Swedish author, Musk-hater and Tesla lover took his first dose of the orange pill
Lars Wilderäng is a Swedish author and blogger. Quick overview: his topics generally revolve around defence policies (Russia bad, moar defence), economics (low interest rates bad, housing market speculation bad) and since the war started, the war in Ukraine (send Ukraine moar weapons). He hates Elon Musk but loves his Tesla. He hates ICE cars.
He's unfortunately one of the "EVs will solve everything" people, which annoys me greatly, but today I saw a small car-related comment on his blog that actually made me laugh.
There are tons of hilly or mountainous regions in the US with terribly rutted unimproved roads where you need a high-clearance 4WD. Does it need to specifically be an SUV? No, but if you were in a car it would need a lift and bigger tires. Battlecars. A lot of the crossovers are just lifted wagons anyway.
I live on a hilly dirt road in Vermont and we get by fine with a Toyota Yaris and a 2007 GMC canyon with 4wd. There's maybe 2 or 3 cumulative weeks a year when the Yaris can't handle the road conditions, and on those days, it'd be better if everyone who could stayed home anyway.
Even my truck, which gets used for lots of construction and farm chores, is smaller and has a lower clearance than most modern SUVs. I challenge any SUV or truck owner who claims they need something bigger than I do to compare our vehicle usage. I moved a baby cow in the Yaris just yesterday. In fact, I literally bought the smallest used truck I could find. I'd buy a smaller truck tomorrow if I could.
Also, while I'm here, my tiny town of a few thousand people has a train station with service to NYC and even DC, but it takes way, way longer than driving, and it only runs once or twice a day. All these little towns in Vermont ALREADY HAVE TRAIN STATIONS but no one can use them because the service is worthless. If the train was even somewhat regular and as fast as driving, I would use it all the goddamn time.
Anyway, this is exactly the point. Most people with huge trucks do not need huge trucks. That doesn't mean no one does, but most people with huge trucks or SUVs are living in suburbs or whatever. They claim to need them because "road bad once a year" or "I move a chair sometimes". It's simply just mental gymnastics to excuse the real reason which is "I am insecure of my manliness".
You live a life where people actually might have use for a huge truck. Yet you still moved a baby cow in your Yaris (which is so awesome btw I laughed out loud) because it worked just fine.
The right tool for the right job, and most people don't need the truck. The few who do, great, get one.
EDIT: Just looked up the GMC Canyon. I first googled "GMC Canyon". Then I added "2007". What the fuck. What happened. It's so obvious it's just an arms race of who can build bigger.
Vermont is a little more developed overall than a lot of places in the wild parts of Tennessee, North Carolina, Colorado, Utah etc. It isn't usually about the steepness of the road but the condition. I have a Subaru Crosstrek with all-terrain tires & a 2" lift so I've got a little over a foot of clearance. I have still bottomed it out a handful of times just this year, and really utilized that extra clearance dozens of times. And trains? I haven't lived somewhere with access to a train since I lived in Europe.
Fun fact…both the death of wagons and the birth of CUVs, in the US, are due to CAFE.
Station wagons drag down the fleet average MPG for passenger cars. Crossovers, though, benefit the fleet average MPG for trucks. Even though they are just tall unibody vehicles.
IMO, that should be the delineation for CAFE (unibody vs. body-on-frame), instead of wheelbase.
Exempt vehicles should either require farm plates or a CDL. If you're not using the vehicle for work, it should follow common-sense emissions requirements.
But to be fair ,the fact that we're still selling fossil cars in 2023 is insane, anyways.
Now that the SUV has been invented, the settlers can finally move into these harsh landscapes, which were unaccessible before.
This also explains why this phenomenon emerged in the US, because other continents simply don't have hilly or mountainous regions.
Sarcasm aside, most of these vehicles are used for short trips on well-maintained city roads, to get to office and buy groceries. They aren't even very useful for offroad tasks, no improvement on existing vehicles. Even worse, they are not useful to get around in cities.
Nah. I went cross-country and climbed mountains in my hybrid sedan. Only once did I shy away from taking a road and it was because the snow was too deep. (approach to a trailhead for a Colorado 14er)
Oh I've done that too. Good driving can go a long way. But I also have been towed out. And I have driven roads that a sedan wouldn't get 50 ft up. It's what I do.
99% of SUV owners do not, no. His point is not that no one needs a car with high ground clearance because of course some people do. His point is that the vast majority of people do not. He lives in an area where people often claim they "need" SUV:s, but he does not own an SUV and it works out fine.
Getting into the car, driving position, visibility, ground clearance...
SUV is the best car format for many, if not most people. My last car was an SUV. If you need a car at all, those are good properties for the car to have.
Currently, I don't have a car at all and I'm very happy because of that. But if I really needed one it would be an SUV.
Worse aerodynamics, worse stability, more prone to roll over, will more likely kill the driver of another car in a crash, will more likely kill a pedestrian. Etc etc.
For literally every reason except height and some very limited accessibility uses, we had station wagons and they worked fine. The real reason is an arms race over height. People liked being able to see over other cars. Except then everyone got an SUV, so the advantage was erased and everyone who didn't buy an SUV was screwed, and the only people who actually gained anything were the ones making more expensive SUVs.