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.
Sometimes it’s down to more than what the vehicle can carry, but what the vehicle can tow. A pickup with a 3.5 tonne towing capacity might be a far more useful vehicle than a van that can only pull 1 tonne for example.
Maybe, but the same “work pickups” you see everywhere also aren’t towing anything.
But the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter Van has a towing capacity of 5000-7500 pounds, or 2.5-3.75 tons, depending on configuration. That’s the same range as most medium pickups.
Large vans are often made on the same chassis as trucks, so they have the same transmission and maybe a slightly reduced towing capacity
I’m not decrying the abilities of a big van, I drive a 3.5 tonne Transit for work and love it. But we are comparing apples with oranges. I have a friend who owns a Nissan Navara. During the week it is onsite, dragging machinery around building sites. At the weekend it is a family car, taking the kids out etc.
I do admit though, not all pickups are used in this way and my mate is probably in the minority where he has a genuine need for a vehicle that can handle the extremes of work life and home life.
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.
The title is confusing. It starts by saying “compare the 2023 model to the 2013 model” and then mentions that the mix of cars has changes (proportion of SUVs in the mix). I feel like the title should have been “The average car purchased in 2023 emits higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) than the average car purchased in 2013.” Then you can explain “This is due to the large proportion of SUVs in the mix.”
There needs to be more proofreading and editing of articles before they are published online, as the title here is a direct quote from the article.
I think you’re expecting too much from the English version of Spain’s #2 newspaper.
Yep, can’t expect too much from El Pais
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.
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 all cars are bought with loans though.
Then those data points will have 0 for their loan years and it should bring dowm your average years.
Are those data points even included in the set?
The opposite is also possible: those bought with loans are probably bought new, and would be expected to be held onto for longer. Older cars are cheaper and are probably bought more with cash. They probably also kick the bucket / are re-sold more quickly.
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.
Fine whatever. I will start leaving notes in the bed of gas guzzling pickups that say “sorry about the micropenis you feel you need to compensate for”
that would be a great way to undermine your entire cause.
some people just prefer larger cars, and pivoting to some bizarre comment about their genitalia is an incredibly stupid way to go about dealing with the issue.
and pivoting to some bizarre comment about their genitalia is an incredibly stupid way to go about dealing with the issue.
I was just about to say the same thing to the person you were replying to.
Immature responses doesn’t convince anyone of anything.
Oh woah is me. The small dick energy crowd won’t be on my side. Oh woah is me woah is me.
deleted by creator
You clearly don’t know what a CDL is
Could you give the rest of us a quick education on what that is?
deleted by creator
2 secs with Google would show you it’s a Commercial Driver’s License.
I’n never sure though that the initials a person is using is for the same thing that comes up as the first item on a Google search, so I like to ask the person instead.
But I’m sure you already knew that.
I wouldn’t have bothered asking if I did.
but again, you knew that.
Not sure how I pissed you off, but I really didn’t know.
For those that (actually) didn’t know, there ya go.
As someone who didn’t know, thank you.
You must be lots of fun at parties.
Boring…sorry you were shortchanged down there.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
Hey don’t hate on factory 600+lb-ft diesels so many great engine swaps in my OSB pickups future.
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.
I can confirm. In 2023 despite having LED lightbulbs - we consume 7 more watts per hour per lightbulb than the average lightbulb did in 1546.
The lights back then probably weren’t very bright were they?
But they used very little electricity, almost none
They also did jack shit for illumination, so…
The average light bulbs in 1546 definitely did jack shit that’s for sure.
Yeah considering they didn’t discover electricity until the 1700s then they didn’t even invent one that lasted long enough to be practical until 1879.
That’s the joke isn’t it? Just for historical context Michaelangelo completed the Last Judgement on the Sistine chapel in 1541, so like 5 years before 1546, and I don’t think he had flashlights to help him with the lighting.
Induced demand. If the option is there people will use it.
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?
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.
But politicians rarely see that far out.
That’s not how the calculations for streets work. National economy is pretty darn complex and streets are paying for itself in a lot of countries.
Source: Trust me bro.
Public transit literally pays for itself, no “darn complex” calculation required.
deleted by creator
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.
Regulations literally brought us to this…
deleted by creator
Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this.
You really blame the companies for following the law as written?
deleted by creator
Enforcement is also the EPA’s responsibility, not the companies.
And you can’t enforce the ‘spirit’ of the law. That’s not how laws work. That would be soooo easily abused.
Yeah, because regulatory capture is inevitable under our system.
Capitalism is always going to end back here if companies are allowed to grow to the point they can exert political influence
I’d honestly say it’s a bit of both. The regulations affecting this are pretty terrible and allow for the loopholes that are creating the issues we’re seeing today. But from my perspective, reducing these regulations won’t solve the problem. I would argue that we need both incentives and regulations that address this directly. That way, any companies that are still producing larger vehicles just to shirk regulations would be doing it at their own expense and for (hopefully) a niche market that still wants larger vehicles.
deleted by creator
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.
A four door jeep is very much a SUV, a two door jeep less so.
I don’t think I agree. Pretty sure a 2 door jeep is still a sport utility vehicle
I am not a jeep fan but I don’t think I can put a 2 door YJ in the same category as say an escalade. We need to make trains and smaller cars cool again.
deleted by creator
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:
- 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.
it’s a fucking stupid piece of shit for the same reason the other ones are pieces of shit. you think electricity is magic or something? like it comes free out of God’s asshole? your car sucks ass you fell for a scam
It comes from the same ball of gases in the sky that you apparently stared at for too long.
how do you think solar panels and batteries and electrical infrastructure are made do those come from God’s ball of dicks too
deleted by creator
People say everything is possible ? Musk, the step father of the modern EVs also said electricity would be free back in the day. Something’s fishy around here.
this is some peak Reddit shit
Makes you feel at home, doesn’t it?
yes my house is full of autistic toilet bowl optimism
Sounds comfy
I can make my own… Do you make your own gas?
I used to know a lady who made her own ethanol from old news papers and a still, but I get your point.
I could, it’s just a chemical. I watched people making fuel from plastic waste . Why?
Suzuki Ignis is stupid then?
Kinda yeah, why not buy a hatchback instead? The Suzuki being taller will inherently have more wind resistance, hence worse gas milage and Co2. Unless you absolutely need the extra ground clearance, which very very few do, it’s stupid.
It is taller but it’s overall still a small car and also very light. It also uses battery to help with acceleration a bit (mild hybrid). I don’t think just because it’s taller it automatically makes it worse. There must be other factors to consider too.
And the reason I personally don’t like hatchbacks is because I’m quite tall and I don’t like sitting low as it feels uncomfortable to me and makes getting in and out of a car pain in the ass… especially when parking near other cars with little space to open the door.
I don’t think just because it’s taller it automatically makes it worse.
It makes it get less mpg/range. Also Less “safe” as the higher center of gravity will mean taking emergency maneuvers “swerving to avoid collision” more difficult and the chance of rollover more likely. These are just facts.
And the reason I personally don’t like hatchbacks is because I’m quite tall and I don’t like sitting low as it feels uncomfortable to me and makes getting in and out of a car pain in the ass…
I’m 6’5 and understand where you’re coming from but, your comfort is basically bad for the environment in a small minute way is my point. I’m sure it’s still more efficient then 99% of cars in general by the sound of it though.
You’re the asshole here. There’s SUVs and crossovers (aka short SUVs), almost zero sedans are manufactured these days thanks to the dumb ass govt and cafe. I don’t even want nor have**** an SUV, but judging people for having something you don’t want is ignorant and foolish. People pick from what is available for the most part. Giant cheap ass SUVs are easier to find than a small sedan that gets 4 mpg better mileage and that’s the govt’s fault.
it has nothing to do with personal preference. that is your own selfish rhetorical frame. those things are wasteful and dangerous and require shitty hostile infrastructure. they are also a huge scam and you don’t need one. this is why Americans are depressed as fuck.
I have a 7 seat tandem bicycle and tow a wagon on my grocery trips. Don’t mind the fact that the nearest Walmart is a 14 mile trip since I can’t take the highway on my 7 seat bicycle, that’s not relevant. I just have to keep in mind that as my toddlers grow their pedals and seats need to be adjusted, but at least they should have more power to drive us up 15° grades as they grow. Thank goodness we will never have to leave our home in any case of emergency because our nearest hospital is only 10 miles away, well, make that 20 miles since we can’t use the highway. At least we have the consolation of only getting 8’ of snow each winter. Could be worse. Just gotta get my 4 year old to use his weight for traction. So long as we have public transport we should be just fine. All I have to do now is lobby my government for the infrastructure to create public transport. That should be easy. I mean it’s one infrastructure, what could it cost? $10?
sounds like a shitty life
Sounds like you don’t understand that other people’s lives are different from your own.
i know everything there is to know about your life
Sick. Finally someone I don’t have to share with.
I have an SUV thst weighs 2,000 pounds and has a 1.3 liter engine, it seats two, you need to stop being a dumbass and sell your gas guzzling car because it absolutely has more wasted seats and a larger engine.
What suv is that?
It’s a crossover. Mine has an even smaller engine.
Ok but, what make and model exactly?
Kona 1 liter
Why not get the i30 instead though? They’re the same car but the Kona gets less gas milage and is worse for the environment?
Kona -
Emission NEDC CO₂, Combined 117 g/km
Fuel Consumption NEDC City 6 l/100km Highway 4.7 l/100km Combined 5.2 l/100km
I30 -
Emission NEDC CO₂, Combined 117 g/km
Fuel Consumption NEDC City 5.4 l/100km Highway 4 l/100km Combined 4.5 l/100km
Why not the i20? Why not the i10? Why not walking?
I like the Kona so I bought it. Now I have it and I like it so I’ll keep having it.
deleted by creator
How often do you carry large bulky items that you specifically need an SUV for? Because I’m pretty certain the justification you use happens maybe 4 times a year.
deleted by creator
You can fit a dog, 1 child, 1 toddler, a stroller and 3-4 bags of groceries and have space over for other “kid shit” in a VW Passat which is the US equivalent of a mid-size vehicle. The idea that you NEED an SUV for kids, kid shit and groceries is just false. And it’s not like you’re doing home improvement store runs while all the before-mentioned people/things in the car which means those can also just as easily fit those as well.
As for “they get better MPG” feel free to show me the SUV that has this exceptional mileage that has similar spec sedans beaten.
deleted by creator
You know, we wouldn’t be having this discussion if you had owned your ignorance and arrogance. The only reason we’re having this conversation is because of your need to justify your wife’s shitty SUV. I simply called you out because I know it’s BS. Had you said “I’m a stupid fucker and I love SUV-s” there would’ve been nothing for me to say because it’s the only justification for owning an SUV. All you had to do was own the truth, but you wanted to give some “real” justifications with hopes of someone validating your (or your wife’s) shitty decision. That way you wouldn’t have to accept the real reason for owning an SUV.
If you want to continue raging go ahead, I couldn’t care less. Just own up the real reason you (or your wife) owns an SUV.
deleted by creator
Google pedestrian deaths by SUVs compared to conventional sedans. To say there is no rational argument against the SUV trend is laughably ignorant.
It also confuses me why yanks keep pretending small SUVs have more space than conventional station wagons. Unless you’re going full Yankee and think a 7 seater is “small”… despite the size they often have worse visibility and less passenger space, it’s a genuinely impressive how bad something like a Nissan kicks or toyota C-HR manage to be.
deleted by creator
Ok so we could’ve saved time if you just said you’re the least cool person imaginable with negative sense of style. Claiming that this is somehow cooler than this is entirely indefensible, SUVs are the literal antithesis of cool, the “soccer mum” moniker is not a term of endearment and your insinuation that wagons are uncool or old fashioned is, at best, misinformed.
Aside from just being criminally uncool and unsexy, there are objective ways that SUVs/CUV are worse as well, most notably safety for other road users but also higher cost and of course the one people like me care about: that they also that they universally drive worse than a comparable passenger car.
I guess you didn’t Google the safety stats on SUVs vs passenger cars, your allegory to blaming the tools is flawed. It’s more like saying guns without safetys are more dangerous than those with them. All cars (much like all guns) are dangerous, but some are more likely to be involved in accidents than others.
deleted by creator
In Not just Bikes video on the subject, they’ve demonstrated that the utility portion of small trucks/ SUVs from all the auto makers have been getting weaker over time (loss of cargo space), and yet people still buy them.
Once you drive one, it will change your pov
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.
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.
