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.

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..

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.

I call them vans with a 4 foot tumour.

I've seen trucks with 8' beds and big crew cabs. They're like 30 feet long, though

Yep, can't expect too much from El Pais

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Chuck Testa? Nope, fuck Tesla.

You're probably right but wagons can be cool now.

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.

My old Mazda protege was basically that with a foot longer trunk. It was perfect size.

Buying a car nowadays is a freaking nightmare, I hope mine lasts many more years

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.

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.

Not all cars are bought with loans though.

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.

well yea, that's obviously why they do it.

doesn't make it good.

"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.

There's nothing to not believe, look up the fuel averages. My wife's Escape averages 40mpg.

Same here. They need a higher tax unless it's actually a work vehicle.

Exactly the same in Australia.

The US transitioned to SUVs and trucks a long time ago now, so those emissions are already built in

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.

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.

Wow it is like induced demand but for resources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Thank you!

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.

The lights back then probably weren't very bright were they?

Would means rugs are quite a bit cleaner now, so I would say the vacuum did its job.

also the operating time is so high that companies purposely put components behind the led that break so they can sell more.

Could you elaborate with more detail, or share some links for articles that describe that?

It takes time to create the infrastructure and generations to change minds.

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.

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.

Do you go to work for free?

Why are you promoting a fallacious idea?

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.

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.

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.

Subaru hatchbacks are great off road and have about the same capacity as most SUVs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

• They require a very large battery. If you don't find >150kW chargers, you'll be waiting a long time
• More batteries per car = worse environmental impact from production
• Road degradation grows by the fourth power w.r.t. vehicle weight. The big batteries make electric SUVs very heavy
• SUVs are more dangerous for pedestrians due to their size
• In a crash SUVs deliver much more energy, killing more people.

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

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 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.

What suv is that?

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.

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.

Don't bigger cars pay congestion charges in London?

Just something that had to be coughed out I'd say.

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.

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

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.