this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
269 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
57472 readers
3585 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah hah, they are largely not even in the race.
They are still able to sell SUVs and basically at this point road legal monster trucks to a consumer base that still cannot grasp the concept that they could do 99% of what they use a car for with a sedan or hatchback, and that 1% of the time just rent a uhaul.... they could do that and save tons of money on gas with the greater fuel efficiency.
But American car owners are not exactly known for making rational decisions or being good drivers.
Much more important to flaunt status and lifestyle with a car.
Much more important.
The US government created this issue by exempting trucks and SUVs from fuel economy standards imposed on cars. That was the initial motivating factor behind car manufacturers pushing these large vehicles. Now it doesn’t upset car dealers that they can sell them for more money. Also, consumers feel safer in larger vehicles… largely because all the other vehicles on the road are now bigger and will do more harm to smaller vehicles. And, because it’s America, there is a special individualism factor baked in that prioritizes ego over rational sound decision making for the collective betterment of humanity and the environment.
Gonna be reeeeallly fun when all the people who daily drive these things realize:
Wait a minute...
what even is peak oil ?
WHAT?! Gas prices are basically never going to go down again and just keep going higher?!
-===-
My guess is they will then all start complaining about the lack of public transportation, having spent their entire lives voting against funding it.
Unfortunately they will, and this is where a responsible government should step in to manage the market for our future, not just for our right now or oil companies profits.
The problem is that we’re not running out of oil reachable with current technology, fast enough. Peak oil is likely driven by reductions in demand, rather than supply, which pretty much guarantees lower prices. I would bet this will be a drawn out process with multiple cycles of demand decreases driving down prices, leading to shrinking oil supply industry leading to higher prices.
Buyers feel safer in a taller car, and car dealers are happy to sell this bullshit, even though SUVs are far more likely to roll over in a crash.
The reason people feel safer in a taller car is because of everyone else that has a tall car.
The driving american seems to use the mutually assured destruction doctrine from the cold war as a how to guide rather than a warning.
Worse, this is spreading ocer to Europe as well, though governments are starting to tax heavier vehicles more than normal vehicles, and that is fantastic.
One of the funniest things in the world to me is that I first saw an Aston Mini in I think the Bourne Identity in the late 00s. Or maybe it was some other Spy Thriller from around the same time?
Fast forward to today and there is now an American version, still called a Mini, that is just as big as every other SUV.
https://www.motorbiscuit.com/american-trucks-suvs-almost-bigger-world-war-ii-tanks/
These are not exactly precise, and I cannot believe I am actually citing the DailyMail, but you get the idea:
We could fix that in an instant by removing the astronomical fuel subsidies, but any sitting President would be instantly crucified because for some reason gas prices are indicative of how good the President is doing.
I mean I agree that this should be done, but the problem is that basically that would instantly destroy what is left of the entire economy.
People and shipping business are operating on razor thin margins right now, and if the price of gas basically doubled in a 3 to 9 month period from ending all of the subsidies to oil and gas companies, basically logistics firms would go out of business, large retailers with their own shipping would make up the slack by cutting standards and raising consumer prices, and a huge amount of peoples personal budgets would collapse as they can no longer afford their daily commute.
This of course was and is the plan of oil and gas companies. You cannot double the price a what is functionally a drug the economy is and has been addicted to for quite a long time (cheap gas) without, at this point, life threatening withdrawals.
Yeah I was being a bit ridiculous but we definitely should have a long-term plan for weaning America off of fuel subsidies. Maybe make an exception for commercial vehicles.
I once outlined ideas for ways to phase this in, in a way that would possibly be politically workable.
Those days seem quaint now.
Itll never happen. All the corpos control such kinds of policies and related politicians so thoroughly, and the country is currently in a sort of cold civil war over such things as 'should an insane criminal who openly states he wants to be a dictator be president again, after leading a coup when he lost.'
We are the most dangerous banana republic in the world.
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.
Look at Tesla 3/Y. The Y outsells the 3, despite being virtually identical except taller, and priced ~$10k (25%) more.
The consumer base wants larger vehicles.
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
...what? It's a very typical door, I'm not sure what you mean.
No one said it was unreasonable. And I don't blame anyone for not riding bikes or walking to work every day. It's very difficult to "go green" while some people who don't give a single fuck consume more in a week than you or I will in a lifetime. It all just feels very fruitless.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Then I reject your consideration of a Kei Truck as cargo space obviously isn't a concern for you.
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.
Nope, the additional safety features make the footprint lager and the vehicle heavier.
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.
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.
So, you're saying it's a regulatory preference for larger vehicles, not a consumer preference, right?
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.
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.
Yeah there is, go buy it and quit your whining.
There are way more than enough small vehicles to choose from. You're just wrong on this one.
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.
Sure we do. Ever seen a Smart car? A Mini? Honda Fit? Chevy Spark? Mazda 2? Miata? BR-Z?
It's all of the above.
What regulatory standards are preventing more manufacturers from selling sedans and hatchbacks?
Sure you can. Look up Ford Maverick.
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.
Because they have 4 doors. That's not part of any CAFE standard.
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.
It doesn't have to be shorter
All other things being equal, the smaller vehicle will have better economy than the larger. So the more relevant observation is "it doesn't have to be longer". There is no engineering reason why the Maverick has to be bigger than the Ranger, and it would be more economical if it weren't. It is bigger only to satisfy regulatory compliance.
You misunderstood my statement. There is no CAFE regulation that requires vehicles to have 4 doors. The bed is shorter because it has 4 doors. Because that is what consumers want. Not because the law requires it.
I understood you perfectly. Don't conflate "rejection of your argument" with "lack comprehension".
You would have a valid point if they made a 2-door variant, even if that 2-door variant came with a bed 6" longer than the Ranger's bed. But they don't. You would have a point if used 2-door Rangers were valued substantially less than 4-door models. But they aren't.
There is no justification for your claim that "consumer demand" is even a significant factor, let alone the primary reason why the "compact" Maverick has a "full size" length.
The reason that their "compact" truck today is the size of a full-size from the 1990s (and why their full-size F-150 today is so much larger than one from the 1990s) is CAFE standards. Even though the Maverick would have better economy, less emissions, greater range, a better MPG rating with a Ranger-sized body, it would not meet the tighter restrictions that a vehicle with a Ranger-sized body would have to meet under CAFE.
You keep repeating this and I keep telling you that there are no regulations around the number of doors.
I'm tired of repeating myself. Goodbye now.
The quote you selected doesn't mention doors at all. The number of doors is irrelevant. The relevant factor is the size. The overall length of the truck and the overall width of the truck had to be substantially more than the Ranger. CAFE standards prohibit a Ranger-sized truck with the Maverick's fuel economy.
Ford used an extra row of seats to achieve the length they needed to reach.
That's because you're deliberately ignoring it.
It's not. The number of doors is why the bed is small and the length is long, not CAFE standards.
We've already been over this.
The Maverick gets about the same fuel economy as a Toyota Prius so no, it doesn't.
Not even close.
Prius: 57mpg city, 56 Highway
Maverick: 22mpg city, 29mpg highway
Even the hybrid version comes up short:
Maverick Hybrid: 42 mpg city, 33 mpg highway.
The Maverick's 61 sq ft footprint in the light truck category requires a minimum 28 mpg combined rating to comply with CAFE standards for the 2024 model year.
If it had the 52sq ft footprint of a 2-door ranger, it would need to have a minimum 34 mpg combined rating to comply with CAFE standards in 2024. It doesn't meet this with its standard engine.
Relative to the requirements on a vehicle the size of a 1990s Ranger, the Maverick needs either 6 mpg better economy, or an additional 9 sq ft of footprint to comply with CAFE standards.
The rear axle in a pickup needs to be located close to the center of the bed to maintain proper handling. To get the wheelbase they need by lengthening the bed, they would need to add as much length behind the axle as they add in front of it, keeping the rear axle centered. A 2-door "compact" Maverick would end up longer than a 4-door "full size".
To get the wheelbase they need without making the overall length absurdly long, they needed to extend the cab.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
BuT mA FreEduMb!
This is also a downside to the cheap gasoline we’ve enjoyed in the US, relative to most of the world. There’s less incentive for us to make a more efficient choice
I have an '04 Impala that perfectly fits a cello in a hard case in the trunk, or belted into a passenger seat. My parents' Highlander won't fit that anywhere without folding something out of the way. How the fuck did we lose so much cargo space in a larger vehicle?!
Is the Highlander a luxury model maybe and has more cab space dedicated to larger seats and armrests maybe?
Not sure, I dont really know too much about the Highlander.