786
How the heck did we get here? Most best selling "cars" are now superzied pickups and SUVs.
(www.caranddriver.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
786 points (95.3% liked)
Fuck Cars
9643 readers
293 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
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
Sounds like a normal car with a hitch was the correct choice you ignored.
Not really. We already have a 4-door with about as much trunk space as one can get and it wasn't sufficient.
As a side note, how's the view from that high horse?
Not the poster above, but I used to haul two dirtbikes on a large trailer behind my Ford Mondeo, and I could still fit 5 adults and about a month of groceries in the car. It cost me £350, and I sold it for £200 after 3 years and 65000 miles. Zero problems cruising at 80mph full laden without the trailer or 60mph with.
The guy I sold it to stripped it and used it as a dirt track racecar and it lasted him a whole season.
I'm slightly mystified why anyone would want to throw extra money at SUVs, there's so much more to life.
I feel like it's worth pointing out that the car I drive is labeled as an SUV, and it's smaller and more fuel efficient than a Mondeo.
Not every car labeled an "SUV" is huge three row beast. If your hatchback doesn't bottom out going into a driveway now, we call that an SUV.
If you say you have a SUV in a thread about people having huge vehicles then is it surprising anyone reading that would think you meant you had a full-time one?
Anyway, to answer your question, if what is considered generally to be a small SUV is a Volvo X40, then the Mondeo was equally long but thinner, shorter, and about 2/3 the weight. I also had a 1995 Civic for a bit, which was lighter still and could carry nearly as much, though it couldn't tow more than 500kg.
I didn't actually ask a question or feel surprised about anything, just responding to your comment about "why would anyone buy an SUV".
My car which is sold as an SUV is smaller and more fuel efficient than the car you lauded as an alternative.
I don't want a big car, and I didn't get a big car. A massive Buick station wagon is a big car that isn't an SUV, just like not every SUV is some jumbo monstrosity.
I have neither the storage options for, nor the interest in owning, a large trailer. I do have the option of selecting a vehicle which best suits my needs while fitting in my garage. I suspect that, were children and sports not part of the equation, I'd be perfectly happy with my Volt.
Oh, I didn't own or store the trailer. I rented it when I needed it and just had a little hitch rack to take one bike most of the time. If I needed to only take two dirtbikes I'd have got a folding bike trailer which takes up hardly any space.
My point was that my midsize hatchback had the same internal space for taking things around as your SUV, just with less weight and fuel consumption. Unless your kids are larger than adult sized and you have five of them?
Fair enough.
I've yet to see this bear out. I have a midsize hatchback - a Chevy Volt - which does not have close to the same space. There is an argument to be made for fuel consumption there, though.
I don't know how big a volt is, they're not sold here. How about if I likenned it to a 1995 Civic 5 door? I had one of those and it could carry nearly as much.
The discussion was about large oversize cars, so that's what I was comparing the Mondeo to.
180.4" L x 71.2" W x 56.4" H.
A small or mid sized SUV usually has cargo space comparable to a hatchback, definitely less than a station wagon.
That guy correctly pointed out your logic is flawed, if you've been convinced by a salesman that the cargo space is something other than what it is, reflecting on that could make you a more informed consumer in the future. Getting annoyed at people commenting because you perceived them to have a 'holier than thou' attitude on it won't benefit anyone.
Having experience with SUVs, hatchbacks, and wagons, I've yet to find that to be the case.
They shared a faulty conclusion they'd already drawn regarding the universal supremacy of one option and universal failing of another option even before truly understanding my use case.
And if you've assumed I had been convinced by a salesman rather than understanding my own use-cases and requirements and selecting a vehicle which meets those needs, not only have you erred, you've disregarded my highlight of having done so in my initial post.
My experience has been that criticizing the arrogance and assumptions of those in an ivory tower has been more enabling - indeed, more enabling of more informed discourse - than comments defending the actual arrogance and assumptions of a rando.
The problem with making claims like this, without actually having checked first, is how easily refuted they are by someone who has. A quick Google search puts cargo space in an Audi a6 wagon at 30 cubic ft. An Audi q3 (small SUV) has less than 24 and an Audi q5 has 26. This trend is typical for all full sized wagons compared to compact SUVs (many share the same platform). The compact platform is comparable to the 22 cubic ft in a vw golf (small hatchback) - this makes sense as the vw gold and q3 literally share a platform (as is common for small SUVs and hatchbacks across brands). Any claim to have experienced something else is clearly misinformed as demonstrated by a quick Google search.
Aided by a quick Google search I've demonstrated that your claimed experience is flat wrong. You've been misled (or could be knowingly lying, but that is not very likely).
Yes, I've assumed that you've behaved in a way consistent with the overwhelming majority of people. Your claims about cargo space are wrong, so if that's the basis of your use case as described in your previous post and you're honestly representing what you think, you have been misled. With the information presented, knowledge of the vehicles described and a basic knowledge of how marketing works, this seems by a huge margin to be the most likely case.
Well, I've now given some informed examples of cargo space so perhaps now that you've been presented with actual numbers (which I'd invite you to check yourself if you think I've invented them) you can now review your assumptions and reflect on how people are manipulated into believing that small/compact SUVs offer better cargo space or are somehow superior to conventional cars, when in fact they are not. To say no car measured up either means you didn't check or you were misled.
I'm sure this will be entirely genuine.
Ah, I see - a $68k car compares ~10% better to that same brand's $37k and $44k small SUVs. This highlights an additional facet to the equation, that of cost-effectiveness. Are you willing to pay 83-55% more for 11-25% more cargo space?
If you artificially restrict your comparison to same-manufacturer e.g. Audi, sure, though I'm not sure why anyone would do so.
My Mitsubishi Outlander clocks in at 64.3ft^3 cargo space as demonstrated by a quick Google search - this seems to beat your magical A6's 30ft^3 by double. I'm sure there are other small SUVs out there which have similar or better cargo-space. Misinformed, indeed.
Thank you for at least in-part owning your error.
I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion as you've demonstrated here a profound myopia regarding available options and fair comparison of those options, but hey. Thanks for re-confirming your flawed assumptions.
Unfortunately, the errors - in assuming one's use case, in applying flawed logic, in generalizing from artificially-narrow subsets of data, and in riding one's high-horse - are all still yours. I look forward to your correcting yourself.
Cost was not mention in your claim. You said no car could compete on cargo space. I'm not really interested engaging in a straw man about cost. There are cheaper stations wagons in production, I chose one that was easy to compare.
I did that for my ease to demonstrate the point. If you want to choose to be wrong and pretend other manufacturers are radically different, by all means do so. If you think I'm wrong, you can spend your own time checking my claim that this is consistent for other manufacturers. I'm not motivated to spoon feed it to you, I think even if I did you'd invent new strawmen or move goalposts to justify your wrong claim above.
Ah yes, the "small" full sized SUV (literally the largest Mitsubishi on sale in the USA) with three rows of seats. Your post claimed "small" SUV, that implies something like a crv, q3, macan etc. 64.3ft is with seats folded down, so yes a full sized SUV boot + rear seats is often bigger than a wagon boot only (you can usually fold the seats in a wagon as well). Frustratingly I was mislead by your"small SUV" comment above.
An honest comparison is the third row of seats folded down with second row up (presumably consistent with your two children being the car, no?). So 34 odd cubic feet, admittedly higher than the literal first wagon I thought of as a point of comparison for a small SUV. Compared to a full size SUV I don't know offhand if there's a wagon with more space, obviously if you move the goalposts that much it's hard to present an argument.
A Mitsubishi outlander is not a small SUV bro. If you go back and read my earlier post you should be able to follow my logic pretty easily, I thought we were talking about something similar to an Audi q3.
Well, enjoy it. Clearly I was pointing out that a small SUV does not have more cargo space than a conventional station wagon, clearly we define small differently if you think that monster is small....
With only the third row pushed down you do have slightly more space than the audi wagon, though I am still convinced that the station wagon can accommodate kids, bikes and holiday luggage based on the many, many years I used one for exactly that. Since you're committed to claiming that the extra 3ft of storage is make or break then I can't objectively argue the point.
I "will get back on my high horse" and say that the original post misrepresented the vehicle you'd chosen and reaffirm that I believe your insistence that "no car or station wagon" could accommodate your needs, as described above, is based upon being influenced by others and is not based in reality. Thousands of people have used station wagons for exactly that purpose for decades.
Not only have you yet to show a car that competes on cargo space, you seem to not understand what a strawman is - I quite clearly stated you bring to focus an additional facet. There is no attack on an argument other than was made
It seems you aren't interested in engaging in the discussion at large if you've this much difficulty paying attention.
I'm interested in your apparently-arbitrary definitions of SUV size.
How do you believe the exterior dimensions of the above vehicles compare? Where do you draw the line?
I'm glad you personally feel the CRV is what qualifies as it indicates you have a line somewhere.
The external dimensions of the Honda CRV are 185″ L x 74″ W x 66-67″ H per quick Google. The external dimensions of the Mitsubishi Outlander are 185″ L x 75″ W x 69″ H per quick Google.
Do you truly believe the entire gap between small and large - including an implied medium - lies in the two inches vertical, one inch width, and zero inch length between the two?
Or, are you perhaps talking out your ass once more?
That's a fair adjustment. However, there are no moved goalposts - just the unfortunate results of your own assumptions and gaps in awareness.
See above. It compares directly with the first of your mentioned "small" SUVs I checked. I would not be surprised if it compares similarly to the others based on your performance thus far.
Once more, your highlight only compared within the same manufacturer and completely fell apart when comparing across manufacturers.
Once more, you seem to have a poor understanding of SUV sizes.
I'm concerned you're convinced of a universal truth by nothing more than your own experience.
It's interesting to me that you quibble about rahh honest comparison in other places but here seem to pretend the loss of three cubic feet at the gain of multiple tens of thousands in price is somehow an honest comparison to make.
It's possible the wagon would serve as well to haul things despite its clear loss in vertical capacity. I seriously doubt it, though - you seem to believe raw volume is the only factor.
Your poor assumption is in no way my misrepresentation; at least have the maturity to own your mistake rather than seeking to pretend someone hoodwinked you.
You throw not based in reality stones from a rather glass house, friend.
Dude most people do not consider a fucking 7 seater small. I get that you don't like people contradicting your claims but seriously, the fact that you won't even acknowledge that a reasonable assumption for something described is 'small" is that it isn't larger than average makes this entire conversation pointless.
Have a good one, I'm out. Enjoy your SUV, whether necessary or not you clearly have a strong emotional attachment to it, and surely you can agree with me that there is unquestionable value in having things that bring joy.
So, your best response to a direct reference of the physical dimensions of the mentioned vehicles is... "dude just trust me bro"?
It's interesting you criticize claims - presumably, the actual references to the actual physical dimensions of the vehicles - while also ignoring those same facts. I'm sure you don't see the error between larger than the average and your referenced CRV being nearly identical in size - but more glaringly - what dimensions do you define as average? Based on your missing awareness so far, it seems you pull this, too, out of your ass - but I'd be thrilled to see any actual data.
This, aside from how you quibble about assumptions for small despite the external dimensions of my Mitsubishi Outlander being nearly identical to those of one vehicle you highlight as the epitome of small, the Honda CRV. Are you ever going to... say, acknowledge your error?
I note you did not answer those questions, so I once more highlight: How do you believe the exterior dimensions of the above vehicles compare? Where do you draw the line?
I’m glad you personally feel the CRV is what qualifies as it indicates you have a line somewhere.
The external dimensions of the Honda CRV are 185″ L x 74″ W x 66-67″ H per quick Google. The external dimensions of the Mitsubishi Outlander are 185″ L x 75″ W x 69″ H per quick Google.
Do you truly believe the entire gap between small and large - including an implied medium - lies in the two inches vertical, one inch width, and zero inch length between the two?
Are you truly so terrified of confrontating your own errors? That's... kind of sad.
Unfortunately, only one of us seems to have an emotional attachment to anything and I would suggest it isn't the one directly referencing easily-discovered dimensions for an objective comparison of size. I would also suggest it's likely the person who ignores points and data and seeks to end the conversation when their errors are unavoidably on display.
I do enjoy that the vehicle I've chosen meets my needs, but I don't see the need to prescribe emotions to objects of utility.
Mate if it's going to make you happy, yeah I thought the crv was a different car.
I also made a few other errors.
It's definitely impossible to understand what I consider to be a small SUV from the examples given, there's no way anyone could possibly read into the context and work it out, it was wrong of me to suggest it was obvious. This oversight obviously entirely undermines the actual examples I'd given of where SUVs that have less storage than wagons, obviously a small SUV isn't like the q3 or mid q5 like I'd suggested, it makes far more sense to start a conversation about small ~~at the standard or full size segment~~ with what appears to be the literal largest size vehicle from a manufacturer.
I was also wrong to suggest that, like the hundreds of thousands who raised families before the rise of the SUV, that you could have chosen a station wagon to meet your needs. I concede unreservedly, my definition of small is wrong, everyone who needs to transport 4 people needs 7 seats. Further, though I didn't articulate it, I naively thought that things like roof storage and bike racks and other science fiction ideas could further increase storage potential of vehicles.
Thank you for so carefully dissecting my original points and teaching me to learn from my mistakes, I feel like such an idiot for spouting such nonsense. Have a great night.
Given the near-identical size of it compared to the one you lambast, yes, it's impossible to see any meaningful difference as there isn't any beyond your opinion on the matter. Your sarcasm aside, I'm going to hold you to this.
Oh? I note you still don't bother to actually support your assertion with any form of meaningful data. Here, I'll do your part for you as you're clearly incapable of knowing what you're talking about.
The Mitsubishi Outlander clocks in at 185.4 L x 84.4 W x 68.5 H.
The Audi Q5 clocks in at 184.3 L x 84.2 W x 65.5 H.
The delta is 1.1 L x 0.2 W x 3.0 H. Where in this delta do you delineate small, medium, and large?
The Audi Q3 clocks in at 177 L x 73 W x 63 H.
The delta is 8.4 L x 11.4 W x 5.5 H. Where in this delta do you delineate small, medium, and large?
Where in any of the available SUVs on the market do you delineate small, medium, and large? I suspect you don't actually have a meaningful delineation - it would explain your complete inability to demarcate thresholds or support your position.
Ah - I see you continue to ignore the concept of height, in addition to pretending it's impossible for both options to have roof storage and bike racks and other science fiction ideas. You seek to dunk, but in your sarcasm, you seem to erode your own position even further. Amazing.
The worst part is, had you at any point actually managed to support your assertions or respond to the actual criticisms, it could have been a productive conversation. That would require you to set your fragile ego aside and be willing to consider you might just be wrong though, so...