And the laws are such that you can't even import the nice small cars they have in Europe.

My options for a small electric car in the US are the Chevy Volt (retiring at the end of this year) and the Nissan leaf (retiring at the end of next year?). I guess there's also the mini Cooper, but it's electric version only comes in a 2 door model that is impractical if you have children.

The Chevy Bolt is smaller than the volt, and it is no longer discontinued.

And none of those small EVs are all-wheel drive, which I consider a basic requirement for any new car because I live in Colorado. Sure, I /can/ (and already do) drive a car without AWD, but if I'm buying a new car it's a hard requirement. There's no real technical reason why AWD can't be put into these smaller vehicles, it's a market-segmentation choice where anyone that wants AWD is forced to a crossover.

Did Subaru and Hyundai get rid of their AWD cars? I thought the impresario, legacy, and elantras had AWD models recently. The Taurus did too, but that was a few years ago (not sure if they even make it now).

Edit: sorry, I missed the small and EV part.

Inded Subaru is still AWD in all the ICE product line. However, Subaru only has the SUV EV ported over from Toyota (it reviews poorly). It's sole hybrid is in the Crosstrek which essentially only exists on paper. Subaru is losing the EV/hybrid/PHEV game. It's very sad to see (as a huge Subaru fan).

Their problem is their main partner is Toyota, and Toyota basically has the stance that they want to do hybrid to maximize the benefits of a constrained lithium supply (ie better to have more hybrids on the road than a smaller number of EVs). Subaru is too small to create EVs on their own at an economically competitive scale. Until Toyota has EVs in large numbers or Subaru finds a new partner, Subaru will not have access.

Subaru doesn't offer an EV. Hyundai doesn't offer an EV version of any of its AWD vehicles, other than crossovers. There are /many/ options for AWD vehicles without it being a crossover, but none of them are EVs. The only intersection point, with the exception of Tesla, where you get both is on crossovers.

I missed the small EV part.

"There are /many/ options for AWD vehicles without it being a crossover, but none of them are EVs."

There are optional for AWD EVs that are sedans (not sub compact though, but also not crossovers). Stuff like Benz EQE, EQS, etc. Audi makes some too.

I hope to remain out of the market for cars for many years, but find it interesting that AWD is appearing in many hybrids now, where the main hybrid drive is the front wheels but the rears get an additional motor for on-demand AWD.

I used to be an Audi fanboy for the real mechanical quattro AWD system of my late '90s sedan. Front, rear, and center differentials, always connected. But now, for fleet efficiency, basically everyone is going to some kind of clutch-based, disconnecting AWD on demand. So at this point, I feel like these hybrid/EV style drive axles are no different and quite likely to improve costs and reliability, since drive electronics should outlast clutch packs.

AWD only helps with acceleration (and acceleration if you need to get out of a ditch). It slightly hampers most driver's ability to control the car around a slick curve. It's a nice perk, but why is it a hard requirement for you?

But those cars are so unsafe so we can't have them here. Now get on your motorcycle and lane split through traffic to work.

So, why are those cars unsafe? As far as I can tell, it's only because other people drive monster cars which is the whole point of this thread. If most people were in smaller cars, then smaller cars wouldn't be unsafe.

The low mass of the frame means the restraint system puts more force on you during a collision.

Motorcycles don’t have that problem. Neither did cars back before seatbelts; a bit of shattered pre-safety glass old school windshield never hurt anyone.

Lane splitting through stopped traffic is safer for everyone

That's been my frustration as well. I live in city and only drive on weekends, so I'd absolutely love a little 4 door AWD electric hatchback, but the US car market pushes people like me into hybrid crossovers like RAV4 and the CRV.

In europe we regard the cars you mention as quite large already.

Nobody in Europe thinks any of my sports cars are large. I've driven them in Europe and they are roughly similar in size to most European cars. Some of them are even from European companies.

I really hate manufactures try to shove "small" cars down our European throats. Yes lots of people live in cities with medieval road architecture, but most of those people don't drive in the first place.

I'd wager around 70% of Europeans live in the surrounds of a big city and countryside so bigger cars would definitely sell. They started selling the Raptor here and it sells pretty good. Not sure who came up with the idea that European car needs = small econobox.

In fact there is a new chinese make that only sell SUVs and they are the #1 most sold here in Spain.

My daily vehicle is one of the only "city car" options ever sold in the US, it was originally made for the European market, and I love it. Most of my sports cars are only larger in length than the typical Euro econobox, but aren't considered particularly large. I see plenty of VW, Skoda, BMW, Mercedes, Renault, etc hatchbacks and sedans in Europe and have driven a few myself. I don't think "city car" has to be the only option in Europe, and I don't really see any evidence that there's an attempt to make it so. In some parts of Europe the fastest selling car is the Tesla Model 3. None of these are large vehicles by European standards, and definitely not by US standards.

The same guy who came up with road safety I presume.

I wish they would stop with the trade protection bullshit, and just allow people to import European cars to the US, and vice versa.

I don't know - when I was in Europe this summer there were noticeable larger cars.

As we consider them even larger. There are many smaller than Leaf, like E-corsa, and even more non-electric cars

Pedantic point: In many cases I believe you can import them, it's just expensive and annoying to jump through the hoops. Manufacturers could even sell them, they'd just have to pay a fine/fee/whatever.

As a fan of light compact trucks, the kind they don't sell here in the U.S. anymore, my understanding is that a badly-written function in the CAFE standard calculations is one of the primary reasons I can't buy a truck that's smaller than my bedroom. The function calculates acceptable mileage based on vehicle footprint, and was nominally intended to encourage better fuel efficiency, but had the perverse effect of making trucks larger. Even then, it's legal to sell smaller trucks, but manufacturers have to pay a fine that apparently ruins the profit margin for them. And then there's the infamous chicken tax, and so on.

It's not just inconvenient, it's inconvenient enough to almost say you can't do it. I believe there is a firm lockout period of 2 years (so no 'new' cars can be imported). And then if it is not already licensed with various agencies you have to do that yourself, per-car, at a cost of (I heard) $7-15k. Not to mention the shipping, customs, etc.

Take a look at:

Hyundai Kona EV

Kia Niro EV

These two have been around for a few years and are on the second gen. You can get a low mileage first gen for under $25k, which means you may get an additional $4k federal tax credit. One issue to watch out for is the cover for the gear reduction unit should be replaced with a magnetic one and cleaned periodically, to avoid motor damage.

Volvo EX30 - out next year, going to be under $35k

There's also the generation of used compliance EVs like the VW eGolf and Hyundai Ioniq hatch.

All are sold as SUVs but they're hatchbacks with some SUV like styling.

if you meant the Chevy Bolt EV/EUV (the Volt hybrid has been axed for a while), GM has committed to bringing it back on a new platform.

What's interesting to me is that in my experience most car enthusiasts feel the same way.

Even though I have very little interest in car culture, I'm a big fan of the Smoking Tire Podcast, and the host -- who has his own Porches, Lamborghinis, etc. -- has said multiple times that he thinks most people who drive trucks would be better off in a station wagon, and most people who drive SUVs would be better off in a sedan. (His daily driver around LA is a scooter.)

Obviously there are exceptions, but it makes sense to commute in a commuter car.

I agree and I think I'm in the minority of people who are better off in a large SUV.

We have 7 in our family so need a minivan at the least. I don't think they make station wagons with 7 seats anymore. We live in a climate with long winters so we need at least one AWD/4WD vehicle so at least some of us can get out. And we tow a trailer so need the capacity. Having one vehicle that does it all is more cost-effective for us.

At this moment though, we have a 12 passenger commuter van that is horrible in the snow and can barely pull the trailer, and a compact hatchback as our all-weather vehicle. That means we can't all go somewhere in inclement weather so we're in the market for the aformentioned SUV.

Sounds like you are actually an exception that proves the rule. Unfortunately the average buyer of a crossover/SUV has at most 4 passengers in the vehicle, and most vehicle-miles driven are single-occupant. Both uses which are better served by other vehicle types that have less negative externalities.

I don't think SUVs should cease to exist, but we should stop subsidizing them with broken CAFE rules that incentivize manufacturers to make SUVs/trucks/crossovers to the exception of cars, and price them accordingly. Most Americans don't have 7 people in their family, so the most common vehicle on the road shouldn't be designed to accommodate an exceptional circumstance at many other costs to society.

Guy with Lambo telling normies what they need. Sounds like yet another out-of-touch rich __ telling people how they should live their lives while living large himself.

I recently replaced my aging Prius with a Rav4, and the versatility improvement is so dramatic. We went from renting/borrowing trucks and vans about every month to not needing one yet. The extra few inches in every direction multiplies together to be rather significant. Plus, it has a roof rack.

I'll hang onto my sports cars, but my daily driver is forever going to be a crossover. This thing beats every hatchback, liftback, sedan, and wagon I've ever owned in every utility metric.

Small crossovers (CUVs) like the RAV4 are literally hatchbacks that are lifted. How does this beat a hatchback in any way? An equivalent volume hatchback has all of the exact same utility, and has better driving dynamics and is safer due to a lower center of gravity.

The main reason people like driving crossovers is that it raises their seating and viewing height relative to other vehicles on the road because we're in one of the dumbest arms races ever with vehicle height, where anybody who buys a sensible car loses.

I drive a crossover myself, but if you do the math, driving a cheap sedan and renting a truck when you need it is often WAY cheaper.

I remember when a neighbor bought a new washer/dryer and gave their old set away to whoever would haul it away. A couple came to get it in one of those huge late-model bro-dozer pickups. This was a ~$60K vehicle. All I could think is that there's NO WAY that couple was ever going to score enough free stuff to make up what they spent on that vehicle.

An honest question from someone without a car or a driving license: why exactly were you renting/borrowing SUVs or trucks? Where does the need come from?

Home Depot will rent you a Ford 250 for an 75 minutes for $19. I've done this a few times and it's a great option for the once or twice a year you actually need to haul something heavy.

https://www.homedepot.com/p/rental/load-n-go-truck-rental/31...

better yet, the minivan! I bought one, very reluctantly, when we were exepecting our third child. I really tried to get something else but the soccer-mom Honda was the most comfortable and performant. Now my kids are starting to drive and I get the van all to myself - it's awesome! going biking? just put it inside and don't worry about highway, weather or security for an after ride beer. Need building supplies? go camping? hauling the family on a long road trip. And I'm now into essentially "free miles" with the age and still awesome condition. My biggest fear is any accident will have the insurance company write it off and I'll get nothing towards the current generation of sub-optimal, over-priced vehicles.

My sister hit driving age when I was a senior in college. My parents took my car away from me to give to her, and so for about two months I drove my mother's old minivan.

It didn't exactly wow anyone with how cool it was, but on move-in day I had a lot more friends than I remembered from the year before (we had taken the rear bench seat out and left it at home, so I had tons of cargo space).

>Sounds like yet another out-of-touch rich __ telling people how they should live their lives while living large himself.

That's all the internet is now.

I don't know why you're aggressively attacking this guy, it sounds like agree with most of what he says.

The Rav4 is basically the kind of car most people should get instead of a lot of what's popular today. The Rav4 is a hatchback on tall suspension. What car enthusiasts want is the hatchback without the lift because tall cars don't handle as well and to top it off, are usally less efficient.

Road wear is a cubic function of weight and our roads, I think it's reasonable to ask why cars have gotten so big and who's going to pay for the increase in damage done to our roads?

People often complain about crossovers being heavy. But I have a Rav4 and it's curb weight is 3615lbs. The curb weight on my Mustang is 3618 and my Supra is 3345.

So, somehow, the largest, newest vehicle in my fleet weighs the same as my 10 year old sub-compact 2+2 and barely more than a two-seater that's a foot shorter in length and like 2 feet shorter in height. And a modern Mustang is like 500-900lbs heavier than mine.

Crossovers aren't the cause of fat cars. Mustang isn't unusual in the fact that it's a heavy coupe, there are lots of examples of coupes that are somehow much heavier than crossovers. For example, a new Forester is 3528lbs but a C8 Corvette is 3647.

I had a late 1990s Audi wagon (A4) and eventually replaced it with the most comparable late 2010s Audi, which was a small crossover (Q3). Ignoring performance specs, my wagon could have compared to a late 1970s Volvo wagon I used to see all over California. The internet tells me the curb weight of the Audi wagon was 3350 lbs, the crossover is 3690 lbs, and the old Volvo would be around 2760 lbs.

When the crossover was in the shop, I was given a Mustang rental because the shop was out of normal loaner cars. I had no real experience with them, and was shocked that the Mustang felt larger and much harder to park than my crossover despite the compromised interior. So it is interesting to me that you quote such a high curb weight too.

I don't quite understand it. The "density" of cars seems to vary and yet they all have similar mass. It really does make me wonder how much it is engineering necessity versus some kind of weird regulatory mess where the engineers are targeting certain weight classes in spite of very different packaging.

As someone who owned a Mustang GT for a few years when I was younger, they weigh a lot because they have large V8s and beefy components to handle the power. They're also annoying to park because they have a much longer hood than most cars, also to fit a big V8.

The mustang is an SUV. Look at th size of its wheels.

Size of the wheels don’t make an SUV. In fact, wheel sizes have been constantly increasing, no matter the car. My Mazda3 has far bigger tires than the Camry from 15 years prior. It’s also detrimental to fuel economy.

> Size of the wheels don’t make an SUV

I was half joking because there is no clear definition of what it is.

The name do not translate, most SUV aren't sporty nor utilitary. At least they are vehicles.

Wheel size? you said it, all are growing bigger and bigger yeat after year regardless of category.

off-road capability? nope

ground clearance? nope, a tesla model Y or that new Kia sit closer to the ground than many non SUV.

hatchback shape? nope, there are now SUV coupe, concertibles, and some will rank pickup trucks in the SUV category.

how high are the driver/passenger seated? nope again, some vans are higher.

I think what now caracterize a SUV isn't even a combination of these variables but more a tag from the brands marketing team and a general perception based on the car looking vaguely more boxy and bulbeous than other models of the same brand.

Yeah I understand that sentiment. I use the “on stilts” metaphor - a sedan or a hatchback on stilts is an SUV to me. A van is a van, those rarely go on stilts. We also have a new segment called “crossover”, which is an SUV without the S.

There’s no coherent formula for what an SUV/crossover is, but ride height is my rule of thumb. But then I ask myself “where does the Jeep Wrangler fit in?” - afaic, it’s an SUV.

The Mach-E crossover weighs a thousand pounds more, OP is talking about the ol' gas powered coupe

I was also talking about the gas coupe. Take a minute and look at it with european eyes:

- it has comparably as large wheels as most euro SUVs

- it looks bulky and square

- it sits comparatively as high from the ground than most euros SUV.

- it is bigger and probably heavier than most euros SUV. [1]

And many manufacturers have introduced the concept of SUV coupe like Mercedes or BMW.

Given these caracteristics, it could just be called an SUV in the euro market. The only reason it is not is because it was introduced to play on the nostalgy of a pony car of the 60's.

[1] I think what of the most sold car in the SUV category in europe is the Peugeot 2008 which is just a bulkier shaped 208 with larger wheels. The 208 is considered a small/compact car. The 2008 is barely bigger and a mustang dwarfs it.

There is nowhere on earth that this mustang could be called an SUV

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_(seventh_generati...

Only because of perceptions, not because of actual facts/specs.

My point here is not to debate if the Mustang is a SUV, I don't personnally consider it one. My point here is to show that there is no clear/undisputable definition of what a SUV is appart from manufacturers labelling it as one and vague perception by the public.

Because for each definition you can give you will find an example of a car labeled SUV not adhering strictly to this definition and counter examples of cars not labeled SUV adhering at least partially to some of the definition.

That the edges are blurry doesn't mean there's no definite thing.

For that edge we have the term "crossover" (for example, the Ford Edge)

Sports cars in the category of coupe explicitly lack the "U" in "SUV" - that this is referred to as vague or debatable in this thread is a bit maddening, so I will just end with, lol.

Cars are getting uniformly heavier for safety crash testing regulations. Larger crumple zones, reinforced side impact bars, etc.

And they are getting more aerodynamic for the gas mileage requirements regulations….

What every country should do, but none of them do, is tax based on the emissions. More polluting = more tax.

My pet peeve is limit speed by vehicle weight, equal impact for all drivers. Want to drive fast? You're welcome to crash into me with your 500kgs. Want to drive a 3000kg vehicle? Limit to 70kmh, even on the highway.

I am not an entusiast, the only thing I care about is my kids safety, hence a large SUV. When you will somehow remove drunks and low-IQ maniacs from roads, you can come and ask me to buy a smaller vehicle. Until then, please say for yourself and don’t attack my rights to safer roads

Large SUV's are actively make the roads less safe overall though. It's a tough collective action problem.

It probably makes sense to at least remove the implicit subsidies of them though, if not something like the article suggests.

And then when all the drunks and low-IQ maniacs finally buy a new car and it's as big as yours you can easily upgrade to a tank.

Prisoner's dilemma, got it. Thanks.

It's only an iterated prisoner's dilemma because of vehicle height and difficulty in seeing farther down the road due to all the large vehicles. But in every other aspect, the data shows nearly the opposite that this person is stating. If they actually cared about safety they'd buy a sedan.

> I am not an entusiast, the only thing I care about is my kids safety, hence a large SUV. When you will somehow remove drunks and low-IQ maniacs from roads, you can come and ask me to buy a smaller vehicle. Until then, please say for yourself and don’t attack my rights to safer roads

I feel like this has to be Poe's Law in action.

Larger vehicles are actually not safer, either for the occupants or for others on the road, counter-intuitively they are less safe. So, in actuality you've just outed yourself as a selfish a-hole who chooses the most anti-social option possible without actually looking at any of the data to make an informed decision. If you actually cared about your family the about the safest vehicle you can buy is a sedan, and you'd invest the money saved in keeping good quality tires on the car, keeping up with maintenance, and taking a performance driving class.

The existence of your unnecessary behemoth lumbering down the road is an attack on my right to a safer road, as well my right to live on an Earth that doesn't require me to live in a hermetically sealed bubble with filtered water and air to get away from the excessive pollution caused by your behemoth (not the least of which is the microplastics it spews everywhere).

I absolutely did look at the data and you could, as well. The issue with NCAP and similar ratings is that their only method is to collide a vehicle with infinitely massive and rigid structure. In reality, it’s more nuanced. While a semi might not look good in the NCAP chart, it’s basically invincible in the case of actual crash involving other vehicles smaller than itself. If you’re careful enough to not go off the road or hit concrete barriers, the larger vehicle will provide more safety to the occupants.

https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/driver-death-rates-remain-h...

Your “right to safer roads” is unwittingly causing unsafer roads.