The Ford Maverick is the smallest, if that’s what you’re thinking. A bit larger, but with better towing and off-road ability, you’re looking at Ford Ranger, Chevy Colorado/GMC Canyon, Toyota Tacoma, and Nissan Frontier.
Yikes?! A Ford RANGER is considered a small truck to you?? They’re part of the growing plague of stupidly large trucks in my part of the world!? :-/ I mean I knew the US had big trucks but I never thought the Ranger would be considered the small alternative?! We’re so screwed?! :-(
It’s so shocking?! I’m looking at a Ranger out in the car park right now and trying to imagine something bigger parked out there?! It wouldn’t fit within the bounds of the parking space?! Already if there were two Rangers parked next to each other there wouldn’t be enough room to walk between them, even if you turned side on :-/ Let alone having room to be able to open the door and get in & out?!
In fact I can see that it’s had a flow on effect whereby every other parked car has had to park on the extreme edge of their space to allow room to open the door and get out. If there was one more Ranger anywhere along the line someone would be likely blocked from getting in or out of their car!
The Ranger in the 80s and 90s was a perfectly reasonable size. The new ones are gigantic next to them, but they’re still smaller than almost anything available in the North American market.
It is one of the smallest available in US. Of course I’m referring to Tacoma with a standard cab, not the People Hauler 5000 it’s basically a minivan crew cab configuration.
The Tacoma would actually be my pickup of choice. I hate the modern styling, but the Toyota build is just so solid & Ford as of late has been disappointing. To say the least. The green movement is not only based on size, but how durable a product is & if it can last for many, many years of reliable operation. Unfortunately we do not have Hilux, but Tacoma is America’s version of Hilux.
Now this is just personal taste, but I really don’t like the looks of that truck. Cosmetically, I put it on the same level as the Chevy Colorado. Generally speaking, Hyundai isn’t known for quality builds like Toyota, not even close.
That said: the new Hyundai Elantra makes the short list of vehicles I’d be interested in, buying new. Scotty Kilmer praises its naturally aspirated, non-turbo engine & traditional build components. Thinks it could last a long time. 👍🏻
I love it so far, especially now that I got a bed extender so I can haul full sheets of plywood and such.
It’s got a ton of power under the hood. I average around 26/30mpg, but my wife averages 28/32-35mpg
It’s really roomy inside too. I’m 6’3 and this is the first vehicle I’ve driven where I didn’t have to move the seat all the way back. And people are able to sit comfortably behind me.
I highly recommend trying to get one with the tourneau cover on the bed, because it’s amazing. But don’t get the trailer hitch from them. You can save $3-400 having a local mechanic do it.
My only real gripes are that the AC blows too hard on its lowest setting (for me) if just the upper vents are blowing. The ride is also pretty smooth, so I often catch myself speeding without realizing it. Also that the steering wheel controls don’t have a play/pause button.
I’d skip the Santa Cruz largely since Hyundai/Kia are experts at cost-cutting that blows up big in customer faces down the line. (anti-theft, engines, warranty work, wiring, etc.) but your options are already limited so I wouldn’t blame you for getting it. I’d get the base engine/transmission though if you anticipate stop/go traffic or off-road use since the dual-clutch in the upper engine option is better than dry clutch models but IMHO still suspect.
I would lean towards the Maverick but neither are really “small” since they’re still pretty long.
There’s the Transit Connect if you want a cargo van that’s compact.
EPA regulations that car manufacturers used as a way to game the system by not focusing on ICE efficency, hybridization, transitioning to electric sooner.
This is the same reason sedans have gotten larger or disappeared in favor of “cross-overs”.
For real, these things are basically minivans for suburban dads. The primary thing this thing will be hauling is kids to soccer practice. At Christmas time, though, he’ll go get the tree from Home Depot himself, instead of needing to have it delivered.
I’m tired of people looking at me crazy because I keep suggesting we need better public transportation rather than fucking electric cars. We are 100% going to replace every car in America with an E.V before we ever expand access to public transportation. And we will do this because the car manufacturers stock prices will go up if we do.
Attacking SUV drivers is precisely the wrong way to go about reversing the surrender of the public realm to the automobile and it is exactly the right way to start another immature culture war , alienating a lot of potential allies in the fight to reclaim out streets .
Exactly this. There are some clear use cases for cars and even for SUVs (possibly only if you literally live or work on a large farm). There’s no case for driving an SUV in a city. It’s antisocial behaviour at best and actively threatening at worst!
It makes the roads safer and that saves lives. It reduces pollution, saving more lives. It also saves space. That doesn’t save lives, granted, but it’s still a good thing.
If we accept any use cases for cars (and I do, personally), even if it’s primarily in the short to medium term while we build better urban infrastructure, then we should also advocate for those cars to be as small, as safe and as clean as possible.
A street filled with VW Golfs instead of Land rovers, still afforded the vast majority of space in town, still given priority at every turn and still transporting one or two people at a time, doesn’t move us much further forwards .
As is covered in the article, explaining the environmental impact of SUVs to SUV owners does not change their mind or encourage them to get a different car; it is effectively ignored.
So that is where ideas like the deflators come in, you make it more inconvenient, maybe that will work where polite discussion did not.
To be honest, I’m sick of trying to politely persuade people to stop killing other people with their idiotic cars. All cars are bad, yes. SUVs are the worst. It’s perfectly reasonable to try to solve a wicked problem by going for the worst offenders first.
Good. Speed cameras are an abominable hypocrisy. The claim that they’re there because safety is important is undermined by the total lack of action Devon and Cornwall police take against actual unsafe drivers.
I drove past a police officer standing with a speed camera recently at 20mph with another car driving less than two feet from my bumper.
Had I been speeding I’d have gotten a ticket, meanwhile the police watch this actually dangerous driver sail past them without taking any action.
Half a mile later I have to drive onto the wrong side of the road around a lorry parked on a corner, with almost no visibility of oncoming traffic.
Their moral authority is destroyed and their pretence shattered by their own inaction and ineffectiveness.
So tear down the speed cameras if it highlights their fiction. Devon and Cornwall police are great at many things. Traffic is not one of them.
A place where I lived they installed eur 600k worth of cameras. I mean every little corner was covered.
Well one day I got beaten up and the police didn’t care when I tried to report it. And another day I found a backpack so I brought it to the police and this woman was incredibly rude to me.
I mean for 600k they could have a full time patrol there!
Speed cameras are designed to do one thing – issue citations for speeding.
The job of the police officer is to identify a wide array of crimes and issue citations for them, when they observe them.
The incident where a car was tailgating you and the incident where a lorry was creating an unsafe driving situation have absolutely nothing to do with the speeding camera. Both of those situations are the responsibility of a policy officer, if they are alerted to the crime or observe it themselves. You have a valid complaint about the complacency of your local law enforcement, but what does your argument have to do with the speed camera?
The basis for the rationale for putting up speed cameras depends on the police to act with an unquestionable moral authority.
By acting with inconsistent moral principles they demonstrate their stated and genuine motives differ which undermines the moral authority they need to police by consent.
It explicitly takes control away from the police and moves it to simple sensors and circuits, as well as simple bureaucratic mailing lists. If it screws up, you can either request a manual review of the footage or spend an afternoon to bring your own evidence it in front of a judge. The police have nothing to do with it.
I think fear grips people at every angle and none of us are brave enough to accept bold action for positive change in our society. It seems like most people are just retracting instead.
I vaguely remember that “Ye” (formerly Kanye West) once said something like he formed a think tank to build a city but the thing stopping his team was that “Ye” didn’t understand any of the concepts and he ran it into the ground.
I want public transportation, I think everyone wants it at this point but no no one understands why we need it. They all just want to escape.
(This message was brought to you by the new 2024 Ford Escape: just hit the road and escape to paradise)
There’s no comparison to the personal freedom of having a car versus being dependent on others to ferry you around. That’s why America will always be built around our great car infrastructure. We will never give up our freedom to roam our huge awesome land.
Nothing like freedom like actively removing people from having multiple choices of transit by making illegal to build anything that isn’t dependent on cars.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to spend thousands on a several ton machine to do any task outside your home.
Nothing like freedon like being forced to pay predatory insurance to private corporations in order to be legally allowed to drive your vehicle.
Nothing like freedom like being dependent on oil companies that actively lobby against you in order to drive the vehicle that you are forced to own.
Nothing like freedom like having infustructure that denies poor people and disabled people from participating in society.
Nothing like freedom like having no independence if you are too old, too young, too intoxicated, or too disabled to drive.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to have a license issued by your government in order to be independent.
Nothing like freedom like being forced to use a vehicle that spies on you and collects information such as your sexual activity, immigration status, ‘private’ conversations, location, and much more.
And here again we see the typical attempt to put words in somebody’s mouth. I never said anything about what poor people deserve, that’s your words, not mine.
When you don’t have a substantial rebuttal, you just make up a strawman argument.
IMO everyone, regardless of economic stature, deserves every form of freedom legitimately available in society. For this example, if a poor person couldn’t afford a car I would suggest a cheap used motorcycle. I’ve bought a couple of those, one was $900 and the other was $2500.
This is incredibly insane when you consider the cost incurred to maintain a vehicle. No poor person would do this in the right mind it would be nothing but a debt trap. It’s shameful that public transit is downright near illegal and most metropolitan areas in North America and it is the best solution get over it
You’re overestimating the cost to own a vehicle. My costs are very low overall. I spend about $50 a month on gas or less, and I have no car payments, and my insurance cost is about $100 per month. Total cost of ownership for my 2 vehicles is less than $200 per month, and I can drive them anywhere I want at any time.
I’ve both been poor and owned a few vehicles and $2000 repair bills happen, more than once in the life cycle of a car and much more than I could ever afford if I hadn’t been better off before I pulled the trigger in cars but down take my word for it John Oliver did a great peice on how bad of a debt trap they are on average
I would argue that a fast, frequent and comprehensive public transport system gives you more personal freedom. Being able to easily get around without having to worry about piloting a heavy vehicle, without the burden of maintenance, and being flexible once out due to not needing to worry about where you’re storing your car. Plug the gaps with (electric and/or cargo) bikes for shorter trips and car share for longer ones and you have a much better, more equitable transport system.
All public transport vehicles are heavier than my personal vehicle though. Also public transport doesn’t provide the freedom of choosing any destination that you want, and taking yourself there on your own schedule. That’s what I was talking about.
You aren’t piloting a public transport vehicle, a professional is and you are free to not worry about it.
A frequent and comprehensive public transport system does allow for that freedom, without all of the burdens of car ownership. Bikes and car share can be used to fill in the gaps when the public transport isn’t comprehensive enough.
The other option to “reduce” cars is replan and rebuild entire cities, districts and even countries around the idea of places being nearby enough to be able to walk or cycle. And cars would still be needed.
This is why mobile electric cars are an easier option. It turns out that there has to be some level of autonomy and ownership, rather than thinking purging cars out of existence will suddenly move us towards full communism, or whatever the idea is. Allowing personal ownership means people have ways to rebuild places to live or migrate for themselves.
The bigger problem is not the smaller cars, but the SUVs and mini trucks everyone loves to have, and multiple car ownership. Pareto frontier is the key to everything, cutting down on emissions and too many cars on roads included.
what gets me is the shear amount of paint there is, we drive about 30 miles and most of the way is like this with just little mounds of yellow dust and Im sure it all just washes away in the rain to places we dont want it to end up. Also apparently birds need to eat rocks and stuff to help break down food so they hopefully are just getting the little rocks and not the paint chunks
I was astounded when I saw stats on how many birds get killed by cars every year (I think it was posted here a while back). Its like an ongoing bird genocide. No wonder birds shit all over parked cars. We can’t even fault them for this, but it would also be illegal for us to join in. :D
I’d love to know the difference in average bird fatalities for a busy 4 lane highway vs a double-tracked rail line with overhead catenary.
This isn’t even to mention the other many ways we’re constantly actively contributing to the deaths of birds through suburbia, even indirectly. Aside from the obvious stuff like getting rid of the trees they inhabit in the rare urban areas, we even kill them in the places they can live, by having “outdoor cats” as if they arent an invasive species. Letting them predate on the local bird population can be hugely detrimental!
fuck_cars
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.