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

The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 104 posts

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#51

Post by op00to »

prepend wrote: post #27
xqcgrek2 wrote: post #25

Larger vehicles are safer for occupants. This will lead to an increase in road deaths.

I frequently have a train of thought for “why so many SUVs” and then remember a line from David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” speech [0]… “ it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive.” This specific speech chang…

"Fuck you, I hope you die and I live" - people who buy a SUV for safety

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#52

Post by jmpman »

The SUV Loophole was not a consumer decision. It was a bill passed by Congress after lobbying by the big three automakers who had a niche they could compete against the Japanese and the Europeans. Without it, our domestic automobile industry would have died. It won’t be closed unless the big three have another profitable path forward. I expect electrification is that path with products like the F-150 lightning. The vehicles will not get smaller once battery density and price points are met. I’d actually predict them to get larger. If I could drive an electric suburban, charged by my solar array - why wouldn’t I?

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#53

Post by op00to »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #45
prepend wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I frequently have a train of thought for “why so many SUVs” and then remember a line from David Foster Wallace’s “This is Water” speech [0]… “ it’s not impossible that some of these people in SUV’s have been in horrible auto accidents in the past, and now find driving so terrifying that their therapist has all but ordered them to get a huge, heavy SUV so they can feel safe enough to drive.” This specific speech chang…

Taking this to its logical conclusion, I commissioned a Landkreuzer P1000 for my family. It's the only way to be sure you have enough lebensraum on the road. (I considered the M1A1 Abrams, but just didn't feel safe in the thing.) I think women and girls especially should drive main battle tanks, given their psychological fragility and propensity to trauma. If you are such a person, and it makes you feel safer, you sh…

I only let my wife drive once our advance team runs a M1271 Medium Flail Mine Clearing Vehicle through first. Can't be too safe.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#54

Post by AbrahamParangi »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #43

What's always missing from this discussions is mention of the social norms of the upper middle class who do the bulk of the new car buying and who's preferences determine the shape of the new and used car market. Sure, the CAFE rules are dumb but the behavior of the people who who are spending $50k on midsize pickups and $40k on electric sedans can't solely be explained by a nudge at the margins of tax policy. As lon…

People buy large cars because that’s what’s available. Anecdotal example: I grew up driving Toyota Camrys. Nice car, lasts forever. At some point in the 2010s they started getting bigger, larger turn radius, lower visibility - all around a worse product.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#55

Post by red-iron-pine »

op00to wrote: post #49
TexanFeller wrote: post #31

I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or m…

FORD RANGER! But the little tiny ford rangers. Or even a Bronco II.

I have a soft sport for the old Rangers, but they had some serious safety shortcomings and lack many of the factors that drive modern truck sales now, like large size, higher up, and a correspondingly smoother ride.

It's a work truck, and in the US modern trucks are luxury vehicles, effectively mid-to-large-sized SUVs with a flatbed. I worked in Australia for a while and their 'ute's were quite stripped down in comparison, save for a few models (like the new Ranger, which IIRC was a model first developed for the Australian market).

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#56

Post by doubled112 »

vuln wrote: post #37
SyzygistSix wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Bring back the more efficient sedans. Is that a type of wagon I am unfamiliar with?

Wagons have hatches, sedans have trunks.

But I thought hatchbacks had hatches.

Really though, a wagon checks all of the boxes an SUV does other than the need to be bigger and higher

Room for the kids, the cargo, and the dog. Decent interior. Good ride quality.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#57

Post by maerF0x0 »

jmpman wrote: post #52

The SUV Loophole was not a consumer decision. It was a bill passed by Congress after lobbying by the big three automakers who had a niche they could compete against the Japanese and the Europeans. Without it, our domestic automobile industry would have died. It won’t be closed unless the big three have another profitable path forward. I expect electrification is that path with products like the F-150 lightning. The v…

> If I could drive an electric suburban, charged by my solar array

Could an Average American home solar install actually charge enough to match their consumption (average daily miles), and with such a big vehicle (very heavy, moreso as electric)?

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#59

Post by red-iron-pine »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #47
SyzygistSix wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I like hatchbacks and wagons, when a CR-V gets the same gas mileage as an Accord, I'm going to go with the CR-V. More stuff, more ground clearance.

Do they really get the same milage? Or are they just subject to a less stringent efficiency standard? Higher ground clearance is usually associated with less fuel efficiency.

The Honda HRV might -- it's now the "mid-sized" SUV. The CRV has now upgraded to the full-sized and is the basis for the Acura luxury models. The HRV is the size of the old CRVs.

I doubt the new/ current CRV would get a similar mileage, but could see the HRV doing so. Toyota offers similarly sized SUVs (e.g. the CH-R), and those come with hybrid options.

Re: The US Wants to Close an ‘SUV Loophole’ That Supersized Cars

#60

Post by malfist »

TexanFeller wrote: post #31

I'm thrilled that they're finally looking at these issues. I would like to own a tiny pickup, like the old Tacomas, but the way the regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient, all trucks are behemoths now. I'd love to kill the trend of making everything an SUV as well. Bring back the more efficient sedans. Families going to soccer practice should have a station wagon or m…

> regulations are written prevents anyone from manufacturing something small and efficient

This isn't true. The regulations set a minimum allowed MPG is based on size. Manufacturers have decided it's cheaper/easier to build bigger vehicles with worse MPG, than build the previous size with better MPG.

Post reply on HN