
How the Carmakers Trumped Themselves - brian-armstrong
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/06/how-the-carmakers-trumped-themselves/562400/?single_page=true
======
_archon_
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
>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

------
tonyedgecombe
You could solve all these problems by gradually shifting taxes away from
income and towards carbon. The market would respond accordingly.

