• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 months ago

    You are an idiot if you think the consumer base wants larger vehicles. It is the manufacturers who want larger vehicles. Widen a car’s stance by 3 inches and lengthen it by 6 inches, and it’s suddenly in a class that allows higher emissions and lower economy.

    Every manufacturer has killed off all of their subcompact options rather than even trying to meet the tightening standards for that class. The perverse incentives they have push them to build bigger.

    Paradoxically, the only thing that is going to bring back efficient subcompacts is eliminating economy requirements on the smallest, most efficient class of car, rather than tightening them.

      • @AA5B
        link
        English
        111 months ago

        This consumer made that decision because the Model 3 has a tiny triangular door that is frustrating for tall people to use, plus I want to give my teenagers room to be comfortable in the back seat. It’s reasonable to upgrade from a car that “seats 5” legally to one that actually seats your family comfortably.

        I understand that to some of you I’m part of the problem, but I see an awful lot of single people commuting to offices in trucks and full sized SUVs, so I like to think that’s different

        • @TheGrandNagus
          link
          English
          111 months ago

          I don’t see how the door on a Model 3 is tiny? I’ve been in my friend’s, as well as in countless taxis, and never had an issue, just seems like a normal size/shape door to me.

          I doubt it’d be used so extensively for taxis if it was difficult to get in/out of.

          • @AA5B
            link
            English
            111 months ago
            • I’ve never seen it as a taxi
            • the pillar is too far forward, so us talker people need to maneuver in and back. However it’s too narrow to bend a little at the waist to get in, so I need an extra joint in the middle of my back. Usually I make do by jamming my head against the car frame to force my neck to bend down to my shoulder. Not fun
      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        011 months ago

        I do not deny that a segment of consumers want large cars. I, myself, have need for a 9+ passenger vehicle with a >10,000lb tow rating. A modern Suburban is actually too small to meet the needs of my summer and daytime business, which involves hauling customers and equipment across the county. But, I still have plenty of options on the market for that large vehicle.

        But, my winter and nighttime business calls for a very small, very lightweight vehicle. 30-year-old subcompact designs are more fuel efficient and suitable for couriers (DoorDash, GrubHub, etc.) than anything currently being manufactured. I can’t buy a new subcompact vehicle: there is nothing currently on the market that ideally meets my business needs.

        The closest I can find in terms of ideal size and weight would be a Japanese Kei truck, but maintenance would be a nightmare.

        You are not getting an accurate picture of consumer preference, because the segment of the consumer base demanding small vehicles is not having its needs met.

        Also, obligatory “Fuck Tesla”. Fuck their lack of door handles. Fuck their lack of buttons. Fuck their touchscreens. Fuck their quality and workmanship. And triple fuck the politics of their CEO.

        • Buelldozer
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          I can’t buy a new subcompact vehicle: there is nothing currently on the market that ideally meets my business needs.

          I’m curious what kind of “business need” you have that could be met by a subcompact from 30 years ago but NOT by a Chevy Bolt or Chevy EUV? Either of those have an mpge rating of more than DOUBLE what an old Honda Civic Hatchback or Kei truck could manage plus more cargo space than either of them! The Bolt’s are fairly inexpensive too, 2020 models can be bought used for less than $18,000 and 2017s for less than $14,000.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            011 months ago

            “More cargo space” is the battle cry of the “bigger is better” crowd, so I reject that argument outright.

            Yes, the bolt has better economy. But, the 1990 Honda Civic was 20 inches shorter and 4 inches narrower. An updated Honda Civic with an equivalent drivetrain as the bolt would be smaller and lighter, and thus be getting even better mileage than the bolt.

            Those extra 20 inches in length and 4 inches in width are necessary for the bolt to meet modern emissions standards. Shorten it by 20 inches and narrow it by 4, and Chevy wouldn’t be allowed to produce it, even though it would have a higher economy.

            • Buelldozer
              link
              fedilink
              English
              211 months ago

              “More cargo space” is the battle cry of the “bigger is better” crowd, so I reject that argument outright.

              Then I reject your consideration of a Kei Truck as cargo space obviously isn’t a concern for you.

              But, the 1990 Honda Civic was 20 inches shorter and 4 inches narrower. An updated Honda Civic with an equivalent drivetrain as the bolt would be smaller and lighter…

              Unrealistic as it could not be sold. A 1990 Honda Civic lacks crumple zones and other safety features that are now required on vehicles in the United States.

              …and thus be getting even better mileage than the bolt.

              Nope, the additional safety features make the footprint lager and the vehicle heavier.

              Those extra 20 inches in length and 4 inches in width are necessary for the bolt to meet modern emissions standards.

              Sigh, the Bolt doesn’t HAVE any emissions. It’s a straight EV. The extra size over a 1990 Honda Civic are for the required safety features and drivetrain.

              Yes, the bolt has better economy.

              So what’s the problem? A domestic auto manufacturer DOES in fact make something that would work and that something is superior in every way to a sub-compact from 30 years ago. Go buy one.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Unrealistic as it could not be sold. A 1990 Honda Civic lacks crumple zones and other safety features that are now required on vehicles in the United States.

                So, you’re saying it’s a regulatory preference for larger vehicles, not a consumer preference, right?

                Then I reject your consideration of a Kei Truck as cargo space obviously isn’t a concern for you.

                The maximum length of a Kei truck is 30" shorter than the 1990’s Civic. The maximum width of a Kei truck is 6" narrower than the Civic. Your criticism of the Kei truck is nonsensical.

                • Buelldozer
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  011 months ago

                  No, I’m saying that there’s vehicles made and sold in the United States today that fit your “business need”. The rest of this is you making some bizarre argument about a fictional vehicle that could hypothetically be better.

                  I can’t buy a new subcompact vehicle: there is nothing currently on the market that ideally meets my business needs.

                  Yeah there is, go buy it and quit your whining.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            111 months ago

            Nothing as small as was common in the 90’s. Regulatory standards and manufacturer preference - not consumer demand - is forcing vehicles to be larger.

            You can’t even get an S10 or Ranger sized pickup anymore.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                1
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                Maverick is 7 inches longer, 4 inches wider, and 5 inches taller than a 1990’s Ranger. Despite that, the Ranger’s bed is 20 inches longer than the Maverick’s.

                The Maverick is more comparable to a 1990’s F-150 than the Ranger. Maverick is 6" longer than a 1990s F-150 with the same bed length

                CAFE standards favor the larger footprint.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    111 months ago

                    The reason they don’t make a 2-door version is because the shorter length of a 2-door would tighten the CAFE standards, and it would not be able to comply.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I would argue that it is both. You are certainly correct that manufacturers have many incentives.

      But to deny that many, many Americans will openly tell you they want a larger car to feel safe, a big ole impractical truck to signal masculinity, stuff like that… I dont really see how thats a tenable position.

      People car shame other people all the fucking time.

      “Oh you drive a hybrid, pff, good luck when you need to haul 3 tons up a mountain!”

      “You know, if you wanted your kids to be really safe, youve got to get an (insert favorite car company’s latest SUV model), they the best safety record.”

      Now unless you want to argue that ultimately these consumer preferences were ultimately created by the marketing campaigns of manufacturers years ago and today, amd thus all of that counts as ‘the manufacturers interest’, then I mean well sure yes I agree in that sense, but it seems like that is not what you are saying.

      To your last paragraph, I would appreciate it if you could walk me through how removing various efficiency requirements on standard and compact and subcompacts would lead them to becoming more efficient.

      I can see that argument working in a relative sense, if you mean that newer such cars post-regulatory removal/relaxation would be more efficient than newer larger cars, SUVs and trucks, but not in an absolute sense, as in significantly more efficient than the previously built models of smaller cars they are no longer producing.

      To me it seems the only way to get a more efficient, market viable car is to just switch to a hybrid version or close analog of a gas only sedan or compact or subcompact or hatchback or w/e.

      But that will be a hard pill to swallow for especially the truck crowd, which has largely spent the last two decades loudly telling us that hybrid and electrical vehicles are for f*gs and liberal antifa communists, publicly and privately mocking and berating any one who even considers purchasing one.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Sure, many Americans do have a need for very large vehicles. But there is a similar need for very small vehicles: DoorDash drivers, for example. There are millions of courier drivers in the US. Doordash alone counted 2 million 3 years ago, and their business has only increased since. Paying for their own fuel, these millions of couriers have a considerable financial incentive for the smallest vehicles they can find.

        Manufacturers are meeting the demands of consumers needing very large vehicles, with a wide range of models and options. But they are not making any small cars anymore. None. Nothing on the new car market is as small or smaller than the subcompacts of the 90’s.

        You are not getting a true sense of consumer preferences, because those consumers who do want small cars are being forced to select from larger options.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          1
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Completely agreed, and I know this personally:

          Used Priuses, in particular Prius C’s, are reliable, easy and cheap to maintain and have incredible MPG compared to many other cars.

          This explains why after I was mugged and my Prius C was stolen, I saw it being driven around by a Lyft Driver 2 months after a corrupt used car salesman recycled it into the economy.

          Had the same missing hubcap, same minor scratches. Naturally of course, the police didnt give a shit.

      • Buelldozer
        link
        fedilink
        English
        211 months ago

        publicly and privately mocking and berating any one who even considers purchasing one.

        Those days are pretty much over. The performance of the pending generation of EVs is so high and they’ll be so common place the luddites will exposed as such.

        The new Cadillac Lyric is an excellent example. 5 Passenger SUV and if you spend $3,000 extra it goes from RWD with 300 Horsepower to AWD with 500 Horsepower. Hell the new Silverado EV will have 750 Horsepower and nearly 800 ft/lbs of torque in it’s top trim. Those kinds of numbers simply cannot be denied, even by the tuned and modified diesel freaks.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 months ago

          Hah, I agree with you that /logically/ EVs and Hybrids are just basically great and often superior options at this point…

          …but i feel like you do not know many hillbillies and rednecks.

          Logic is not exactly their forte.

          People make their conspicuous consumption habits /into/ their personalities, and … well basically I can easily imagine that if a gun toting, coal rolling truck owner with the biiiiggest truck nuts you have ever seen… i can easily see that if he crashed or had to sell his truck and drive his battered wife’s honda civic to work, he could actually become seriously depressed.

          Maybe I have just known a lot of really shitty people in my life, I dunno.