if that were the case it would be a purely US phenomenon. Whereas increasing car size is global (relative to the initial size in each region of course)

I personally find it sad to say but the US has a strong cultural dominance especially in the western world but also beyond that. From car sizes to architecture styles.

Which is a tragedy, it's the reason why city cars like Puegeot 107/Citroen C1/Toyota Aygo (basically the same car, different brands) are not produced anymore.

If consumers wanted smaller cars, they would buy more of them. A car is still much less expensive than a larger vehicle. The data clearly indicates people want bigger vehicles.

Anecdotally, I have personally heard many people say they want to sit up higher, or have a bigger vehicle because it is safer for them.

> If consumers wanted smaller cars, they would buy more of them. A car is still much less expensive than a larger vehicle. The data clearly indicates people want bigger vehicles.

That's true to a point. In the US there are regulatory loopholes for SUVs, so that's impacting what vehicles people choose.

I agree that fuel efficiency standards are pretty silly. Especially CAFE standards. They should just tax CO2 emissions (or fuel) directly, and let the market sort it out.

Perhaps also have a tax on the weight of the vehicle, because that's a negative externality: heavier cars are worse for other people in a crash.

But the US is a country that has effectively legalised running over cyclists, so I don't have much hope for them. See https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/opinion/sunday/is-it-ok-t...

The cheapest car to buy and insure from any manufacturer is going to be their subcompact hatch or sedan. No, people don’t care about price now that I see a bright yellow Urus doing 70 down a local road once a week.

paywall

Hypocrisy of care about environment and our safety, isn't it?

I think you miss my point. When CAFE standards drastically increase the price of small cars, it impacts choice.

It's similar to house prices. The more regulations you pile on, the more things cost. While those things are seen as "good", it removes choice and increases cost.

And I think you've missed the point.

When CAFE standards specifically carve out an exception for larger vehicles (pickups and SUVs), thus forcing only compacts and sedans and station wagons to be subject to the new standards, of course there's some price pressure that nudges people into bigger cars.

If CAFE was applied across the board, there'd be no impact on choice at all. But it's not.

Sorry, I don’t buy it at all. People are not rolling up to my kids’ daycare in F150/XC-90/Suburban/4Runner because of CAFE making smaller cars more expensive.

They are buying it because they like bigger cars, and the people that can’t afford bigger cars still want to sit up higher, hence the popularity of CRV/Rav4 type vehicles.

If you don't buy it, I assume that you have solid alternate explanations of why the trends in vehicle size/power/design seem to closely track the preferences expressed by federal policy (intentionally or not) along with fuel costs.

Yes, there are (largely misguided but in some senses game-theory justified) preferences for higher/larger/heavier vehicles. But from what I've read, these don't provide much (statistical) explanatory power for the actual numbers.

I understand what you are saying, but I predict removing or fixing those regulations will not change anything (other than increased fuel or weight taxes), because the underlying reason remains the same. People (in general) prefer sitting higher up and being in bigger vehicles.

I don’t. I would gladly purchase a small practical brand new kei car if I could.

Given the choice between a $35k sedan and a $40k SUV the choice is going to be SUV for most people.

Given the choice between a $15k sedan and a $40k SUV, it gets a lot more interesting.

The US car market is incredibly restricted. You can buy a 300 mile range electric sedan for $25k in China. Why the fuck can’t we get that in North America?

You kind of can. Chevy bolt ev is $26k and 260 miles. That’s probably cheaper relatively speaking than the $25k china ev when you account for wages.

I should have specified that $25k is for a nicely optioned Chinese Buick, not a base level chevy that has a year+ waiting list where I am (Canada).

Bare bones 300 mile cars like the BYD Dolphin cost $16.9k.

They also have a model called the Seagull that is 250 mile at ~$11k. I would buy either of those in cash, today, if I could.

My last two vehicles have been trucks:

- 1991 Ford Ranger 2WD

- 2016 Toyota Tacoma TRD OR (4WD + extra features)

The Tacoma is Toyota's smallest North American truck and is dramatically larger than the Ranger. The Ranger suited my needs perfectly except that it wasn't 4WD and would frequently get stuck in Canadian winter. I couldn't even buy good snow tires for it anymore because the rims were too small.

If there were a recently built 4WD truck available in the North American market that was the size of the 91 Ranger, I would have bought it in a heartbeat. It does not exist.

My dad recently totaled his old Mazda pickup. Insurance gave him about three times as much for it as I expected. Turns out the value of used small pickups is through the roof, because there are no new small pickups and used ones are getting harder to find.

90s Tacoma were the same size as the Ranger. Unfortunately, as you have found, nobody makes a 90s size small truck anymore.

They do, just not for the US market. Both ford and Toyota make excellent mid-small-size trucks (Ranger and Hilux). In South Africa we have similar sized trucks from Nissan, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz, Colt, a bunch of Chinese brands.

Lol up, 90s Tacomas and 90s Rangers are the about same size. 2023 Tacomas and Rangers are the about same size. But wow is there a delta over that time frame.

Ford Maverick is about the size of your old Ranger, although it looks visibly chunkier.

Looks like it’s 8” wider and 24” longer, with a box that’s 6” shorter. To be fair on the length/box size, mine was one of the “club cab” ones with the two sideways-facing backseats and no rear doors. Great for throwing the dogs in the back seat but not so good for passengers. It would probably have been an option but I bought the Tacoma a year before the Maverick was released.

Thanks for the update -- I didn't realize it was so much bigger. That's a real shame. I wish they'd make small, simple, cheap cars again.

> People (in general) prefer sitting higher up and being in bigger vehicles

I don't think that in isolation people broadly prefer bigger vehicles, but in the context of other people having bigger vehicles, a circular problem exists, with people feeling like they're in ever increasing danger behind the wheel if they have a small car but are surrounded by behemoths. If it weren't contextually dependent, I don't think it would be a relatively recent phenomenon, since big vehicles have always been available, and I think you'd see people getting large vehicles despite what's common around them, in terms of both geography and what's on the road. I'd prefer a larger vehicle if I was driving around polar bear country, and I think every other car on the road in North America is a metaphorical polar bear.