Man that thing is Fugly

Ugly, but practical. They would sell in the ol' USA with today's gas price/economic situation.

Who says that a transport vehicle has to be a piece of art. Buses and trains are mostly ugly but millions use them. Ford sold 15+ million T-model and they were very ugly.

London taxis are considered very ugly but they do the job very well.

Some people even find Bull dogs good looking.

Wow I wonder where I've seen that before? (say fast and quiet: "Scion Xb"....)

They should have applied the Mercedes Box Fish concept to get better aero with little impact on space. Put in a bigger overdrive and get better top speed and MPG at the same time.

It is true that this cara is truly ugly but not more than the boxy Scion XB.

Harvey I disagree with the fact that car don't need to be artistic, they have such an important place in our cities or in our environment that the look really matters. You can apply the same reasoning to houses, malls or everything , and then you live in a world that is all ugly, truly depressing. I know in US you are less sensitive to that, your urban sprawl is depressingly but a world ugly even convenient don't have a future.

I like it. But then, I have a soft spot for Daihatsu designs. This one has more in common with older Daihatsus than it does with the Scion xB. We just aren't familiar with them in the US.

Ugly/Fugly (sorry if this is off -topic for you),

Personal gratification vs Social benefit.

Theres a critical balancing act implied in your comments I'd like to make explicit.

Some people seem to mean 'High Status' when they say 'Beautiful' when relating to cars. By describing the MOVE as beautiful we seem to be implying that there are better ways to use our resources.

We could rate beauty in at least ways :-

Objective (physically measurable)
E.g. technical/engineering efficiencies can be admirable - and often expresses itself externally (Catenary curves, streamlines). Given the variety of ways we might define these engineering or systems efficiencies (e.g. well to wheels) then sometimes we need to consider more than the (skin deep) 'look'.

Subjective (based on personality)
There would be plenty of versions of this too - but the beauty sought in a young man's car can be a heady mix of hormones, status symbol, group belonging, as well as some more objective technical appreciation.

Anyway what I'm trying to say is we are sort of agreeing, but we're talking about different things.

Yes it's subjectively ugly (It doesn't match our simple, old fashioned high status, elitist type expectations for appearance)
BUT
Yes it's technically beutiful (it serves its design purpose at the minimum resource cost - potentially leaving a bigger surplus for worthwhile needy causes)

I'll admit not much of the money I save when I do manage to make utilitarian consumer decisions is used instead to save the world.

If I really believed in refraining from buying ever higher status cars(or other stuff) then my implied intention would only really be carried through if I re-assigned the savings into capital investment.

Rob

significantly smaller than 1st gen xB (Move is 750 kg, xB is 1086 kg)

and beautiful.

i appreciate the entire Daihatsu lineup (except the Terios), though. there is something about driving around in a tiny little cartoon of a car that is just too cool.

their super-mini two seat hardtop convertible is pretty much my favorite car ever: http://www.daihatsu.com/catalogue/copen/download/pdf/cat_dl_001.pdf

Love...at almost first sight.
4 people with that motor though? On freeways??
But-50+mpg...
Send it over here and send an EV version too.

The old VW's made a virtue of homeliness. They sold well with a 40 horsepower engine.

Ever since my wife and I bought our Daihatsu ( $11,000 US, new) nine years ago, we have nothing but praise for it and the company itself. Yes, we drive it on the freeway and it, like the VW Bug--which went on to sell 22 million world wide--it cruises very nicely at about 60-65 mph. It has airbags, power windows, and enough leg room for me ( 180 cm, 6ft) to drive comfortably for the commute. It has not let us down once in nine years and, with the exception of a single part replacement, has largely been maintence free.

Now....why can't they be sold in North America? It boggles the mind. All the urbanites with SUVs who didn't see the writing on the wall years ago now have debt on a vehicle that will soon become--for most anyway--too expensive to run and without a market to unload it on. Now, letting in some nice affordable urban runabouts with this gas mileage will allow some people to keep driving whilst cutting down fuel consumption.

Sad, sad, stuff....

what the US needs right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrgrBlQy9GQ

can you say baby Rav4 (since Toyota is parent company)

Yes, Daihatsu is a subsidiary of Toyota as the previous poster alluded.

They are on my radar because of their 3-cyl 998cc engine. The 1KR-FE 71mm x 84mm bore & stroke, develops 68Hp @ 6500rpm with max torque of 68lbs-ft. Introduced in 2005 and garnered awards for engine of the year (sub 1.0L class) in 2007 and 2008. Possibly a version may be installed in each of the above powertrains described in the topic.

The Prius, with its current 76Hp and 82lbs-ft 4-cyl 1.5L, would be an excellent target for this Daihatsu engine. Instead it is rumoured that the 1.8L Corolla engine 2ZR-FE will be fitted with 132Hp and 128lbs-ft before Atkinsonisation. It's too bad that Toyota marketing considers leather seats and Nav more important than a thrifty engine option.

ADDENDUM
- That Daihatsu is part of Toyota was mentioned in the first line of topic.
- "Possibly a version may be installed in each of the above powertrains described in the topic."
Both errors proving that I am no Mr. Memory.

The topic clearly describes both the different engines which are used, the 58HP KF-VE and the 63 HP KF-DET. Since the manufacturing plants are brand new these engines may also supercede the 1KR-FE which I mentioned in my earlier post.

If so, this would support a pet theory I hold - that the smaller you can make an item, the less expensive it becomes to develop. New iterations are therefore likely to follow more frequently.

It's interesting that the lower power 58Hp version of this engine goes to 7200rpm , while the turbocharged version goes to 6000rpm but delivers only 5Hp more. Yet both engines include the CVT option ?

The CVT's ability to allow the engine to slide quickly up to 6000rpm and stay there must reduce the effects of turbo lag and really help acceleration. The 20th century style stepped transmission (4AT) OTOH keeps pushing the engine speed, and therefore power, down at each gear change. And at the risk of becoming tedious, it is a shame Toyota doesn't adopt these engines for the Prius either.The HSD is far superior than the mechanical CVT used here.
T2