Yes the air tax over there is terrible.
You bring up a point I forgot in my first post. Tire Pressure Monitoring Systems have cut down on the number of flats by the side of the road by a huge amount.
Before TPMS tire would get a slow leak driver keeps driving until tire goes flat, comes apart from overheating etc.
Now as soon as the pressure drops driver is warned and in most cases can make it to a shop before the tire is toast.
A spare is not always help full in these cases.
Tyres are better, than they used to be. Services stations are wider available.
You can call AAA via your cell/mobile from almost anywhere to get help.
A spare is not as essential as it used to be, so it became not essential for the regulation to include a spare in the requirements for a new car.
pfffft
Next you’re going to tell me that I don’t actually need the spare engine I keep in the cargo compartment. :rolleyes:
I agree with you except for the idea that service stations are more widely available. I’ve noticed that many gas stations that used to have service stations attached have turned what used to be the service bays into convenience stores, simply because cars need less service than in decades past.
This is of no relevance, the fleet MPG is rated with a standard setup - it’s not effected by real world changes. And yes, .4 MPG is a big deal.
Again, you haven’t made your case. If a spare tire was a competitive advantage surely some manufactures would be including one and advertising as such.
When were car manufacturers required to include a spare tire? Did any regulations change and if so, when? I think there’s lots of evidence that MPG is a pressing issue for manufacturers.
Not relevant, aftermarket items don’t figure into the car manufacturers numbers. While they car about MPG for their fleet ratings, they aren’t measured on what happens to the cars after they leave the lot.
They’re also investing huge amounts of money in using lighter weight materials. This costs much more money than continuing with the current processes and materials. Why do you think they’re doing this?
Some people feel they need a spare and have good reasons.
Some of people have not had a flat in over a decade or more or even ever and are mostly doing local driving. The fix-a-flat option saves space, and maybe marginally mpg (which can add up over 100 to 200K of ownership). Sounds good.
If the car you like does not have a spare but you want that car anyway and you want/need one then just buy one and throw it in your trunk. Salvage one from your previous car even. No big deal. Saying that everyone should have the option that you want mandated upon them is however silly.
I’ve driven my 2007 miata over 110000 kilometers without a spare, from Calgary to Utah, Dallas and Alaska. The miata comes without a spare and although many users elect to swap in an RX8 donut, I like to live dangerously.
I’ve had 2 flats in Calgary resulting in a call to a buddy to pick up one of my winters, but the best blow out came near Sisters, Oregon on a club drive. I hit a softball sized rock while enjoying some twisty mountain roads and blew a hole in the sidewall. I tried the spray in sealer as a last resort but the hole was too big to seal.
I had a nice 40 minute sidetrip to Bend, in a buddies miata, with the wheel on my lap as a full size tire won’t fit in the trunk. A short visit to Les Schwabb then back to the car, back to Les for the other 3 tires (all four were down to the wear bars). We all made it back to Sisters in time for the club dinner.
Thats why we always travel in packs 
I sort of live in a bubble compared to most yall because I actually have to attend meetings where car suppliers are forced to reduce mass (weight to non-engineers) and or price on a regular basis. And often these request are in direct conflict with each other. I have see suppliers of spares get beat up for being a 1/4" too thick or 20 grams too heavy and told that another supplier would be considered if they could not make the part based upon thier dream calculation they would do away with the spare option for that particular trim level.
The automotive business is cut throat. It’s dog eat dog competitive and they discuss these minor details to the point of being utterly absurd. Many suppliers end up being forced into bankruptcy trying to meet the OEMs demands.
Its like Vietnam. You just don’t know man! You weren’t there!
Also, Charlie has come out of the trees and is making car parts cheaper than we can now.
The situation may be different in the UK and Europe, but if there was ever a US regulation requiring passenger cars to have a spare tire, I can’t find evidence of it. I’ve found a fair amount of second-hand and anecdotal claims that there never has been such a thing.
There are regulations about spare tires, especially the various generations of temps and donuts, but not a word about requirements to have them or such requirements being done away with.
In other words, the gummint ain’t got shit to do with the issue.
Not to be overly PC but what is about this thread that brings out the offensive language? Charlie? Earlier punkfaggot? Really?
Reading for comprehension…
[ul]
[li]The government sets the fuel efficiency guidelines that apply to a car manufacturer’s fleet (CAFE standards)[/li][li]manufacturers must meet those standards or pay fine(s)[/li][li]one way to help meet the standard is to reduce vehicle weight[/li][li]manufacturers eliminate the spare tire and jack to acheive weight reduction [/li][/ul]
So, at least indirectly, government regulations led to the elimination of the spare tire in some vehicles.
Is CAFE the only reason to eliminate the spare? Probably not, but it’s the only one I see documented anywhere.
Some cars required different sized tires front and back, and even side-to-side offsets are different, so a single spare won’t work.
Weight is a factor for performance, power-to-weight ratios, and balance.
Space is at a premium for cars and the use of that space for storage or other mechanicals can be a factor.
Gas mileage is an important selling feature regardless of the CAFE standards.
Yeah, I figured if I didn’t spell it all out, someone would jump on that. Of course regulations drive the choices carmakers make.
But the specific claim in the OP and in posts since is that “spares used to be *required *by law; the law was changed and now you can’t *make *sellers put spares in because they want to save the money.” Which in all but some further nuances is bullshit.
Almost every rear-wheel-drive car will have wider rears than fronts.
It’s just how the OP posts.
I think that’s because RWD remains only in fairly high-performance cars. It certainly wasn’t the case before FWD became dominant, or for the relatively ordinary RWD cars (like Crown Vics, the last few big Cadillacs, etc.) that persisted.
True.
And spare tires are fairly low on this list of things people consider when they buy a new car. Pretty sure I have a donut spare in my car, but I haven’t looked in ages so I’m not 100% sure. This may be a major to concern to some people, but for the vast majority of buyers it’s an afterthought; generally a thought that comes to mind when your car is getting a bit long in the tooth and you have a flat.
In fact I’d say physiologically the manufacturers figure that once you have an experience like having a flat or a major brake job a lot of people just see that as a sign to start shopping for a new car. Which is what they want you to do in the first place.
As for run flats; the run flats they are considering five years down the road are nothing like the ones you see now. People were outraged when they went to tubeless tires and radial tires; complaining that it would harder to fix the new tires and that they would be more expensive for the consumers. That steel belted tires would never ride as smooth as rubber ply tires. All of which proved to be false choices. Technologies mature and people adapt.
Pretty thin cheese. (And I think you mean “psychologically” up there.)
I could make an equally strong case that having no spare means the negative feelings of getting a flat could be transferred to cheap-ass manufacturers, meaning the next car will be anything but that make. A breakdown of any kind is a frustrating, angry-making experience and giving the driver something immediate to transfer it to is bad.
Pretty much all car makers are “cheap ass manufacturers” these days. If you bought a car without a spare and then got pissed off when you found out it didn’t have one you should blame yourself.
I really doubt that about the flat. That can happen at any time. Having a flat tells me, perhaps, I need new tires, not a new car. (And the last flat I had with the bent rim was actually within 6 months of me getting the tire, so I got a free replacement.) Nothing about the car would suggest to me to start looking for a new one, and I’ve had flats with as little as 10K-15K miles on the car.
Brake job I could somewhat more believe, but I’ve had major brake work (at least I think it’s what you would call major: replace pads, rotors, calipers) at around 70-80K (lots of rust and corrosion), although I think 100K is a little more typical. Still, heck of a whole lot cheaper than considering a new car. (Cost me maybe a grand?)