6 ms·

On the topic of large cars, what is the solution here? I can imagine forcing people to replace A/C units won’t be so objectionable, especially if it’s free to

• johnmsd 8y ago
  Dodge is making strides towards that, releasing a mild-hybrid version of the ram for 2019 https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-ram-hybrid-could-hit-a-decent-22-mpg-combined-1822086050 https://jalopnik.com/the-2019-ram-hybrid-could-hit-a-decent-...
• ams6110 8y ago
  The way Europe deals with cars is they tax the bejezus out of them, and gasoline also. In some countries, half the price of a new car is tax. That is why people drive little toy cars there. Everyone would like a nice big comfortable car but they are unaffordable for most.
  • ancarda 8y ago
    Oh yeah! It’s crazy expensive :( What I’m trying to grapple with is this desire of mine while trying to be aware of my environmental impact. If there’s no way to have my cake and eat it too, I won’t get one.
    • justinator 8y ago
      Where is this desire rooted in?
      • ancarda 8y ago
        All I can really say is I want one because from the moment I saw one on the road, I just knew I had to drive it. I really love the appearance. I've never been interested in cars, but I can't help myself looking at pickups on the road driving by -- especially RAMs. Maybe I'm just a big kid, I've always liked big stuff. Still... I know they aren't good for the environment, which means I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I just drove one without greatly reducing or eliminating it's impact.
        • lostcolony 8y ago
          Rent one every few months, drive it for the weekend. Cheaper on every front, scratches that itch, and minimal effect on the environment. I do that with my wife for convertibles. She loves them, so any time we're on vacation and need a car I try to get one. It's just a couple hundred more for a week's vacation, at the time we'd get the most enjoyment out of it.
          • ancarda 8y ago
            I never thought of doing that, thank you!
            • kaybe 8y ago
              You can also check whether your area has carsharing. I have access to lots of standard cars of different sizes (some hybrids too), a convertible, an upper-standard BMW and a couple of vans all within walking distance.
        • msisk6 8y ago
          If you're ever in the Austin Texas area look me up and you can drive my Ram 2500 diesel around. It's a highly over-rated experience, IMHO.
          • ancarda 8y ago
            I might have to take you up on that offer. It's been too long since I visited Texas.
    • ams6110 8y ago
      Well there's this.... https://workhorse.com/pickup/ https://workhorse.com/pickup/ But I think it's either still in the concept stage, or maybe in fleet trials. Don't think an ordinary consumer can get one.
  • kaybe 8y ago
    Well that and then, in some places, you can literally get stuck between houses with the larger ones.
  • megaremote 8y ago
    Do they tax the bejezus out of them, or do they just not subsidise them as much. The amount governments around the world subsidise cars is ridiculous.
• pjc50 8y ago
  Physics dictates that the larger, heavier car will consume more energy to move, even if it happens to be electric.
• merpnderp 8y ago
  The move is towards nearly as powerful, smaller, turbocharged engines that are getting close to 30mpg. Not bad for a 5,500 lb vehicle.
  • nradov 8y ago
    Those smaller, turbocharged engines are designed to game the fuel efficiency tests. Real world experience has shown that they often burn more fuel than larger naturally-aspirated engines of equal power. They are also likely to break sooner due to higher complexity and tighter tolerances, which isn't good from a total life carbon emissions standpoint.
    • gambiting 8y ago
      I own two <1 year old VW Polos - one with a 1.2L TSI(small turbo) "Bluemotion" engine, another with a 1.0L MPI(naturally aspirated) engine. The 1.2TSI is much more efficient on paper, but guess which one gets far better milage in real life? Bingo - the 1.0L MPI unit. I frequently get >50mpg on longer journeys in that car, while the 1.2TSI is more like 35-40mpg.
      • st26 8y ago
        The 1.2TSI is presumably designed to replace a naturally aspirated 1.6L or 2.0L, not to compete with the 1.0L.
        • gambiting 8y ago
          Sure - but on paper it's better in every regard than the 1.0L, better mileage, better CO2 emissions, and it's the one that gets the "Bluemotion" badge which traditionally was only given to particularly efficient vehicles. Yet the smaller 3 cylinder engine is the one that is far more efficient here.
• serpix 8y ago
  get a van instead if you need to move things. Those pickups are ridiculous in their energy consumption and waste of resources.
  • dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    Minivans have terrible cargo capacity in terms of weight and the cargo area is really easy to get dirty and hard to clean (does anyone even offer a vinyl carpet option?). If someone still made a RWD van with an interior actually meant to haul cargo and barn doors (because it's hard to use a forklift to load things if you've got a hatch) I'd be in the market. The Aerostar and Astro used to fill this niche but they're long gone. The Transit Connect and HHR are a little on the small side.
• war1025 8y ago
  FYI, RAM got spun out of Dodge a few years ago. So now all the trucks are made by RAM, rather than Ram being the model name.
• davidwparker 8y ago
  "I can imagine forcing people to replace A/C units won’t be so objectionable..." > I'd say quite the opposite. We paid 3.5k to have A/C changed in our house this year. Many people don't have that kind of money. "...especially if it’s free to do so" > would be the only way IMO.
• mac01021 8y ago
  Why isn't a fee&dividend widely accepted as the solution here? I don't mind if you buy and drive a dodge ram or a Sherman tank, as long as you reimburse me for the harm it does to me and my child.
  • ancarda 8y ago
    How would you like me to reimburse you? I'm being serious -- I would be willing to do something to reduce or eliminate my environmental impact. Would carbon offsetting be enough, or is there something else I can do?
    • mac01021 8y ago
      Carbon offsets are tricky. In the current world, that's probably the best you can do, but it's hard to be sure that you're genuinely displacing as much carbon as you want to be. And it certainly won't work for everyone in the world to burn lots of fuel and then make up for it buying offsets. Anyway, I'm talking about legislative action, rather than individual action - [Note: I'm assuming (perhaps erroneously) that you're in the USA. If you're not, please pretend for a few minutes that you are.] What I (and many others) want is, in effect, for it to be mandatory that everyone reimburse everyone else for the harmful effects of their carbon emissions, and for the IRS to mediate all of this. If the policy is implemented intelligently then you as an individual, don't need to do anything, but as a consumer of goods and services will pay increased prices (the price difference being the amount that you owe society for the harm that your carbon footprint is imposing). Adapted from [1]: - A fee is levied on fuels at their point of origin into the economy, such as the well, mine, or port of entry. The fee is based upon the carbon content of a given fuel, with a commonly-proposed starting point being $10–$16 per ton of carbon that would be emitted once the fuel is burned. - A border tax adjustment is levied on imports from nations that lack their own equivalent fee on carbon, increasing the cost of the goods by an amount corresponding to the (estimated)carbon emitted in their manufacture. This ensures that American manufacturers remain competitive in spite of their increased energy costs, and incentivizes nations who want to sell goods into the USA to put a price on carbon as well. - The fees collected each month are returned to households as an energy dividend (eg every resident over 18 years of age gets an equal share). Returning 100% of net fees results in a revenue-neutral carbon fee-and- dividend system. Advocates of this policy tend focus entirely on the teleology of it - the incentive it provides for people and businesses to emit less. The arguments I hear in support of the carbon-neutral aspect of the policy mainly point out that this allows us to tax carbon without upsetting fiscal conservatives who don't want to increase the size of the federal government. But I think they're all ignoring a more important point. It doesn't need to be about changing people's behavior. To me, it's more about justice. I'm not about to tell wealthy businessmen that they can't fly across the country on a private jet every single week. But if their travels are 10% of the reason that my daughter has to live in a world where food is 10x more expensive because the oceans are dead and agricultural yields have been decimated, shouldn't they have to compensate her? It seems to me that, as long as the size of the fee is set properly, a policy like the one described above would be the fairest and most direct way to achieve that. BTW, an organization un the USA whose sole mission is to lobby for a policy like this is the "Citizen's Climate Lobby" (CCL)[2]. To me, it seems so sensible that I can't understand why it isn't more widely discussed. It could turn out, I suppose, that implementation of the policy is difficult or impractical, but the discussion never even gets that far. Even the CCL's legislative proposal is, in my opinion, woefully lacking in implementation details. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend [2] https://citizensclimatelobby.org/ https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
• stephengillie 8y ago
  Hybrid cars are a great answer - you can get a 3500lb car (like the Camry Hybrid) that gets 40 MPG highway, and often 50 MPG in city/country driving. This is because the car usually shuts the engine off below ~46 MPH. Until you've driven a hybrid, you won't realize how often the engine isn't needed, and just 40 horsepower is enough to propel the car. Often, the engine will run for just a few seconds as you accelerate, then will turn off for the next several minutes, as you coast or maintain speed to the next stop light on battery alone. Another benefit of hybridization is that AC and other power-hungry accessories can be powered during heavy acceleration without putting any more strain on the engine. It's fun to go for a drive during a hot day, use AC the entire time, and still get (for example) 42.3 MPG. Plus, you get the instant torque of an electric car. Maybe not quite as much as a Tesla, but you'll still beat an F-150 off the line.
• almost_usual 8y ago
  As long as the truck isn’t your daily driver I don’t think it’s a big deal.
• martythemaniak 8y ago
  Of all the major issues, this one is the simplest - EVs. In fact, the best EVs in the world are made right in California. It helps that EVs aren't just better for the environment, but better cars overall. Of large cars, Tesla makes a 7 seat SUV and will make a giant truck in about 2 years. Other manufacturers will follow them 2-3 years after that.
• st26 8y ago
  What do you like about large cars? The ability to haul cargo? The style? Are you problematically tall?