Regulations Have Killed Fun Cars In Europe

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

But you can’t convince me that a 1.6-liter supermini like the GR Yaris is more environmentally damaging than a 6,801-pound (3,085-kg) electric Mercedes G-Class.

I recommend looking up how large formula1 and WRC engines are. Do you think they consume less fuel simply because they are also 1.6 Liter engines?

It looks like you are interested in cars and looking to discuss cars online which is nice but you bring a lot of opinions and not enough knowledge to back your opinions up. We've all been there, keep reading from decent resources and you will know and understand more about cars.

[-]

le_b0mb@reddit

It’s a heavily boosted 3-cyl made for power, what did you expect.

[-]

rc1024@reddit

It's worse for the low end than my Cayman and about the same as track mileage in your worst case.

[-]

Godvater@reddit

Got a friend with a base cayman, his highway consumption is lower than mine even.

[-]

FuzzyFr0g@reddit

Depends on the countries electrical grid, these are estimates in the EU but:

Manufacturing: GR Yaris: 6-8 ton CO2e EQG: 25-30 ton

Operational emissions 150.000 miles/241.000km GR Yaris: 55 tons EQG: 21-22 tons

Overal: GR Yaris: 61-63 tons EQG: 46-52 tons

So yes the EQG is better for the environment.

If you charge the EQG on a greener grid than european average like Norway, the emission will be 2.2 tons. Making it alot greener.

[-]

Abba_Fiskbullar@reddit

Yes. Even If the EV was solely powered with electricity made with coal, it would still be cleaner than a GR Yaris. A coal plant extracts far more units of energy per volume of carbon created than burning petroleum in an ICE engine, and that's not even including the refining process. This is not an endorsement of coal, but an illustration of how inherently dirty ICE powered cars are.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Weight can make cars less efficient too.

[-]

Abba_Fiskbullar@reddit

Yes, the EQG is an absolute pig, and one of the least energy efficient EVs you can buy, but it still creates less carbon than a GR to make it go.

[-]

Gwolf4@reddit

Add to the conversation the elephant on the room. The average good ice engines tuned for efficiency is only capable to use 40% of the gasoline as working force, the other 60% is lost as heat, so it means that for every unit (you name it, quarter, gallon, liter, milliliter) you waste more fuel on heat than actual moving.

An electric engine starts it's efficiency at 75% and brands like tesla is around at 90%.

So even if the source of the electricity for your electrical car polluted the same as burning gasoline the electric car uses half energy to move the same distance compared to ice engines.

And add scale of burning things for dirty energy, big generators for water based turbines while burning things are still efficient, so even if they are burning coal turbines extract lots of electrical energy from the motion (idk the % of such machines).

There is no way on earth for ice engines to catch electrical on CO2 related to burning to motion. And that's having the argument that burning for electricity just changes the location where the particles are emitted, again electricity generated less CO2 at being produced.

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

I'm not telling you that because I haven't looked into the data. What I'm saying is that the data don't matter to the author because they've made up their mind without seeing it. So if it turns out that the Yaris is worse than the EQG based purely on the data, the author won't believe it. And lots of enthusiasts see it the same way. That's the problem with most discussions on emissions in the car community.

[-]

ThroneOfTaters@reddit

The data is complicated though. How long will electric cars last? Do they produce less emissions during production than ICE cars produce in a lifetime? What happens to electric cars after their lifespan is up? These questions all matter and will hopefully be solved eventually, but for now they're important.

[-]

thedrivingcat@reddit

According to MIT:

Yet when the MIT study calculated a comparison in which EVs lasted only 90,000 miles on the road rather than 180,000 miles, they remained 15 percent better than a hybrid and far better than a gas car.

The rest of the article goes into further detail with more variables.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars

[-]

SylverShadowWolve@reddit

Actually the data is pretty simple. The eu only looks at Tank-to-wheel. So an ICE car will never beat an EV

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

I cant imagine the 3 ton EQG being better for the enviroment than a GR Yaris. It weighs way more and requires massive batteries in order to make it run which requires more resources than smaller EVs

[-]

ExplosiveMachine@reddit

Ok dude, you are directly proving his point. You're all over this thread repeating the same thing to anyone who disagrees, moving goalposts, etc etc.

Because you've already made up your mind and won't accept any kind of opposite facts at all. Just like the author.

[-]

markeydarkey2@reddit

I cant imagine the 3 ton EQG being better for the enviroment than a GR Yaris.

Only one of those vehicles combusts petroleum to function with exhaust, and it's not the 4WD box built in Austria.

requires massive batteries in order to make it run which requires more resources than smaller EVs.

Are you comparing it to smaller EVs or the GR Yaris? The G-Class EV uses about half as much energy per mile as the GR Yaris with the ability to get that energy from renewable sources.

[-]

Linton_M@reddit

I love my massive cars. My father has too when 100 ft sedans weee the craze. My Malibu is the smallest car I’ll own. I have my reasons, but that’s not the point.

it weighs ways more and requires massive batteries

Yes that’s true, so let’s compare (spoiler alert, the difference is negligible)

The Toyota Yaris gr produce 6-9t co2 in the manufacture process, the Mercedes g-wagon produces 25-35t. Huge difference, right? Well let’s assume you’re charging only on the public grid. Driving a Yaris gr gets you 51-54t co2 over its lifetime (150k km). On the Mercedes eqg, it produces 55-65t. So while it is technically worse, the difference is negligible.

Now granted, the eqg is a car that was designed to be an off-roader. With an epa range of 239 miles, if you were to use it for off-roading, it’s unlikely you’ll charge on public chargers (it’s mainly rich people owning these who likely have multiple cars and if they were environmentally conscious, they would have solar panels). Assuming 5-10t of co2 for the solar panels, that would bring a lifetime co2 emissions to 35-40t for the eqg. That’s assuming you bought it using it for its intended purpose.

So yes, with the biggest ev suvs being right around the same as our smallest ice vehicle, I should be able to enjoy being comfortable with overly hurting the environment as I would be driving the same house with a v8/v6.

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

That's part of the issue. But more to my point, if you were presented with unbiased quantitative data that showed that the GR Yaris was indeed worse for the environment than the EQG - assuming an agreed definition of "bad for the environment" - would you believe it? Or would you be more inclined to think something was wrong with the data?

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

I wouldnt believe it.

[-]

Drzhivago138@reddit

...which proves the original point of " Car enthusiasts have already made their conclusion without seeing or wanting to understand the data."

[-]

One enthusiasts “fun car” is an average person’s “loud annoying car”

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Its still better for the enviroment than a SUV and thus making these emissions regulations pointless.

[-]

lee1026@reddit

Your typical mass market suv is more fuel efficient than anything “fun”. 26 mpg on the Miata really isn’t very good, and it only gets worse from there.

[-]

objectivePOV@reddit

You need to look at total lifetime emissions. A smaller car uses half as many materials to manufacture. Accounting for that means the total lifetime emissions of a Miata would be lower than a big SUV.

https://www.woodpeck.org/vehicle-production-emissions-might-be-bigger-than/

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

SUVs are the second biggest contributor in regards to climate change which is higher than passenger cars.

[-]

lee1026@reddit

You are overly focusing on the category of car vs SUV. Anything built to be sporty or fun isn’t going to be very fuel efficient.

[-]

JustThall@reddit

I call BS here.

Show me actual SUV/crossover that beats miata in real world fuel consumption. I'll accept fuelly or similar apps.

[-]

Those still get beaten by hybrid passenger cars.

[-]

footpole@reddit

All cars should be electric. That’s how we get co2 emissions from traffic down, not by choosing between two bad options and saving a few percent in fuel. Not something this sub wants to hear though.

[-]

baumaxx1@reddit

Not really - batteries have massive lifecycle costs.

If you absolutely need a second car, a little EV city runabout with regen braking is fantastic and the perfect use case. That's if you do a lot of urban driving though and can't just use the train/bus/bike.

Highway/freeway driving... Not so good, especially if not charging from clean sources.

Petroleum will probably be replaced though. Maybe biofuel/efuel or hydrogen could work for longer distances, and it's something that could be produced when renewables are generating excess electricity. EVs are massively inconvenient and inefficient for country driving, although I suppose not everywhere in the world is 3-8h from another city. Hard to find data, but a Tesla model 3 for example can put out close to 500hp at the wheels... The emissions may not be at the tailpipe, but I doubt they're insignificant if someone's launching the EV all the time.

Really a single car that fits your lifestyle that you don't need to drive every day, and a mix of public transport + self driving EVs on demand could realistically have things trend back towards single car households that would help

[-]

footpole@reddit

A lot of places have very clean electricity unlike most of the us. Even using coal the emissions are lower than ice cars and that’s not reality. Switching to renewables is not impossible at all.

Brake dust is also massively reduced leaving only tire emissions locally which is about at par with ice vehicles. If you launch constantly then that factoring a bit higher.

Hydrogen is a pipe dream and EVs have no issue on the highway anymore. Very few people regularly drive fifteen hours straight. Battery costs have already come down so much that it’s not much of an issue anymore either.

[-]

baumaxx1@reddit

Do not open the political can of worms re a switch to renewables, haha. Electricity is insanely expensive, we already spend 10s of thousands installing solar and batteries, and then keep getting feed-in credits reduced and new costs after the investment, plus installing the charging hardware, and on top of that EVs are quite expensive.

So take the Subaru Solterra for a similar comparison to what I've got, although seat up boot space is a bit less. It's $15k more, plus there's significant cost in rooftop solar, batteries, and fastish chargers in your house. It's really a stretch financially to get there, and it's going to take over half a decade to break even financially, and probably close to that emissions wise with the amount I drive.

EV charging infrastructure is quite poor, and not widespread. Unfortunately not in Europe... It's not 2h from one end of the country to the other - that doesn't even get me to another major city. Charging stations in the country are not plentiful and see very high demand.

I mention alternate fuels because you need an energy storage solution anyway with excess wind and solar, and there needs to be some solution for truck transport since it's pretty normal for road transport to be 30h between cities, or you need a portable fuel source in remote stations or mines.

Even for weekends - you can't really just hop on a train in Australia for example and really go many places in 2h or so. Maybe you'll do a weekend trip, which can be 3h away which the EV, and then go see some sights if you're not already needing a charge by then and have one of the better EVs (also $$$$) - getting a fast charger in a country town that doesn't have a line, and anywhere near where you actually want to go, isn't exactly easy. Charging at your accommodation through the wall outlets is a pretty slow affair too.

When they're not catching fire or suddenly cutting out I suppose.

A hybrid Corolla will beat all of them. Smaller hybrids are the key for more efficient mass market cars while still being safe for pedestrians and not too heavy.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

You are right about a fun car being less efficient than a regular passenger car but it is still better for the enviroment than a SUV. Not only are fun cars produced in lower amounts but are also usually just weekend cars. While SUVs are being driven daily.

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

Not only are fun cars produced in lower amounts but are also usually just weekend cars. While SUVs are being driven daily.

Which is why saying "SUVs contribute a lot more to global warning than sports cars" is a bad and completely meaningless comparison. Any vehicle which is common and driven regularly would be the biggest passenger car contributor. That's just how numbers work. It's like saying "If you stacked every person in China on top of each other, they would be taller than if you stacked everyone in the NBA on top of each other" and using that to "prove" that the average person in China is taller than the average NBA player.

The proper way to compare impact is on a per mile basis, which is what fuel economy and tailpipe emissions numbers do. And sports cars are generally way way worse on both of those numbers.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

I dont know why you were saying that miles per gallon are a defacto standard of the world but you are totally wrong. Liters per 100 kilometers dominates the world when it comes to fuel consumption. Get a reality check.

[-]

the_lamou@reddit

Because it was? I get that history is boring, but it's pretty useful. I also don't understand why you're so butthurt about that that instead of addressing my point about your terrible butchering of math, you made a second response on an unrelated comment to complain about it.

Cautious-Question606@reddit

Yea no shit because the fun car is driven less so it will pollute less. Most people buy SUV so that they can lug around things and other people that project cars cannot with ease and comfortably

[-]

loosebolts@reddit

Yes, so either stop using highly polluting SUVs and buy something more appropriate, or make SUV’s more environmentally friendly.

[-]

Cautious-Question606@reddit

SUVs are already getting environmentally friendly, more and more of them are getting hybridised (rav 4 hybrid)

Cant say the same about fun cars tho

[-]

loosebolts@reddit

Are they? They’re rapidly approaching and exceeding 2 tonnes, which causes more particulate matter from tyres etc. More of them are being sold new than “fun” cars, but most people’s “fun” cars are older models which have already been built and aren’t being replaced like clockwork at the end of the lease deal.

[-]

footpole@reddit

This means the fun car is very polluting in the end as it’s an extra manufactured car in addition to the joyrides.

[-]

sjgbfs@reddit

Yeah that's what europeans do. It's a decades old trope. Back when SUVs were pretty much just Range Rovers, Patrols, Land Cruisers. They indeed were less efficient, but it was always a convenient excuse to hate more successful people, which most like to depict as profiteering from the masses.

NitroLada@reddit

No it doesn't, compare it to a Corolla cross which is similar size

[-]

IsometricRain@reddit

Anything built to be sporty or fun isn’t going to be very fuel efficient.

This is stupid. Fuel efficiency is largely dependent on powertrain, drag, frontal area, overall weight, and gearing. None of these (except gearing in certain cases) disadvantage the fun cars. Obviously people enjoy huge engines in sportscars, but no one is forcing you to go that route just to have a "fun car".

A caterham is probably a top 0.1% fun car and is very efficient. Most sports cars, hot hatches or compact sedans that share an engine+trans with a crossover under the same brand (BMW/Mercedes have tons of examples of this being the case), will be more efficient.

[-]

BiglyBirdWuzHere@reddit

Hate to break it to you bro but a caterham has the aerodynamics of an oak tree and the vast majority use engines built with hot cams with very short gearing. It is anything but efficient.

[-]

IsometricRain@reddit

Considering the performance/the experience delivered, they're still very efficient.

CD is high, but weight is low, frontal area is tiny.

It is anything but efficient.

I disagree. Plus, it depends what it's being comparing to. I'd for sure feel better about my environmental impact driving a basic caterham than the average SUV.

That is like saying "A bed is easier to sleep in than a toilet, so lets shit in the bed because it's better"

Of course a fuel efficient SUV is more fuel efficient than car who isn't fuel efficient. Added to that the tiny car, if a sports car, is gonna be driven by people who trades fuel efficiency by entertainment. But fundamentally speaking, a small car will use less fuel than a big car because the big car is heavier and less aerodynamic, so with the same engine there is no question that the small car beats it.

[-]

red_fuel@reddit

There are way more SUV's on the road than sports cars. Sports cars are also not always used as daily drivers unlike SUV's. The majority of new cars nowadays are SUV's and crossovers

[-]

Smash_4dams@reddit

Source?

SUV'S amd passenger cats require catalytic converters among other anti-smog stuff.

The worst polluters are small engines used in landscaping and construction. There's no filters taking the NOx out of a gas leaf blower. I don't even think bobcats have to worry about emissions.

[-]

SimpleImpX@reddit

Since he was talking about climate change (primarily CO2 release) the emission equipment doesn't matter.

Like you said emission equipment great is great primarily reducing local pollution, mostly CO, NOx emissions and particulates.

However there is no practical emission equipment that can reduce CO2. That remains 100% related to fuel consumption for all cars. For every gallon of gasoline goes in and approximately about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide come out. The only way to reduce CO2 is to use less fuel (better fuel efficiency).

What you could argue is if fuel efficiency difference is really that big or not ¯\(ツ)/¯

[-]

Smash_4dams@reddit

It would be cool if our cars could simply separate the CO2 into a "pony keg" type container where we could just switch out tanks since CO2 has a lot of use in industry and drink carbonation.

[-]

SimpleImpX@reddit

Interesting idea, but separating it and compressing it would consume pretty much all the energy burning the fuel created in the first place.

Then there is the storage problem it would require far more space than the original fuel needed even after compressing to liquid and the high pressure tanks aren't exactly light either. The end result would be a car that is more CO2 tanks on wheels than car and uses many times amount of fuel to travel the same distance.

It's kinda possible to do CO2 with large stationary infrastructure (think power plants), but its still a massively ineffective process that remains highly costly and noncompetitive.

Then there is the problem of quantity and disposal. You could maybe sell a tiny part of the collected CO2 before completely saturating the CO2 market then you are left with endless amounts of CO2 stockpiles that you have to dispose of somehow.

Maybe in the future research projects like Carbfix (turn CO2 into rock and put it back into the ground) will see some positive results, but today the most effective way we have to deal with CO2 is creating less of it or not creating it at all if possible.

[-]

GrynaiTaip@reddit

We don't have american style SUVs in Europe. Something like BMW X3 or Hyundai Santa Fe is closer to a fat hatchback than an SUV.

The sedans would be more efficient.

[-]

Politicsboringagain@reddit

But what about "fun" sports cars?

Regular

[-]

Mosh83@reddit

What I find even more baffling is SUV coupes. The bulk of an SUV without the benefits of space. Moronic and they look shite to boot.

[-]

PanVidla@reddit

I mean, the whole concept of SUVs is a bit of a flop. I get the idea, but the overwhelming majority of people use it for neither sport nor utility. A typical SUV driver would be fine with a smaller car.

[-]

Mosh83@reddit

Driving around in a massive car for that once every few years you lug furniture from Ikea. Instead of just renting a van or just getting it delivered.

[-]

TobiasE97@reddit

Crossover convertibles are also baffling to me for the same reason. Like that range rover

[-]

Drzhivago138@reddit

SUVs are the second biggest contributor in regards to climate change which is higher than passenger cars.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2025_mazda_mx-5.shtml

29 combined. My heavy crossover gets far better fuel economy.

[-]

xIcarus227@reddit

There's absolutely no chance that number is accurate. According to that website my Z4 gets just 4mpg less than an MX-5 despite having twice the power, 50% more cubic capacity and 600 extra kg of weight. It's impossible.

If I wanna see fuel consumption I check this website, it's been remarkably accurate for the cars I've had so far. 35-40mpg sounds about right for that little car.

[-]

DaggumTarHeels@reddit

There's absolutely every chance that number is accurate; the B58 is extremely efficient and a 2021 Z4 has an 8spd transmission. Weight is certainly a factor, but power curve, gearing, drag, etc. matter more.

Also UK MPG is calculated a bit differently. The average speeds are lower and a UK gallon is larger than a US one (4.5 vs 3.7 liters)

Even still, that 4MPG delta holds for your comparo:

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/mazda/mx-5-2015/20i-184-rf - 40MPG

https://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/bmw/z4-2019/m40i - 36MPG

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Why does the UK have MPG if it measures fuel in liters? Why not L/62 miles instead?

[-]

And it's probably much worse than that the way the average boy racer on r/cars would drive it.

[-]

Kraven_Lupei@reddit

Really? Damn that's surprising, even my Fiata (Fiat 124 Abarth, 2017) is an average of 31 MPG on the ticker and I drive it like I stole it all the time.

Maybe it's because I avoid highways like the plague and mostly travel backroads and twisties/mountains in NJ.

[-]

PubliusDeLaMancha@reddit

Huh

You'd get much better mileage on a highway than spirited mountain driving, unless you're referring to traffic

What even is this comment thread

[-]

lee1026@reddit

I don’t think I have ever seen a CX-5 in the real world.

[-]

TrevorX5J9@reddit

Lol my tuned 520whp 335i gets 10-20% worse MPG (28/29 highway) than most non hybrid SUVs. Keep in mind it’s an almost 20 year old twin turbo 6 cylinder making around 600 crank while most of the SUVs are making well under 250 crank. I’m sure if I had my tuner make an eco tune I could be getting 32 or more on my setup.

[-]

ggtsu_00@reddit

They give SUVs hybrid powertrains with regenerative breaks to get comparable fuel efficiency of a gas powered compact sedan. Why not do that for a Miata? For extra fun, make it a EV with a rotary generator!

[-]

RandomGenName1234@reddit

For extra fun, make it a EV with a rotary generator!

Like the Mazda MX-30? It GUZZLES fuel like it's what it was made to do lol

They took the already pathetic battery and made it even smaller for the hybrid version so you're pretty much forced to use the rotary (that doesn't even sound nice) a whole lot.

"Expect to see around 33.5 UK mpg in real-world driving."

That's 27.9 US MPG or 8.4l pr 100km's, absolutely atrocious.

[-]

OGAbell@reddit

my ND1 miata averages over 34mpg and i only bomb it down back roads? the old couple i bought it from never ripped it, it’s average was 42mpg before i bought it.

ND miata’s are very good on gas, it’s got the best mpg on any car i’ve owned.

[-]

No-Actuator-6245@reddit

My Focus ST can happily get mid 30’s with a mixture of city/motorway and 42-44 on longer motorway journeys. It’s a fun car to drive and I’m happy with the fuel economy. Unfortunately, the Focus is now being killed off.

[-]

alphazero1990@reddit

Tell that to my BRZ with 7.1l/100km average with headers tune fkn semi slicks and aero. Also sports cars are driven less and safer for pedestrians.

[-]

InnocentSoup@reddit

Weird. I see 42 in mine on the regular

[-]

Miata gets like 34 mpg and that’s driving somewhat hard. You can baby get get 37

[-]

maaaatttt_Damon@reddit

My '19 miata gets an average 26 on the worst of winter weeks for me. My CX-9 gets about 15 to 17.

In the summer, my Miata averages mid 30s, the CX-9 about 24.

Both of which I drive alone in 90% of the time. Its still not a fair comparison because I drive the miata harder than the SUV.

They still weigh much more than their car passenger car counterpart. And they damage roads more and pedestrians are more likely to die.

[-]

nguyenm@reddit

To be clear, the EU isn’t banning high-emission vehicles outright. Mercedes can still sell an S-Class with a V-12 engine, provided its EVs and plug-in hybrids offset the emissions

Beside the Honda E, does Honda have any EV offering that would allow the fleet average emissions budget to include a few CTRs? Honestly, these carve-outs in-favor of ICEs & Hybrids is already very generous when there's some effort to manufacturer competent EVs to lower their calculated averages.

So, in terms of being slightly pedantic like a certain Canadian former-professor, this article isn't strictly about "emissions" where the drivetrain is no longer complaint due to NOx limitations akin to diesel ones, but an issue on fleet-wide CO2 budgets because the automakers intentionally chose not to plan ahead.

[-]

bitofrock@reddit

They have the e:ny1 and around here you now see more of them than the e, even after four years of the e before they stopped selling them.

Initial-Reading-2775@reddit

Government incentives as usual - rather harmful than useful. Considering high fuel prices in Europe, prices alone are regulations per se.

[-]

dagelijksestijl@reddit

Incidentally, a base 5 series costs about as much as the GR Yaris, so a buyer really must be into performance superminis to even consider it

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

The GR Yaris is not a large vehicle. What they should do is tax SUVs to fix one of Europes biggest enviromental problems.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

They are doing that, though. The fact that emissions are being taxed on a g/mi basis means that it inherently punishes things by their environmental impact - therefore, they are in fact taxing SUVs, who will inherently emit more by consuming more.

Also, you should really provide evidence that SUVs are, in fact, 'one of Europes (sic) biggest environmental problems.'

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

I have proof of this https://earth.org/environmental-issues-in-europe/

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

Yes, well done, air pollution is an acknowledged environmental problem.

Please provide a source that demonstrates that SUVs specifically are responsible for a majority, a plurality, or even a large component of that air pollution. Because your source doesn't do that.

Oh, and just for what it's worth, this legislation that you're complaining about is specifically intended to address the issue as it exists across all market segments. There's no reason to limit legislation to SUVs if air pollution is the number one environmental problem.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Since SUVs emit the most they are the biggest contributor in terms of air pollution coming from cars. SUVs are also the second biggest contributor in regards to climate change.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

Are SUVs actually emitting the most per mile? Do they emit more than sports cars? Are they a sufficient proportion of the car market to be the biggest contributor to pollution? All of these are unproven assertions you have taken for fact without proof.

SUVs are the second biggest contributor in regards to climate change

This is entirely unproven and goes back to the first claim you made - and still completely lacks supporting evidence.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Take a look at this. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/01/suv-conquered-america-climate-change-emissions#:\~:text=SUVs%20were%20the%20second%20largest%20cause%20of,loom%20larger%20than%20them%20on%20the%20road.

They emit more than every other industry except power.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

That's not total emissions, that's proportion of increase of emissions. You need to read that a little closer, because it's not saying what you think it is.

It's not saying "SUVs are the second biggest cause of climate change." It's saying "The increase in global carbon emissions is created by these factors; a large share of that increase comes from SUVs." These are two hugely different statements.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

They are likely at a much higher rank in 2025. There is plenty of articles online about the enviromental risks of SUVs and rise of pedestrian deaths due to SUVs. Not to mention that reckless driving is becoming more and more common due to SUVs.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

They are likely at a much higher rank in 2025

Why? Emissions regulations have become more strict, not less, and SUVs are the same share of the market, but have actively been becoming more efficient and less polluting.

That something "makes sense" doesn't mean it's real. There are many things that make sense and are completely false.

Look, I think SUVs are negatively impacting the environment. I'm not trying to pretend they're not. But let's be honest with ourselves - so do enthusiast cars. So do planes and ships and everything else. Pretending that our special snowflake enthusiast cars don't matter is just foolish and damaging to everyone. Saying "SUVs are the number 2 cause of climate change" damages both any argument you can make against SUVs and the very real struggle against climate change because it is not a true statement. That's why I care here.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

We can do a lot for the planet by buying smaller and more efficient cars.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

We sure can. But we can also do that by legislating the entire industry to be better. Both are viable and neither is wrong.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

I do think SUVs have their purpose such as war and offroading.

[-]

Drzhivago138@reddit

Not to mention that reckless driving is becoming more and more common due to SUVs.

It is becoming more common, unfortunately, but what proof is there that it's "due to SUVs"?

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

With SUVs now accounting for mare than half of global car sales it is almost certain that they are now at a much higher rank than in the article. I havent seen any articles on that but I bet that thats the case.
https://www.psypost.org/drivers-of-heavier-vehicles-are-more-prone-to-reckless-driving-study-finds/

[-]

PurpEL@reddit

Whoa easy bud, this sub froths at the mouth for SUVs and automatics

[-]

Sierra_463@reddit

This is hard to quantify because you're making a lot of assumptions on people's driving habits. One guy might be driving 1,000 miles a year, the other 10,000.

If you're a manufacturer or a legislative body or whatever you basically have to assume worst case scenario here.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

No its not hard to quantify as fun cars are being built in lower quantities while SUVs are built in much higher quantities. The mass market easily out pollutes the enthusiasts market.

[-]

Mojave_Idiot@reddit

We need a car enthusiast subreddit.

My fun car isn’t loud. It doesn’t really stand out other than not being white, black, gray, or silver.

It is fun to drive. The engine is characterful, the steering feelsome, the brake pedal perfectly weighted with linear response, the clutch pedal undamped. It does not shout its fun, it speaks it plainly.

Modern fun cars seem to have forgotten what it’s like to be fun without having to shout, “hey, look at me! I’m fun.” They’re the empty-souled party girl whose inebriation and noise don’t excuse the lack of a fire behind her eyes.

[-]

Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho@reddit

I’ve heard way more loud trucks than loud sports cars. Yet trucks and SUVs are almost untouched.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

In Europe?

[-]

Concodroid@reddit

it's emissions and safety regs, not noise levels, killing these cars

[-]

AmNoSuperSand52@reddit

The sound level of the car can easily be addressed. I mean hell on most of these cars you could do it in the software by disabling the option for sport exhaust

Pixelplanet5@reddit

the vast majority of people coudlnt even tell you the model of car they are driving.

thisisjustascreename@reddit

But the MX-5 and GRZ6 cost almost exactly the same as the low end Mustangs they compete with?

Mustang starts at 31.9

BRZ 33.2

MX-5 29.5

GR86 30.0

[-]

RuinedGrave@reddit

The Mustang doesn’t get a manual option in the Ecoboost anymore. You have to get the GT that starts at $46k for a manual transmission.

[-]

HTTP404URLNotFound@reddit

I was really hoping the new charger would light the competitive fire under the mustang again but it looks unlikely.

[-]

V8-Turbo-Hybrid@reddit

Not sure about Korea, but it's hard to own a car in Japan already. You need to pay more taxes when car gets older and as well as more auto checks. Beside, you need a parking permit, as they've garage law to control car numbers.

Japan is NOT really free to own a car even though you're able to get many sports car models in there.

[-]

thedrivingcat@reddit

You're right that Japan has more onerous/expensive ownership requirements for cars, but their still have the same per capita ownership rates as France or Canada and something like 80% of Japanese households have a vehicle.

There's more Japan than Osaka or Tokyo. The garage law in Aomori or Kochi where basically every house or rental comes with a parking space isn't a real barrier.

[-]

Parcours97@reddit

How about per capita?

[-]

splooges@reddit

How about winter? How many Chinese and Indians have to heat their homes when its -30C out?

[-]

Paumanok@reddit

China has been leading in solar and building next-gen Nuclear power in masse, along with a lot of work in EV markets.

hit the nail on the head. I don't even bother with these sorts of discussions any more (real life or internet) because it just ends with folks ignoring every single one of the facts. "oh but commercial" "oh but billionaires in private jets" etc. etc. when automotive is *objectively* the single largest issue we have + concentrated where people live.

I am convinced the only way we will get permanent positive change is when a lot of these people age out and our kids grow up in a better world and push that forth. I love my cars, but would love to show my kids a proper white Christmas a little more.

Even in this very post - "But you can’t convince me that a 1.6-liter supermini like the GR Yaris is more environmentally damaging than a 6,801-pound (3,085-kg) electric Mercedes G-Class", they've made their conclusion up beforehand. The GR Yaris is objectively more harmful to the environment than the G580. Can't change their mind though, the conclusion is predetermined.

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

A big part of this is being able to say we enjoy a hobby, but acknowledge that hobby is also damaging to things we care about so we should pursue measures to find a good balance. Hikers, mountain bikers, and hunters know their hobbies are bad for wildlife, so a lot of them support habitat preservation.

I am convinced the only way we will get permanent positive change is when a lot of these people age out and our kids grow up in a better world and push that forth.

I can only imagine how angry I'd be if I had to grow up not being able to play outside during the day because the previous generation didn't stop the ozone damage they caused. We can't just doom the next generation to drought, crop shortage, and worse just because we don't want to admit our hobby is damaging to the environment.

[-]

motocali@reddit

I can’t speak for anywhere except the US, but if regulators enacted meaningful regulations that reduced co2 emissions across the whole transportation sector I’d take my medicine without complaint. Instead they take campaign contributions from the big 3 and foster a regulatory environment that incentivizes owning oversized pickups and SUVs while placing the bulk of “responsibility” for dealing with climate change on passenger cars. When the F-series and Silverado stop being the top 2 best selling vehicles in the US, I’ll stop complaining that they’re focusing on sports cars, classics (California) and motorcycles (also California).

As an aside, with modern emissions standards, the majority of ground level respiratory irritants is dust kicked up by cars driving over it. Electrification isn’t going to change that. CARB and the various regional air quality boards in California have been very clear that the end goal is for people to stop driving all together and enact policy with that goal foremost. I expect that the outsized impact California has on the rest of the country means that this policy will likely affect you in some way regardless of which state you actually live in. If you stumbled here form r/all then maybe you approve. If you’re a member of r/cars, I’d be careful with the holier than thou attitude because it may come back to bite you.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

the majority of ground level respiratory irritants is dust kicked up by cars driving over it. Electrification isn’t going to change that.

That is laughably untrue.

[-]

strongmanass@reddit

if regulators enacted meaningful regulations that reduced co2 emissions across the whole transportation sector I’d take my medicine without complaint.

The ones who care about the issue try to. Their proposals get watered down and cut up to milquetoast measures from opposition funded by organizations that stand to benefit from lax regulations. They've been very successful at getting people to believe regulations are bad (see this thread).

the majority of ground level respiratory irritants is dust kicked up by cars driving over it.

Where are you getting that from? In any case, there's lots of research suggesting that vehicle emissions contribute significantly to respiratory illness. Like this:

Exposure to PM 2.5 has a significant effect on admission rates for a subset of respiratory diagnoses (asthma, bronchitis, chronicobstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonia, upper respiratory tract infection).

And this:

Repeat questionnaires were obtained from 165 and 283 subjects in the congested and uncongested areas respectively, and showed a tendency for most [respiratory] symptoms to improve in both areas.

And this:

The American Lung Association’s “Driving to Clean Air” report found that a widespread transition to 100% zero-emission passenger vehicles, powered by clean electricity, would result in up to 89,300 avoided premature deaths, 2.2 million avoided asthma attacks and 10.7 million fewer lost workdays by 2050.

CARB and the various regional air quality boards in California have been very clear that the end goal is for people to stop driving all together and enact policy with that goal foremost.

Where are you getting that from? I haven't seen any organization-level policy suggesting that's the case.

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

The regulations still do apply to pickups and SUVs, and therefore they're still being impacted and regulated. That they have looser standards simply allows them to exist. They're still the minority of the market, despite their good sales, and thus it is not irrelevant to apply standards to passenger cars.

Furthermore, r/cars has 7.4 million fucking members. This subreddit basically is r/all and you pretending it's some exclusive club for only true gearheads is fucking hilarious.

PurchaseStreet9991@reddit

I agree. It’s not that I disagree that we need to reduce emissions, it’s that it feels like a massive dick punch that I have to make more sacrifices from my boring-ass life because we don’t hold people in power accountable

[-]

Kaiathebluenose@reddit

Spot on sir

[-]

cubs223425@reddit

They do meet those standards, and that's what has stifled performance and fun in most cars. To say something as stupid as "they're not meeting emissions standards," when they're all being permitted to sell cars based on the emissions standards they're meeting, is comical.

It's not EU sports cars that are heavily contributing to emissions either. Go fix the REAL major polluters. I guess it's easier to sling a random "the environment," while aggressively ignoring the reality of that statement. Talk to the companies that are making products in countries with poor regulations and then using mass shipping to transport products to those countries while emitting even more.

something clearly designed to force carmakers out of the internal combustion market.

As someone in France, it truly sucks. It feels like we get to endure regulatory strangulation. It’s like someone decided driving should be a chore, not a thrill. As an enthusiast, it seems to me that we get to only deal with small-displacement engines with zero emotion, zero fun, and the sound of a suffocated vacuum screaming for help...

Even if we had access to the same V6s, V8s, or even just spirited inline-4s you guys do (we did have some nice i4s, but they're now regulated...), it wouldn't matter. The roads – all of them, not just city streets – are absolutely infested with speed cameras. They’re on autoroutes (freeways), routes départementales (rural/secondary roads), traffic lights, parked vans, moving cars – you name it...

And then there’s the ZFE nonsense ("Zone à Faibles Émissions" or Low Emission Zones). Basically, cities are putting up walls to keep out cars that don’t meet their latest emissions standards. It’s not even about real pollution – some of these zones block out 10-year-old diesels or even older gas cars that still run perfectly fine. If your car doesn’t have the right sticker (called “Crit'Air” - that's honestly some shitty scale based on ecological spirituality than logic...), you risk getting fined just for driving to work. It's like being blacklisted for enjoying your own car, or even worse... blacklisted for not being able to afford those new soulless vacuums...

And it's not just ZFEs. The entire system is designed to shame combustion engines. We're talking about massive ecological penalties for CO2 – so high, in fact, that something like a simple V6-powered or an inline-5 car will cost absurd money here. You want an RS3? €145k. Yes, you read that right, that's a freakin punishment with some shaddy business scheme underlying...

Meanwhile, anything that isn’t a four-cylinder soulless toaster box is treated like you’re trying to import plutonium. There’s no cultural room for “car as passion” anymore – it’s all about "clean", "green", and "responsible", as if loving cars makes you evil. The problem is... they’re pushing people out of enthusiasm. Even the word “automotive” is being scrubbed out in favor of "mobility" or "ecological transition"...

And then you see the other side of the Atlantic... and yeah, there’s hope. You guys still have access to real engineering spirit – NA V8s, proper manual transmissions, and driving culture. And I truly hope it stays that way. I hope you never drink the same green Kool-Aid that’s poisoned Europe. Because once you do, it's not just the engines they take – it's the joy, the freedom, and the soul of being a driver.

It’s already bad enough that in France, roads are tight and regulated, and fun cars are banned from existence through pricing... It's like the entire nation has Stockholm Syndrome with speed limiters and parking tickets.

Honestly? It’s not about pollution. It’s about control. And the more you love cars, the more this place tries to convince you that you’re the problem.

So yeah – enjoy it while you still can. Hope I manage to get out of here, haha.

That's honestly probably the longest comment I've ever written – I just said what needs to be said, to be fair.

[-]

No_Skirt_6002@reddit

Even if we had access to the same V6s, V8s, or even just spirited inline-4s you guys do (we did have some nice i4s, but they're now regulated...)

Europe in general never had the big engine fun us Yanks are used to.- in the 80s my dad owned a pair of diesel Peugeot 504s and 604s in the USA, he told me they were 2nd only to his '68 VW Bus in their slowness. Yet, you guys always had sick hot hatches- until recently it seems. I am confused that France wants to lower emissions, yet Renault discontinued the Megane hatch and wagon, and less-efficient crossovers seem to be all the rage from Renault and Peugeot/Citroen, from my most recent trip to Europe in March.

I think that France's eternally tight automotive regulations shaped the country's automobile industry to be as unique as it has been. I dream of the day I'll be able to import a Citroen C6 or a Renault Vel Satis or a first gen Renault Megane RS (and dread the day I'll have to look for parts. There's just nothing else like these cars.

But I don't see why hot hatches and sport compacts and sport wagons can't be sold alongside the crossovers that are worse for the environment. That's the insulting part about it, and it happens in the U.S and in Europe, just to different extents.

I can speak for our country. Kevin down the street gets to drive around in a 2.5 ton 16 MPG GMC Yukon XL that will insta-kill any pedestrian in it's massive blindspots, yet I can't go out and purchase a 30 MPG V8 coupe that barely rises above the hood of the Yukon, let alone a 60 MPG Volkswagen Golf TDI that is far cleaner for the planet than a RAV4 Hybrid. I imagine Europe has a version of this scenario, with smaller engines and less horsepower.

I think regulations to curb climate change are a good idea, but it seems that the USA isn't as interested in actually making more efficient cars than it is in looking like it is. I sincerely hope Europe isn't making this same response.

[-]

Denbt_Nationale@reddit

This was more true in the past but unfortunately the popularity of SUVs and crossovers has become massive here recently and cars are getting much bigger on average. It really sucks because our roads are much tighter than American roads and honestly not big enough for these vehicles. Especially since a lot of areas have on street parking only. Swerving into the bushes because the road is one and a half cars wide and a Qashqai just barrelled straight at you doing 70 around a blind corner is not a fun driving experience.

[-]

M4roon@reddit

As someone in Asia, I am very aware of what you have! America is the land of awesome fun cars these days. Can’t get a challenger, charger, c8, black wing. Not to mention no f150s, no dodge trucks, basically no Camaros, no support for Jeeps, and I think there are two Mustang GTs for sale in the entire country. 🥲

[-]

JJ_Shiro@reddit

This has always been a uniquely European problem. Too much regulation stifling business and pushing money/investment outside of their continent.

Does the 4.0 have the full fat gt3 engine? I thought it was a different motor

[-]

FloatnPuff@reddit

It's detuned so that the Cayman stays "below" the 911, but I believe it's the same engine

[-]

JediAndAbsolutes@reddit

I believe you're thinking of the GT4RS. The GTS 4.0 and GT4 have an engine derived from the 992 911 3.0L

It does not share the same 9k rpm engine from the GT3/GT4RS

[-]

SilentFix1117@reddit

Getting a build slot at this stage is going to be really tough. They’re stopping production in October unfortunately.

[-]

xIcarus227@reddit

but emotionally still won’t justify the the Cayman GTS 4.0

Similar situation here, and that's exactly the car I will buy next. What do you mean by not being able to emotionally justify it?

From an objective perspective, it has a high chance of holding its value particularly well over the coming years because the next Boxster/Cayman is expected to be electric-only. You'd probably end up saving a good amount of money in the long run.

[-]

Ran4@reddit

I mean adapting is a must. European manufacturers can't just coast on their legacy tech forever. Combustion engines just doesn't make a lot of sense for most use cases any more. They were going to have to adapt no matter what.

If regulations hadn't been as hard as they were, european manufacturers would likely be even further behind the chinese.

[-]

Smargoos@reddit

Climate change denial:

Deny it exists
Deny it was caused by humans
Deny it is an issue
Deny it is economical to solve
Deny it can be solved anymore <-- you are here

[-]

uber_neutrino@reddit

This isn't to say i'm in denial of the climate. We are fucked.

Prefering an electric drive train makes me an environmentalist?

Have you even tried an enthusiast ev? Or you just on the ev hate bandwagon?

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Thats mainly a thing in North America. Dealer markups dont exist in Europe.

[-]

maxipanda8321@reddit

The new type r was shit. It was twice as expensive, for not much improvement other than looks.

[-]

1995LexusLS400@reddit

That absolutely is true. Men in their late 40s-early 50s are now lusting over cars like the Urus, Cayenne, Bentayga, G Wagon, etc. instead of cars like the 911, GTR, NSX, S2000, etc. The media making fun of men in their late 40s-early 50s in sports cars didn’t exactly help either.

A large chunk of sales of sports cars in the past have been mostly from non-car people who want to show off. Now it’s pretty much just car people buying sports cars and those who want to show off are buying high-end SUVs. The amount of car people around today is around the same as what it was 15-30 years ago.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Its stupid. Its also much harder to see things when beeing inside an SUV. Especially children. Also I dont see anything to show off with an SUV as most of them look pretty much the same.

[-]

nirach@reddit

I hate SUV's with a burning passion that won't go out until they're all out of existence. They make the roads less safe for people not in SUV's, they detatch people from the road, encouraging speeding because the sense of speed is diminished, they offer nothing from an interior perspective over an estate, and visually they're all an eyesore.

Get the fuck outta here with your 22" wheels and saucepan lid brakes.

But.

To argue they're less fuel efficient than, say, either of my RS's. The most modern of which is maybe 19mpg, which can match the older of the two at 6 or less mpg when giving it some beans, is insane.

Sporty cars feel sporty and that encourages lead foot driving. SUV's don't, and while people may do speeding more easily in an SUV because they're not focused on their speedometer, there aren't many people out there pop'n'bang tuning their VW Toureg or however the fuck that thing is spelled.

There's a bunch of cunts pop'n'bang tuning their Cooper S or their Seat Cupra Whateverthefuck, though.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Yes exactly.

and women

You could say the same about America, but really it depends where

goaelephant@reddit

This is also bad because a lot of European countries levy an additional tax on engines above 2.0L

[-]

AmNoSuperSand52@reddit

WorkerMotor9174@reddit

Glad to be proven wrong then! Would love to make it out to Texas someday in mine.

[-]

NotPumba420@reddit

Even the MX5 can not meet the european emission standards. The small engine one with 132hp emits 140g/Km. Fleet average limit is 95 today and will be 50 in 2030 I think. For each gram too much you have to pay 95€ fine. At the moment this means 4275€ fine for mazda per MX 5 sold. And that‘s only the small engine one, the 2.0 isn‘t even sold anymore. In 2030 if the mx5 keeps the same emissions the fine would be 8550€ per MX5.

[-]

r00000000@reddit

Yes you can, rent a place for like $1k or buy a $100-200k home, get like a $10k beater + $20-30k nice car like a used Boxster or Miata or $40-50k nice daily and you're pretty set.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

rent a place for like $1k

So what abort when you’re older than 23 and no longer want to live in the kind of dump $1K a month gets you? Or have 3 roommates?

buy a $100-200k home

HA! That’s funny.

or Miata or $40-50k nice daily and you're pretty set.

This is just the worst financial advice possible. I’ve never seen someone earnestly recommend spending $1000/mo on rent, and $40,000-50,000 on a vehicle. This is why America has a debt crisis.

[-]

r00000000@reddit

I mean it's not financial advice, this is r/cars not /r/personalfinance, it's not about optimizing your financial outcomes, it's about creating a pathway to your goals that bring you enjoyment.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

I mean it's not financial advice, this is r/cars not /r/personalfinance, it's not about optimizing your financial outcomes, it's about creating a pathway to your goals that bring you enjoyment

Translation: “I’ve decided that because this place is about cars, I can give terrible advice.”

No. Just no.

I post on /r/PersonalFinanceCanada too and my comments on there are completely different because the goals of the audience and people I'm replying to are completely different.

Then you openly admit your advice is bullshit.

[-]

r00000000@reddit

Dude I literally said it's not advice lol, IDK why you have to be so antagonistic towards everything I say, I've given you reasonable respect and responses in this conversation but you feel insanely pissed to me for some reason.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

They intentionally have a lower economic ceiling so that their society has a higher economic floor. That’s way better than the corporatism capitalist rat race we have in America. And then these bootlickers look at Europe’s intentional collectivist decisions like they screwed up something. Shameless ignorance. 🇺🇸

[-]

r00000000@reddit

It's an American POV, not really conservative tbh, the last 15 years from 2009-2024 have been an economic miracle for America, like 3x growth after inflation, coupled with a stronger currency completely dwarfed other developed markets like Canada, Japan, Australia, and Europe, only being beaten by I think Denmark(?).

So it's not completely detached from reality and it's been a lasting question for economists, what makes the USA so special and how can Europe drive that kind of growth and innovation?

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

what makes the USA so special and how can Europe drive that kind of growth and innovation?

It’s not a mysterious. Not even a little bit. We have fewer regulations and corporations write laws to maximize their profits. But then they hoard all that wealth at the top. All of the prosperity you reference isn’t enjoyed by 90% of Americans. And the floor in America (the worst-off you can be) is well below the floor in Western Europe.

and how can Europe drive that kind of growth and innovation?

Again, not a mystery and it’s not something they really want to do. Because the answer is “gut regulations and social safety nets. Give employers total power of their workers, and slash taxes on businesses and the wealth.”

[-]

r00000000@reddit

90% is a huge over exaggeration, I agree that the floor in America is worse than the worst in a lot of European countries but most Americans are wealthier than Europeans in the same percentile. The trade-offs are the quality of life aspects like PTO, average working hours, and crime though and it's up to the individual whether that's worth it.

Considering we're on r/cars, I have to put forth the argument that the looser regulations, higher incomes, and larger property sizes most Americans have compared to Europeans are VERY attractive to the demographics on here.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

90% is a huge over exaggeration

It’s really not. If anything, I’m being too generous.

but most Americans are wealthier than Europeans in the same percentile.

But we are NOT actually. Because though we get a higher pay check, we HAVE to spend it on healthcare, childcare, retirement, and saving for our children’s education. And don’t even get me started on the absolute bullshit of how our healthcare is tied to our employment. Europeans don’t have to set aside money for any of that, so they have MORE cash to spend than we do.

The trade-offs are the quality of life aspects like PTO, average working hours, and crime though and it's up to the individual whether that's worth it.

Except they get all that, and as I explained, we don’t actually get anything in return for forgoing those things.

are VERY attractive to the demographics on here.

And? That doesn’t mean they aren’t fucking stupid. It is quintessentially American to ride that “American exceptionalism” all the way into a fiery reck. Don’t expect much introspection and critical analysis out of your average American.

[-]

r00000000@reddit

Idk what you're trying to do by linking that chart, being completely honest, it just makes me think you're a bit too engrossed in Reddit's far left propaganda narratives.

We can measure it by purchasing power parity, disposable income and the median in the US is far higher than every other country in the world except Luxembourg. While it's true that it doesn't include expenses like saving for education, healthcare, etc. you can sort of get an estimate for it through CPI, although I argue that the American model increases dispersion of outcomes as if you're healthy and young with wise spending/investing habits, the extra money saved/invested by not paying for these resources will outweigh the costs later in life. Personally, I'm Canadian so I don't agree with it from a societal health, humanitarian, or even efficiency from an economies of scale POV, but from a personal finance POV, it's easy to see how Americans oppose a more progressive system even if 99% of people don't actually end up better off in practice.

Europeans don’t have to set aside money for any of that, so they have MORE cash to spend than we do.

I've traveled a lot and met a lot of people, and this is definitely not the case in my experience. Americans have far higher purchasing power and the potential for growing more wealth.

[-]

BigJellyfish1906@reddit

Idk what you're trying to do by linking that chart, being completely honest

You could try reading it, for one. That chart is just a visual representation of these numbers from the federal government.

by not paying for these resources will outweigh the costs later in life.

That is a HUGE assumption and your entire position hinges on it. And obviously tens of millions of people fall short of that. Because it’s not some binary thing. It’s a level of success you have to maintain for your entire life, because in America, you are one medical episode away from wiping out all of that work.

but from a personal finance POV, it's easy to see how Americans oppose a more progressive system even if 99% of people don't actually end up better off in practice.

Why? The ones that are literally worse off because of it are fucking idiots.

I've traveled a lot and met a lot of people, and this is definitely not the case in my experience.

Well that there is called anecdotal evidence. So you must have talked to some particularly well-off Americans and some particularly troubled Europeans. But rest assured those Europeans will never have to worry about the cost of healthcare, childcare, university, and largely don’t have to worry about retirement.

Another thing that gets easily lost in these reports that hides how bad the situation is, is what eluded to earlier. There are tens of millions, maybe over 100,000,000 Americans that are making it work, so they look fine in these numbers. But as I said, this system requires continuous success. The amount of debt Americans live with, and the proliferation of living paycheck to paycheck for higher income earners, means the vast majority of the country is one life hiccup away from total ruin. That doesn’t show up on these economic reports.

What good does that $150,000 you saved do you when your kid gets injured in a car wreck and you have to quit your job and blow through all that money to pay for his rehabilitation? You aren’t safe from something like that until you literally retire. Americans spend literally their entire working lives at risk of getting totally fucked over. How’s that for freedom?

[-]

r00000000@reddit

The chart in isolation doesn't really mean anything, which is why I asked you what your point was with the chart, like yes it's a visualization of the problematic income inequality in the US but what does that have to do with the comparison to EU for the average person?

But rest assured those Europeans will never have to worry about the cost of healthcare, childcare, university, and largely don’t have to worry about retirement.

Lol, the last thing Europe needs is even more regulation for anything. Large SUVs and crossovers are here to stay and the market demand across all over the world is starting to prove that, irrespective of regulations.

[-]

Parcours97@reddit

Lol, the last thing Europe needs is even more regulation for anything.

What regulations are you talking about?

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

And thats why Europes climate goals are useless. So fun cars should stay too.

[-]

peakdecline@reddit

The most popular SUVs, especially in Europe, are absolutely no larger on the road than the cars they're replacing. Footprint matters for that. You could argue about pedestrian safety... though again Europeans are not buying the types of large trucks and BOF SUVs that are popular in the US (though again... the best selling BOF SUVs in the US are a fraction of the sales of the CUVs).

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

They still emit more fuel and have worse visibility compared to their regular car counterparts.

[-]

peakdecline@reddit

Do they? When every single upcoming RAV4 is going to be a hybrid? Compared to a sports car? I don't think you have a strong case.

Sports cars are going to need to follow suit. Just the reality of it. Those CUVs you're complaining about have actually adopted powertrains that keep improving their efficiency.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

A hybrid hatchback will still be more efficient and safer for pedestrians. Heavier hybrid vehicles also require bigger batteries and thus require more resources.

[-]

peakdecline@reddit

A hatchback that sits one or two more inches off the ground isn't moving the needle on either of these. You're basically making stuff up. Europe doesn't have an epidemic of large, inefficient SUVs flooding their market. The SUVs that are popular there are basically RAV4 or smaller and using small displacement, often times hybridized engines, or are EVs. And then in your need to grasp straws you're saying they shouldn't use the more efficient engines?

These again are also not the models which pose significant increased risk to pedestrians. Its not like the Tahoe is popular in Europe.

PSfreak10001@reddit

What the fuck do you mean stagnant? The EU itself has grown 27% over the past 20 years and countries that joined in 2004 have grown up to 80%

[-]

tamaytotomahto@reddit

‘Economically stagnant’ - yet somehow in the last 20 years has produced some amazing cars, built infrastructure and is able to hold trade talks on an equal footing with every super power in the world. Sure mate.

[-]

Nily_W@reddit

At least we can drink our tap water, have no roaming fees in our neighbor country’s, have free real time bank transactions, brought usb-type C to the iPhone. We don’t have gun violence and school shoutings. We have alternatives to car mobility. We can study at university’s basically for free. We have 30 vacation days pro year and we use them to have fun. Live is good. Even without fuel inefficiency and annoying noise.

[-]

Pixelplanet5@reddit

who has been economically stagnant for the last 20 years exactly?

[-]

tom_zeimet@reddit

I don’t think regulations are really at fault, enthusiast cars have been declining in popularity for years now. Many manufacturers have given up on convertibles like VW and Audi looks to discontinue the A5 convertible soon.

With the exception of some hot hatches/estates like the Golf GTI, R, Cupra Leon and Octavia RS, people are just not buying enthusiast cars that compromise on practicality any more. Cars are expensive and having a second impractical car is a luxury most people can’t afford any more.

We have enthusiast cars in Europe like the MX-5 (miata) GR-86 etc, but they’re just not popular. Performance SUVs on the other hand, sell like hotcakes, like the Cupra Formentor.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

There is less enthusiasts buying new cars due to them being out of their price range. How did they get so epensive? Regulations. But there ist still millions of enthusiasts out there.

[-]

bigrigtexan@reddit

The environment is saved!

[-]

NuBlyatTovarish@reddit

Part of me wishes there were exemptions for enthusiast cars like special plate with limited miles per year. I know tracks exist but they are beyond expensive

[-]

Maximillien@reddit

Meanwhile in the US, the complete lack of regulations means drivers having too much "fun" with their cars are killing people at an alarming rate.

[-]

RearAdmiralP@reddit

US ... complete lack of regulations

If you think the US is free of regulations, you obviously haven't gotten around much. There are big chunks of the world where it's much easier to exercise the right to drive.

My favorite place to drive so far is Mauritania, where, as far as I can tell, there are no rules-- anyone can drive anything anywhere. It's glorious. The only thing that would make it better is if it were possible to booze cruise, like elsewhere in Africa, but, as an Islamic republic, alcohol in general is frowned on there. Lack of booze aside, the road infrastructure, respect for the right to drive, and general road culture makes Mauritania awesome.

killing people at an alarming rate

Freedom is dangerous and anti-social. You don't need freedom to do things that everyone agrees is safe and social beneficial. You need freedom for things that people don't like. The deaths and injuries are worth it.

[-]

Maximillien@reddit

The deaths and injuries are worth it

Corporate greed in the eternal pursuit of ever rising profits killed fun cars in Europe.

Limitation breeds creativity. Bean counters and greedy investors killed fun cars.

[-]

Fcckwawa@reddit

Nothing new when it comes to europe regulations but the Good ole reddit replies will be entertaining to read 😂.

[-]

rxf555@reddit

Yeah r/cars & Europe do not mix. Just misinformed opinions & rubbish from a bunch of Americans

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Policy discussion is welcome. However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.

[-]

Funny_things_online@reddit (OP)

Just saying that not every European brand has put massive screens(that lack physical buttons) in their cars.

[-]

justcuckmyshitupfam2@reddit

Learn to work with the regulations that are in front of you.

[-]

GTSW1FT@reddit

Like, the eu has kit cars (tipcaly a tube chassis with fiberglass body work) right. Why not just build up one of them with a engine that meets emissions and have fun that way. Don't rely on the oem's for your fun.

[-]

VestrTravel@reddit

Might as well call this sub “economycars” lol

[-]

ggtsu_00@reddit

We'll happily take those GR Yaris's if you don't want them

No idea, but if they were it would have been the previous gen not the current gen

[-]

AaminMarritza@reddit

As if that weren’t enough, even the models that survive face extreme headwinds in Europe. Several countries impose gigantic taxes on high-emission vehicles. Take the Netherlands, where a Toyota GR Yaris starts at €89,295 ($102,000). In France, the mandatory CO₂ tax pushes the price of the three-cylinder hot hatch into six-figure territory. Speaking of Toyota, the Supra is on its way out too, another performance car disappearing from Europe.

What the absolute fuck is going on over there. A three cylinder hot hatch is priced into six figures by CO2 taxes?

I’ll bet $100k it’s life cycle emissions are lower than the untaxed Mercedes EQS SUV or BMW i7 once you count the CO2 produced in making those massive batteries.

Secondly, using the German grid as an example it is 380 grams per kWh.

Germany is most likely on the higher end of the grid emissions in Europe. In Norway that for example is pretty much zero and here in Finland It's around 20-30g/KWH

[-]

LordofSpheres@reddit

The problem is that if we start thinking about rare earths in batteries, we have to start thinking about the nickel and bauxite and everything else that goes into creating a GR Yaris, and it all gets hopelessly complicated. And, of course, we have to consider that the average Yaris driver is not likely to be getting 186 g/km - they will probably be doubling that.

And, of course, battery swaps are incredibly unlikely. The average battery will last much more than the lifetime of the vehicle now.

[-]

Its ok

Id rather have less noise

NordGinger917@reddit

Regulations have killed everything in Europe

[-]

deleted_by_reddit@reddit

[removed]

[-]

AutoModerator@reddit

Policy discussion is welcome. However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[-]

Shad0wAVM@reddit

That has been happening for a long time. At least we still have motorcycles.

[-]

the_house_from_up@reddit

Even those are getting regulated out of existence. 4 cylinder sport bikes are being knee capped in lieu of parallel twins because of Euro 6/7 emissions.

There are still plenty of choices for high revving sporty bikes, but are definitely going the way of the dodo in the next few years.