401
‘Seismic shift’: driving unaffordable for many in US amid push toward SUVs
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
401 points (97.6% liked)
News
23284 readers
4082 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
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
Right, but in this scenario you end up with two vehicles: a light, economical car to drive and a dedicated work vehicle. The original point is that expensive, heavy vehicles as daily drivers can be less practical and economical than mutiple cheaper, dedicated vehicles.
For some reason, this makes Americans, and especially American car people VERY angry to hear, and it's bizarre.
Hold up here. Americans have too many cars per capita as it is. Your solution is to increase that? Especially when cars come with a big environmental footprint right out of the factory. Because I'm over here trying to consolidate how many cars we have and use an e-bike more often.
I don't think you've thought this through.
Well, see, the secret is you probably don't really need that truck bed in the first place, so if I was to guess, I'd say that's why there's a bit of resistance to that idea. The working hypothesis here is that if you bought a sensible car that makes sense as a car... and a separate van to work, then you'd never buy a van. Which is what most people do here, honestly. You don't so much buy a van as you know a guy who does own a van and will let you use it for the thirty minutes that you actually need it once or twice a year in exchange for a beer later.
Which is probably how you end up with fewer cars per capita than the US and still have work vehicles separate from whatever you use to take the kids to school or go get groceries.
Also, you send the kids to school in a bus and walk to the shop. That also helps, I bet.
I'm not sure why you think a van is a better option. If we're talking about people who actually use their big hauling thing for more than running to Starbucks, they're different options for different uses. They're not more efficient, and on fact may may be less efficient in comparable models. The bigger ones are built on exactly the same truck frames.
People who actually need one can choose whatever. I don't have a need for either, don't have either, and probably never will. But I've seen this van argument a lot, and I think it's silly and misunderstands how the two are built and their tradeoffs.
But no, we're NOT talking about those people. At least we're not just talking about those people. And a van that is not being used because you're taking a smaller car is, in fact, more efficient than a pikcup truck. The point isn't "buy a van instead of a pickup", it's "buy a sensible car instead of a pickup, and if you do need a work vehicle get one of those on the side".
The entire point is we're talking about how Americans in general apply this very specific kind of FOMO to determine whether to go for a thing they don't really need in the event they might need it, that was the point of the thread. Like, you know, driving a luxury work vehicle everywhere when you could just have a practical small car for people and a practical cheaper work vehicle for the same price. Then it weirdly morphed into how if you point out that this applies to pickup trucks people get mad at you on the Internet. And then people got mad on the Internet.
Also, second time in this bizarre argument somebody raises "vans are just built on pickup frames with a roof on them". The other guy who said it went to sanity check online and came back reporting that actually no, that wasn't the case, at least for the popular examples he was thinking of. I think that may be a US thing as well where one popular van was built like that and it became common to think that was the norm but the popular vans in places where vans are populars are not built like that. It's weird, I hadn't heard that one before until I accidentally pissed off pickup people the first time.
More to the point, I'm asking why you think vans are a superior option to trucks in this role.
Things like the Ford Transit or Mercedes Metris are built like cars with unibody construction and car suspension. That's fine as far as it goes, but they're not clearly superior to a pickup in the same size range. The Transit Connect is roughly comparable to the Ford Maverick, and I believe even uses the same engine. Comparing fuel economy:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=47363
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=46370
The van has a smidge better city millage, but the truck has a fair bit better highway. That's likely because the truck weighs a bit more (which matters more in the city) but has better aerodynamics (which predominantes for highway cruising).
Why would a truck have better aerodynamics? Frontal cross section. Vans tend to be as tall as a truck, but also sit lower like a sedan. They would tend to have better drag coefficient, but their frontal cross section is worse. By way of contrast, a motorcycle with a rider has a drag coefficient that makes a truck look good, but has a relatively tiny frontal cross section.
And here we might have our answer to why Americans may prefer trucks in this role: more highway driving.
Past the Transit and Metris size, yes, vans are built like trucks. A Ford E350 van is an F350 frame. Same with the Chevy Express and the Silveroto. The Mercedes Sprinter doesn't have a direct pickup analog, but it is sold as a cab chassis for customization.
More specifically, they tend to be body-on-frame construction. They have to in order to support higher weight capacity. The Sprinter is a bit of a hybrid between unibody and body-on-frame--hence allowing a customizable back end--but anything bigger than that has to be built like a truck regardless of what's on the backside. Unibody car-like frames don't cut it.
In what "role"? How is that more to the point? I never said "vans are better than pickups", I said "for the money of an expensive pickup you can get a hatchback and a van". So not that vans are better, but that you can cover the dual role of a very expensive "truck" that you also use as a daily driver for a thing that is a more practical daily driver and a work vehicle.
So no, the idea isn't that you're driving a van to take your kids to school like some deranged weirdo (again, I've been that kid, don't do it, it's a bad idea). The point is that using a work vehicle as your daily driver is expensive and inconvenient for everybody else in the road.
Incidentally, you guys are being obnoxious enough about this that I today I walked past a Citroën Berlingo parked in a compact car spot on the side of the road and went "heh, look at that". That's what you made me do. I shouldn't care about this. This shouldn't even register. Stop making me notice practical vans.
I'm honestly trying to explore this point about vans, because I've seen it come up a lot. Not just your argument, but there's an idea among the FuckCars crowd that vans are superior in every way to pickup trucks, and pickups are only for penis enhancement. It's silly and misunderstands how the two are built and why people might choose one over the other.
Basically, my argument comes down to most people don't need either one (and we seem to be aligned on that), but past a certain point where people actually use their big vehicles, either vans or pickup trucks are fine. Europeans often choose vans because it works for them and Americans often choose pickup trucks because it works for them. Americans need to buy fewer F150s or anything else in that size class, and neither side of the Atlantic should be buying so many crossovers/SUVs.
Yeah, man, so... maybe have that argument with someone who is having that argument?
I mean, cool, I get it, you're itching to make that case to somebody who is making the opposite case, but if you just blast it at people who are not saying the thing you're responding to it just... doesn't really work that well.
I don't want two vehicles that don't do what I want. I want one vehicle, that is the same size and gets the same gas mileage as a car that does what I want by having an open bed in the back instead of an enclosed hatchback.
Its like you can't read.
Note: The Subaru Brat, which is one of the example I said that I wished they sold trucks in today, was smaller than a Honda Fit. Do you think a Honda Fit is big?
I'm amazed they haven't accused you have having a small penis because you want a (checks again to be sure) Subaru Brat.
We had a used Brat when I was a teenager in the 80s! The seats in the bed had already been taken out and it was a rust bucket, but just fun on a bun until my older brother rolled it in a ditch.
A modern version with an electric drive train would be fantastic!
No, hey, I get it. You want a cool toy, not a boring practical solution. That's legitimate. I own many things that are not the optimal answer to a problem just because I like them.
The sheer rage at the insinuation that the option may not be optimal is fascinating, though. So uniquely American. Which is what this thread is about. "The maximal use case".
For the record, I had not heard of the "Honda Fit". I guess it's like a Japanese Fiat Punto. Also for the record, what both the Fiat Punto and the Honda Fit seem to have is a back seat. But hey, again, a cool toy, not an optimal solution. Maximal use case. It's a good observation.
Considering you have absolutely no idea of what he does on a daily basis and no idea of how often he needs the vehicle for those situations. Plus no idea of his parking space. I'm not sure how you are able to tell him what he should buy.
I didn't? Like I explicitly didn't. I explicitly say up there that I get it and even if I think it's not optimal you get to buy stuff you like that's not optimal because you think it's cool.
This only reinforces my point about the sheer, unbridled rage this subject triggers in a certain stripe of car people, and it's both hilarious and kinda terrifying.
The only rage here is you against literally anything that has an open bed, even if it is the same size and gets the same mileage as a compact car.
I swear to you, if I ever have any kind of emotion towards "anything that has an open bed" beyond mild bemusement I will quit the Internet, abandon the concept of self-propelled vehicles and ride a donkey to a mountain monastery to rethink my life.
I just didn't know you could get people on the Internet to froth at the mouth by implying that pickup trucks aren't perhaps the most efficient mode of transportation until a couple of weeks ago. Now that I do know it feels irresponsible not to use this power. Especially when somebody brings up how culturally strange some purchasing choices are in the US.
Thank you for finally admitting that you are a troll!
Imagine being such a worthless piece of shit that you argue with someone who wants a truck version of a car by constantly saying they want something other than they are literally saying. It probably helps if you are jobless and unable to make romantic connections with people because of your inability to maintain proper hygiene. That must really help with the personal need to rile up others so you can feel better about yourself while you cry yourself to sleep on the bare mattress you sleep on.
Oh, yeah, this conversation is super irrelevant. There is literally zero reason to have this conversation beyond the morbid fascination of seeing weirdos come out of the woodwork to be super offended that you said mean things about open beds. It's like flipping over a rock to see the bugs.
I mean, let's be honest, why else would anybody have an intricate, incensed conversation about whether the back of a van is covered with a bit of sheet metal or going commando? It's absolutely bonkers. Think about it. Think about it hard for a second.
Why would anyone shit on the idea of a car that is the same size, gets the same mileage, and is otherwise the same as a hatchback but with an open bed instead of a closed hatch? What kind of nut job would suggest a van and a second vehicle that would get the same fuel consumption as a solution? Think about it hard for a second.
Yeeeeah, you didn't quite get the thinking part done right, I think.
But also. My friend. Back seats. We've talked about this.
I don't need a backseat in this vehicle.
Cool.
So why are we having this conversation, then? Because that's great for you, but as a "optimal use case" as opposed to the "maximal use case", I'd say "seats" tends to rank pretty high the list of car features. For... you know, most people.
You would say that since you keep ignoring everything that I have written.
Would you tell someone who wants a SmartCar that they should get something with a backseat instead? What about the van with a sealed off cabin that was suggested, which would also have two seats but worse fuel economy in a larger package than what I want which is a car with a truck bed?
Honestly this keeps going because I am fascinated by how hard you have dug your heels in opposing a car with a truck bed for reasons that I have already explained are not relevant based on my prior ownership of a hatchback. And you will respond to this because you can't just admit maybe you were wrong in your assumptions. Like comically wrong, but it would be a travesty for someone to not fit your idea of an American who uses their lifted truck as a dick substitute.
Plus I have some time on my hands so will definitely be getting the last word in.
I'd tell someone with a SmartCar to get a monthly bus pass instead. And a bike, maybe. And a sense of self-awareness.
But also, yeah, failing that get a bigger car with a backseat. For sure. Maybe the one Smart make, if that's what they're into.
What I'm fascinated about is the "these are not relevant based on my prior ownership" bit, because... I'm not talking to you. I never talked to you. You popped up in here saying that the problem with pickups is they weren't making small ones, as if that was a systemic issue and then somehow this became about a specific car that you want to have that they don't make. Like you personally. As if my tangentially related point was an affront to this purchase that you want to make specifically.
I'm not sure that's a specifically American thing, because people in social media do tend to think everything is explicitly about them in particular, but man, when combined with the pickup thing it does sound... you know, arch.
What the fuck are you going on about now?
I refer you to my previous post, where I do the going on.
So someone who wants to buy a two seater car that is extremely convenient in the city because of the short wheelbase and excellent gas mileage should buy a bigger car for extra seats they don't need?
Why are you so angry about people not needing more than two seats that you insist they need a larger vehicle? Must be a wherever you are thing to think people shouldn't have preferences.
No, they should buy no car and instead buy a public transportation pass.
And a bycicle.
Again, I refer you to my previous post.
I refer you to my previous posts.