- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Not all of us.
I’ll keep my manual transmission sedan that handles well and doesn’t connect to the internet to collect data on me until it collapses into a pile of rust.
Same. My car’s turning 18 this year. It’ still in good shape. I should be able to get a few more years out of it. After that? Who knows?
But they what? With few new small cars being built, the supply is dwindling, even in the used market.
I’m hoping that the trend will change by then. I’ve got about 10 more years. If it doesn’t happen? I have no idea what I’ll do.
That’s assuming nothing unexpected happens. Weeks before our '05 (manual) Civic was totaled last May, my spouse and I were discussing how we could probably get 5+ more years out of it. We were (thankfully) able to get a '20 Golf, but VW has even discontinued that!
13 year old small pickup with a 2L and 5-speed: best car I ever bought. No computers, can haul a half ton of stuff and only uses 7-8L/100KM when commuting.
Idk who
You’d have to be pretty dumb to get an SUV
There are some limited use cases where they can make sense.
Commuting or grocery shopping aren’t among those, though.
You need a RAM 1500 for that.
You have no idea how many cases of Monster I can fit in the bed bro.
The other thing is that people like comfortable cars that are easy to drive. Up until the long/low/wide era of the late 1950s, most cars had high roofs. easy cargo spaces, high hip points and chair-like seating, all of which was sacrificed on the altar of styling.
SUVs brought us back to the easy-to-own, easy-to-drive vehicles of that era, at the expense of being unpleasant to drive compared to cars. That’s where crossovers come in: they’re cars with that tall roof and hip point, but without the body-on-frame construction of truck-based SUV that gets you bad handling, worse ride and terrible fuel economy.
And yes, it’s true that crossovers were yet another way to boost margin, but they’re also better in almost every way than the low-roof cars that came before them, and consumer-oriented design counts for a lot.
the easy-to-own
what does this mean?
“Easy to live with” is probably a a better term. They’re more comfortable and more versatile than a low-roof car, and not gas-sucking, hard to park, terrible handling and hard to climb in and out of like a truck or truck-based SUV.
Pre-SUV era minivans entered the chat.
While I agree with you, there were very few USDM two-row tall-roof cars, and I think the only one that sold even remotely well was the Chrysler Magic Wagon, because the others (the Civic Wagovan, whatever Nissan sold) were gutless.
The cars that really sell well are compact and mid-size crossovers like the CRV and RAV/4. Minivans aren’t quite the same thing, and the US never really got MPVs that crossovers basically are.
I do agree that minivans are almost always better than large crossovers, but they’re not as popular, cost more to make and retail for lower margins, which is why OEMs don’t push them.
No one, either in comments, nor in article, actually touches on form factor. The fact is that sedans are only good for moving people, but there’s better options for that: like cycling or train. The real benefit of an SUV’s form factor (or pickup, or station wagon, or hatchback) is that you can move cargo with it, the kind of stuff that you can’t move with efficient people movers.
I move more shit with my hatchback civic than most people do with their pickup trucks and SUVs you don’t need a fucking SUV to do things, you just need a functional brain
I’ve done contracting, dump runs and fit an ice sled with a 2 man pop up hut and gear for overnight on the ice in a nissan micra. The low height actually makes it easier compared to a pick up or most SUVs.
The point that you kind of touch on in your comment, is that SUV’s generally aren’t better than a hatchback/wagon. In my experience, most SUV’s aren’t efficiently using their space, so they feel more luxurious to ride in, but have horrible cargo storage. @[email protected] talked on his podcast about being picked up (with his wife) from the airport in a huge SUV (I think it was an Escalade) and being unable to get their luggage in the trunk.
Hey, if we don’t have any cargo to transport, maybe it’s just… not a factor worth discussing for the vast majority of us?
You clearly have never owned a hatchback
Pretty much the perfect form factor in my opinion. Put the back seat down when you need to transport cargo, up for people. Really practical. If you want to do camping trips or road trips where you need to move four people with cargo, you can get one with a towing hook.
The one thing it’s not great at in my experience is transporting babies around. There’s just not quite enough space for the car seat, stroller, two parents and assorted diapers and stuff. We can make it work, but it’s quite uncomfortable.
Brinley at S&P Global Mobility says the rise of SUVs is a reflection of consumers’ desire to get greater utility out of their vehicles, which means the capacity to move more people and cargo.
Adams said when choosing a vehicle, most SUV buyers don’t make their decision based on something that’s going to satisfy “95 to 99 per cent” of their driving needs, which is commuting and running errands.
“They purchase their vehicle for the one weekend of the year when ‘I tow my boat up to the lake and I want to make sure I can do that,’” he said, noting “it is ironic when they make that purchase and then complain about high gas prices.”
Man, people need to look at renting for that one weekend a year what if more…
