←back to thread

The $25k car is going extinct?

(media.hubspot.com)
319 points pseudolus | 4 comments | 29 Jun 25 15:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.876s | source
Show context
puzzlingcaptcha ◴[30 Jun 25 06:20 UTC] No.44420041[source]▶
You can still buy a new subcompact car (like a Renault Clio or Skoda Fabia) in Europe for under 20k EUR.

The more interesting question is why these cars disappeared in the US. And while many of the factors discussed here are true for both EU and US (inflation, interest rates, manufacturer profit margins etc) I am surprised no one mentioned the 'SUV loophole' of US regulations that effectively boosted the SUVs (off-road vehicles are classified as non-passenger automobiles with everything that entails, notably much less stringent emission standards) and made the small cars unprofitable to make in comparison.

replies(14): >>44420374 #>>44420455 #>>44420471 #>>44420527 #>>44420555 #>>44420619 #>>44420656 #>>44420684 #>>44420755 #>>44420923 #>>44421591 #>>44421629 #>>44422348 #>>44426897 #
rmnwski ◴[30 Jun 25 07:31 UTC] No.44420471[source]▶
Also, the more SUVs are driven, the less safe people feel (and arguably are), accelerating the need to buy an SUV for safety reasons.
replies(1): >>44421146 #
amelius ◴[30 Jun 25 09:18 UTC] No.44421146[source]▶
On the other hand, if you kill someone in a traffic accident, you feel shit the rest of your life.
replies(5): >>44421208 #>>44421430 #>>44421471 #>>44422253 #>>44424661 #
cornholio ◴[30 Jun 25 10:11 UTC] No.44421471[source]▶
The main point here is that it sounds a lot like a zero sum game, people are struggling to catch a bigger share of a limited "safety" pie while manufacturers instigating the mass war are watching their profits increase.

It's not clear at all to me how a crash involving two SUVs is much safer than, say, a 2 bike crash, and in fact there is a particular type of accident (front-overs of children) than trucks are strongly susceptible to and would never happen with lower mass / shorter vehicles. This all points towards a runaway tragedy of the commons that can be solved by limiting vehicle mass.

replies(2): >>44421489 #>>44421662 #
1. potato3732842 ◴[30 Jun 25 10:48 UTC] No.44421662[source]▶
Except they're not though. Buyers are juggling many more criteria and safety is only a "nice to have" after fitness for purpose is achieved. Like no amount of internet fanboys screeching about Volvo's safety record will make someone who wants a roadster buy one over a Miata.

While I'm sure there is some amount of the affect you're describing the lion's share of it is likely CAFE rules favoring larger footprint vehicles effectively discounting SUVs causing them to be a better bang for your buck.

>It's not clear at all to me how a crash involving two SUVs is much safer than,

It is by the simple physics of having more distance to dissipate force over and less distance between the occupants and stuff in the cabin.

> This all points towards a runaway tragedy of the commons that can be solved by limiting vehicle mass.

Which will never happen because the same exact upper middle class demographics that screech all over the internet about safety are the exact same people who would see their buying choices degrade as a result of such.

replies(2): >>44421922 #>>44422436 #
2. cornholio ◴[30 Jun 25 11:23 UTC] No.44421922[source]▶
> It is by the simple physics

Is this a personal theory, a hunch, or do you have data or citations?

> of having more distance to dissipate force over and less distance between the occupants and stuff in the cabin.

So what we need are bigger vehicles made out of lighter materials, to increase the distance and reduce the forces, perhaps some comically large Styrofoam bumpers protecting our bikes? Now, I can get behind that.

> safety is only a "nice to have"

Buyers are a diverse group, you know. There is a substantial segment that rates safety as a the top priority, and there is very little doubt the SUV mass race is strongly related to the "perception of safety" larger vehicles provide, of course not to the actual safety reality and externalities they incur to the rest of society.

Another substantial segment is driven by the "perception of masculinity" their large vehicles provides. You couldn't make up this level of lameness.

replies(1): >>44422081 #
3. potato3732842 ◴[30 Jun 25 11:44 UTC] No.44422081[source]▶
>Is this a personal theory, a hunch, or do you have data or citations?

Find any "professional" talking on record about small car safety and they will lament the reduced space for crumple zones, reduced distance from head to structure, etc.

>Another substantial segment is driven by the "perception of masculinity" their large vehicles provides. You couldn't make up this level of lameness.

I suspect the number of people who see a big truck as projecting masculinity is in fact smaller than the people who enjoy that other people will assume they bought the truck for that reason and dislike or be offended by it.

4. tuna74 ◴[30 Jun 25 12:28 UTC] No.44422436[source]▶
If you would have to pay for mass (taxes etc) that would most probably influence people to go lighter. It also makes sense because heavier cars cause more road damage.