this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2023
786 points (95.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9663 readers
643 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ConfidentLonely
Fried_out_Kombi
[email protected]
786
How the heck did we get here? Most best selling "cars" are now superzied pickups and SUVs. (www.caranddriver.com)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/fuckcars
313 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

And I hate their blue-rich eye searing headlights to.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bigschnitz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bigschnitz -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] bigschnitz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] bigschnitz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

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...