I think the same model gets larger each generation because of marketing reasons. And since all the manufacturers are doing this, no manufacturer can escape from this. At the top of the line models disappear, at the bottom of the line new models get added.<p>Where it goes wrong is at the bottom of the line. There are now so many safety regulations (I am looking at you, EU), that these cars get heavier and more costly to make. Many manufacturers decide to step out or up their game. 10 years ago, the cheapest model of a manufacturer would maybe be 10 thousand Euro. Now it easily starts at 15 thousand Euro, and it will mostly be a model of some years ago. New models at the low and small end are priced heavier, because of all these safety regulations.
CAFE is not a particularly good law, but the arms race for crash safety is clearly to blame. The majority of difference between a 1990 Golf and a 2022 Golf is in the size and complexity of the body. And if you need a 30% bigger and more expensive frame to keep up your crash safety rating, you may as well add a few inches of passenger room.<p>We also cannot flatly ignore consumer preference. Two door car options used to be incredibly popular. But ask a new car buyer today if they are willing to part with rear passenger doors to save $1500 on their car and they will look at you like you are crazy.
I'd like to commend TFA for being (a) well written (b) full of numerically based explanations of a numerical phenomenon (c) providing plenty of links to dive in a bit deeper (d) properly considering the complexity and broader context of the question in its closing paragraphs. It feels rare to me to read articles that manage to do all four of these, no matter what the topic is.
It seems to me the problem with the footprint model is much the same as the previous model holding "trucks" to a different standard: it's treating size as a good reason for people to buy less efficient cars.<p>Size is occasionally a good reason. Someone who needs to carry 15 passengers needs a van, and someone with a heavy load to haul needs a truck. The trend in the US, however has been for people who only <i>need</i> cars to drive trucks and large SUVs.<p>Outright telling people what to drive seems like government overreach to me, but there may be another way: adjust the standards so that large vehicles don't get special treatment. Selling too many large vehicles would then hurt a car manufacturer's average and they would be incentivized to stop making such vehicles as appealing for everyday use, e.g. by removing luxury options.
Yes. The EURO emissions regulations will make it essentially impossible to sell a new, purely ICE-powered car in the near future (in Europe). Every new car will be a bloated hybrid, designed entirely to scrape through the emissions and efficiency requirements.
The article has a pretty interesting argument and seems logical. If a vehicle has some minimum set of vertexes and safety equipment that are held constant despite size, then faced with higher fuel economy standards the automaker can choose between lengthening edges (cheap and certain) or changing engine technology (expensive and risky).<p>"Generally, the larger the vehicle footprint, the lower the corresponding vehicle fuel economy target. Footprint-based standards help to distribute the burden of compliance across all vehicles and all manufacturers. Manufacturers are not compelled to build vehicles of any particular size or type (nor does the proposed rule create an incentive to do so), and each manufacturer will have its own fleet-wide production-weighted standard that reflects the vehicles it chooses to produce." [0]<p>"CAFE standards signaled the end of the traditional long station wagon, but Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca developed the idea of marketing the minivan as a station wagon alternative, while certifying it in the separate truck category to allow compliance with less-strict CAFE standards."<p>0. <a href="https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-25_CAFE_NPRM_Factsheet.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-2...</a><p>1. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#SUVs_and_Minivans_created_due_to_original_mandate" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy...</a>
The whole notion of fuel economy regulations is so stupid. If we want people to burn less fuel then just increase the tax on fuel and let the market sort it out. Which is worse, a Chevrolet Tahoe driven 3K miles per year or a Toyota Prius driven 25K miles per year?
There is nothing you can change in the CAFE regs that will be as simple, easy, and effective as a $5/gallon fuel tax.<p>By the way, one car that the article doesn't mention, which bucks all these trends, is the Mazda MX-5 Miata. The 2022 model is very similar in every dimension to the 1990 model, and uses 25% less fuel despite having 50% more power. The later model weighs only 10% more even though it meets 30 more years worth of crash standards.
Although crossovers are mentioned what’s not called out is the platform sharing between crossovers and sedans. The platform will be built for the high volume crossover and the sedan adapted to it.<p>I also don’t understand how the crosstrek gets to be a light truck since it doesn’t meet the first requirements of open bed/3 rows/10 pass. Maybe in this sentence the author meant “may instead” instead of “must also”?<p>> Perhaps most crucially, however, light trucks must also meet a set of measured requirements that deem them capable of "off-highway operation."<p>Finally, I’d really like a full-size sedan but there’s a lack of options in the market right now. This used to be something that dominated sales. The Civic is “growing” but it is still 20 inches shorter than an 80s Olds 88? Even the extra long Audi a8 is five inches shorter. Stretching a car in the middle should do little to harm the fuel economy, all the heavy parts are already dealt with, but it appears that available car lengths are being squeezed at both ends. The subcompacts are vanishing but so are the full size models.
I feel this is completely and ignorantly misstating reality.<p>Yes, e.g. Golf has grown over last few decades. I assume this is so each and every year they can say in marketing materials that it's a bit bigger and better, or that it's biggest and best in its category, however that category is conveniently defined.<p>But now there are two more cars underneath it in vw range - Lupo and Polo!<p>Same for any other car mentioned - sure Honda Civic is bigger. But Honda fit now occupies it's previous spot. And so on for all manufacturers - any given name plate gets bigger and better but something slots underneath. Tuscon is what Santa fe was 20 years ago. Etc etc.<p>I find the premise deeply flawed and whole content of article a sloppy p0st hoc rationalization based on flawed premise.
The fix is easy but politically difficult, remove the distinction for light trucks or at least severely increase the standard for them, then the benefit for crossovers will disappear.<p>The industry responded to regulations and they can respond again.