Lamenting the decline of the car

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by homebucket

The increasing size of cars has more to do with increased safety regulations and standards and technological features more so than the increasing size of people.

Or maybe the increased profit margin on vehicles and 'features' that nobody was asking for yet were sold on by millions of dollars of relentless advertising..

If you can find a the person who felt the the need for the backup camera then please, let them make the case!

People are being swindled by million dollar ad campaigns selling them complete bullshit.

OOOH! I need an 8 camera car! My neighbour only has a 6!!

Complete fucking stupidity.

Amazing how adept people we're of parking cars before the advent of the rear-looking cameras.. and how little they had to pay to service that ability..

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

Or maybe the increased profit margin on vehicles and 'features' that nobody was asking for yet were sold on by millions of dollars of relentless advertising..

If you can find a the person who felt the the need for the backup camera then please, let them make the case!

People are being swindled by million dollar ad campaigns selling them complete bullshit.

OOOH! I need an 8 camera car! My neighbour only has a 6!!

Complete fucking stupidity.

Some of the newer technological is helpful and doesn’t necessarily take up much space or add bulk, such as back up cameras. I didn’t need them for parallel parking but it does make it a bit easier. Blind spot monitoring is also useful. Other things like lane keep assist and adaptive cruise control I could do without. I also don’t need cars to park for me. In fact I wish I could spec cars without them to cut down on cost.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

If you can find a the person who felt the the need for the backup camera then please, let them make the case!

The backup camera was legislated into existence because people were literally backing over their kids in the driveway. It's a requirement for cars to have them, not some gadget put on to increase sales.

Transport Canada also made it a requirement for Canadian vehicles as a result of the US action:
https://www.guideautoweb.com/en/arti...ory-in-canada/

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

Let's get real.

The auto industry lobbied relentlessly (and successfully) to have SUVs exempted from CAFE regulations.

This isn't real. SUVs are not, nor have not been, exempt from CAFE regulations.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

Let's get real.

The auto industry lobbied relentlessly (and successfully) to have SUVs exempted from CAFE regulations.

They then realized they could upsell dumbasses on a glorified car built upon a common pickup chassis.
...
Nobody asked for these 'things', we've been left with no alternative.

Are you sure about that? There is regulation for these vehicles according to this article. Everything I've read indicates that "cars, light trucks, and sport-utility vehicles (SUVs)" are subject to these regulations. Crossovers (the ugly duckling cartoon vehicles) are also in that group.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...selves/562400/

(As an aside, a personal gripe I have is that I wish we still had mpg like the US, instead of liters per 100km , the old measurements made intuitive sense and were easy to remember, they lost me on that particular metric-metric years ago by reversing the format.)

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If we're talking about the same model of car sure. But we're not just seeing the same model get bigger. We're seeing a wholesale shift to larger models altogether. To the point that many brands are now outright eliminating any North American offerings that aren't CUVs or SUVs. And it really sucks if you don't like SUVs and pickups.

Of course people also buy them because they think they are safer, but they are not safer for everyone else, especially pedestrians, cyclists, etc. It seems that the key deterrent to this is what we all don't want to see - high gas prices, ridiculously high. Here in Vancouver prices are hovering around $1.65 to $1.70 per litre right now (around $6.40 per US gal.) - that should be a deterrent to buying gas guzzlers IMO.

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

This isn't real. SUVs are not, nor have not been, exempt from CAFE regulations.

Well yes they were subject to CAFE but the auto industry lobbied to have SUVs catergorized as light trucks and therefore not subject to the same regulations as mere cars.

You know, the typical corruption, buying politicians etc. etc. ..

And now idiots are overpaying for their shitbox suburbitanks, the absolute worst vehicle the world has ever known.

But hey, I'm sure you need your little 6 seat tank to drive 2km, alone, to get your IL of milk. It's the Canadian Way!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Architype

(As an aside, a personal gripe I have is that I wish we still had mpg like the US, instead of liters per 100km , the old measurements made intuitive sense and were easy to remember, they lost me on that particular metric-metric years ago by reversing the format.)

No way. L/100 km is a much more effective way to compare vehicles.

• Video Link

Originally Posted by Architype

Of course people also buy them because they think they are safer, but they are not safer for everyone else, especially pedestrians, cyclists, etc. It seems that the key deterrent to this is what we all don't want to see - high gas prices, ridiculously high. Here in Vancouver prices are hovering around $1.65 to $1.70 per litre right now (around $6.40 per US gal.) - that should be a deterrent to buying gas guzzlers IMO.

Given that people still buy crossovers and SUVs in Europe where gas prices are much higher, doesn't seem like gas prices are a deterrent. And they will be less of a deterrent as automakers hybridize or electrify their lineups.

[Innsertnamehere]

People still buy them in Europe but in much smaller numbers and the ones they do buy are smaller on average. Europe's dominant smaller vehicle market is absolutely mostly to do with fuel costs.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

Well yes they were subject to CAFE but the auto industry lobbied to have SUVs catergorized as light trucks and therefore not subject to the same regulations as mere cars.

You know, the typical corruption, buying politicians etc. etc. ..

And now idiots are overpaying for their shitbox suburbitanks, the absolute worst vehicle the world has ever known.

But hey, I'm sure you need your little 6 seat tank to drive 2km, alone, to get your IL of milk. It's the Canadian Way!

Well, being in the same classification as light trucks (which was reasonable at the onset of the fad, as early SUVs were built on light truck chassis and typically shared front sheetmetal with them) is not the same as being exempt.

Contrary to what you may think, I'm not trying to give SUVs a free pass (I actually don't care for them myself - I have only ever owned sedans and sports cars - no trucks, no SUVs), but if we are going to have a quality discussion, we have to at least try to get our facts straight. That said, it's understandable to make mistakes when examining the industry - the situations are often very complex and confusing at the best of times, especially when politics are involved.

Getting around CAFE regulations is nothing new to the industry, either. Anecdotally, I recall reading years ago that the reason for the existence of Chrysler's PT Cruiser (a small, retro-styled SUV/wagon-looking thing, based on Neon architecture) was to keep their light truck CAFE fleet average down so that they could sell more large trucks without being penalized. Moreover, automakers that came in below CAFE standards would earn credits that they could sell makers with poor CAFE fleet averages so they could avoid being penalized. IIRC, at least that's how Tesla was able to overcome the always-difficult and risky start-up period, by selling their credits to the 'big 3'...

So, yeah, totally agree that there are a lot of things wrong with the industry, especially when politics are involved. I'm hoping that the upcoming EV transition will wipe the slate clean for much of this, as EVs will be light years more efficient (and less-harmful to the environment) than the current ICE versions, and as a side benefit of the 'skateboard' platform where batteries are mounted low and flat, below the floorboards, there should be vast improvements in handling and stability, and they should be less prone to rollovers.

[Truenorth00]

Wasn't just the classification of SUVs as trucks. Under the newer Obama era CAFE rules they came up with sliding rules based on footprint. This is when they ramped up CUV sales. Then, they went whining to the Trump administration as fuel economy stopped improving as customers started buying the CUVs they were pushing. And now even with Biden in office, they are still pushing CUVs and dropping sedans and wagons.

Honestly, there's a few companies in this sector, whose politics I'm sick off and I'm hoping they don't survive the transition.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Yeah, that's what I was getting at in that it is all very complicated. It's not just as simple as meeting an engineering spec when you get all the politics involved.

I'm wondering if Biden is just giving in to the "America First" crowd, knowing that in the near future CAFE will have much less meaning as the switchover to EVs starts to happen.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Yeah, that's what I was getting at in that it is all very complicated. It's not just as simple as meeting an engineering spec when you get all the politics involved.

I'm wondering if Biden is just giving in to the "America First" crowd, knowing that in the near future CAFE will have much less meaning as the switchover to EVs starts to happen.

Biden originally demanded they electrify much faster. They balked and then came up with that weak nonsense of 50% "electrified" by 2030. A term which includes hybrids.

But a year is a long time in tech and politics. And you can see the panic starting to set in as they realize that some of these upstarts and the Chinese OEMs are going to start taking chunks out of their backsides shortly. There's a few names I hope Dave a reckoning. I hope Akio Toyoda is around long enough to watch his great grandfather's company get crushed because of his own ego and ignorance.

[OldDartmouthMark]

There is definitely an upheaval coming, and we have front-row seats to watch it all play out! I will be interested to read your commentary once the doo-doo hits the proverbial fan...

[urbandreamer]

My small hatchback is averaging 5.8L/100km. I can't imagine driving a pickup truck or SUV with gas above $1/litre.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

No way. L/100 km is a much more effective way to compare vehicles.

Yes they measure the same thing, but it depends on which you were used to first (I was a car enthusiast at age 11). With mpg the higher number is positive, so it's more intuitive. With the metric system they could have done the same thing, that would be "km per litre", which people were used to, and it would have worked better. Instead they reversed it, meaning the smaller number is positive.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Given that people still buy crossovers and SUVs in Europe where gas prices are much higher, doesn't seem like gas prices are a deterrent. And they will be less of a deterrent as automakers hybridize or electrify their lineups.

The size of cars in Europe has always been toward smaller vehicles. Smaller SUVs & crossovers are also more efficient than they used to be. People follow trends, but I doubt that our largest SUV behemoths would be practical in Europe, probably too big for most parking spaces. People may still buy impractical larger vehicles but it also means they drive less. Even here in BC, our gas prices are now around $1.65 per litre, that's $6.24 per us gallon, it costs about $81.00 to fill up my compact civic. People drive less because of this, not to mention congested streets with reduced capacity for traffic and reduced parking spaces mostly because of bike lane conversions, and $6.00 per hour downtown parking. EVs may solve some of this, but will come with their own set of concerns as they age, as we will find out.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by urbandreamer

My small hatchback is averaging 5.8L/100km. I can't imagine driving a pickup truck or SUV with gas above $1/litre.

$1? Gas is 1.70 here in Vancouver. Didn't stop some clown in a giant truck from almost running me over the other day, blowing through a red light.

[Innsertnamehere]

Gas is at $1.47 at the standard price stations in the GTA right now.

Of course you can get it for much less, particularly in the lower cost regions of the GTA.. I've been paying $1.37-$1.39 lately. still hurts when your car gets 11l/100km and a tank is 65 litres!

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

Gas is at $1.47 at the standard price stations in the GTA right now.

Of course you can get it for much less, particularly in the lower cost regions of the GTA.. I've been paying $1.37-$1.39 lately. still hurts when your car gets 11l/100km and a tank is 65 litres!

I don't understand how people can realistically afford this. When I started driving as a university student gas was like 90 cents and even that was difficult to get by with. Can't imagine that being much of an option these days for many.

[Innsertnamehere]

cars are way more fuel efficient than they used to be as a general rule.. my SUV gets 11l/100km as it's a 12 year old luxury SUV.. our 5 year old Civic gets 5.8L/100km and I barely even notice our gas costs for that vehicle. It gets like 750km out of $50 of gas.

A family member just bought a new F150 Hybrid that gets 9.8L/100km in a full size pickup.. His last truck got 16L/100km.

Inflation is a factor too.. $0.90/L in 2007 is equal to $1.16 today. So gas is more expensive but not a huge amount.

Of course the Carbon tax is a big factor as well in increased costs. Gas is $0.09 more in Ontario that it would be otherwise.

[jonny24]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I don't understand how people can realistically afford this. When I started driving as a university student gas was like 90 cents and even that was difficult to get by with. Can't imagine that being much of an option these days for many.

It's probably third on the list of unavoidables after rent/mortgage and food. If you need a car you need a car, and gas costs what it costs.