top 97 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 38 points 3 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Another issue is that more people are buying "light duty" vehicles...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Yeah, show us the average numbers for all vehicles used for private personal transport then.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago*

    Ah, ad hominem. Always nice.

    Your quote does not answer my question, but the source you linked to actually did.

    Average vehicle weight by year

    2014: 4060 pounds

    2024: 4419 pounds

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [M] 3 points 3 months ago*

    You know, eventually you’ll need to learn how to use a search provider on your own.

    Watch it. The only reason your comment didn't get removed is that @Jiral found your link useful.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 17 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    12 yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American pride!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Can you name the truck with four wheel drive?
    Smells like a steak and seats thirty-five.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    The 5 square meters are no accurate display of the pavement covered by those cars, because they're much longer than just their wheelbase.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Has the average ratio changed over time?

    I would've expected the ratio to actually shift the other way, where the wheelbase represents a larger percentage of the overall length/width of the vehicle, because American fuel economy regulations actually rewarded vehicles for having larger wheelbases. This killed small cars like the Honda Fit and small trucks like the Ford Ranger.

    Also, it seems to be much easier to park vehicles whose front wheels are as far forward as possible. The greater the ratio of wheelbase to overall dimensions, the easier it is to maneuver, and anecdotally it seems easier to maneuver modern cars than cars from 25 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago

    Just the empty cars and not with an average American inside, right?

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago

    There are a few different stories going on here.

    One story is engineering success. The engineers squeeze out so much more performance per amount of gasoline burned, that the cost of extra weight from a fuel economy standard is significantly less than 25 or 50 years ago. If you chart the fuel efficiency over the same time period, the fleet average fuel economy went from 20 to 34 mpg, even as vehicles were getting more powerful and heavier. A 2026 Camry Hybrid has a 232 hp drivetrain (184 hp from the gasoline engine) that manages to push 3700 lbs 0-60 in 6.8 seconds. Those are sports car stats from the 80's, and yet the modern Camry manages to get 44 miles per gallon in fuel economy. Charting emissions shows an even more pronounced improvement.

    Similarly, the rise of electric vehicles has increased the average vehicle weight. Batteries are heavy, and the whole chassis needs to accommodate that.

    Another story is unintended consequences from dumb regulations. The fuel economy standards were updated for the 2011 model year to allow a sliding scale where vehicles with larger footprints were allowed to be less fuel efficient. Naturally, smaller vehicles were disincentivized, and compact trucks and compact cars all but disappeared. These regs need to be updated, and we'll see the return of smaller vehicles for those of us who prefer them.

    And another story is shifting consumer preferences. For a whole bunch of reasons, Americans have expressed a preference for taller and taller vehicles, where crossover SUVs are much more common than the old wagons, the relative balance of sedans versus SUVs has shifted entirely in favor of SUVs.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Is there a metric version?

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (5 children)

    America needs to make its own KEI car standard. at least they wouldnt be as dangerous for pedestrians, or as disastrous for the environment as the fucking rolling city blocks we have now.

    Especially since we're never gonna get a functional public transit system.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I'd settle for at least legalizing Kei trucks across the country

    It's beyond frustrating that I can't even drive my own Kei truck on public roads where I live

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I live in Japan and drive a kei van. It's already scary going 100 on the expressway with the lightness of the vehicle and the wind. The acceleration time is also quite slow compared to many vehicles (the limit is 660cc engine size iirc). I don't think it would sell without first making the US highway system safer in general. The highest speed limit in Japan is 120 and many us states are much higher

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    Fat people want big cars. You can overlay these graphs.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    This would be interesting to see with height as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    Ride height? Or height of the people?

    If the former, that tracks. If you're heavy-set, getting in an out of a sedan (for example) is just plain uncomfortable. Meanwhile, having a seat you can just swing your hips into, or even climb up into, probably works a lot better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Anecdotal but I'm 6'1", vehicles like the Miata or BRZ or Tacomas sometimes make me wish I was shorter... and didn't have chronic nerve issues in my legs that make small cars painful to sit in

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    I'm 6'3" and only drive small cars. The form fit the industry uses is the same from trucks to hatchbacks, but fat people prefer taller SUVs and trucks for entry/exit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago

    One of the sad bits of this is that the move to EVs, while a positive in many ways, also makes our cars even heavier for the battery.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    My wife and I purchased a new Japanese car last year. Nobody makes small cars anymore, except maybe Suzuki with the Swift? Our small cheap car is bigger than we had anticipated. Good car though.

    When I get in some of the newer SUVs it feels like driving a boat.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago
    [–] 5 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    some people must have really tiny weiners, so much over-compensation...

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (15 children)

    I’m a big dude, I like having big cars. Nothing wrong with a personal taste.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    If your vehicle is so large it makes you a danger to those around you, it is no longer simply a matter of personal taste.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Kind of a loaded question, a soccer mom with 4 kids and drives a mini van would destroy a Honda civic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

    Then ride a fucking bus or train then. Those are the top of the food chain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Not options where we live, not everyone lives in a concrete jungle

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Real suburbs were small towns connected to the city with passenger rail. They killed your public transport and you think you don't have access because you don't live in the city. Ha! That's what oil propaganda does to a motherfucker.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    How would you feel about a more-compact car designed around an extra large human space? Big seats and high ceilings inside for you and your large kids, so much legroom your humorously tiny spouse has to drive their own tiny car. But with less extraneous bulk on the outside, so you can see when you're running over the neighbors kids. Wouldn't wanna miss

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    The point being made is that a lot of that 'extraneous bulk' is actually crumple zones and structure. You can't eliminate it without losing crash protection, and that includes pedestrian crash ratings.

    Exception rear trays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    I was with you until pedestrian. Lots of dead pedestrians found themselves the one doing the crumpling. And more so because it's so much harder to see them. I've had several times when it's only because I leaned way forward and back to check that I suddenly realized there's been someone walking or scooting or biking right along with my left pillar, thinking I could see them coming out into the crosswalk/intersection. (And I always back into parking places because I can see with the rear camera much better than down the front hood.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    It's a 50-50. I believe it's mostly lower hoods that improve pedestrian safety, not necessarily just shorter hoods.

    European compliant cars have a bunch of requirements for pedestrian collisions, particularly trying to improve head safety - the bonnet dents downwards, rather than either the bonnet being solid or the head hitting the windscreen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    My Honda Odyssey hood curves down, but then it seems to stick out farther than I can see over the curve. This may also be a "design for a big man driver" problem because my seatbelt cuts across my throat at its lowest adjustment and the airbag will probably kill me. But we needed a vehicle that could take a passenger in a power wheelchair plus two kids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I think a big chunk of that has to do with how cars are designed today though. Some of it is the unintended consequences of safety regulations, which frankly, don't get me wrong, I'm pro strong safety regulations, but it does mean that cars have way thicker pillars in order to accommodate better crash safety and being able to be flipped upside down.

    This also leads to cars having this sort of sitting in a bathtub kind of feel. Things do feel a little tighter inside as well and the window openings are smaller.

    It's kind of funny because I remember when I started driving just an observation from like how cars changed like There definitely was a trend from the 90s to the 2000s where car interiors got a lot more roomy for the size and you had more glass better window to look out of well also getting better safety ratings compared to the 90s

    I do wonder how much of it is the just unintended result of having to design a car around certain engineering specifications and how much of it is also a way for the car companies to upsell people to the CUV variant of that model. Because it is just wild how small car door openings can be these days and as a result how much of a pain in the butt it can be to put a kid in the car seat compared to what would have been a much smaller car 20 years ago.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Right-sizing cars is the cheapest, most rational option for space and public money. There is no reason not to do it other than wasting precious public and private resources into building more parking spots and repairing road infrastructures more often.

  • source
  • I had a Fiesta, was a smaller commuter car compared to the rest of the USA. Save for a few technical issues, it was great. The only reason I would see a need for a larger one is if it's moving a large family but that's not the case with SUVs and trucks I see around me. There might be another passenger but it's one person in a massive vehicle and often times they drive them like crap.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (12 children)

    Definitely notice a difference since buying the car I currently drive back in 2012. In my state around 70% of vehicles on the road are trucks or SUVs, while I'm out here driving a car that only weighs around 2500lbs.

    Kinda worried about what would happen if I ever got in an accident, don't know if I would fare very well against the majority of vehicles sharing the road with me. Luckily I only live a couple miles from my work, so I'm not in my car very often.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Sedans have stricter crash safety standards than big trucks. The whole reason why Detroit pushes large trucks is the safety loopholes and the myth that a heavier, taller vehicle is somehow safer.

    We definitely need weight limits in public roads and special licences for truck drivers. Fucking idiots don't understand braking distances increase with weight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    yeah. I actually notice most when in a parking lot and they can't keep these boats in the lines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    I work in a hospital and park in a big parking garage. You'll see brand new trucks with like 3 different back up cams take up 2 spaces because they still can't park. Lady, you are a tiny nurse and I can tell you've never towed anything or need to haul around shit in your tiny truck bed. Why have a truck in the first place?

    I actually regularly move large shit around town...... I still don't have a giant truck. We just have a small trailer that we tow with my wife's Nissan Altima. Unless you actually have to tow a boat around or something modern trucks are fairly useless, they all have tiny beds nowadays.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Lady, you are a tiny nurse and I can tell you’ve never towed anything or need to haul around shit in your tiny truck bed.

    So this is universal. My hospital parking lot was built in the mid 70s and we used to have a small section for "oversized vehicles", now tiny nurses in massive trucks have taken over. They think they are safer, but in Canada, they are fucking dangerous in snow and ice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    I currently live in the south where it only really ices over like once every two or three years. Every time it happens there are giant trucks who think that they can drive as crazy as they usually do because their truck is 4x4.

    Like yeah..... You're less likely to get stuck, but it doesn't help you stop at all. It makes every intersection look like a demolition derby. I usually just call in on those days.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    yeah I have a minivan and there was this time my father in law needed to move a fridge that would not fit in his truck without the gate down and his sons suv with the hatch closed. fit in the minivan though and with better gas mileage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, minivans are underrated. I would get a minivan or a Econoline van before I would buy one of the new trucks. It'd be a hell of a lot cheaper anyways. I can't believe how much money people are spending on trucks, half of them are like 1/4 - 1/3 of the cost of a decent home.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I'll never understand why minivans became so uncool when SUVs were able to rise. Now you could make the argument of the soccer mom and mom stereotype of the minivan making it deeply uncool to people who didn't just want to be known as parents. But then that same stereotype is tied to SUVs.

    Many van seat people way more comfortably. The sliding door makes getting into the back seat way more practical. The visibility from out the windows is nice. And on the ones where you can either take out or fully stow the seats, you essentially have the capacity of a truck. They aren't the ideal solution for everyone's lifestyle, but like, if you need a big vehicle to haul the kids around and to, you know, bring stuff back from the store that are big, well, a minivan will do the job better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    They need a truck to cosplay as a rugged individualistic person.

    Though it makes no sense how they are rugged or individualistic when they are driving a mass produced truck made by a large corporation bailed out by the government several times in the last few decades.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    It's an arms race. I prefer a bicycle, but am I really insane enough to ride it in between these tanks? My wife is afraid in traffic, she would never want to get a small car, just because of her safety concerns.

    The only thing stopping this madness is regulations.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    So does the average American.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Meanwhile, the average parking stall is smaller than a 1978 Honda Civic.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    The size of vehicles around me in the US is absurd. I live in a pretty white & republican area, with a mix of rednecks in their compensators and temporarily embarassed billionaires in their 2-3 ton $100K luxury grocery getters.

    I'm a big guy and I drive an old Mazda3 sedan that we've had for almost almost a decade and a half. It's what some Europeans might call a family car. It has fun driving dynamics which I care about and enjoy, though that seems to put me in a tiny minority. It's even practical enough that I have hauled home 8-foot lumber dozens of times with the back seats folded down, because I actually build shit unlike most of the truck drivers.

    It sucks knowing all the SUVs with their rushed & distracted drivers weigh 50% more than my vehicle, sure. But the pickup trucks have become caricatures of themselves. I'm sure most folks in this community have seen the charts showing how terrible the forward-looking visibility is in modern pickups versus everything from older trucks to heavy construction equipment. It's like the number one feature driving sales is how fucking high off the ground they can get the hood/bonnet.

    It's like driving around mobile buildings. The front grilles of these vehicles are just a vertical wall. And even for how large and high the entire bodies of these vehicles are, the new look seems to be having the hood/bonnet in the front sitting even higher than the edges of the bed in the back. I might think that automakers were in competition to see who could get the most customer's children run over, but I am all too familiar with our garbage culture where everything is a competition and every other person must fall on a spectrum somewhere between rival and mortal enemy.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (13 children)

    I'm not sure it's reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times. Slower acceleration removes options and makes merging more difficult; not all high speed roads have onramps of adequate length.

    Definitely agreed on weight.

    The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that's like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 22 points 3 months ago (6 children)

    I’m not sure it’s reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times

    It is certainly cause for concern when heavier and larger moving objects that are able to reach high speeds quicker are being controlled by increasingly more irresponsible people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Something that’s twice the weight with twice the horsepower only accelerates the same speed. Double the weight and keep the horsepower and you’ll go half as fast.

    The graphs aren’t entirely 100% related to each other. The twice as fast acceleration average isn’t because of the double horsepower, that only works if the weight also isn’t doubles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    EVs have massive torque from zero speed. Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque. A Model Y is both heavy and makes 500ftlbs torque immediately.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Horsepower is just a fake number derived from torque.

    I don't really disagree with your earlier comment, and I agree that the shape of the torque curve matters a lot when it comes to the practicalities and experience of driving a vehicle, but, uhh, what you said here is just completely wrong.

    Force and speed (torque and RPM) are both components of power (horsepower is torque * RPM / 5253). Saying that the RPM, or time component, of that equation doesn't matter is the same as saying it wouldn't matter if it takes 10 seconds or 10 years for a crane to lift a load at a construction site, since its lifting the same weight either way.

    To put it another way, with a long enough lever I can exert enough force to start a passenger train rolling down the tracks with just my own arms (and in fact, people do something similar using compound levers). But what that doesn't let me do is move a passenger train at 200 MPH like high speed rail lines do. There is no arrangement of gears or mechanical linkages that will let a single human being power a high speed rail line like that, the human body does not have enough power output.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Both are very limited comparability especially between drive types.

    Torque was normally measured ahead of the gearbox and that introduces a whole pile of extra messiness.

    Power is relevant once you're into higher-speed regimes e.g. merging onto a fast road, overtaking, and climbing hills (especially if towing).

    Force-speed or acceleration-speed curves would be nice.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that’s like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.

    I want to see that chart (a) starting at 0 sq. ft., and (b) going all the way back to the '50s.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    For most cars, higher acceleration I don't think is an issue. However things like the Hummer EV weigh 9,000 pounds and goes from 0-60mph in a smidge over 3 seconds. The amount of damage that can do is insane

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    I don't know if these graphs, again, I don't know what the source is, it's not really provided, but I don't think they're meant to make a specific judgment one way or another.

    Well, except the note that cars have gotten bigger while also becoming more efficient.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›