Edit: I mean for the environment, I’m sure mopeds are better than trams in other ways - like for doing tricks and making quick runs to the supermarket to get bread and milk
I read that as an electric bike originally but now I wonder if you’re right. Mopeds are definitely better than cars but I doubt they’re better than trams.
I wouldn’t say Mopeds are “definitely better” than cars. Theyre only designed to carry one or two people.Their engines generally aren’t as efficient as those in cars. A moped carrying one person is definitely better than a car with only one person in it, but if the car is full, then it might be the better choice.
Americans think it’s tough, cool, and macho man to own these types of vehicles. Same view with voting Republican. It makes you r/iamverybadass in their eyes. Meanwhile the rest of the world just rolls their eyes.
As an American, it may have started with macho, but now it’s about safety. I drive a Volt and am frequently blinded by SUVs and Trucks in my rear view. If a 250 hits me… I’m probably dead.
Until legislation is passed limiting the height of a vehicle a regular person can drive there will never be any change. Maybe also height restrictions in certain lanes or regions would help.
Special licenses and restrictions on where we allow these cars is the only way forward.
Being blinded by headlights is already a solved problem for years now with matrix headlights. It is the US government that is full of old farts that don’t even understand what they are and how they work. We just need a government that can actually respond and update policy for new technology. Currently matrix led headlight tech is illegal in the US because of some headlight laws made in 1920…
Your rav four either serves the purpose of a small SUV or minivan depending on the year. The current one is an MPV based on a small van so it’s literally a minivan from Japan with regular doors. It does not have the cargo space of a wagon and it definitely doesn’t have the performance or handling of a sport wagon. The closest thing Toyota had in the US would be the really old Camry V6 or the matrix XRS. Maybe a Prius v if it could have had the Prius all-wheel drive prime power train.
I’m always continually shocked at how small so many SUVs feel on the inside. The centre console and area around the gear selector is such a waste of space. For what, cup holders? Bring back the gear selector on wheel
“No cargo space” and “it’s a van” are incongruent.
As for performance, it has “sport mode” but even in eco mode it can vastly exceed the performance necessary to drive within legal limits. I’m not going to race with it, I am taking my kids camping in South Dakota or shopping at Costco.
Their seating or slope roof instead of rear cargo space. The current crossover version of the outback fits way less stuff in it when you go camping then my 4th gen legacy wagon. There’s a little more room for people but even with the seats folded down my legacy wagon fits more than the crossover.
There’s so much space taken up by interior trim and sloped body areas for no reason that could be used for cargo.
Edit- On the performance front the new XT can accelerate, but it feels bad to drive, wobbles in the corners while bouncing on the road, and does not stop well. It has similar ground clearance with the same sized tires as my legacy and less than a legacy outback stock for stock. So I just don’t get why you would pick the crossover if given the choice. It is also always fun to see the new Subaru dig a rut into a hill on a dirt road if they forgot to get a running start while I can climb it with my real AWD (VTD center diff.) Even old base models with 4ACT can shift into 4x4 mode (if you shift to 1 or 2 it locks the coupling if the steering wheel is straight so you essentially have a transfer case.)
The 2.5i withe the CVT is what I do not like. The 2010-2019 outback 2.5i take over 10s for 0-60, and the rest of the lineup was similar. They re-tuned the CVT to be more aggressive off the line so it is like 7.5-8s not for most of the NA line up, but the 5-60 is still over 10s. I had a 2017 impreza long term loaner and it felt unsafe to merge onto the freeway from a metering light in the bay area. It also got worse city MPG than my tuned LGT in the hills.
it has “sport mode” but even in eco mode it can vastly exceed the performance necessary to drive within legal limits
So my Kia crossover (needed ground clearance for rough unplowed rural roads at the time) has that, and I’ve found for most of the year it stays in Eco mode, I’ll pop it into Sport mode if I’m visiting a large city like Chicago or Milwaukee and moving through a busy highway interchange to better accelerate and decelerate as I work through crazy traffic to make my needed lane changes, then in the coldest winter days I’ll use Normal mode until it’s up to temperature because in Eco mode the engine never warms up if it’s below 0 out (I actually once watched the temperature dial go down as I went downhill into a valley once when it was around -10-15 out)
Serious question: what’s a good option if you live in semi-rural suburbs that gets snow in winter? Safety would be my main concern–something with four wheel drive and larger tires makes a difference there.
Myself commuted with a 95 Saturn SL for years out of a farm in rural Canada. People used crappy small cars for decades and still got where they need to, and today even the most basic car with basic snow tyres is extremely capable.
Needing AWD for the suburbs is a marketing myth the car sales racket wants you to believe.
Most Canadians get along just fine in normal FWD cars. Depending on how much you drive get all-weather tires (different than all season) or if you really want get snow tires. My previous car was FWD, current one is AWD, and really the AWD isn’t necessary. Next car I’ll go back to FWD.
I don’t think telling people to buy 2009 and earlier Subarus is a good idea. I love the huge resale on my legacy but the current cars are kind of not up to the task and they haven’t made a wagon since 2009 in the US. The ATS all wheel drive system can’t even drive the rear wheels without front slip, not to mention the reliability issues with the CVT if you actually use the all-wheel drive or cruise on the highway.
I’m not in the US and haven’t needed a good winter vehicle in several years. I guess wagons have gone pretty far out of style in a lot of places - do you know if Subaru’s other models would be fit for the task?
The WRX could be up to the task, it is the only car in the lineup that can drive all the wheels without slip. The rest of the lineup is kind of just a front wheel drive car with a CVT so I would not recommend it, but if you put winter tires on it it’ll be fine.
If you put the multi layer WRX 2.5 l head gasket saying and you get the heads plained it’s so one time job. You should be good for a 300 to 400,000 miles from the rest of the car.
If you ask this on any car blog, people will emphatically say that you do not NEED AWD. What you really need are a set of dedicated winter tires. Winter tires make a huge difference in snow, if you live in an area with a lot of it.
Having said this, you should check out the Car and Driver’s buyers guide on their website to see what peaks your interest. Tons of great options. Subaru Crosstrek, Kia Seltos, Hyundai Tuscon, Mazda Cx-50… it goes on and on! Then check out Doug Demuro’s reviews of any cars that strike your fancy. His reviews are crazy thorough and give you the best idea of what a car is like, before even stepping into a dealer lot.
I, too, love cars, so hit me up with any questions.
This right here. I drive a tiny old rear wheel drive 4 cylinder pickup which is arguably the worst vehicle for winter driving. The only thing it has going for it is that it does have a bit more ground clearance than cars. I live in Minnesota and work nights so I often get off work before the plows have cleared the roads. As long as I have a good set of snow tires on that truck, a couple sand bags in the back, and drive carefully, then it can and has trecked through roads covered in nearly a foot of wet snow like a champ. I’ve had to give rides to multiple people who planted their big 4x4 SUVs in the ditch with that little truck.
Also because OP mentioned it but you didn’t say anything in your post, wide tires aren’t necissarly better in the snow. The best winter vehicle I’ve ever owned was a tiny 90s Mazda pickup that actually used unusually narrow tires compared to modern vehicles. Wide tires are great for mudding or off roading because they distribute weight over a larger area and help prevent you from just getting stuck in your own ruts. However when it comes to snow you actually want to sink farther down in the snow because there is road underneath so you don’t need to worry about digging ruts. So narrower tires will concentrate the weight of your vehicle better and give you a better chance of digging down to a solid surface rather than skating across the top of the snow. With wide tires they wind up distributing the same weight over a larger area so you just wind up with more less tightly compressed snow under the tires and that can make them more likely to slide in some situations.
If you have AWD, or if you don’t have AWD, in both cases, you still need winter tires. There is a reason they are obligatory for a couple months per year in Quebec. It’s illegal to drive without them in winter here because if there is one thing we know, it’s snow. Not only do you need them to stop safely on snow and ice, but you need them to adhere to the ground when turning, both at low and high speeds, even without snow or Ice.
The ground is so cold that even if we melt the snow using salt, your summer tires won’t adhere as well as they would, and you could find yourself losing control.
I live in Minnesota with a steep hill to go up to get off our street. My old Elantra had trouble with the steep angle after a plowing and I had to go back and get my wife’s Tucson which did it no problem. I was already considering a new car and that spring we bought a Kona. It’s small, sporty, and has proven to be just as capable as my wife’s Tucson, so for me AWD has been the difference.
Current Subaru (other than wrx) are no better than any other front wheel drive car. They can’t drive the rear wheels without the front having slip and they don’t live up to the old Subaru standards of symmetrical oval drive. They also have a CVT that’s only good for 60,000 miles if you like to do Subaru stuff, and they have nothing but SUVs or vans other than the WRX. It’s been almost 25 years since I had a wagon so I’m not sure what their brand images supposed to be anymore since I keep trying to push that they have wagons that can go off road but they don’t. The flagship outback wilderness gets destroyed off road by a mid-90s automatic and Impreza.
I wish I had an answer for you on what card to get. If you can keep the battery charged the Prius all-wheel drive and RAV4 all-wheel drive hybrid are really good. Other than that I would just get whatever you want that doesn’t have an engine driven CVT.
Grew up in mountainous high altitude Switzerland with pickets on the side of the road to show where the road stops, pickets were over 2m high because there was that much snow and ice and even now they are buried every winter and a machine has to come everyday to salt and remove snow from the road. My parents did just fine driving a class e break with winter tires and when weather got really shitty chains. Now that I live in the rural French country with an as shit and cold weather, I got a 4wd A6 avant with winter tires because I’m a bad driver and need to carry the kids to stuff. The husband is a really good driver and has a regular A3 with just winter tires and never crashed with it. But it was another story when he was younger and drived recklessly and totalled a couple cars. Also personally dislike suvs as center of gravity is much higher and it’s a lot more dangerous on slippery roads if you loose control at some point to regain stability.
The only nut job conspiracy I believe is that there is something in the food, water or air, that makes Americans dumb as fuck.
That’s how I rationalise their love for dumb impractical cars that look tough, and why complete dimwits get so much air time, let alone can become president.
If Flint Michigan, the fact that US meat is banned from EU (and other places like China) and all the funky shit CIA has been doing has taught me anything is that you arr probably right
For decades in yhe US, there were huge V8 powered cars blowing lead exhaust into the air.
Other countries had cars, but they also had more public transportation, and the cars they had used smaller engines. Less fuel burned = less lead = fewer lead-addled moneyed old people fucking everything up.
Well, we needed a vehicle that could fit two children and related sports gear and, ideally, haul bikes at some point, and the had the cargo capacity for the yearly road trip vacation with the extended family. A small SUV was the winner as no car measured up and a true truck was overkill.
Shocking though it may be, for many, the use case may be valid.
If your oversized modern SUV can fit, any minivan can fit, and the SUV provides less interior space because they universally waste internal space, while vans maximize space, while maximizing stability and safety as much as they can, so the least safe seat is the “navigator’s seat,” or the passenger seat up front. Other than that particular potential death seat, that I sit in routinely, the rest of the van is almost as well defended as the SUV, the SUV may have better defenses against gunfire.
Length isn’t the limiting factor for most “average” SUVs in getting into a garage. Height and width are the issues. I’ve never had a garage or carport that I couldn’t park my mother’s Dodge Ram 3500 15 passenger van in, and that’s even longer than the Pacifica. Meanwhile, my friend can’t get his Explorer into his garage, cause it will hit the roof.
They can carry more passengers OR cargo vs a truck. I love minivans, but the only way you’re getting anywhere near a pickup-truck sized bed space is by folding/removing all the seats and making it a two-seater.
And even then, you can’t put anything wet or messy back there.
Pickup trucks have their upsides for people who need them.
SUV’s don’t make much sense to me, other than the case where you need the people space AND you need to tow something heavy.
Sorry but I can only laugh. Guys was talking about “two children and related sports gear” and you’re off talking about septic equipment instead? Lol. Talk about bad faith discussion.
Good communication is talking about the topic at hand, not going on wild tangents without actually saying so and then only after the fact say you were discussing septic tanks lol. Enjoy your bad faith last word, cheers.
Minivans are DQ’d by another constraint in that they don’t fit in my garage thus I cannot ensure full coverage insurance and can guarantee it would sustain significant damage within a few years as my state has the kind of hail-and-tornadoes weather insurance companies know and hate.
They’re otherwise amazing especially for cargo capacity. Seeing my auto shop teacher pull two transmissions out of the back of one back in my highschool days… seriously adjusted my opinion of them and their utility.
My condolences, that sucks Glad you were able to find something that’s worked out for you at least! If you ever need to tow random stuff but don’t want to store a trailer, harbor freight makes one that folds in half and stores vertically.
Minivans can’t keep up with a real truck, but most of the “trucks” sold today have a smaller bed than a 1982 Toyota pickup. They couldn’t even begin to compete with a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge pickup of the same era of 1982, where those American made pickups are less than 1/3 the size of the modern US made variants, and can still carry almost 4 times their modern varient.
All that was so that I could say this: modern Sprinter, Transit, and 15 passenger Vans have more passenger and cargo capabilities than any of these so called trucks that cannot carry even 50% of the exact same model trucks that existed 20 years ago, and still couldn’t carry more than a 15 passenger van in terms of passengers or cargo.
Not the poster above, but I used to haul two dirtbikes on a large trailer behind my Ford Mondeo, and I could still fit 5 adults and about a month of groceries in the car. It cost me £350, and I sold it for £200 after 3 years and 65000 miles. Zero problems cruising at 80mph full laden without the trailer or 60mph with.
The guy I sold it to stripped it and used it as a dirt track racecar and it lasted him a whole season.
I’m slightly mystified why anyone would want to throw extra money at SUVs, there’s so much more to life.
I have neither the storage options for, nor the interest in owning, a large trailer. I do have the option of selecting a vehicle which best suits my needs while fitting in my garage. I suspect that, were children and sports not part of the equation, I’d be perfectly happy with my Volt.
Oh, I didn’t own or store the trailer. I rented it when I needed it and just had a little hitch rack to take one bike most of the time. If I needed to only take two dirtbikes I’d have got a folding bike trailer which takes up hardly any space.
My point was that my midsize hatchback had the same internal space for taking things around as your SUV, just with less weight and fuel consumption. Unless your kids are larger than adult sized and you have five of them?
Oh, I didn’t own or store the trailer. I rented it when I needed it and just had a little hitch rack to take one bike most of the time.
Fair enough.
My point was that my midsize hatchback had the same internal space for taking things around as your SUV, just with less weight and fuel consumption. Unless your kids are larger than adult sized and you have five of them?
I’ve yet to see this bear out. I have a midsize hatchback - a Chevy Volt - which does not have close to the same space. There is an argument to be made for fuel consumption there, though.
I don’t know how big a volt is, they’re not sold here. How about if I likenned it to a 1995 Civic 5 door? I had one of those and it could carry nearly as much.
The discussion was about large oversize cars, so that’s what I was comparing the Mondeo to.
If you say you have a SUV in a thread about people having huge vehicles then is it surprising anyone reading that would think you meant you had a full-time one?
Anyway, to answer your question, if what is considered generally to be a small SUV is a Volvo X40, then the Mondeo was equally long but thinner, shorter, and about 2/3 the weight. I also had a 1995 Civic for a bit, which was lighter still and could carry nearly as much, though it couldn’t tow more than 500kg.
I didn’t actually ask a question or feel surprised about anything, just responding to your comment about “why would anyone buy an SUV”.
My car which is sold as an SUV is smaller and more fuel efficient than the car you lauded as an alternative.
I don’t want a big car, and I didn’t get a big car. A massive Buick station wagon is a big car that isn’t an SUV, just like not every SUV is some jumbo monstrosity.
A small or mid sized SUV usually has cargo space comparable to a hatchback, definitely less than a station wagon.
That guy correctly pointed out your logic is flawed, if you’ve been convinced by a salesman that the cargo space is something other than what it is, reflecting on that could make you a more informed consumer in the future. Getting annoyed at people commenting because you perceived them to have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude on it won’t benefit anyone.
A small or mid sized SUV usually has cargo space comparable to a hatchback, definitely less than a station wagon.
Having experience with SUVs, hatchbacks, and wagons, I’ve yet to find that to be the case.
That guy correctly pointed out your logic is flawed
They shared a faulty conclusion they’d already drawn regarding the universal supremacy of one option and universal failing of another option even before truly understanding my use case.
if you’ve been convinced by a salesman that the cargo space is something other than what it is, reflecting on that could make you a more informed consumer in the future
And if you’ve assumed I had been convinced by a salesman rather than understanding my own use-cases and requirements and selecting a vehicle which meets those needs, not only have you erred, you’ve disregarded my highlight of having done so in my initial post.
Getting annoyed at people commenting because you perceived them to have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude on it won’t benefit anyone.
My experience has been that criticizing the arrogance and assumptions of those in an ivory tower has been more enabling - indeed, more enabling of more informed discourse - than comments defending the actual arrogance and assumptions of a rando.
A small or mid sized SUV usually has cargo space comparable to a hatchback, definitely less than a station wagon.
Having experience with SUVs, hatchbacks, and wagons, I’ve yet to find that to be the case.
The problem with making claims like this, without actually having checked first, is how easily refuted they are by someone who has. A quick Google search puts cargo space in an Audi a6 wagon at 30 cubic ft. An Audi q3 (small SUV) has less than 24 and an Audi q5 has 26. This trend is typical for all full sized wagons compared to compact SUVs (many share the same platform). The compact platform is comparable to the 22 cubic ft in a vw golf (small hatchback) - this makes sense as the vw gold and q3 literally share a platform (as is common for small SUVs and hatchbacks across brands). Any claim to have experienced something else is clearly misinformed as demonstrated by a quick Google search.
That guy correctly pointed out your logic is flawed
They shared a faulty conclusion they’d already drawn regarding the universal supremacy of one option and universal failing of another option even before truly understanding my use case.
Aided by a quick Google search I’ve demonstrated that your claimed experience is flat wrong. You’ve been misled (or could be knowingly lying, but that is not very likely).
if you’ve been convinced by a salesman that the cargo space is something other than what it is, reflecting on that could make you a more informed consumer in the future
And if you’ve assumed I had been convinced by a salesman rather than understanding my own use-cases and requirements and selecting a vehicle which meets those needs, not only have you erred, you’ve disregarded my highlight of having done so in my initial post.
Yes, I’ve assumed that you’ve behaved in a way consistent with the overwhelming majority of people. Your claims about cargo space are wrong, so if that’s the basis of your use case as described in your previous post and you’re honestly representing what you think, you have been misled. With the information presented, knowledge of the vehicles described and a basic knowledge of how marketing works, this seems by a huge margin to be the most likely case.
Getting annoyed at people commenting because you perceived them to have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude on it won’t benefit anyone.
My experience has been that criticizing the arrogance and assumptions of those in an ivory tower has been more enabling - indeed, more enabling of more informed discourse - than comments defending the actual arrogance and assumptions of a rando.
Well, I’ve now given some informed examples of cargo space so perhaps now that you’ve been presented with actual numbers (which I’d invite you to check yourself if you think I’ve invented them) you can now review your assumptions and reflect on how people are manipulated into believing that small/compact SUVs offer better cargo space or are somehow superior to conventional cars, when in fact they are not. To say no car measured up either means you didn’t check or you were misled.
The problem with making claims like this is easily refuted they are.
I’m sure this will be entirely genuine.
A quick Google search puts cargo space in an Audi a6 wagon at 30 cubic ft. An Audi q3 (small SUV) has less than 24 and an Audi q5 has 26.
Ah, I see - a $68k car compares ~10% better to that same brand’s $37k and $44k small SUVs. This highlights an additional facet to the equation, that of cost-effectiveness. Are you willing to pay 83-55% more for 11-25% more cargo space?
This trend is typical for all full sized wagons compared to compact SUVs (many share the same platform).
If you artificially restrict your comparison to same-manufacturer e.g. Audi, sure, though I’m not sure why anyone would do so.
Any claim to have experienced something else is clearly misinformed as demonstrated by a quick Google search.
My Mitsubishi Outlander clocks in at 64.3ft^3 cargo space as demonstrated by a quick Google search - this seems to beat your magical A6’s 30ft^3 by double. I’m sure there are other small SUVs out there which have similar or better cargo-space. Misinformed, indeed.
Yes, I’ve assumed that you’ve behaved in a way consistent with the overwhelming majority of people.
Thank you for at least in-part owning your error.
Your claims about cargo space are wrong, so if that’s the basis of your use case as described in your previous post and you’re honestly representing what you think, you have been misled. With the information presented, knowledge of the vehicles deacribed and a basic knowledge of how marketing works, this seems by a huge margin to be the most likely case.
I’m not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion as you’ve demonstrated here a profound myopia regarding available options and fair comparison of those options, but hey. Thanks for re-confirming your flawed assumptions.
Well, I’ve now given some informed examples of cargo space so perhaps now that you’ve been presented with actual numbers (which I’d invite you to check yourself if you think I’ve invented them) you can now review your assumptions and reflect on how people are manipulated into believing that small/compact SUVs offer better cargo space or are somehow superior to conventional cars.
Unfortunately, the errors - in assuming one’s use case, in applying flawed logic, in generalizing from artificially-narrow subsets of data, and in riding one’s high-horse - are all still yours. I look forward to your correcting yourself.
The problem with making claims like this is easily refuted they are.
I’m sure this will be entirely genuine.
A quick Google search puts cargo space in an Audi a6 wagon at 30 cubic ft. An Audi q3 (small SUV) has less than 24 and an Audi q5 has 26.
Ah, I see - a $68k car compares ~10% better to that same brand’s $37k and $44k small SUVs. This highlights an additional facet to the equation, that of cost-effectiveness. Are you willing to pay 83-55% more for 11-25% more cargo space?
Cost was not mention in your claim. You said no car could compete on cargo space. I’m not really interested engaging in a straw man about cost. There are cheaper stations wagons in production, I chose one that was easy to compare.
This trend is typical for all full sized wagons compared to compact SUVs (many share the same platform).
If you artificially restrict your comparison to same-manufacturer e.g. Audi, sure, though I’m not sure why anyone would do so.
I did that for my ease to demonstrate the point. If you want to choose to be wrong and pretend other manufacturers are radically different, by all means do so. If you think I’m wrong, you can spend your own time checking my claim that this is consistent for other manufacturers. I’m not motivated to spoon feed it to you, I think even if I did you’d invent new strawmen or move goalposts to justify your wrong claim above.
Any claim to have experienced something else is clearly misinformed as demonstrated by a quick Google search.
My Mitsubishi Outlander clocks in at 64.3ft^3 cargo space as demonstrated by a quick Google search - this seems to beat your magical A6’s 30ft^3 by double. I’m sure there are other small SUVs out there which have similar or better cargo-space. Misinformed, indeed.
Ah yes, the “small” full sized SUV (literally the largest Mitsubishi on sale in the USA) with three rows of seats. Your post claimed “small” SUV, that implies something like a crv, q3, macan etc. 64.3ft is with seats folded down, so yes a full sized SUV boot + rear seats is often bigger than a wagon boot only (you can usually fold the seats in a wagon as well). Frustratingly I was mislead by your"small SUV" comment above.
An honest comparison is the third row of seats folded down with second row up (presumably consistent with your two children being the car, no?). So 34 odd cubic feet, admittedly higher than the literal first wagon I thought of as a point of comparison for a small SUV. Compared to a full size SUV I don’t know offhand if there’s a wagon with more space, obviously if you move the goalposts that much it’s hard to present an argument.
Yes, I’ve assumed that you’ve behaved in a way consistent with the overwhelming majority of people.
I’m not quite sure how you arrived at that conclusion as you’ve demonstrated here a profound myopia regarding available options and fair comparison of those options, but hey. Thanks for re-confirming your flawed assumptions.
A Mitsubishi outlander is not a small SUV bro. If you go back and read my earlier post you should be able to follow my logic pretty easily, I thought we were talking about something similar to an Audi q3.
Unfortunately, the errors - in assuming one’s use case, in applying flawed logic, in generalizing from artificially-narrow subsets of data, and in riding one’s high-horse - are all still yours. I look forward to your correcting yourself.
Well, enjoy it. Clearly I was pointing out that a small SUV does not have more cargo space than a conventional station wagon, clearly we define small differently if you think that monster is small…
With only the third row pushed down you do have slightly more space than the audi wagon, though I am still convinced that the station wagon can accommodate kids, bikes and holiday luggage based on the many, many years I used one for exactly that. Since you’re committed to claiming that the extra 3ft of storage is make or break then I can’t objectively argue the point.
I “will get back on my high horse” and say that the original post misrepresented the vehicle you’d chosen and reaffirm that I believe your insistence that “no car or station wagon” could accommodate your needs, as described above, is based upon being influenced by others and is not based in reality. Thousands of people have used station wagons for exactly that purpose for decades.
Cost was not mention in your claim. You said no car could compete on cargo space. I’m not really interested engaging in a straw man about cost. There are cheaper stations wagons in production, I chose one that was easy to compare.
Not only have you yet to show a car that competes on cargo space, you seem to not understand what a strawman is - I quite clearly stated you bring to focus an additional facet. There is no attack on an argument other than was made
It seems you aren’t interested in engaging in the discussion at large if you’ve this much difficulty paying attention.
Ah yes, the “small” full sized SUV with three rows of seats. Your post claimed “small” SUV, that implies something like a crv, q3, macan etc. 64.3ft is with seats folded down, so yes a full sized SUV boot + rear seats is often bigger than a wagon boot only (you can usually fold the seats in a wagon as well). Frustratingly I was mislead by your"small SUV" comment above.
I’m interested in your apparently-arbitrary definitions of SUV size.
How do you believe the exterior dimensions of the above vehicles compare? Where do you draw the line?
I’m glad you personally feel the CRV is what qualifies as it indicates you have a line somewhere.
The external dimensions of the Honda CRV are 185″ L x 74″ W x 66-67″ H per quick Google. The external dimensions of the Mitsubishi Outlander are 185″ L x 75″ W x 69″ H per quick Google.
Do you truly believe the entire gap between small and large - including an implied medium - lies in the two inches vertical, one inch width, and zero inch length between the two?
Or, are you perhaps talking out your ass once more?
An honest comparison is the third row of seats folded down with second row up (presumably consistent with your two children being the car, no?). So 34 odd cubic feet, admittedly higher than the literal first wagon I thought of as a point of comparison for a small SUV. Compared to a full size SUV I don’t know offhand if there’s a wagon with more space, obviously if you move the goalposts that much it’s hard to present an argument.
That’s a fair adjustment. However, there are no moved goalposts - just the unfortunate results of your own assumptions and gaps in awareness.
A Mitsubishi outlander is not a small SUV bro. If you go back and read my earlier post you should be able to follow my logic pretty easily, I thought we were talking about something similar to an Audi q3.
See above. It compares directly with the first of your mentioned “small” SUVs I checked. I would not be surprised if it compares similarly to the others based on your performance thus far.
Well, enjoy it. Clearly I was pointing out that a small SUV does not have more cargo space than a conventional station wagon, clearly we define small differently if you think that monster is small…
Once more, your highlight only compared within the same manufacturer and completely fell apart when comparing across manufacturers.
Once more, you seem to have a poor understanding of SUV sizes.
With only the third row pushed down you do have slightly more space than the audi wagon, though I am still convinced that the station wagon can accommodate kids, bikes and holiday luggage based on the many, many years I used one for exactly that. Since you’re committed to claiming that the extra 3ft of storage is make or break then I can’t objectively argue the point.
I’m concerned you’re convinced of a universal truth by nothing more than your own experience.
It’s interesting to me that you quibble about rahh honest comparison in other places but here seem to pretend the loss of three cubic feet at the gain of multiple tens of thousands in price is somehow an honest comparison to make.
It’s possible the wagon would serve as well to haul things despite its clear loss in vertical capacity. I seriously doubt it, though - you seem to believe raw volume is the only factor.
I “will get back on my high horse” and say that the original post misrepresented the vehicle you’d chosen and reaffirm that I believe your insistence that “no car or station wagon” could accommodate your needs, as described above, is based upon being influenced by others and is not based in reality. Thousands of people have used station wagons for exactly that purpose for decades.
Your poor assumption is in no way my misrepresentation; at least have the maturity to own your mistake rather than seeking to pretend someone hoodwinked you.
You throw not based in reality stones from a rather glass house, friend.
Dude most people do not consider a fucking 7 seater small. I get that you don’t like people contradicting your claims but seriously, the fact that you won’t even acknowledge that a reasonable assumption for something described is 'small" is that it isn’t larger than average makes this entire conversation pointless.
Have a good one, I’m out. Enjoy your SUV, whether necessary or not you clearly have a strong emotional attachment to it, and surely you can agree with me that there is unquestionable value in having things that bring joy.
Dude most people do not consider a fucking 7 seater small. I get that you don’t like people contradicting your claims but seriously, the fact that you won’t even acknowledge that a reasonable assumption for something described is 'small" is that it isn’t larger than average makes this entire conversation pointless.
So, your best response to a direct reference of the physical dimensions of the mentioned vehicles is… “dude just trust me bro”?
It’s interesting you criticize claims - presumably, the actual references to the actual physical dimensions of the vehicles - while also ignoring those same facts. I’m sure you don’t see the error between larger than the average and your referenced CRV being nearly identical in size - but more glaringly - what dimensions do you define as average? Based on your missing awareness so far, it seems you pull this, too, out of your ass - but I’d be thrilled to see any actual data.
This, aside from how you quibble about assumptions for small despite the external dimensions of my Mitsubishi Outlander being nearly identical to those of one vehicle you highlight as the epitome of small, the Honda CRV. Are you ever going to… say, acknowledge your error?
I note you did not answer those questions, so I once more highlight: How do you believe the exterior dimensions of the above vehicles compare? Where do you draw the line?
I’m glad you personally feel the CRV is what qualifies as it indicates you have a line somewhere.
The external dimensions of the Honda CRV are 185″ L x 74″ W x 66-67″ H per quick Google. The external dimensions of the Mitsubishi Outlander are 185″ L x 75″ W x 69″ H per quick Google.
Do you truly believe the entire gap between small and large - including an implied medium - lies in the two inches vertical, one inch width, and zero inch length between the two?
Are you truly so terrified of confrontating your own errors? That’s… kind of sad.
Have a good one, I’m out. Enjoy your SUV, whether necessary or not you clearly have a strong emotional attachment to it, and surely you can agree with me that there is unquestionable value in having things that bring joy.
Unfortunately, only one of us seems to have an emotional attachment to anything and I would suggest it isn’t the one directly referencing easily-discovered dimensions for an objective comparison of size. I would also suggest it’s likely the person who ignores points and data and seeks to end the conversation when their errors are unavoidably on display.
I do enjoy that the vehicle I’ve chosen meets my needs, but I don’t see the need to prescribe emotions to objects of utility.
Mate if it’s going to make you happy, yeah I thought the crv was a different car.
I also made a few other errors.
It’s definitely impossible to understand what I consider to be a small SUV from the examples given, there’s no way anyone could possibly read into the context and work it out, it was wrong of me to suggest it was obvious. This oversight obviously entirely undermines the actual examples I’d given of where SUVs that have less storage than wagons, obviously a small SUV isn’t like the q3 or mid q5 like I’d suggested, it makes far more sense to start a conversation about small at the standard or full size segment with what appears to be the literal largest size vehicle from a manufacturer.
I was also wrong to suggest that, like the hundreds of thousands who raised families before the rise of the SUV, that you could have chosen a station wagon to meet your needs. I concede unreservedly, my definition of small is wrong, everyone who needs to transport 4 people needs 7 seats. Further, though I didn’t articulate it, I naively thought that things like roof storage and bike racks and other science fiction ideas could further increase storage potential of vehicles.
Thank you for so carefully dissecting my original points and teaching me to learn from my mistakes, I feel like such an idiot for spouting such nonsense. Have a great night.
It’s definitely impossible to understand what I consider to be a small SUV from the examples given, there’s no way anyone could possibly read into the context and work it out, it was wrong of me to suggest it was obvious.
Given the near-identical size of it compared to the one you lambast, yes, it’s impossible to see any meaningful difference as there isn’t any beyond your opinion on the matter. Your sarcasm aside, I’m going to hold you to this.
This oversight obviously entirely undermines the actual examples I’d given of where SUVs that have less storage than wagons, obviously a small SUV isn’t like the q3 or q5 like I’d suggested, it makes far more sense to start a conversation about small at the standard or full size segment.
Oh? I note you still don’t bother to actually support your assertion with any form of meaningful data. Here, I’ll do your part for you as you’re clearly incapable of knowing what you’re talking about.
The Mitsubishi Outlander clocks in at 185.4 L x 84.4 W x 68.5 H.
The Audi Q5 clocks in at 184.3 L x 84.2 W x 65.5 H.
The delta is 1.1 L x 0.2 W x 3.0 H. Where in this delta do you delineate small, medium, and large?
The Audi Q3 clocks in at 177 L x 73 W x 63 H.
The delta is 8.4 L x 11.4 W x 5.5 H. Where in this delta do you delineate small, medium, and large?
Where in any of the available SUVs on the market do you delineate small, medium, and large? I suspect you don’t actually have a meaningful delineation - it would explain your complete inability to demarcate thresholds or support your position.
I was also wrong to suggest that, like the hundreds of thousands who raised families before the rise of the SUV, that you could have chosen a station wagon to meet your needs. I concede unreservedly, my definition of small is wrong, everyone who needs to transport 4 people needs 7 seats. Further, though I didn’t articulate it, I naively thought that things like roof storage and bike racks and other science fiction ideas could further increase storage potential of vehicles.
Ah - I see you continue to ignore the concept of height, in addition to pretending it’s impossible for both options to have roof storage and bike racks and other science fiction ideas. You seek to dunk, but in your sarcasm, you seem to erode your own position even further. Amazing.
Thank you for so carefully dissecting my original points and teaching me to learn from my mistakes, I feel like such an idiot for spouting such nonsense. Have a great night.
The worst part is, had you at any point actually managed to support your assertions or respond to the actual criticisms, it could have been a productive conversation. That would require you to set your fragile ego aside and be willing to consider you might just be wrong though, so…
It sounds like something like a Volvo V70 would’ve been a better fit. Those beats can swallow a house, including its residents, and with a bike rack it can carry the whole neighborhoods bikes.
I don’t know where the person you’re replying to is from, but in the US Volvo’s are very expensive to buy and very expensive to maintain. They are a luxury brand through and through. They’re good cars but the average person cannot afford to purchase or maintain one.
I can’t seem to find those these days - I see Volvo V60 and V90. The Volvo V60 does have a PHEV variant which does appeal but ultimately it seems to be the same form factor and capacity as a Subaru Outback or Chevy Volt; I’ve experience with both of those and they has far less usable storage in the back than the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV we ended up with.
As the Volt does, though, this could be a legit option for replacing that for the wife. That said, the price seems ridiculously high - over here, I’m seeing them go for ~52-58k whereas my Outlander was “only” 48.
Depends on the exact size of the SUV. I think minivans are smaller than most SUVs (all except actual compact SUVs). Minivans are also better for cargo because SUVs ride higher and thus have less space. And sliding doors are better for kids and tight spaces. And better mileage. Etc
I think part of it’s that “SUV” better refers to the shape of the car than the size. Same for vans. I’ve got less experience with minivans, but I’ll assume they’re similar.
I bought my SUV because it was more fuel efficient and only slightly larger than my old hatchback. But I don’t have something like a suburban or whatever.
Most minivans are roughly the same, but with windows and shorter. (Again, in my experience)
Most of the SUVs I see are what I think would be called “compact crossovers”, so that’s what I assumed was meant when OP said “kids, cargo and bike carrier”.
Well, tell the people who label the things that a crossover SUV isn’t an SUV, since that’s not what they’re telling people.
Title of the thread reads to me like (super size trucks) and SUVs not ( Super size (trucks and SUVs).
Beyond that, according to the actual article, the best selling SUV is a rav4, which is a compact crossover SUV.
the yearly road trip vacation with the extended family
For a once a year event, renting is almost certainly cheaper than using a larger vehicle you don’t need for the rest of the year. Another option is driving two vehicles during the trip.
Your assumption behind don’t need the rest of the year - do you believe there are zero scenarios where the wife and I are both out and about? Perhaps… working?
You’re correct - we could double the mileage / energy consumption, wear-and-tear, cognitive load, etc. on trips - or, we could not do something so ridiculous.
Your assumption behind don’t need the rest of the year - do you believe there are zero scenarios where the wife and I are both out and about? Perhaps… working?
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. I was explicitly addressing road trips, not daily errands. Buy a smaller vehicle for dayly stuff and for a yearly road trip you can rent a larger vehicle than the one you use for daily errands. In the end it will save you money. What is the problem?
For a yearly road trip you can rent a larger vehicle than the one you use for daily errands, and in the end it will save you money. What is the problem?
Setting aside, for the moment, you’ve myopically focused on a single facet of my scenario - the road trips -
Do you believe there are zero scenarios where the cost of potential SUV - cost of potential car <= (cost of rental * years of ownership)? Interesting.
Even a little more restrictive - do you believe there are zero scenario where the cost of a potential SUV which meets my feature requirements - the cost of a potential car which meets my feature requirements <= (cost of a rental * years of ownership)?
I invite you to re-read my comment. I don’t see how it could have been more explicit:
[You] the yearly road trip vacation with the extended family
[Me]For a once a year event, renting is almost certainly cheaper than using a larger vehicle you don’t need for the rest of the year.
As for the rest, I will be happy to maintain a friendly conversation only as long as you return the favor. I will not get involved in angry internet arguments.
I drive a station wagon because I need to fit two dogs in the booth plus and entire family in the same car. But this is a transitory need. At some point I’ll either get a small van, for carrying the dogs, or a small hatchback and have the backseats always folded down.
You should buy according to your true needs not market pressure.
Or buy whatever the fuck you want, because why not make one part of your miserable life slightly more pleasurable by driving something that makes you smile. In the US, 99% of us need a vehicle to commute because we don’t have access to decent public transportation, so why not drive something you enjoy? Do I need a 500hp Mustang to get me to work and back? Hell no, but it sure does turn that commute into a few precious moments of happiness before I start the 9-5 grind.
Those who want, find ways. Those who don’t want, find reasons. Why is it, that most poor people live in cities and not in suburbia, when it’s so impossible expensive to live in the city?
There’s a big external cost, but if you spend your weekend taking it to car shows or working on it, then I get it - some people play MMO games just for the fishing minigame. If having a mustang is a big part of your reason for being, fine. Mine is to build things for the sake of learning how to build them… Does the world need an AI agent specifically made to be have a strong personality? Not really, most people aren’t even ready for that so I’m not planning on releasing it publicly. But I’m burning the time and resources to make her, because the act of creation brings me joy
If it’s for your quality of life… Say, your job is to drive around all day, and mustangs strangely have seats that keep you from having back pain… Fine, that job shouldn’t exist but we have the system we have, and I can’t blame someone for minimizing their suffering
But really ask yourself - is this actually something that makes your life better? Or does it just fit the idea you have of success created from a lifetime of exposure to marketing?
If that’s the case, I’m sure you felt joy in buying it, and you feel like it’s a sign of social status… But that attitude is poison. It’s like burning a forest because causing destruction helps soothe the anger you have at a world that sucks because of the lack of green spaces… Sure it might soothe your suffering a bit, but it’s ultimately hurting humanity in aggregate far more than it helps you. And what’s worse, is it feeds the system that caused the suffering you seek to soothe
As someone with one forward facing and two rear facing kids right now - this is so frustrating. I feel like there are so few vehicles that can hold them without busting at the seams and even our minivan makes it hard with getting kids hooked in if they are in the very back.
I can’t wait until they are all forward facing and I can open up what cars we can have.
I don’t even consider a station wagon a big car anymore. And I bet the vast majority of station wagon owners actually need the space. No shot the average SUV owner needs the weight for anything other than to feel “safe” in their tank.
I think shifting baselines is a real issue with car bloat. It should be going the other way where a Focus is seen as a mid-size and the like of the Fiesta a compact rather then sub-compact.
I bought the car I have today because driving my small 4 door hatchback was no longer a feaseable endeavour when wanting to move the entire family all at once. It was an objective need, not something it mattered.
You can reply I didn’t need to get a family or the dogs. You’re right. But that actually mattered to me, regardless if it was an objective need.
My point is that 99.9% of large car owners have what to them seems like an objective need. Humans are super good at justifying our actions, especially to ourselves
There are like 2 station wagons on the US market. I'd love one, but I'm not into VWs and the Volvo PHEV wagon is only available as a $75,000 performance wagon and no one makes an EV wagon.
The newest Passats I’ve seen in Canada are mk5s I think (2005-2010 or something like that). Most common is the previous gens, which is not common at all.
It’s much, much easier to find and afford a small SUV/crossover than a station wagon body style in North America.
I hate to break it to you, but small to medium SUVs replaced station wagons, just taller. According to my insurance company, my “SUV” is a station wagon
I think that compact SUV is an optimal car. It is not too big (sized like a normal car), it doesn’t consume too much fuel, you can drive to the countryside (with light offroad) and it has enough space for some load and passengers feel comfortable. It can have AWD but I think that differential block is more important than AWD.
Story time. I was going back home yesterday when I saw this lifted F250 tailgating a Chevy sedan for going 5 over the speed limit (clearly the pickup wanted to go faster), so I can guarantee you that the Chevy driver will get something bigger if they can for their next car because having a monster truck right behind you seems t scare the shit out of most people so they feel safer in a larger vehicle.
I can’t even bother to give a shit if that were happening to me.
I’m in your camp for sure, but I can certainly understand the feeling of needing something bigger to protect yourself too. Those massive trucks driving like idiots are a safety hazard. That, and the fact that when your face is at bumper level, if something happens, no matter how correct you are, you’re still going to be pulling your teeth out of their fog lights.
Exactly. Even if we can’t ban cars everywhere, there should at least be restrictions on the bumper height of a vehicle as well as the headlight height. I know here in South Carolina, they just banned modified trucks called Carolina Squats but lately I’ve seen more of them (because “fuck the libs” or whatever), but the punishment is a ticket, they need to be impounded and the plates only returned once the modifications are removed and pass a safety inspection.
While we’re all bitching about this, is there anything I can do as someone with astigmatism to make driving at night less dangerous besides buying a higher car? I like my small car but it’s beginning to feel like a legitimate safety problem when I drive at night.
They make glasses lenses and contact specific for astigmatism. I’ve got the same problem and have been looking into it. I have found that polarized clear lenses on a non prescription pair of glasses is somewhat helpful.
It’s blowing my mind that you guys don’t get the polarized lenses by default. Your glasses are going to be expensive but so is getting put in traction because you got blinded by an asshole with a micropenis.
Kind reminder to please stop denigrating people for factors outside of their control, such as skin color, sexual orientation or size of their genitals.
An antisocial asshole is a problem because of what they do, not the size of their penis.
What does the height of your car have to do with it? I have astigmatism and lights can be annoying sometimes but I drive a Civic and never really felt like it was a safety issue.
Headlights shining directly into the windshield. Vehicles overall are getting taller so more often than not now if you drive a shorter vehicle the headlights will be shining directly into your eyes. Not saying getting a taller vehicle is the solution but I’m pretty sure that’s what OP was getting at.
fuckcars
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.