The way car companies are working around this legislation is why it's so hard to find and buy smaller sized cars (like smart cars) even if there is demand. It also makes our community less safe for pedestrian traffic.
The sad part is that Europe is seeing a lot of SUVs too. Not as big as whzt we see in the US. But they are there. We also start seeing american style pick up trucks. Luckily, people pay more taxes for these kind of cars.
In Switzerland there was apparently some kind of loophole in the tax system which allowed you to register your pickup truck as a company vehicle (and pay less) even when you don’t have any company or if you are just working as a hairdresser..
I fucking hate these piece of shit cars. I will never not think that they all have to compensate for something.
Pickup trucks are fine. It's the huge ones with giant cabs and useless beds that are just a fashion accessory.
"But muh work tools", yeah just get a sprinter van like normal people. You can fit more, and you can close and lock it so your shit doesn't get stolen out of the bed.
Same in the UK. Very curious how all over the world, governments created exactly the same tax loophole. I can't think which highly resourced industry might have been involved in "advising" them
At least in Switzerland, people were really using them for work until a few days ago.
It was only farmers, carpenters or builders until it became a trend.
I guess the law was okay before but they never thought that someone would want to have such a huge vehicle just to get groceries 😅
They're so fucking stupid. Worse in every way compared to normal cars, but they make idiots feel important, and car makers seem to prefer them.
Ford fucking discontinued the C-Max, a great car in my opinion, and replaced it with... Nothing? The Puma? It's way smaller, while the Kuga is more expensive.
Oh and by the way, most of these SUVs are 2WD so they ridiculous in any kind of non-optimal road, let alone off the road.
The margins are why car makers prefer them. Crossovers are cheap to make, have fewer emission regulations, and they conveniently sell for higher prices.
I can’t stand those idiot trucks that have a chopped-in-half rear bed so they can cram in an undersized back seat.
A truck is for moving shit. If you can’t fit a sheet of plywood in the back of your truck, your truck is a candy ass piece of crap powered by 100% small dick energy.
I call them vans with a 4 foot tumour.
I've seen trucks with 8' beds and big crew cabs. They're like 30 feet long, though
No issue with those. I’m talking about the pretend trucks.
I wish wagons were more popular. They're great for fitting all the stuff in for the family, but lighter and much better handling. I don't know why SUVs became the thing, but I wish wagons would be a come-back. A Tesla wagon would be awesome.
Took me years to realize but "Crossover SUVs" are basically just Hatchbacks with slightly higher suspensions. Hell, manufacturers like Subaru literally use the same chassis as their sedans.
Which is slightly different than a station wagon but is close enough for the vast majority of people since the main distinction is more vertical storage capacity because of rounded edges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon#Comparison_with_hatchbacks). Which... definitely was an issue when I had to make multiple dump runs but never comes up in "real life" as it were.
Like, I hate that I drive a "SUV". But when I was doing more or less everything I could to NOT buy one I eventually realized "A hatchback Impreza with a lift kit sounds perfect" was literally at the same dealership.
As for SUVs in general: a lot of it is people thinking they need a giant vehicle to carry their one child around town.
But the other aspect is... driving in a sedan sucks these days. You are surrounded by pickup trucks where the wheel axis is already at eye level. You have no visibility in traffic and are pretty regularly afraid of what happens if someone doesn't stop.
Like I said, I drive a hatchback/crossover now. And that generally puts me at bumper height on a lot of trucks which... still means my visibility is shit but means I am less likely to get monster trucks driving on top of me.
The worst crossover I saw is the Ford Ecosport. It is basically a Ford Fiesta with higher suspension. It has nothing to do with a SUV, it is small, has 0 towing capacity, is 3000lbs, has a 3 cylinders engine, cost 30'000$ (in canada). The most useless and expensive thing. A Fiesta was half the price for essentially the same frame/car.
They took a Fiesta and made it heavier with worse handling. And they do it with every car now. It’s infuriating.
Honestly? I kind of liked the concept of it. I always thought it looked hideous (I mean, it IS a Ford...) but the size and height seemed good.
Also, I think that was mostly geared toward non-US markets where having the extra seats and the like are good but people don't want to drive a hotel room on wheels.
That actually sounds pretty good to me. If the rear seats go down so I can put bigger stuff in the back, that's a huge advantage over the weird trunk angles you have to work with in a sedan. I don't need to tow anything, but a slightly higher ride is useful when I'm going out in the woods and need to clear rocks in the middle of the unmaintained road.
Except the price. That's unnecessary.
The ecosport has neither trunk room nor rear leg room. The only way to get any amount of space is to put the rear seats down then you can fit some things.
Height is an advantage, but length is still surprisingly short. Plus ya know, no rear passenger room.
If you drive a Subaru Crosstrek you are not part of the problem imo. That's a reasonably priced, highly functional compact crossover. The real problems are trucks, full-sized SUVs, and other "mall terrain vehicles."
The Crosstrek has an incredibly short body. I wanted to get one but my head touched the ceiling with the seat fully adjusted. I'm tall, but not that tall.
I used to complain about the promotion of hatchback for cargo space because they were really a regular trunk turned vertically. Your Wikipedia link shows that well with the ~2008 Focus examples. If you compare the 2012+ focus, it's a bit clearer because that generation offered a 5 door hatch alongside the 4 door sedan. I disliked the tradeoff of the large rear opening (with folding seats) because it came with a shortened trunk length and the sloped rear glass reduced total volume (compared to a wagon typically having more vertical glass and being longer overall than the sedan). However, the shorter version do have a purpose if you frequently park in the street or any other urban/dense lots. They're easier to parallel park and less likely to get swiped in garages and such as people swing wide. They offer 4-5 seats, they offer a large cargo area, just not at the same time. That makes enough sense to me for vehicles living their daily duty as single-person vehicles.
That's basically how my daily driving duty is now split between a small motorcycle and, for bad weather, a 4x4 (hi/lo) body-on-frame convertible 2-door suv smaller than a miata Geo Tracker.
In the other branch we already pointed out that the Fiesta/Ecosport were very much "european" SUVs as it were.
And yeah, I think it was the Yaris that didn't have foldable seats and was just REAL shitty? But basically every modern hatchback/"crossover suv" has foldable seats.
I am no expert. But of the cars I have seriously researched in the past decade or so (Subaru Crosstrek, one of the Hyundai ICEs, Subaru Solterra, Hyundai ioniq5): they all have folding seats and all have comparable storage.
And from personal experience? When I have a LOT of cardboard to take to recycling or a lot of yard waste to take to the dump, the curvature and vertical issues are a bit annoying. Mostly in a "I guess I need to break this down more or pack this tighter" kind of way but it is still annoying.
But for doing ikea runs 8 hours away or picking up lumber or piping or whatever from the hardware store? Zero issues. Because I DON"T want heavy stuff stacked up to head level behind me when I might need to stop suddenly.
And for just heading into towns for groceries, clothes, random ass boxes, etc? I rarely ever even have to fold the seat down.
Which was mostly my point. There are definitely cases where the curvature and loss of vertical storage space are an issue. But, by and large, those are either incredibly niche or you actually have a good reason to own a pickup truck.
Agree. As for the history, wagons were popular in the 70s, but the minivan really took off in the 80s. This led to a perception that Minivans weren’t masculine, so there was a big boom in SUVs which had the volume and utility of a Minivan, but were more manly.
It doesn’t really matter if you get a larger SUV, you’re still shorter than the jacked up F150+’s and such. We have a car and a 17yo 4Runner (and I try to use it for hauling more than kids and going on more terrain than asphalt), but even the 4Runner is dwarfed by most things. Almost every thing I park it near is larger at this point. Heck a 4th gen 4Runner is within inches of the dimensions of a current Ford Escape, it’s crazy.
If you're curious, it is because wagons are classified as passenger vehicles and SUVs are classified as light trucks. Wagons are held to higher emissions/safety standards than SUVs, making them less profitable to produce in the US. So most automakers steer clear. They don't want to accidentally compete with their own most profitable products by selling a less profitable one that better-matches what consumers need.
Also fuck Tesla.
Chuck Testa? Nope, fuck Tesla.
Wagons and minivans - which are great substitutes for SUVs - have a negative stigma because everybody’s parents had one and people don’t want to feel old.
Can't really claim better efficiency at that point
Still more efficient than the same thing in boxy SUV form.
I was talking to someone last year and doing 100mph in a 5.0 V8 Mustang he was getting better mpg than 70mph in a Kia Soul (about 25). Make an aerodynamic wagon and you're golden.
The Mercedes looks tolerable, although it wouldn't be the car I would choose for that price. The Audi is downright hideous. I would rather pay half as much to get both a Miata for when I want to have fun and a truck for when I need the cargo space.
Anything's cool I'm the 100k plus grouping...
Huh my parents had a Bronco, don't like that style. Also had a minivan, very good vehicle that I would get for family life.
Not quite a wagon but I love my Honda Fit, it sips gas, handles surprisingly well for a car in its price range and it’s amazing how much stuff you can Fit into the little guy
My old Mazda protege was basically that with a foot longer trunk. It was perfect size.
I'm just glad they're bringing back small trucks. I don't want a small-penismobile, I want a vehicle I can throw some lumber and such in on occasion.
Which is why I love my Hyundai Santa Cruz. Sucker can tow 3500lb but can get 35mpg highway
Aw man I miss my Volvo wagon. I should have never sold it. I would love to get another used one but I would have to pay triple what I sold it for to get it back these days, prices are just insane since they stopped making anything decent years ago.
Buying a car nowadays is a freaking nightmare, I hope mine lasts many more years
There isn't a single new car out that I want to own more than the equivalent discontinued model.
I was with you on everything until that last sentence.
Also the average length of car ownership before buying something else is about 5 years, but the average loan duration for a new car is 7 years.
The car market in the US is just screwed.
My Honda Civic was built in 2008 and it's fine. My car before that was a Nissan Sentra and it lived 22 years. Drive them until they are piles of rust kept going by duct tape and raw anger, and try not to shed manly tears when they are crushed into a cube.
I am sorry car, but this is a good death.
My 2006 Civic was a lemon. I had to replace it after only 10 years
Only the lower end "economy" Hondas are super reliable. Honda's higher-end models tend to use newer and less well-vetted engineering while the basic models all rely on older tried and true technology. I learned this the hard way with my 2006 Accord V6 which was a blast to drive, but like yours only lasted about 10 years before it started having serious and very expensive problems.
that's insane, I have a 2005 toyota corolla with zero interest in getting a new car.
Those that do loans are much more likely to have negativity equity when trading in. Which is already proven with those who have terms longer than 4 years. This means on trading in, the borrower is looking at an increased car payment on top of the already higher average transaction price of $35,000. If you put money down, default on the loan and lose the car, you've quite literally given away money.
It's true the average loan is 7 years, but within the last few years there are 10 year (!) loans are available. This helps bring down an $800 payment. But that interest is gonna suck if you don't get a very low rate.
Those that pay off their loans tend to keep their cars for 10 to 12 years. Assuming the car doesn't catastrophically fail. Which anecdotally happened to our family. 1.6L Ford EcoBoost defect killed the engine 2 years after a 4 year loan was paid off.
Speaking anecdotally here, I wonder if the banks are trying to push those super long loans, too. I bought my car last year, have excellent credit, and put 50% down. The only loan I was offered was an 8 year loan when I wanted 4. Out of sheer spite, I took advantage of the early payoff and paid it off as early as possible to deprive them of as much interest as possible, and it was much faster than the 4 years I asked for.
Out of sheer spite, I took advantage of the early payoff and paid it off as early as possible to deprive them of as much interest as possible
As a general FYI for anyone who reads this comment, be aware that bank loans front load the payment of the interest, and the payment of the principal is done on the back end.
So you have to pay off a loan very quickly to avoid the majority of the interest you would pay for that loan.
Finally, if you pay extra to try to finish a loan off early, make sure any extra amount you pay is marked as "principal only". Banks are supposed to always apply any extra to the principal, but a lot of times they apply the extra to the interest, unless you explicitly tell them not to.
In this case, I had a deal that had no penalties for early payoff, so in my case, paying off my car in 1/8 the time saved me 7 years of interest with no serious downside. Unless you count credit scores being BS and paying off loans early technically not being ideal credit management.
Fair enough, but I wasn't actually talking about early payoff penalty. I was speaking to the payback schedule that the loan company has you reimburse them with.
You pay your loan back on a monthly basis. In the earlier years, each monthly payment goes (for example) 80% to interest owed, and 20% owed to principal. Usually around the last fiveish years mark, your payment is applied 10% interest, 90% principal. The bank/loan giver makes sure they get their profit from offering you the loan in the earlier years. In other words, each monthly payment by you is NOT going 50%/50% interest/principal.
Don't get me wrong though, its ALWAYS good to pay off your loan early, from a total $ amount paid when you are done point of view. But if you take ten years to pay off a fifteen year loan, you've paid off most of the interest owed already, where if you pay off a fifteen year loan in five years you've paid less interest owed, % wise.
(The time frames I mention above is estimates for sake of this discussion, YMMV for your actual load, but the principal of what's being said is valid.)
Not really. Even in EU the cars are getting bigger even if not as fast as in the US.
Some year ago the small city cars were smaller than the today version.
Would you rather make more money per unit product or less money per unit product?
well yea, that's obviously why they do it.
doesn't make it good.
Change the laws. If it is a truck you should have to get a CDL, have to go to weight stations, cant drive on the parkway etc. If it is a car it should have to follow the emission rules cars have. There is no point in having standards if we make exceptions so big you can drive a cough.....sports utility vehicle....cough through.
Edit: of course we can pretty much end the pickup market tomorrow if we provide free therapy for men with a micropenis.
I am sure car companies spend a ton of money lobbying politicians to never do this.
also interesting is how few car makers even produce normal sized cars anymore, let alone smaller ones.
From the article...
"SUVs and crossovers were traditionally less fuel efficient and more expensive, but that's not the case anymore. Engine and technology advancements have leveled those drawbacks. SUVs and crossovers are now just as fuel efficient and offer more hauling capability as similar-sized cars for about the same price in many cases,"
So, who do I believe?
"Engine and technology advancements" can also be applied to smaller cars so that doesn't really move the needle anywhere.
I think it's quite obvious that unless you discover how to break the laws of physics, the smaller car will be always more efficient due to better aerodynamics and lower weight.
the smaller car will be always more efficient due to better aerodynamics and lower weight.
Be interesting to know how much different the two were, if the difference was minimal, or very large.
If it's minimal, and you need the carrying capacity, then it wouldn't be such a bad thing to own a SUV.
If it's not minimal, yeah then it's better just renting an SUV size vehicle when you need to carry something of large capacity. Unless you need that capacity each and every day, then it would be cost prohibitive to rent versus own.
Interesting that this is focused on the UK and mentions Europe. I (like other commenters) expected this was about the US market before I read the article.
That would mean they were subject to EURO emissions regulations.
I've noticed a huge uptake in big American trucks here in Europe. I hate it!
Same here. They need a higher tax unless it's actually a work vehicle.
Even then they shouldn't be allowed imho, a van is a much more practical work vehicle and is actually designed to be practical for work.
A van sits 2 or maybe 3, not sacrificing a huge amount of space for backseats and an extra set of doors. There is usually one or two big sliding doors, which don't require a lot of room to open but provide a lot of access. They don't have a huge nose with a giant engine. The nose is kept as small as possible, so the space is maximized whilst the vehicle size is minimized. The driver position is designed to have maximum visibility, the vehicle is expected to navigate relatively small spaces, with other people also working there, so you need to see as much as possible. Two big doors in the back give plenty of access and usually can be closed in a way larger cargo can stick out of the back (within safety limits). Usually there's also a roof rack, with some trades permanently mounting stuff like ladders and conduit. Large long items can be securely transported there. All other cargo is inside, not exposed to the elements or theft. The metal panels are kept flat, this again maximizes space whilst minimizing vehicle size. The panels are also very easy and quick to repair, as damage is expected being a work vehicle. The places with the most chance of damage usually have blank metal bars, when damaged they can be repaired or replaced easily and cheap. Vans overall are way more practical, cheaper to own and operate and actually designed with a working life in mind.
The whole big trucks are for work argument doesn't fly, they are super impractical for actual work. Maybe a pickup truck from the late 80s or 90s filled the role as a mix between work vehicle and daily driver better. Which could be useful for rural people which wouldn't have to have multiple vehicles. But not today.
Boring coloured SUV is the British car landscape now. The motorways are depressing enough but it's a grey scale dystopia now.
Exactly the same in Australia.
I thought it was at first too. In the U.S. (at least, here in Texas) I feel like the bigger offender is all the lifted trucks, coal-rollers, etc. Not sure how bad muscle cars are but they're also very prevalent. Seems like every 5th person in my city has a Mustang or Charger with a muffler delete.
The US transitioned to SUVs and trucks a long time ago now, so those emissions are already built in
Have you seen the number of fannies driving about in Audi SUVs these days?
They are and carbon emissions restrictions between Euro 5 and 6 didn't change for gas cars. Carbon emissions are directly linked to fuel economy, it either comes out as CO or CO2, that study didn't mention other emissions because it would have shown that more modern SUVs emit less than 10 years old cars because Euro 6 is more strict for the rest. If comparing diesels the difference is even greater.
Heck, with the deterioration of the emission equipment the more modern SUV is probably better for carbon emissions and it's only on paper that the older vehicle is better.
I think it's beyond time to get rid of the "light truck" classification for suvs.
Especially since they aren't even light any more. Compare a Ford Ranger from the 1990s or early 2000s to the current generation and it looks like a toy. The current generation of light trucks and SUVs are bigger than full sized trucks and SUVs from 20 years ago.
The "light truck" segment is in comparison to the big semis or tractor trailers, which are medium or heavy duty trucks, and often require a commercial driver's license to operate.
For example, the typical school bus or fire truck is classified as a medium duty truck.
Heavy duty trucks generally include things like cement mixers or dump trucks.
The light truck category is incredibly broad (everything from zero to 14,000 lbs. My point is that the current crop of light trucks are verging closer to the top of that category than they historically had been even within that category apart from its increasing presence in the mix of consumer cars.
An f350 can get that heavy, but 99% of the pickup trucks you see aren't even half that weight.
There's an interesting corollary to this in the school bus world. Beginning in 2004, the EPA started imposing emissions standards on diesel engines and the standards have become increasingly stringent over the years. The standards govern the allowed amounts of NOx (nitrous oxides) and particulate matter to be emitted, but the units measured are per-horsepower-miles, meaning that an engine with twice the horsepower is allowed to emit twice the NOx and twice the particulate matter amounts, which has led to bus engines that have much more power than their counterparts from twenty years ago did - despite this added power being largely unnecessary for hauling kids around at relatively low speeds.
And importantly, the EPA diesel engine standards do not in any way govern CO2 output, so today's school bus fleet is emitting far more of it than twenty years ago.
More interestingly, the emissions equipment which prevents particulate matter from entering the atmosphere does so by burning more fuel. This makes the engines emit even more co2 than they would without the emissions.
Are you sure about that? I think possibly you're thinking of EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) which most engine manufactures used to handle the initial 2004 standards (which did not include particulate matter standards) but which is not really used any more. The main things used today are DPF (diesel particulate filter) and DEF (diesel exhaust fluid).
I'm not a diesel mechanic or anything, I just know what I know from owning a school bus (from 2003, yay!) and researching the emissions issues.
Yes I am sure about that. When the diesel particulate filters clog up with soot, the ECU triggers post injection events so that extra diesel fuel will burn in the exhaust raising the temperature of the diesel particulate filter and burning the soot out. These events cause your miles per gallon to decrease significantly.
I don't remember the name of the effect, but it seems to happen a lot of times when newer technologies makes things consume less. People end up consuming more, either by increase of size, duration of use of using more of the thing.
This isn't an example of that though, its just a result of deliberately terrible emissions regulation brought on by lobbying.
Yep, providing exemptions for vehicles under the weight threshold where a commercial driver's license is required is dumb.
Could you elaborate?
Edit: I see, other people mentioned in the thread about the lobbies and efforts to mask emissions.
Vacuum cleaners are the classic example, IMO.
When introduced, they were supposed to make cleaning rugs take less time, freeing time and effort for other activities, but instead housewives just cleaned their rugs more often.
led comes to mind here with this explanation.
extremely more efficient then most other light sources. but because it is so efficient we see led being used everywhere. and almost never turned of because people say it barely uses any power.
also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more. (similar what they did to the old light bulb)
also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more.
Could you elaborate with more detail, or share some links for articles that describe that?
Induced demand. If the option is there people will use it.
What if instead we had Less Cars and more Public Transit?
Sure! But that's not a silver bullet.
Decarbonization is a multi-prong solution and switching everything over to public transportation would take decades. It takes time to create the infrastructure and generations to change minds. Investing in public transportation, bike infrastructure and electrifying our cars are all necessary for our goal to lower green house gasses.
Perfect is the enemy of good
It takes time to create the infrastructure and generations to change minds.
It took the Netherlands what, 20 years? There's also countless examples of cities just deciding to have better public infrastructure and then acting on it.
More than 20 years, peak car ridership occurred in the 1970s which was close to 80% of urban transportation done by car. That number is now down to 19% of all urban transportation done by car.
Amsterdam also had backing from the public to transition to bike and public transportation.
Absolutely we should invest in public transportation! And you are right that cities have decided to create public transportation, and then did! But it took a decade plus to plan, build and implant the new system. That's also ignoring the millions and billions of dollars needed.
Id like to have more public transit than I currently have which is none.
Please clap lemmy
"But there's no profit in that. Why would we do that?"
the people with all the power
But there is profit in it. Public transit can be a revenue generator that at least pays for itself as opposed to roads that are nothing but a huge cost over its lifetime.
And then there are the second-order effects of better economic activity in the areas around metro stations, a healthier populace that is less of a burden on the healthcare system, and overall higher happiness, which makes for better workers. It's just that it can take a decade or two to see these effects come to fruition.
As a cyclist, COVID lockdown was bliss. No vehicles on the roads, just other cyclists out for their hour of exercise. It was literally mind blowing how different the roads felt.
It seems like the growth of trucks should play a big part of it, too. When I was young the majority of vehicles on the road were cars. Where I'm at, at least, it seems like the majority of people are driving trucks with a large minority of crossovers, and the occasional 10 year old car.
A big part of this is also that the auto industry is increasingly steering people to buy big, expensive, profitable trucks over smaller, saner, more reasonable vehicles (that they earn less profit on).
It's not just that consumers "want" these vehicles. Consumers are being pushed to want them.
There's a reason Kei-style trucks basically do not exist in the US -- because they're cheap and useful and the automakers thus dare not allow them.
Vehicles classified as light duty trucks in the US are also not subject to such strict emissions standards. Many crossovers are classified as light trucks despite being the same platforms as sedans, but because the classification is different the crossover can cut costs the sedan can't at the expense of emissions. And because of this for a while now "light trucks" have composed the majority of vehicle sales in the US.
It's confusing that vehicles get favorable treatment from the EPA simply for being taller. Sounds like industry lobbying happened to me since SUVs are conveniently also well known for having the best profit margins.
You can thank the EPA and their CAFE standards for that.
The more I read about them, the worse it gets.
It seems like auto manufacturers are using vehicle footprint as a means to reach higher safety statistics instead of actually designing safer vehicles, which in turn directly impacts gas efficiency.
It's like a rat race to the biggest consumer trucks we now have on the road; the more truck-class vehicles we have, the less safe it is for cars. So they make bigger vehicles to accommodate and the cycle continues.
The dumbest thing is if you look at actual crash test statistics, SUVs don't actually perform better than passenger cars, by and large. Maybe a bit, but definitely not enough to justify the huge difference in size and cost. Smart cars are a great example -- they actually perform super well in crash testing in spite of being so tiny.
People get so confused about the whole relative size thing. They think being in a bigger vehicle makes them inherently safer -- but that isn't really true. Being in a SAFER vehicle makes you safer. Big SUVs with their poor suspension and stiff frames, in many kinds of common accidents, perform very poorly.
The confusion comes because people forget there are two vehicles involved in the kinds of accidents they are scared of. They think that if their vehicle is bigger, it means the other vehicle is smaller. And of course, if the vehicle you're in a collision with is smaller, you will be safer. But it doesn't matter that it be smaller than you. It needs to be smaller in absolute terms.
And in a crash with a stationary object or rollover, being in a one of these trucks is pretty much universally worse.
Of course, the entire appeal to "safety" is nonsense anyway. US roads are just not safe. They are not designed to be safe. Safety is not a priority. Level of service is the priority. We can and happily do sacrifice safety for the sake of reducing congestion all the time. Just look at how nearly-universal right on red and sliplanes are, or how often we put in expensive urban signalized intersections instead of all-way stops.
Yes, because free market capitalism has been working out great.
I think you assumed that comment said something it didn't.
Someone pointed our interesting loop in US legislative about trucks and how producers are making their cars bigger to escape small trucks hard mile/gas / size quotas + lobbying of car makers to keep the trend going because bigger car = more profit. I wonder how big they can get them before them trucks can't drive in single line. Is there something similar to SUV by any chance?
Trucks like the Ford Raptor and "super duty" pickup variants (f250+/GM&Ram2500+) have extra lighting due to their width... So you can use that as an indicator. There is a limit to width.
Now the number of people capable of parking these things.....
There is also that pesky light truck exemption the USA has held on to for decades.
I wonder if something similar comes into play in the European market as well.
Yep. If exemptions required a CDL there would be far fewer exempt vehicles being made.
anyone who buys an SUV is a stupid fucker. there are other types of cars that have just as much unnecessary seat space in them. if you bought an SUV I'm talking directly to you and I'm calling you an idiot to your face. on the internet.
My Ford Taurus isn't going to get into the Uintas or Wasatch range. Getting rid of my SUV will really hurt my wifes ability to release rehabilitated animals.
But, I don't want to be a stupid fucker. What should I get after I get rid of my SUV?
Subaru hatchbacks are great off road and have about the same capacity as most SUVs.
100% agree. I'm a handyman and drive an outback. People are usually surprised when I open the hatch and it's full of my tool boxes.
Pretty low clearance but maybe we can get some beavers in there.
I was being snarky originally but you could have a point there.
You are literally the only reason they should exist. One does not need such a car in suburbs or cities.
Just require a commercial license/insurance for vehicles that large (and up)
You’ll have a lot less people who don’t need them
The older (until 2003 ish) Impreza can hold a whole ass washer/dryer/oven/dishwasher in the back no issue then they made it too round. I remember helping someone move and they had a stupid "truck" but could not get the bed cover off so me and my snoopy looking car moved all the appliances (3 trips) while the "truck" moved boxes and flat furniture.
Edit to add:
If you want to have a better chance at offroad with a subaru invest in a good skidplate and if really needed they have a higher clearance model. I have been places in them that the brodozers get stuck in seconds.
Even an older model SUV like a Honda CRV will take up a lot less space than its modern counterpart. Station wagons can be sexy too if that's your style.
Don't let me start about my station wagon. I can get them back seats perfectly horizontal connecting the back space with middle and it makes comfy double bed. Not to mention that under the floor there are tons of storage spaces to keep all the tools and food or whatever out of the way.
Emissions make sense to me, but does conserving space actually matter?
In cities it does. Here where I live there's being made a point of existing parking spaces being too narrow for modern cars. They are so much wider these days.
While parent is extreme and minimizes that some people have legitimate needs... You do raise another interesting point... You have an SUV and a Fullsize Sedan. I'm sure you have your reasons but it's an amusing anecdote.
yeah. turns out animal rehibition isn't very profitable and I wasn't really expecting to end up in a responsible/respectable life. We bought what we could afford.
I take my electric skateboard to school when I can(weather permitting) , but I will choose shitty emissions for a 10-50 mile drive to save an animals life over letting it die or live in a cage. and honestly, I am only going to school to get money to expand the rehabilitation.. I will try to get a vehicle that is better for the environment when I can afford it though.
A station wagon is easier for moving animals, more space than a small SUV - it's lower to the ground (huge plus if you have to lift them in, easier for them if you are leading them up a portable ramp).
The trade off is you can't do soft sand, cross deeper streams etc, but IMO animals don't need to be released far off track, to me it's worth the trade off.
People driving heavy terrain in wilderness around here use small jeep like cars. Even US army used use them back in the day before monster trucks became a thing.
Edit: I meant small variants. Not the big size ones.
A jeep is definitely a SUV
But it's not huge ass truck like vehicle. One is parked right next to mu European sized car and Jeep's smaller overall even if bit higher due to being offroad vehicle.
Edit:
I mean small jeeps. Not their big variants.
I think point of critique of modern SUV usage is about their unnecessary big size and weight which leads to space wasting and higher fuel consumption which has its own negatives.
They are a lot more efficient in their class and might convince some ICE drivers to switch. Their range tends to be quite good. Unfortunately they have drawbacks:
They require a very large battery. If you don't find >150kW chargers, you'll be waiting a long time
More batteries per car = worse environmental impact from production
Road degradation grows by the fourth power w.r.t. vehicle weight. The big batteries make electric SUVs very heavy
SUVs are more dangerous for pedestrians due to their size
In a crash SUVs deliver much more energy, killing more people.
Just something that had to be coughed out I'd say.
Rollie Williams and Nicole Conlan from Climate Town on YT talked about this on their podcast, The Climate Denier's Playbook, a few weeks ago.
Car companies, at least domestic ones, are subverting fuel economy rules by making cars "like trucks" due to a loophole in the code about Light Duty vehicles (SUVs are light duty trucks and hence get around requirements that other, smaller light duty vehicles have imposed on them).
It's the same reason we see bigger and bigger trucks that look like tanks and that you can't see children from. Those bigger vehicles require bigger engines to move, hence more greenhouse emissions.
It just goes back to H. W. Bush's statement that "the American way of life is not up for negotiation" in addressing climate change. It's like everything (that doesn't threaten profits too much) is up for negotiation, except for the primary driver of the problem.
Iirc, the "light Trucks" is only in US law through, right?
Correct, but companies prefer to minimize costs to maximize profit, so if a large portion of their total markets changes rules, companies will likely adjust so that their products are all the same for all markets. A similar thing will probably happen with Apple once the USB-C thing goes into effect in the EU, affecting US and other markets.
This is almost an "arms race" situation, since when there are so many gigantic SUVs and pickup trucks on the road, driving in a smaller car becomes a lot less safe in case of an accidental collision with a larger, heavier vehicle, and the only way to reduce that risk is to drive a gigantic SUV/pickup truck yourself and further exacerbate the problem.
Having this many large vehicles on the street makes driving on the highway dangerous and unpleasant. LA's traffic is especially terrible.
To say nothing of how dangerous it is for pedestrians, especially children. Some of these vehicles have less forward visibility than, not even kidding, a fucking Abrams tank:
It looks like the "arms race" analogy is more apt than I thought then.
The kids they usually end up hitting are their own in their driveways, so it's kind of darwinism in action
Plus its honestly getting kind of hard to NOT buy an SUV or a large car. The smallest car at an American Honda dealership is an SUV (HRV) now and its fucking massive compared to their smallest car from just a few years ago (Honda Fit). If you wanted an actual compact car you aren't getting one there. That is the same story at a lot of dealers. EVERYTHING is big. Hell, even historic compacts like the Civic and Corolla are massive next to their previous generations. I have a 2000 civic that looks like a toy next to a 2023 civic.
The Civic and the Accord have grown quite a bit since their creation.
First gen Accord, from Wikipedia:
Length 4,450 mm (175.2 in) (sedan) - Width 1,620 mm (63.8 in) (sedan) - Height 1,360 mm (53.5 in) (sedan) - Curb weight 898–945 kg (1,980–2,083 lb)
Current Accord:
Length 4,970 mm (195.7 in) - Width 1,860 mm (73.2 in) - Height 1,450 mm (57.1 in)
It's now 520 mm (20.5") longer, 240 mm (9.4") wider, and even 90 mm (3.6") taller.
The Civic has gone through a similar transition over its lifetime.
Unfortunately, it's hard to compare other brands because so few have had such long-running nameplates, so you have to start comparing different models in the same market, which I'm too lazy to do.
It's worth noting the curb weight has gone up dramatically, too. The current Accord is 1,469 - 1,488 kg (3,239 to 3,280 lbs) based on a quick Google search (it's not in Wikipedia). So it weighs more than 1.5 original Accords.
I'm the city centre where I live, I'm allowed to drive a gigantic petrol 4x4 because it was made in 2021. A friend ours can't take their 2010 petrol Polo in because they'll be charged a congestion charge for their emissions.
A lot of so called environmental legislation is just hidden taxes on the poor masquerading as progressiveness.
Fuck congestion charges and fuck anyone who thinks that the average person can make a dent on this shit when companies and governments around the world continue to funnel more toxic and permanent chemicals into our environment every day than 1000 individuals will in their lifetime.
There's a video that the longer the wheelbase of the vehicle the less stringent it has to be on fuel economy. Something about the 2008 or so cafe laws. Lots of older cars without direct injection get better fuel economy than newer ones that are just taller with the same interior capacity.
This article is focused on the EU, though. What are their emissions/fuel economy laws like?
Big markets influence everyone, just kike California emissions influence America and the world
Do we need another oil price shock to teach people a lesson again?
Or just taxing it appropriately, rather than letting people think driving 3 tons of metal 80 miles a day is a normal and responsible thing to do.
They never last long enough for people to remember the lesson. After a year or two, prices return to 'normal'. Then 2-3 years after that, car makers release fuel efficient vehicles that nobody wants because fuel prices have gone back down.
the steady increases over time have a boiling frog effect. Someone could probably start a gas subscription business right now to offer a steady price at participating gas stations for a monthly fee and make a FUCKLOAD of money.
I talked to a person today at work who complained that their cards tap limit was too low to fill his 1 ton truck. His tap limit: $400.
I don't think the price is going to shock these people.
CAFE should just differentiate by unibody and body/frame.
Make unibody have a high requirement.
You want a truck? You can have a truck.
And get rid of paying your way out of your mileage requirement. Or at least raise the rate astronomically.
This is basically what we already have. What we should do is require drivers to have a CDL to drive body on frame trucks.
Why do they have different standards, anyway? A vehicle is a vehicle, sort of, when it comes to emissions.
I'm not sure what parent is after exactly.
Body in frame is an older way of making cars but it's far easier/cheaper to make thos heavy duty and modular (e.g. an f250 can be a pickup, tow truck, ambulance, dump truck...)
Unibody is more modern.
Most people can live with a unibody truck (Maverick,Ridgeline,Colorado).
I don't thing there's causation between unibody and body on frame as far as fuel consumption is concerned.
We'd need a mechanism that incentives smaller vehicles without impacting the services relying on the heavy duty vehicles...
A Maverick starting at like $24k and an f150 at $35k isn't enough...
The maverick and ridgeline are both unibodies, but the colorado has a frame.
Right, CAFE is heavily influenced by footprint (as in actual wheelbase square footage)
So if unibody “SUVs” are being used to raise the average of the “truck fleet”, I’m saying, change the system so they are bringing down the average of the “cars” segment.
World or US?
This article, and the source it links to, appears to be talking about the UK actually.
There are a lot of SUV type vehicles on the road in the UK, it's frustrating was most people do not need that kind of car.
Watching tiny, single people drive gigantic SUVs around everywhere whilst looking just over the top of the steering wheel is quite discomforting. And parking spots filled with vehicles that barely fit in them.
It's a safe bet that the problem is that much worse in the US. There's a giant marketing apparatus here that's dedicated to selling a self-image that includes giant trucks and SUVs.
I imagine the world, many new cars sold in europe are also suv's
In Ireland, can confirm. Two cars can barely get down many roads here and when ones an suv the driver looks at me in my 99 honda like I'm the problem
They've taken over estate cars and MPV's/people carriers in the UK 😩
The last OEM I worked for in the UK had 2/3 of their vehicle sales volume being SUVs 😐
2013 was just 3 days ago
I wonder how motorcycles have fared? Motorcycle engine emissions seem to work different than car emissions. One thing I see a lot of is engines that were designed in the 80's or 90's (or 40's, if it's the right Royal Enfield) and are still sold now basically unmodified. You can buy a 2023 Suzuki DR650 right now today, and it will still have an air cooled engine with a carburetor on it.
But tightening emissions regulations have started to push out some of these engines. There probably won't be a 2024 DR650. The air-cooled Sportsters can't be sold in the EU now, and it won't be long before they're gone in the US.
I went from a 2009 Suzuki with the most simple of engines to a 2023 Harley with fuel injection, and overhead cams with variable valve timing. It has got to be a cleaner running engine, but I wonder how it compares to cars?
I think, and don't quote me, there have been some changes mostly to the exhaust/tuning side of things to cut emissions. I ride a '17 Bolt r-spec, and pretty much the most common mod is to change the air intake, pipes, and a fuel controller because the stock ones are kinda wimpy for emissions concerns. That said, a cursory search seems to indicate that bikes are terrible. Of course, you have to take into account that bikes produce less emissions, however pound for pound seem to produce significantly worse emissions. FTA:
The [BMW] GS highway CO2 equivalent is a stunning 380 g/mile (17% worse than the RAM truck). They found that a 1993 Honda Shadow VX600 with only 583 ccs spews a whopping 408 g/mile. That is twice as much as a new Honda Civic.
Other studies would suggest the problem is even worse. Global MRV tested out its portable emissions equipment in 2011 comparing 12 motorcycles to 12 cars of varying years — this was featured on an episode of “Mythbusters.”. Motorcycles were almost universally terrible, with motorbikes from the 2000s producing 3,220% more NOx and 8,065% more CO2 than cars of the same era.
Not great. It seems though that based on the article, there are relatively few studies by comparison and that bikes aren't regulated near the degree that cars are. I'll also say that in the above example of a '93 Shadow, that is a carbeurated bike and in that era would have been doing basically nothing to try to curb emissions. Comparatively, a new Honda Civic is going to be fuel injected with a catalytic converter and so forth. The other point of comparison they use is the above BMW 1150 GS, which is cited from a 2008 study, so at newest a 2008 bike, which they compare to a 2020 Dodge Ram. These just aren't particularly useful comparisons because especially in the last 5-10 years, emissions standards especially for cars are ridiculously different than the era of those bikes. I would really be curious to see how something even slightly modern (like, say, my Bolt with the stock tuning/catalytic converter, etc) compares.
I agree, it's not a useful comparison between a 2008 motorcycle and 2020 vehicle.
There's been advancements in motorcycle engines too in the last 5-10 years. Variable valve timing is a common thing in cars (even a Mitsubishi Mirage has it, and it doesn't even have a fourth cylinder) but until recently there werent many bikes that had it. But now you can even buy a Harley (you know, the motorcycle company that everyone says makes primitive engines) with variable valve timing.
Ive recently replaced the engine, but I hope to keep driving my 08 Speed3 for another decade. It's annoying having everything else in the road so much larger, but I don't want anything this size.
#RejectSUVEembraceMiniVan
I enjoy being able to see out my car. 04 impala here. Parents have a 2018 Highlander and it's a heavy awful low visibility nightmare to drive.
The US started phasing in roof crush requirements in 2012, which caused manufacturers to put in more metal for the frame. That meant reducing visibility and all but requiring backup cameras.
Why do we need roof crush requirements? Because those SUVs have a high center of gravity.
This has been the way of things. Cars are just plain unsafe, and trying to make them safe also makes them worse at everything else, including being affordable.
That's definitely a problem, but the ridiculously high belt line of modern cars isn't really as affected by that though. All modern cars are basically the equivalent of the old man who pulls their pants up to their nipples.
Look at the 1990s impala vs the last gen Impala. Rear visibility is nonexistant in it because the trunk is so high.
Basically people just want to feel like their in some impenetrable fortress, at the expense of not being able to see shit around them.
Solution: Add a $10 camera and a $50 video screen, and markup the car $2,000 because it's got a rear view camera now.
Seems like a lot if manufacturers are just bad at design because my Forester has incredible visibility, easily the best of any car I've owned. It's arguably a bit ugly because of it, but I don't care about that much.
So, are they bigger and heavier, or are they equivalent?
Bigger and heavier vehicles (more specifically “trucks” which aren’t legally defined by their beds and encompass virtually anything larger than a simple sedan) are exempt from the majority of fuel economy standards. As a result many auto makers have just straight up stopped making “cars” and shifted entirely to larger vehicles because they can get away with more emissions. Yes, a 2023 SUV is slightly more efficient than a 2013 SUV, but so many more of them are being sold instead of cars that the overall emissions are way higher. I love my Ford Focus from 2017 but Ford literally cancelled every single sedan, coupe and hatchback other than the Mustang and now exclusively makes SUVs, trucks and a single sports car.
The Lexus RX350 convinced consumers that crossovers are cool and SUVs/CUVs are great for daily driving. But, the real culprit behind the transition was the Plymouth that CAFE classed as a light truck: the PT Cruiser, the wringer that lifted the Ram's fleet fuel economy overnight
Except crossovers aren’t cool and SUVs/CUVs suck for daily driving. God I miss my 2004 Volvo wagon.
Power wagons FTW. Love my hatchbacks and my VW B6 wagon 2.0t, although the fuel economy is not as good as my wife's 2014 2.5l Mazda3 hatchback.
I had a 6 speed V70R. So much regret.
That's the whole point, what good would it be to compare equivalent vehicles, when people don't drive equivalent vehicles? They drive bigger and heavier vehicles on average, negating efficiency gains of newer vehicles.
I got a CRV hybrid that gets 2mpg less than my wife's 2012 civic manual
Jokes on them, still using an SUV from 2001 over here.
2007 diesel pickup here. It's even a two seater with a long bed so an actual work truck. Basically makes me a saint compared to those evil SUV drivers.
Meanwhile here I am driving a little 2L manual fiesta (ST150/XR4). Not great, but not bad mileage, but fun AF to drive, and lightweight. It only has a 45L tank, as opposed to a 60-100L tank you find in larger cars.
Then there's also the fact I only drive on weekends or after work. I use public transportation for my commute to work.
Haha, checkmate! Mine emits zero anything!
What kind of vehicle do you have?
probably a bike. he forgot the CO2 emissions through cal burn.
Chevy Bolt and a Nissan Leaf.
I guess your main emission would be tire rubber then, alongside whatever is used to generate the power stored in your car (unless that's also renewables).
You're doing good. Or well. Or both?
I work in the auto industry. Besides the standard 4WD, SUVs have almost nothing going for them compared to a 5 door hatch/station wagon/estate sedan.
I mean, a RAV4 for example, while doing everything it says on the box, and not being an outright bad vehicle, has only marginally more passenger and cargo room than, for example, a Corolla Hatch, while consuming multiple MPG more. Sure, the 4WD contributes to this, but due to the lower weight, better aerodynamics, and smaller engine of a Corolla, it would still be more efficient even if it also had 4WD.
This video here explains one of the issues one minute in. Definitely worth a watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh4H9qZ-_6Y&t=55
The way car companies are working around this legislation is why it's so hard to find and buy smaller sized cars (like smart cars) even if there is demand. It also makes our community less safe for pedestrian traffic.
The sad part is that Europe is seeing a lot of SUVs too. Not as big as whzt we see in the US. But they are there. We also start seeing american style pick up trucks. Luckily, people pay more taxes for these kind of cars.
In Switzerland there was apparently some kind of loophole in the tax system which allowed you to register your pickup truck as a company vehicle (and pay less) even when you don’t have any company or if you are just working as a hairdresser..
I fucking hate these piece of shit cars. I will never not think that they all have to compensate for something.
Pickup trucks are fine. It's the huge ones with giant cabs and useless beds that are just a fashion accessory.
"But muh work tools", yeah just get a sprinter van like normal people. You can fit more, and you can close and lock it so your shit doesn't get stolen out of the bed.
100%, you drive a vehicle like that and you are just screaming to the void "don't look at my small penis and/or small paycheck".
Same in the UK. Very curious how all over the world, governments created exactly the same tax loophole. I can't think which highly resourced industry might have been involved in "advising" them
At least in Switzerland, people were really using them for work until a few days ago.
It was only farmers, carpenters or builders until it became a trend.
I guess the law was okay before but they never thought that someone would want to have such a huge vehicle just to get groceries 😅
They're so fucking stupid. Worse in every way compared to normal cars, but they make idiots feel important, and car makers seem to prefer them.
Ford fucking discontinued the C-Max, a great car in my opinion, and replaced it with... Nothing? The Puma? It's way smaller, while the Kuga is more expensive.
Oh and by the way, most of these SUVs are 2WD so they ridiculous in any kind of non-optimal road, let alone off the road.
The margins are why car makers prefer them. Crossovers are cheap to make, have fewer emission regulations, and they conveniently sell for higher prices.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=Fh4H9qZ-_6Y&t=55
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I can’t stand those idiot trucks that have a chopped-in-half rear bed so they can cram in an undersized back seat.
A truck is for moving shit. If you can’t fit a sheet of plywood in the back of your truck, your truck is a candy ass piece of crap powered by 100% small dick energy.
I call them vans with a 4 foot tumour.
I've seen trucks with 8' beds and big crew cabs. They're like 30 feet long, though
No issue with those. I’m talking about the pretend trucks.
I wish wagons were more popular. They're great for fitting all the stuff in for the family, but lighter and much better handling. I don't know why SUVs became the thing, but I wish wagons would be a come-back. A Tesla wagon would be awesome.
Took me years to realize but "Crossover SUVs" are basically just Hatchbacks with slightly higher suspensions. Hell, manufacturers like Subaru literally use the same chassis as their sedans.
Which is slightly different than a station wagon but is close enough for the vast majority of people since the main distinction is more vertical storage capacity because of rounded edges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon#Comparison_with_hatchbacks). Which... definitely was an issue when I had to make multiple dump runs but never comes up in "real life" as it were.
Like, I hate that I drive a "SUV". But when I was doing more or less everything I could to NOT buy one I eventually realized "A hatchback Impreza with a lift kit sounds perfect" was literally at the same dealership.
As for SUVs in general: a lot of it is people thinking they need a giant vehicle to carry their one child around town.
But the other aspect is... driving in a sedan sucks these days. You are surrounded by pickup trucks where the wheel axis is already at eye level. You have no visibility in traffic and are pretty regularly afraid of what happens if someone doesn't stop.
Like I said, I drive a hatchback/crossover now. And that generally puts me at bumper height on a lot of trucks which... still means my visibility is shit but means I am less likely to get monster trucks driving on top of me.
The worst crossover I saw is the Ford Ecosport. It is basically a Ford Fiesta with higher suspension. It has nothing to do with a SUV, it is small, has 0 towing capacity, is 3000lbs, has a 3 cylinders engine, cost 30'000$ (in canada). The most useless and expensive thing. A Fiesta was half the price for essentially the same frame/car.
They took a Fiesta and made it heavier with worse handling. And they do it with every car now. It’s infuriating.
Honestly? I kind of liked the concept of it. I always thought it looked hideous (I mean, it IS a Ford...) but the size and height seemed good.
Also, I think that was mostly geared toward non-US markets where having the extra seats and the like are good but people don't want to drive a hotel room on wheels.
That actually sounds pretty good to me. If the rear seats go down so I can put bigger stuff in the back, that's a huge advantage over the weird trunk angles you have to work with in a sedan. I don't need to tow anything, but a slightly higher ride is useful when I'm going out in the woods and need to clear rocks in the middle of the unmaintained road.
Except the price. That's unnecessary.
The ecosport has neither trunk room nor rear leg room. The only way to get any amount of space is to put the rear seats down then you can fit some things.
Height is an advantage, but length is still surprisingly short. Plus ya know, no rear passenger room.
Hmm, you're right. Needs a bit more length.
If you drive a Subaru Crosstrek you are not part of the problem imo. That's a reasonably priced, highly functional compact crossover. The real problems are trucks, full-sized SUVs, and other "mall terrain vehicles."
The Crosstrek has an incredibly short body. I wanted to get one but my head touched the ceiling with the seat fully adjusted. I'm tall, but not that tall.
I used to complain about the promotion of hatchback for cargo space because they were really a regular trunk turned vertically. Your Wikipedia link shows that well with the ~2008 Focus examples. If you compare the 2012+ focus, it's a bit clearer because that generation offered a 5 door hatch alongside the 4 door sedan. I disliked the tradeoff of the large rear opening (with folding seats) because it came with a shortened trunk length and the sloped rear glass reduced total volume (compared to a wagon typically having more vertical glass and being longer overall than the sedan). However, the shorter version do have a purpose if you frequently park in the street or any other urban/dense lots. They're easier to parallel park and less likely to get swiped in garages and such as people swing wide. They offer 4-5 seats, they offer a large cargo area, just not at the same time. That makes enough sense to me for vehicles living their daily duty as single-person vehicles.
That's basically how my daily driving duty is now split between a small motorcycle and, for bad weather, a 4x4 (hi/lo) body-on-frame convertible 2-door suv smaller than a miata Geo Tracker.
In the other branch we already pointed out that the Fiesta/Ecosport were very much "european" SUVs as it were.
And yeah, I think it was the Yaris that didn't have foldable seats and was just REAL shitty? But basically every modern hatchback/"crossover suv" has foldable seats.
I am no expert. But of the cars I have seriously researched in the past decade or so (Subaru Crosstrek, one of the Hyundai ICEs, Subaru Solterra, Hyundai ioniq5): they all have folding seats and all have comparable storage.
And from personal experience? When I have a LOT of cardboard to take to recycling or a lot of yard waste to take to the dump, the curvature and vertical issues are a bit annoying. Mostly in a "I guess I need to break this down more or pack this tighter" kind of way but it is still annoying.
But for doing ikea runs 8 hours away or picking up lumber or piping or whatever from the hardware store? Zero issues. Because I DON"T want heavy stuff stacked up to head level behind me when I might need to stop suddenly.
And for just heading into towns for groceries, clothes, random ass boxes, etc? I rarely ever even have to fold the seat down.
Which was mostly my point. There are definitely cases where the curvature and loss of vertical storage space are an issue. But, by and large, those are either incredibly niche or you actually have a good reason to own a pickup truck.
Agree. As for the history, wagons were popular in the 70s, but the minivan really took off in the 80s. This led to a perception that Minivans weren’t masculine, so there was a big boom in SUVs which had the volume and utility of a Minivan, but were more manly.
It doesn’t really matter if you get a larger SUV, you’re still shorter than the jacked up F150+’s and such. We have a car and a 17yo 4Runner (and I try to use it for hauling more than kids and going on more terrain than asphalt), but even the 4Runner is dwarfed by most things. Almost every thing I park it near is larger at this point. Heck a 4th gen 4Runner is within inches of the dimensions of a current Ford Escape, it’s crazy.
If you're curious, it is because wagons are classified as passenger vehicles and SUVs are classified as light trucks. Wagons are held to higher emissions/safety standards than SUVs, making them less profitable to produce in the US. So most automakers steer clear. They don't want to accidentally compete with their own most profitable products by selling a less profitable one that better-matches what consumers need.
Also fuck Tesla.
Chuck Testa? Nope, fuck Tesla.
Wagons and minivans - which are great substitutes for SUVs - have a negative stigma because everybody’s parents had one and people don’t want to feel old.
Hopefully the same thing will happen to SUVs.
You're probably right but wagons can be cool now.
No need to convince me, I love my v60
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
wagons can be cool now.
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Can't really claim better efficiency at that point
Still more efficient than the same thing in boxy SUV form.
I was talking to someone last year and doing 100mph in a 5.0 V8 Mustang he was getting better mpg than 70mph in a Kia Soul (about 25). Make an aerodynamic wagon and you're golden.
The Mercedes looks tolerable, although it wouldn't be the car I would choose for that price. The Audi is downright hideous. I would rather pay half as much to get both a Miata for when I want to have fun and a truck for when I need the cargo space.
Anything's cool I'm the 100k plus grouping...
Huh my parents had a Bronco, don't like that style. Also had a minivan, very good vehicle that I would get for family life.
Not quite a wagon but I love my Honda Fit, it sips gas, handles surprisingly well for a car in its price range and it’s amazing how much stuff you can Fit into the little guy
My old Mazda protege was basically that with a foot longer trunk. It was perfect size.
I'm just glad they're bringing back small trucks. I don't want a small-penismobile, I want a vehicle I can throw some lumber and such in on occasion.
Which is why I love my Hyundai Santa Cruz. Sucker can tow 3500lb but can get 35mpg highway
Aw man I miss my Volvo wagon. I should have never sold it. I would love to get another used one but I would have to pay triple what I sold it for to get it back these days, prices are just insane since they stopped making anything decent years ago.
Buying a car nowadays is a freaking nightmare, I hope mine lasts many more years
There isn't a single new car out that I want to own more than the equivalent discontinued model.
I was with you on everything until that last sentence.
also interesting is how few car makers even produce normal sized cars anymore, let alone smaller ones.
https://www.newsweek.com/its-hard-find-small-car-us-thats-not-going-change-soon-1808174
Also the average length of car ownership before buying something else is about 5 years, but the average loan duration for a new car is 7 years.
The car market in the US is just screwed.
My Honda Civic was built in 2008 and it's fine. My car before that was a Nissan Sentra and it lived 22 years. Drive them until they are piles of rust kept going by duct tape and raw anger, and try not to shed manly tears when they are crushed into a cube.
I am sorry car, but this is a good death.
My 2006 Civic was a lemon. I had to replace it after only 10 years
Only the lower end "economy" Hondas are super reliable. Honda's higher-end models tend to use newer and less well-vetted engineering while the basic models all rely on older tried and true technology. I learned this the hard way with my 2006 Accord V6 which was a blast to drive, but like yours only lasted about 10 years before it started having serious and very expensive problems.
that's insane, I have a 2005 toyota corolla with zero interest in getting a new car.
Those that do loans are much more likely to have negativity equity when trading in. Which is already proven with those who have terms longer than 4 years. This means on trading in, the borrower is looking at an increased car payment on top of the already higher average transaction price of $35,000. If you put money down, default on the loan and lose the car, you've quite literally given away money.
It's true the average loan is 7 years, but within the last few years there are 10 year (!) loans are available. This helps bring down an $800 payment. But that interest is gonna suck if you don't get a very low rate.
Those that pay off their loans tend to keep their cars for 10 to 12 years. Assuming the car doesn't catastrophically fail. Which anecdotally happened to our family. 1.6L Ford EcoBoost defect killed the engine 2 years after a 4 year loan was paid off.
Speaking anecdotally here, I wonder if the banks are trying to push those super long loans, too. I bought my car last year, have excellent credit, and put 50% down. The only loan I was offered was an 8 year loan when I wanted 4. Out of sheer spite, I took advantage of the early payoff and paid it off as early as possible to deprive them of as much interest as possible, and it was much faster than the 4 years I asked for.
As a general FYI for anyone who reads this comment, be aware that bank loans front load the payment of the interest, and the payment of the principal is done on the back end.
So you have to pay off a loan very quickly to avoid the majority of the interest you would pay for that loan.
Finally, if you pay extra to try to finish a loan off early, make sure any extra amount you pay is marked as "principal only". Banks are supposed to always apply any extra to the principal, but a lot of times they apply the extra to the interest, unless you explicitly tell them not to.
In this case, I had a deal that had no penalties for early payoff, so in my case, paying off my car in 1/8 the time saved me 7 years of interest with no serious downside. Unless you count credit scores being BS and paying off loans early technically not being ideal credit management.
Fair enough, but I wasn't actually talking about early payoff penalty. I was speaking to the payback schedule that the loan company has you reimburse them with.
You pay your loan back on a monthly basis. In the earlier years, each monthly payment goes (for example) 80% to interest owed, and 20% owed to principal. Usually around the last fiveish years mark, your payment is applied 10% interest, 90% principal. The bank/loan giver makes sure they get their profit from offering you the loan in the earlier years. In other words, each monthly payment by you is NOT going 50%/50% interest/principal.
Don't get me wrong though, its ALWAYS good to pay off your loan early, from a total $ amount paid when you are done point of view. But if you take ten years to pay off a fifteen year loan, you've paid off most of the interest owed already, where if you pay off a fifteen year loan in five years you've paid less interest owed, % wise.
(The time frames I mention above is estimates for sake of this discussion, YMMV for your actual load, but the principal of what's being said is valid.)
That has to be the case only in the US.
Not really. Even in EU the cars are getting bigger even if not as fast as in the US.
Some year ago the small city cars were smaller than the today version.
Would you rather make more money per unit product or less money per unit product?
well yea, that's obviously why they do it.
doesn't make it good.
Change the laws. If it is a truck you should have to get a CDL, have to go to weight stations, cant drive on the parkway etc. If it is a car it should have to follow the emission rules cars have. There is no point in having standards if we make exceptions so big you can drive a cough.....sports utility vehicle....cough through.
Edit: of course we can pretty much end the pickup market tomorrow if we provide free therapy for men with a micropenis.
I am sure car companies spend a ton of money lobbying politicians to never do this.
From the article...
So, who do I believe?
"Engine and technology advancements" can also be applied to smaller cars so that doesn't really move the needle anywhere.
I think it's quite obvious that unless you discover how to break the laws of physics, the smaller car will be always more efficient due to better aerodynamics and lower weight.
Be interesting to know how much different the two were, if the difference was minimal, or very large.
If it's minimal, and you need the carrying capacity, then it wouldn't be such a bad thing to own a SUV.
If it's not minimal, yeah then it's better just renting an SUV size vehicle when you need to carry something of large capacity. Unless you need that capacity each and every day, then it would be cost prohibitive to rent versus own.
Interesting that this is focused on the UK and mentions Europe. I (like other commenters) expected this was about the US market before I read the article.
That would mean they were subject to EURO emissions regulations.
I've noticed a huge uptake in big American trucks here in Europe. I hate it!
Same here. They need a higher tax unless it's actually a work vehicle.
Even then they shouldn't be allowed imho, a van is a much more practical work vehicle and is actually designed to be practical for work. A van sits 2 or maybe 3, not sacrificing a huge amount of space for backseats and an extra set of doors. There is usually one or two big sliding doors, which don't require a lot of room to open but provide a lot of access. They don't have a huge nose with a giant engine. The nose is kept as small as possible, so the space is maximized whilst the vehicle size is minimized. The driver position is designed to have maximum visibility, the vehicle is expected to navigate relatively small spaces, with other people also working there, so you need to see as much as possible. Two big doors in the back give plenty of access and usually can be closed in a way larger cargo can stick out of the back (within safety limits). Usually there's also a roof rack, with some trades permanently mounting stuff like ladders and conduit. Large long items can be securely transported there. All other cargo is inside, not exposed to the elements or theft. The metal panels are kept flat, this again maximizes space whilst minimizing vehicle size. The panels are also very easy and quick to repair, as damage is expected being a work vehicle. The places with the most chance of damage usually have blank metal bars, when damaged they can be repaired or replaced easily and cheap. Vans overall are way more practical, cheaper to own and operate and actually designed with a working life in mind.
The whole big trucks are for work argument doesn't fly, they are super impractical for actual work. Maybe a pickup truck from the late 80s or 90s filled the role as a mix between work vehicle and daily driver better. Which could be useful for rural people which wouldn't have to have multiple vehicles. But not today.
Boring coloured SUV is the British car landscape now. The motorways are depressing enough but it's a grey scale dystopia now.
Exactly the same in Australia.
I thought it was at first too. In the U.S. (at least, here in Texas) I feel like the bigger offender is all the lifted trucks, coal-rollers, etc. Not sure how bad muscle cars are but they're also very prevalent. Seems like every 5th person in my city has a Mustang or Charger with a muffler delete.
The US transitioned to SUVs and trucks a long time ago now, so those emissions are already built in
Have you seen the number of fannies driving about in Audi SUVs these days?
They are and carbon emissions restrictions between Euro 5 and 6 didn't change for gas cars. Carbon emissions are directly linked to fuel economy, it either comes out as CO or CO2, that study didn't mention other emissions because it would have shown that more modern SUVs emit less than 10 years old cars because Euro 6 is more strict for the rest. If comparing diesels the difference is even greater.
Heck, with the deterioration of the emission equipment the more modern SUV is probably better for carbon emissions and it's only on paper that the older vehicle is better.
I think it's beyond time to get rid of the "light truck" classification for suvs.
Especially since they aren't even light any more. Compare a Ford Ranger from the 1990s or early 2000s to the current generation and it looks like a toy. The current generation of light trucks and SUVs are bigger than full sized trucks and SUVs from 20 years ago.
The "light truck" segment is in comparison to the big semis or tractor trailers, which are medium or heavy duty trucks, and often require a commercial driver's license to operate.
For example, the typical school bus or fire truck is classified as a medium duty truck.
Heavy duty trucks generally include things like cement mixers or dump trucks.
The light truck category is incredibly broad (everything from zero to 14,000 lbs. My point is that the current crop of light trucks are verging closer to the top of that category than they historically had been even within that category apart from its increasing presence in the mix of consumer cars.
https://www.badgertruck.com/heavy-truck-information/truck-classification/
An f350 can get that heavy, but 99% of the pickup trucks you see aren't even half that weight.
There's an interesting corollary to this in the school bus world. Beginning in 2004, the EPA started imposing emissions standards on diesel engines and the standards have become increasingly stringent over the years. The standards govern the allowed amounts of NOx (nitrous oxides) and particulate matter to be emitted, but the units measured are per-horsepower-miles, meaning that an engine with twice the horsepower is allowed to emit twice the NOx and twice the particulate matter amounts, which has led to bus engines that have much more power than their counterparts from twenty years ago did - despite this added power being largely unnecessary for hauling kids around at relatively low speeds.
And importantly, the EPA diesel engine standards do not in any way govern CO2 output, so today's school bus fleet is emitting far more of it than twenty years ago.
More interestingly, the emissions equipment which prevents particulate matter from entering the atmosphere does so by burning more fuel. This makes the engines emit even more co2 than they would without the emissions.
Are you sure about that? I think possibly you're thinking of EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) which most engine manufactures used to handle the initial 2004 standards (which did not include particulate matter standards) but which is not really used any more. The main things used today are DPF (diesel particulate filter) and DEF (diesel exhaust fluid).
I'm not a diesel mechanic or anything, I just know what I know from owning a school bus (from 2003, yay!) and researching the emissions issues.
Yes I am sure about that. When the diesel particulate filters clog up with soot, the ECU triggers post injection events so that extra diesel fuel will burn in the exhaust raising the temperature of the diesel particulate filter and burning the soot out. These events cause your miles per gallon to decrease significantly.
I don't remember the name of the effect, but it seems to happen a lot of times when newer technologies makes things consume less. People end up consuming more, either by increase of size, duration of use of using more of the thing.
Yes! It's called Jevons paradox
Wow it is like induced demand but for resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Thank you!
This isn't an example of that though, its just a result of deliberately terrible emissions regulation brought on by lobbying.
Yep, providing exemptions for vehicles under the weight threshold where a commercial driver's license is required is dumb.
Could you elaborate? Edit: I see, other people mentioned in the thread about the lobbies and efforts to mask emissions.
Vacuum cleaners are the classic example, IMO.
When introduced, they were supposed to make cleaning rugs take less time, freeing time and effort for other activities, but instead housewives just cleaned their rugs more often.
led comes to mind here with this explanation. extremely more efficient then most other light sources. but because it is so efficient we see led being used everywhere. and almost never turned of because people say it barely uses any power. also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more. (similar what they did to the old light bulb)
Could you elaborate with more detail, or share some links for articles that describe that?
Induced demand. If the option is there people will use it.
What if instead we had Less Cars and more Public Transit?
Sure! But that's not a silver bullet.
Decarbonization is a multi-prong solution and switching everything over to public transportation would take decades. It takes time to create the infrastructure and generations to change minds. Investing in public transportation, bike infrastructure and electrifying our cars are all necessary for our goal to lower green house gasses.
Perfect is the enemy of good
It took the Netherlands what, 20 years? There's also countless examples of cities just deciding to have better public infrastructure and then acting on it.
More than 20 years, peak car ridership occurred in the 1970s which was close to 80% of urban transportation done by car. That number is now down to 19% of all urban transportation done by car.
Amsterdam also had backing from the public to transition to bike and public transportation.
Absolutely we should invest in public transportation! And you are right that cities have decided to create public transportation, and then did! But it took a decade plus to plan, build and implant the new system. That's also ignoring the millions and billions of dollars needed.
Id like to have more public transit than I currently have which is none.
Please clap lemmy
"But there's no profit in that. Why would we do that?"
But there is profit in it. Public transit can be a revenue generator that at least pays for itself as opposed to roads that are nothing but a huge cost over its lifetime.
And then there are the second-order effects of better economic activity in the areas around metro stations, a healthier populace that is less of a burden on the healthcare system, and overall higher happiness, which makes for better workers. It's just that it can take a decade or two to see these effects come to fruition.
But politicians rarely see that far out.
As a cyclist, COVID lockdown was bliss. No vehicles on the roads, just other cyclists out for their hour of exercise. It was literally mind blowing how different the roads felt.
It seems like the growth of trucks should play a big part of it, too. When I was young the majority of vehicles on the road were cars. Where I'm at, at least, it seems like the majority of people are driving trucks with a large minority of crossovers, and the occasional 10 year old car.
A big part of this is also that the auto industry is increasingly steering people to buy big, expensive, profitable trucks over smaller, saner, more reasonable vehicles (that they earn less profit on).
It's not just that consumers "want" these vehicles. Consumers are being pushed to want them.
There's a reason Kei-style trucks basically do not exist in the US -- because they're cheap and useful and the automakers thus dare not allow them.
Vehicles classified as light duty trucks in the US are also not subject to such strict emissions standards. Many crossovers are classified as light trucks despite being the same platforms as sedans, but because the classification is different the crossover can cut costs the sedan can't at the expense of emissions. And because of this for a while now "light trucks" have composed the majority of vehicle sales in the US.
It's confusing that vehicles get favorable treatment from the EPA simply for being taller. Sounds like industry lobbying happened to me since SUVs are conveniently also well known for having the best profit margins.
You can thank the EPA and their CAFE standards for that.
The more I read about them, the worse it gets.
It seems like auto manufacturers are using vehicle footprint as a means to reach higher safety statistics instead of actually designing safer vehicles, which in turn directly impacts gas efficiency.
It's like a rat race to the biggest consumer trucks we now have on the road; the more truck-class vehicles we have, the less safe it is for cars. So they make bigger vehicles to accommodate and the cycle continues.
The dumbest thing is if you look at actual crash test statistics, SUVs don't actually perform better than passenger cars, by and large. Maybe a bit, but definitely not enough to justify the huge difference in size and cost. Smart cars are a great example -- they actually perform super well in crash testing in spite of being so tiny.
People get so confused about the whole relative size thing. They think being in a bigger vehicle makes them inherently safer -- but that isn't really true. Being in a SAFER vehicle makes you safer. Big SUVs with their poor suspension and stiff frames, in many kinds of common accidents, perform very poorly.
The confusion comes because people forget there are two vehicles involved in the kinds of accidents they are scared of. They think that if their vehicle is bigger, it means the other vehicle is smaller. And of course, if the vehicle you're in a collision with is smaller, you will be safer. But it doesn't matter that it be smaller than you. It needs to be smaller in absolute terms.
And in a crash with a stationary object or rollover, being in a one of these trucks is pretty much universally worse.
Of course, the entire appeal to "safety" is nonsense anyway. US roads are just not safe. They are not designed to be safe. Safety is not a priority. Level of service is the priority. We can and happily do sacrifice safety for the sake of reducing congestion all the time. Just look at how nearly-universal right on red and sliplanes are, or how often we put in expensive urban signalized intersections instead of all-way stops.
Yes, because free market capitalism has been working out great.
I think you assumed that comment said something it didn't.
Someone pointed our interesting loop in US legislative about trucks and how producers are making their cars bigger to escape small trucks hard mile/gas / size quotas + lobbying of car makers to keep the trend going because bigger car = more profit. I wonder how big they can get them before them trucks can't drive in single line. Is there something similar to SUV by any chance?
Trucks like the Ford Raptor and "super duty" pickup variants (f250+/GM&Ram2500+) have extra lighting due to their width... So you can use that as an indicator. There is a limit to width.
Now the number of people capable of parking these things.....
Relevant video on this: https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/jN7mSXMruEo
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
There is also that pesky light truck exemption the USA has held on to for decades.
I wonder if something similar comes into play in the European market as well.
Yep. If exemptions required a CDL there would be far fewer exempt vehicles being made.
anyone who buys an SUV is a stupid fucker. there are other types of cars that have just as much unnecessary seat space in them. if you bought an SUV I'm talking directly to you and I'm calling you an idiot to your face. on the internet.
My Ford Taurus isn't going to get into the Uintas or Wasatch range. Getting rid of my SUV will really hurt my wifes ability to release rehabilitated animals.
But, I don't want to be a stupid fucker. What should I get after I get rid of my SUV?
Subaru hatchbacks are great off road and have about the same capacity as most SUVs.
100% agree. I'm a handyman and drive an outback. People are usually surprised when I open the hatch and it's full of my tool boxes.
Pretty low clearance but maybe we can get some beavers in there.
I was being snarky originally but you could have a point there.
You are literally the only reason they should exist. One does not need such a car in suburbs or cities.
Just require a commercial license/insurance for vehicles that large (and up)
You’ll have a lot less people who don’t need them
The older (until 2003 ish) Impreza can hold a whole ass washer/dryer/oven/dishwasher in the back no issue then they made it too round. I remember helping someone move and they had a stupid "truck" but could not get the bed cover off so me and my snoopy looking car moved all the appliances (3 trips) while the "truck" moved boxes and flat furniture.
Edit to add:
If you want to have a better chance at offroad with a subaru invest in a good skidplate and if really needed they have a higher clearance model. I have been places in them that the brodozers get stuck in seconds.
Even an older model SUV like a Honda CRV will take up a lot less space than its modern counterpart. Station wagons can be sexy too if that's your style.
Don't let me start about my station wagon. I can get them back seats perfectly horizontal connecting the back space with middle and it makes comfy double bed. Not to mention that under the floor there are tons of storage spaces to keep all the tools and food or whatever out of the way.
Emissions make sense to me, but does conserving space actually matter?
In cities it does. Here where I live there's being made a point of existing parking spaces being too narrow for modern cars. They are so much wider these days.
While parent is extreme and minimizes that some people have legitimate needs... You do raise another interesting point... You have an SUV and a Fullsize Sedan. I'm sure you have your reasons but it's an amusing anecdote.
yeah. turns out animal rehibition isn't very profitable and I wasn't really expecting to end up in a responsible/respectable life. We bought what we could afford.
I take my electric skateboard to school when I can(weather permitting) , but I will choose shitty emissions for a 10-50 mile drive to save an animals life over letting it die or live in a cage. and honestly, I am only going to school to get money to expand the rehabilitation.. I will try to get a vehicle that is better for the environment when I can afford it though.
A station wagon is easier for moving animals, more space than a small SUV - it's lower to the ground (huge plus if you have to lift them in, easier for them if you are leading them up a portable ramp).
The trade off is you can't do soft sand, cross deeper streams etc, but IMO animals don't need to be released far off track, to me it's worth the trade off.
People driving heavy terrain in wilderness around here use small jeep like cars. Even US army used use them back in the day before monster trucks became a thing.
Edit: I meant small variants. Not the big size ones.
A jeep is definitely a SUV
But it's not huge ass truck like vehicle. One is parked right next to mu European sized car and Jeep's smaller overall even if bit higher due to being offroad vehicle.
Edit: I mean small jeeps. Not their big variants.
I think point of critique of modern SUV usage is about their unnecessary big size and weight which leads to space wasting and higher fuel consumption which has its own negatives.
What about BEV SUVs?
They are a lot more efficient in their class and might convince some ICE drivers to switch. Their range tends to be quite good. Unfortunately they have drawbacks:
Let's not point the finger at anyone for having stupidly big cars cough 🤧 US cough 🤧
Urgh, it's going that way in London too.
Don't bigger cars pay congestion charges in London?
No. Just for entering the zone it's a flat rate unless you're zero emissions. There's additional charges if you don't qualify as Ultra Low emissions.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge
Asthma?
Just something that had to be coughed out I'd say.
Rollie Williams and Nicole Conlan from Climate Town on YT talked about this on their podcast, The Climate Denier's Playbook, a few weeks ago.
Car companies, at least domestic ones, are subverting fuel economy rules by making cars "like trucks" due to a loophole in the code about Light Duty vehicles (SUVs are light duty trucks and hence get around requirements that other, smaller light duty vehicles have imposed on them).
It's the same reason we see bigger and bigger trucks that look like tanks and that you can't see children from. Those bigger vehicles require bigger engines to move, hence more greenhouse emissions.
It just goes back to H. W. Bush's statement that "the American way of life is not up for negotiation" in addressing climate change. It's like everything (that doesn't threaten profits too much) is up for negotiation, except for the primary driver of the problem.
Iirc, the "light Trucks" is only in US law through, right?
Correct, but companies prefer to minimize costs to maximize profit, so if a large portion of their total markets changes rules, companies will likely adjust so that their products are all the same for all markets. A similar thing will probably happen with Apple once the USB-C thing goes into effect in the EU, affecting US and other markets.
This is almost an "arms race" situation, since when there are so many gigantic SUVs and pickup trucks on the road, driving in a smaller car becomes a lot less safe in case of an accidental collision with a larger, heavier vehicle, and the only way to reduce that risk is to drive a gigantic SUV/pickup truck yourself and further exacerbate the problem.
Having this many large vehicles on the street makes driving on the highway dangerous and unpleasant. LA's traffic is especially terrible.
To say nothing of how dangerous it is for pedestrians, especially children. Some of these vehicles have less forward visibility than, not even kidding, a fucking Abrams tank:
It looks like the "arms race" analogy is more apt than I thought then.
The kids they usually end up hitting are their own in their driveways, so it's kind of darwinism in action
Plus its honestly getting kind of hard to NOT buy an SUV or a large car. The smallest car at an American Honda dealership is an SUV (HRV) now and its fucking massive compared to their smallest car from just a few years ago (Honda Fit). If you wanted an actual compact car you aren't getting one there. That is the same story at a lot of dealers. EVERYTHING is big. Hell, even historic compacts like the Civic and Corolla are massive next to their previous generations. I have a 2000 civic that looks like a toy next to a 2023 civic.
The Civic and the Accord have grown quite a bit since their creation.
First gen Accord, from Wikipedia: Length 4,450 mm (175.2 in) (sedan) - Width 1,620 mm (63.8 in) (sedan) - Height 1,360 mm (53.5 in) (sedan) - Curb weight 898–945 kg (1,980–2,083 lb)
Current Accord: Length 4,970 mm (195.7 in) - Width 1,860 mm (73.2 in) - Height 1,450 mm (57.1 in)
It's now 520 mm (20.5") longer, 240 mm (9.4") wider, and even 90 mm (3.6") taller.
The Civic has gone through a similar transition over its lifetime.
Unfortunately, it's hard to compare other brands because so few have had such long-running nameplates, so you have to start comparing different models in the same market, which I'm too lazy to do.
It's worth noting the curb weight has gone up dramatically, too. The current Accord is 1,469 - 1,488 kg (3,239 to 3,280 lbs) based on a quick Google search (it's not in Wikipedia). So it weighs more than 1.5 original Accords.
Even cars aren't immune to size inflation.
There is now this abomination https://www.mini.co.uk/en_GB/home/range/mini-countryman.html
Still being called a MINI!
But even their regular MINI is almost 1.5x the size of what it was just a few years ago.
https://youtu.be/MI7Tq6sRxE4?si=3BvDsb2q1CeebB2U
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/MI7Tq6sRxE4?si=3BvDsb2q1CeebB2U
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
I'm the city centre where I live, I'm allowed to drive a gigantic petrol 4x4 because it was made in 2021. A friend ours can't take their 2010 petrol Polo in because they'll be charged a congestion charge for their emissions.
A lot of so called environmental legislation is just hidden taxes on the poor masquerading as progressiveness.
Fuck congestion charges and fuck anyone who thinks that the average person can make a dent on this shit when companies and governments around the world continue to funnel more toxic and permanent chemicals into our environment every day than 1000 individuals will in their lifetime.
There's a video that the longer the wheelbase of the vehicle the less stringent it has to be on fuel economy. Something about the 2008 or so cafe laws. Lots of older cars without direct injection get better fuel economy than newer ones that are just taller with the same interior capacity.
This article is focused on the EU, though. What are their emissions/fuel economy laws like?
Big markets influence everyone, just kike California emissions influence America and the world
Fuck SUVs.
And we did this to ourselves to make pickups in the USA not be required to have additional licensing. We did before Ragan if I recall correctly.
Edit
4 replies and they are fixated on Ragan. Didn’t state he was repossable or not. Here is a good video about this. https://youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=7PsOF-WE8MXX87vX
Do we need another oil price shock to teach people a lesson again?
Or just taxing it appropriately, rather than letting people think driving 3 tons of metal 80 miles a day is a normal and responsible thing to do.
They never last long enough for people to remember the lesson. After a year or two, prices return to 'normal'. Then 2-3 years after that, car makers release fuel efficient vehicles that nobody wants because fuel prices have gone back down.
the steady increases over time have a boiling frog effect. Someone could probably start a gas subscription business right now to offer a steady price at participating gas stations for a monthly fee and make a FUCKLOAD of money.
I talked to a person today at work who complained that their cards tap limit was too low to fill his 1 ton truck. His tap limit: $400.
I don't think the price is going to shock these people.
CAFE should just differentiate by unibody and body/frame.
Make unibody have a high requirement.
You want a truck? You can have a truck.
And get rid of paying your way out of your mileage requirement. Or at least raise the rate astronomically.
This is basically what we already have. What we should do is require drivers to have a CDL to drive body on frame trucks.
Why do they have different standards, anyway? A vehicle is a vehicle, sort of, when it comes to emissions.
I'm not sure what parent is after exactly.
Body in frame is an older way of making cars but it's far easier/cheaper to make thos heavy duty and modular (e.g. an f250 can be a pickup, tow truck, ambulance, dump truck...)
Unibody is more modern.
Most people can live with a unibody truck (Maverick,Ridgeline,Colorado).
I don't thing there's causation between unibody and body on frame as far as fuel consumption is concerned.
We'd need a mechanism that incentives smaller vehicles without impacting the services relying on the heavy duty vehicles...
A Maverick starting at like $24k and an f150 at $35k isn't enough...
The maverick and ridgeline are both unibodies, but the colorado has a frame.
That said, cafe seems to encourage larger footprints. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#:~:text=CAFE%20footprint%20requirements%20are%20set,vehicle%20with%20a%20smaller%20footprint.
Right, CAFE is heavily influenced by footprint (as in actual wheelbase square footage)
So if unibody “SUVs” are being used to raise the average of the “truck fleet”, I’m saying, change the system so they are bringing down the average of the “cars” segment.
World or US?
This article, and the source it links to, appears to be talking about the UK actually.
There are a lot of SUV type vehicles on the road in the UK, it's frustrating was most people do not need that kind of car.
Watching tiny, single people drive gigantic SUVs around everywhere whilst looking just over the top of the steering wheel is quite discomforting. And parking spots filled with vehicles that barely fit in them.
It's a safe bet that the problem is that much worse in the US. There's a giant marketing apparatus here that's dedicated to selling a self-image that includes giant trucks and SUVs.
I imagine the world, many new cars sold in europe are also suv's
In Ireland, can confirm. Two cars can barely get down many roads here and when ones an suv the driver looks at me in my 99 honda like I'm the problem
They've taken over estate cars and MPV's/people carriers in the UK 😩
The last OEM I worked for in the UK had 2/3 of their vehicle sales volume being SUVs 😐
2013 was just 3 days ago
I wonder how motorcycles have fared? Motorcycle engine emissions seem to work different than car emissions. One thing I see a lot of is engines that were designed in the 80's or 90's (or 40's, if it's the right Royal Enfield) and are still sold now basically unmodified. You can buy a 2023 Suzuki DR650 right now today, and it will still have an air cooled engine with a carburetor on it.
But tightening emissions regulations have started to push out some of these engines. There probably won't be a 2024 DR650. The air-cooled Sportsters can't be sold in the EU now, and it won't be long before they're gone in the US.
I went from a 2009 Suzuki with the most simple of engines to a 2023 Harley with fuel injection, and overhead cams with variable valve timing. It has got to be a cleaner running engine, but I wonder how it compares to cars?
I think, and don't quote me, there have been some changes mostly to the exhaust/tuning side of things to cut emissions. I ride a '17 Bolt r-spec, and pretty much the most common mod is to change the air intake, pipes, and a fuel controller because the stock ones are kinda wimpy for emissions concerns. That said, a cursory search seems to indicate that bikes are terrible. Of course, you have to take into account that bikes produce less emissions, however pound for pound seem to produce significantly worse emissions. FTA:
Not great. It seems though that based on the article, there are relatively few studies by comparison and that bikes aren't regulated near the degree that cars are. I'll also say that in the above example of a '93 Shadow, that is a carbeurated bike and in that era would have been doing basically nothing to try to curb emissions. Comparatively, a new Honda Civic is going to be fuel injected with a catalytic converter and so forth. The other point of comparison they use is the above BMW 1150 GS, which is cited from a 2008 study, so at newest a 2008 bike, which they compare to a 2020 Dodge Ram. These just aren't particularly useful comparisons because especially in the last 5-10 years, emissions standards especially for cars are ridiculously different than the era of those bikes. I would really be curious to see how something even slightly modern (like, say, my Bolt with the stock tuning/catalytic converter, etc) compares.
I agree, it's not a useful comparison between a 2008 motorcycle and 2020 vehicle.
There's been advancements in motorcycle engines too in the last 5-10 years. Variable valve timing is a common thing in cars (even a Mitsubishi Mirage has it, and it doesn't even have a fourth cylinder) but until recently there werent many bikes that had it. But now you can even buy a Harley (you know, the motorcycle company that everyone says makes primitive engines) with variable valve timing.
Ive recently replaced the engine, but I hope to keep driving my 08 Speed3 for another decade. It's annoying having everything else in the road so much larger, but I don't want anything this size.
#RejectSUVEembraceMiniVan
I enjoy being able to see out my car. 04 impala here. Parents have a 2018 Highlander and it's a heavy awful low visibility nightmare to drive.
The US started phasing in roof crush requirements in 2012, which caused manufacturers to put in more metal for the frame. That meant reducing visibility and all but requiring backup cameras.
Why do we need roof crush requirements? Because those SUVs have a high center of gravity.
This has been the way of things. Cars are just plain unsafe, and trying to make them safe also makes them worse at everything else, including being affordable.
That's definitely a problem, but the ridiculously high belt line of modern cars isn't really as affected by that though. All modern cars are basically the equivalent of the old man who pulls their pants up to their nipples.
Look at the 1990s impala vs the last gen Impala. Rear visibility is nonexistant in it because the trunk is so high.
https://hips.hearstapps.com/autoweek/assets/s3fs-public/6FV55c1HMDfBR-BESdVCQJZvKOCe2KlT-ul3DTT4BpM.jpg
https://www.autotrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2020-Chevrolet-Impala-.5..jpg
Basically people just want to feel like their in some impenetrable fortress, at the expense of not being able to see shit around them.
Solution: Add a $10 camera and a $50 video screen, and markup the car $2,000 because it's got a rear view camera now.
Seems like a lot if manufacturers are just bad at design because my Forester has incredible visibility, easily the best of any car I've owned. It's arguably a bit ugly because of it, but I don't care about that much.
So, are they bigger and heavier, or are they equivalent?
Bigger and heavier vehicles (more specifically “trucks” which aren’t legally defined by their beds and encompass virtually anything larger than a simple sedan) are exempt from the majority of fuel economy standards. As a result many auto makers have just straight up stopped making “cars” and shifted entirely to larger vehicles because they can get away with more emissions. Yes, a 2023 SUV is slightly more efficient than a 2013 SUV, but so many more of them are being sold instead of cars that the overall emissions are way higher. I love my Ford Focus from 2017 but Ford literally cancelled every single sedan, coupe and hatchback other than the Mustang and now exclusively makes SUVs, trucks and a single sports car.
The Lexus RX350 convinced consumers that crossovers are cool and SUVs/CUVs are great for daily driving. But, the real culprit behind the transition was the Plymouth that CAFE classed as a light truck: the PT Cruiser, the wringer that lifted the Ram's fleet fuel economy overnight
Except crossovers aren’t cool and SUVs/CUVs suck for daily driving. God I miss my 2004 Volvo wagon.
Power wagons FTW. Love my hatchbacks and my VW B6 wagon 2.0t, although the fuel economy is not as good as my wife's 2014 2.5l Mazda3 hatchback.
I had a 6 speed V70R. So much regret.
That's the whole point, what good would it be to compare equivalent vehicles, when people don't drive equivalent vehicles? They drive bigger and heavier vehicles on average, negating efficiency gains of newer vehicles.
I got a CRV hybrid that gets 2mpg less than my wife's 2012 civic manual
Jokes on them, still using an SUV from 2001 over here.
2007 diesel pickup here. It's even a two seater with a long bed so an actual work truck. Basically makes me a saint compared to those evil SUV drivers.
Meanwhile here I am driving a little 2L manual fiesta (ST150/XR4). Not great, but not bad mileage, but fun AF to drive, and lightweight. It only has a 45L tank, as opposed to a 60-100L tank you find in larger cars.
Then there's also the fact I only drive on weekends or after work. I use public transportation for my commute to work.
Haha, checkmate! Mine emits zero anything!
What kind of vehicle do you have?
probably a bike. he forgot the CO2 emissions through cal burn.
Chevy Bolt and a Nissan Leaf.
I guess your main emission would be tire rubber then, alongside whatever is used to generate the power stored in your car (unless that's also renewables).
You're doing good. Or well. Or both?
I work in the auto industry. Besides the standard 4WD, SUVs have almost nothing going for them compared to a 5 door hatch/station wagon/estate sedan.
I mean, a RAV4 for example, while doing everything it says on the box, and not being an outright bad vehicle, has only marginally more passenger and cargo room than, for example, a Corolla Hatch, while consuming multiple MPG more. Sure, the 4WD contributes to this, but due to the lower weight, better aerodynamics, and smaller engine of a Corolla, it would still be more efficient even if it also had 4WD.