%

80% from alternator                                                20%

5% transmission losses                                           19%

25% charging losses                                                14%




Gasoline      1          (x1) = 1 unit of co2
Gasoline      1.4      (x1.4)=1.96 (2) units of co2


Under these less ideal conditions, coal then looks about twice as bad as gasoline.


The verdict:  There are far too many variables to say whether or not your battery or gasoline is the better option.  This really is a case where you will simply have to make an educated guess on your own.  If I were making the decision, it might look something like this:

Option #1  A small, light vehicle whose purpose is getting myself, maybe a passenger and some cargo (groceries?) to and from the house and local places.  I might give serious thought to an EV.  This would be especially good if I could work a solar system so that I can charge directly from sunlight.

Option#2  A working vehicle that must perform tasks such as towing or hauling (think a pickup).  I would think a pickup truck.  And I would give special consideration to a diesel truck as diesel is fundamentally a better fuel than gasoline--more power and lower fuel consumption!  What more could one ask!


NOTE:  I made a lot of educated guesses.  If you spot something wrong or can think of a better way to calculate this, by all means correct me/improve on my list/etc.  Maybe it fundamentally changes the outlook, maybe it makes no difference, but I would still like to see what you think and how you can improve.






I would live to hear your thoughts/improvements


Eric

jason holdstock wrote: went with a Honda Jazz/Fit instead. Maybe a 4x4, or 2CV, will follow later.
.

Honda Fit is essentially a newer version of the Civic Wagon -- type 2 (88-91) had a 45"x45" diagonal hatch opening and 44mpg and was available in both 2x4 and 4x4 so I am partial to them! Their gas consumption is excellent too, and people I know who own them love them!

I vote for a manual transmission.
No matter what vehicle you get.
My dream truck would be an old 4x4 S10 with a TDI engine conversion.
But we won't find one on a salesroom floor.

If I may, an ode of respect to the Honda Fit. With a geriatric truck with over 200k miles, and my charming wife needing a permie car, we snagged a 7 year old Fit... or Jazz last year.  One of my few good decisions, with low miles on the 1.5 engine. So far, we have 40.1 mpg on local/ hwy.  She is elated.

It has airbags but not much other tech,  8 foot, 12 foot lumber is possible in the rain. ......  we love it after two years and 8k miles.  Of course hybrids get superior mileage but this is a simple car with great parts availability

We all should perhaps remember the underlying ethos of this query.  Indeed, can we actually use our bikes or feet  for 50% of grocery trips and other items? Our family is on target in that regard. As mentioned previously,  then someone's  V8 engine begins to seem logical.  Earth First!

We recently sold our Toyota Highlander hybrid to our daughter; still in the family but not close enough for me to use, boo hoo. I know some folks would not put straw, buckets of compost, lumber, boulders etc in their car, but in the absence of a truck, we did. Even buckets of manure went in the back, on a rubber floor protector. It fits 7 people if they like each other, and we occasionally put the back seat down and slept in it on a road trip. Not great, but safe, dry and cheap. We called it our "truck" and we hauled all kinds of things in it. But I'm not one to consider a vehicle something that needs to be pristine. A car, like a hammer, is just a tool. And a tool that gets used is going to show wear and tear. It's going to get dirty, and it can be vacuumed out.

If you need to do "truck things" often, &/or need 4x4 then a small truck makes sense, but if, like me you aren't hauling the majority of the time, may I recommend a hatchback, station wagon, or minivan (much better interior space for hauling vs a sedan) and a trailer. If you need the 4x4 traction you could go with a smaller SUV and a trailer. You want something big enough to handle your normal loads (inside and on a trailer) but no bigger than necessary to minimize fuel usage; rent/borrow for the occasional large load outliers. Or you could have multiple vehicles with different purposes: something small that sips fuel for daily commuting and a larger truck/SUV for occasional hauling.

I'm also partial to Toyota reliability and manual transmissions.

Just some random thoughts -  bear in mind that development
can take extraordinary leaps if the drive to succeed exists. I cite
the 7 decades gap between Kitty Hawk and a moon landing.

If you are after really really zero emissions, any EV will be overshadowed
by a compressed air vehicle. Mining trains have run on compressed
air produced by the Ragged Chutes compressed air plant.  The closest
we can ever get to a zero carbon footprint.

I reckon the rain runoff from the roof of  a 38-storey(about 107metres))
building is equivalent to Ragged Chutes. By comparison, the Great Pyramid
of Giza stands 138m tall.

If that range is insufficient, there is always the turbine engine.
It burns so hot that there are no noxious fumes at the exhaust.
Just like the RMH, this engine burns clean.
By way of context, the M1 Abrams tank does not use an EV motor
nor a petrol engine nor a diesel engine but a gas turbine engine.
Ask yourself why this particular choice.

Both technologies for passenger cars and pickups have not
progressed. Just think of what we could be driving around
in now. Instead of hot exhausts, cars entering a city  bring
cool fresh air instead.

For a pickup, the turbine engine will charge the battery that
drives an electric motor. I think that is the best combination.
Everything can be modular so repairs are reduced to detaching
and reattaching cables, hoses and piping to a reconditioned
module.  The Honda Prius once used NiMh batteries. That was
and is viable. I simply don't trust Lithium ion batteries.

The Chrysler turbine engine could run on anything combustible
like diesel, alcohol and even perfume. So, Ben Peterson's
wastebot can produce fuel from trash plastic lying by the roadside.

A win-win deal for everyone.

During WW2, civilian vehicles ran on wood gas because the
precious petrol and diesel was needed for war machines.
If you attempt this, the EPA might come after you.





Ragged Chutes

I bought a land cruiser for work in about 2007. 4cyl diesel in the UK. At the time I found a survey produced by maybe the Thai government. (?) that ranked my car at about 76th most whole life cost cheapest in their list. I was surprised to see a Prius at about 73rd. The winner was a basic 4.0l Jeep Wrangler, because although not the most fuel efficient, it was simple to make from relatively few materials, so recycling was more possible too.
If I bought a new car in Europe today it is loaded with electric stuff I do not want or need, lights and beeps to distract, all adding complexity, weight and cost. A warning light will be a fail at the annual inspection, Dealer required, simple cheap fixes are not in their vocabulary.

Why aren't there small efficient light simple cheap vehicles being made?

More recently I had another landcruiser so I could tow stuff from town, and to not be stranded in the winter in Scotland as the roads didn't exactly get maintained. The 4x4 was essential, but it turned out that most shops would deliver for pretty much free. Now in France, we have a Jazz, we're trying to see if we can get by with something so small (although for the size of it the inside is huge!). Big stuff again seems to be delivered for free if you shop around, or hiring a van for a few hours from that same sort of shop is easy and cheap.

Many say they would love a bit more land to be more self sufficient, maybe 5 acres and up?

If you lived in an area where everyone had 5 acres, would walking and cycling everywhere be possible since everything would have to be spread out?

So does individual land ownership push you towards vehicle ownership?

Craig Howard, everyone--

A stick shift!  Oh yes, I love a stick shift!  Sadly, they are getting very hard to get these days.  I have not driven a stick shift in over 25 years and I miss it terribly!

My best Permie vehicle was my 1990 Ford Escort.  1.9 L engine with a single point fuel injection.  That means Ford took a carbureted engine and removed the carburetor, replacing it with a single fuel injector that sat in the same place as the carburetor.  Cheap but effective solution.  It did improve mileage.

I drove that car--a stick shift of course, 5-speed,--all over the place.  I drove it off roads and in places that I really should not be driving a car.  

I could easily get 35 mpg without trying to be efficient.  I could get 40 mpg with just a little bit of effort.

Sadly, the ability to drive a stick shift is a dying skill.  But I do love driving one!


Eric

jason holdstock wrote:Many say they would love a bit more land to be more self sufficient, maybe 5 acres and up?

If you lived in an area where everyone had 5 acres, would walking and cycling everywhere be possible since everything would have to be spread out?

So does individual land ownership push you towards vehicle ownership?

This would depend on businesses in the area.  Where would the nearest grocery store be?

I live where most folks have 60 acres or more.  The nearest grocery store is 30 miles.

As for being self sufficient, how many folks on the forum have achieved that status?

craig howard wrote: I vote for a manual transmission.
No matter what vehicle you get.
My dream truck would be an old 4x4 S10 with a TDI engine conversion.
But we won't find one on a salesroom floor.

I drove mostly cars and trucks with manual transmissions (called standard then) until automatics became dominant. I was comfortable with the technique and appreciated the better fuel economy. But things change, and the fuel efficiency difference has definitely shrunk. There's also the matter of needing both feet to be in good condition to be able to operate a manual.

I asked duck.ai if manual is more efficient than automatic, and the answer included this consideration of driving conditions:

City Driving: Manual transmissions can be more fuel-efficient in stop-and-go situations as the driver can shift gears according to speed conditions.
Highway Driving: Automatics may perform better due to smoother gear shifts and reduced driver fatigue, leading to more sustained fuel efficiency over long distances.

jason holdstock wrote:

I bought a land cruiser for work in about 2007.  

If I bought a new car in Europe today it is loaded with electric stuff I do not want or need, lights and beeps to distract, all adding complexity, weight and cost. A warning light will be a fail at the annual inspection, Dealer required, simple cheap fixes are not in their vocabulary.

Why aren't there small efficient light simple cheap vehicles being made?

My answers in order.

Most bad guys/terrorists in movies seem to predominantly drive Toyota Land Cruisers.
They know something.

Modern car makers are not your friends:



Tightened Government regulations over emissions and safety muscle out small cars:

As a rural tradesperson in Ontario I'm required to move around quite a bit with tools and am usually bringing most material to site. Most people choose trucks in my area I prefer an SUV. If it won't fit in there or is too dirty I have an enclosed trailer. I have a Ford explorer, so fancier than totally necessary, and with regular maintenance it will last at least 15-20 yrs. It's harder on fuel than I would like but it can tow, haul half a soccer team, several hundred pounds of tools and equipment, navigates my rural roads in all seasons and has a dealer within 20 minutes of here. That is an important factor I'm not seeing much on; can you get parts easily for your perfect vehicle? If you are not knowledgeable or equiped to repair it is someone around you able to do it. Older vehicles are simpler but they require repairs as well. Can you do them and get the parts locally to do them? I stick to the common vehicles of the area and am diligent about all the regular low level maintenance I can do. Most maintenance even on new vehicles is mostly brakes, oil, filters, tires, etc. doable by you or just about any mechanic around as long as you don't get too exotic. Our household is fortunate and we have two cars. Number two is a small commuter, a Nissan micra compact, great on fuel, low cost on parts, no bells and whistles.
Cheers,  David