Incentivized arms race to build the heaviest, largest cars continues.

[-Fred-]

Indeed, they are real. Theyre not Bull bars for charging like a Bull. These are roo bars for protecting the car from damage due to cattle and roo collisions. Should see the semis with these.
View attachment 1224274

Oh I have seen the road trains before, but never thought they had them for cars as well. Very cool.

 

[Pupik]

Wonder how long it takes a fully-loaded triple tandem to come to a halt from highway speeds without jackknifing or thrust reversers?

I just saw a similar bull bar (or moose bar) in Michigan this week. It's as if Hannibal Lecter guest-starred in Cars IV.

 

[lbpomg95]

As someone who's a little obsessed with car weight, as well as things like overpopulation and wastefulness, this safety regulation change is borderline saddening. Granted I'm very opinionated, but to me, buying a heavy SUV (that's basically just a FWD hatchback on stilts with no changes of actual substance) is a pointless, utterly selfish choice to make, especially when the majority of buyers make that choice based on nothing more than sitting high and looking successful in the work/school parking lot.

The way I see it, if you have a commute to make (or you need to use a car regularly for whatever reason), you owe it to those around you, and the amazing planet you're lucky enough to exist on, to drive the smallest, most fuel efficient car you can get away with. In my ideal world, everyone would have a Toyota IQ for their one-person commute to work, as opposed to an Audi Q5 with a 3.0 V6...

 

[05XR8]

I still feel kei cars are the answer.

 

[Tornado]

And now for an exciting but most likely farcical idea, Citroen CEO claims that the rise of EVs will kill the SUV. "The world of the SUV is done", says Vincent Cobee. Why? SUVs are naturally bigger and heavier than sedan and hatchback counterparts, they will be less aerodynamic, which can have severe consequences in terms of range, thus requiring larger batteries, which cause weight gain and well, inefficiency. An electric SUV is just not worth all of the extra costs, weight, and cumbersomeness, and will eventually be regulated out of the market, at least in Europe. Instead, the focus should be more expansive charging infrastructure, rather than larger batteries for larger cars.

This is spoken like someone who runs an automobile company that has been comprehensively beaten to the punch in transitioning to that market segment and is furious about it. EVs make SUVs even more viable as daily commuter vehicles because EV packaging efficiencies basically eliminate the traditional downsides of SUV packaging. Hard to claim the traditional negative effects of high ride height and ground clearance if the center of gravity is still as low as a BreezeFrees because 90% of the weight is still packaged entirely under the car body. EV SUVs are even moreso taller hatchbacks than your typical crossover already was.






No, people in Europe won't be driving things as grotesque as the new Hummer anytime soon but EVs are already dramatically more efficient regardless of whether SUVs have a minor efficiency hit over sedans and range anxiety in Europe is drastically less of a thing than it is in the US anyway.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I still feel kei cars are the answer.
View attachment 1224460
View attachment 1224459
View attachment 1224461

Correction: Kei cars are always the answer

 

[Famine]

Correction: Kei cars are always the answer

They struggle a bit when the question is "How do I get this bookcase/table/sofa home?"

(although to be fair I had the tailgate open on the last one and lots of rope securing it)

 

[05XR8]

They struggle a bit when the question is "How do I get this bookcase/table/sofa home?"

(although to be fair I had the tailgate open on the last one and lots of rope securing it)

No pics, but I fit my old 5’8” refrigator inside my Charade. Just inside the boot lip with Hatch resting on top.

I posted bout the Nissan Sakura EV in the kei car thread. Even though it doesn’t fold like ICE kei cars, it still has good cargo space.

That’s about as much space as the frunk in the Lightning , but it would fulfil my needs.

 

[lbpomg95]

I love the Kei-car concept, and I wish the UK would encourage a similar segment. Let's say they designed the segment specifically so that cars like the Toyota Aygo (not that stupid new Aygo X though) and Kia Picanto, VW Up etc fit into it. They'd get tax discounts to incentivise the impressionable masses to buy and use them.

The idea that our VED tax is (after 2017) only free for EVs, most of which are very large, makes no sense. If we're trying to save the planet and its resources, consumerism and excess, funnily enough, are counter-intuitive to that goal.

 

[Famine]

No pics, but I fit my old 5’8” refrigator inside my Charade. Just inside the boot lip with Hatch resting on top.

I posted bout the Nissan Sakura EV in the kei car thread. Even though it doesn’t fold like ICE kei cars, it still has good cargo space.
View attachment 1224484
View attachment 1224485

That’s about as much space as the frunk in the Lightning , but it would fulfil my needs.

I got an Ikea Billy Bookcase (6'6" x 2'6) for you:

And this thing (which Child A bought when she moved house and just assumed would be fine to transport) was too long anyway at 7'4", but stuck out because it was also 3'3"x3' and although you can fit that in the opening (and there's enough room between the arches for a standard pallet; don't know why as that's an obvious design decision for commercial vehicles and this isn't one) the pillars narrow towards the roof so it was a bit... wedged, just over halfway in:

I've had estates before - and even currently. The C-segment Swace can't touch the CX-7 for load in any department. Our old C-segment Octavia was comparable for length and equal between the arches, and better both with rear seats up and above the windowline, but poorer in terms of a single large object. I don't really recall the precise capabilities of the old E39 we had, but we did manage to fit a boot lid inside the boot (ours was rotten, so I bought a £40 replacement from a 540i in the same colour and picked it up in the E39). The dogs certainly had plenty of room compared to the Octavia though.

Honestly, my wife wanted nothing to do with this car when I got it. Since then she's borrowed it to transport scaffolding and uPVC windows - and now calls it The Turbotank. I can't wait to tow with it too!


I think everyone knows my other functioning car is 750kg lighter and a metre shorter We average out to a sensible C-segment hatch.

 

[Tornado]

Buy a 911 and strap everything to the roof.

 

[Roo]

Indeed, they are real. Theyre not Bull bars for charging like a Bull. These are roo bars for protecting the car from damage due to cattle and roo collisions. Should see the semis with these.
View attachment 1224274

 

[Danoff]

The way I see it, if you have a commute to make (or you need to use a car regularly for whatever reason), you owe it to those around you, and the amazing planet you're lucky enough to exist on, to drive the smallest, most fuel efficient car you can get away with.

Motorcycle/moped then.

 

[05XR8]

I got an Ikea Billy Bookcase (6'6" x 2'6) for you:

And this thing (which Child A bought when she moved house and just assumed would be fine to transport) was too long anyway at 7'4", but stuck out because it was also 3'3"x3' and although you can fit that in the opening (and there's enough room between the arches for a standard pallet; don't know why as that's an obvious design decision for commercial vehicles and this isn't one) the pillars narrow towards the roof so it was a bit... wedged, just over halfway in:

I've had estates before - and even currently. The C-segment Swace can't touch the CX-7 for load in any department. Our old C-segment Octavia was comparable for length and equal between the arches, and better both with rear seats up and above the windowline, but poorer in terms of a single large object. I don't really recall the precise capabilities of the old E39 we had, but we did manage to fit a boot lid inside the boot (ours was rotten, so I bought a £40 replacement from a 540i in the same colour and picked it up in the E39). The dogs certainly had plenty of room compared to the Octavia though.

Honestly, my wife wanted nothing to do with this car when I got it. Since then she's borrowed it to transport scaffolding and uPVC windows - and now calls it The Turbotank. I can't wait to tow with it too!


I think everyone knows my other functioning car is 750kg lighter and a metre shorter We average out to a sensible C-segment hatch.

Agree about the body tapering in our current Mazda2. Makes fitting art objects and paint canvases(and returning them when they don’t fit) a chore. When I had a 323 Astina/Protege 5, carried so much in that. Imagine if Mazda made a modern MPV like the original one. Wasn’t a fan when it got redesigned.

 

[lbpomg95]

Motorcycle/moped then.

Frankly, yes. Unless you need to carry stuff, a moped or even bicycle makes sense.
If anything one of the most efficient methods of transport is the railway, mainly because there's so little rolling resistance, but in the UK countryside at least you're lucky if a train is even a quarter full.

I'll do anything if it means I'll see less Ford Kugas

 

[DK]

<criesInIrish>
At least your country still has a somewhat-functioning rail network.
</criesInIrish>

 

[Danoff]

Frankly, yes. Unless you need to carry stuff, a moped or even bicycle makes sense.
If anything one of the most efficient methods of transport is the railway, mainly because there's so little rolling resistance, but in the UK countryside at least you're lucky if a train is even a quarter full.

I'll do anything if it means I'll see less Ford Kugas

The problem is that they suck in the weather, and are very unsafe. Thus, we begin the discussion about safety/comfort vs. efficiency.

 

[lbpomg95]

The problem is that they suck in the weather, and are very unsafe. Thus, we begin the discussion about safety/comfort vs. efficiency.

You'd think we'd try and find a middle ground as a collective. Something along the lines of trying not to negatively affect the people and environment around us as much as we do.

My daily used to be a small Vauxhall Combo van, but I didn't use all the space it had, so downsized to a hatchback 20 inches shorter and converted it into a microvan, because it's all I need for the purpose it serves. It averages better fuel economy than the van it replaced, doesn't emit the harmful diesel emissions, and takes up less space everywhere it goes. It's not as easy to use for work as the van, but it doesn't matter. I'm trying to reduce my affect on everyone and everything around me, even if it's only in a small way. Pretty sure I sound like a self-righteous ass now.

But surely we could consider small, lightweight cars a good compromise? They're much safer than two wheels, more comfortable, and carry much less momentum than a big SUV so cause less damage in the event of an accident so you could even argue they're safer than large vehicles.

Part of me wants everyone to drive a 1970's poverty-spec hatchback, just to put it into perspective how far cars have come. A basic modern small car is truly refined, safe and downright luxurious compared to the cars people used to drive.

 

[Danoff]

You'd think we'd try and find a middle ground as a collective. Something along the lines of trying not to negatively affect the people and environment around us as much as we do.

My daily used to be a small Vauxhall Combo van, but I didn't use all the space it had, so downsized to a hatchback 20 inches shorter and converted it into a microvan, because it's all I need for the purpose it serves. It averages better fuel economy than the van it replaced, doesn't emit the harmful diesel emissions, and takes up less space everywhere it goes. It's not as easy to use for work as the van, but it doesn't matter. I'm trying to reduce my affect on everyone and everything around me, even if it's only in a small way. Pretty sure I sound like a self-righteous ass now.

But surely we could consider small, lightweight cars a good compromise? They're much safer than two wheels, more comfortable, and carry much less momentum than a big SUV so cause less damage in the event of an accident so you could even argue they're safer than large vehicles.

Part of me wants everyone to drive a 1970's poverty-spec hatchback, just to put it into perspective how far cars have come. A basic modern small car is truly refined, safe and downright luxurious compared to the cars people used to drive.

Some people are good with the motorcycle, others want more comfort/safety/fun/utility and go for something larger. We each find the right balance for us. There are so many considerations for how vehicles (or any purchase) can impact the environment. It doesn't seem that simple a task. A vauxhaull combo van for example gets really good fuel economy. Is trading it around the right way to go? Depends on whether you're incentivizing the construction of another vehicle.

I guess if you're asking me whether I consider a small lightweight car a good compromise for me, the answer is no. I put most of my miles on a minivan. The reason I do that is because I have 3 kids, and minivans are very comfortable/useful for hauling kids around. I could probably force it with a sedan of some sort, but the compromise isn't worth it to me. That being said, I don't drive very far, so the difference in carbon footprint between a sedan and a minivan for me isn't that large, simply because the miles it gets apportioned over are small. The van also has turned a few trips from plane flights into road trips. Now you could say it should have been neither, but again we're trading quality of life against environmental impact.

Later this year my family is going on a cruise. The total carbon footprint for that (including flying), is about 7,500 miles of travel on my van. Pretty close to a year of driving for me. So the first change I should make, if I'm making one, is to stop cruising. The difference between my van and a sedan is way worse for me than missing a cruise in terms of quality of life, and won't amount to 7,500 miles traveled in CO2.

The reason I drive a van and go on a cruise is because I have kids. So the real answer is that I should have had fewer kids. One of my kids is adopted, I suppose she'd have had a much lower carbon footprint if she'd stayed in an orphanage.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

In a Twitter thread, I recently learned that the US's CAFE regulations actually scale based on the car's footprint, meaning a smaller cars will have a harder time meeting targets than larger cars

Starting in 2011, the CAFE standards are newly expressed as mathematical functions depending on vehicle footprint, a measure of vehicle size determined by multiplying the vehicle's wheelbase by its average track width. A complicated 2011 mathematical formula was replaced starting in 2012 with a simpler inverse-linear formula with cutoff values. CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint. For example, the fuel economy target for the 2012 Honda Fit with a footprint of 40 sq ft (3.7 m2) is 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 L/100 km), equivalent to a published fuel economy of 27 miles per US gallon (8.7 L/100 km), and a Ford F-150 with its footprint of 65–75 sq ft (6.0–7.0 m2) has a fuel economy target of 22 miles per US gallon (11 L/100 km), i.e., 17 miles per US gallon (14 L/100 km) published.

Smaller footprint light trucks had higher fuel economy targets and larger trucks lower targets. Manufacturers who made more large trucks would have been allowed to meet a lower overall CAFE target, manufacturers who make more small trucks would have needed to meet a higher standard. Unlike previous CAFE standards there was no requirement for a manufacturer or the industry as a whole to meet any particular overall actual MPG target, since that will depend on the mix of sizes of trucks manufactured and ultimately purchased by consumers. Some critics pointed out that this might have had the unintended consequence of pushing manufacturers to make ever-larger vehicles to avoid strict economy standards.

Corporate average fuel economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GranTurNismo]

In a Twitter thread, I recently learned at the US's CAFE regulations actually scale based on the car's footprint, meaning a smaller cars will have a harder time meeting targets than larger cars

Corporate average fuel economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It seems more and more convincing and less fringe that a genuine war is being waged on smaller cars, at least in the US. I can understand why consumer tastes would shift to larger vehicles- in addition to being status symbols and more (at least perceivably) safe and durable, especially the emergence of large, long-range batteries rendering aerodynamics and weight less important- but I never thought I'd see the day that compact cars could effectively be regulated into extinction.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

After I posted that, I saw this article on the F150's size

From workhorses to lifestyle vehicles: How pickup trucks got so big

Small pickups have nearly vanished as Americans have bought into big truck lifestyle.

www.axios.com

Here's an interesting diagram compared bed to cabin size

 

[Tornado]

In a Twitter thread, I recently learned that the US's CAFE regulations actually scale based on the car's footprint, meaning a smaller cars will have a harder time meeting targets than larger cars

Corporate average fuel economy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Obama footprint rule is what directly led to all of the domestic manufacturers immediately starting to phase out smaller cars (and soon after that, all cars). Not only was there no longer financial incentive to build them since they didn't do anything to balance a manufacturer's entire CAFE "budget," but it actively discouraged anyone from selling them here and directly encouraged building SUVs (which had far lower standards which scaled at a far slower rate as well) instead. This was immediately pointed out by people in the industry even at the time. It was also frequently noted how hard the domestic manufacturers fought for the classification changes as a compromise for the Obama administration ramping CAFE back up after it had stagnated for a while; and how the Obama administration's proposal was based on a marketplace breakdown of 66:33 of cars:light trucks that was nonsense even when it went into effect and is laughably absurd in 2023 where car sales make up only a quarter of the total market.





Combined with the much higher profit margins and less regulation in general for anything classified as a light truck, it was a win-win for domestic manufacturers and a massive, obvious backfire on the part of the Obama EPA. It's why the Ford throwing their weight behind California in the CARB/Trump EPA fight was such a joke, since all of the domestic manufacturers were doing as little as possible to support CAFE in the first place; and it is also why fuel economy standards have kept rising rapidly but the actual US fleetwide fuel economy went to a little over 25mpg in 2014 and hasn't really moved since.

 

[GranTurNismo]

This is an excellent read on how bulbous cars have really become:

American Cars Are Getting Too Big For Parking Spaces

The changes to parking space standards have not kept up with the explosion in vehicle sizes.

www.vice.com

As long as there is no disincentive to making the car wider and longer, naturally the manufacturers will continue to increase those dimensions to score easy marketing points for increasing the interior room. Yet manufacturers are still incentivized to make vehicles larger as it actually reduces the fuel economy standards they have to meet. I can only surmise that this trend will continue to drive up parking rates in lots due to spots needing to be larger to accommodate these massive hunks of SUVs and trucks. Hopefully there's some kind of discount or reduced rates for people like me who drive a subcompact car.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

There are parking garages with compact car spots that can fit two bicycles.

 

[Keef]

What's the bigger problem, gigantic pickup trucks, or buyers and drivers of pickup trucks who go out of their way to make their pickup trucks as big as possible? Notable examples are always backing into parking spots and making sure that their overhangs cover the entire width of a sidewalk.

 

[Danoff]

As long as there is no disincentive to making the car wider and longer, naturally the manufacturers will continue to increase those dimensions to score easy marketing points for increasing the interior room.

There are quite a few people who are constrained tightly in their garages and simply cannot buy a larger vehicle because it will no longer fit. So there is some disincentive.

 

[GranTurNismo]

There are quite a few people who are constrained tightly in their garages and simply cannot buy a larger vehicle because it will no longer fit. So there is some disincentive.

True, I just don’t think it’s a large enough one though. There seems to be many instances of brodozers that can’t fit in garages, yet it seems more people are apt to park them in an inconvenient place, or even illegally, than just not buy them.

 

[Pupik]

There are quite a few people who are constrained tightly in their garages and simply cannot buy a larger vehicle because it will no longer fit. So there is some disincentive.

Raises garage door...er, hand.

There's a quite a few folks on my block whom have to park their brand new vehicles outdoors because of this. I enjoy having a car that's not too hot or cold, isn't covered in precipitation, stays out of the eyes of horse thieves and rustlers.

Parking is a squeeze in some places, but usually parking next to nicer vehicles than my own prevents dings from dongs.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

In a twitter thread, someone mentioned that Chevrolet sells the Montana in South America and that GM should also sell it in America as a Maverick rival.

However, someone pointed out this video where they explain that the Maverick is actually a substantially larger truck and the hybrid drivetrain helps it pass CAFE, whereas the Montana would need to pay heavy fines to be sold in the US

The video also points out that the Maverick isn't small at all. It is roughly the same size as a Dodge Durango

	Ford Maverick	Dodge Durango	Chevrolet Montana	Hyundai Santa Cruz	Ford F-150 (4-door SuperCrew)
Length	199.7 in.	200.8 in.	185.7 in.	195.7 in.	231.7 in.
Height	68.7 in.	72.1 in.	65.3 in.	66.7 in.	75.6 in.
Width (no mirrors)	72.6 in.	75.8 in.	71.7 in.	75.0 in.	79.9 in.
Wheelbase	121.1 in.	119.8 in.	110.2 in.	118.3 in.	145.4 in.