[hawkesnest]

This article is accurate, but it doesn't talk about causes. Is the market looking for larger vehicles? Are the auto-makers in cahoots with the oil industry to use larger engines? Is marketing convincing people that having larger vehicles is universally better?

What about the increases in safety over that time span? Crumple-zones in some areas and stronger structural members add weight. Air bags add weight and decrease interior space. A-pillars used to be dainty for visibility but have been thickened to provide rollover protection.

The analysis provided doesn't give any reasons for the changes, only pointing out that they trend toward larger/heavier.

[michaelt]

I once read an article that claimed the rise of SUVs/Crossovers in America was the result of a number of factors.

* A loophole allows SUVs to bypass pollution regulations by calling themselves 'light trucks'

* Japanese automakers were outcompeting American automakers in the late 1990s in the car segment - but not the SUV segment. Lawmakers don't want to close the loophole, because SUV sales are propping up US automakers.

* The US auto industry made a big marketing push for SUVs - adverts, product placement in movies and so on - branding them as a sporty choice for your active lifestyle, in contrast to the staid image of minivans and station wagons.

* If you do market research on SUV owners asking them why they chose that car - they'll say they like the fact it's spacious. Makers of regular cars saw the market asking for bigger cars.

* As you've identified, stricter safety demands for things like crumple zones have also added to vehicles' sizes.

* With people's heights and waistlines growing every generation, it's unlikely we'll ever see a renaissance of cars as small as the European cars of the 1970s like the Mini Mk 1 or the Reliant Robin.

[ajmurmann]

"Japanese automakers were outcompeting American automakers in the late 1990s in the car segment - but not the SUV segment. Lawmakers don't want to close the loophole, because SUV sales are propping up US automakers."

The reason for this is tariffs on SUV imports.

[slaw]

> * A loophole allows SUVs to bypass pollution regulations by calling themselves 'light trucks'

SUVs, light trucks and cars have to pass the same emission standards in the US. I think you meant fuel economy that has different rules for light trucks and cars.

[buran77]

It's a safe assumption that safety requirements were a big driver of increased size and weight. And some of this factors have a snowball effect. Some requirements make the car bigger and heavier so it needs bigger engine, wider tires, bigger fuel tank, then it's even bigger and heavier.

Add all the luxury elements that attract customers and you have a lot more extra weight. Small cars are generally seen as entry level, unsafe, so car manufactures are more than willing to provide bigger, fancier models. It's not just the size that shot up, prices did too in order to cover all the extras.

People are also bigger and heavier than they used to so extra space and carrying capacity are more than welcome.

[bluetomcat]

In Europe in particular, there was the diesel craze of the 2000s. Few cars in the 1990s had diesel engines. The average family car was something like a Ford Mondeo with a 1.8 NA petrol engine.

By around 2005, almost any "premium" mid-sized car like a Mercedes E-class or a BMW 5 series had a turbocharged 6-cylinder diesel engine around 3 litres with common rail injection. These engines have much heavier blocks and need a lot of additional systems for emission control.

[jmrm]

I think this could be different depending of the country. In Spain the most popular engines in premium cars in the 90s were the 2.0L and the 2.5L turbo Diesel, and lots of compacts and mid-sized sedans, specially at the late 90s, were sold with 1.8L to 2.2L engines (Peugeot 205, Citroën Xsara, Renault Clio, Opel Corsa).

At the early 2000s, about 90% of the cars sold were Diesel IIRC. We always care a lot in terms of economy where buying a car, and with a Diesel oil cheaper than gas, and Diesel cars that had more mileage than petrol ones, there's the reason.

[petodo]

It's mostly safety, engines got actually much smaller since you can't get atmospheric engine anymore, where you would have in past basic 1.5-1.8L without turbo now you have 1.0L turbo.

[Dig1t]

I agree on the surface, this line of reasoning does track.

More regulation = more complexity = more weight

Similar can be seen with houses sort of.

More regulation = more complexity = higher cost

If you could weigh a house it’d probably be heavier too ;P

Both cars and houses have certainly inflated in size over time. But both are almost certainly not due solely to increased regulation.

[ajmurmann]

There is also a vicious circle where I feel less safe in a small car between huge ones. Not sure how this cycle can be broken without regulation or higher taxes based on vehicle size

[smileysteve]

I think it is the market, and by market, I mean baby boomer legacy. They were always taught that bigger is better (because crumple zones didn't exist in their parents cars), and now they guilt x, millennial, and z.

I feel this pressure from my baby boomer parents and millennial partner - especially in the southeast; they ignore the likelihood of rollovers in SUVs and the proven safety of modern suspensions and airbags in sedans.

[pxmpxm]

>because crumple zones didn't exist

But bigger is pretty universally better from energy management perspective, right? Simply having more material/size means lower deceleration rates for whatever you're trying to keep out of the passenger compartment.

[smileysteve]

difference in theoretically versus practically.

Bigger vehicles have bigger engines, frame rails, and suspensions. Some of these for cost, some of these for towing performance.

An example being a truck, bigger frame rails that will crumple less, leaf spring suspension that will crumple less, and a high rake grill that will capture more force, and a higher mounted engine and higher mounted passenger compartment that makes separation less ideal.