The Money Mustache Community
Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: ducky19 on March 06, 2020, 06:56:35 AM
-
Saw this gem on USA Today yesterday. It blows my mind that people feel the need for such big vehicles. The one woman they interviewed who has a 2019 F150 states, “My truck is really big,” she said. “Trying to maneuver into a space totally sucks. If you go to the mall and it’s really crowded, looking for a spot is a huge factor. I really have to spend time searching.” I feel really sorry for her...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2020/03/05/suvs-pickups-trucks-garages-parking/4904811002/
And while a 2019 F150 regular cab can be had for around $25,000 right now at our local Ford dealer, the cheapest crew cab (what the picture shows she has) they have is $35,000 and goes up quickly from there to nearly $70,000... I just don't get it!
-
Two people on FB confirmed this recently, but one of them bought a 2014 model that didn't fit. What I don't get is how this isn't something you check before you hand over your money?
-
One of my neighbors parks across the sidewalk because their massive SUV doesn't fit in their garage, but they still want to use 'their' space. Technically illegal, but they haven't been ticketed. Really annoying to pedestrians; since the vehicle is so long, they have to park it within an inch of the garage door to get the rear end out of the traffic lane, which means pedestrians have to walk out into the street to get around it.
-
Builders and developers are required to provide XX number of parking spaces on their plans to get approval before building a project, so in order to maximize the number of parking spaces, they lay them out to fit compact cars with spaces approx. 8' x 16', and they also make the aisles between rows accordingly narrow. They often don't truly have enough real estate to do what they intend, so they crowd the parking to make it work and get approval.
Full size trucks and SUV's could really use approx. 10' x 20', but you don't often see these size spaces. It's really kind of crazy, because full size SUV's and pickups represent a fairly large sector of the automobile population.
-
Two people on FB confirmed this recently, but one of them bought a 2014 model that didn't fit. What I don't get is how this isn't something you check before you hand over your money?
I imagine this is something no one would have thought to check before now, honestly.
-
Two people on FB confirmed this recently, but one of them bought a 2014 model that didn't fit. What I don't get is how this isn't something you check before you hand over your money?
I imagine this is something no one would have thought to check before now, honestly.
I guess I have just had more garage issues than most. Even a moderate vehicle can be an issue at weird angles.
My pet peeves is backing up to a side walk so that you don't overhang into the driving area. Then there is a hitch at shin level half way across the sidewalk.
-
I recall when I was house hunting a few years back in a newish starter-home development that the 2-car garages were extremely small. I'm a mid-size coupe/sedan person and would have had trouble parking 2 cars in there and being able to get in/out of them without some serious gymnastics. The realtor commented that they'd lost more than a few potential buyers because there was no way to fit the normal SUV/pickups that most people have. Too bad, the houses were quite nice and well appointed for the modest size that I wanted.
-
Article about nothing really, recent trucks/SUVs/CUVs aren't any bigger than in the past, people have been buying full-size trucks and SUVs for decades. Ford's full-size has been the best selling vehicle in America for almost 40 years, with Chevy, GMC, and Dodge not terribly far behind for most of that run. I remember my dad complaining about parking spaces being too small for trucks "these days", and that was 20+ years ago. My 1970's coupe doesn't fit into the garage of my 1960's built house (technically it probably could with 2 inches to spare). They're about 3 decades late with the article.
-
Article about nothing really, recent trucks/SUVs/CUVs aren't any bigger than in the past, people have been buying full-size trucks and SUVs for decades. Ford's full-size has been the best selling vehicle in America for almost 40 years, with Chevy, GMC, and Dodge not terribly far behind for most of that run. I remember my dad complaining about parking spaces being too small for trucks "these days", and that was 20+ years ago. My 1970's coupe doesn't fit into the garage of my 1960's built house (technically it probably could with 2 inches to spare). They're about 3 decades late with the article.
Actually, vehicles continue to grow in size. GM made the Tahoe and Suburban bigger for 2021 for example.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90442100/gms-new-2021-chevy-suburban-suvs-might-actually-be-bigger-than-your-bedroom
-
Article about nothing really, recent trucks/SUVs/CUVs aren't any bigger than in the past, people have been buying full-size trucks and SUVs for decades. Ford's full-size has been the best selling vehicle in America for almost 40 years, with Chevy, GMC, and Dodge not terribly far behind for most of that run. I remember my dad complaining about parking spaces being too small for trucks "these days", and that was 20+ years ago. My 1970's coupe doesn't fit into the garage of my 1960's built house (technically it probably could with 2 inches to spare). They're about 3 decades late with the article.
Actually, vehicles continue to grow in size. GM made the Tahoe and Suburban bigger for 2021 for example.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90442100/gms-new-2021-chevy-suburban-suvs-might-actually-be-bigger-than-your-bedroom
I don't know where they're getting half a foot from, the 2021's are 225.7" long, with the 2015-2020 at 224.4". That's Cadillac sedan territory. The wheelbase is 4" longer on the new model, but that just reduces overhangs. Maybe if they're comparing to a 1970's+ model at 219.1" you'll get the extra half-foot. So in 50 years, it grew 6" in length, 1.5" in width (79.6 to 81.1) and lost 0.4" in height (76.1" to 75.7"). Not much bigger, especially going back to the pickup truck thing, when they were regularly sold in lengths up to 250". The article's a couple decades late. The only difference is that the real small vehicles like the micro cars and S10's don't really exist anymore, but the mid to large sizes haven't grown.
-
Article about nothing really, recent trucks/SUVs/CUVs aren't any bigger than in the past, people have been buying full-size trucks and SUVs for decades. Ford's full-size has been the best selling vehicle in America for almost 40 years, with Chevy, GMC, and Dodge not terribly far behind for most of that run. I remember my dad complaining about parking spaces being too small for trucks "these days", and that was 20+ years ago. My 1970's coupe doesn't fit into the garage of my 1960's built house (technically it probably could with 2 inches to spare). They're about 3 decades late with the article.
My 'hood is mostly houses built in the 1920's (detached garages) or 1940's to 1960's (attached 1 car garages).
The vast majority of single car garages would probably fit either of our cars (Matrix, Civic), but I think most would not fit the cars that are around (pickups, minivans, SUVs).
California, nobody parks in there anyway. They've all converted them to living space or use them to store junk. We don't even have a garage, and I think a fair % (10%) of the houses in my 'hood never had them.
-
For a while I parked in an apartment complex AND a work parking lot where the spaces were way undersized and could barely fit our subcompact Chevy Cavalier. Both the complex and the work lot were mom-and-pop type places that shoehorned in as many spaces as they possibly could, and then a few more for luck.
When my wife and I would go to the grocery store or mall, we would luxuriate in the massive conventional spaces those places have. I never took out my tape measure, but I'd imagine they corresponded to the 8' x 16' dimensions @Fishindude referred to.
-
Article about nothing really, recent trucks/SUVs/CUVs aren't any bigger than in the past, people have been buying full-size trucks and SUVs for decades. Ford's full-size has been the best selling vehicle in America for almost 40 years, with Chevy, GMC, and Dodge not terribly far behind for most of that run. I remember my dad complaining about parking spaces being too small for trucks "these days", and that was 20+ years ago. My 1970's coupe doesn't fit into the garage of my 1960's built house (technically it probably could with 2 inches to spare). They're about 3 decades late with the article.
Full & mid size trucks have grown significantly (though not hugely) compared to comparable models of the past, but more importantly the prevalence of 4 door trucks is much higher today, making the average full size truck on the road several feel longer.
-
Article about nothing really, recent trucks/SUVs/CUVs aren't any bigger than in the past, people have been buying full-size trucks and SUVs for decades. Ford's full-size has been the best selling vehicle in America for almost 40 years, with Chevy, GMC, and Dodge not terribly far behind for most of that run. I remember my dad complaining about parking spaces being too small for trucks "these days", and that was 20+ years ago. My 1970's coupe doesn't fit into the garage of my 1960's built house (technically it probably could with 2 inches to spare). They're about 3 decades late with the article.
Full & mid size trucks have grown significantly (though not hugely) compared to comparable models of the past, but more importantly the prevalence of 4 door trucks is much higher today, making the average full size truck on the road several feel longer.
4 doors, but 5 foot beds. Trucks used to have 8 foot beds. The only thing that's not really available is the short bed single cab, 2wd, but average length is about the same. Vehicles do have bigger wheel and tire packages which makes them look bigger, but the box they fit in hasn't changed. 2wd trucks also used to be lower, but now are more or less the same height as the 4wd, so the average height might be a bit higher, but at the top end it's unchanged. Also, the air dams on the front and bodywork is brought lower, making them visually bigger, but again, not physically bigger.
(https://www.tfltruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-gmc-sierra-hd-2002-chevy-silverado.jpg)
(https://www.tfltruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Raptor-vs-Highboy-1024x588.png)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tqZOWVdzPk8/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
4 doors, but 5 foot beds. Trucks used to have 8 foot beds.
This is what gets me. They're basically big, ugly luxury sedans with a decorative bed tacked on the back. What good is a truck that can't haul a load of sheetrock?
I live in the desert. It amazes me that my neighbors spend $60,000 (or $70,000 or $80,000) on a truck to commute to the office and then let it dry rot in the driveway because it won't fit in the garage (which, of course, is full of junk they never use).
-
Two people on FB confirmed this recently, but one of them bought a 2014 model that didn't fit. What I don't get is how this isn't something you check before you hand over your money?
I imagine this is something no one would have thought to check before now, honestly.
Parking large vehicles is something that my work has exposed me too so it was something I thought about when buying my last car #lessonsfromparkingasuburbaninNYC.
-
I am quite sure the average German parking space is shorter than the F150, and does not have a lot more width.
Seriously, I can't understand for the life of me why people want to drive those cars with a manouverability of a pregnant cow.
-
One of my neighbors parks across the sidewalk because their massive SUV doesn't fit in their garage, but they still want to use 'their' space. Technically illegal, but they haven't been ticketed. Really annoying to pedestrians; since the vehicle is so long, they have to park it within an inch of the garage door to get the rear end out of the traffic lane, which means pedestrians have to walk out into the street to get around it.
That's not only a douche move, but hopefully illegal pretty much everywhere. Trying this stunt where I live would get you towed faster than you can say "traffic hazard". But we do take our sidewalks very very seriously.
-
Standard parking place size in the UK is 2.4m x 4.8m. That's 7'10" x 15'9" or 94" x 189". It's fine for most of the vehicles on the roads here, but there is a newish tendency for some people to buy larger and larger, particularly SUVs and those stupid crew-cab pickups, both of which are anti-social and of limited use because of their size. Streets and lanes which were well established 700 years ago or more aren't magically going to get any wider.
-
Standard parking place size in the UK is 2.4m x 4.8m. That's 7'10" x 15'9" or 94" x 189". It's fine for most of the vehicles on the roads here, but there is a newish tendency for some people to buy larger and larger, particularly SUVs and those stupid crew-cab pickups, both of which are anti-social and of limited use because of their size. Streets and lanes which were well established 700 years ago or more aren't magically going to get any wider.
I'm just curious what makes an SUV or crew cab pick up "anti social"?
"Of limited use" doesn't make much sense either?
-
Standard parking place size in the UK is 2.4m x 4.8m. That's 7'10" x 15'9" or 94" x 189". It's fine for most of the vehicles on the roads here, but there is a newish tendency for some people to buy larger and larger, particularly SUVs and those stupid crew-cab pickups, both of which are anti-social and of limited use because of their size. Streets and lanes which were well established 700 years ago or more aren't magically going to get any wider.
I'm just curious what makes an SUV or crew cab pick up "anti social"?
"Of limited use" doesn't make much sense either?
"Anti-social" because the drivers are putting on the roads and in our (limited) parking places a vehicle which takes up more space than the roads and parking spaces are designed for, forcing other cars out of the way or preventing convenient use of neighbouring parking spaces.
"Of limited use" because they cannot conveniently be parked in a significant number of parking places and are difficult to manoeuvre down our ancient lanes and narrow driveways.
Yes, I do live in a landscape that has been inhabited for several thousand years and in which nearly every road was created before the age of the internal combustion engine. People who spend large amounts of money on status-symbol vehicles that have no conceivable practical benefit over a modest runabout are anti-social idiots.
-
4 doors, but 5 foot beds. Trucks used to have 8 foot beds.
This is what gets me. They're basically big, ugly luxury sedans with a decorative bed tacked on the back. What good is a truck that can't haul a load of sheetrock?
I always marvel at folks that fixate on one particular use of a truck and get all worked up about it. A truck bed has vastly more uses than loading large dimension solid objects. Not to mention its not even remotely the case that the only use for a truck is putting stuff in the bed...
-
Article about nothing really, recent trucks/SUVs/CUVs aren't any bigger than in the past, people have been buying full-size trucks and SUVs for decades. Ford's full-size has been the best selling vehicle in America for almost 40 years, with Chevy, GMC, and Dodge not terribly far behind for most of that run. I remember my dad complaining about parking spaces being too small for trucks "these days", and that was 20+ years ago. My 1970's coupe doesn't fit into the garage of my 1960's built house (technically it probably could with 2 inches to spare). They're about 3 decades late with the article.
Full & mid size trucks have grown significantly (though not hugely) compared to comparable models of the past, but more importantly the prevalence of 4 door trucks is much higher today, making the average full size truck on the road several feel longer.
4 doors, but 5 foot beds. Trucks used to have 8 foot beds. The only thing that's not really available is the short bed single cab, 2wd, but average length is about the same. Vehicles do have bigger wheel and tire packages which makes them look bigger, but the box they fit in hasn't changed. 2wd trucks also used to be lower, but now are more or less the same height as the 4wd, so the average height might be a bit higher, but at the top end it's unchanged. Also, the air dams on the front and bodywork is brought lower, making them visually bigger, but again, not physically bigger.
(https://www.tfltruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/2016-gmc-sierra-hd-2002-chevy-silverado.jpg)
(https://www.tfltruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Raptor-vs-Highboy-1024x588.png)
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/tqZOWVdzPk8/maxresdefault.jpg)
8 foot beds have never been very common. They fit a need that only some truck users need (typically only professionals who need to haul lumber frequently). The most common bed size has always been 6' +/-.
Today it's 5'6" or 6'6"- aka pretty much the same. 8' beds are still typically only on seen on trucks used by people that need to haul lumber a lot.
But today a 4 door 5'6"box or 6'6" box truck is longer than a standard cab 8' bed of yore, and that 4 door config is pretty much the standard these days whereas 2 for 6' box was the most common in days of yore.
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
-
Standard parking place size in the UK is 2.4m x 4.8m. That's 7'10" x 15'9" or 94" x 189". It's fine for most of the vehicles on the roads here, but there is a newish tendency for some people to buy larger and larger, particularly SUVs and those stupid crew-cab pickups, both of which are anti-social and of limited use because of their size. Streets and lanes which were well established 700 years ago or more aren't magically going to get any wider.
I'm just curious what makes an SUV or crew cab pick up "anti social"?
"Of limited use" doesn't make much sense either?
"Anti-social" because the drivers are putting on the roads and in our (limited) parking places a vehicle which takes up more space than the roads and parking spaces are designed for, forcing other cars out of the way or preventing convenient use of neighbouring parking spaces.
"Of limited use" because they cannot conveniently be parked in a significant number of parking places and are difficult to manoeuvre down our ancient lanes and narrow driveways.
Yes, I do live in a landscape that has been inhabited for several thousand years and in which nearly every road was created before the age of the internal combustion engine. People who spend large amounts of money on status-symbol vehicles that have no conceivable practical benefit over a modest runabout are anti-social idiots.
As a motorcycle rider, I find all car drivers to be anti-social.
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
Sheesh ! How thoughtful.
This would also impact the cost of just about everything you buy, as most items come in on a truck.
-
snip
8 foot beds have never been very common. They fit a need that only some truck users need (typically only professionals who need to haul lumber frequently). The most common bed size has always been 6' +/-.
Today it's 5'6" or 6'6"- aka pretty much the same. 8' beds are still typically only on seen on trucks used by people that need to haul lumber a lot.
But today a 4 door 5'6"box or 6'6" box truck is longer than a standard cab 8' bed of yore, and that 4 door config is pretty much the standard these days whereas 2 for 6' box was the most common in days of yore.
8 foot beds used to be standard, literally called a standard bed. The 6' used to be called a "short bed". Full-size trucks of course (since we're talking large vehicles). I'm basing that on my experience with "old trucks" from the 60's through the 90's. The 30's-50's trucks aren't all that common, so I wasn't considering them in my "always used to be"s, nor was I considering the compact trucks since they no longer really exist.
-
5 foot 6 inch bed , plus another 1 foot 6 inches when the tailgate is laid down [ maybe more ] = 7 feet. Standard sheetrock is 8 feet long, overhangs by 1 foot. I don't see the problem. Hang/tape a flag on it, so you're following local driving laws.
Also many trucks come with a hitch standard now . Buy a steel "bed extender " made of square tube that goes into the hitch, for about $125 , and then you have another 4 foot wide "platform", hanging off the back of the truck about 4 feet out, to support the weight of long items , and tie them down to. Both Northern Tool and Harbor Freight sell them.
-
People need to buy the right tool for their needs. I can buy a lumberjack chainsaw that is five feet long and requires two operators to trim back my Bradford Pear tree or our Dogwood tree but really what I need is a $10 bow-saw that a ten year old Cub Scout can operate.
Just 'cause a large vehicle makes sense in part of the country where it earns its keep, doesn't make it the right vehicle to drive to Target or WalMart in.
People need to wise up already! Yeah, $6 a gallon gasoline would help right size everything better.
What works in rural Arkansas does not necessarily work in Atlanta!
-
snip
8 foot beds have never been very common. They fit a need that only some truck users need (typically only professionals who need to haul lumber frequently). The most common bed size has always been 6' +/-.
Today it's 5'6" or 6'6"- aka pretty much the same. 8' beds are still typically only on seen on trucks used by people that need to haul lumber a lot.
But today a 4 door 5'6"box or 6'6" box truck is longer than a standard cab 8' bed of yore, and that 4 door config is pretty much the standard these days whereas 2 for 6' box was the most common in days of yore.
8 foot beds used to be standard, literally called a standard bed. The 6' used to be called a "short bed". Full-size trucks of course (since we're talking large vehicles). I'm basing that on my experience with "old trucks" from the 60's through the 90's. The 30's-50's trucks aren't all that common, so I wasn't considering them in my "always used to be"s, nor was I considering the compact trucks since they no longer really exist.
We can debate namingnconventions all day long, but the facts are still:
1. 8 ft beds have never been common
2. 8 ft beds accomidate a very narrow use case (typically hauling lumber or fitting a huge camper.
3. There are innumerable other uses for truck beds for which even the super short 5.5ft beds are extremely well suited so the notion that a truck is useless without an 8ft bed is quite silly.
4. Idtiots still shouldn't be buying trucks, no matter the bed size, if they don't have frequent use for one.
-
snip
8 foot beds have never been very common. They fit a need that only some truck users need (typically only professionals who need to haul lumber frequently). The most common bed size has always been 6' +/-.
Today it's 5'6" or 6'6"- aka pretty much the same. 8' beds are still typically only on seen on trucks used by people that need to haul lumber a lot.
But today a 4 door 5'6"box or 6'6" box truck is longer than a standard cab 8' bed of yore, and that 4 door config is pretty much the standard these days whereas 2 for 6' box was the most common in days of yore.
8 foot beds used to be standard, literally called a standard bed. The 6' used to be called a "short bed". Full-size trucks of course (since we're talking large vehicles). I'm basing that on my experience with "old trucks" from the 60's through the 90's. The 30's-50's trucks aren't all that common, so I wasn't considering them in my "always used to be"s, nor was I considering the compact trucks since they no longer really exist.
We can debate namingnconventions all day long, but the facts are still:
1. 8 ft beds have never been common
2. 8 ft beds accomidate a very narrow use case (typically hauling lumber or fitting a huge camper.
3. There are innumerable other uses for truck beds for which even the super short 5.5ft beds are extremely well suited so the notion that a truck is useless without an 8ft bed is quite silly.
4. Idtiots still shouldn't be buying trucks, no matter the bed size, if they don't have frequent use for one.
1. not fact, 60's-90's 8' beds were much more common than any other size.
2. or carrying more of the things you haul with the shorter beds, with no downside
3. I didn't really see anyone on this thread arguing otherwise
4. I didn't see anyone arguing otherwise
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
Sheesh ! How thoughtful.
This would also impact the cost of just about everything you buy, as most items come in on a truck.
I don't buy much. Food? Buy local. Train/New transport innovation... $6 gas doesn't seem to hurt Europe?
Bikes are a thing too
-
Expensive European gasoline means people buy cars with TINY engines and they choose to live much closer to their destinations. I also see them as owning fewer "toys" per capita like big motorcycles, boats, ATVs, etc.
But really, doubling the cost of gasoline only means a person needs to drive half as much or buy a car with twice the economy - or something in between.
-
8' truck beds have been the standard for decades; it's only recently that short beds have gotten popular because of the prevalence of quad-cabs. I had actually done some research on this a couple months ago as I spotted a new standard cab, long bed Chevy in the wild and it looked awkward as hell. If you really want to see ungainly, the Tundra is still offered in this config but I've never seen one in the flesh.
IMO, you lose a TON of utility with anything less than full-size, even with the tailgate down (this is where I think the new GMC Multipro tailgate really shines). Then you get the knuckleheads that throw a hard tonneau cover on them (just about everyone in the parking lot here at work) which restricts their usefulness even further. Silly.
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
It must be a miserable way to go through life, hoping for others’ misfortune for the grave sin of doing something you don’t agree with.
I know being anti-truck is one of the 10 commandments around here, but in a lot of ways a truck is a pretty thrifty purchase:
-expensive to buy but hold their value well
-cheap to run compared with other vehicles in the price class
-much more fuel efficient than they used to be
-extremely durable, they last a long long time
-useful for many different tasks
-high correlation between truck ownership and DIY activities
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
It must be a miserable way to go through life, hoping for others’ misfortune for the grave sin of doing something you don’t agree with.
I know being anti-truck is one of the 10 commandments around here, but in a lot of ways a truck is a pretty thrifty purchase:
-expensive to buy but hold their value well
-cheap to run compared with other vehicles in the price class
-much more fuel efficient than they used to be
-extremely durable, they last a long long time
-useful for many different tasks
-high correlation between truck ownership and DIY activities
Interesting the difference in interpretation. I took it as $6 gas would encourage people to buy more sensible cars with better gas mileage, not buy huge SUVs/trucks unless they are truly needed, encourage people to have shorter commutes and/or use public transport and bikes. I'm presently in New Zealand where gas is about $2.10 - $2.30NZ per LITRE (about $8.60 for a US gallon in US dollars, https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/New-Zealand/gasoline_prices/ (https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/New-Zealand/gasoline_prices/)), and people basically drive 100 on 100/km roads. Of course the average speed is more like 80, because of all the tight curves on so many roads. I've seen 25km speed signs here - that is slow, and the curve required slow.
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
It must be a miserable way to go through life, hoping for others’ misfortune for the grave sin of doing something you don’t agree with.
Every morning I walk to yoga. Every morning I see at least one person run a red light, usually into the cross walk that I have right of way in. This morning it was a truck. I pray for $20 gas and for people to stop driving. I also pray that I live long enough to see it.
-
Interesting article on the rise of vehicle weights and some of the reasons behind it: https://thecorrespondent.com/310/your-car-has-a-weight-problem-and-we-need-to-regulate-it/41009665950-d1c675d3
-
I know being anti-truck is one of the 10 commandments around here, but in a lot of ways a truck is a pretty thrifty purchase:
-expensive to buy but hold their value well
-cheap to run compared with other vehicles in the price class
-much more fuel efficient than they used to be
-extremely durable, they last a long long time
-useful for many different tasks
-high correlation between truck ownership and DIY activities
I would like to propose an alternative to the pickup truck, based on that list: the humble minivan.
--Inexpensive to buy: you can get a Honda Odyssey with <100,000 miles for under $5k
--Cheap to run/efficient: we get 25+mpg on the highway. Newer models are close to 30.
--Durable: Ours is closing in on 200,000 miles. Besides regular maintenance, it's needed an alternator and starter in the last year. That's it.
--Useful for many different tasks: My minivan can carry 8 people, plus their luggage, plus food for a road trip. Or, I can fold down/remove the seats and fit 8' 2x4's without batting an eye. Or 10' 2x4's with slightly more effort. Or 12' 2x4's in limited quantity. With all the doors closed. I once fit a whole bunk of 2x4's in our minivan, with the door closed. That's just shy of 300 2x4's. Ok, so I was riding on the stops nice and slow all the way home, but still.
--Truck ownership/DIY: I'm almost done finishing our basement. Guess what vehicle I used to transport all the lumber!
-
I know being anti-truck is one of the 10 commandments around here, but in a lot of ways a truck is a pretty thrifty purchase:
-expensive to buy but hold their value well
-cheap to run compared with other vehicles in the price class
-much more fuel efficient than they used to be
-extremely durable, they last a long long time
-useful for many different tasks
-high correlation between truck ownership and DIY activities
I would like to propose an alternative to the pickup truck, based on that list: the humble minivan.
--Inexpensive to buy: you can get a Honda Odyssey with <100,000 miles for under $5k
--Cheap to run/efficient: we get 25+mpg on the highway. Newer models are close to 30.
--Durable: Ours is closing in on 200,000 miles. Besides regular maintenance, it's needed an alternator and starter in the last year. That's it.
--Useful for many different tasks: My minivan can carry 8 people, plus their luggage, plus food for a road trip. Or, I can fold down/remove the seats and fit 8' 2x4's without batting an eye. Or 10' 2x4's with slightly more effort. Or 12' 2x4's in limited quantity. With all the doors closed. I once fit a whole bunk of 2x4's in our minivan, with the door closed. That's just shy of 300 2x4's. Ok, so I was riding on the stops nice and slow all the way home, but still.
--Truck ownership/DIY: I'm almost done finishing our basement. Guess what vehicle I used to transport all the lumber!
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not? What bearing does it have on your life?
I’m legitimately trying to understand why people are so invested in how other people spend money. I understand the environmental thing, but there difference here is negligible. So what is it?
-
I recall when I was house hunting a few years back in a newish starter-home development that the 2-car garages were extremely small. I'm a mid-size coupe/sedan person and would have had trouble parking 2 cars in there and being able to get in/out of them without some serious gymnastics. The realtor commented that they'd lost more than a few potential buyers because there was no way to fit the normal SUV/pickups that most people have. Too bad, the houses were quite nice and well appointed for the modest size that I wanted.
When we were house shopping we looked at a house that had a Ford Escape in the garage. 2" from the front wall and 2" from the garage door. Instant pass.
-
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not? What bearing does it have on your life?
I’m legitimately trying to understand why people are so invested in how other people spend money. I understand the environmental thing, but there difference here is negligible. So what is it?
Trucks > minivans > cars in terms of danger to pedestrian and bicyclists. That's more than enough by itself.
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
It must be a miserable way to go through life, hoping for others’ misfortune for the grave sin of doing something you don’t agree with.
I know being anti-truck is one of the 10 commandments around here, but in a lot of ways a truck is a pretty thrifty purchase:
-expensive to buy but hold their value well
-cheap to run compared with other vehicles in the price class
-much more fuel efficient than they used to be
-extremely durable, they last a long long time
-useful for many different tasks
-high correlation between truck ownership and DIY activities
lol, every car will become worth $0 at some point, they ALL depreciate given enough time.
they are NOT cheap to run, its been proven by MMM himself... everything on them is more expensive. A $70,000 truck goes the same 200,000 miles as two $5,000 cars with 100,000 miles on them each. That right there is 30 cents a mile cost to drive in depreciation difference alone from Mustachian level car ownership (and those truck repairs will be much more pricey, even if fewer)
fuel efficient? really, compared to what? Not to a 25-35mpg mid-size car, which you can fit a lot of shit in. and on the super rare occasion one legitimately needs a truck it can be rented (buy the car that suits 95% of your car needs, not 5%).
DIY? Around where I live and work I see its mostly white collar dudes (who cant park the thing into our compact car parking spots) who still hire out to have everything in their house (you can tell when their contractor shows up in the NON- lookatme pickemup truck, the molly maid too)
So, am I bitter? Maybe... They do present an outsize hazard to other road users (cyclist and pedestrians and regular cars) because they are quite huge, hard to see directly over, large blind spots. They wear out the road quicker, they pollute the air faster that I breathe. So they very do much "impact me" more so than regular clown car use. $6 gas is a sufficient level, with taxes, to account for the actual societal cost of that gallon of gas (it could arguably be more).
Then, just maybe then, we can get something besides car-first-car-only transportation policy in 98% of North America.
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
It must be a miserable way to go through life, hoping for others’ misfortune for the grave sin of doing something you don’t agree with.
Every morning I walk to yoga. Every morning I see at least one person run a red light, usually into the cross walk that I have right of way in. This morning it was a truck. I pray for $20 gas and for people to stop driving. I also pray that I live long enough to see it.
Later down the road they'll yell at the cyclist to "follow the rules of the road!!1"
-
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not? What bearing does it have on your life?
I’m legitimately trying to understand why people are so invested in how other people spend money. I understand the environmental thing, but there difference here is negligible. So what is it?
Poking fun at other people's spending is a major point of the MMM forums, and of this subforum In particular. Do I care what you drive? Not really, no. I'm merely suggesting an alternative, and explaining why it's an attractive option .
-
Full size trucks and SUV's could really use approx. 10' x 20', but you don't often see these size spaces. It's really kind of crazy, because full size SUV's and pickups represent a fairly large sector of the automobile population.
Which they should not.
-
8' truck beds have been the standard for decades; it's only recently that short beds have gotten popular because of the prevalence of quad-cabs. I had actually done some research on this a couple months ago as I spotted a new standard cab, long bed Chevy in the wild and it looked awkward as hell. If you really want to see ungainly, the Tundra is still offered in this config but I've never seen one in the flesh.
IMO, you lose a TON of utility with anything less than full-size, even with the tailgate down (this is where I think the new GMC Multipro tailgate really shines). Then you get the knuckleheads that throw a hard tonneau cover on them (just about everyone in the parking lot here at work) which restricts their usefulness even further. Silly.
A few years ago I bought a 2006 Tundra because that was the last year they offered the long bed with the six speed stick. I think I paid $4800 and I couldn't be happier with it. I live on ten acres with an orchard in a rural area and use that long bed all the time.
-
8' truck beds have been the standard for decades; it's only recently that short beds have gotten popular because of the prevalence of quad-cabs. I had actually done some research on this a couple months ago as I spotted a new standard cab, long bed Chevy in the wild and it looked awkward as hell. If you really want to see ungainly, the Tundra is still offered in this config but I've never seen one in the flesh.
IMO, you lose a TON of utility with anything less than full-size, even with the tailgate down (this is where I think the new GMC Multipro tailgate really shines). Then you get the knuckleheads that throw a hard tonneau cover on them (just about everyone in the parking lot here at work) which restricts their usefulness even further. Silly.
A few years ago I bought a 2006 Tundra because that was the last year they offered the long bed with the six speed stick. I think I paid $4800 and I couldn't be happier with it. I live on ten acres with an orchard in a rural area and use that long bed all the time.
Turnbull, I think you might have a collector's item on your hands. I didn't realize Toyota ceased production of those in '18. According to one article, out of 43,800 sold in 2017, only 175 were long-box.
I tip my hat to a guy where I work...in a sea of fancy-pants King Ranches and Denalis, he ordered himself a new Chevy truck. Standard cab, long box, painted bumpers, cloth seats and crank windows. Bet it's got vinyl floormats, too.
-
God I pray for $6 a gallon gas to teach these fools a lesson.
Sadly it seems to all be going the wrong way.
It must be a miserable way to go through life, hoping for others’ misfortune for the grave sin of doing something you don’t agree with.
I know being anti-truck is one of the 10 commandments around here, but in a lot of ways a truck is a pretty thrifty purchase:
-expensive to buy but hold their value well
-cheap to run compared with other vehicles in the price class
-much more fuel efficient than they used to be
-extremely durable, they last a long long time
-useful for many different tasks
-high correlation between truck ownership and DIY activities
lol, every car will become worth $0 at some point, they ALL depreciate given enough time.
they are NOT cheap to run, its been proven by MMM himself... everything on them is more expensive. A $70,000 truck goes the same 200,000 miles as two $5,000 cars with 100,000 miles on them each. That right there is 30 cents a mile cost to drive in depreciation difference alone from Mustachian level car ownership (and those truck repairs will be much more pricey, even if fewer)
fuel efficient? really, compared to what? Not to a 25-35mpg mid-size car, which you can fit a lot of shit in. and on the super rare occasion one legitimately needs a truck it can be rented (buy the car that suits 95% of your car needs, not 5%).
DIY? Around where I live and work I see its mostly white collar dudes (who cant park the thing into our compact car parking spots) who still hire out to have everything in their house (you can tell when their contractor shows up in the NON- lookatme pickemup truck, the molly maid too)
So, am I bitter? Maybe... They do present an outsize hazard to other road users (cyclist and pedestrians and regular cars) because they are quite huge, hard to see directly over, large blind spots. They wear out the road quicker, they pollute the air faster that I breathe. So they very do much "impact me" more so than regular clown car use. $6 gas is a sufficient level, with taxes, to account for the actual societal cost of that gallon of gas (it could arguably be more).
Then, just maybe then, we can get something besides car-first-car-only transportation policy in 98% of North America.
They don’t do any of the bolded appreciably more than the suggested minivan. If you can’t see around one you can’t see around the other. Trucks don’t get significantly worse gas mileage. And the road damage done by a 6k lb truck is negligible compared to a 4-5k lb car in a world where we have 40-80k lb semi trucks and plows.
A lot of this is mindless hatred more than real fact.
-
fwiw having looked at houses recently, it certainly was the case that newer houses had skimpier garages and older houses had larger ones.
We don't have overly large cars and it would have sucked to have two in some of the smaller two car garages on newer homes.
-
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not? What bearing does it have on your life?
Larger vehicles, compared to smaller:
- require more resources to manufacture
- require more resources to keep going
- wear out roads more, something like 20 times faster than regular cars (source 1 (https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/))
- are more likely to kill people; "the relative risk of death among occupants of passenger cars that are involved in crashes with light trucks is approximately 47:1 compared to crashes involving similar size vehicles" (source 2 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111214601072))
- while driving, they are slower to start and stop, which slows the flow of traffic
- while driving, they obscure the view of other drivers, which slows the flow of traffic (I don't know if it's safe to turn if I can't see past the turning vehicle in front of me)
- while parked, they obscure the view of other drivers, making collisions with pedestrians walking out from between parked vehicles more likely
- as the article notes, they take up more parking space and don't fit in garages, which means they'll make road space smaller, making it more difficult to drive down regular streets
- their larger size will force shopping centres etc to offer fewer but larger parking spaces, meaning less parking for everyone else
Larger vehicles cause more environmental damage, road damage, death and injury, and inconvenience than smaller vehicles. And most people who get them simply don't need them just to get from A to B.
-
snip
- wear out roads more, something like 20 times faster than regular cars (source 1 (https://streets.mn/2016/07/07/chart-of-the-day-vehicle-weight-vs-road-damage-levels/))
snip
Yeah, that's BS. A Hummer H2 doesn't weigh a ton and a half more than a Chevy Tahoe. It is a Chevy Tahoe with different sheetmetal. 1/2 and 3/4 ton trucks don't even weigh 8,600 lbs.
The road damage a vehicle causes is axle weight to the 4th power. Assuming a 3k lb car and a 6k lb truck, both with 2 axles, the truck will cause 15.8x the damage of the car. Sounds big, but move on to what else is on the roads, semi trucks and buses. A 33k lb bus causes 12,850x the damage of a car, and a smaller 20k lb bus still causes 1,961x the damage. An 80k lb semi truck coincidentally falls into the same range as the bus, thanks to 3 more axles to spread the load.
-
Whole lot of big vehicle hate on this thread.
In my small rural midwestern community where pickup trucks are the norm, many are rather offended that our tax dollars have been spent to create all of these silly bike lanes around town that see very little use.
-
Yeah, I guess they need large vehicles so they can fit their mobility scooters in them.
-
Whole lot of big vehicle hate on this thread.
In my small rural midwestern community where pickup trucks are the norm, many are rather offended that our tax dollars have been spent to create all of these silly bike lanes around town that see very little use.
Make y'all a deal then. Not one dime of of taxes collected on rural communities leaves the countryside. Not one dime of tax collected in the suburbs leaves the suburbs... and not one dime of taxes collected from a big city dweller & big city business goes to subsidize suburban/rural life.
Lets see how that works out.
That bike lane costs a fraction of a percent of the high speed highway network (rural highways are not cheap)
-
Yeah, I guess they need large vehicles so they can fit their mobility scooters in them.
How else will they get to the gun show where they will single handedly protect their freedom from the big city government.
-
Whole lot of big vehicle hate on this thread.
In my small rural midwestern community where pickup trucks are the norm, many are rather offended that our tax dollars have been spent to create all of these silly bike lanes around town that see very little use.
They would, if you would just take away all those 20 times more expensive roads!
-
Alternately, the people in pickups could get on their bicycles. Given that 70% of the Western world is overweight or obese, spending a bit more time moving under your own power could be good for you. And improved cardiovascular and lung fitness is protective against communicable lung disease, you know.
What's good for the environment turns out to be good for our bodies. Who would have thought it?
-
8' truck beds have been the standard for decades; it's only recently that short beds have gotten popular because of the prevalence of quad-cabs. I had actually done some research on this a couple months ago as I spotted a new standard cab, long bed Chevy in the wild and it looked awkward as hell. If you really want to see ungainly, the Tundra is still offered in this config but I've never seen one in the flesh.
IMO, you lose a TON of utility with anything less than full-size, even with the tailgate down (this is where I think the new GMC Multipro tailgate really shines). Then you get the knuckleheads that throw a hard tonneau cover on them (just about everyone in the parking lot here at work) which restricts their usefulness even further. Silly.
A few years ago I bought a 2006 Tundra because that was the last year they offered the long bed with the six speed stick. I think I paid $4800 and I couldn't be happier with it. I live on ten acres with an orchard in a rural area and use that long bed all the time.
Turnbull, I think you might have a collector's item on your hands. I didn't realize Toyota ceased production of those in '18. According to one article, out of 43,800 sold in 2017, only 175 were long-box.
I tip my hat to a guy where I work...in a sea of fancy-pants King Ranches and Denalis, he ordered himself a new Chevy truck. Standard cab, long box, painted bumpers, cloth seats and crank windows. Bet it's got vinyl floormats, too.
Only 175 out of 43,800?!? That's wild.
I do see standard cab, long bed Tundras like mine out on the road every once in a while but of course there's no way to know if it's a six speed when it's just driving the opposite way.
-
Whole lot of big vehicle hate on this thread.
In my small rural midwestern community where pickup trucks are the norm, many are rather offended that our tax dollars have been spent to create all of these silly bike lanes around town that see very little use.
Cool, I'd be happy to go back to riding straight in the middle of the lane.
Bike lanes were created to increase comfort, they wouldn't be needed if we all shared the road we already had.
I find all the bike lane hate kinda funny since many BLs are using the pre-existing shoulder/gutter that was already there. Now there's just a bike symbol painted in 'em.
Do they get angry at all the medians and suicide lanes, too? In my neck of the woods, they're generally larger than BLs.
I feel like there's something wrong with our traffic design when trees and bushes get their own protected area that are huge compared to lanes for bicyclists...
-
Bike lanes were created to increase comfort, they wouldn't be needed if we all shared the road we already had.
Yup, basically every state has laws that say you need to give cyclists 3'+ when you pass them. Bike lanes exist because too many people were breaking the law, and often killing cyclists.
-
I think it's time to revisit these posts:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-work-truck-say-about-you/ (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2015/04/28/what-does-your-work-truck-say-about-you/)
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown-like-car-habit/ (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/04/22/curing-your-clown-like-car-habit/)
As a European here is my take on the whole thing:
1. The usage of large pickups, suvs and partly cars in the US is complete and utter bullshit. They are too big for their own good.
2. There is no need for a normal sized family (2 parents, 2 kids) to be driving anything much larger than a Toyota Corolla.
3. Pickup trucks and vans are work-vehicles. They are not intended as private vehicles.
4. Optimal family car is somewhere around a VW Golf. Small-ish, nimble, safe and relatively cheap to run/own. A tow-hitch improves on utility enormously. See https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/12/08/turning-a-little-car-into-a-big-one/ (https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/12/08/turning-a-little-car-into-a-big-one/)
5. Rent larger vehicle if needed
6. If you have 3 children or more you are allowed a bigger vehicle. :)
But I don't get the american car habit, it's just costing people a crap ton of money and it brings nothing but service costs and financial misery. Plus obviously huge parking-problems and garages that are too small.
-
As a European...I don't get the american car habit
Edited your post for accuracy.
I’ve spent time in Europe and if that was my norm I wouldn’t get it either. But America is not Europe and the two have adapted their cars to suit their environments. In America we don’t generally have the same drawbacks you do in Europe, and in Europe you don’t have the infrastructure we do in America. Most of what you think are drawbacks are only present in urban centers; outside that there is no problem with an F-150 because space is plentiful, gas is cheap, and the trucks are pretty cheap too.
-
As a European...I don't get the american car habit
Edited your post for accuracy.
I’ve spent time in Europe and if that was my norm I wouldn’t get it either. But America is not Europe and the two have adapted their cars to suit their environments. In America we don’t generally have the same drawbacks you do in Europe, and in Europe you don’t have the infrastructure we do in America. Most of what you think are drawbacks are only present in urban centers; outside that there is no problem with an F-150 because space is plentiful, gas is cheap, and the trucks are pretty cheap too.
In the us we adapted our environment to suit the cars
In Europe they adapted the cars to suit their environment
The gas should be priced to account for the actual (environmental and financial) cost. . The trucks are cheap because of an asinine loophole they get out of being regulated like private vehicles because our law assumed they would only be used for work. The law should be amended to account for actual use of the vehicle.
Space has little to do with it you can have a place designed for people first or a place designed for cars first. Not really both. Look at key west. Perfect example of a constricted space where you could have easily built the whole place to be carefree and not lose any mobility and gain a ton of space (like a euro city). Nope our slavish car culture affects any place regardless of space availability.
-
Space has little to do with it you can have a place designed for people first or a place designed for cars first. Not really both.
This.
The difference between the USA and bycicle country netherlands?
They stopped building "car combatible" cities and build a bycicle compatible country.
Traffic death und noise plummeted, health skyrocketed.
Build it and they will use it. (Which is btw. why more roads don't solve traffic jams in the long run. It just means that people can now travel farer into the suburban sprawl in the same time.)
-
As a European...I don't get the american car habit
Edited your post for accuracy.
I’ve spent time in Europe and if that was my norm I wouldn’t get it either. But America is not Europe and the two have adapted their cars to suit their environments. In America we don’t generally have the same drawbacks you do in Europe, and in Europe you don’t have the infrastructure we do in America. Most of what you think are drawbacks are only present in urban centers; outside that there is no problem with an F-150 because space is plentiful, gas is cheap, and the trucks are pretty cheap too.
:)
I've travelled quite extensively in the US and while you are definitely correct with the regards to non-urban space and gas prices, the fact remains that people are draining their wallets with car payments, crazy gas consumption and insuring huge expensive vehicles.
So I stand by my statement that most US citizens would benefit from adopting a more european attitude towards vehicles. Smaller is actually sometimes better and most of the time it's cheaper too.
So the american car habit actually still makes no sense ;)
-
We've owned a VW Golf and its a very good car. That said by American standards it is not a good long distance family car. I'd have to go up a class size to the next bigger car for long distance travel if there were more than a couple of people in it.
We drove our's many hours to the beach once. Two adults plus baby and a week's worth of stuff. Perfectly capable car but packed tight. A Passat wagon would have been much more comfortable.
The Golf would be an excellent general purpose commuter or car for two people for even long distances.
The back seat is either a luggage area or seating - can't be both.
-
Space has little to do with it you can have a place designed for people first or a place designed for cars first. Not really both.
This.
The difference between the USA and bycicle country netherlands?
They stopped building "car combatible" cities and build a bycicle compatible country.
Traffic death und noise plummeted, health skyrocketed.
Build it and they will use it. (Which is btw. why more roads don't solve traffic jams in the long run. It just means that people can now travel farer into the suburban sprawl in the same time.)
Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield. Many engineers travel 30-60 miles each day on interstates from all directions to get to work. "Designing for people" like many EU countries doesn't actually solve any of these problems.
-
Space has little to do with it you can have a place designed for people first or a place designed for cars first. Not really both.
This.
The difference between the USA and bycicle country netherlands?
They stopped building "car combatible" cities and build a bycicle compatible country.
Traffic death und noise plummeted, health skyrocketed.
Build it and they will use it. (Which is btw. why more roads don't solve traffic jams in the long run. It just means that people can now travel farer into the suburban sprawl in the same time.)
Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield. Many engineers travel 30-60 miles each day on interstates from all directions to get to work. "Designing for people" like many EU countries doesn't actually solve any of these problems.
European cities, unlike US cities, started and grew in an era where most of the population got about by foot. This was prior to the invention of the bicycle, in an era where horses, oxen, and wagons were scarce. Long distance travel wasn't a regular thing, and it took months or years to get across a continent. Walled cities and fortresses were a necessity due to centuries of warfare that began before the introduction of flat trajectory weapons and continued through the development of the cannon. Those walls didn't become obsolete until after the Crimean War or perhaps WW1. People were packed in very closely and the population density tended to be high. So smallpox and cholera were rampant but so was public transit and cities are highly walkable even now.
By contrast, most of the cities in the United States were developed after the invention of the steam driven locomotive and the internal combustion engine. Walled forts existed on the frontier because of retaliatory attacks from First Nations tribes who objected to the ongoing presence of settlers who were surging across the border in defiance of their own country's laws and some very clearly worded treaties. Ongoing land based sieges weren't an everyday occurrence. Most people who migrated across long distances had access to horses and/or oxen. The big population expansions in the West didn't come until after WW1 when automobiles were commonplace. Things therefore were built in a car-centric way. Except in HCOL areas where the population density is very high, people still don't live in close proximity to each other. This has unfortunately deterred the development of non-car transit infrastructure. Furthermore, as development progressed it was done without easements or other provision for public transit. The longer municipalities delayed subway or light rail projects, the more businesses and homes were affected by the construction and the more difficult it became to move the capital improvement projects forward. Most cities in the United States are about 100 years behind the times in terms of public transit for these reasons.
-
We’re also seeing the limits of public transportation suddenly. I commute via train, but elected to drive in to downtown Chicago today for some meetings I had (will WFH rest of the week) but we’re being told to stay off of public transportation. You can laugh at a car all you want but sure was nice to have that flexibility today even though the drive sucked.
-
Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.
There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.
-
As a European...I don't get the american car habit
Edited your post for accuracy.
I’ve spent time in Europe and if that was my norm I wouldn’t get it either. But America is not Europe and the two have adapted their cars to suit their environments. In America we don’t generally have the same drawbacks you do in Europe, and in Europe you don’t have the infrastructure we do in America. Most of what you think are drawbacks are only present in urban centers; outside that there is no problem with an F-150 because space is plentiful, gas is cheap, and the trucks are pretty cheap too.
We were there this summer, and we got a "free upgrade" to a small SUV (Nissan something or other). It was a PITA! Our AirBNB had underground parking and it took a 15 point turn to get into it every time we left.
-
Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.
There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.
A large percentage of people see "rural" as "not in a city next to the coasts."
The word basically is meaningless now imo.
-
There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.
Yup. I've spent time in rural Scotland. Do you know how many full size pickup trucks I've seen? Zero. Even on sheep farms.
-
It's cultural, not practical.
-
Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.
There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.
LennStar - do you have regular bus or train service between the place you were born and the small city 40 km away ? Here, as i'm sure you know, many people would not think twice about living 40Km away from their job in the city if they owned a car / truck to bring them there.
Also, I imagine it is a small % of the population, but some of the folks seeing that US sized truck would feel their hearts moved by lust and desire to own something similar
-
Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.
There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.
LennStar - do you have regular bus or train service between the place you were born and the small city 40 km away ? Here, as i'm sure you know, many people would not think twice about living 40Km away from their job in the city if they owned a car / truck to bring them there.
Also, I imagine it is a small % of the population, but some of the folks seeing that US sized truck would feel their hearts moved by lust and desire to own something similar
Yes, of course there are such things like buses and trains. We in Europe think it's better to have those.
Still don't know what that has to do with pickup trucks. Hundreds, of not thousands of people have to commute daily, including to the 2 big cities both 40km away. Most drive by car. And in the last years increasingly in SUVs, unfortunately.
Nobody is denying that there are many people who might love to drive such a truck. (Those who have changed to SUVs now for example).
What we do say that those trucks are stupid.
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.
And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).
-
Except that 97% of the US is rural. A 10 minute drive from my urban center of 50k people puts me in the middle of a cornfield.
Um.... where I was born the next city with more than 50K people was 40km away. Where I live now probably more. Where my aunt lives 200km to the North there is one city (she lives near that one) in this radius.
There is plenty of rural around here if that is your definition. Still any US sized truck is making heads turn.
LennStar - do you have regular bus or train service between the place you were born and the small city 40 km away ? Here, as i'm sure you know, many people would not think twice about living 40Km away from their job in the city if they owned a car / truck to bring them there.
Also, I imagine it is a small % of the population, but some of the folks seeing that US sized truck would feel their hearts moved by lust and desire to own something similar
Yes, of course there are such things like buses and trains. We in Europe think it's better to have those.
Still don't know what that has to do with pickup trucks. Hundreds, of not thousands of people have to commute daily, including to the 2 big cities both 40km away. Most drive by car. And in the last years increasingly in SUVs, unfortunately.
Nobody is denying that there are many people who might love to drive such a truck. (Those who have changed to SUVs now for example).
What we do say that those trucks are stupid.
I realize you have buses and trains, just as we do. What i meant was, are there bus / train schedules+ routes that run between your hometown and the city ? [ on a fairly regular basis - such that those working a different shift than dayshift can use them ] . I think you answered my question by saying most folks drive by car. In my area there are no trains. A Person can't get 40km by bus after 7pm. So we drive. And some choose to use a pickup as their method of transport. And some choose an SUV, which you are now seeing increased popularity in your area. I suppose you could anticipate seeing more personal trucks in your country in the next several years, despite the general disdain for them.
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.
And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).
Hell, he just banned compact cars too, anything bigger than a Dodge Neon would be over the limit.
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.
And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).
Base model 2020 Prius is 3010 lbs. So pretty damn close to 1.5 tons. Older models are even lighter.
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.
And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).
Base model 2020 Prius is 3010 lbs. So pretty damn close to 1.5 tons. Older models are even lighter.
Leafs, Bolts, Volts, Model 3s, Prius Primes, etc. all are considerably over 1.5t (3500-4000lb+). Batteries are _heavy_.
We can argue the specifics all you want, but we'd be blowing past the actual point. Arbitrary limits based on the needs of only a subset of the population are intrinsically counter-productive.
A very large subset of folks do, in fact, require more than a compact ICE vehicle. A smaller, but still significant subset of folks even need giant full size trucks for non-commerical uses.
-
Heh, under 1.5 tons? I think the only vehicle that matches that description that would also transport our family of eight would be one of those oversized golf carts.
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Great. Now I want a sword to carry around.
-
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this. I say: that's fine, you can choose to categorise your vehicle as a truck. I don't know about the US, but here in Australia you need a separate category of driving licence to drive a truck. The categories in my state are (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licences/licence-and-permit-types/licence-categories), excluding motorcycle and marine
Car
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC)
Currently these have weight and other classifications. I would have different fuel efficiency standards for each, or even better, emissions standards. Anyone producing a vehicle for sale could, if they wished, have that vehicle categorised as a higher level - this would let them have higher emissions, but... drivers would need to go get the license for it. You want to drive what is essentially a truck? Fine! But you have to get a truck licence first. Okay Karen, before you get in your black SUV to take the children to lacrosse and violin practice, you have to go to driving lessons alongside Barry the Truckie. Motor on.
-
There are also people who'd love to walk around carrying a sword, or smoking a bong.
Also stupid but also often illegal
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
This kind of insanity - making arbitrary limits - is counter productive. You just banned EVs and hybrids (even Prius runs considerably over 1.5t) and pretty much anything larger than a midsize sedan.
And seriously, you seem to be part of the demographic that just can wrap their head around the reality that what suits _your_ needs doesn't suit everyone's needs (and I as m talking about real needs, not wants).
I admit in hindsight that I should have marked the Irony. In regards of stupid and legal/illegal. Still interesting result.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this.
And if complaining does not work, they lobby for regulations that fit their advertising "needs".
For example my 1083kg car is efficiency class D while most SUVs are B. I may use 1/4 less fuel even with a 10 year older car, but I only move half the tons, so of course it is less efficient.
-
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this. I say: that's fine, you can choose to categorise your vehicle as a truck. I don't know about the US, but here in Australia you need a separate category of driving licence to drive a truck. The categories in my state are (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licences/licence-and-permit-types/licence-categories), excluding motorcycle and marine
Car
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC)
Currently these have weight and other classifications. I would have different fuel efficiency standards for each, or even better, emissions standards. Anyone producing a vehicle for sale could, if they wished, have that vehicle categorised as a higher level - this would let them have higher emissions, but... drivers would need to go get the license for it. You want to drive what is essentially a truck? Fine! But you have to get a truck licence first. Okay Karen, before you get in your black SUV to take the children to lacrosse and violin practice, you have to go to driving lessons alongside Barry the Truckie. Motor on.
Yep. This is a great idea. Might also get some people who drive large top heavy SUVs like they're small cars to figure out what they're doing wrong too.
-
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this. I say: that's fine, you can choose to categorise your vehicle as a truck. I don't know about the US, but here in Australia you need a separate category of driving licence to drive a truck. The categories in my state are (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licences/licence-and-permit-types/licence-categories), excluding motorcycle and marine
Car
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC)
Currently these have weight and other classifications. I would have different fuel efficiency standards for each, or even better, emissions standards. Anyone producing a vehicle for sale could, if they wished, have that vehicle categorised as a higher level - this would let them have higher emissions, but... drivers would need to go get the license for it. You want to drive what is essentially a truck? Fine! But you have to get a truck licence first. Okay Karen, before you get in your black SUV to take the children to lacrosse and violin practice, you have to go to driving lessons alongside Barry the Truckie. Motor on.
Yep. This is a great idea. Might also get some people who drive large top heavy SUVs like they're small cars to figure out what they're doing wrong too.
No, this is another arbitrary hoop to jump through that will accomplish nothing (edit: other than better driver education, of course). The solution is very straightforward: make drivers bear (and be privy to) the full cost of operating their vehicles and the problem will be solved (as much as any complex problem can be solved). That means no subsidies on fuel, funding all road building and construction with taxes directly on vehicles, an ownership tax that scales with weight/usage not age/value of the vehicle, etc. Commercial use can remain tax deductible to mitigate those cost issues.
It will also have the happy side effect of reducing related problems such as commuter culture and the idiocy of Amazon, et al. that will happily send you a single item with 100 lbs of packaging.
-
In Australia the spending on roads etc jumps around madly year to year. The revenue comes at the state level from vehicle registration fees of around $1,000 (depending) and fuel excise (ie some cost per litre). This (https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax/) tells us that the road spending is about $69 billion and the revenue $45 billion. Motorists already pay most of the costs of roads. The excise is $0.423/lt on ordinary petrol. Let's say we double it so that the total revenue exceeds the road costs - the fuel price would rise $0.423/lt. Now, that sounds like a lot, but in the last year before the OPEC price war and virus, fuel prices have varied between $1.20 and $1.75/lt, and it didn't have much effect at all on consumption. That is, the normal price variation over the course of a year was greater than what a doubling of the fuel excise would achieve - and people still drove a lot.
Now, I don't object to this as such. People should pay for what they use. But if you want to discourage people from driving larger vehicles, or from driving a lot, a simple consumption tax with no accompanying measures doesn't work. Taxes on tobacco worked to reduce consumption because you don't have to smoke. But you do have to have transport, particularly if we've designed cities so that our workplaces are far from our homes - good old residential suburbia full of NIMBYs.
If I've bought a house 30km from work (because that's the only place I can afford to buy) and there's no local public transport to that workplace, well then I'm going to drive whether petrol is $1 a litre or $3. Because spending that money on transport enables me to earn more money than the cost of that transport.
Obviously, if the price of transport exceeded my earnings, I would then stop. If it costs $200 to get to work and I earn $150 at work I'll stay home and not burn fuel. And there's probably some point of cost before my daily earnings of $150 where I'll stop and not bother. However, the basic issue is: I have no alternative.
So if we were to increase the petrol tax (or vehicle registration, or bring in a congestion charge, whatever, same shit, different shovel) then we'd have to use the revenue to offer options. Give me cheaper housing closer to work, and/or improve public transport. It's like with my kids: if I just tell them to eat their dinner, they don't. If I tell them, "dinner, or bed? your choice!" then they scarf it down.
Don't merely tax the thing you want to discourage, offer alternatives you want to encourage. Like the people I train in the gym: I don't just tell them, "don't do that", I add, "do this."
-
We have a 1970 house, with a small 1 car garage addition. Our Toyota Sienna minivan won't fit. Luckily the Nissan Rogue I drive does fit, so I guess I won(inadvertently)
-
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not? What bearing does it have on your life?
I’m legitimately trying to understand why people are so invested in how other people spend money. I understand the environmental thing, but there difference here is negligible. So what is it?
Trucks > minivans > cars in terms of danger to pedestrian and bicyclists. That's more than enough by itself.
As a lifelong truck guy it bugs me how many people here bag on trucks. In fact I just bought a (new to me) 2014 F-150 Supercab with a 6.5" bed 4x4. It allowed be to get rid of both a F350 dually and a Nissan Leaf electric. Yes its big, yes inefficient. But I use it when i do drive (not often), I like it, and there's no way in hell I would drive a minivan. And its not blocking anyones sidewalk. Here in Texas, its the "go-to" vehicle, and it makes alot of sense for my lifestyle. So all you anti truck fascists can kiss my grits! :)
And now that I think about it, I bet 99% of the complainers live in a house thats 10x the size of mine. I built a 200 sq. feet tiny house because that works for me. But I dont run around calling normal house dwellers "anti-social" or rude for choosing a regular size home ((wasteful, inefficient, consumptive)). So quit complaining about people who choose a larger vehicle than you do.
-
I'm genuinely curious--what is your objection to driving a minivan?
-
Yes, I too think we should make cars above 1,5t illegal for non-commercial use.
It'd be more productive to just have fuel efficiency standards. Now, obviously truck companies will complain about this. I say: that's fine, you can choose to categorise your vehicle as a truck. I don't know about the US, but here in Australia you need a separate category of driving licence to drive a truck. The categories in my state are (https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/licences/licence-and-permit-types/licence-categories), excluding motorcycle and marine
Car
Light Rigid (LR)
Medium Rigid (MR)
Heavy Rigid (HR)
Heavy Combination (HC)
Multi Combination (MC)
Currently these have weight and other classifications. I would have different fuel efficiency standards for each, or even better, emissions standards. Anyone producing a vehicle for sale could, if they wished, have that vehicle categorised as a higher level - this would let them have higher emissions, but... drivers would need to go get the license for it. You want to drive what is essentially a truck? Fine! But you have to get a truck licence first. Okay Karen, before you get in your black SUV to take the children to lacrosse and violin practice, you have to go to driving lessons alongside Barry the Truckie. Motor on.
Yep. This is a great idea. Might also get some people who drive large top heavy SUVs like they're small cars to figure out what they're doing wrong too.
No, this is another arbitrary hoop to jump through that will accomplish nothing (edit: other than better driver education, of course). The solution is very straightforward: make drivers bear (and be privy to) the full cost of operating their vehicles and the problem will be solved (as much as any complex problem can be solved). That means no subsidies on fuel, funding all road building and construction with taxes directly on vehicles, an ownership tax that scales with weight/usage not age/value of the vehicle, etc. Commercial use can remain tax deductible to mitigate those cost issues.
It will also have the happy side effect of reducing related problems such as commuter culture and the idiocy of Amazon, et al. that will happily send you a single item with 100 lbs of packaging.
I like your idea too . . . but think that driving a loaded F350 towing stuff is wildly different than driving a Geo metro. Driver's safety is the main reason that a separate license should be required for the vehicle, but that this additional step would likely also discourage (at least some) people who don't really have a need for a heavy truck from buying one.
-
So aside from the minimal increase in gas mileage, why do you care if someone buys a minivan over a truck or not? What bearing does it have on your life?
I’m legitimately trying to understand why people are so invested in how other people spend money. I understand the environmental thing, but there difference here is negligible. So what is it?
Trucks > minivans > cars in terms of danger to pedestrian and bicyclists. That's more than enough by itself.
As a lifelong truck guy it bugs me how many people here bag on trucks. In fact I just bought a (new to me) 2014 F-150 Supercab with a 6.5" bed 4x4. It allowed be to get rid of both a F350 dually and a Nissan Leaf electric. Yes its big, yes inefficient. But I use it when i do drive (not often), I like it, and there's no way in hell I would drive a minivan. And its not blocking anyones sidewalk. Here in Texas, its the "go-to" vehicle, and it makes alot of sense for my lifestyle. So all you anti truck fascists can kiss my grits! :)
I'm genuinely curious--what is your objection to driving a minivan?
Count me curious too. Why not a minivan?
-
In Australia the spending on roads etc jumps around madly year to year. The revenue comes at the state level from vehicle registration fees of around $1,000 (depending) and fuel excise (ie some cost per litre). This (https://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax/) tells us that the road spending is about $69 billion and the revenue $45 billion. Motorists already pay most of the costs of roads. The excise is $0.423/lt on ordinary petrol. Let's say we double it so that the total revenue exceeds the road costs - the fuel price would rise $0.423/lt. Now, that sounds like a lot, but in the last year before the OPEC price war and virus, fuel prices have varied between $1.20 and $1.75/lt, and it didn't have much effect at all on consumption. That is, the normal price variation over the course of a year was greater than what a doubling of the fuel excise would achieve - and people still drove a lot.
Now, I don't object to this as such. People should pay for what they use. But if you want to discourage people from driving larger vehicles, or from driving a lot, a simple consumption tax with no accompanying measures doesn't work. Taxes on tobacco worked to reduce consumption because you don't have to smoke. But you do have to have transport, particularly if we've designed cities so that our workplaces are far from our homes - good old residential suburbia full of NIMBYs.
If I've bought a house 30km from work (because that's the only place I can afford to buy) and there's no local public transport to that workplace, well then I'm going to drive whether petrol is $1 a litre or $3. Because spending that money on transport enables me to earn more money than the cost of that transport.
Obviously, if the price of transport exceeded my earnings, I would then stop. If it costs $200 to get to work and I earn $150 at work I'll stay home and not burn fuel. And there's probably some point of cost before my daily earnings of $150 where I'll stop and not bother. However, the basic issue is: I have no alternative.
So if we were to increase the petrol tax (or vehicle registration, or bring in a congestion charge, whatever, same shit, different shovel) then we'd have to use the revenue to offer options. Give me cheaper housing closer to work, and/or improve public transport. It's like with my kids: if I just tell them to eat their dinner, they don't. If I tell them, "dinner, or bed? your choice!" then they scarf it down.
Don't merely tax the thing you want to discourage, offer alternatives you want to encourage. Like the people I train in the gym: I don't just tell them, "don't do that", I add, "do this."
So, we tax the snot out of gas, private-non-business trucks, other needlessly large vehicles, ...
Use the money to build efficient bus/tram public transportation and walk/bike lanes all over the place.
I can go with that.
-
I'm genuinely curious--what is your objection to driving a minivan?
I've never liked the look or ride of a minivan. They are designed for a family that I don't have. I am a solo, single, person. And lack key features I need, such as 4x4, ability to tow 10,000 pounds. Also, they seem wimpy to me in a way that I cant put my finger on., although I had no issue driving a little Nissan Leaf EV hatchback, but for some reason a minivan is repulsive.
-
So, we tax the snot out of gas, private-non-business trucks, other needlessly large vehicles, ...
Use the money to build efficient bus/tram public transportation and walk/bike lanes all over the place.
I can go with that.
Pretty much, yes.
Though interestingly, recent events might make all this talk redundant. We're learning that a lot of jobs that couldn't possibly be done from home, said the middle managers - well it now turns out they can. Which means less people driving around and less people using public transport. But lots more people walking and cycling for leisure.
Large shopping centres are also becoming less attractive to people, and smaller shops more. So we may see some changes there.
I don't think the changes will be dramatic, people aren't going to send their cars off to scrap just yet. But there'll be less use of them.
-
The other week I was in a car park and there was someone in a fairly new Silverado 2500, and they were having trouble driving around the parking lot due to the size of the thing, and turning was very difficult.
Although here if you're paying about A$140k for a 'super size me' vehicle that's almost 70cm longer than a standard Australian car park (5.4m/18ft), you're probably doing so because you genuinely need that sort of vehicle. Most 'truck' buyers here are buying Rangers and Hiluxes and the like (a loaded one is half the price of a Silverado 2500 or similar), with a few buying 79 series Landcruisers.
It's a bit of a shame that the small trucks like the 80s-90s Japanese ones are no longer a thing. Everything's huge these days.
Speaking of small cars and long distance driving, I've driven 750km in a day in a Peugeot 306 multiple times, and 400km a day in my even smaller Holden Barina. It can be done :)
BTW I rented a Nissan X-Trail (Rogue in North America?) a couple of years ago and found that it was enough of a pain to park in the city. Comfy on the open road though.
-
Win-win if fewer people use cars for commuting. Also frees me to hoon around in my small, compact, <1.5T car when I feel like it.
-
Speaking of small cars and long distance driving, I've driven 750km in a day in a Peugeot 306 multiple times, and 400km a day in my even smaller Holden Barina. It can be done :)
? Did you mean per refuel? Should be getting about 1600km per day on the open road. Maybe 1000km if you've got a big city to slog through.
-
I'm genuinely curious--what is your objection to driving a minivan?
I've never liked the look or ride of a minivan. They are designed for a family that I don't have. I am a solo, single, person. And lack key features I need, such as 4x4, ability to tow 10,000 pounds. Also, they seem wimpy to me in a way that I cant put my finger on., although I had no issue driving a little Nissan Leaf EV hatchback, but for some reason a minivan is repulsive.
The thing that you can't put your finger on is that you've fallen for sexist social conditioning: a truck is for a man and a minivan is for a mom.
If you don't recognise your sexism in choice of vehicle there may be other ways in which you don't recognise your sexism and some self-reflection might be in order.
-
Speaking of small cars and long distance driving, I've driven 750km in a day in a Peugeot 306 multiple times, and 400km a day in my even smaller Holden Barina. It can be done :)
My long distance hauler used to be an very early CRX. 55 HP I think. Drove 10-12 hours with it several times. Perfectly fine for one or two people.
-
Was watching the news yesterday and they were showing the long lines at the food bank. One particular car I noticed was a brand new Chevy Tahoe which costs around $60,000. If you need to go to a food bank if you lose your job you definitely should be driving a cheaper car...
-
Was watching the news yesterday and they were showing the long lines at the food bank. One particular car I noticed was a brand new Chevy Tahoe which costs around $60,000. If you need to go to a food bank if you lose your job you definitely should be driving a cheaper car...
Easy to judge, hard to know what’s really going on. In general I think MOST people drive cars that are far more expensive than what they can reasonably afford, and are designed to handle driving conditions that they rarely if ever encounter. But... free will, market capitalism and all...
-
Speaking of small cars and long distance driving, I've driven 750km in a day in a Peugeot 306 multiple times, and 400km a day in my even smaller Holden Barina. It can be done :)
My long distance hauler used to be an very early CRX. 55 HP I think. Drove 10-12 hours with it several times. Perfectly fine for one or two people.
Not sure I'd call a CRX a hauler. I had an 86. I did carry 3 people on occasion though. Young and stupid ones.
Then it got crushed by an oncoming Bonneville station wagon that decided to turn left in front of me. Fun times. I came out pretty unscathed. Not bad protection for such a tiny car.
-
I was in the military at the time and that car hauled all my wordly possessions a few times - not that I owned that much at the time. ;)
I was pretty mobile back then. It was a tiny highway car though. As I recall the axles of big trucks (tractor trailers) were about head height in the CRX.
-
Article about nothing really, recent trucks/SUVs/CUVs aren't any bigger than in the past, people have been buying full-size trucks and SUVs for decades. Ford's full-size has been the best selling vehicle in America for almost 40 years, with Chevy, GMC, and Dodge not terribly far behind for most of that run. I remember my dad complaining about parking spaces being too small for trucks "these days", and that was 20+ years ago. My 1970's coupe doesn't fit into the garage of my 1960's built house (technically it probably could with 2 inches to spare). They're about 3 decades late with the article.
My 'hood is mostly houses built in the 1920's (detached garages) or 1940's to 1960's (attached 1 car garages).
The vast majority of single car garages would probably fit either of our cars (Matrix, Civic), but I think most would not fit the cars that are around (pickups, minivans, SUVs).
California, nobody parks in there anyway. They've all converted them to living space or use them to store junk. We don't even have a garage, and I think a fair % (10%) of the houses in my 'hood never had them.
The original garage of our 1950s house *just* fits our VW Golf. We put the mirrors in and put padding on the walls for where the door hits. Then we squeeze out. If we carried any extra body fat it would be a definite no.