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

61–70 of 104 posts

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

#61

Post by malfist »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #57
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)?

Possibly. But more likely, the energy grid will adopt more and more renewables to the point it doesn't matter if you have a local solar grid at home or not.

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

#62

Post by bzzzt »

RecycledEle wrote: post #58

People wanted rear wheel drive, American made, V8 powered cars. Detroit stopped making those, so people compromised and bought pickup trucks and SUVs. Now Detroit will be forced to stop making those. Just let people but what they want.

You don't want a V8 powered RWD car. Car manufacturers spend huge amounts of money to make you want a V8 powered car. When everyone has an EV, TV ads show cool new EV's and make you look backward for even thinking about burning gasoline you will want an EV.

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

#63

Post by doubled112 »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #57
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)?

What happens up here in Canada or some of the northern states?

Cold and dark doesn't sound like a good combination for long lasting batteries and fast solar charging rates

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

#64

Post by flyingfences »

doubled112 wrote: post #56
vuln wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hatchbacks have three pillars, wagons have four. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_(car)

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

#65

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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…

Parking such a beast would be hard in urban areas.

But ya, I totally expect for the canyonero EV to come out and be popular.

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

#66

Post by seanmcdirmid »

thecopy wrote: post #19
cozzyd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wouldn't make sense to distribute to smaller trucks for tax efficiency when considering the cost of the extra trucks, drivers, and loading/unloading. And besides, trucks already pay more in fuel tax. A mileage tax is going to be a necessity with electrification in the future, and it doesn't make sense for all weight-classes to pay the same tax as they don't do equal damage to roads.

>equal damage to roads. That's an understatement. Afaik damage to the road scales with weight to the _FOURTH_ power.

Don’t wheels and weight distribution have something to do with this? Otherwise this property would be really easy to game.

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

#67

Post by op00to »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #55
op00to wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compa…

I seem to remember the Ranger being absolutely horrifying at speeds over 25mph with unstable road surfaces. Like wildly zigging this way and that.

Still a super fun truck.

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

#68

Post by amluto »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #55
op00to wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compa…

I’ve never understood the purpose of high beds on a pickup truck. Maybe for carrying ATVs on bad roads?

If I were regularly carrying large or heavy loads in a pickup truck, I think I’d much prefer a low bed for ease or loading and unloading and for a lower center of mass.

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

#69

Post by latchkey »

I've been looking for a new small car in the US. There really aren't any options any more. Even the 'small' cars are all 4 doors and I only want 2. All I can come up with is:

Mini and MX-5

I'd love to go electric but the Mini-E range is terrible (~100 miles). They are supposed to be coming out with a new version that doubles the range though, so at least that is good.

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

#70

Post by Dig1t »

doubled112 wrote: post #56
vuln wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

SUV's can tow, which is a very useful feature if you have a family and also need to tow something.

I have been needing to tow an excavator for the past few months. Renting a truck to haul the excavator back and forth gets extremely expensive, like $200 per day for just the truck, not counting the trailer or the excavator itself.

Making tools, like a vehicle that can haul, more expensive just hurts middle class DIYers. This entire thread is basically people saying "other people don't need to own big nice things, only rich people should be allowed to do that".

Post reply on HN