this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2023
268 points (98.6% liked)
Technology
59429 readers
2919 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Look at Tesla 3/Y. The Y outsells the 3, despite being virtually identical except taller, and priced ~$10k (25%) more.
The consumer base wants larger vehicles.
This consumer made that decision because the Model 3 has a tiny triangular door that is frustrating for tall people to use, plus I want to give my teenagers room to be comfortable in the back seat. It’s reasonable to upgrade from a car that “seats 5” legally to one that actually seats your family comfortably.
I understand that to some of you I’m part of the problem, but I see an awful lot of single people commuting to offices in trucks and full sized SUVs, so I like to think that’s different
...what? It's a very typical door, I'm not sure what you mean.
No one said it was unreasonable. And I don't blame anyone for not riding bikes or walking to work every day. It's very difficult to "go green" while some people who don't give a single fuck consume more in a week than you or I will in a lifetime. It all just feels very fruitless.
I don't see how the door on a Model 3 is tiny? I've been in my friend's, as well as in countless taxis, and never had an issue, just seems like a normal size/shape door to me.
I doubt it'd be used so extensively for taxis if it was difficult to get in/out of.
I do not deny that a segment of consumers want large cars. I, myself, have need for a 9+ passenger vehicle with a >10,000lb tow rating. A modern Suburban is actually too small to meet the needs of my summer and daytime business, which involves hauling customers and equipment across the county. But, I still have plenty of options on the market for that large vehicle.
But, my winter and nighttime business calls for a very small, very lightweight vehicle. 30-year-old subcompact designs are more fuel efficient and suitable for couriers (DoorDash, GrubHub, etc.) than anything currently being manufactured. I can't buy a new subcompact vehicle: there is nothing currently on the market that ideally meets my business needs.
The closest I can find in terms of ideal size and weight would be a Japanese Kei truck, but maintenance would be a nightmare.
You are not getting an accurate picture of consumer preference, because the segment of the consumer base demanding small vehicles is not having its needs met.
Also, obligatory "Fuck Tesla". Fuck their lack of door handles. Fuck their lack of buttons. Fuck their touchscreens. Fuck their quality and workmanship. And triple fuck the politics of their CEO.
I'm curious what kind of "business need" you have that could be met by a subcompact from 30 years ago but NOT by a Chevy Bolt or Chevy EUV? Either of those have an mpge rating of more than DOUBLE what an old Honda Civic Hatchback or Kei truck could manage plus more cargo space than either of them! The Bolt's are fairly inexpensive too, 2020 models can be bought used for less than $18,000 and 2017s for less than $14,000.
"More cargo space" is the battle cry of the "bigger is better" crowd, so I reject that argument outright.
Yes, the bolt has better economy. But, the 1990 Honda Civic was 20 inches shorter and 4 inches narrower. An updated Honda Civic with an equivalent drivetrain as the bolt would be smaller and lighter, and thus be getting even better mileage than the bolt.
Those extra 20 inches in length and 4 inches in width are necessary for the bolt to meet modern emissions standards. Shorten it by 20 inches and narrow it by 4, and Chevy wouldn't be allowed to produce it, even though it would have a higher economy.
Then I reject your consideration of a Kei Truck as cargo space obviously isn't a concern for you.
Unrealistic as it could not be sold. A 1990 Honda Civic lacks crumple zones and other safety features that are now required on vehicles in the United States.
Nope, the additional safety features make the footprint lager and the vehicle heavier.
Sigh, the Bolt doesn't HAVE any emissions. It's a straight EV. The extra size over a 1990 Honda Civic are for the required safety features and drivetrain.
So what's the problem? A domestic auto manufacturer DOES in fact make something that would work and that something is superior in every way to a sub-compact from 30 years ago. Go buy one.
So, you're saying it's a regulatory preference for larger vehicles, not a consumer preference, right?
The maximum length of a Kei truck is 30" shorter than the 1990's Civic. The maximum width of a Kei truck is 6" narrower than the Civic. Your criticism of the Kei truck is nonsensical.
No, I'm saying that there's vehicles made and sold in the United States today that fit your "business need". The rest of this is you making some bizarre argument about a fictional vehicle that could hypothetically be better.
Yeah there is, go buy it and quit your whining.
There are way more than enough small vehicles to choose from. You're just wrong on this one.
Nothing as small as was common in the 90's. Regulatory standards and manufacturer preference - not consumer demand - is forcing vehicles to be larger.
You can't even get an S10 or Ranger sized pickup anymore.
Sure we do. Ever seen a Smart car? A Mini? Honda Fit? Chevy Spark? Mazda 2? Miata? BR-Z?
It's all of the above.
What regulatory standards are preventing more manufacturers from selling sedans and hatchbacks?
Sure you can. Look up Ford Maverick.
Maverick is 7 inches longer, 4 inches wider, and 5 inches taller than a 1990's Ranger. Despite that, the Ranger's bed is 20 inches longer than the Maverick's.
The Maverick is more comparable to a 1990's F-150 than the Ranger. Maverick is 6" longer than a 1990s F-150 with the same bed length
CAFE standards favor the larger footprint.
Because they have 4 doors. That's not part of any CAFE standard.
The reason they don't make a 2-door version is because the shorter length of a 2-door would tighten the CAFE standards, and it would not be able to comply.
It doesn't have to be shorter
All other things being equal, the smaller vehicle will have better economy than the larger. So the more relevant observation is "it doesn't have to be longer". There is no engineering reason why the Maverick has to be bigger than the Ranger, and it would be more economical if it weren't. It is bigger only to satisfy regulatory compliance.
You misunderstood my statement. There is no CAFE regulation that requires vehicles to have 4 doors. The bed is shorter because it has 4 doors. Because that is what consumers want. Not because the law requires it.
I understood you perfectly. Don't conflate "rejection of your argument" with "lack comprehension".
You would have a valid point if they made a 2-door variant, even if that 2-door variant came with a bed 6" longer than the Ranger's bed. But they don't. You would have a point if used 2-door Rangers were valued substantially less than 4-door models. But they aren't.
There is no justification for your claim that "consumer demand" is even a significant factor, let alone the primary reason why the "compact" Maverick has a "full size" length.
The reason that their "compact" truck today is the size of a full-size from the 1990s (and why their full-size F-150 today is so much larger than one from the 1990s) is CAFE standards. Even though the Maverick would have better economy, less emissions, greater range, a better MPG rating with a Ranger-sized body, it would not meet the tighter restrictions that a vehicle with a Ranger-sized body would have to meet under CAFE.
You keep repeating this and I keep telling you that there are no regulations around the number of doors.
I'm tired of repeating myself. Goodbye now.
The quote you selected doesn't mention doors at all. The number of doors is irrelevant. The relevant factor is the size. The overall length of the truck and the overall width of the truck had to be substantially more than the Ranger. CAFE standards prohibit a Ranger-sized truck with the Maverick's fuel economy.
Ford used an extra row of seats to achieve the length they needed to reach.
That's because you're deliberately ignoring it.
It's not. The number of doors is why the bed is small and the length is long, not CAFE standards.
We've already been over this.
The Maverick gets about the same fuel economy as a Toyota Prius so no, it doesn't.
Not even close.
Prius: 57mpg city, 56 Highway
Maverick: 22mpg city, 29mpg highway
Even the hybrid version comes up short:
Maverick Hybrid: 42 mpg city, 33 mpg highway.
The Maverick's 61 sq ft footprint in the light truck category requires a minimum 28 mpg combined rating to comply with CAFE standards for the 2024 model year.
If it had the 52sq ft footprint of a 2-door ranger, it would need to have a minimum 34 mpg combined rating to comply with CAFE standards in 2024. It doesn't meet this with its standard engine.
Relative to the requirements on a vehicle the size of a 1990s Ranger, the Maverick needs either 6 mpg better economy, or an additional 9 sq ft of footprint to comply with CAFE standards.
The rear axle in a pickup needs to be located close to the center of the bed to maintain proper handling. To get the wheelbase they need by lengthening the bed, they would need to add as much length behind the axle as they add in front of it, keeping the rear axle centered. A 2-door "compact" Maverick would end up longer than a 4-door "full size".
To get the wheelbase they need without making the overall length absurdly long, they needed to extend the cab.