8 ms·

> There are also basically no wagons anymore. Apparently everything has to be a high-off-the-ground poor-visibility pedestrian murder machine to be profitable f

> There are also basically no wagons anymore. Apparently everything has to be a high-off-the-ground poor-visibility pedestrian murder machine to be profitable for the auto industry anymore. Honestly this just indicates that you haven't seriously driven a modern CUV. What you describe sounds like a 1990 suburban. CUVs wouldn't be so popular without being safe and easy to drive. Sure, I'm opposed to daily driving trucks and truck frame SUVs. But thats an important distinction. The popular cars in the US today are CUVs which are built on a car chassis and generally speaking have good visibility and safety features. They are essentially scaled up wagons with awd.

dmd 2y ago
The Forester is basically perfect, IMO. (Though it would be more perfect as a hybrid.)
- otteromkram 2y ago
  Found the Coloradan!
  - dmd 2y ago
    ???
    - DCH3416 2y ago
      Subaru at one point was the most popular automotive brand in Colorado.
      - dmd 2y ago
        OK, but it's also one of the most common cars in the whole country, so it's just a weird statement.
        DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        They were making a joke about how everyone in Colorado seems to drive a Forester. That's all.
- RantyDave 2y ago
  https://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fall-in-love-with/ https://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fa...
nradov 2y ago
There's nothing wrong with daily driving a truck frame SUV like a Toyota 4Runner. Those are very practical vehicles for anyone who occasionally needs to drive on rough dirt roads or tow a small trailer (and that's a lot of people).
- DCH3416 2y ago
  Well, there is because it's wasteful. Wasteful of material, and finite resources that we in the US subsidize to keep fuel prices from being adjusted to what they would be relative to the rest of the world. Further roads now in modern society are better than they ever have been, especially compared to the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Tires are better. You mean to tell me these days we need more capable vehicles compared to the land yachts and economy cars we drove back in the day? Can't forget a Buick park avenue V6 can be used to tow, and other folks in the world use things like priuses to tow trailers. And frankly I've gone down rough dirt roads in old civics before. So yeah. Needless to say the practically argument is lackluster relative to the actual capabilities of most vehicles. I think folks are just overestimating their use cases which will cost us in the long run because you've financed yourself to death through the cost of ownership.
  - yellowapple 2y ago
    Alright, well as someone who routinely puts both the cargo-hauling capabilities and 4WD of his Tacoma to full use, y'all can pry my truck out of my cold dead fingers. Just because you can get away with not needing a truck doesn't mean I can.
    - nucleardog 2y ago
      No one's talking about erasing trucks from the face of the planet. They're talking about how to deal with and minimize the negative externalities. This is part of living in a society etc etc. For the vast majority of people who own trucks, they're not using the cargo hauling or off road capabilities at all. That's an easy one, we shouldn't all be paying the cost of that. At the other end, there are definitely situations where the job the vehicle is fulfilling is not "people transport" but "heavy thing transport". I don't think anyone's suggesting we start outfitting construction crews with Priuses (Priora? Prii?). There's a whole spectrum in between that you likely fall on, and I can't really say much more than that without knowing what "routinely" or "full use" means there. What I can say is that there are trims of the Tacoma whose towing capacity is low enough that it's basically overlapping with my japanese compact sports car and exceeded by some larger cars. I can't see any justification for those at all besides "because I want to" which really doesn't seem like a good enough justification for putting people in danger. As far as pedestrians are concerned (just one factor), they're twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck than a sedan given similar conditions. From the data I can find[0], that's a similar increase in risk of fatality as someone doing something like 30mph in a 15mph school zone and hitting a kid. If I started driving 30mph through school zones "because I want to" or "because sometimes I'm in a hurry" they would put me in jail. Frankly, I don't think there's _any_ reason society would accept for me doing that. Certainly not after I hit and killed a kid. So why should we all accept it here? [0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...
DCH3416 2y ago
>CUVs wouldn't be so popular without being safe and easy to drive. They wouldn't be so popular if every other car on the road didn't tower over conventional sedans. Why would you want a car that rides worse, is heavier, and costs more to buy and live with? People don't want vehicles that feel sunken into the ground and increasingly that's how sedans are perceived. It's a runaway effect.
- uuddlrlrbaba 2y ago
  Worse than what? And why are sedans conventional? The Sedan is a terrible legacy design shape. The divided trunk and rear seats wastes a ton of space. A wagon or sportback I can understand. And thats essentially what a small CUV is based on, along with a bit more ride height and often awd drivetrain. The CUV is popular because it's a really functional and practical design. You don't have to spend a lot on one, but you can. Maybe test drive some more and it'll click why so many people drive them. They don't all handle poorly either, some are downright fun.
  - DCH3416 2y ago
    The sedan, designed well, is the ideal shape that you want to cleanly cut through the air with the least amount of wind resistance. As you go up in size the area that a car covers increases, as does weight, among other things. So you lose the efficiency of the body shape. And the higher off the ground you go, the more drag you get because now air deflects underneath the car and will 'catch' in different spots. That's why you take like a prius with front air deflectors, they design it that way to create a bit of a ground effect reducing drag. The "CUV", compact SUV, is popular because it's higher off the ground. Because as other cars have gotten larger, people feel less safe with traditional sedans. Sedans, which worked well before because really people don't carry a lot with their cars most of the time. They've taken the hatchback design, since with rollover it's difficult to make those high in cargo capacity, and blown it up and thrown AWD on it. Take makes the car more expensive, it's more metal and plastic. Doing that spoils the handling because now you've taken a chassis where the wheels would be parallel and lifted it. Making it so the body rolls more, providing a stiffer chassis feel, compounded by the additional weight for now larger components like the rear hatch. And you get a worse riding vehicle. I mean if the scope of the vehicles you've driven is just SUVs, then yeah, they might seem very sporty. But most of that is just marketing. That's why manufacturers don't really make sports cars into SUVs, because there's a lot of compromises in doing that.
jacobolus 2y ago
> haven't seriously driven a modern CUV I've driven these a few times as rentals; I don't know if that counts as "serious". They are more expensive, they handle worse, they are heavier, they are less stable because they are significantly higher off the ground, they have poorer visibility as a driver especially of nearby low objects, all else equal they get worse gas mileage, and are basically the same size inside so that the seating and cargo is not appreciably different compared to a wagon. In my opinion and for my use cases they are worse in every way except for profit for the manufacturer.

dmd 2y ago

The Forester is basically perfect, IMO. (Though it would be more perfect as a hybrid.)

otteromkram 2y ago
Found the Coloradan!
- dmd 2y ago
  ???
  - DCH3416 2y ago
    Subaru at one point was the most popular automotive brand in Colorado.
    - dmd 2y ago
      OK, but it's also one of the most common cars in the whole country, so it's just a weird statement.
      - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        They were making a joke about how everyone in Colorado seems to drive a Forester. That's all.
RantyDave 2y ago
https://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fall-in-love-with/ https://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fa...

nradov 2y ago

There's nothing wrong with daily driving a truck frame SUV like a Toyota 4Runner. Those are very practical vehicles for anyone who occasionally needs to drive on rough dirt roads or tow a small trailer (and that's a lot of people).

DCH3416 2y ago
Well, there is because it's wasteful. Wasteful of material, and finite resources that we in the US subsidize to keep fuel prices from being adjusted to what they would be relative to the rest of the world. Further roads now in modern society are better than they ever have been, especially compared to the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Tires are better. You mean to tell me these days we need more capable vehicles compared to the land yachts and economy cars we drove back in the day? Can't forget a Buick park avenue V6 can be used to tow, and other folks in the world use things like priuses to tow trailers. And frankly I've gone down rough dirt roads in old civics before. So yeah. Needless to say the practically argument is lackluster relative to the actual capabilities of most vehicles. I think folks are just overestimating their use cases which will cost us in the long run because you've financed yourself to death through the cost of ownership.
- yellowapple 2y ago
  Alright, well as someone who routinely puts both the cargo-hauling capabilities and 4WD of his Tacoma to full use, y'all can pry my truck out of my cold dead fingers. Just because you can get away with not needing a truck doesn't mean I can.
  - nucleardog 2y ago
    No one's talking about erasing trucks from the face of the planet. They're talking about how to deal with and minimize the negative externalities. This is part of living in a society etc etc. For the vast majority of people who own trucks, they're not using the cargo hauling or off road capabilities at all. That's an easy one, we shouldn't all be paying the cost of that. At the other end, there are definitely situations where the job the vehicle is fulfilling is not "people transport" but "heavy thing transport". I don't think anyone's suggesting we start outfitting construction crews with Priuses (Priora? Prii?). There's a whole spectrum in between that you likely fall on, and I can't really say much more than that without knowing what "routinely" or "full use" means there. What I can say is that there are trims of the Tacoma whose towing capacity is low enough that it's basically overlapping with my japanese compact sports car and exceeded by some larger cars. I can't see any justification for those at all besides "because I want to" which really doesn't seem like a good enough justification for putting people in danger. As far as pedestrians are concerned (just one factor), they're twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck than a sedan given similar conditions. From the data I can find[0], that's a similar increase in risk of fatality as someone doing something like 30mph in a 15mph school zone and hitting a kid. If I started driving 30mph through school zones "because I want to" or "because sometimes I'm in a hurry" they would put me in jail. Frankly, I don't think there's _any_ reason society would accept for me doing that. Certainly not after I hit and killed a kid. So why should we all accept it here? [0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_and_car_occupants_richards.pdf https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...

DCH3416 2y ago

>CUVs wouldn't be so popular without being safe and easy to drive. They wouldn't be so popular if every other car on the road didn't tower over conventional sedans. Why would you want a car that rides worse, is heavier, and costs more to buy and live with? People don't want vehicles that feel sunken into the ground and increasingly that's how sedans are perceived. It's a runaway effect.

uuddlrlrbaba 2y ago
Worse than what? And why are sedans conventional? The Sedan is a terrible legacy design shape. The divided trunk and rear seats wastes a ton of space. A wagon or sportback I can understand. And thats essentially what a small CUV is based on, along with a bit more ride height and often awd drivetrain. The CUV is popular because it's a really functional and practical design. You don't have to spend a lot on one, but you can. Maybe test drive some more and it'll click why so many people drive them. They don't all handle poorly either, some are downright fun.
- DCH3416 2y ago
  The sedan, designed well, is the ideal shape that you want to cleanly cut through the air with the least amount of wind resistance. As you go up in size the area that a car covers increases, as does weight, among other things. So you lose the efficiency of the body shape. And the higher off the ground you go, the more drag you get because now air deflects underneath the car and will 'catch' in different spots. That's why you take like a prius with front air deflectors, they design it that way to create a bit of a ground effect reducing drag. The "CUV", compact SUV, is popular because it's higher off the ground. Because as other cars have gotten larger, people feel less safe with traditional sedans. Sedans, which worked well before because really people don't carry a lot with their cars most of the time. They've taken the hatchback design, since with rollover it's difficult to make those high in cargo capacity, and blown it up and thrown AWD on it. Take makes the car more expensive, it's more metal and plastic. Doing that spoils the handling because now you've taken a chassis where the wheels would be parallel and lifted it. Making it so the body rolls more, providing a stiffer chassis feel, compounded by the additional weight for now larger components like the rear hatch. And you get a worse riding vehicle. I mean if the scope of the vehicles you've driven is just SUVs, then yeah, they might seem very sporty. But most of that is just marketing. That's why manufacturers don't really make sports cars into SUVs, because there's a lot of compromises in doing that.

jacobolus 2y ago

> haven't seriously driven a modern CUV I've driven these a few times as rentals; I don't know if that counts as "serious". They are more expensive, they handle worse, they are heavier, they are less stable because they are significantly higher off the ground, they have poorer visibility as a driver especially of nearby low objects, all else equal they get worse gas mileage, and are basically the same size inside so that the seating and cargo is not appreciably different compared to a wagon. In my opinion and for my use cases they are worse in every way except for profit for the manufacturer.