The average car purchased in 2023 emits higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO₂) than its 2013 equivalent. This is due to the large proportion of SUVs in the mix, which tend to be bigger and heavier.
(english.elpais.com)
from boem@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 26 Oct 2023 13:30
https://lemmy.world/post/7361262
from boem@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 26 Oct 2023 13:30
https://lemmy.world/post/7361262
threaded - newest
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.
You can thank the EPA and their CAFE standards for that.
Yes, because free market capitalism has been working out great.
Regulations literally brought us to this…
.
.
Poorly written regulations with giant gaping loopholes for companies to skirt caused this.
You really blame the companies for following the law as written?
.
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.
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.
Regulatory capture brought us to this.
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 think you assumed that comment said something it didn’t.
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.
This video here explains one of the issues one minute in. Definitely worth a watch.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, and if you’re going to use one vehicle for both, that makes sense. Personally I wouldn’t use my personal vehicle for work like that, because if it gets wrecked somehow, my insurance won’t cover it, and I’d be out of a car until I fight the company’s insurance enough to get something out of them. But that might be a US thing.
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.
<img alt="It’s all about the classification!" src="https://i.imgur.com/xYcHYtv.gif">
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'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 call them vans with a 4 foot tumour.
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.
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.
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.
No need to convince me, I love my v60
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Station_wagon#Comparison_wi…). 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.
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.
They took a Fiesta and made it heavier with worse handling. And they do it with every car now. It’s infuriating.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was with you on everything until that last sentence.
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
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.
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.
The most suitable vehicle for their purposes would be a minivan, but they think minivans are dorky. You could say the reason is vanity.
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.
.
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
The car market isn’t like the smartphone market though. These manufacturers don’t build a one size fits all model to release worldwide, they build specific models for each market that sometimes overlap with other market models but more often dont.
The first widespread introduction of catalytic converters was in the United States automobile market. To comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s stricter regulation of exhaust emissions, most gasoline-powered vehicles starting with the 1975 model year are equipped with catalytic converters.[1][
One of CARB’s responsibilities is to define vehicle emissions standards. California is the only state permitted to issue emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act, subject to a waiver from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Other states may choose to follow CARB or the federal vehicle emission standards but may not set their own.[2]
Yes while CARB may effect other vehicles sold in the US (the same market), it doesn’t necessarily effect cars sold in other markets on the other continents. As I said, they generally build different cars for each market which is why Europe gets so many diesels, Australia gets Utes, the US gets SUVs in all flavor, etc.
Idk why I like SUV. I don’t need one, I know I shouldn’t have one, yet I’d like to own one. I hate sedan for absolutely no reason.
The main benefit imo is not having other car’s headlights directly at your eye level. When all the other cars are so much bigger and higher than yours they often don’t see you (or pedestrians), which is somewhat dangerous. Of course by then switching to an SUV or truck you instead contribute to the problem which propagates the cycle further. So I stick to my little hatchback with 40mpg+ and just deal with the fact that I’ll always have headlights higher off the road than my face and be taking evasive action to avoid getting hit every once in a while.
We’ll be driving monster trucks in 2033
Please share which hatchback that does 40mpg+. Mazda have a reputation of fuel efficient but I still can’t get the 40mpg they advertise no matter how I drive the Mazda 3. Best I can get is 31mpg
I have an Audi A3 TDI and it easily exceeds 40mpg (and yes it’s one of the ones caught cheating emissions tests).
People like to be higher on the road, especially higher than other people.
I guess I understand the desire, but I feel the opposite.
The few times I’ve driven trucks or vans, I felt really uncomfortable, like I might accidentally run over something without noticing it.
There are 7 billion people. How exactly are we going to have a system where they all try to be the highest?
I like sitting higher so I can see over other vehicles. Also as a tall person getting into and out of a truck is much easier than from a car. Safety plays a big factor aswell; if I end up in a accident I’ll rather be in the bigger vehicle. Compared to american trucks mine is quite compact though. It’s called Frontier in the US.
Make sense, I’m a tall person myself, 188cm (6"2’), I got trouble fitting in some sedan and hatchback (my head would hit the ceiling if I sit straight up). Maybe that’s why I don’t like them.
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 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?
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’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.
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.
Yeah I call bullshit. People don’t want modern cars because they are low to the ground, smaller and harder for people to get into.
As a 6’2” dude every time I get into a rental car I smack my head and have to contort myself to get in and out. There is also never enough room for anything beyond a few suitcases. I always breathe a sigh of relief when I get back to my truck after a long business trip in a car.
Crossovers and trucks are popular because they have space and are easier to get out of. Full size cars from the 80s tend to be way bigger than full size cars from today. Once cars started shrinking and getting lower to meet EPA mileage requirements which is also the same period of time when people started abandoning cars for trucks and SUVs in the 90s.
1.9% of americans are 6’2" or above
Shit I’m 6’1" and I drive a Miata.
Modern sedans are so tall you barely even get “down” into them. And you can’t use the “its easier to get in” when you have to jump up into something like a Tahoe, or step up into something smaller like a Rav 4.
A friend of mine was 6’7" and drove a hyundai elantra. Also has a condition that causes him severe fatigue and joint pain. He makes so much fun of little bitches like you, because the elantra easily and comfortably accommodates him so there’s no fucking way it doesn’t also accommodate you.
So you and your friend regularly go up to random strangers who ride around in SUVs and trucks and call them bitches? Sounds needlessly aggressive.
No I wouldn’t fit comfortably in an Elantra. In fact I wouldn’t buy a Hyundai anything in the first place.
I guarantee you you’d fit comfortably in an elantra unless you’re well past the point of morbid obesity. Further, it’s incredibly obvious that the point of talking about his height is to show how you literally have no ground to stand on. Lastly, no, obviously we don’t go up to random people in trucks and start calling them losers. We do make fun of losers that don’t understand how to sit down in a car without banging their head. (I’ll give you a hint. Instead of standing facing the front of the vehicle, face your back to it and sit down in the seat.) Also, losers that complain about roominess in cars that have plenty and instead opt to put everybody else on the road in greater danger while also increasing the rate of the climate crisis.
Glad to hear you wouldn’t buy a hyundai. That’s incredibly irrelevant to the point.
Meh I’m 6’4" and don’t mind the small cars. In fact I prefer them when getting rentals. They’re easier to drive and park and cheaper to fuel up. I got an Escalade recently because it was the last car available and I hated it.
What reality do you live in that you think vehicles in the U.S. are getting smaller? Please compare a new Colorado or Maverick pickup to an S-10 or Ranger from the 90’s. Sales of fullsize cars have decreased over time (but that’s only because they have been replaced by trucks and SUVs).
Let me give you the TLDR summary. I made the point that trucks and SUVs became popular about the same time that full size cars got smaller in America.
No where did I state that trucks or SUVs got smaller.
You can’t tell me a 80s Chevy Caprice is the same size as a 23 Honda Accord or Nissan Maxima.
I'm 6'3" and fit into my small car no problem. And it's got more space than my neighbor's SUV because it's a wagon.
Plus minivans are just as big, if not bigger, and have a high seating position, but aren't popular.
also interesting is how few car makers even produce normal sized cars anymore, let alone smaller ones.
newsweek.com/its-hard-find-small-car-us-thats-not…
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.
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.
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.)
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.
Oh woah is me. The small dick energy crowd won’t be on my side. Oh woah is me woah is me.
Woe*
lol good luck with that
I’m now hearing your comment in a ‘Bill and Ted’ type voice.
On a serious note, if you want to win people over to your cause, try not to insult them, but instead convince them.
Nah I don’t want small dick energy crowd on my side.
I was just about to say the same thing to the person you were replying to.
Immature responses doesn’t convince anyone of anything.
Literally the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. You clearly don’t know what a CDL is, don’t understand the function of weigh stations, and for that, actual trucks that require them have had emission systems for a long time now.
Boring…sorry you were shortchanged down there.
Shortchanged on what? Reality?
Could you give the rest of us a quick education on what that is?
2 secs with Google would show you it’s a Commercial Driver’s License. Used for Commercial Vehicles which have a gross weight of over 26k lbs, or required to tow a trailer over 10k lbs GVR. But I’m sure you already knew that. Weight stations are for weighing vehicles that qualify as CMV’s and / or that are subject to the FMCSR’s, hence the 3 little red lights in the back of them, but again, you knew that.
For those that (actually) didn’t know, there ya go.
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.
I wouldn’t have bothered asking if I did.
Not sure how I pissed you off, but I really didn’t know.
As someone who didn’t know, thank you.
You must be lots of fun at parties.
Sorry dude, moving quick and didn’t realize you weren’t the original guy that said that stupid shit. Eternity is a terrible app. I have no issues explaining shit to people who actually didn’t know. Yes, I’m awesome at parties, especially when drunk.
Fair enough, thanks.
Good to hear. That’s important, especially these days.
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.
From the article…
So, who do I believe?
There’s nothing to not believe, look up the fuel averages. My wife’s Escape averages 40mpg.
“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.
Didn’t read the article but the headline contradicts itself.
It says “equivalent vehicles” and then immediately talks about to difference in vehicle size and weight.
It says “2013 equivalent”, referring to average car bought in 2023.
But that doesn’t matter, because it’s not the headline of the article, but OP editorializing it.
It’s also not technology. It’d be nice if one of the “technology” communities actually focused on technology and scientific development, not business news or whatever Elon Musk is doing today.
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.
hips.hearstapps.com/…/6FV55c1HMDfBR-BESdVCQJZvKOC…
autotrader.com/…/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.
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.
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
Thank you!
Wow it is like induced demand but for resources en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
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?
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.
Induced demand. If the option is there people will use it.
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.
Would means rugs are quite a bit cleaner now, so I would say the vacuum did its job.
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.
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. youtu.be/jN7mSXMruEo?si=7PsOF-WE8MXX87vX
What the fuck does Regan have anything to do with a comparison from 2013 -> 2023?
What is this fixation with Regan I see on Lemmy literally everywhere?
The correct answer is to charge taxes based on miles driven * [a factor/multiplier of the]cars weight.
Not sure what a president from 1988 would have shit to do with this.
Edit: Also, this article is UK based… So it’s even doubly so of “what the fuck does Regan have to do with it?”
People see a meme saying Reagan is the root of all evil and think it’s actually true.
The actual root of all evil is fucking Woodrow Wilson!
I agree it’s as silly as it is unproductive to claim that Reagan is directly responsible for something like this, as if everything he did was somehow written in stone for 30+ years.
The person you replied to was referencing the CAFE standards, which are far more lenient when it comes to so-called “light trucks”. Thanks to a vague legal definition that was never changed , “the class includes vans, minivans, sport utility vehicles, and pickups” (source). Since inefficient “light trucks” are much more profitable than fuel-efficient cars, that’s where the marketing budget went for the last couple decades.
A couple of important hiccups, though:
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.
What is a congestion charge in this case? It sounds more like a traffic/road maintenance thing than related to emissions?
Most places I’ve lived (US and Canada) only require emissions testing if the vehicle is old enough not to have modern emissions control sensors. The test costs maybe $20 every couple years, which is nothing compared to all the other costs of owning a vehicle.
Presumably your 2010 Polo doesn’t have a check-engine light if the catalytic converter has a hole in it, but your 2021 4x4 most certainly does.Edit: (See comments below about emissions systems).
Specifically Washington State only required emissions testing (tailpipe test on a Dyno) on model years 2008 and older, after which the only requirement is California’s “CARB certified” with no testing other than at the factory. And as of 2020 they don’t even do emissions testing anymore.
It is a charge to drive an older (not better working or less polluting necessarily) model mode of transport in a particular area. It is not a test or anything. Most of these are enforced with licence plate readers and the info on the registry.
Interesting, thanks for the explaination. That’s definitely not something I’ve seen around here. If anything there’s more fees for having a new vehicle because they’re all heavy SUVs / Trucks / EVs, and you end up paying a heavy vehicle tax that older (and generally lighter) cars don’t hit.
At least a heavy vehicle tax has some base in physics (more mass needs more energy to move and all that). The idea that new vehicles are better for emissions just due to when they are made is silly.
The Polo is not mine, I have the 4x4. S friend has the Polo.
Where I live it is law to have a fully functional catalytic converter and it’s tested every year and replaced if needed.
Also it’s a poor justification anyway, we don’t legislate to fine people for something their car might be doing. But then that’s not really what the congestion charge is aimed at because it’s a really obvious poor tax that people tolerate because it will ultimately ease congestion, albeit unfairly.
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.
In the US, this is due to auto makers working around CAFE standards
No, that’s a crying point for thinking that every vehicle can magically get that number by literally being testing in 100 difference situations. Average / combinations is all you’re going to get. Clearly MFG’s still try to get as much as possible, they’re not stupid and know it’s a selling point.
It’s not about the testing, it’s about the SUV/light truck loophole that’s allowed automakers to build larger vehicles that aren’t counted for CAFE calculations. Here’s one article about it: distilled.earth/…/the-loophole-that-made-cars-in-…
youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=qr9WtqI3exlc2Ghp
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/azI3nqrHEXM?si=qr9WtqI3exlc2Ghp
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Good bot
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
What if instead we had Less Cars and more Public Transit?
Id like to have more public transit than I currently have which is none.
"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.
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.
Do you go to work for free?
Please clap lemmy
And get rid of all those union jobs?
Why are you promoting a fallacious idea?
Why are you disregarding my idea without providing any effort or ideas of your own?
Because they can’t, and running purely on ignorance.
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.
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.
This is good because when the world goes to shit while the sun is cooking us alive and people want to use my shelter in the post apocalypse, I can tell them all to fuck off without feeling bad for them.
.
LOL! The ol’ “taxing people” fixes everything mindset. Move to Europe, they share that mindset.
.
No clue what that stupidity is supposed to mean.
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.
Hey don’t hate on factory 600+lb-ft diesels so many great engine swaps in my OSB pickups future.
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.
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?
World or US?
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 😐
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’d gladly pay the extra fuel costs to have a vehicle that’s worth a damn and has actual towing, hauling, and off road capabilities.
A body on frame SUV (like a Ford Excursion) is quite possibly the most utilitarian and swiss army knife like vehicles available. It seats a huge amount of people, has as much space as a cargo van, has the same tow rating as a 3/4 ton truck, and its 4WD with big tires and lots of ground clearance.
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.
That’s complete bullshit, even at today’s gas prices.
I would assume a slip tank or something but at todays gas prices that is less then 300 litres. Stupid, yes. Complete bullshit, no.
Fuck SUVs.
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.
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.
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 www.mini.co.uk/en_GB/home/…/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.
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:
<img alt="" src="https://ttrpg.network/pictrs/image/a0e65726-e235-4649-8323-a5d7b4d94efe.jpeg">
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
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 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.
www.badgertruck.com/…/truck-classification/
An f350 can get that heavy, but 99% of the pickup trucks you see aren’t even half that weight.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Depends on which model you’re talking about.
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.
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:
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
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?
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
The EV fans tip toe around the fact that not only do they suck the life out of the electric grid, which they fight every step of the way when power co’s want to produce more power , especially nuclear which is as clean as it gets, but that the lithium batteries are incredibly toxic and can’t be recycled. Same goes for the off the chart levels of toxicity that comes from solar panels which dont live long.
Once you drive one, it will change your pov
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
Kona info
i30 info
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.
The whole point of this post is how cars today emit more Co2 than they did ten years ago. I’m just pointing out that people like you are the reason this is true. The Kona is literally(not figuratively) an i30 jacked up a couple of inches and now emits more Co2.
Maybe I wanted to buy a slightly higher car and find the Kona more appealing than the i30. Who are you to police my taste? It’s still a car that’s not the gas guzzler you try to portray. You could also say the i30 is just a slightly bigger version than the i20 and now emmits more CO2. Where do you cross the line?
In my country I actually pay taxes according to engine size and emissions and guess what, I pay very little because it’s still on the lower end of the pollution scale. It’s a 3 cylinder for Christ’s sake! I don’t see you complain to sedan, offroad or sports car owners, and they pollute (and pay) way more than a small crossover. Or people that use their car everyday. I ride a small 125cc motorcycle everytime it is not raining. I bet I pollute a lot less than you do.
I dislike big SUV’s as much as you, but I find odd people trying to put them all in the same boat ignoring their body and engine size. People like what they like and have no need to justify themselves. If you’re worried about pollution talk numbers because that’s what really matters.
That’s pretty much all you did.
It’s not the same but, even if it was, why can’t I prefer a taller car? You are judging according to your preferences. If I had chosen a sedan you wouldn’t care. By the way, what do YOU drive. I bet it has a bigger engine than mine, yet here you are.
I answered a comment, not the article. I’m actually inclined to agree with the article. You’re the one that felt the need to pick up a fight from your own high horse. Just because I reminded someone not all SUV’s are huge trucks with huge engines. How dare I prefer something your excellency finds not due if thy approval.
K
And regarding the i30 and the Kona, you have no clue what you’re talking about. I actually took my time to pick that car. They both use the same platform, yes, but that’s it (obviously, they share some of the same equipment) . The Kona was supposed to be a crossover version of the i20 but they used the bigger platform to accommodate the electric version. That was way before they came up with the Bayon.
I never considered the i30 because it was out of my price range. Yeah, price is a factor buddy. Yes, the Kona was considerably cheaper than the i30. I was actually debating between the Kona and the Citroën C3. They had similar prices. But I wanted a larger car so the Kona was a no brainer. I basically got something like an i30 for the price of an i20 and boy am I happy.
So, with the dilemma of having the car I needed or your approval, well…how hard could it be. So, get a life.
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.
that’s the point of a suburb isn’t it? you never have to share anything
Oh I thought you knew… I don’t live in a suburb.
Who said it’s unessasary? You? Speak for your own needs. What about the utility part? Where are you putting large bulky items? How about many bags of top soil? Trash going to a dump maybe?
It’s amazing how pathetically ignorant you are to think your needs line up with everybody elses. There are FAR more cars on the road than trucks. You’d know that if you actually lived in this country. People buy trucks because we need them, do you think we just LIKE paying more at the pump or something? If I could get away with some hyper fuel efficient thing you don’t think me and my wallet would love that especially at today’s bullshit gas prices?
My wife’s Small SUV/CUV averages a little over 40mpg, you have zero legit complaint against them. They’re also no bigger than cars ever were, they just sit SLIGHTLY higher. You have no clue what you’re talking about.
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.
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.
Constantly, kids, all the shit that comes along with them, groceries, home improvement store runs. Are you in the US? I don’t think you grasp what (today) Small SUV/CUVs are. Theres also no need for “justification”. They get better MPG and put out less on the emissions side than the normal cars did before them, there’s no rational argument against them. Just people that like to cry.
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.
LOL, do you think we don’t have VW Passats in the US? And again with justification. Her SUV gets great MPG, even for a “car” and gives us room do actually do things comfortably, not shit smashed against the windows. You Eurpoeans just clearly like to be cramped everywhere you go, your apartments, your cars, your alley ways that you call streets, your little dorm fridges that are supposed to hold enough food for a family somehow. No thanks. I don’t have to “justify” anything, nor do we need to buy clown cars to make cry babies happy. If SUVs of today got 10mpg like the originals, there could be an argument, that’s long gone.
Also, 3-4 bags of groceries? You must use that NEED with your eating as well, just enough to not die huh?
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.
No, the ignorant one would be you thinking that I, my wife or anybody else needs to “justify” what they buy to anybody.
My (actual truck) is much larger than her CUV, go loose some sleep over that. I assure you that when I had a yard of topsoil in its bed last week to do my fall landscaping, that your car, an SUV or any training truck couldn’t have physically done it, because they can’t. They also couldn’t pull my camper, probably not even my boat.
Get this through your thick European skull, were not Europe, we don’t want to be Europe, we don’t need to justify or make excuses for what we want, or what we buy. That’s a thing only you people do so that you can virtue signal others into excepting you. That’s called living in a free country. I know that’s overload for your underpowered brain, but that’s how it is, and that’s how it’s always going to be. Feel free to never come here, we don’t want you.
The whole point of my previous comment was that you don’t need to justify your SUV (or your truck) and you should just own your decision and let the rest of us think of you as an asshole. I’m going to be nice and assume you just wanted to repeat my own point back to me, you know to show that you do in fact have reading comprehension.
But it seems you missed something the first time so I’m going to rephrase the following using more plain words - the reason this thread exists in the first place is because you wanted to justify your SUV. For some reason you didn’t take your own advice (about not needing to justify some things) because we wouldn’t be here if you did. But here’s to hoping that next time you take your own advice before you let your fragile ego write the comment.
The only people that would think somebody is an asshole for choosing a vehicle they personally didn’t want would be judgemental assholes themselves that try to shame people they disagree with and try to use social pressure to push their hive mind on others.
The last thing I am is fragile, I’m not the one that’s offended by others vehicle choices.
Enjoy your wimpy little Prius though.
Alright, explain the reasoning of your first comment in this thread. Because in that comment you’re justifying owning an SUV, but now you’re saying you don’t need to justify it. Clearly you felt the need to do it the first time around? I don’t see how that’s not a sign of a fragile ego.
.
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.
Ahahahahaha, fucking station wagon? Seriously? Sorry, the 1980’s are long gone.
The ridiculous arguments here are priceless. Guns kill people, pencils misspell words, and spoons make people fat right? Why blame the person behind the wheel, when you can blame the tool right? Personal responsibility? What’s that?
I’m seriously questioning at this point if you people even grasp what a CUV is, because that’s the overwhelming majority herez not the SUVs of 15yrs ago. I for your sake, I hope station wagon means something else there as well. NOBODY wants to be caught dead in a fucking station wagon
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.
Aside from those station wagons literally not exiting here, that I’d assume cx60? Is a lot more plain will less body lines than what we have, that stwag isn’t terrible looking, but still couldn’t do it. If people wanted them, they’d sell them here.
Also seems they have bigger engines and clearly a larger physical footprint than my wife’s CUV, so that argument is gone as well.
Yeah depending on where “here” is different things are available. If people don’t buy them or if dealers make more money off SUVs, then they will be gone.
Size and fuel economy weren’t things I mentioned above, but yeah I agree with you. Usually station wagons, like SUVs, have different engine configurations which dictates fuel economy more than ride height. The fuel efficiency argument against SUVs is a little out of date, the smaller ones are shared chassis with passenger cars often with the same engine, so fuel economy is more or less unchanged (the aero is worse on an SUV, but the kind we are discussing it’s not really significant). By footprint I guess you mean length, which in the example I have is right, obviously height goes the other way. Smaller SUVs are more comparable to hatchbacks (eg Mazda 3 is the same as CX-30), I don’t think the mid sized car platform is as directly comparable to the mid sized CUV/SUV.
Let’s not point the finger at anyone for having stupidly big cars cough 🤧 US cough 🤧
Asthma?
Just something that had to be coughed out I’d say.
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.
tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge
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: 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.
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.
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: …wikipedia.org/…/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#:….
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.
This is basically what we already have. What we should do is require drivers to have a CDL to drive body on frame trucks.
I just learned about the Tyre Extinguishers. They use lentils to depress the pin on the valve cap of an SUV’s tyre, so that the tyre deflates without getting damaged. It’s super effective and it’s not a crime. They are called the Tyre Extinguishers.
In the worst case they don’t notice and lose control on the highway and die. I’m pretty sure that’s illegal. This is hardly different from suggesting to cut their brake lines.
Wire cutters are also not illegal
Neither are hammers but hitting someone in the head with one is.
I didn’t think my comment needed am explanation, but thanks for providing one.
You’re an asshole.
I really am not, Sugartits :)
2013 was just 3 days ago
I got a CRV hybrid that gets 2mpg less than my wife’s 2012 civic manual
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.
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.