Hacker News Reader

Comment by imabotbeep2937 | Hacker News Reader

Key missing component: CAFE needs a rewrite. US emissions laws have a cutout so that larger vehicles have less stringent emissions requirements. The problem is that this is no longer a gap it's a chasm. Slight hyperbole but a Japanese kei car many Americans would love town own muat do closer to 50mpg, while a monster pickup can do 15mpg. It ends up that a small car can cost $15,000 and the giant pickup costs... $15,000. Many consumers compare the two and wonder if the econobox is really a good choice.

The bright shining hope: Most Americans do not want these big cars. Legislation is making small vehicles less competitive, when it should be the other way.

AKA - we have good, cheap(ish) electric trucks now. Legislation doesn't need to worry about farmers who can't afford electric anymore.

View on HN

People keep repeating this but isn’t the case. The smallest cars from budget automakers are their cheapest cars and they’ve almost all been discontinued for lack of sales. I know, I drive one. And people look at it as a joke, they’d never buy one, and they think it’s hilarious I do. I’d buy another for my commute vehicle when this one diesbecause I do like it but Honda discontinued it for miserable sales numbers.

Americans by and large want SUVs at a minimum the size of CRV or RAV4, or else a pickup. At any rate with hybrid vehicles getting 40mpg is very attainable. I have a three row SUV that gets this. And I bought it because I really wanted a much more comfortable vehicle I could fit more humans and stuff in.

Other comments addressed this, but it’s also absolutely bananas to claim trucks are as cheap as small cars in the US. Even the F-150 quoted in the comments which is already more than 10k more than the car is quoted as the base model that basically doesn’t exist outside of work fleets. You’d be lucky to find a truck with 100k miles for 15k.

Honda Civic is $24,000. Ford F-150 is $36,000. These are representative prices for popular budget choices. And that baseline F-150 isn't a behemoth. It's 209" long and 76" tall. That's just 10" longer and taller than, say, Tesla Model X.

I think the emission standards are dumb, but this narrative around customer choice is really getting distorted in weird ways. The bottom line is that people in the US want to drive pickups. Maybe for good reasons, maybe for bad reasons, but they go out of their way to do this. And the average pickup is probably shrinking right now, not growing - for example, there are fewer and fewer models with 8" beds, and 5.5" is the new standard (instead of 6").

Yes, a newspaper can always post a photo of a lifted 2024 RAM 3500 next to a 1975 Chevy C10 pickup to get some internet outrage points, but if you post an apples-to-apples comparison, the changes aren't really all that dramatic.

there are fewer and fewer models with 8" beds

That’s more a function of crew cabs and using a pickup as a family vehicle. The bed has to shorten as the cab lengthens, else the truck gets unmanageablely long.

There are two models with full-size four-door crew cabs and 8' beds, and they can work in most US suburbs. I think it's less about whether it's manageable and more about the aesthetics. The front-rear proportions on 8' trucks just aren't great.

I get so tired of people mindlessly citing CAFE laws.

A lot of people like bigger vehicles. For ages, big cars drove poorly, absolutely guzzled gas, and lacked features. Over the past 20 years, auto makers basically solved all of these issues.

A lot of big vehicles drive much better for what most people do - straight driving on highway. Fuel economy is “good enough”. Large trucks and SUVs have great feature sets. On top of all of that, large vehicles seat more, hold more, and generally still fit in most parking spaces and garages.

People just want big cars

Moving more mass will always use more fuel than using less mass.

That is assuming a constant efficiency ratio which has never existed.

No matter how efficient a system is, doing more is still harder than doing less.

People want big cars and people want everyone else to pay for them. Build big parking spaces for free. Widen roads for free. Not cover costs of accidents or otherwise the insurance would be too much. Not pay for all the polluting either.

It comes down to: "I want to drive big, loud, smelly, dangerous car free of any consequences for fraction of the cost". We don't tolerate such desires in other areas but cars somehow get free pass still.

Huh? We tolerate it pretty much everywhere else. You can buy a 2,000 sq ft home, even though you could live in a 500 sq ft condo. You can buy a computer more powerful than needed for work. You can buy Apple instead of Dell, even though the extra money would be spent better on helping the homeless or preventing malaria in the developing world.

It's really not that black and white. There's a line between the government deciding the optimal allocation of all resources and you retaining some degree of personal freedom. Techies in the SF Bay Area are very quick to draw that line in a way that affects other people's lifestyles, but doesn't affect their own. Guess what - pickup drivers in Texas have critical opinions about your consumer choices too.

None of your examples require other people to pay for your choices, like giant trucks needing wider roads do.

A computer or a home that uses more energy has externalities for others that certainly aren't covered by your electricity bills alone. Taxpayers pay for new power plants, everybody pays for emissions, etc. Almost everything has externalities that aren't fully accounted for in the sticker price, because it would be insanely complicated to do that kind of accounting, let alone do it in a way we can all agree on.

If you think the math for cars is uniquely bad, I think that's a reasonable position, although I suspect it's pretty myopic. The externalities of cheap consumer goods from China, or of a clothes dryer or an AC unit, are pretty terrible too.

The math aside, there is a huge risk to this sort of hyper-rational accounting. It's probably not cost-effective for the society to medically prolong the lives of people over the age of 50. There are many squishy, hard-to-parametrize overriding considerations for policy decisions, and if we accept it for our lifestyles, we should probably at least try to understand what they are for other lifestyles too.

Which giant trucks “need” wider roads? I see pickup trucks in the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 ton range drive on standard roads around me every day.

I don't know of any place that is creating larger roads just for these huge (personal) trucks.

Do you also have a problem with commercial trucks or just the people that chose personal trucks because they don't agree with your ideology?

>big cars drove poorly, absolutely guzzled gas

They still guzzle insane amounts of gas and generally drive poorly. That hasn't changed in decades. They may handle better than they did in the past, but they still handle poorly. Similarly they may get better gas milage, but not by much, and not in comparison to other vehicles.

> That's just 10" longer and taller than, say, Tesla Model X.

Which could also reasonably be called a pretty big car.

It's big, almost 5m long. In Europe it would definitely be classified as a big car, most people have family cars under that, probably around 4.6-4.8m

... and if you have a 4-4.3 m long car your parking spot options increase by like 30% :)

> Honda Civic is $24,000. Ford F-150 is $36,000. These are representative prices for popular budget choices. And that baseline F-150 isn't a behemoth. It's 209" long and 76" tall. That's just 10" longer and taller than, say, Tesla Model X.

Disingenuous as heck. I've literally never seen a modern non-commercial regular cab, standard bed F-150. Far more likely the people in question are driving massive SuperCrew cabs. And those SuperCrews start at $43,000 which means more like $50,000 for a realistic spec.

    Regular Cab/6.5-Foot Bed: Length – 209.1 inches / Wheelbase – 122.8 inches
    Regular Cab/8.0-Foot Bed: Length – 227.7 inches / Wheelbase – 141.5 inches
    SuperCab/6.5-Foot Bed: Length – 231.7 inches / Wheelbase – 145.4 inches
    SuperCab/8.0-Foot Bed: Length – 250.3 inches / Wheelbase – 164.1 inches
    SuperCrew/5.5-Foot Bed: Length – 231.7 inches / Wheelbase – 145.4 inches
    SuperCrew/6.5-Foot Bed: Length – 243.5 inches / Wheelbase – 157.2 inches

> And the average pickup is probably shrinking right now, not growing - for example, there are fewer and fewer models with 8" beds, and 5.5" is the new standard (instead of 6").

Nope, as you can see above bed may be shrinking, cab growing and growing.

> Disingenuous as heck. I've literally never seen a modern non-commercial regular cab, standard bed F-150. Far more likely the people in question are driving massive SuperCrew cabs.

These start at about $44,000. I was responding to the parent's claim that you can have a normal sedan or a pickup for "$15,000", so consumers choose the larger car sort of by default.

In reality, they pay a lot more for pickups because they want pickups, not because of some lopsided pricing incentives.

> And the average pickup is probably shrinking right now, not growing - for example, there are fewer and fewer models with 8" beds, and 5.5" is the new standard (instead of 6").

For non-Americans: While literally writing truck bed lengths being 8 inches (8") and 5.5 inches (5.5"), the text means 8 feet (8', 2.44m) and 5.5 feet (5.5', 1.68m). Americans don't always remember which of the " and ' is which, so they use these interchangeably (and according to the movie This is Spinal Tap, so do the English).

Bro, it's our illogical measurement system and we'll be as illogical as we want with how we notate it. Go compare cubic centimeters to milliliters or whatever.

> And that baseline F-150 isn't a behemoth.

Yeah…

* https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/honda-civic-2021-se...

The F-150 is +1216mm (48") longer, +228mm wider, +546mm taller than a Civic.

> It's 209" long and 76" tall. That's just 10" longer and taller than, say, Tesla Model X.

What is the front-end height of all of these vehicles?

> Pedestrian deaths in the US have risen in recent years. Concurrently, US vehicles have increased in size, which may pose a safety risk for pedestrians. In particular, the increased height of vehicle front-ends may present a danger for pedestrians in a crash, as the point of vehicle contact is more likely to occur at the pedestrian’s chest or head. I merge US crash data with a public data set on vehicle dimensions to test for the impact of vehicle height on the likelihood that a struck pedestrian dies. After controlling for crash characteristics, I estimate a 10 cm increase in the vehicle’s front-end height is associated with a 22% increase in fatality risk. I estimate that a cap on front-end vehicle heights of 1.25 m would reduce annual US pedestrian deaths by 509.

* https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221201222...

A big problem with the idea that “people don’t want small cars” is that that sort of statement comes from the car manufacturer looking at new car sales. People who want large trucks and SUVs are willing to buy new. People who want a small car have the option to buy a new 2024 Honda Civic, or they could spend significantly less to get a used Honda Civic (in normal economic conditions). Since the manufacturer only profits of of new cars, they have little incentive to sell any cheap or small cars since they compete so heavily against last year’s model at the used car lot.

> Most Americans do not want these big cars

Based on what? Anecdotal I know, but my biggest frustration is I can't convince friends and family they should buy a small car instead of an SUV because they always say "I might need to move a couch/dresser/friends/etc one day". I'm convinced they would come out way ahead buying a small car and renting a truck the once or twice a year they need it but again, I've yet to convince anyone that's the case

Beyond personal needs people want what others have, what they see in films, and what they see marketing for. The price and general availability impacts all of those things. Car companies will push what makes most economic sense and consumers will to, which helps create trends people hop on to.

I disagree. At least where I'm at, small cars don't serve any better purpose. We have plenty of space and gas is relatively inexpensive.

So I'd rather spend a few thousand more for a midsize or large car/suv than a mini or compact car. It has nothing to do with neighbors, or signaling. Larger cars are usually just better.

Parent is a propaganda account, comment history shows the account making the same duplicated pro car comments repeatedly in different threads.

This article is clearly on the money.

Because the small car is the same cost as an SUV but worse utility wise. I actually go the other way, I bet the back row of an SUV (or tall hatchback like the Honda Fit) gets more use carrying people or large items than the back row of your average sedan. During growing season I'm constantly schlepping dirt and mulch home. I can fit 5 humans and all our camping supplies no problem. Fit a whole assembled grill in the back we got from FB marketplace.

You get the utility of a truck and van with the MPG of a car, I see why they took over the world. If it weren't for pickup trucks being a cultural icon they would probably have replaced the "workman" vehicle too.

I used to own a Fit, and a friend of mine asked me out of everybody with pickups, minivans, SUVs, etc. to borrow my car to pick up a pinball machine a few hours away. It's ridiculous how much stuff you can put in the back of that thing.

It's like Honda makes them bigger on the inside than on the outside.

At some point i had a Fit and a slightly larger Suzuki SX4. I got to carry 30 folding chairs in the Fit once. I could maybe have fit 20 of them in the Suzuki.

I had a trailer hitch on my Fit, and would show up to moving parties and embarrass all the pickup trucks with how much stuff I could haul. Their trucks had tiny 6 foot beds, my trailer was 8 feet long, plus all the crap I could fit in the back of the car itself.

It's a real shame they don't make the Fit anymore here in the US. Instead we get that shitty crossover HRC in it's place that doesn't have nearly the storage space in it, because it has to look like it's higher off the ground to satisfy buyers.

The CVT Fits expressly forbid towing in the owners manual, at least for the first few model years.

If I ever came to power in a Stalinist dictator sort of way, and I had to choose “the car” everyone would get, it would be the Honda Fit.

Just a preposterously useful car without being conspicuous at all.

Freckin' love my Fit. I don't know what Honda's engineers paid the devil for its reliability but we thank them for their sacrifice.

We had a small cheap sedan that was rear-ended and pushed into oncoming traffic while waiting to turn when my wife was driving. Since she's been hit thrice in sedans and not once in our minivan, she's come to the conclusion that she needs a bigger vehicle just to be seen. It's not an argument I buy, but I understand how she has reached that conclusion.

Americans "want" big SUVs because they're cheaper than mid-sized sedans. Unfortunately, they pollute more and they're less safe.

The SUV protectionism of import tariffs, safety exclusions, and pollution carve-outs must end because they're killing us on the roads, killing our health through more pollution, and killing the planet.

I’ve been sharing this video from NotJustBikes - “These SUV’s are literally killing us”.

Makes a pretty convincing case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN7mSXMruEo

I think electric trucks/SUVs are a major reason changing CAFE standards won't actually solve the problem though since they are at least just as big and dangerous to other road users as gas powered vehicles and are often much faster and heavier. Changing the CAFE standards 20 years ago would have helped avoid the trend of increasing vehicle size, but here on the cusp of widespread electric vehicles I'm not sure it would have the same impact.

What we really need and would never do is to put a pedestrian collision rating in NCAP, which Euro-NCAP already does. (NCAP is the system used to give safety ratings to cars.)

Right now the NCAP has pedestrian avoidance but nothing on impact. It would be fairly trivial to test the impact of hitting a crash dummy at 30mph.

Euro-NCAP would do virtually nothing to alter the design of a Ford F-150 or Dodge Ram, unfortunately. It's a very weak testing protocol.

However the US regulator is already floating a proposal to include similar pedestrian testing in its requirements.

Unless it's a total stripper meant for something like a highway maintenance department fleet vehicle, a "giant pickup" will cost 3 or 4 times that amount.

The most popular F-150 trim level runs about $50k. It’s not stripped out by any means.

A simple change would be to raise taxes on petrol, but usually no politician wants to touch that one with a 10 ft pole.

You must hate poor people as that's who it's going to affect the most.

The key to this implementing this sort of policy without hurting poor people is to introduce a corresponding tax credit or stimulus payment (potentially means tested) such that driving a normal vehicle a normal amount comes out even and poor people can actually come out ahead if they make more responsible choices. You want people to feel it at the pump so it affects their decision making without having it be punitive.

Sounds like it’d hurt poor people unless they make what you call more responsible choices. A difficult part about being poor is you often don’t have as many options. There is a lot of reasons why that turns up, but it’s there all the same.

The ability to buy a car with a loan is very widespread. It's easier than cash if you're poor, isn't it? And with a loan you can balance vehicle cost against gas cost easily.

The key to an inefficient government is taking money and redistributing it.

How much does it cost to execute this whole plan? You end up taking a large percentage just to run the program with little to show for. It does make for great political campaigns.

They'll just move to EV trucks. We need taxes for car sizes (wider lanes needed = money, bigger parking spots needed = money, etc), pedestrian/cyclist safety ratings (more dangerous to pedestrians/cyclists, higher taxes), noise levels and weight (more road wear and tear plus particulate production).

>Most Americans do not want these big cars.

That's patently false.

The solution is to stop classifying cars as trucks by invoking a more stringent definition of a truck. The PT Cruiser should never have been a truck. None of the XUVs should be trucks.

All of the SUVs I’ve owned are classified as wagons for insurance.

Yeah whenever I'm in an SUV I try to compare mileage. They'll get ~30% worse mpg than me in the same situation and I'm just a gas sedan, not even a hybrid

> I'm just a gas sedan

We are trully living in the future. :) I heard that cars are getting smarter but you are the first i have the pleasure to chat with.

Joking asside, i don’t know if I have ever seen a more succint example of how people identify with their cars.

Yeah I see it now lol. I love that car. It holds all the stuff I need, 5 people comfortably, great safety (blind spot monitor, Lane keep, a backup camera [which I know is standard now but it's my first one]). When I got it I immediately drove/slept in it 1500 miles back home. So kind of instant bonding.

Or change the licensing laws to be similar to other countries where a "regular" car driver's license only allows for a smaller weight vehicle.

In Europe regular B license for cars only allow up to 3500 kg gross weight. For car or combination. That is already lot of car.

I did an internship for Mercedes and I was able to drive our mid-sized R&D bus as my (routine) American driver's license allowed me to drive vehicles and vehicle combinations up to 26000 lbs GVWR/GCWR. Several of my German colleagues did not have a license permitting them to drive it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com