3 ms·
This is an interesting problem. I believe that the migration of demand from sedans to mini-SUVs is largely the result of decades of marketing, which itself was
by _archon_ 8y ago
This is an interesting problem. I believe that the migration of demand from sedans to mini-SUVs is largely the result of decades of marketing, which itself was an attempt to increase profit margins by creating a new class of vehicles (SUVs) to escape CAFE regulations. In the late 1990s (when the first SUVs hit the mainstream market), advertisements were screaming from every speaker about SUVs, and the market responded.
The Volvo V70 XC/XC70 is the Volvo V70 with a taller suspension to escape CAFE standards and increase profits. The only difference is height. The V70 had to be special ordered for the US market.
People also like to be able to see from a higher vantage point while driving, another advantage of a taller car. This problem has compounded itself; since more people buy SUVs, you need to be progressively taller to see around them.
When you look at an SUV, especially a mini-SUV like the Honda HRV or the Mazda Cx-5, realize what you're actually seeing is a modern station wagon that's been raised a couple inches. The modern consumer wants a wagon that's tall, because wagons are the ultimate in utility per dollar, and being tall is reassuring.
There are ways to deter such thinking. Imagine a tax on all non-commercial vehicles with hoods more than, say, 3.5' from the ground where they meet the windshield, or taller than 5.5' over the driver seat. If that tax were, say, 10-15% of the cost of the vehicle, the market would eventually adjust to wagons rather than tall wagons. The road would be safer due to better visibility for all, and the air would be cleaner due to better aerodynamics.
P.S. If you'd like an interesting exercise in the power of marketing, go to a dealer and look under the hood of a new full-sized truck. Note how much space there is between the top of the engine and the hood when it's closed. Then imagine the fuel economy gains if the hood was lower, and the visibility gains of both the driver and all the cars around the truck. The tall hood only exists to make the truck look more butch, and makes the truck worse in every way.
- tomatotomato37 8y ago>If you'd like an interesting exercise in the power of marketing, go to a dealer and look under the hood of a new full-sized truck. Note how much space there is between the top of the engine and the hood when it's closed. Then imagine the fuel economy gains if the hood was lower, and the visibility gains of both the driver and all the cars around the truck. The tall hood only exists to make the truck look more butch, and makes the truck worse in every way. That's actually because of the increasing safety standards regarding pedestrian safety more than anything; regulations require a minium amount of space between the hood and the engine to act as a crumble zone. And automakers aren't exactly a fan of this either, it screws with both aerodynamics and aesthetics. Unfortunately safety and eco standards are at odds with each other. You can either have a light, small car that crumples into a pointy tin can, or a reinforced behemoth with more air bags than an air mattress depot that gets 10 mpg. And at least with the former you can also get a fun car to drive, the latter is just an ugly barge with blindspots to match