When I hear this I’m reminded of surveys asking people how the government should spend its money. A majority will say cut spending, but wouldn’t agree on what to cut spending on.
“I’m ok with spending on defence, social security and education” while another wants spending only on unemployment, health care and policing. That’s the paradox where a supermajority supports cutting spending and “streamlining” government but there isn’t majority support for cutting any one thing.
So it is with cars. You want a “tablet mount and good AC. Maybe power windows and nice speakers”. Some other consumer will say “I can’t get around without GPS so a good maps app on a large screen is non negotiable but get rid of everything else.” And so on. To make a car that appeals to everyone, you have to put most features in. Kinda like an American Congress Omnibus Bill.
Cars aren't like governments, though: the Toyota Corolla doesn't hold a monopoly on anything.
Why don't we have more specialized vehicles catering to small, passionate niches?
A modern Jeep or Land Rover looks just like a modern BMW or Audi SUV. The former brands were made by offering minimal rugged off-roaders, the latter by offering luxury vehicles. Now they've been blended into the same bland category.
What about beach buggies, or even the Yaris/Matrix/Fit class of light get-arounds? Gone.
What about the old nimble 6'-bed Ford Rangers, Chevy S-10s, Toyota Pickups? Gone, replaced with monstrous lifted 4'-bed wannabe minivans.
I understand why we can't have a meaningful choice between different types of government in the same area. But why must it be that way with consumer products?
I really want true compact pickups to make a comeback. Back in high school my girlfriend had a 79 Ford ranger. Put a modern AWD and airbags on that thing and it's my dream car. Great mileage, some towing capacity, and an actually useful bed, without becoming a massive unwieldy thing.
Something that I can use 95% of the time to get groceries and not feel like it's overkill, but toss a couch, dirt bike or beehive in the back when the situation calls for it.
My comment was in response to a person who said “why can’t manufacturers make something that appeals to my specific tastes?”
The answer is, there’s no future in serving tiny niches. Due to economies of scale it makes sense to target larger segments. Kinda like a government trying to please everyone.
I, and I suspect many others, would still pay $40K for a specialty base model which would only cost $30K if it sold in mass-market quantities.
Large companies in oligopolic positions won't try to produce those sorts of products, because it's risky and they have no reason to innovate or seek untapped markets.
It feels like it would be possible if we could incentivize competition and disincentive consolidation, though. Not just in the auto market, either.
Ironically, in part because government. The industry convergence on SUVs, light trucks, and crossovers is no coincidence, this is being driven by a corrupt EPA (regulatory capture) that places more lenient emissions standards on these types of vehicles.
Thank you government, for producing a regulatory agency strong enough to direct the entire automobile industry, but weak enough to be bribed into near-uselessness by corporate interests.
> What about the old nimble 6'-bed Ford Rangers, Chevy S-10s, Toyota Pickups? Gone, replaced with monstrous lifted 4'-bed wannabe minivans.
those vehicles had horrendous safety records, and modern trucks are larger so as to allow for crumple zones. plastic shells, Styrofoam, and other improved materials allow them to be much larger but without being excessively heavier.
agree with your 4' bed and minivan comments, tho
> Why don't we have more specialized vehicles catering to small, passionate niches?
because large scale manufacturing, safety, liability, and hell just the plain ole logistics of getting stuff places means it's not cost effective. One-offs like the Rally Fighter go for 75k-100k and won't have support, warranty, or the build quality of brands like Ford or Toyota.
My guess is that any product/brand that wishes to grow beyond a small niche market has to do so by agglomerating features I.e. trying to swallow multiple niches. The push towards economies of scale (and “growth”) makes it really hard for companies to stick with offerings catering to small niches.
Because cost of entry is proportional to size of market. A narrow niche has a small market by definition, and a car has a large cost of entry, so cars with small niches are rare.
Because of killer bang for buck. Dacias are essentially cheapened versions of Renault models. The cars are reliable enough for first two owners not to be bothered, so resale value does not drop too much. Of course the absolute price point is also relevant.
Sure, but again. People are buying it because Dacias are the cheapest, and there is nothing cheaper besides some Chinese brands, which have questionable quality, and are not available on very market. My dad has Sandero. He bought it because he cannot afford any other new vehicle. If he could, he would have bought Kia X-ceed, or Toyota Yaris X-Cross or something similar.
At least in Italy, nowadays a Sandero starts around 12,500 Euro for the base-base model, it is more likely that actual sold cars are in most cases more around 14,000 Euro.
It remains the cheapest car avaialble, though the 10,000 price point is a thing of the past.
The Fiat Panda nowadays (I know as we needed a small car and asked for one no more than 1 month ago) is realistically around 17,000 Euro, and (as said recent direct experience) they are going to deliver one no earlier than six-seven months (i.e. in practice it doesn't exist).
A Renault Clio is around 18,000 Euro, three, more likely four, months time to deliver.
The whole market is simply crazy in Italy right now, in the end we settled for a (more expensive, but actually also a little bit higher level) Hyundai I20, managed to get one in 10 days time (the only model they had available, with a few largely unneeded by us optionals) for around 23,000 Euro.
All the mentioned models are so-called "mild-hybrids", so - at least in the case of the Hyundai - you have an useless small battery that prevents from having a spare tire/wheel.
As a current-gen Panda owner I can't believe there's so much demand for such a terrible car. The Sendero is vastly superior in nearly every way.
I only own it because it was dirt cheap second hand and was very satisfied with the previous gen model which was an actually good car. This one is not.
Yep, though currently they are not even very cheap used, right now a used Panda year 2021 with low mileage (10-20,000 km) is around 12,000-13,000 Euro.
A 2019 one with relatively low mileage (50,000 to 60,000 km, maybe 70,000 km) is likely to be in the 9,000-10,000 Euro range.
I wouldn't however attribute the scarcity exclusively to high demand, for all we know it could simply be under-production (for whatever technical reason or as part of a plan to sell higher priced models).
>right now a used Panda year 2021 with low mileage (10-20,000 km) is around 12,000-13,000 Euro
Fuck me, 13,000 Euros is what the original owner of my used Panda paid for it back in 2013, while I got it in 2017 for 6000 Euros with full kit and an extra winter tire + wheel set. I'm guessing it was cheap because it hasn't got much demand for it on the used market so users wanting to get rid of it need to lower the price.
People only buy Dacia because they can't afford anything else. If they could you would see the Dacia market share shrink to almost zero.
Some people cope with "Dacia is just a cheap Renault" the same they cope with "Seat (Spanish brand) is just a cheap Volkswagen", but deep down inside them they know they can't buy the car they really wanted.
So? most people would buy expensive bmw’s, Porsches or ferarri’s if they could, but they can’t afford them, so they settle for opel, Renault, Hyundai , Toyota or other more affordable cars. Nothing wrong with that. What is surprising is that are not more brands focussing on the market targeted by Dacia.
I dunno about "most people", but I would in no world buy a BMW, Porsche, or Ferrari.
Not everyone wants a status symbol, and not everyone wants a Go Very Fast Very Loud car. Some people genuinely want a car that's comfortable, reliable, and good for the environment.
Read the comment I'm replying to. People aren't buying Dacia instead of Volkswagen because Dacia is better, people are buying Dacia because most of Europe is poor.
No, not BMW. You’d have to go 5+ years at very least.
My point was that in a lot of places people who can’t afford a new car other than Dacia would still rather buy an older car from a more prestigious brand due to “reasons”.
Wouldn't old BMW kill you on maintenance and other costs of ownership compared to cheaper cars?
For about 15 years I kept having a hyundai of one sort of another while my friend has Audis. Our regular planned maintenance and our repairs were about 500% different. Anecdata n=1 of course.
There is almost no overlap between cars that sell well in Europe and cars that sell well in the US (like this article is about). Two entirely different markets.
“Very popular” probably needs to be quantified. In the US pickup trucks are the best selling car type by far. I even see increasing numbers of them in NYC which is ridiculous.
You see some American pickups, but I wouldn’t call it very popular. They’re also very impractical, hard to park, very uneconomical. Not a very rational purchase.
The only brand popular in both the us and the Netherlands is probably Tesla.
They are very practical. Maybe not if you are living in a city. If you run a company and are depending on carrying goods the f150 for example is a good bang for bucks. Maybe people cant live without. Real workhorses.
Actually, a Windstar/Aerostar/etc with the seats down/removed holds longer material with zero overhang, can hold more material than a pickup bed without the need to cover anything, and can be used to move an 8 man workcrew.
The ford model even has the same engine and transmission as their pickups (last I read).
People skip over the minivan because it's not "cool" or "too soccer mom" but JFC it's the best vehicle I've used.
Hondas and Subarus are not popular in the Netherlands. They exist but are very expensive, even for older models. Go spec a new Honda on their NL site; it’s insane.
Toyota is popular with the Yaris being highly rated and reliable as measured by ANWB (Dutch AAA). Anecdotally I see a lot of Hyundais around where I live; the EV6/Ionic is a popular eclectic model.
Yeah, it probably depends on the country. I see quite a bit of Hondas and Subarus where I am but they don’t seem to be that popular in general.
However the Honda Civic for instance seems to have had reasonably good sales figures in Europe between 2000 and ~2018 so there must still be some around.
Those are not American pickups, except for Ford f150, etc. And you don't see a lot of those in the Netherlands, very impractical.
Regarding overlap of non-pickups, usually the models that are popular in the Netherlands are different from the models in the us. E.g., Toyota Camry is very rare in the Netherlands, same for Honda Accord.
I was thinking more about Ford Escape, Explorer or even Mustang rather than the F150. Indeed I don’t see why anyone would buy a pick up like that in Europe for almost any reason.
I thought we were talking about brands rather than specific models? But yeah the Camry is not that popular in Europe, RAV4 and Corolla are on both continents though.
Luxury/mid-size SUVs seem to be quite popular on both continents.
But yeah, compact cars and hatchbacks are hardly a thing in the US and no sane person in Europe would buy a pickup truck unless they actually needed one for work.
arguably, big trucks in the US are part of that niche; they offer a lot of high-end trims for something that was, a couple generations ago, strictly a work vehicle.
I hear your point, but the given example? GPS? Does anyone prefer an auto manufacturers software GUI over the GUI of their phone? CarPlay and the Android equivalent for the win.
* Location on the map and distance to turns is represented far more accurately
* Knows which way I am pointed and can give accurate directions as soon as I start navigation, while sometimes with my phone I need to move a bit for it to know which way I’m oriented
* Works in tunnels
* Tends to stick to main roads while Apple and Google maps are far too aggressive sending me down side roads or crossing over 2 lanes of traffic.
* Don’t need to pause navigation or mess around with my phone when getting in and out of the car for breaks
* Has detailed information about the services/stores/restaurants available at each rest stop along the highway, and distances to each stop
* Detailed information about lane closures, temporary speed limit reductions due to weather, chain restrictions, etc
* Displays accurate representations of street signs and 3d renderings of off ramps
* Displays landmarks at intersections (e.g. turn right before the ramen shop on the right)
* Shows guidance about which lane to be for two or three upcoming intersections at a time (as opposed to just the next intersection).
* Much more customizable interface. I can choose whether I want it to display gas stations, convenience stores, parking, etc. on the map. How many prompts before a turn. I can enable or disable various features like split-screen turn guidance, etc.
And this is Toyota. Not the prettiest UI in the world but extremely functional. Google Maps is better when searching for businesses and other points of interest, but when it comes to actual navigation I much prefer my car's built-in GPS.
Right. The parent asked “GPS? Does anyone prefer an auto manufacturers software GUI over the GUI of their phone?” To which I responded with the reasons above for preferring my car’s built-in navigation over CarPlay.
I’m not saying that Google/Apple couldn’t build these features. Just that they haven’t.
The step-by-step guiding is top-notch and well integrated in the dash infos, the physical knobs & buttons make it easy to use while driving, it can reroute me according to live traffic infos, and it meshes nicely with the rest of the UI.
I don't really see a reason to use CarPlay/Apple Maps in this case.
Yeah, the satnav built into my Volvo is actually really nice and I trust it more than I trust Google maps. The interface for Google maps is somewhat nicer, but android auto cannot be made full screen in my Volvo while the built in satnav can. And the built in satnav can be displayed on the driver's dash.
The satnav in my Volvo is better than my phone, except maybe on forest roads BUT the interface to enter an address is a God-awful mess of about 8 lines of input done one character at a time through a wheel setup. It takes forever to input an address and if that address isn't in the system for some reason you won't know until you've wasted 2 or 3 minutes trying to input it.
There used to be an app that greatly simplified this process. Of course, it cost $20/month. It isn't supported anymore because a 2017 model was built with only 3G and my car can no longer connect to a network in the US.
Aside from the infotainment system, I love this car and will probably drive it until the wheels fall off. It is a Geeley product, so the wheels will fall off at some point unlike the battle tanks of old.
So my 2020 XC60 has an app, fortunately it isn't anywhere near that expensive - £29 a year. And yeah I just use it to send the destination to the satnav, then it pops up on the screen literally 10 seconds later.
The driving directions on my C-Max (with the much maligned Ford Sync 2 system) are actually really nice to use.
Inputting addresses is a pain, and UI responsivity is terrible (which is part of why people don't like it; it's also not pretty, but like who cares? Does the radio need a lovely background image; flat green is fine), but put in into the show the map on the left and the next three steps on the right, and it's way better than using my phone. It's been a while since I tried it, but Android Auto in a rental was worse than just using the phone, so I've avoided it since.
Also, I'm not willing to pay for maps updates every year, and XM for satellite traffic and compressed to hell music that cuts in and out all the time because I live where trees do.
The kind of places I like to vacation commonly have no cell service. The built in GPS works pretty good without cell service. Google/Apple maps fail in this scenario.
I don't buy that. I live and recreate in an area where cell service is bad to non-existent.
I navigate with Google maps all the time. The key is downloading offline maps. I've got multiple states on my phone and they take up surprisingly little space.
I still like my nav in the vehicle because of the larger screen, but I never use it to navigate.
The way around it is to allow cars to be built the way we build PCs. For electric cars, that kind of modularization should be possible. Naturally, this means some of the more ridiculous requirements like 'automatic breaking' and 'remote turn off switch' need to be removed though.
Better speakers is an easy add on. Power windows are probably uncontroversial. I don’t think there is wide demand for built in gps. I just don’t see the problem you describe. Design a basic dumb car base that can be extended with addons. There may be regulatory and other non-necessary obstacles but the ideal seems widely agreeable.
“I’m ok with spending on defence, social security and education” while another wants spending only on unemployment, health care and policing. That’s the paradox where a supermajority supports cutting spending and “streamlining” government but there isn’t majority support for cutting any one thing.
So it is with cars. You want a “tablet mount and good AC. Maybe power windows and nice speakers”. Some other consumer will say “I can’t get around without GPS so a good maps app on a large screen is non negotiable but get rid of everything else.” And so on. To make a car that appeals to everyone, you have to put most features in. Kinda like an American Congress Omnibus Bill.