Hacker News Reader

Comment by kesselvon | Hacker News Reader

18 of the top 25 selling cars in the U.S. are SUVs or pick-ups. Which are inherently less efficient than a sedan.

Not really. The top selling SUVs (RAV4, CRV, and Rogue) all get 35 mpg on the highway. That's better than the non-hybrid Honda Accord, for example.

I've always found the "highway" thing to not be very useful. Yes, if you're on cruise control on the open highway at constant speed, you will get good mileage in an SUV.

But in practice that sort of situation only applies during road trips. Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic, which is a lot less efficient.

Its not that bad. I've had daily commutes that were 70% highway at 40-60, and that's much closer to the EPA "highway" cycle than it should be.

The highway cycle is actually not all high speed driving.

> Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic, which is a lot less efficient.

Is that statistical, or anecdotal? It's counter to my personal driving patterns. Even in moderate congestion my Hyundai gets mileage closer to its "highway" MPG than "city" (when using cruise/distance control).

> Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic

When I had cars I used them mostly to get out on weekends or for longer trips on vocations. May be I’m an outlier but during the pandemic time work from home is common and this allows to avoid driving in traffic.

Hybrids mainly helps frequent stop city driving rather than constant highway driving, SUVs aren't good for Cd value that's important for highway driving. Because of that, pure ICE sedans should get relatively good value for highway mileage, but not good for city.

Yes really. That is not a very good benchmark.

My Toyota Yaris gets over 50mpg on motorways, so about 50% better.

Though having 25% larger gallons in the UK helps too. (Not that there isn't truth in European cars having been more efficient for thirty years).

Very good point! I always forget this!

The point is that if they were smaller cars they'd get even better MPG.

And be a less useful vehicles for doing the kinds of things that most people ask of them, carrying stuff that doesn't fit in a standard sized trunk like furniture and appliances.

All those sedans would be way more fuel efficient if they were motorcycles too, but I don't think you'd agree that they're comparable.

Do most people ask that their vehicle carry furniture and appliances on a regular basis?

Honestly any time I have a larger item either being hauled to my place or away from it, it's someone else's vehicle, e.g. delivery of a new appliance or pricing it to move quickly on craigslist so someone comes and takes it away.

So your solution to not needing to move things is for other people with suitable vehicles to come and move things? How is that gonna work when everyone has a sedan?

It's true for everyone I know who has children and owns a house in the burbs. The cost of taking delivery from everything from TVs, lawn mowers, dirt, mulch, Costco trips, adds up and SUVs aren't really more expensive than sedans.

Like I get you, I live a very privileged urban apartment dweller life and can afford to just pay for people to move things for me the few times I need it but renting tools and labor is expensive for a family.

> How is that gonna work when everyone has a sedan?

People who specialise in it? Like moving vans or toe trucks?

> but renting tools and labor is expensive for a family.

Compared to the extra cost of the vehicle and gas? I mean how often do you buy new furniture? People ask how I manage without a car: simple I bus or take a cab. "cabs are expensive" per trip sure... but per year? Nothing compared to the cost of car ownership. If big cars aren't false economy yet, then they will be once we start paying for our carbon. Most of us could get around 90% of the time in a coupe.

It's not different. That's the whole point.

    2020 Honda Accord: $28k total cost of ownership [1] 30/37 mpg 282 g/m emissions rating [3]

    2020 Honda CR-V: $28k total cost of ownership [2] 28/34 mpg 294 g/m emissions rating [3]

[1] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2020/cost-to-own/?style...

[2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/cr-v/2020/cost-to-own/?style=4...

[3] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42071&...

According to [3] the yearly fuel cost difference is $50. For reference on the emissions numbers a 2010 H3 Hummer is 555g/m.

Someone from Craigslist comes and takes it away? On what, their back?

Society survived without SUVs. We have everything delivered in an instant.

We don't need all this crap, and we don't need SUVs to carry it around.

Yeah, we had minivans, station wagons, and small pickup trucks. Then we had what are now called "full-size" SUVs. Midsize SUVs today are just slightly bigger cars.

The point is that crossover/SUVs get good enough MPG. Fuel economy is not the only, or even the primary, consideration when buying a car.

If the price of gas keeps rising at the same pace for the next seven years, it will be.

35mpg == 15 km/L

Wow, that's not good... A large Sedan from early 2000s driven well can easily beat that..

I regularly hear about small cars doing 70 mpg == 30km/L

My Toyota Yaris is not fuel efficient at 130 km/h on the highway, but it still manages 40mpg = 17 km/L

Of course, it's not SUV.. I basically decided against buy a big car until EVs are ready -- they are now, but that doesn't mean I should throw out my existing car :)

Civic gets 36 combined, Corolla is 33 combined, Rav4/CRV are both 30 combined. A Prius is 54 combined. Not sure where you are hearing about 70 mpg.

My Toyota Yaris is rated at 27 km/L = 63mpg

But maybe that's only downhill -- I'm certainly not reaching it :)

But other mini cars like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

Or so I hear...

The Toyota Yaris gets 40mpg highway / 35 mpg combined: https://www.cars.com/articles/2020-toyota-yaris-mpg-can-frug...

I think you've made an incorrect conversion to metric units.

First off, if you're not in the US, make sure that you are converting from a US gallon, and not imperial gallon.

35 MPG (US gallons) = 6.72 Liters per 100 km

Mileage is really a mess... Some place in the EU uses L / 100km, others km/L, I was using Google so I think the unit was correct.

Any case, my car does roughly 17 megameters / meter^3 -- that's proper SI units :)

In Europe the common metric is l/100km. 35 mpg translates to a little above 6.7 l/100km, which is good - average for a car in Europe (average is 7.8l/100km = 30mpg). I guess today there is a smaller difference in fuel efficiency. This is for gasoline, not diesel engines.

US cars are a bit bigger than european or asian models, so they are probably a bit heavier. Still, I think fuel efficiency is pretty optimized in all modern cars regardless of where you live.

Most SUVs are intentionally just taller hatchbacks. They're maybe a couple mpg less fuel efficient than a similar sedan, but in return you get a more comfortable feeling car.

And far more utility than a traditional sedan, I own one of each and my midsized SUV that covers a lot of small truck use cases. I can strap things to the roof racks, I can open the back and lay down the seats and carry small and extended cargo. It has all wheel drive and handles bad weather conditions better than a front wheel drive car. It's higher up and provides better visibility than my sedan. It can handle hauling small trailers. Sedans _typically_ don't come equipped to handle dirty things like outdoor sports and pets while my SUV has rubber floor mats/trays everywhere. For road trips and camping trips I can pack almost twice as much stuff in the SUV and those things are more easy accessed than a car trunk.

SUVs existing _prevent_ me from buying a small to midsized truck so to me the view is "look at the efficiency gained compared to the Ranger or Tacoma" instead of "look at how inefficient the Outback or Escape is compared to a Civic".

That's when you realize that there are station wagons with better mpg more utility and your head explodes.

I'm not ignorant of them but there simply aren't that many wagon options on the market new or used and peak MPG isn't the only metric for purchasing a vehicle.

Your post seemed pretty ignorant of other choices besides SUVs and trucks. Mercedes has 6 station wagons/shooting brakes, VW has 4, BMW has 4, Toyota has 5, Hyundai has 4, Kia has 3, Honda got 5 every big car manufacture has at least 3 station wagons in their portfolio. I know there are more SUVs because of the SUV hype in the last years but stating that there are no options on the market is just not true.

I literally did not make the claim that no wagon options exist anywhere in what I wrote. What are you even arguing here? Why even make that strawman?

I compared SUVs to sedans and trucks because those are more available by volume by a long shot when purchasing, and most wagons actually fail to meet most of the utility criteria I listed, and those that do are designed far more like a low-clearance SUVs than as a "wagonized" version of a base sedan model.

Enjoy your day and whatever agenda it is that you're pushing. Goodbye.

You left the most popular utility car option out of your reasoning there is no agenda at all. In the international market the station wagon is still first as utility vehicle and it is on the rise in the US as well. I don't know why you get so agetated about it.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/25864/station-wagon-sales-are-...

> Mercedes has 6 station wagons/shooting brakes, VW has 4, BMW has 4, Toyota has 5, Hyundai has 4, Kia has 3, Honda got 5

Okay, and now go to each of these manufacturer's US websites and check how many are available in the US.

Also, consider that Mercedes and BMW only offer luxury models at luxury prices in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com