I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or minivan, not a four wheel drive Suburban.
I would KILL for an entry level EV Ford Ranger for our farm. I was close to pulling the trigger on two Chang Li EV trucks, and just keeping one on the charger and hot swapping them if one ran out charge.
I have a soft sport for the old Rangers, but they had some serious safety shortcomings and lack many of the factors that drive modern truck sales now, like large size, higher up, and a correspondingly smoother ride.
It's a work truck, and in the US modern trucks are luxury vehicles, effectively mid-to-large-sized SUVs with a flatbed. I worked in Australia for a while and their 'ute's were quite stripped down in comparison, save for a few models (like the new Ranger, which IIRC was a model first developed for the Australian market).
I’ve never understood the purpose of high beds on a pickup truck. Maybe for carrying ATVs on bad roads?
If I were regularly carrying large or heavy loads in a pickup truck, I think I’d much prefer a low bed for ease or loading and unloading and for a lower center of mass.
Unlike SUVs, pickups don't have an adjustable suspension (pneumatic or hydraulic springs) so if you had a low bed on an empty pickup, it would have likely compressed the shocks completely under a heavy load, or, alternatively, you'd had shocks so stiff that they would not move without load at all. Most people who carry heavy loads in their trucks prefer neither and opt for the "lifted" look due to the long shocks, which work both empty and loaded.
I wonder why. You can buy adjustable-height suspensions for pickups, but they don’t seem to be factory options. This feature exists for plenty of passenger vehicles.
Surely some truck maker could make, and charge more for, a pickup truck with a low bed, excellent handling at any load condition, and the ability to carry increase ground clearance as needed for off-road use.
A bit of searching suggests that the Dodge Ram, the Rivian R1T, and, hypothetically, the Tesla Cybertruck have adjustable suspensions.
A passenger car is usually under 6000 pounds itself and rarely has more than a couple hundred pounds payload. A truck like Sierra 2500 that I most often see lifted, is over 10000 pounds with the payload. A reliable air suspension for that kind of weight is likely too expensive to get any customer demand on a work vehicle and unreliable one is to expensive for the warranty. That would be my guess.
> regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient
This isn't true. The regulations set a minimum allowed MPG is based on size. Manufacturers have decided it's cheaper/easier to build bigger vehicles with worse MPG, than build the previous size with better MPG.
Manufacturers are just following the incentives created by the regulations. Government policies very frequently backfire and create perverse incentives and unintended consequences, hilariously illustrated by the Cobra Effect and the Great Hanoi Rat Massacre.
SUV's can tow, which is a very useful feature if you have a family and also need to tow something.
I have been needing to tow an excavator for the past few months. Renting a truck to haul the excavator back and forth gets extremely expensive, like $200 per day for just the truck, not counting the trailer or the excavator itself.
Making tools, like a vehicle that can haul, more expensive just hurts middle class DIYers. This entire thread is basically people saying "other people don't need to own big nice things, only rich people should be allowed to do that".
If you need a truck, you need a truck, and there's no argument from me. SUVs do make sense for a lot of situations too.
Edit: I've seen exactly zero SUVs pulling trailers in my life though. Mini vans, yes. Trucks, yes (wish they were cheaper). SUVs, somehow I'm not seeing them. Everybody I know with an SUV considers it a car.
Towing though, sometimes I wonder if we're just too cautious. It doesn't take a Ford F-teen-thousand to pull a little something.
Before SUVs were everywhere, cars could tow. Admittedly, old trucks weren't near as capable as new trucks, and some of those old cars were just different bodies on truck frames.
A Jetta with a trailer is pretty standard around the Irish country side, I'm told. I've seen people pull 1000s of pounds behind a 2000 VW Jetta, which is a pretty small car. I'm not saying it'd pull that excavator, but I've seen a dump trailer on one.
I tried to find some towing capacity numbers for my 2013 diesel Golf Sportwagen. Some places say 3500lbs for a braked load. I found a lot of "not recommended for towing" in North America.
Did they build the Euro version better? Some safety standard that holds back the US? Maybe it is lawyers?
But that article also describes a 5-door hatchback that has the same pillars as the wagon.
These terms are not fixed and not mutually exclusive.
I’ve always considered wagons to be based on sedans and with the same length as the sedan but with the trunk expanded into an open cargo area with a hatch/door.
A hatchback is similar but typically, the cargo area is shorter than the sedan and often the hatch is less vertical and contains less space.
An SUV was originally designed like a wagon but built on a truck platform and typically given 4WD.
A CUV is generally a tall wagon build on a sedan/hatchback chassis.
A crossover is more vaguely defined but is built on a sedan chassis with expanded cargo space but less boxy than a wagon and typically only slightly taller than a sedan. A lot a vehicles that are sometimes called SUVs would really fall into the crossover category (Mustang Mach-E, Hyundai Ionic 5)
As much as I agree that this is great news, I would like to see something that isn't focused exclusively on emissions - or even weight for that matter. As important as those are, I would also like to see something that focuses on size as well. There is so much potential in small vehicles, but it is stymied by the proportion of over-sized vehicles on the road. Something to short circuit the 'visibility arms race' would be welcome in my opinion.
The thing is, the efficiency standards of the past two decades greatly shaped the sizes of vehicles produced. Bigger footprint -> lower required efficiency -> easier to meet requirements.
There's some amount of buyers prefer larger vehicles too, but buyers can't buy small vehicles if there are none on the market, and manufacturers won't make them when small vehicles are hard to fit into their fleet economy numbers.
As much as I like hatchbacks and wagons, when a CR-V gets the same gas mileage as an Accord, I'm going to go with the CR-V. More stuff, more ground clearance.
The Honda HRV might -- it's now the "mid-sized" SUV. The CRV has now upgraded to the full-sized and is the basis for the Acura luxury models. The HRV is the size of the old CRVs.
I doubt the new/ current CRV would get a similar mileage, but could see the HRV doing so. Toyota offers similarly sized SUVs (e.g. the CH-R), and those come with hybrid options.
Why? Truck seamlessly and scalably move cargo for thousands of customers at once. Distributing that to hundreds of smaller trucks for tax efficiency would be worse for the env
It wouldn't make sense to distribute to smaller trucks for tax efficiency when considering the cost of the extra trucks, drivers, and loading/unloading. And besides, trucks already pay more in fuel tax.
A mileage tax is going to be a necessity with electrification in the future, and it doesn't make sense for all weight-classes to pay the same tax as they don't do equal damage to roads.
> add an incentive to the thing you actually want and be done with it
Doing both lets those causing the harm to subsidise those providing the solution. Finding everything out of general revenue means taking public-transport riding city folks’ funds to pay for suburbanites’ electric SUVs.
> Finding everything out of general revenue means taking public-transport riding city folks’ funds to pay for suburbanites’ electric SUVs.
That's how government works. Everybody pays for things that the majority agrees are good for the people.
It's not like a gas tax doesn't cost those public-transport riding city fold money. A gas tax increased the price of everything that uses gas, from the bus they ride in to every single product they purchase. They're subsidizing those electric SUVs either way, it's just hidden from them, which is how politicians like it.
The US has the second most CO2 emissions [1], and roughly 28% of that total comes from transportation [2]. That means our transportation emissions are higher than most countries' total emissions. Reducing that number by 25% would be the equivalent of the UK eliminating 100% of its emissions.
2020 seems like an odd year to source those stats from considering how abnormal transportation was during COVID-19.
Particularly air travel, which is part of transportation, would have been way down vs. normal, artificially inflating the %age contributed by others including the fraction you're implying would go away.
I was trying to source the most current information I could find. I'm happy to use more current data. Considering how car-dependent we are, years unaffected (or less affected) pandemic would learn more towards the US having a larger share.
Well, the distribution of transportation's emissions within the US is completely out of wack throughout COVID-19. People stopped commuting by car due to shelter in place and WFH, air travel was paralyzed, deliveries went up and trucking was a shit show.
Throughout 2020 I practically never saw jets in the air, and that's quite unusual for my locale, being east of LA (JTNP).
> “This assessment shows that limiting warming to around 2C (3.6F) still requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest, and be reduced by a quarter by 2030.”
Ain't happenin', and this isn't going to get us there. Only massive, worldwide action will save us.
Again, this is not a "fix" in any sense of the word. At best, by itself, it's a feel good measure. But I'm sure we won't commit to what it would really take.
Being apathetic at home isn't going to inspire others to do better. And there is no one silver bullet. The mess was made by many bad choices. It will take many better choices and laws to turn things around.
This isn't apathy. It's real talk. If you don't like it, I don't know what to tell you. I explicitly said we should do this in another comment. My problem is with calling it a "fix."
My best suggestion is that if you invent a time machine, go back to about 1950 and see if you can nudge events in such a way that the climate crisis doesn't happen.
My problem is in calling this a "fix." It's not a "fix." It's an incremental step, at best, and one that will make no difference unless we have massive, worldwide action.
Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the comment guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
If you apply your own advice to the original comment in this thread, they were saying it was one of the easiest things we can do, not that it was sufficient by itself.
If I apply that interpretation of the original comment, and look at your comments as a rebuttal (which the strength of your language implies), it forces me to interpret them as "worrying about transportation is futile".
Even in this comment here:
> it's an incremental step, at best
You are implying my interpretation wasn't wrong. If it's a step "at best", then what is it at worst?
The SUV Loophole was not a consumer decision. It was a bill passed by Congress after lobbying by the big three automakers who had a niche they could compete against the Japanese and the Europeans. Without it, our domestic automobile industry would have died. It won’t be closed unless the big three have another profitable path forward. I expect electrification is that path with products like the F-150 lightning. The vehicles will not get smaller once battery density and price points are met. I’d actually predict them to get larger. If I could drive an electric suburban, charged by my solar array - why wouldn’t I?
> If I could drive an electric suburban, charged by my solar array
Could an Average American home solar install actually charge enough to match their consumption (average daily miles), and with such a big vehicle (very heavy, moreso as electric)?
Possibly. But more likely, the energy grid will adopt more and more renewables to the point it doesn't matter if you have a local solar grid at home or not.
Assuming 50kwh/day (2/3 of an entire Model 3 battery pack) I’d need roughly a 10kw system. According to Google Sunroof, I can fit a 25KW system on my roof. I could have 2, and still run the AC.
IMHO Americans might like these if they ever got a chance to buy them : https://www.autotrader.co.uk/cars/citroen/berlingo.
Super practical. Not exactly beautiful but hardly worse than a lot of things that cost 4x the price. Take tons of stuff around with you. Fuel efficient. Affordable new, without a huge income. What's not to like? Well, apart from some people being anti-French, they aren't sold in USA presumably because US car-makers and lobby groups have kept them out.
I've been looking for a new small car in the US. There really aren't any options any more. Even the 'small' cars are all 4 doors and I only want 2. All I can come up with is:
Mini and MX-5
I'd love to go electric but the Mini-E range is terrible (~100 miles). They are supposed to be coming out with a new version that doubles the range though, so at least that is good.
So regulations on small cars forced people to buy larger vehicles, and their solution is even more regulations, just this time on larger vehicles? How about just relax regulations on the smallest vehicles, making them more feasible?
No the regulations did not cause people to buy trucks/suvs. It exempted them from fuel efficiency requirements. People want to drive tanks but if we make tanks expensive they won’t. I’m not sure though if it’ll work since the average truck/suv is 50k with many close to 80k.
What they need to do is increase visibility requirements and make the trucks safer for pedestrians.
Whether the regulation gives +1 to category A or -1 to category B the net result is the same. The reduced relative compliance burden on category A makes the end result have more bang for its buck than category B.
You can see this in all sorts of corners of the economy where goods subject to different levels of regulation compete.
> The more hegemonic the system, the more the imagination is struck by the smallest of its reversals. The challenge, even infinitesimal, is the image of a chain failure.
Seriously though, the purpose of those regulations is to prevent upstarts from making simple, cheap, reliable vehicles and to protect the incumbents. Gotta have a big bank account and a lot of lawyers to redesign and crash test a handful of vehicles every few years.
Modern hybrids still don't match (or barely match) the gas mileage of old, small, lightweight cars despite being substantially more complex, less recyclable, less repairable, and using substantially more (and more exotic) materials in production.
Ouroboros regulations only exist to justify their own continued existence. Cars get bigger? More regulations on smaller (less safe) cars, making cars bigger. Rinse and repeat.
That is a big win for the much larger, safer, and more luxurious 2021 Civic. The 1980 one was tiny and not something you wanted to be in in a crash.
Also, the EPA ratings have changed between now and then getting stricter and closer to actual mileage. That 1980 vehicle would get much lower mileage ratings now than it did then.
I’d limit the carveout to trucks with a certain minimum bed size. If you’re using most of the space for seating instead of a cargo bed, you aren’t actually using it as a utility truck.
What's always missing from this discussions is mention of the social norms of the upper middle class who do the bulk of the new car buying and who's preferences determine the shape of the new and used car market. Sure, the CAFE rules are dumb but the behavior of the people who who are spending $50k on midsize pickups and $40k on electric sedans can't solely be explained by a nudge at the margins of tax policy.
As long as the people who's demands and preferences do the lions share of shaping the new car market act like stuffing two car seats into anything less than a 3-row SUV or hauling bulk material on a tarp in a station wagon/crossover is some large burden SUVs/crossovers and pickups will continue to fly off the metaphorical shelves. And this is a self-reinforcing pattern. If people feel like buying a lot of vehicle is the kind of thing that successful white collar professionals do then that's what people with that kind of money will do, at least at the margins.
People buy large cars because that’s what’s available. Anecdotal example: I grew up driving Toyota Camrys. Nice car, lasts forever. At some point in the 2010s they started getting bigger, larger turn radius, lower visibility - all around a worse product.
People wanted rear wheel drive, American made, V8 powered cars. Detroit stopped making those, so people compromised and bought pickup trucks and SUVs. Now Detroit will be forced to stop making those.
You don't want a V8 powered RWD car. Car manufacturers spend huge amounts of money to make you want a V8 powered car. When everyone has an EV, TV ads show cool new EV's and make you look backward for even thinking about burning gasoline you will want an EV.
To be clear, I am talking about large cars, not sports cars. I'm referring to Crown Vic sized cars, not Camaros or Mustangs. I didn't see any ads for the Crown Vic in its last years of production. (That was the last of the cars I am referring to.)
When Chevrolet discontinued the old Caprice & Impala in 1996, it was because journalists were ridiculing them for making them, not because they did not have customers. There were police departments begging to fund more years of production in addition to more than a year of back-orders from civilians. GM cancelled those orders because MBAs who could not change their own oil did not want to be made fun of for producing a car people wanted. Those cars sold used for more their new retail price for almost a decade.
This is a problem across the auto industry. One big auto maker exits a class of vehicle, and everyone wants to follow. Find me a coupe utility vehicle like the 1987 El Camino, a compact pickup like the 2004 S10 pickup, or a full-size American made car like the 1996 Caprice. There is plenty of room in the market for someone to make one model of each of these. Just make them like they used to: simple, easy to work on, and reliable. MBAs can not bring themselves to do it.
If they tried to build a coupe utility vehicle, they would have to turn it into a performance car (like the SSR) because performance cars sell for more money.
If they tried to build a compact pickup they would have to make it the size of a full size truck (like the Colorado,) because full size trucks sell for more money.
If they tried to build a full size car, they would have to turn it into a luxury car with 500+ horse power (like the Charger,) because those sell for more money.
The problem is that none of those contraptions they would produce would sell in the volume of a reliable, low-end vehicle. So they would shut down the production line after two years.
Instead of making cars we want to buy, they are chasing the newest trend, losing billions of dollars on electric cars that we can not afford.
I called out Bob Lutz one time when he said GM was committed to making fuel efficient pickups. At the time the 17 MPG Colorado had recently replaced the 25 MPG S10. I said if they wanted fuel economy, they would bring back the S10 electric, the 25 MPG S10, and clone the 1970's Volkswagen pickup that got 35 MPG on diesel.
They are. They also have a higher center of gravity and are more likely to rollover, but in genera SUV drivers are much more likely to survive crashes than car drivers [0].
But I think it’s hard to generalize as there are many safety factors and there are some cars that are safer than some SUVs (I survived a Chevy avalanche t-boning my Saab 9-3 that totaled both cars and had both avalanche driver and passenger taken away in stretchers and I took a cab home).
But, generally speaking, SUVs are safer because they have such greater mass. And SUVs also have safety features.
*safer for the occupants. They’re much more dangerous to others around them due to higher and more aggressive front ends, more weight, and less ability to see people around you.
I work hard not to run into people. So far, I've had a 100% success rate. I can't say as much for the people around me, so "safer for the occupants" is a strong selling point.
I frequently have a train of thought for “why so many SUVs” and then remember a line from David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” speech [0]…
“ it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive.”
This specific speech changed my way of thinking from considering all these soccer moms in SUVs as jerks sucking up resources into more nuance that maybe they have reasons for why they want a big vehicle and don’t mind paying extra for gas because of it.
It also helped me when my adult child really wanted a big SUV as their first car even though they had no kids, no dogs, no sports with equipment. It was kind of inexplicable to me why they wanted a big SUV, but this quote made me relax and trust that they had a good reason.
> This specific speech changed my way of thinking from considering all these soccer moms in SUVs as jerks sucking up resources into more nuance that maybe they have reasons for why they want a big vehicle and don’t mind paying extra for gas because of it.
If part of the reason one wants a big vehicle is for safety, they are unwittingly participating in an arms race to ever larger, more dangerous vehicles. This arms race doesn't make everyone safer: it disproportionately harms those who either choose not to participate or cannot afford to: pedestrians, bicyclists, scooters, motorcyclists, children, etc. (which are the types of transportation that we should incentivize the most to combat climate change and congestion.)
> It also helped me when my adult child really wanted a big SUV as their first car even though they had no kids, no dogs, no sports with equipment. It was kind of inexplicable to me why they wanted a big SUV, but this quote made me relax and trust that they had a good reason.
If we didn't litter our streets with absolutely massive vehicles, perhaps regular folks wouldn't need to drive a tank just to survive the daily commute. I don't fault consumers for making this choice. CAFE standards incentivized this [1], and regulation is what it will take to change incentives in a safer, climate-friendly direction.
A better observation than “maybe they’re scared to drive or have a good reason for getting a very large vehicle” would be: why does society force people who don’t want to or who are scared to drive into the drivers seat of a vehicle in order to participate in society?
That answer seems simple to me, because cars offer a lot of freedom to move and do things.
As a society we can choose to completely urbanize, and some countries and regions do that pretty well. There’s not too much to choose from in the US to live car free, but it’s possible if someone really doesn’t want to drive.
Taking this to its logical conclusion, I commissioned a Landkreuzer P1000 for my family. It's the only way to be sure you have enough lebensraum on the road.
(I considered the M1A1 Abrams, but just didn't feel safe in the thing.)
I think women and girls especially should drive main battle tanks, given their psychological fragility and propensity to trauma. If you are such a person, and it makes you feel safer, you should absolutely secure oil fields in the Caucasus.
