[uuddlrlrbaba]

> There are also basically no wagons anymore. Apparently everything has to be a high-off-the-ground poor-visibility pedestrian murder machine to be profitable for the auto industry anymore.

Honestly this just indicates that you haven't seriously driven a modern CUV. What you describe sounds like a 1990 suburban.

CUVs wouldn't be so popular without being safe and easy to drive.

Sure, I'm opposed to daily driving trucks and truck frame SUVs. But thats an important distinction. The popular cars in the US today are CUVs which are built on a car chassis and generally speaking have good visibility and safety features. They are essentially scaled up wagons with awd.

[DCH3416]

>CUVs wouldn't be so popular without being safe and easy to drive.

They wouldn't be so popular if every other car on the road didn't tower over conventional sedans. Why would you want a car that rides worse, is heavier, and costs more to buy and live with? People don't want vehicles that feel sunken into the ground and increasingly that's how sedans are perceived. It's a runaway effect.

[uuddlrlrbaba]

Worse than what? And why are sedans conventional? The Sedan is a terrible legacy design shape. The divided trunk and rear seats wastes a ton of space.

A wagon or sportback I can understand. And thats essentially what a small CUV is based on, along with a bit more ride height and often awd drivetrain.

The CUV is popular because it's a really functional and practical design. You don't have to spend a lot on one, but you can. Maybe test drive some more and it'll click why so many people drive them. They don't all handle poorly either, some are downright fun.

[jacobolus]

> haven't seriously driven a modern CUV

I've driven these a few times as rentals; I don't know if that counts as "serious". They are more expensive, they handle worse, they are heavier, they are less stable because they are significantly higher off the ground, they have poorer visibility as a driver especially of nearby low objects, all else equal they get worse gas mileage, and are basically the same size inside so that the seating and cargo is not appreciably different compared to a wagon.

In my opinion and for my use cases they are worse in every way except for profit for the manufacturer.

[dmd]

The Forester is basically perfect, IMO. (Though it would be more perfect as a hybrid.)

[RantyDave]

https://priceonomics.com/how-an-ad-campaign-made-lesbians-fa...

[otteromkram]

Found the Coloradan!

[nradov]

There's nothing wrong with daily driving a truck frame SUV like a Toyota 4Runner. Those are very practical vehicles for anyone who occasionally needs to drive on rough dirt roads or tow a small trailer (and that's a lot of people).

[nucleardog]

> Those are very practical vehicles for anyone who occasionally needs to drive on rough dirt roads or tow a small trailer (and that's a lot of people).

Most people don’t need this beyond what most modern vehicles can already do.

I’ve got what is termed a “compact sport sedan”.

I live in rural Canada. I can guarantee that car has seen more gravel, mud and barely roads that most cars will see in their lifetime, trucks included. Never mind the snow and ice. The experience is in no way challenging or compromised.

I regularly use it to tow a 5’x10’ trailer. Most I’ve pulled is just shy of 3,000lbs. Only compromise there I’ve found is pulling it up the 8% grade headed toward my house I had to take it down from 6th to 5th gear to maintain 70mph.

This is _way_ more than most people demand of their vehicles.

A truck is practical for the average person in much the same way that using a kinetic orbital strike to drive a nail is a practical as a replacement for a hammer.

[neuralRiot]

That’s the equivalent of wearing rubber boots or cleats everyday to the office. My next vehicle will be a Cat 797 just in case i need to haul 400 tons.

[DCH3416]

Well, there is because it's wasteful. Wasteful of material, and finite resources that we in the US subsidize to keep fuel prices from being adjusted to what they would be relative to the rest of the world. Further roads now in modern society are better than they ever have been, especially compared to the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Tires are better. You mean to tell me these days we need more capable vehicles compared to the land yachts and economy cars we drove back in the day? Can't forget a Buick park avenue V6 can be used to tow, and other folks in the world use things like priuses to tow trailers. And frankly I've gone down rough dirt roads in old civics before.

So yeah. Needless to say the practically argument is lackluster relative to the actual capabilities of most vehicles. I think folks are just overestimating their use cases which will cost us in the long run because you've financed yourself to death through the cost of ownership.