Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The end of cool small cars

blackbirdspyplane.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 198 posts

Re: The end of cool small cars

#171

Post by [deleted] »

arethuza wrote: post #94
vikingerik wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are small 'subcompact' crossover SUVs that get the best of both of those worlds. I've owned a Nissan Kicks and Honda HR-V. Both are marketed as SUVs but really function as roomy hatchbacks (lightweight, tight handling, front-wheel drive), along with others in the category. Very practical compromise between cost/efficiency and size/utility. Generally the only thing that cars in this class don't do is tow.

So apart from being a bit higher up - what is the benefit of the SUV? Edit: It's a question I keep asking myself, my wife still has a SUV...

[deleted]

Re: The end of cool small cars

#172

Post by Arnt »

RamblingCTO wrote: post #74
Arnt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Source?

Quick googling: https://europe.autonews.com/sales-segment/automakers-fight-r... > "New CO2 rules will require automakers to fit thousands of euros of tech to each car," Max Warburton, an analyst at research and brokerage firm Sanford C. Bernstein wrote in an April report. "Big cars have the price points and margins to cover these costs. Small cars simply do not. These segments may soon be abandoned by many manufactur…

Oh, so it's about inexpensive/expensive cars, and size is just something that correlates with that. I see.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#173

Post by psd1 »

redeeman wrote: post #145
JambalayaJim wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re missing the point here. Operating a powerful computing device doesn’t negatively impact other people. On the other hand, SUV drivers directly make my life less safe every single day. This shouldn’t even be thought of primarily as a climate issue - pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are up simply because of the size of cars on the road today. It’s simply not worth it, and cities should tax SUV drivers ac…

your fancy electronics devices have polluted this earth during their manufacture, and most certainly will during their probable end of life in a landfill. Who gives you the right to say that this is okay but an SUV is not? what if I want to live a primitive life without electronics. Your electronics takes precious time away from my life. Your shoes deposit microplastics in the environment that is most probably harmfu…

The poverty of your argument is showing.

If the SUV rabies won't abate, we need stronger measures.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#174

Post by arethuza »

neuralRiot wrote: post #124
Aromasin wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I've been a passenger in plenty of them; many of them don't seem any bigger on the inside than a hatchback, with very similar boot space. It's all pointless, superficial bodywork that makes the demand for them seem even more egregious to me.

Have you been on a BMW X6? I swear there’s less interior space in it than in a 3-series, the trunk is almost at armpit level and a mazda 3 can load bigger things. Same for the mercedes GLC. They’re the contemporary version of the hummer.

Coupe style SUVs like the X6 must be one of the stupidest car design fashions ever. And I say that as a recovered X5 owner....

Re: The end of cool small cars

#175

Post by bzzzt »

reverius42 wrote: post #163
adhesive_wombat wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, according to a guy trying to put in a higher offer on a car already sold, used estate cars in the UK are now selling at a premium because people who actually want such a car for its practical benefits, including farmers (a battered Volvo V70 and then XC70, which isn't a crossover like the XC60[1], is a common sight on a farm) struggle to find them because the market is full of shiny "wank tanks" with the…

There’s also the C40; perhaps less ridiculous?

XC70 boot has 575 liter capacity, C40 419 liter. Even the new V90 has a smaller boot than an old XC70 (and a smaller hatch which is less convenient).

Re: The end of cool small cars

#176

Post by rocgf »

lincon127 wrote: post #130
rocgf wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you're an idiot helping to accelerate the problem as this now becomes a weapons race on the road This is a very harsh take for something that is legal and widespread everywhere across the world (at least Western world). You have to try really hard to pretend you don't understand why this is happening. It's a race to the top of the safety spectrum, and for good reason. Traffic accidents are among the single biggest…

Sounds like you're one of the idiots

It only sounds like that because most people are not able to look at things objectively.

But, obviously, you're wrong. I don't own a car and haven't for many years. I never intend to own a car ever again. But just because I don't want to own a car, that doesn't mean that anyone who does is an idiot.

Hope that settles it.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#177

Post by pandaman »

simfree wrote: post #161
pandaman wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bit higher up, it's quite a lot and makes a lot of difference in adverse weather (like getting water in your engine or not getting water in there and driving safely through a flash flood, for example). Also the visibility is quite different, especially at night, due to low beams covering much less space in front of a low car [1][2]. The higher stance allows for large tires and smoother ride. Getting in and…

Sounds like the low beams are mis-aimed if they are generating a much larger light pool and likely dazzling other drivers on the road at night.

I am pretty sure IIHS is setting up lights according to the DOT regulations when they test. As the report says: "The low beams never exceeded glare limits".

It's simple geometry - headlights at the same angle will intersect with the ground farther when they are higher off the ground.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#178

Post by redeeman »

psd1 wrote: post #173
redeeman wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your fancy electronics devices have polluted this earth during their manufacture, and most certainly will during their probable end of life in a landfill. Who gives you the right to say that this is okay but an SUV is not? what if I want to live a primitive life without electronics. Your electronics takes precious time away from my life. Your shoes deposit microplastics in the environment that is most probably harmfu…

The poverty of your argument is showing. If the SUV rabies won't abate, we need stronger measures.

yeah I see it perfectly, the stuff you want to do is protected by divine power, but the stuff others do, not so much.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-...

"toxic, nightmarish lake created by our thirst for smartphones, consumer gadgets and green tech"

Hmm interresting, I dont see "created by thirst of land rovers". Funny how the car manufacture do not create dystopian nightmarish lakes, right? When did this begin to happen? What is it? was it perhaps when everyone wanted the fancy new ipads and smartphones? whats that I hear, a smartwatch? perhaps some IOT crap?

Its so easy to condemn what you do not like yourself, but just remember, when you are pointing one finger out, 3 are pointing back.

Re: The end of cool small cars

#179

Post by arethuza »

pandaman wrote: post #177
simfree wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the low beams are mis-aimed if they are generating a much larger light pool and likely dazzling other drivers on the road at night.

I am pretty sure IIHS is setting up lights according to the DOT regulations when they test. As the report says: "The low beams never exceeded glare limits". It's simple geometry - headlights at the same angle will intersect with the ground farther when they are higher off the ground.

But does that have any noticeable impact on the driving experience - can't say I've ever noticed any difference in headlight lighting between SUVs and "normal" cars?

Re: The end of cool small cars

#180

Post by tmerc »

CobaltFire wrote: post #152
chiefbucket wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of this perception is based on the observer’s age. To me “trucks have gotten so much bigger than I remember” but what I think of as my formative car years were late 90s, so of course that is how it feels… it’s for sure true that rigs have ballooned since ‘95. It’s not necessarily true they have since 2015?

No, they absolutely have continued to. The new Tundra is an absolute monster. The Toyota 120/150 platform trucks (FJ Cruiser, Tacoma, 4Runner, GX) are an exception to that trend, lasting from about 2003 to 2024. I think the new Tacoma/4R are pretty close to the same size, but the GX did increase a bit. My formative years were the same as yours. Got my license in 1998, and I drove a 1979 Toyota truck that was absolute…

I think until 1996 it was just called the Toyota pickup. 1996 introduced the name Tacoma.
Post reply on HN