[uuddlrlrbaba]

> There are also basically no wagons anymore. Apparently everything has to be a high-off-the-ground poor-visibility pedestrian murder machine to be profitable for the auto industry anymore.

Honestly this just indicates that you haven't seriously driven a modern CUV. What you describe sounds like a 1990 suburban.

CUVs wouldn't be so popular without being safe and easy to drive.

Sure, I'm opposed to daily driving trucks and truck frame SUVs. But thats an important distinction. The popular cars in the US today are CUVs which are built on a car chassis and generally speaking have good visibility and safety features. They are essentially scaled up wagons with awd.

[DCH3416]

>CUVs wouldn't be so popular without being safe and easy to drive.

They wouldn't be so popular if every other car on the road didn't tower over conventional sedans. Why would you want a car that rides worse, is heavier, and costs more to buy and live with? People don't want vehicles that feel sunken into the ground and increasingly that's how sedans are perceived. It's a runaway effect.

[uuddlrlrbaba]

Worse than what? And why are sedans conventional? The Sedan is a terrible legacy design shape. The divided trunk and rear seats wastes a ton of space.

A wagon or sportback I can understand. And thats essentially what a small CUV is based on, along with a bit more ride height and often awd drivetrain.

The CUV is popular because it's a really functional and practical design. You don't have to spend a lot on one, but you can. Maybe test drive some more and it'll click why so many people drive them. They don't all handle poorly either, some are downright fun.

[DCH3416]

The sedan, designed well, is the ideal shape that you want to cleanly cut through the air with the least amount of wind resistance. As you go up in size the area that a car covers increases, as does weight, among other things. So you lose the efficiency of the body shape. And the higher off the ground you go, the more drag you get because now air deflects underneath the car and will 'catch' in different spots. That's why you take like a prius with front air deflectors, they design it that way to create a bit of a ground effect reducing drag.

The "CUV", compact SUV, is popular because it's higher off the ground. Because as other cars have gotten larger, people feel less safe with traditional sedans. Sedans, which worked well before because really people don't carry a lot with their cars most of the time. They've taken the hatchback design, since with rollover it's difficult to make those high in cargo capacity, and blown it up and thrown AWD on it. Take makes the car more expensive, it's more metal and plastic.

Doing that spoils the handling because now you've taken a chassis where the wheels would be parallel and lifted it. Making it so the body rolls more, providing a stiffer chassis feel, compounded by the additional weight for now larger components like the rear hatch. And you get a worse riding vehicle. I mean if the scope of the vehicles you've driven is just SUVs, then yeah, they might seem very sporty. But most of that is just marketing. That's why manufacturers don't really make sports cars into SUVs, because there's a lot of compromises in doing that.

[uuddlrlrbaba]

You keep using SUV and CUV interchangeably. They are distinct frame designs. SUV is built on a ladder frame like a truck. CUV is built with a unibody car chassis.

CUV is far lighter duty, and far better in handling, driving dynamics and efficiency. Especially in models tuned for enthusiast drivers.

As for the efficiency of a sedan, you'll be hard pressed to convince me that putting non-cabin over the majority of the frame is an efficient design. Heck even a prius is a hatchback, not a sedan.

[yellowapple]

> Doing that spoils the handling

On the contrary, having driven plenty of cars with and without AWD, adding AWD is a massive boon to handling for me, even outside of "rough" conditions like mud/ice/snow/gravel.

[nucleardog]

The issue is the height, weight, etc, not really the AWD.

Especially since most vehicles’ AWD systems (especially if you’re talking crossovers) are really just “2WD but we can briefly engage the other two wheels if you’re trying to get moving on a patch of ice”. (One axle is not being driven except when the other is slipping, and in many cases there are speed limits above which this won’t engage. Many of these systems rely on clutch packs that, if they were engaged continuously, would overheat.)

[DCH3416]

The easiest way I can describe the difference is to go test drive a Tesla model 3 and a model Y. Same basic car. If you go down the road and yank the steering wheel a bit because of the weight of the things you'll find the model Y gets significantly more front heavy in a turn compared to the model 3.

[jacobolus]

> haven't seriously driven a modern CUV

I've driven these a few times as rentals; I don't know if that counts as "serious". They are more expensive, they handle worse, they are heavier, they are less stable because they are significantly higher off the ground, they have poorer visibility as a driver especially of nearby low objects, all else equal they get worse gas mileage, and are basically the same size inside so that the seating and cargo is not appreciably different compared to a wagon.

In my opinion and for my use cases they are worse in every way except for profit for the manufacturer.

[dmd]

The Forester is basically perfect, IMO. (Though it would be more perfect as a hybrid.)

[RantyDave]

https://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fa...

[otteromkram]

Found the Coloradan!

[dmd]

???

[DCH3416]

Subaru at one point was the most popular automotive brand in Colorado.

[dmd]

OK, but it's also one of the most common cars in the whole country, so it's just a weird statement.

[DiggyJohnson]

They were making a joke about how everyone in Colorado seems to drive a Forester. That's all.

[nradov]

There's nothing wrong with daily driving a truck frame SUV like a Toyota 4Runner. Those are very practical vehicles for anyone who occasionally needs to drive on rough dirt roads or tow a small trailer (and that's a lot of people).

[nucleardog]

> Those are very practical vehicles for anyone who occasionally needs to drive on rough dirt roads or tow a small trailer (and that's a lot of people).

Most people don’t need this beyond what most modern vehicles can already do.

I’ve got what is termed a “compact sport sedan”.

I live in rural Canada. I can guarantee that car has seen more gravel, mud and barely roads that most cars will see in their lifetime, trucks included. Never mind the snow and ice. The experience is in no way challenging or compromised.

I regularly use it to tow a 5’x10’ trailer. Most I’ve pulled is just shy of 3,000lbs. Only compromise there I’ve found is pulling it up the 8% grade headed toward my house I had to take it down from 6th to 5th gear to maintain 70mph.

This is _way_ more than most people demand of their vehicles.

A truck is practical for the average person in much the same way that using a kinetic orbital strike to drive a nail is a practical as a replacement for a hammer.

[neuralRiot]

That’s the equivalent of wearing rubber boots or cleats everyday to the office. My next vehicle will be a Cat 797 just in case i need to haul 400 tons.

[wetmore]

Yeah but it's easier to own two pairs of shoes than it is to own two cars.

[neuralRiot]

If it wasn’t, would you buy casual shoes or cleats?

[nradov]

Come on, be serious. Have you ever even driven a 4Runner? Ridiculous hyperbole doesn't help your point.

[DCH3416]

Well, there is because it's wasteful. Wasteful of material, and finite resources that we in the US subsidize to keep fuel prices from being adjusted to what they would be relative to the rest of the world. Further roads now in modern society are better than they ever have been, especially compared to the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Tires are better. You mean to tell me these days we need more capable vehicles compared to the land yachts and economy cars we drove back in the day? Can't forget a Buick park avenue V6 can be used to tow, and other folks in the world use things like priuses to tow trailers. And frankly I've gone down rough dirt roads in old civics before.

So yeah. Needless to say the practically argument is lackluster relative to the actual capabilities of most vehicles. I think folks are just overestimating their use cases which will cost us in the long run because you've financed yourself to death through the cost of ownership.

[yellowapple]

Alright, well as someone who routinely puts both the cargo-hauling capabilities and 4WD of his Tacoma to full use, y'all can pry my truck out of my cold dead fingers. Just because you can get away with not needing a truck doesn't mean I can.

[nucleardog]

No one's talking about erasing trucks from the face of the planet. They're talking about how to deal with and minimize the negative externalities. This is part of living in a society etc etc.

For the vast majority of people who own trucks, they're not using the cargo hauling or off road capabilities at all. That's an easy one, we shouldn't all be paying the cost of that.

At the other end, there are definitely situations where the job the vehicle is fulfilling is not "people transport" but "heavy thing transport". I don't think anyone's suggesting we start outfitting construction crews with Priuses (Priora? Prii?).

There's a whole spectrum in between that you likely fall on, and I can't really say much more than that without knowing what "routinely" or "full use" means there.

What I can say is that there are trims of the Tacoma whose towing capacity is low enough that it's basically overlapping with my japanese compact sports car and exceeded by some larger cars. I can't see any justification for those at all besides "because I want to" which really doesn't seem like a good enough justification for putting people in danger.

As far as pedestrians are concerned (just one factor), they're twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck than a sedan given similar conditions. From the data I can find[0], that's a similar increase in risk of fatality as someone doing something like 30mph in a 15mph school zone and hitting a kid. If I started driving 30mph through school zones "because I want to" or "because sometimes I'm in a hurry" they would put me in jail. Frankly, I don't think there's _any_ reason society would accept for me doing that. Certainly not after I hit and killed a kid. So why should we all accept it here?

[0] https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_...

[yellowapple]

> What I can say is that there are trims of the Tacoma whose towing capacity is low enough that it's basically overlapping with my japanese compact sports car and exceeded by some larger cars.

Which trims would those be? My SR is the absolute lowest-power trim option available to my knowledge, and even it readily handles towing loads (like the large trailer full of furniture that I hauled from Sacramento to Reno last weekend) that I wouldn't in a million years trust a sedan (let alone something smaller) to tow.

In any case, there's more to the equation than weight. Would you use your Japanese compact sports car to haul gravel? Or bags of trash? Or large pieces of furniture? I've hauled all three in the sort of vehicle for which you "can't see any justification" - without needing a trailer, mind you.

> As far as pedestrians are concerned (just one factor), they're twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck than a sedan given similar conditions.

"Full size" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

In any case, I can't find anything supporting the claim that pedestrians are twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck. More like +45% at most: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-v...

[nucleardog]

> I've hauled all three in the sort of vehicle for which you "can't see any justification"

What I said was that I cannot see justification for trucks that are less, not, or barely more capable than smaller vehicles with fewer negative externalities. You're choosing to put yourself in that category it seems.

> Which trims would those be? My SR is the absolute lowest-power trim option available to my knowledge,

The Tacoma comes in "34 flavours" apparently, so... there's a few but looks like the SR with I4 is rated for 3,500lbs. That's 1,000lbs unbraked TWR and 3,500lbs braked TWR.

> and even it readily handles towing loads

Yes? I'm not trying to suggest trucks aren't capable of towing... I'm trying to suggest that other vehicles are a lot more capable than people seem to think and some of these trucks are unnecessary.

The manual for the Tacoma says towing above 2,000lbs requires an anti-sway bar and never to exceed 65mph. Under the same conditions, a Subaru Crosstrek has the same 3,500lb tow rating.

So if you can get by with the 3,500lb towing capacity, you don't need a truck for towing. You've proved the exact point I was trying to make. We are dealing with the negative aspects of truck ownership and there's basically no reason for it. In a society where people were more considerate, that vehicle would not exist. Why are we in this situation then?

> I wouldn't in a million years trust a sedan (let alone something smaller) to tow.

Right, that's why. Over in Europe, Australia, and elsewhere with all the extra safety regulations and everything else they're towing around giant campers with little 0.8L econoboxes without turning the highways into mad max, but somehow that just never made it over here.

In the past while I've hauled loads consisting of:

  - Concrete patio blocks
  - A hardwood king sized bed + headboard; kid's play structure; swingset; and a pile of flatpak Ikea stuff
  - A heavy hardwood hutch, buffet, large kitchen table, and four dining chairs
  - A kitchen's worth of new cabinets, a dishwasher, and related fixtures
  - A kitchen's worth of old cabinets, fixtures, and related construction debris
  - A bunch of yard debris from neighbours' yards after some storms
  - A bunch of lumber from the lumberyard
  - Probably a bunch of other stuff I'm forgetting.

Are these things you'd trust a sedan to pull? Because I've been pulling them all with a sedan. And I live in a rural area, so _most_ of these trips are an hour and a half on the highway each way plus whatever urban driving I'm doing.

> Would you use your Japanese compact sports car to haul gravel? Or bags of trash? Or large pieces of furniture? I've hauled all three in the sort of vehicle for which you "can't see any justification"

Again, I'm not saying trucks can't haul things. I'm saying they're not needed to haul things in many situations. Saying that you can do things with your truck is not justifying its existence unless they're things you _can't_ do otherwise. Right off the bat, the existence of trailers, cargo carriers, hatchbacks, etc basically addresses this. But sure, I'll play along.

No, I wouldn't fill my back seat up with gravel. That would be stupid and also horribly inefficient. Gravel's heavy. I pay the guy $50 to use his dump truck to dump 10 or 15 yards on my property instead of making 15 trips with a trailer or 30+ with a truck bed. Thankfully I've yet to run into a situation in my life where I suddenly and unexpectedly need to transport a half a yard (max for the top trim Tacoma's bed capacity) of gravel with no time to just go get my trailer. Is this a thing that happens to a lot of people?

I do haul bags of trash with my car. Every week when I take the trash. Sometimes in the trunk, but sometimes in a small hitch mount cargo carrier.

Yeah, I've moved furniture with my car. Sometimes I need to take a couple pieces off to get it in there. There's a lot of space but the trunk opening's just not that tall. Can get a lot of Ikea boxes in there! At one point I went down to Home Depot for a 4x8 sheet of plywood and I had to pay them $2 to cut it in half lengthwise so I could get it in there. Generally though if I were trying to move furniture I'd either use my wife's hatchback (larger trunk opening's kinda helpful, managed to shove a fridge in there the other day) or, y'know, just use the trailer. Again I find in my life it's pretty rare that I suddenly and unexpectedly need to haul large pieces of furniture.

> without needing a trailer, mind you.

I'm really not sure why this is a benefit. Even though I'm probably moving around more stuff that many people, the vast majority of my driving is still not hauling furniture around. I don't need to pay the costs in space, weight, or fuel economy for the capability to haul stuff when I'm not actively hauling stuff--I just take the trailer off. Much like I don't drive around day-to-day in a 27ft box truck because I occasionally move between houses... I go borrow one from U-Haul. (Which also has trailers and trucks.)

> I can't find anything supporting the claim that pedestrians are twice as likely to die being hit by a full size truck.

Here's a meta-study saying +50%: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20146143/

This was the newer study that was sourced from, though I mixed some numbers up: https://www.justintyndall.com/tyndall_pedestrian.pdf

+68% for "trucks" and +99% (where I got twice as likely) for "full-size SUVs". Given most SUVs are built on truck frames with similar bodywork and styling, I'm not sure what the distinction would be.

But sure, instead of 2.0x or 1.7x or 1.5x we can call it 1.45x. A 45% increase in risk of death as a pedestrian, an increased likelihood of being hit in the first place due to worse visibility, an increased risk of death in a collision while driving because physics, increased pollution in the air I breathe... totally worth it.

[nradov]

Oh please. Everything is "wasteful" to some extent. Unless you're living in a mud hut with no climate control and walking everywhere then your virtue signaling is pure hypocrisy.

If the concern is fuel usage then let's raise the fuel tax. Moralizing and telling other people that they like the wrong things isn't going to accomplish anything.

[DCH3416]

Sure. I don't disagree. Where the line starts is when it starts to affect me fiscally. When I in the tax paying public have to pay for fuel subsidies, pouring wider roads, excess land use for parking lots. It's one fuel crisis away from being a serious problem when all these folks financing $40k trucks need a bail out from uncle sam.

And then you can get into in the US high cost of medical when one of these ego chasers mow down an otherwise productive member of society.