One of the things the Biden administration will never get due credit for is this - gradually undoing the fuel economy exception that allowed light and heavy trucks to escape the full weight of the...
Exemplary
One of the things the Biden administration will never get due credit for is this - gradually undoing the fuel economy exception that allowed light and heavy trucks to escape the full weight of the original 1978 CAFE legislation.
The proliferation of profitable heavy vehicles that guzzle gasoline and diesel was the fully intended (by U.S. automakers) end result of the exception. It's how SUVs (classed as "light trucks") usurped the role of passenger cars and vans, and heavy trucks took over from lighter utility vehicles. Import duties on foreign passenger cars took care of the rest, and it's part of why U.S. incumbent automakers have been so sluggish in electrifying.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding -- it looks like this forces improved fuel economy across the board, but doesn't address the light truck loophole at all. I don't even see the term "light truck" at all...
Maybe I'm misunderstanding -- it looks like this forces improved fuel economy across the board, but doesn't address the light truck loophole at all. I don't even see the term "light truck" at all here, only "heavy duty truck", so does this address this issue at all?
I'm no expert, but it sounds like you know a bit more. I'd love to see the Biden administration close the loophole that allows car companies to churn out gas guzzlers like the Escalade. AFAICT this doesn't help that, but I am very likely missing a lot.
The regulatory change drastically escalates the rate at which heavier vehicles have to meet fuel economy standards: "Passenger trucks" a/k/a SUVs will have to meet a 50 mpg standard. It doesn't...
The regulatory change drastically escalates the rate at which heavier vehicles have to meet fuel economy standards:
The standards will increase fuel efficiency standards for new heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans by 10% each year from 2030 to 2032 and by 8% each year from 2033 to 2035.
The standards will:
Result in an average of 50.4 miles per gallon for new cars and passenger trucks sold in 2031
Result in an average of 35 miles per gallon for new heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans sold in 2035
"Passenger trucks" a/k/a SUVs will have to meet a 50 mpg standard.
It doesn't sound like much for heavy vehicles, but those monster trucks currently get 10 - 15 mpg. It's reasonable regulation that gives enough time for compliance and shifting the balance of vehicles on the road if manufacturers find it too onerous to comply.
Thank you! I was looking for the term "light truck" because that's what I usually hear in conversations about this topic. Makes sense (unfortunately) that regulation would invent a whole separate...
Thank you! I was looking for the term "light truck" because that's what I usually hear in conversations about this topic. Makes sense (unfortunately) that regulation would invent a whole separate term.
In conclusion: go Biden, god damn that's a positive development. I really wouldn't mind another term of sanity, stability, and good policy. It's too bad the man is the freakin cryptkeeper at this point.
Not the topic you think the article will be about. Honestly, I felt like this article could have, and should have been written about SUVs. I think similar psychologies and marketing cause people...
The most popular vehicles in America may be the greatest examples of overcompensation ever invented.
Not the topic you think the article will be about.
Honestly, I felt like this article could have, and should have been written about SUVs.
I think similar psychologies and marketing cause people who just need a commuter car to buy either of those vehicles instead.
To be fair to SUV owners, very few models of station wagons are available -- at least in the U.S.. Got kids? Hauling a lot of boxes regularly? Your choices are limited. I had a conversation about it with my sister once. She liked her SUV because it was easier to get into and out of, with her joint health issues.
It's not just station wagons that are limited in number, but really any type of hatchback that isn't an SUV or crossover. What few exist, like the hatch variants of the Corolla and Civic, cost...
It's not just station wagons that are limited in number, but really any type of hatchback that isn't an SUV or crossover. What few exist, like the hatch variants of the Corolla and Civic, cost more.
As someone who likes their vehicle to provide more utility than a sedan can deliver but doesn't necessarily need an SUV, this is frustrating.
I drive a Kia Soul, and genuinely like it. It's basically a box on wheels, but that also means that it's very roomy for its size, and it's tall enough, with large enough door openings, that it's...
I drive a Kia Soul, and genuinely like it. It's basically a box on wheels, but that also means that it's very roomy for its size, and it's tall enough, with large enough door openings, that it's easier for both myself and my older family members to enter/exit. It is also quite inexpensive compared to other vehicles.
Fuck Toyota for killing the Scion. It legit was gonna be my family car when the prius was too small. It was so roomy even as a 6'3 man in the back seat.
Fuck Toyota for killing the Scion. It legit was gonna be my family car when the prius was too small. It was so roomy even as a 6'3 man in the back seat.
No lie. We sold ours last year, but would have looked at a newer one if they would have still been making them. Stripped down box, no bells or whistles, perfect adventure vehicle or workhorse....
No lie. We sold ours last year, but would have looked at a newer one if they would have still been making them. Stripped down box, no bells or whistles, perfect adventure vehicle or workhorse. Honda said to biy a CRV awhile back. Um, no. It's not a useful box, dammit.
My SO had a scion and I was always impressed with how roomy and comfortable it was. Especially since I’m also 6’ and usually don’t fit well in peoples back seats. Always thought it was weird that...
My SO had a scion and I was always impressed with how roomy and comfortable it was. Especially since I’m also 6’ and usually don’t fit well in peoples back seats.
Always thought it was weird that they dropped the whole product line and never replaced it, considering so many people who had them really liked them.
Have never driven one, but the Matrix looks like it was another member of the high utility, no nonsense group of Toyotas. Tons of cargo space, all non-driver seats (even front passenger) can fold...
Have never driven one, but the Matrix looks like it was another member of the high utility, no nonsense group of Toyotas. Tons of cargo space, all non-driver seats (even front passenger) can fold down, glass on its rear hatch can open, and yet it drives, parks, and is priced like a Corolla. It’s not the prettiest or most sexy looking car but is absurdly practical.
So as far as I can tell, it would be more accurate to say there's very few cars like that still being sold in the US The UK is increasingly suffering from the trend of SUVs, which are the worst...
There’s very few cars like that still being made.
So as far as I can tell, it would be more accurate to say there's very few cars like that still being sold in the US
The UK is increasingly suffering from the trend of SUVs, which are the worst form factor for cars because they are big and dangerous to other road users but not particularly spacious/practical on the inside, but there are still plenty of actually practical cars still on the market.
I don't know quite what it is about the US car market which makes it so difficult to sell smaller and more useful cars but it does seem to be an issue. Every time the topic comes up there's lots of people saying "I just want something fairly small but with space to move a washing machine if I put the seats down" and honestly that's almost every car I've ever owned.
1.) All cars are sold through dealerships here and the dealers push people towards higher margin vehicles with all the options. 2.) We have a separate set of fuel economy requirements for “light...
I don't know quite what it is about the US car market which makes it so difficult to sell smaller and more useful cars but it does seem to be an issue. Every time the topic comes up there's lots of people saying "I just want something fairly small but with space to move a washing machine if I put the seats down" and honestly that's almost every car I've ever owned.
1.) All cars are sold through dealerships here and the dealers push people towards higher margin vehicles with all the options.
2.) We have a separate set of fuel economy requirements for “light trucks” and that category is defined by curb weight. This has created an extremely perverse incentive for carmakers to push anyone wanting anything bigger (since that will have higher fuel consumption) into the super-big “light truck” category so that the fuel economy across their fleet of “cars” seems low.
These incentives have led to marketing pushes to create demand for these things, and once that got going it becomes self-reinforcing.
Years ago I looked at the matrix vs the Honda fit. The Honda Fit is a way bigger box that handled better and I think was cheaper. The downside to the Fit was the smaller engine and more road...
Years ago I looked at the matrix vs the Honda fit. The Honda Fit is a way bigger box that handled better and I think was cheaper. The downside to the Fit was the smaller engine and more road noise. Just my opinion but I thought the Fit was better overall.
They axed the Fit in North America recently and I was pretty bummed at that. I think it was so much better than the modern Civic. Also, they made an AWD version for Japan and they're just old enough to be imported into Canada.
They're both very capable small cars that edge each other out in different ways. Fit is much better if you have tall cargo, Matrix is better for long cargo (front passenger seat down + back window...
They're both very capable small cars that edge each other out in different ways. Fit is much better if you have tall cargo, Matrix is better for long cargo (front passenger seat down + back window open = as long or longer than a truck bed). Fit is better as a little city car that can be parked darn near anywhere, Matrix is better all-rounder/adventure car (especially the AWD version, which is popular in the PNW and Canada for its better cold weather and off-roading capabilities).
I'd love to have either and preferably both available on the modern North American market.
I’m driving a Fit (“Jazz” here) that I inherited. It’s not great, I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to choose it, but it’s fine as a city car. Pros: Small enough to fit in any space and through...
I’m driving a Fit (“Jazz” here) that I inherited. It’s not great, I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to choose it, but it’s fine as a city car.
Pros: Small enough to fit in any space and through any gap one would reasonably consider. Decent bit of trunk space for the size and roomy enough interior, though a bit cramped with rear-facing toddler seats.
Cons: The power is awful though, and you practically have to floor it to get up to speed for highway merging our getting out of a stopped lane. Sight lines aren’t the best, particularly hate the giant A-pillar which blocks a good bit of the view of pedestrians crossing the road nearby or in a curve. Speakers and AC vents are only in the front, which means you’re getting blasted by both as the driver if you hope to keep the people in back comfortable.
Power at least could be addressed pretty easily with an electric version. The other shortcomings would require a larger redesign. I’ll admit that I’m a bit biased towards small cars as a result of...
Power at least could be addressed pretty easily with an electric version. The other shortcomings would require a larger redesign.
I’ll admit that I’m a bit biased towards small cars as a result of the smaller than average garage on my house. It’s frustrating when the overwhelming majority of vehicles currently being sold in the US won’t fit in it unless it’s modified considerably.
I have a six speed Honda Fit (2018). I think it accelerates well enough to highway (it's my downtown city car) and probably faster than the non-manual version based on conversation with friends...
I have a six speed Honda Fit (2018). I think it accelerates well enough to highway (it's my downtown city car) and probably faster than the non-manual version based on conversation with friends with the other variants. The continuous transmission is weird of Honda (partner has a CRV with A CT engine) and I'm not always a fan of it's acceleration by comparison, though you can kind of "shift it" by letting off the pedal completely and laying onto it again.
There's also the matter of (perceived) safety in size. People feel safer and more comfortable in larger vehicles, both casually and in respect to thinking about collisions. This in spite of the...
There's also the matter of (perceived) safety in size. People feel safer and more comfortable in larger vehicles, both casually and in respect to thinking about collisions. This in spite of the fact that larger vehicles have worse accident survivability than you might expect due to higher CoGs.
Hard to ignore the defensive aspect, though: no matter how good the crash rating of my old '01 Civic, if my neighbor hit me with his enormous 2022-ish truck, I'd be dead. The front bumper of that...
Hard to ignore the defensive aspect, though: no matter how good the crash rating of my old '01 Civic, if my neighbor hit me with his enormous 2022-ish truck, I'd be dead. The front bumper of that thing is literally above the window line of most sedans. And that's not even counting how crazy your average truck lights look at night these days.
The US roads could really use some regulation to keep this from turning into an arms race. Too bad we don't have a government agency that does that (glares at Pete).
The perception of safety then leads to people paying less attention while they're driving. A lot of people drive like outright assholes now because if their actions result in a crash they don't...
The perception of safety then leads to people paying less attention while they're driving. A lot of people drive like outright assholes now because if their actions result in a crash they don't die/horrifically injured.
I prefer vintage cars, I am aware that my 2,100lb car is a tin can compared to even a modern compact and as a result of that I drive it like I ride a motorcycle, by being hyper aware of others and my surroundings.
I defintely agree with your post. I think what I was trying to say is that the larger size proves less beneficial than people feel. Even in your example, of a large truck hitting a small car. What...
I defintely agree with your post.
I think what I was trying to say is that the larger size proves less beneficial than people feel. Even in your example, of a large truck hitting a small car. What you described in known as "crash misalignment", where the safety features like crumple zones and airbags of cars do not work effectively when the cars are significantly different in size. This is bad for even the driver of the large car, who might get more rollovers due to a less "head-on" and more "under-cutting" collision. Of course, it's even worse for the small car driver.
And then there's the matter of the arms race, and as @AugustusFerdinand said, of large size encouraging complacency. All of these factors contribute to roads filled with large cars simply being less safe overall, and even the people who purchase large vehicles for the defensive factor are actually not getting the benefit they expect.
These are related. People who aren’t confident in their driving ability opt for driving tanks to compensate. Then the fact that they’re in a tank emboldens them to be more reckless.
These are related. People who aren’t confident in their driving ability opt for driving tanks to compensate. Then the fact that they’re in a tank emboldens them to be more reckless.
The only good station wagons now are BMW, Audi, or Mercedes imports that are very expensive. The VW Golf AllTrack was pretty solid but it’s been retired and the Subaru Outback, which used to...
The only good station wagons now are BMW, Audi, or Mercedes imports that are very expensive. The VW Golf AllTrack was pretty solid but it’s been retired and the Subaru Outback, which used to basically be a station wagon version of the Legacy, is now more of a crossover.
Amy's also isn't very good anymore. Additionally, you don't find their burritos in many supermarkets, grocery, and convenience stores. Hence the unending quest to find bean burritos without meat...
Amy's also isn't very good anymore. Additionally, you don't find their burritos in many supermarkets, grocery, and convenience stores. Hence the unending quest to find bean burritos without meat or cheese.
I should just go to Taco Bell when I want something like that, but the one nearest me is in an inconvenient location.
In short: The single most popular vehicle category in the US is never used for their designed purpose, needlessly oversized, horrifically wasteful, and not the most loved by the owners, but has...
In short: The single most popular vehicle category in the US is never used for their designed purpose, needlessly oversized, horrifically wasteful, and not the most loved by the owners, but has the single highest category loyalty.
The most popular vehicles in America may be the greatest examples of overcompensation ever invented.
People do not love their trucks as much as you expect. “We run a metric each year called Most Loved Vehicles, and when it comes to the emotional connection that trucks create, it isn’t as strong as some of the other vehicles out there,” says Alexander Edwards president of automotive research and consulting firm Strategic Vision, which conducts an in-depth, annual, 250,000-person, psychographic new vehicle owners’ survey.
[Owners] might also protest that trucks provide capabilities that other vehicles lack. But, as it turns out, a significant portion of truck owners never use their trucks for these capabilities. According to Edwards’ data, 75 percent of truck owners use their truck for towing one time a year or less (meaning, never). Nearly 70 percent of truck owners go off-road one time a year or less. And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
According to Edwards’ research, nearly 80% of people who are replacing a full-size truck will buy another full-size truck, the highest loyalty rate of any vehicle category in the market.
My ex-wife insisted for years that we needed a truck. I told her any time we needed a truck, I would happily go rent one for a day, and if we ever did it more than 5 times in a year, we could buy...
My ex-wife insisted for years that we needed a truck. I told her any time we needed a truck, I would happily go rent one for a day, and if we ever did it more than 5 times in a year, we could buy one.
Never bought one. Rented a truck once. Borrowed one once, and it was help move her shit out.
Intuitively this makes a lot of sense to me. They’re big, they don’t handle well, they’re hard to park or maneuver through garages or tight spaces. If you actually used it for its purpose you...
People do not love their trucks as much as you expect. “We run a metric each year called Most Loved Vehicles, and when it comes to the emotional connection that trucks create, it isn’t as strong as some of the other vehicles out there,”
Intuitively this makes a lot of sense to me. They’re big, they don’t handle well, they’re hard to park or maneuver through garages or tight spaces. If you actually used it for its purpose you could offset those gripes, but if you never do then your day to day experience of using it is 100% extra frustration with nothing in exchange.
And even their ostensible purpose is eroded by them being oversized. They’re so tall it’s not even convenient to toss heavy things in the bed. And since they have extended cabs the size of the bed ends up being nothing special.
I’d be very curious to see the satisfaction differential on smaller trucks, like the Hyundai Santa Cruz, versus the brodozers people tend to buy.
I have a pickup, but it's an older one, a 2004 Toyota Tacoma. That was the last year Toyota sold a genuinely small pickup in the US. I haul stuff in it about once a week, including items that are...
I have a pickup, but it's an older one, a 2004 Toyota Tacoma. That was the last year Toyota sold a genuinely small pickup in the US. I haul stuff in it about once a week, including items that are difficult to load into something other than a truck, like sand and gravel.
Too bad the chicken tax and the general trend towards larger vehicles makes this type of truck a nearly forgotten relic. I find it much easier to drive and load than the monstrous trucks they're selling now. About once every couple of months, someone will approach me in a parking lot and ask if I'm thinking of selling my Tacoma. So I know there is some pent up demand for this type of truck.
Here here. I have an 03 Tacoma and just love it to death - barring a bad accident I don't think I'll ever part with it, and maybe not even then. I might consider replacing it with a new truck, if...
Here here. I have an 03 Tacoma and just love it to death - barring a bad accident I don't think I'll ever part with it, and maybe not even then.
I might consider replacing it with a new truck, if one came on the market with: compact size, two doors, body on frame, and reasonable styling. Strong preference for Asian manufacture too. But that isn't going to happen.
Used to have an ‘09 Ranger and felt the same way. It was the perfect size, and at the time I was doing a lot of home improvement projects and leveraging the truck bed fairly often. I just looked...
Used to have an ‘09 Ranger and felt the same way. It was the perfect size, and at the time I was doing a lot of home improvement projects and leveraging the truck bed fairly often. I just looked it up and the new Rangers are only about 6” larger in each dimension, but I still am not at all interested. They look huge and dumb and the truck bed is practically up to my nips.
Those OG Rangers kick ass. Surprising to hear the new ones are so close in size, they do look huge. The Maverick is closer to the right size, but IIRC it's a unibody design.
Those OG Rangers kick ass. Surprising to hear the new ones are so close in size, they do look huge.
The Maverick is closer to the right size, but IIRC it's a unibody design.
I needed a work truck I can put a utility bed on and a decent amount of weight. I have to load and unload tools from it most work days. I wanted a 2004 type Tacoma so bad! But it ended up making...
I needed a work truck I can put a utility bed on and a decent amount of weight. I have to load and unload tools from it most work days. I wanted a 2004 type Tacoma so bad!
But it ended up making more financial sense to buy a brand new 2019 model. It was barely more expensive since the old ones are in so much demand. Plus I wanted something that would look professional. But the new ones are huge and no one sells anything smaller! So frustrating.
If I could just defend pickup truck owners, if we used the same logic for us small car owners, how many of us ever have four people in the car taking up all four seats? I own a four door sedan...
And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
If I could just defend pickup truck owners, if we used the same logic for us small car owners, how many of us ever have four people in the car taking up all four seats? I own a four door sedan (Honda Civic) and I can say with 100% certainty that I've never had four people in my car. I can count on one hand the number of times i had 3 people in my car. It's really just me driving my car and occasionally my wife will be in the car with me or maybe my elderly mother when I'm taking her to her doctors appointment.
Does that mean I should just get a motorcycle or a bicycle because I never use the other three seats in my car?
I think trucks are clearly not necessary but maybe let's not attack truck owners until we look at ourselves with our mostly empty sedans.
There's a functional difference between a sedan and a motorcycle/bicycle in that it's sheltered from the elements however, which is a very important distinction for much of the US for at least one...
There's a functional difference between a sedan and a motorcycle/bicycle in that it's sheltered from the elements however, which is a very important distinction for much of the US for at least one season, sometimes multiple. While two-seater non-sports cars exist, the number of models that are sold in the US can be counted on one hand and make undesirable tradeoffs unrelated to passenger count.
Something that would improve this situation a lot is for it to become standard for seats to be easily removable in small cars, much as they are in minivans. Something as tiny as a Fiat 500/500e for instance becomes considerably more compelling if you can just ditch the vestigial back seats and turn it into a two-seater with decent cargo capacity and could help drive sales in the category.
The back seat of a sedan is for people? I thought it was for boxes of stuff from my mom's house that I don't want but feel bad throwing away and keep forgetting to bring in the house for months...
The back seat of a sedan is for people? I thought it was for boxes of stuff from my mom's house that I don't want but feel bad throwing away and keep forgetting to bring in the house for months and months. I guess putting people back there would work. Maybe they'll want some of the stuff.
First, sedans actually have five seats. So even worse. Second... if you drive distances of less than 10 miles in a car with nobody else in it, your walking, biking, and public transit...
First, sedans actually have five seats. So even worse.
Second... if you drive distances of less than 10 miles in a car with nobody else in it, your walking, biking, and public transit infrastructure has utterly failed you. There's just no need to use a car for trips like that. Of course 99% of Americans do it anyway and something like 80% wouldn't consider alternatives even if they did exist. But your point stands.
Of course, pickup trucks are about 2x the size of sedans (if not more) so if we just go by mass a truck is at least twice is absurd. But at least trucks can do certain tasks that other cars struggle with.
That's just true for so much of America. My old commute before I left was 4.9 miles in South Florida. To walk it was an hour and 50 minutes per Google maps, and you would absolutely arrive...
your walking, biking, and public transit infrastructure has utterly failed you.
That's just true for so much of America. My old commute before I left was 4.9 miles in South Florida. To walk it was an hour and 50 minutes per Google maps, and you would absolutely arrive disgustingly sweaty. It was also a pretty dangerous walk. Sidewalks for most of it, but drivers absolutely not expecting pedestrians to be crossing the roads, or really anywhere near them. Plus the catcalling was absolutely inevitable.
You could cut that almost in half, an hour and 3 minutes, by taking two different busses (despite the fact that it was a straight shot down one road once I left my neighborhood). 20 minutes of that would still be walking, so you'd still be pretty sweaty, and my experience from taking the busses to do fun stuff when I was a teenager and had no urgent need to be anywhere, was that they frequently just didn't show up. That happens sometimes here in Sweden, too, but that's a very different experience when they come every 15 minutes than it is when they're once an hour. One of the bus stops is covered, so if you time it right and bring a fan, you might be able to show up at work only a little sweaty.
Much faster than the bus is biking, only 30 minutes. By virtue of being on the actual road with cars, but not in a car, it's also the most dangerous. I've been hit by a car on my bike before, it's not something I'd want to repeat. Still gonna be sweaty, still probably gonna get catcalls.
Or, you can arrive in 15 minutes, relatively safe, not a drop of sweat, but with a fiery hatred for other drivers, by driving a car.
Now I live in Sweden, and I don't even own a car. Things are much closer together here - in a typical month I won't go more than 5 kilometers from my apartment - but if I do need to take a bus or a train, it's extremely easy and convenient to do it. Walking and biking feel like safe options. Sweden doesn't have any secret technology that they're keeping away from the US. It's just better infrastructure.
Couldn't agree more. I spend a lot of the time in the UK for work, but live in the USA. I know that immigration is a massive pain and a lot of investment (social, time, and money), so I haven't...
Couldn't agree more. I spend a lot of the time in the UK for work, but live in the USA. I know that immigration is a massive pain and a lot of investment (social, time, and money), so I haven't bothered yet. But as I reach the end of my 20s I remain just as interested in moving to the UK as I was back in my late teens and early 20s.
Maybe this will be my year to finally do it. After living in three major US cities and four different states and visiting a good chunk of the country, I can concretely and confidently say that unless you want to drive everywhere, US infrastructure is utterly and completely fucked. Even NYC is completely dominated by cars, with subway maintenance as an afterthought and biking considered some kind of fringe political activity.
The US suburb in which I live, while not being an endless expanse of nothing but houses (it’s broken up by clusters of shops, trees/green space, etc), sidewalk coverage is spotty at best and...
The US suburb in which I live, while not being an endless expanse of nothing but houses (it’s broken up by clusters of shops, trees/green space, etc), sidewalk coverage is spotty at best and bikers will find themselves on the road alongside traffic more often than they’d like.
There are still too many big trucks and SUVs on the road here, but small cars seem to be the compromise that least some people make. I see a number of Honda Fits, Toyota Yarises, Chevy Bolts, Smart ForTwos, and Fiat 500(e)s along with the occasional odd Japanese Kei car/truck.
What's the average city mileage of your sedan vs a full size truck? Yes, most people "should" be driving Smart Fortwos but they're not going to. If you're taking about 28mpg vs 15mpg, you can go...
What's the average city mileage of your sedan vs a full size truck? Yes, most people "should" be driving Smart Fortwos but they're not going to.
If you're taking about 28mpg vs 15mpg, you can go twice the nearly twice the distance while being just as "wasteful" with your travel... Except you're wasting less space, less fuel, etc too.
If you have to be perfect to criticize anything else, we'll never get anywhere.
By all means use a bike if you want and live in a good place for it. But as a USian outside NYC I think sedans/wagons/hatchbacks have a lot of utility. I haul more than 3 people fairly...
By all means use a bike if you want and live in a good place for it. But as a USian outside NYC I think sedans/wagons/hatchbacks have a lot of utility.
I haul more than 3 people fairly infrequently but I fold my back seats down quite often to haul larger stuff quite often. Further we have dogs so the back seat is useful for them.
I also think people underestimate the demands of “off roading.” I’ve driven sedans through some pretty gnarly stuff. Go slow, read the road, it will be fine. And this is a fairly low ground clearance BMW.
I drove a (rented) Jetta down trails designed for military vehicles before. Are there things it can't do? Yes, but I've gotten a Dodge Durango stuck more times than an Impreza. If there were more...
I drove a (rented) Jetta down trails designed for military vehicles before. Are there things it can't do? Yes, but I've gotten a Dodge Durango stuck more times than an Impreza.
If there were more wagon/estate options, I'd take them but when a small lift (Crosstrek) nets a few grand extra than otherwise (Impreza) companies sure as hell aren't going to let you have a Station Wagon when they can upcharge you into a full size SUV.
The wording on this makes me suspicious. Is this saying that the remaining 65% use it more or not at all? Not that I think the article is really wrong. Trucks are the dumbest status symbol car by...
And a full 35 percent of truck owners use their truck for hauling—putting something in the bed, its ostensible raison d’être—once a year or less.
The wording on this makes me suspicious. Is this saying that the remaining 65% use it more or not at all?
Not that I think the article is really wrong. Trucks are the dumbest status symbol car by a large margin, but I don't love the possible purposely misleading wording.
They are saying that 65% of people do put something in the bed, but that could be groceries, sports equipment, etc... It still doesn't mean it's functioning as a work truck or even couldn't be fit...
They are saying that 65% of people do put something in the bed, but that could be groceries, sports equipment, etc... It still doesn't mean it's functioning as a work truck or even couldn't be fit into a car.
Again you're preaching to the choir. Most people don't need trucks. Still you're drawing conclusions based on guesses, not something that was presented. Maybe 60% actually use the truck bed and...
Again you're preaching to the choir. Most people don't need trucks. Still you're drawing conclusions based on guesses, not something that was presented. Maybe 60% actually use the truck bed and couldn't switch. I fucking doubt it, but that's not something that was presented either way. Just that 65% (by omission) are using it at least twice or more a year.
You don't need to make up extra data when you've already got good data, and I dislike the way it's framed in the article.
Hell if the full 65% were using the truck bed every other day, would that satisfy the target audience of this article? I very much doubt it.
On the positive side, we're finally starting to see some small pickups again with cars like the Ford Maverick and Hyunai Santa Cruz. I think a lot of people who might normally buy a larger truck...
On the positive side, we're finally starting to see some small pickups again with cars like the Ford Maverick and Hyunai Santa Cruz. I think a lot of people who might normally buy a larger truck can be convinced to buy one of these as long as they don't have a need to haul something big like a camper trailer and just want a bed for things like moving furniture.
It's actually over 2 feet shorter than the 1999 F-150 (199 inches vs 225 inches). The hybrid model (which is the more popular option) also gets more than 40 miles per gallon in city driving...
It's actually over 2 feet shorter than the 1999 F-150 (199 inches vs 225 inches).
The hybrid model (which is the more popular option) also gets more than 40 miles per gallon in city driving compared to the '99 F-150's 13, so it's not like it's a chunky gas guzzler, it's still very practical for commuting and picking up groceries.
It's 10 inches longer than a '99 Ranger, but I'll give it a pass because it has a roomy 4-door cab.
I was actually referring to its height because that's the bigness that keeps getting embiggened while the bed becomes less functional...but it turns out the F-150 was also taller. I guess it just...
I was actually referring to its height because that's the bigness that keeps getting embiggened while the bed becomes less functional...but it turns out the F-150 was also taller. I guess it just doesn't look very tall to me.
The Maverick is smaller in every dimension than a Chrysler Pacifica Minivan. Yeah, a minivan, it's smaller than a minivan. My wife and I take our 3 kids mountain biking and it gets far better...
The Maverick is smaller in every dimension than a Chrysler Pacifica Minivan. Yeah, a minivan, it's smaller than a minivan. My wife and I take our 3 kids mountain biking and it gets far better mileage than our minivan with the huge bike rack on the back. More cramped but fine for the trails that are within a 30 min drive.
I think it was your use of the words “bigger” in reference to pickups. Most people think of bigger as meaning length and width, not height. Semantics, I know.
I think it was your use of the words “bigger” in reference to pickups. Most people think of bigger as meaning length and width, not height. Semantics, I know.
I grew up in East Texas so driving a truck is definitely part of my identity. Weirdly, having been away from Texas for almost 20 years has changed many of my views, but not that one. I have a 2006...
I grew up in East Texas so driving a truck is definitely part of my identity. Weirdly, having been away from Texas for almost 20 years has changed many of my views, but not that one.
I have a 2006 Honda Ridgeline (basically a Pilot with a bed), and I often tell people it's "just the right amount of truck for a software engineer". Before that, I drove a 2002 Ranger, which was the same length but a foot narrower than the Ridgeline.
The Ridgeline is our "Family car" when my wife, daughter and I travel together and for car trips (her impreza is too small to be comfortable for me, and too small to bring what we would bring for trips of any length). It's been a great car, and we've been able to put 100k miles on it over the last 15 years without any worries about reliability, or much maintenance cost to speak of.
Whatever it is that makes people want to buy another truck is at work on me too. I've thought about getting a tonneau cover for the next one (basically makes the bed a giant trunk), but never thought about not getting one. I'm not sure if I would buy a fully electric one. The Lightning is too big anyway, and I wouldn't buy a Rivian until they've been around longer. I'm hoping we see some hybrid trucks with AWD.
I live in southwest, TX. Trucks are a necessary tool. Everyone is building and hauling and pulling each other out of the mud. Most roads are bentonite or rock or combinations thereof. In comradery...
I live in southwest, TX. Trucks are a necessary tool. Everyone is building and hauling and pulling each other out of the mud. Most roads are bentonite or rock or combinations thereof. In comradery to giggle at the comment above, about the person's construction friend calling all those with a truck for looks over function...what was it? Road princess?
So I recognize the need as a tool vs the want as a display...my third hand buick lucerne handles the dirt roads pretty decent so long as I'm careful, and she has good gas milage, and she's spacious enough that I can sleep in her if needs be. But I do look forward to when I can afford to get a truck to haul supplies, and dirt, and gravel, and rocks...so many rocks. And be able to pull my neighbors out of the mud.
I've been drinking some, and it's been a weird month, but I guess my conclusion is this: it's good to have tools that you use. The more multi-purpose it is, or specifically usable (both insofar as you regularly use, or necessarily need the tool), the greater the affirmation in its utility. I think it's quite possible that we find greater satisfaction in our "possessions" when we have regular reciprocal feedback from the needed/wanted utilization.
I totally get the desire to have optionality in something that costs so much. We do our own construction/gardening/landscape/forestry work on an acre and a half, so we use the full capacity of an...
I totally get the desire to have optionality in something that costs so much. We do our own construction/gardening/landscape/forestry work on an acre and a half, so we use the full capacity of an AWD SUV at least every other week (even the tow hitch about every other month). Unmaintained dirt roads, snow, ice, potholes, and downed trees come with the Northern MI territory.
But I wonder if the city/developed suburb drivers are weighing the "maybe I'll need to off-road, haul 4 x 8 plywood, pull a trailer..." , or if they just want a big-ass, mean looking daily ride to intimidate people they can't scare otherwise.
I think it is more an issue with current trucks being the size they are and current hood/grill design plus the truck height is literal almost instant death anymore if someone is struck with the...
I think it is more an issue with current trucks being the size they are and current hood/grill design plus the truck height is literal almost instant death anymore if someone is struck with the truck. Modern full size SUVs and Trucks at their size and heights should really not exist or require a different liscensing system then standard coupes/sedans and midsize cars/SUVs.
Incorrect or disingenuous reading of the statistic. Buses and motorcycles account for more pedestrian deaths per mile being that there are fewer of them/driven less, with buses causing 74 deaths,...
Buses (which we can't do much about) and motorcycles (equally useless as pickups), account for more pedestrian deaths that pickup trucks, yet the internet isn't crusading against the motorcycles.
Incorrect or disingenuous reading of the statistic. Buses and motorcycles account for more pedestrian deaths per mile being that there are fewer of them/driven less, with buses causing 74 deaths, motorcycles causing 25. Light trucks caused 1,904.
That data is also 22 years old when trucks were much smaller.
2021 data - PDF warning - from the NHTSA shows light trucks account for 2,521. 2022 data from the GHSA shows that number to be in the 2,900 range.
IIHS studies show pickups are 45% deadlier to pedestrians than shorter vehicles.
"Light truck" is a class of larger vehicle (including the specific types you listed) that is regulated in certain ways (ways that are very worth criticizing because they incentivize auto...
"Light truck" is a class of larger vehicle (including the specific types you listed) that is regulated in certain ways (ways that are very worth criticizing because they incentivize auto manufacturers to produce and sell more in this category due to various perverse incentives related to things like emissions). Most criticisms apply to the whole class.
This is largely because people just don’t walk anymore because being a pedestrian has become much less safe and/or comfortable in the environments where most people live. That’s partly a traffic...
And yet pedestrian fatalities for children under 14 are down 92% since the 1970's. In fact all pedestrian fatalities have dropped drastically since the 70's so why the sudden outcry?
This is largely because people just don’t walk anymore because being a pedestrian has become much less safe and/or comfortable in the environments where most people live. That’s partly a traffic and road design thing, but also an issue of people moving to the sunbelt where walking is actually miserable much of the year.
If you just track within the past 10 years, pedestrian fatalities and injuries have gone way up.
Can you really honestly reconcile your desire to do something about the environment with your desire to drive a pickup truck? There are a million things that affect the environment and we can all...
Can you really honestly reconcile your desire to do something about the environment with your desire to drive a pickup truck? There are a million things that affect the environment and we can all stand around saying " oh wow <thing I like>??? What about <thing I don't care about >? That's the real issue!".
At the end of the day, it's about us in developed nations wanting to keep our lifestyle of excess.
If you polled the North East, you'd have a high number of "off roaders" because most Americans consider a dirt road "off road." Most Jeep owners don't even go truly off road, just unimproved...
If you polled the North East, you'd have a high number of "off roaders" because most Americans consider a dirt road "off road." Most Jeep owners don't even go truly off road, just unimproved roads.
All that to say - there's not many places to go truly off road with any car, let alone take your car to one of the three tracks in any given state that haven't been shut down yet. It's perfectly valid to criticize a vehicle that has a much larger footprint, carbon and literal, for being an extravagance than a smaller option that's not utilized to it's full potential.
But, yeah, everyone either buys the car they have to buy or buys the car they want to be. For most it's a bit of both.
I'm curious what your point is here? Suburus are generally just cars. They don't really make compromises for off-road function. Jeeps on the other hand would be an interesting question. Highly...
With that said I would be curious to see the numbers on how many Suburu owners actually take their vehicles off roading or how many sport car owners take their vehicles to a track where they can actually use it for its intended purpose.
I'm curious what your point is here?
Suburus are generally just cars. They don't really make compromises for off-road function. Jeeps on the other hand would be an interesting question. Highly compromised as a general use vehicle but very popular. (FWIW, I have a lot of Jeep experience, I like them, but wouldn't own one unless I was deep in off-road culture).
A sports car isn't necessarily a race car. In fact I'd say they are universally compromised as track cars in favor of regular driving. They are bought as status symbols and/or enthusiast driver's vehicles. With reasonable driving they can be comparable to other ICE vehicles in terms of fuel efficiency.
To be fair to sports cars, high performance can be fun even in regular highway driving situations. Tight handling and responsiveness feels nice in any circumstance.
To be fair to sports cars, high performance can be fun even in regular highway driving situations. Tight handling and responsiveness feels nice in any circumstance.
I would love my Outback twice as much if they put all the 'outdoorsy' stuff behind an option instead of front and center (XMODE). I'd love a proper station wagon more, but this was the closest I...
I would love my Outback twice as much if they put all the 'outdoorsy' stuff behind an option instead of front and center (XMODE).
I'd love a proper station wagon more, but this was the closest I could get.
That said, it was awesome driving it like a rally car that one time in deserted campground.
Sports car owner here. We own both our cars for the beauty of them. 2003 Nissan 350Z and a 2005 Nissan 350 Z. No track time but, fun to drive (smiles per mile). Great on gas mileage 30+ MPG on the...
Sports car owner here. We own both our cars for the beauty of them. 2003 Nissan 350Z and a 2005 Nissan 350 Z. No track time but, fun to drive (smiles per mile). Great on gas mileage 30+ MPG on the hwy. Comfortable. No so many bells and whistles, so not so many hassles. 2003 has 268K miles on it. Do they have their quirks? Hell yes. Not a family car. Does more than sip a little oil. Tends to go through cam shaft sensors every few years. Also, easy to park, head turner, and generally one of a few cars who's design team was led by a woman (so its gorgeous).
There are reasons to own different vehicles. I'm okay with truck owners owning trucks just because they like them. But I also hope they have an eye to the future as far as sustainability, I know we've talked about getting a hybrid or EV. The thing is, we've owned both the Zs for quite some time and now they are starting escalate in value, even the '03 with tall miles. We also have a small SUV for our hauler adventure vehicle. We'll see how long the ICE autos are viable.
Subaru Outback owner from a locale with deep snowy winters and crappy roads... A daily drive here would often be counted as "off road" conditions in other places. Even the paved roads have...
Subaru Outback owner from a locale with deep snowy winters and crappy roads... A daily drive here would often be counted as "off road" conditions in other places. Even the paved roads have potholes that eat the wheels and axles of less robust vehicles. [Of course, those potholes are exacerbated by the heavy truck traffic.]
These are the conditions the standard Subaru AWD was designed for, not true "off-roading" that requires a lifted suspension. I still think the Subaru is too big to drive comfortably, but it's what counts as a passenger car these days.
As to Internet discussion fads, stupid cars are a lighter topic than most of what counts as news right now.
One of the things the Biden administration will never get due credit for is this - gradually undoing the fuel economy exception that allowed light and heavy trucks to escape the full weight of the original 1978 CAFE legislation.
The proliferation of profitable heavy vehicles that guzzle gasoline and diesel was the fully intended (by U.S. automakers) end result of the exception. It's how SUVs (classed as "light trucks") usurped the role of passenger cars and vans, and heavy trucks took over from lighter utility vehicles. Import duties on foreign passenger cars took care of the rest, and it's part of why U.S. incumbent automakers have been so sluggish in electrifying.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding -- it looks like this forces improved fuel economy across the board, but doesn't address the light truck loophole at all. I don't even see the term "light truck" at all here, only "heavy duty truck", so does this address this issue at all?
I'm no expert, but it sounds like you know a bit more. I'd love to see the Biden administration close the loophole that allows car companies to churn out gas guzzlers like the Escalade. AFAICT this doesn't help that, but I am very likely missing a lot.
The regulatory change drastically escalates the rate at which heavier vehicles have to meet fuel economy standards:
"Passenger trucks" a/k/a SUVs will have to meet a 50 mpg standard.
It doesn't sound like much for heavy vehicles, but those monster trucks currently get 10 - 15 mpg. It's reasonable regulation that gives enough time for compliance and shifting the balance of vehicles on the road if manufacturers find it too onerous to comply.
Thank you! I was looking for the term "light truck" because that's what I usually hear in conversations about this topic. Makes sense (unfortunately) that regulation would invent a whole separate term.
In conclusion: go Biden, god damn that's a positive development. I really wouldn't mind another term of sanity, stability, and good policy. It's too bad the man is the freakin cryptkeeper at this point.
Not the topic you think the article will be about.
Honestly, I felt like this article could have, and should have been written about SUVs.
I think similar psychologies and marketing cause people who just need a commuter car to buy either of those vehicles instead.
To be fair to SUV owners, very few models of station wagons are available -- at least in the U.S.. Got kids? Hauling a lot of boxes regularly? Your choices are limited. I had a conversation about it with my sister once. She liked her SUV because it was easier to get into and out of, with her joint health issues.
It's not just station wagons that are limited in number, but really any type of hatchback that isn't an SUV or crossover. What few exist, like the hatch variants of the Corolla and Civic, cost more.
As someone who likes their vehicle to provide more utility than a sedan can deliver but doesn't necessarily need an SUV, this is frustrating.
I drive a Kia Soul, and genuinely like it. It's basically a box on wheels, but that also means that it's very roomy for its size, and it's tall enough, with large enough door openings, that it's easier for both myself and my older family members to enter/exit. It is also quite inexpensive compared to other vehicles.
Fuck Toyota for killing the Scion. It legit was gonna be my family car when the prius was too small. It was so roomy even as a 6'3 man in the back seat.
Or Honda and the Element! Gives us back the Element!!!
No lie. We sold ours last year, but would have looked at a newer one if they would have still been making them. Stripped down box, no bells or whistles, perfect adventure vehicle or workhorse. Honda said to biy a CRV awhile back. Um, no. It's not a useful box, dammit.
My SO had a scion and I was always impressed with how roomy and comfortable it was. Especially since I’m also 6’ and usually don’t fit well in peoples back seats.
Always thought it was weird that they dropped the whole product line and never replaced it, considering so many people who had them really liked them.
Have never driven one, but the Matrix looks like it was another member of the high utility, no nonsense group of Toyotas. Tons of cargo space, all non-driver seats (even front passenger) can fold down, glass on its rear hatch can open, and yet it drives, parks, and is priced like a Corolla. It’s not the prettiest or most sexy looking car but is absurdly practical.
There’s very few cars like that still being made.
So as far as I can tell, it would be more accurate to say there's very few cars like that still being sold in the US
The UK is increasingly suffering from the trend of SUVs, which are the worst form factor for cars because they are big and dangerous to other road users but not particularly spacious/practical on the inside, but there are still plenty of actually practical cars still on the market.
I don't know quite what it is about the US car market which makes it so difficult to sell smaller and more useful cars but it does seem to be an issue. Every time the topic comes up there's lots of people saying "I just want something fairly small but with space to move a washing machine if I put the seats down" and honestly that's almost every car I've ever owned.
1.) All cars are sold through dealerships here and the dealers push people towards higher margin vehicles with all the options.
2.) We have a separate set of fuel economy requirements for “light trucks” and that category is defined by curb weight. This has created an extremely perverse incentive for carmakers to push anyone wanting anything bigger (since that will have higher fuel consumption) into the super-big “light truck” category so that the fuel economy across their fleet of “cars” seems low.
These incentives have led to marketing pushes to create demand for these things, and once that got going it becomes self-reinforcing.
Years ago I looked at the matrix vs the Honda fit. The Honda Fit is a way bigger box that handled better and I think was cheaper. The downside to the Fit was the smaller engine and more road noise. Just my opinion but I thought the Fit was better overall.
They axed the Fit in North America recently and I was pretty bummed at that. I think it was so much better than the modern Civic. Also, they made an AWD version for Japan and they're just old enough to be imported into Canada.
They're both very capable small cars that edge each other out in different ways. Fit is much better if you have tall cargo, Matrix is better for long cargo (front passenger seat down + back window open = as long or longer than a truck bed). Fit is better as a little city car that can be parked darn near anywhere, Matrix is better all-rounder/adventure car (especially the AWD version, which is popular in the PNW and Canada for its better cold weather and off-roading capabilities).
I'd love to have either and preferably both available on the modern North American market.
I’m driving a Fit (“Jazz” here) that I inherited. It’s not great, I probably wouldn’t go out of my way to choose it, but it’s fine as a city car.
Pros: Small enough to fit in any space and through any gap one would reasonably consider. Decent bit of trunk space for the size and roomy enough interior, though a bit cramped with rear-facing toddler seats.
Cons: The power is awful though, and you practically have to floor it to get up to speed for highway merging our getting out of a stopped lane. Sight lines aren’t the best, particularly hate the giant A-pillar which blocks a good bit of the view of pedestrians crossing the road nearby or in a curve. Speakers and AC vents are only in the front, which means you’re getting blasted by both as the driver if you hope to keep the people in back comfortable.
Power at least could be addressed pretty easily with an electric version. The other shortcomings would require a larger redesign.
I’ll admit that I’m a bit biased towards small cars as a result of the smaller than average garage on my house. It’s frustrating when the overwhelming majority of vehicles currently being sold in the US won’t fit in it unless it’s modified considerably.
I have a six speed Honda Fit (2018). I think it accelerates well enough to highway (it's my downtown city car) and probably faster than the non-manual version based on conversation with friends with the other variants. The continuous transmission is weird of Honda (partner has a CRV with A CT engine) and I'm not always a fan of it's acceleration by comparison, though you can kind of "shift it" by letting off the pedal completely and laying onto it again.
I forgot about hatchbacks, good point.
Glad my sedan has more room than I need.
There's also the matter of (perceived) safety in size. People feel safer and more comfortable in larger vehicles, both casually and in respect to thinking about collisions. This in spite of the fact that larger vehicles have worse accident survivability than you might expect due to higher CoGs.
Hard to ignore the defensive aspect, though: no matter how good the crash rating of my old '01 Civic, if my neighbor hit me with his enormous 2022-ish truck, I'd be dead. The front bumper of that thing is literally above the window line of most sedans. And that's not even counting how crazy your average truck lights look at night these days.
The US roads could really use some regulation to keep this from turning into an arms race. Too bad we don't have a government agency that does that (glares at Pete).
The perception of safety then leads to people paying less attention while they're driving. A lot of people drive like outright assholes now because if their actions result in a crash they don't die/horrifically injured.
I prefer vintage cars, I am aware that my 2,100lb car is a tin can compared to even a modern compact and as a result of that I drive it like I ride a motorcycle, by being hyper aware of others and my surroundings.
I defintely agree with your post.
I think what I was trying to say is that the larger size proves less beneficial than people feel. Even in your example, of a large truck hitting a small car. What you described in known as "crash misalignment", where the safety features like crumple zones and airbags of cars do not work effectively when the cars are significantly different in size. This is bad for even the driver of the large car, who might get more rollovers due to a less "head-on" and more "under-cutting" collision. Of course, it's even worse for the small car driver.
And then there's the matter of the arms race, and as @AugustusFerdinand said, of large size encouraging complacency. All of these factors contribute to roads filled with large cars simply being less safe overall, and even the people who purchase large vehicles for the defensive factor are actually not getting the benefit they expect.
Great point. Ironically, at least in my area, it is the people in bigger vehicles tending to drive more recklessly.
These are related. People who aren’t confident in their driving ability opt for driving tanks to compensate. Then the fact that they’re in a tank emboldens them to be more reckless.
The only good station wagons now are BMW, Audi, or Mercedes imports that are very expensive. The VW Golf AllTrack was pretty solid but it’s been retired and the Subaru Outback, which used to basically be a station wagon version of the Legacy, is now more of a crossover.
These are dark days upon us.
BeanBurrito? Now I'm a little hungry.
Good look finding a bean burrito. Everywhere you go the burritos will have cheese, meat, or both in them.
Beans only...? What?
Rice and potatoes are of course acceptable as bean padding.
Not only beans, spices, salsa, vegetables.
Vegan cheese is not acceptable?
Finding prewrapped burritos with vegan cheese is harder to find than burritios without meat or dairy cheese.
Amy's. Though they're expensive AF except when you find them on sale.
Amy's also isn't very good anymore. Additionally, you don't find their burritos in many supermarkets, grocery, and convenience stores. Hence the unending quest to find bean burritos without meat or cheese.
I should just go to Taco Bell when I want something like that, but the one nearest me is in an inconvenient location.
Agreed re: Amy's quality.
The company got sold. The new owner raised prices and lowered quality. :-/
TIL. And knowing is half the battle.
I have a friend who works in construction and affectionately calls non-work or even lowly utilized trucks "Pavement Princesses". I kind of love it.
In short: The single most popular vehicle category in the US is never used for their designed purpose, needlessly oversized, horrifically wasteful, and not the most loved by the owners, but has the single highest category loyalty.
My ex-wife insisted for years that we needed a truck. I told her any time we needed a truck, I would happily go rent one for a day, and if we ever did it more than 5 times in a year, we could buy one.
Never bought one. Rented a truck once. Borrowed one once, and it was help move her shit out.
Intuitively this makes a lot of sense to me. They’re big, they don’t handle well, they’re hard to park or maneuver through garages or tight spaces. If you actually used it for its purpose you could offset those gripes, but if you never do then your day to day experience of using it is 100% extra frustration with nothing in exchange.
And even their ostensible purpose is eroded by them being oversized. They’re so tall it’s not even convenient to toss heavy things in the bed. And since they have extended cabs the size of the bed ends up being nothing special.
I’d be very curious to see the satisfaction differential on smaller trucks, like the Hyundai Santa Cruz, versus the brodozers people tend to buy.
I have a pickup, but it's an older one, a 2004 Toyota Tacoma. That was the last year Toyota sold a genuinely small pickup in the US. I haul stuff in it about once a week, including items that are difficult to load into something other than a truck, like sand and gravel.
Too bad the chicken tax and the general trend towards larger vehicles makes this type of truck a nearly forgotten relic. I find it much easier to drive and load than the monstrous trucks they're selling now. About once every couple of months, someone will approach me in a parking lot and ask if I'm thinking of selling my Tacoma. So I know there is some pent up demand for this type of truck.
Here here. I have an 03 Tacoma and just love it to death - barring a bad accident I don't think I'll ever part with it, and maybe not even then.
I might consider replacing it with a new truck, if one came on the market with: compact size, two doors, body on frame, and reasonable styling. Strong preference for Asian manufacture too. But that isn't going to happen.
Used to have an ‘09 Ranger and felt the same way. It was the perfect size, and at the time I was doing a lot of home improvement projects and leveraging the truck bed fairly often. I just looked it up and the new Rangers are only about 6” larger in each dimension, but I still am not at all interested. They look huge and dumb and the truck bed is practically up to my nips.
Those OG Rangers kick ass. Surprising to hear the new ones are so close in size, they do look huge.
The Maverick is closer to the right size, but IIRC it's a unibody design.
I needed a work truck I can put a utility bed on and a decent amount of weight. I have to load and unload tools from it most work days. I wanted a 2004 type Tacoma so bad!
But it ended up making more financial sense to buy a brand new 2019 model. It was barely more expensive since the old ones are in so much demand. Plus I wanted something that would look professional. But the new ones are huge and no one sells anything smaller! So frustrating.
If I could just defend pickup truck owners, if we used the same logic for us small car owners, how many of us ever have four people in the car taking up all four seats? I own a four door sedan (Honda Civic) and I can say with 100% certainty that I've never had four people in my car. I can count on one hand the number of times i had 3 people in my car. It's really just me driving my car and occasionally my wife will be in the car with me or maybe my elderly mother when I'm taking her to her doctors appointment.
Does that mean I should just get a motorcycle or a bicycle because I never use the other three seats in my car?
I think trucks are clearly not necessary but maybe let's not attack truck owners until we look at ourselves with our mostly empty sedans.
There's a functional difference between a sedan and a motorcycle/bicycle in that it's sheltered from the elements however, which is a very important distinction for much of the US for at least one season, sometimes multiple. While two-seater non-sports cars exist, the number of models that are sold in the US can be counted on one hand and make undesirable tradeoffs unrelated to passenger count.
Something that would improve this situation a lot is for it to become standard for seats to be easily removable in small cars, much as they are in minivans. Something as tiny as a Fiat 500/500e for instance becomes considerably more compelling if you can just ditch the vestigial back seats and turn it into a two-seater with decent cargo capacity and could help drive sales in the category.
The back seat of a sedan is for people? I thought it was for boxes of stuff from my mom's house that I don't want but feel bad throwing away and keep forgetting to bring in the house for months and months. I guess putting people back there would work. Maybe they'll want some of the stuff.
My back seat is designated for my dog.
Micromobilty (1 - 2 person enclosed vehicles) is still struggling.
First, sedans actually have five seats. So even worse.
Second... if you drive distances of less than 10 miles in a car with nobody else in it, your walking, biking, and public transit infrastructure has utterly failed you. There's just no need to use a car for trips like that. Of course 99% of Americans do it anyway and something like 80% wouldn't consider alternatives even if they did exist. But your point stands.
Of course, pickup trucks are about 2x the size of sedans (if not more) so if we just go by mass a truck is at least twice is absurd. But at least trucks can do certain tasks that other cars struggle with.
That's just true for so much of America. My old commute before I left was 4.9 miles in South Florida. To walk it was an hour and 50 minutes per Google maps, and you would absolutely arrive disgustingly sweaty. It was also a pretty dangerous walk. Sidewalks for most of it, but drivers absolutely not expecting pedestrians to be crossing the roads, or really anywhere near them. Plus the catcalling was absolutely inevitable.
You could cut that almost in half, an hour and 3 minutes, by taking two different busses (despite the fact that it was a straight shot down one road once I left my neighborhood). 20 minutes of that would still be walking, so you'd still be pretty sweaty, and my experience from taking the busses to do fun stuff when I was a teenager and had no urgent need to be anywhere, was that they frequently just didn't show up. That happens sometimes here in Sweden, too, but that's a very different experience when they come every 15 minutes than it is when they're once an hour. One of the bus stops is covered, so if you time it right and bring a fan, you might be able to show up at work only a little sweaty.
Much faster than the bus is biking, only 30 minutes. By virtue of being on the actual road with cars, but not in a car, it's also the most dangerous. I've been hit by a car on my bike before, it's not something I'd want to repeat. Still gonna be sweaty, still probably gonna get catcalls.
Or, you can arrive in 15 minutes, relatively safe, not a drop of sweat, but with a fiery hatred for other drivers, by driving a car.
Now I live in Sweden, and I don't even own a car. Things are much closer together here - in a typical month I won't go more than 5 kilometers from my apartment - but if I do need to take a bus or a train, it's extremely easy and convenient to do it. Walking and biking feel like safe options. Sweden doesn't have any secret technology that they're keeping away from the US. It's just better infrastructure.
Couldn't agree more. I spend a lot of the time in the UK for work, but live in the USA. I know that immigration is a massive pain and a lot of investment (social, time, and money), so I haven't bothered yet. But as I reach the end of my 20s I remain just as interested in moving to the UK as I was back in my late teens and early 20s.
Maybe this will be my year to finally do it. After living in three major US cities and four different states and visiting a good chunk of the country, I can concretely and confidently say that unless you want to drive everywhere, US infrastructure is utterly and completely fucked. Even NYC is completely dominated by cars, with subway maintenance as an afterthought and biking considered some kind of fringe political activity.
The US suburb in which I live, while not being an endless expanse of nothing but houses (it’s broken up by clusters of shops, trees/green space, etc), sidewalk coverage is spotty at best and bikers will find themselves on the road alongside traffic more often than they’d like.
There are still too many big trucks and SUVs on the road here, but small cars seem to be the compromise that least some people make. I see a number of Honda Fits, Toyota Yarises, Chevy Bolts, Smart ForTwos, and Fiat 500(e)s along with the occasional odd Japanese Kei car/truck.
What's the average city mileage of your sedan vs a full size truck? Yes, most people "should" be driving Smart Fortwos but they're not going to.
If you're taking about 28mpg vs 15mpg, you can go twice the nearly twice the distance while being just as "wasteful" with your travel... Except you're wasting less space, less fuel, etc too.
If you have to be perfect to criticize anything else, we'll never get anywhere.
By all means use a bike if you want and live in a good place for it. But as a USian outside NYC I think sedans/wagons/hatchbacks have a lot of utility.
I haul more than 3 people fairly infrequently but I fold my back seats down quite often to haul larger stuff quite often. Further we have dogs so the back seat is useful for them.
I also think people underestimate the demands of “off roading.” I’ve driven sedans through some pretty gnarly stuff. Go slow, read the road, it will be fine. And this is a fairly low ground clearance BMW.
I drove a (rented) Jetta down trails designed for military vehicles before. Are there things it can't do? Yes, but I've gotten a Dodge Durango stuck more times than an Impreza.
If there were more wagon/estate options, I'd take them but when a small lift (Crosstrek) nets a few grand extra than otherwise (Impreza) companies sure as hell aren't going to let you have a Station Wagon when they can upcharge you into a full size SUV.
The wording on this makes me suspicious. Is this saying that the remaining 65% use it more or not at all?
Not that I think the article is really wrong. Trucks are the dumbest status symbol car by a large margin, but I don't love the possible purposely misleading wording.
It's saying that the rest use it more.
They are saying that 65% of people do put something in the bed, but that could be groceries, sports equipment, etc... It still doesn't mean it's functioning as a work truck or even couldn't be fit into a car.
Again you're preaching to the choir. Most people don't need trucks. Still you're drawing conclusions based on guesses, not something that was presented. Maybe 60% actually use the truck bed and couldn't switch. I fucking doubt it, but that's not something that was presented either way. Just that 65% (by omission) are using it at least twice or more a year.
You don't need to make up extra data when you've already got good data, and I dislike the way it's framed in the article.
Hell if the full 65% were using the truck bed every other day, would that satisfy the target audience of this article? I very much doubt it.
On the positive side, we're finally starting to see some small pickups again with cars like the Ford Maverick and Hyunai Santa Cruz. I think a lot of people who might normally buy a larger truck can be convinced to buy one of these as long as they don't have a need to haul something big like a camper trailer and just want a bed for things like moving furniture.
Note that the Maverick is bigger than an F-150 was 25 years ago, and that's the smallest one available from Ford.
It's actually over 2 feet shorter than the 1999 F-150 (199 inches vs 225 inches).
The hybrid model (which is the more popular option) also gets more than 40 miles per gallon in city driving compared to the '99 F-150's 13, so it's not like it's a chunky gas guzzler, it's still very practical for commuting and picking up groceries.
It's 10 inches longer than a '99 Ranger, but I'll give it a pass because it has a roomy 4-door cab.
I was actually referring to its height because that's the bigness that keeps getting embiggened while the bed becomes less functional...but it turns out the F-150 was also taller. I guess it just doesn't look very tall to me.
The Maverick is smaller in every dimension than a Chrysler Pacifica Minivan. Yeah, a minivan, it's smaller than a minivan. My wife and I take our 3 kids mountain biking and it gets far better mileage than our minivan with the huge bike rack on the back. More cramped but fine for the trails that are within a 30 min drive.
You seem to be implying that minivans are small, but I'm not terribly surprised to see that it's smaller.
I don't see anyone hating on minivans being too big, but small trucks get lumped into the same category as a full size truck, but they aren't.
I think it was your use of the words “bigger” in reference to pickups. Most people think of bigger as meaning length and width, not height. Semantics, I know.
I grew up in East Texas so driving a truck is definitely part of my identity. Weirdly, having been away from Texas for almost 20 years has changed many of my views, but not that one.
I have a 2006 Honda Ridgeline (basically a Pilot with a bed), and I often tell people it's "just the right amount of truck for a software engineer". Before that, I drove a 2002 Ranger, which was the same length but a foot narrower than the Ridgeline.
The Ridgeline is our "Family car" when my wife, daughter and I travel together and for car trips (her impreza is too small to be comfortable for me, and too small to bring what we would bring for trips of any length). It's been a great car, and we've been able to put 100k miles on it over the last 15 years without any worries about reliability, or much maintenance cost to speak of.
Whatever it is that makes people want to buy another truck is at work on me too. I've thought about getting a tonneau cover for the next one (basically makes the bed a giant trunk), but never thought about not getting one. I'm not sure if I would buy a fully electric one. The Lightning is too big anyway, and I wouldn't buy a Rivian until they've been around longer. I'm hoping we see some hybrid trucks with AWD.
I live in southwest, TX. Trucks are a necessary tool. Everyone is building and hauling and pulling each other out of the mud. Most roads are bentonite or rock or combinations thereof. In comradery to giggle at the comment above, about the person's construction friend calling all those with a truck for looks over function...what was it? Road princess?
So I recognize the need as a tool vs the want as a display...my third hand buick lucerne handles the dirt roads pretty decent so long as I'm careful, and she has good gas milage, and she's spacious enough that I can sleep in her if needs be. But I do look forward to when I can afford to get a truck to haul supplies, and dirt, and gravel, and rocks...so many rocks. And be able to pull my neighbors out of the mud.
I've been drinking some, and it's been a weird month, but I guess my conclusion is this: it's good to have tools that you use. The more multi-purpose it is, or specifically usable (both insofar as you regularly use, or necessarily need the tool), the greater the affirmation in its utility. I think it's quite possible that we find greater satisfaction in our "possessions" when we have regular reciprocal feedback from the needed/wanted utilization.
I totally get the desire to have optionality in something that costs so much. We do our own construction/gardening/landscape/forestry work on an acre and a half, so we use the full capacity of an AWD SUV at least every other week (even the tow hitch about every other month). Unmaintained dirt roads, snow, ice, potholes, and downed trees come with the Northern MI territory.
But I wonder if the city/developed suburb drivers are weighing the "maybe I'll need to off-road, haul 4 x 8 plywood, pull a trailer..." , or if they just want a big-ass, mean looking daily ride to intimidate people they can't scare otherwise.
I think it is more an issue with current trucks being the size they are and current hood/grill design plus the truck height is literal almost instant death anymore if someone is struck with the truck. Modern full size SUVs and Trucks at their size and heights should really not exist or require a different liscensing system then standard coupes/sedans and midsize cars/SUVs.
Incorrect or disingenuous reading of the statistic. Buses and motorcycles account for more pedestrian deaths per mile being that there are fewer of them/driven less, with buses causing 74 deaths, motorcycles causing 25. Light trucks caused 1,904.
That data is also 22 years old when trucks were much smaller.
2021 data - PDF warning - from the NHTSA shows light trucks account for 2,521.
2022 data from the GHSA shows that number to be in the 2,900 range.
IIHS studies show pickups are 45% deadlier to pedestrians than shorter vehicles.
"Light truck" is a class of larger vehicle (including the specific types you listed) that is regulated in certain ways (ways that are very worth criticizing because they incentivize auto manufacturers to produce and sell more in this category due to various perverse incentives related to things like emissions). Most criticisms apply to the whole class.
Yeah, I was trying to figure out how motorcycles of all things (buses I can understand since bus stops = pedestrians) killed more people than trucks.
This is largely because people just don’t walk anymore because being a pedestrian has become much less safe and/or comfortable in the environments where most people live. That’s partly a traffic and road design thing, but also an issue of people moving to the sunbelt where walking is actually miserable much of the year.
If you just track within the past 10 years, pedestrian fatalities and injuries have gone way up.
Can you really honestly reconcile your desire to do something about the environment with your desire to drive a pickup truck? There are a million things that affect the environment and we can all stand around saying " oh wow <thing I like>??? What about <thing I don't care about >? That's the real issue!".
At the end of the day, it's about us in developed nations wanting to keep our lifestyle of excess.
If you polled the North East, you'd have a high number of "off roaders" because most Americans consider a dirt road "off road." Most Jeep owners don't even go truly off road, just unimproved roads.
All that to say - there's not many places to go truly off road with any car, let alone take your car to one of the three tracks in any given state that haven't been shut down yet. It's perfectly valid to criticize a vehicle that has a much larger footprint, carbon and literal, for being an extravagance than a smaller option that's not utilized to it's full potential.
But, yeah, everyone either buys the car they have to buy or buys the car they want to be. For most it's a bit of both.
I'm curious what your point is here?
I'm not sure that there can ever be enough uses of "enshittification" about late stage capitalism.
To be fair to sports cars, high performance can be fun even in regular highway driving situations. Tight handling and responsiveness feels nice in any circumstance.
I would love my Outback twice as much if they put all the 'outdoorsy' stuff behind an option instead of front and center (XMODE).
I'd love a proper station wagon more, but this was the closest I could get.
That said, it was awesome driving it like a rally car that one time in deserted campground.
Sports car owner here. We own both our cars for the beauty of them. 2003 Nissan 350Z and a 2005 Nissan 350 Z. No track time but, fun to drive (smiles per mile). Great on gas mileage 30+ MPG on the hwy. Comfortable. No so many bells and whistles, so not so many hassles. 2003 has 268K miles on it. Do they have their quirks? Hell yes. Not a family car. Does more than sip a little oil. Tends to go through cam shaft sensors every few years. Also, easy to park, head turner, and generally one of a few cars who's design team was led by a woman (so its gorgeous).
There are reasons to own different vehicles. I'm okay with truck owners owning trucks just because they like them. But I also hope they have an eye to the future as far as sustainability, I know we've talked about getting a hybrid or EV. The thing is, we've owned both the Zs for quite some time and now they are starting escalate in value, even the '03 with tall miles. We also have a small SUV for our hauler adventure vehicle. We'll see how long the ICE autos are viable.
Subaru Outback owner from a locale with deep snowy winters and crappy roads... A daily drive here would often be counted as "off road" conditions in other places. Even the paved roads have potholes that eat the wheels and axles of less robust vehicles. [Of course, those potholes are exacerbated by the heavy truck traffic.]
These are the conditions the standard Subaru AWD was designed for, not true "off-roading" that requires a lifted suspension. I still think the Subaru is too big to drive comfortably, but it's what counts as a passenger car these days.
As to Internet discussion fads, stupid cars are a lighter topic than most of what counts as news right now.