A half a kilo of CO2 per km is pretty hefty...
Edit: 1.8lbs/mile of you prefer.
Edit: 1.8lbs/mile of you prefer.
Amazing.
The Maverick should be the new version of that... if it actually offered any practical options!
Yup, whenever I see one here (in Germany) I wonder why not go the Full Size Pickup way? I mean the modern Rangers are as tall as my RAM 1500 anyway and only a little narrower. But narrow enough to make them look awkward. It's like only 20cm I would guess.
I also wonder why no manufacturer brings a full size pickup model to the Euro market. At this point mid sized trucks aren't that much smaller and me daily driving an imported RAM 1500 I can say that German cities/roads aren't too small for full size pickups. (DHL Delivery vans are larger yet still fit everywhere).
Oh and the really cool mid sized trucks aren't here either. (I'd kill for a TRD Tacoma).
There's no special technology in EU cars that makes them get better mileage than their US counterparts. Europeans just tend to drive smaller vehicles, many of which wouldn't pass crash tests in the US. For example, the Smart Fortwo had to be increased in length to pass US crash tests.
1. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-european-gas-mileage-rat...
2. https://theicct.org/press-release-gap-between-reported-and-a...
> many of which wouldn't pass crash tests in the US. For example, the Smart Fortwo had to be increased in length to pass US crash tests.
The smart isn't really a common car in Europe. As for crash tests, some US vehicles wouldn't pass EU tests either. The two regulations test for different properties, and manufacturers optimize for that.
As for actual safety, trafic fatality is equivalent or better in Europe, especially for people not inside a car.
I can't wait for the day people will have decided they need a vehicle so heavy that an airliner mpg actually sounds reasonable for a car.
Airliners are pretty darn fuel-efficient, more efficient than even many lightweight cars. (Assuming you don't leave seats empty, that is.)
As of 2017 [1]: "Domestic airliner can get anywhere from 45.5 to 77.6 miles per gallon per passenger, with an industry average of about 51 miles per gallon of fuel per passenger."
For comparison, the average car gets something like 25-30 MPG, so airliners are some 2x more efficient.
[1] https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/ask-mr-green/whats-better-...
A starlet from 1998 gets better fuel economy already. And so does a Volvo v40 2.0 turbo. I believe a 1800kg modern day M3 sports car already gets better fuel economy than a plane if you seat it with 3 people.
Traditional "supercar" sports cars are rarely driven and especially not on daily basis. Partly because of their value, but also because they tend to be spectacularly impractical and are usually uncomfortable to boot. Can't even fit your groceries in them half the time.
This monster pickup truck is actually practical as an everyday driver.
(I'm not saying that 1000HP is something people actually need; I'm just saying - you could drive it to the store and carry your groceries home with it comfortably)
It's not even good for groceries, for reasons anyone who has actually bought groceries can readily fathom. You want your groceries in a backseat or in a trunk, not in the cab of this stupid testosterone-poisoning-advertising machine.
In any warm climate, you don't want your groceries out in the hot sun while you drive home, and in any cold climate, you don't want them damaged by that weather, either.
A Honda Civic is 20x more practical and carries 2.5x more passengers and gets 5x better mileage.
If you want to roll coal, fine, but just admit it. Let's not pretend this vehicle is in ANY way "practical". It's just not.
I think the Rivian is a much flashier truck though. It has a better 0-60 time than the un-capped Hennessey RAM, and is less than half the price.
Neither are practical for "truck stuff" (the Rivian has a small bed, and depreciation on the Hennessey is going to dwarf the value of most loads). At least the rivian is solid around town and for offroading/camping.
If you want to roll coal, you can go die in a fire. Seriously. You're assaulting everyone around you with carcinogens and cardiovascular poisons.
I'd ask how it's legal, but it's not (at least around here). A better question is why the law isn't enforced.
It's not even good for groceries, for reasons anyone who has
actually bought groceries can readily fathom
Like many pickup trucks sold in America (not sure about elsewhere) the TRX has two rows of interior passenger seats and seats four people. The back seats fold away and create a large interior cargo space if desired.
Additionally, many folks with pickup trucks have tonneau covers on their cargo beds for everyday use when they're not transporting anything really big -- at that point the cargo bed is essentially a traditional car trunk/boot.
Such vehicles are popular with the significant portion of folks who "need a truck a few times a year, but want something that can be used as an everyday vehicle because they don't want to own two separate vehicles."
A Honda Civic is 20x more practical and carries 2.5x more
passengers and gets 5x better mileage.
Do I wish people would drive Civics (or smaller) vehicles instead of these monster trucks? Yes.
Do I personally drive a much smaller, hybrid vehicle similar to the Civic? Yes.
Have I been working remotely for 4+ years, partly for environmental reasons, to avoid driving in the first place? Yes.
If you want to roll coal, fine, but just admit it. Let's not
pretend this vehicle is in ANY way "practical". It's just not.
I do not think anybody should be using such a monstrous vehicle for mundane everyday tasks like transporting groceries. Obivously it is overkill of the highest order and a bit of a menace.
But you certainly could use it for that. In that sense it is eminently practical.
That's what makes vehicles like this such a potential environmental nightmare. Unlike a lot of other vehicles in the "$100,000 / 1000HP" neighborhood, people might actually use this monster as an everyday driver rather than a "garage queen."