←back to thread

The $25k car is going extinct?

(media.hubspot.com)
319 points pseudolus | 5 comments | 29 Jun 25 15:59 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
potato3732842 ◴[30 Jun 25 10:34 UTC] No.44421591[source]▶
What a counterproductive comment in a world where the average SUV is something a lot closer in qualities to a traditional car than a traditional SUV.

Ford's linup is a great example how you people harping on SUVs actively detract from the discussion. What you call the Flex, the Ecosport and the C-max doesn't really matter. They're obviously by virtue of their attributes much closer to a "car" than they are to a traditional truck-ish SUV.

Every OEM's lineup has examples of this (Honda Crosstour anyone?).

The OEMs could make these things very cheaply if they wanted, look at the Maverick, a brand new model debuting at 25k. But they don't, why?

replies(1): >>44421657 #
Orygin ◴[30 Jun 25 10:47 UTC] No.44421657[source]▶
Do you consider a Ford Flex to not be a SUV ? Thing's huge and most other example you provided are either clearly SUV or are bigger than they need to be to be a "normal" car.
replies(1): >>44421748 #
1. potato3732842 ◴[30 Jun 25 10:59 UTC] No.44421748[source]▶
The Flex is close to identical in form factor and size to a pre-oil crisis station wagon. Probably has less ground clearance too. It takes the honesty of a professional political to call it an SUV.
replies(2): >>44421889 #>>44421975 #
2. campl3r ◴[30 Jun 25 11:20 UTC] No.44421889[source]▶
I got no good frame of reference, but google seems to suggest it's around 13% bigger than a typical station wagon.

How is this car not considered a massive SUV?

replies(1): >>44422010 #
3. Orygin ◴[30 Jun 25 11:29 UTC] No.44421975[source]▶
Are you comparing to the car market of 50 years past to justify a vehicle that is more akin to a tank than a modern regular car?

Like you say, the term itself is meaningless but it does encompass the current class of vehicles that are needlessly big, heavy, and so high of the ground that some tanks literally have better forward vision than those SUVs.

I don't really care what Americans drove 50 years ago, I care that most cars sold here (EU) are way oversized for practically no reason that the consumer cares about.

replies(1): >>44422092 #
4. Orygin ◴[30 Jun 25 11:35 UTC] No.44422010[source]▶
This thing is so huge, I cannot comprehend the American carbrain if it's considered "average" for them
5. potato3732842 ◴[30 Jun 25 11:45 UTC] No.44422092[source]▶
I'm comparing to pre-oil crisis land yachts because I don't want a bunch of nit picking jerks to complain that it's wider than the 1990ish county squire or caprice wagon I would have preferred to to compare it to on account of the comparable internal dimensions.