HN users are not representative. Kei car enthusiasts are not representative. Americans love F-150s, Tacomas, Highlanders, 4runners, RAV4s, CRVs, etc. They by-and-large buy the largest car/truck they can afford. You look up the sales numbers for this stuff and there's just no contest; e.g., CRVs outsold Fits by almost a factor of 10. The marginal gain of "parking is slightly easier in streets or unlined lots" is something most people don't care enough about to buy a smaller vehicle. They prefer the other conveniences of large cars.
Is it true that manufacturers like selling larger cars because they have higher margins? Sure; they also like to sell you on the higher trim levels of small cars for the same reason. But Americans are happily making that easy for them.
That's why the article you linked says things like:
> Long, a sustainable transportation researcher at Simon Fraser University, and Jonn Axsen, professor of sustainable transportation at SFU, undertook a study of 1,000 SUV drivers in the Vancouver area. The study revealed that drivers "see them as superior to cars," said Long.
People are happy and willing to pay more for larger cars. Manufacturers are delighted to oblige. Given the choice between a small car and a large car, the typical consumer chooses the larger car. The fact that a small number of consumers like me prefer Honda Fits is not enough to justify their continued production.
[1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2022-05-02/pdf/2022-0...
I park between an F150 and a Ram pickup. Despite the fact that all three are built on the same nominal size category - 3/4 ton pickup - the new ones make my 20-ish year old car look like a RAV4.
And it's not exactly a gas-sipping vehicle to drive.
I do wonder why nothing seems to get good highway mileage anymore despite all the improvements that have been made. My mid-90s Pontiac Bonneville got the sort of mileage around town that you might expect from a full-size sedan (even by American standards, it was large for a sedan) with a 3.8L engine driven by an early-20s male, but the top gear was set so high that it got 30 mpg on the road (7.8 L/100 km). Even modern sedans of the same nominal size get worse than that.
This is true, but even outside the US in a lot of Asian places with no apparent space for big cars everything is getting bigger, why is that?
For those who doubt the power of marketing, look no further than this case.
American regularly buy worse cars, that don't last as long, and burn more fuel, and require more maintenance, with virtually no upside - purely because that's what's advertised and what makes people feel cool. And they know this is the case. They understand the purchase they are making is an objectively worse one, and they (pretty often) have to create complex orchestrations of lies they tell themselves to obfuscate that.
I mean, the sheer amount of single passenger drivers buying trucks for 70,000, never towing anything, and then complaining about fuel economy is insane. I know many people like this. Little do they know they could pay half the price for a Prius, get a better experience, and get 3x as many miles to the gallon. But they do know this, kind of, but the manipulation exists on a subconscious, unreachable level.
Easy, nobody does that. Okay well not nobody... just almost nobody.
I'm working under the assumption (which I think is correct) that the majority of people who buy large vehicles use them identically to how they would a small one. That is, with usually a single passenger, on roadways, for a regular commute. There's some studies out there on how vehicles are used.
If this doesn't apply to you, then I think you're an outlier. But we're not talking about outliers. You'll notice everyone and their mom is driving an SUV or Truck. Especially when it comes to trucks, 99% of the time I see one its one dude in them, towing nothing, with nothing in the bed.
Even if you DO occasionally use your truck (most don't), you're still making a poor purchase. Because I can rent a day truck for 50 bucks. Let's see... save 30 grand, save hundreds of dollars on gas, save thousands on repairs... and then spend 50 bucks on a rental... let me just do my calculations... oh yeah, it's still obviously a better deal.
As I've said, nobody really wants to admit this sort of stuff because then you're admitting you've been manipulated and you're an irrational consumer (although almost all consumers are). This DOES contribute to the discussion, and I think you know what I'm saying is right. This is the sort of thing that is obvious to everyone, but talked about by no one, because of the implications.
You believe that if you don't do these usually then you should never do them? How often do you have more than two people in your Prius? Wouldn't you say that you usually don't? So why would you buy a car with 5 seats by your own logic? Everyone who is not brainwashed by ads and knowing what's good for them would be buying a Miata, if your logic applies, right?
And yes, renting comes up in these discussions all the time. For me to rent a truck right now I would need to call several places to find if they have trucks available at all, find someone to drive with me to that place or take Uber, sign up paperwork and walk-around, pay $100+ day, then return with another walk-around, then find a way to get home from the rental place. Or I could just throw bikes in the box, drive to a trail, ride, and come back by the time you got home in your rental. You saved some money, but likely you saved even more because you stayed home while others had fun outside.
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. Most people never do that stuff. Then a small subset of people left very rarely do it, maybe once a year or so. And then an even smaller subset does it regularly. If you're not in group 3, you're wasting your time.
> So why would you buy a car with 5 seats by your own logic?
By my own logic, there's no downside to having 5 seats. I mean, it costs nothing. Coupes are certainly not cheaper nor more efficient. If I was paying 30,000 dollars for those extra two seats I rarely use then yes, I WOULD think about it more carefully.
> others had fun outside.
Aaaand there it is. I said something about people being irrational consumers, and now it's become an attack.
Look, I'm not attacking you. If you feel you need a truck more power to you. I'm just observing the actions of average Americans, who ARE largely very irrational consumers.
I've known many people who own trucks and many who own SUVs, including 5 seat crossover SUVs. Out of almost everyone I have met, none of them need those vehicles and bought them for truly no reason. Well, not no reason. Because the TV said so and they want to look cool, and they like feeling like they own the road a bit more etc etc.
But if I ask them why they bought those vehicles, of course they won't say that. They'll say it's because they need them, which is just a lie. That's called justifying a purchase, and everyone does it all the time. Because of advertisement, most people are deeply irrational consumers.
Exhibit B: talk to some people about lab-grown diamonds. They're molecularly identical, but people sure don't want to accept they paid 5x more for nothing. Maybe this one you'll grasp a bit better, because I'm assuming you're a man so you're advertised less to when it comes to diamonds and jewelry so in that area you may be a less irrational consumer. But when you get a chance, survey some random women on it and then come back and tell me advertising doesn't manipulate the mind.
Most people who don't own a truck, I suppose? Because most people who own one do some truck-y things with it once in a while.
> Coupes are certainly not cheaper nor more efficient
The base model Miata is just 1000 more than the base model Prius new, used Miata is absolutely cheaper than a used Prius (because, surprisingly, more people want 5 seats in their car than people who want 2).
>Aaaand there it is. I said something about people being irrational consumers, and now it's become an attack.
I am not sure where do you see an attack? People have different lifestyles than you, it's a fact. Yes, people do sports outside. No, Prius is no good for that at all. And it's just one instance when Prius is not good. Owning a house with a Prius is also problematic. And even renting one somewhere remote is dangerous (if roads get blocked by snow/rain you are not going to get food). You believe you are in majority and in fact, almost everyone, sits at home on weekends or goes to bars or whatever you do, and trucks and other off-road big cars are being bought by people who are exactly like you but dumber. I know for a fact that a lot of people are into outdoors, home improvement, trades etc.
I disagree. I don't think this is true.
> The base model Miata is just 1000 more than the base model Prius new, used Miata is absolutely cheaper than a used Prius (because, surprisingly, more people want 5 seats in their car than people who want 2).
Used prius is more expensive because the prius is a more reliable vehicle that holds their value better. Meaning, that's even more reason to buy a prius.
> Yes, people do sports outside. No, Prius is no good for that at all.
I want to make it clear that I've never mentioned a prius. You're creating a granola-loving Californian caricature of me because you're running out of steam.
You don't have to buy a Prius. You just don't need the Child Crusher 4000 with Ulta-Gas-Guzzling suspense and glaucoma inducing laser beam headlights.
> Owning a house with a Prius is also problematic. And even renting one somewhere remote is dangerous (if roads get blocked by snow/rain you are not going to get food).
Yeah sorry this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Maybe it's because I live in Texas, where 3/4 cars are trucks, but this is 100% never the reason somebody buys a truck. Again, after-purchase justification is all this is to make yourself feel better.
> I know for a fact that a lot of people are into outdoors, home improvement, trades etc.
Okay. Sure. I don't disagree with this.
But you're telling me the MAJORITY of people do this? The majority? Really? That's what you're telling me?
I know you don't believe that. You're bullshitting me, and it's not gonna work. If you're gonna make an argument at least make it realistic enough so that you yourself can believe it. Obviously if you don't believe it, I certainty won't.
That's a given. You believe most people who own a truck never driven in snow, never put anything in the bed, never drove over water, never towed anything, right? Your right to believe such a thing.
>Used prius is more expensive because the prius is a more reliable vehicle that holds their value better. Meaning, that's even more reason to buy a prius.
So is a truck.
>I want to make it clear that I've never mentioned a prius.
Click this, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41259117 then do a search on the page for "prius", it sure appears there. I guess this the end of discussion because the obvious troll is obvious.
Five-seat crossover SUVs like the CRV and RAV4 are small enough to be pretty efficient - in my driving I got 40MPG in a non-hybrid - while being large enough to be more comfortable than a sedan and are still relatively cheap. What exactly is the reason to not buy one? They are much handier than the average non-hatchback sedan, since in combination with a decent size-storage area the back seats usually go down.
> Out of almost everyone I have met, none of them need those vehicles and bought them for truly no reason. Well, not no reason. Because the TV said so and they want to look cool, and they like feeling like they own the road a bit more etc etc.
When everyone but you has been manipulated and propagandized, it's a good sign that maybe you should rethink your position. You are probably correct that much of the time, most of these vehicles are being used as single-occupant commuter vehicles. But I find it highly implausible that none of these people are ever using their trucks to tow. That's not what I see with people that I know who have trucks. It's certainly probably ~<1-5% of of trips, but it is nonzero.
Is it perfectly rational and economically efficient to buy 40k of car when 20k of tiny car would do for 95%+ of driving? Probably not. But people value convenience and time higher than maybe you do, and they usually buy more of anything than they need. How many HNers are buying the cheapest, minimal-value computing device that does 95% of their daily computing tasks? It's perfectly possible for any of us to spend $100 on a Chromebook and rent any additional computing power we need 1% of the time.
I recently bought an eight-seat three-row SUV. Why? My commuter car remains my tiny compact hatchback. But about once a year, I typically make a very long vacation trip, and I can't pack everything in it. I would like two separate passenger rows to separate my kids. I would like to have enough seating for their friends. I would like something much more comfortable for > 30minute trips that aren't commutes. I would like something that can tow a boat trailer for the boat I don't have. It may be more "rational" to simply say "no" to a lot of these things (your friends wil have to find another way) and rent for everything else. I've rented for my vacation trips before and I find it extremely stressful. It's worth it to me to not rent. I don't watch TV, I rarely watch YouTube, and I can't tell you the last time I saw any advertisement besides a billboard. Maybe they "got me" anyway, I guess, but maybe it's also true that people can be completely unlike you and have motives that make sense to them.
"Rational" and "efficient" is something that never actually applies to almost any consumer behavior. Most people who write things like this are walking around with tons of pointless irrational luxuries, just in a different product category.
See, this is where the consumerism propaganda comes in.
Larger vehicles don't get you anywhere faster, because the road decides that. The vehicle you choose has literally nothing to do with that.
They're also not more convenient in the general case. They're not easier to maneuver, they don't perform better on concrete, they're much harder to park. You refill more often, they don't hold more people.
> "Rational" and "efficient" is something that never actually applies to almost any consumer behavior
Right, yes, you have walked directly into my point. That's correct. This is because of advertising. People are manipulated.
> Most people who write things like this are walking around with tons of pointless irrational luxuries, just in a different product category.
I never said I didn't. I don't understand why everyone is getting defensive and acting as though I'm taking a "holier than thou" approach. I'm not.
These conversations are so difficult to have because everyone is so emotionally invested in their metal box on wheels. Sorry, I don't mean to offend you. When I call you an irrational consumer that's not me singling you out. I'm an irrational consumer, and so is everyone else.
My point is to highlight the dangers and real-life harm of advertising. Because it's a fairly abstract problem. But when you put it into real-life terms maybe you can see the tons of CO2 caused by car ads or maybe the children crushed by car ads. Obviously I don't know those numbers and they're probably not measurable, but point is human behaviors cause problems, and human behaviors are influenced by ads, ergo advertisement causes problems.