4 ms·

Government regulation didn't kill the Ford Focus or the Honda Fit. No sales did.

rglullis 2y ago
You can not compare sales of two different classes of vehicles if one of them has subsidies and/or allow for a bigger profit margins. This is basic microeconomics. If the Honda CR-V, the Ford Explorer and every other car of a similar or bigger size had to pay the same tax as smaller ones, they would sell less.
- Amezarak 2y ago
  You could buy a Honda Fit for 17k, the bottom of Honda’s car lineup. Much cheaper than a CRV. If you look at the actual CAFE standards you’ll see this had nothing to do with this particular case anyway, but even if it did, if consumers really wanted small cars the volume of Fit sales would rapidly outpace CRVs and it’d make up for the lower margin. They didn’t though. Because Americans didn’t want them. The emissions regulations people talk about are easy to look up online and there was undoubtedly a real effect on the viability of larger vehicles but it is hugely overstated online. The main reason for huge cars is because they really are much more useful and comfortable for anything except gas mileage and city parking, Americans can afford them, and such models generally have more social clout. The Fit in particular is an amazing car. There’s actually much more room for the driver than in even much larger cars. With the seats down you can fit all kinds of crazy stuff in there - even 8ft lumber. It didn’t die because of government regulation. It died because Americans by and large think it’s a ridiculous car to drive around in, so it didn’t sell. And because despite all those things, a three row SUV or a truck has more general utility.
  - rglullis 2y ago
    > gas mileage and city parking Which are exactly the things heavily subsidized in the US!
    - Amezarak 2y ago
      Does unsubsidized energy exist in the US? Either way, that’s two dimensions out of dozens. I could argue that efficiency has come a long way (my large SUV gets 40mpg) but more than that people really will pay huge amounts in gas to drive these cars regardless. While I was paying a little over a hundred a month for my Fit in gas other people were paying just south of a thousand. They could have easily moved down and chose not to. I guess you could plan to turn up the pain as much as possible for as long as possible but I’m not sure how you can accomplish that in a democracy. City parking is not that big a deal, most people don’t do it most of the time. Obviously people value the dozens of other dimensions they assess cars on much more than these two.
      - rglullis 2y ago
        Sorry, you can not at the same time argue "efficiency has gone a long way" and "other people were paying just south of a thousand". It's one or the other. I'm kind of tired of these discussions. It's completely absurd to associate quality of life, safety and general comfort with the size of the car. If they were not brainwashed by marketing, 99.995% of people that drive a SUV or pick-up truck would find more utility and value in having a Station Wagon, an actual van or a properly-sized commuter car. If you want a simple way to check this, just look at the fact that those that really need trucks are importing it from Japan [0] because the industry is not interested in serving them. The lengths that Americans will try to justify their completely illogical behavior is pathological. They would rather believe in American Exceptionalism than face the truth that they are being played for fools by the Auto industry. It's easier to keep eating up the BS that they "need" a bigger car than to learn the ways that the system is rigged so that you can fight it. [0]: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/04/20/rural-americans-are-importing-tiny-japanese-pickup-trucks https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/04/20/rural-ame...
        Amezarak 2y ago
        > Sorry, you can not at the same time argue "efficiency has gone a long way" and "other people were paying just south of a thousand". It's one or the other. The existence of my three-row four-cylinder hybrid SUV getting 40mpg does not preclude the existence of similarly sized V8s getting 10-15MPG. > It's completely absurd to associate quality of life, safety and general comfort with the size of the car. Why? I love my Fit, but it struggles to go up steep hills with 4 grown men (who in the back fit uncomfortably) in the car. It has a 600lb total human + cargo weight limit. The cargo space is manifestly severely limited with passengers. My children are able to scream directly into my eardrums and kick the back of my seat. I can go on. In comparison, my SUV definitely provides a higher quality of life, is safer in a collision thanks to F=MA, and is generally more comfortable. It can also pull quite a bit of weight in my trailer, which the owner's manual for my model Fit specifically says I must never do. It is much easier for my aging grandmother to get into the SUV and a huge struggle for her to get into the Fit. Avoiding road debris is much more difficult in the Fit, because its low height means that I cannot safely drive over many objects. (Indeed over the past ten years the under-trim has been quite severely damaged by unavoidable collisions with branches, etc.) It also means if I pull too far forward in a parking spot I hit the transmission (ouch) on the parking bumper, and in "rough" parking areas with steep gradients I have to be very careful. > 99.995% of people that drive a SUV or pick-up truck would find more utility and value in having a Station Wagon, an actual van Vans are quite large. I drive one regularly. What's the real difference here other than the shape and sliding doors? Maybe the SUV is higher? Similarly, I don't see much of a difference between an SUV and station wagon. Is it just the height that bothers you? Can you explain what specific utility they are gaining in this situation? I've also noticed that van seats tend to not be as handy as SUV seats for cargo storage unless you totally remove them, but this may vary by model. > a properly-sized commuter car. There are plenty of normal sized sedans on the market right now. > If you want a simple way to check this, just look at the fact that those that really need trucks are importing it from Japan [0] because the industry is not interested in serving them. This is just silly. Is there a kei enthusiast market? Absolutely! But it's a very tiny market (~7500 imported a year), and they're usually not actually replacing a truck: even your own article mentions that the guy is buying it to serve the role of a side-by-side; e.g., to putter around on his farm on. It's replacing a Polaris Ranger, not a Ford Ranger. This is a totally different market than "people who really need trucks", who yes, buy something like an F-2/150. I live in a rural area and a lot of people that work "truck" jobs, hauling huge trailers, filling the bed with tools and supplies, etc...they're not driving keis. > The lengths that Americans will try to justify their completely illogical behavior is pathological. They would rather believe in American Exceptionalism than face the truth that they are being played for fools by the Auto industry. It's easier to keep eating up the BS that they "need" a bigger car than to learn the ways that the system is rigged so that you can fight it. I find it much more productive to assume people I disagree with are operating on different values than I am to assume they're simply illogical and brainwashed. Do I think it's crazy people are spending 60-80k on trucks that aren't exclusively work trucks or for hauling their boat or something? Yeah. But I know they're not, they're just different than me and have their own reasons. I don't feel a need to dictate everyone drive the cars I like.

You can not compare sales of two different classes of vehicles if one of them has subsidies and/or allow for a bigger profit margins. This is basic microeconomics. If the Honda CR-V, the Ford Explorer and every other car of a similar or bigger size had to pay the same tax as smaller ones, they would sell less.

Amezarak 2y ago
You could buy a Honda Fit for 17k, the bottom of Honda’s car lineup. Much cheaper than a CRV. If you look at the actual CAFE standards you’ll see this had nothing to do with this particular case anyway, but even if it did, if consumers really wanted small cars the volume of Fit sales would rapidly outpace CRVs and it’d make up for the lower margin. They didn’t though. Because Americans didn’t want them. The emissions regulations people talk about are easy to look up online and there was undoubtedly a real effect on the viability of larger vehicles but it is hugely overstated online. The main reason for huge cars is because they really are much more useful and comfortable for anything except gas mileage and city parking, Americans can afford them, and such models generally have more social clout. The Fit in particular is an amazing car. There’s actually much more room for the driver than in even much larger cars. With the seats down you can fit all kinds of crazy stuff in there - even 8ft lumber. It didn’t die because of government regulation. It died because Americans by and large think it’s a ridiculous car to drive around in, so it didn’t sell. And because despite all those things, a three row SUV or a truck has more general utility.
- rglullis 2y ago
  > gas mileage and city parking Which are exactly the things heavily subsidized in the US!
  - Amezarak 2y ago
    Does unsubsidized energy exist in the US? Either way, that’s two dimensions out of dozens. I could argue that efficiency has come a long way (my large SUV gets 40mpg) but more than that people really will pay huge amounts in gas to drive these cars regardless. While I was paying a little over a hundred a month for my Fit in gas other people were paying just south of a thousand. They could have easily moved down and chose not to. I guess you could plan to turn up the pain as much as possible for as long as possible but I’m not sure how you can accomplish that in a democracy. City parking is not that big a deal, most people don’t do it most of the time. Obviously people value the dozens of other dimensions they assess cars on much more than these two.
    - rglullis 2y ago
      Sorry, you can not at the same time argue "efficiency has gone a long way" and "other people were paying just south of a thousand". It's one or the other. I'm kind of tired of these discussions. It's completely absurd to associate quality of life, safety and general comfort with the size of the car. If they were not brainwashed by marketing, 99.995% of people that drive a SUV or pick-up truck would find more utility and value in having a Station Wagon, an actual van or a properly-sized commuter car. If you want a simple way to check this, just look at the fact that those that really need trucks are importing it from Japan [0] because the industry is not interested in serving them. The lengths that Americans will try to justify their completely illogical behavior is pathological. They would rather believe in American Exceptionalism than face the truth that they are being played for fools by the Auto industry. It's easier to keep eating up the BS that they "need" a bigger car than to learn the ways that the system is rigged so that you can fight it. [0]: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/04/20/rural-americans-are-importing-tiny-japanese-pickup-trucks https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/04/20/rural-ame...
      - Amezarak 2y ago
        > Sorry, you can not at the same time argue "efficiency has gone a long way" and "other people were paying just south of a thousand". It's one or the other. The existence of my three-row four-cylinder hybrid SUV getting 40mpg does not preclude the existence of similarly sized V8s getting 10-15MPG. > It's completely absurd to associate quality of life, safety and general comfort with the size of the car. Why? I love my Fit, but it struggles to go up steep hills with 4 grown men (who in the back fit uncomfortably) in the car. It has a 600lb total human + cargo weight limit. The cargo space is manifestly severely limited with passengers. My children are able to scream directly into my eardrums and kick the back of my seat. I can go on. In comparison, my SUV definitely provides a higher quality of life, is safer in a collision thanks to F=MA, and is generally more comfortable. It can also pull quite a bit of weight in my trailer, which the owner's manual for my model Fit specifically says I must never do. It is much easier for my aging grandmother to get into the SUV and a huge struggle for her to get into the Fit. Avoiding road debris is much more difficult in the Fit, because its low height means that I cannot safely drive over many objects. (Indeed over the past ten years the under-trim has been quite severely damaged by unavoidable collisions with branches, etc.) It also means if I pull too far forward in a parking spot I hit the transmission (ouch) on the parking bumper, and in "rough" parking areas with steep gradients I have to be very careful. > 99.995% of people that drive a SUV or pick-up truck would find more utility and value in having a Station Wagon, an actual van Vans are quite large. I drive one regularly. What's the real difference here other than the shape and sliding doors? Maybe the SUV is higher? Similarly, I don't see much of a difference between an SUV and station wagon. Is it just the height that bothers you? Can you explain what specific utility they are gaining in this situation? I've also noticed that van seats tend to not be as handy as SUV seats for cargo storage unless you totally remove them, but this may vary by model. > a properly-sized commuter car. There are plenty of normal sized sedans on the market right now. > If you want a simple way to check this, just look at the fact that those that really need trucks are importing it from Japan [0] because the industry is not interested in serving them. This is just silly. Is there a kei enthusiast market? Absolutely! But it's a very tiny market (~7500 imported a year), and they're usually not actually replacing a truck: even your own article mentions that the guy is buying it to serve the role of a side-by-side; e.g., to putter around on his farm on. It's replacing a Polaris Ranger, not a Ford Ranger. This is a totally different market than "people who really need trucks", who yes, buy something like an F-2/150. I live in a rural area and a lot of people that work "truck" jobs, hauling huge trailers, filling the bed with tools and supplies, etc...they're not driving keis. > The lengths that Americans will try to justify their completely illogical behavior is pathological. They would rather believe in American Exceptionalism than face the truth that they are being played for fools by the Auto industry. It's easier to keep eating up the BS that they "need" a bigger car than to learn the ways that the system is rigged so that you can fight it. I find it much more productive to assume people I disagree with are operating on different values than I am to assume they're simply illogical and brainwashed. Do I think it's crazy people are spending 60-80k on trucks that aren't exclusively work trucks or for hauling their boat or something? Yeah. But I know they're not, they're just different than me and have their own reasons. I don't feel a need to dictate everyone drive the cars I like.