this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
1329 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

12420 readers
518 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Q: How many parking spaces does the small truck take up?

A: Exactly the same number as the big one does.

The problem is all cars, not just big cars. Small cars contribute to cities being designed to cater to drivers at the exclusion of every other consideration just as much as big ones do. Small cars require just as many lanes of traffic, and just as much otherwise-useful land paved over and obliterated for parking. Walkability gets ruined by minimum parking requirements just as much whether the cars in those spaces are Priuses or F-250s.

Posts like this are nothing but a circlejerk for small-car drivers to feel smug about themselves when the reality is that THEY ARE JUST AS MUCH PART OF THE PROBLEM.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

That Tacoma is what USA got. Check out the Toyota workmate which was born out of a camry with an aluminum tray. Even the 2024 model is modest by today's vehicles. https://www.toyota.com.au/hilux/workmate

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I have a similar comparison between my 2000 bmw z3 and 56 Chevy bel air with a 74 Chevelle engine and I have tested my z3 mpg and got 29mpg and knowing my z3 tank and bel air tank are the same size and every week of daily driving my z3 has about a quarter of a tank left and my bel air typically has half a quarter left so I guesstimate my bel air gets about 20 or 25 mpg but because I work at a dealership I get to see the mpg of every brand new car that comes in and I've seen 4runners tundras and Silverados that roll onto the lot rated at as low as 15mpg how the fuck is my car from the 50s more eco friendly than a considerable number of new cars on the road today if my car had a overdrive I could probably understand but I have a 3 speed automatic that it came out the factory with I should be needing to have at least a modern engine and transmission to make my bel air comparable but no just having a early 70s motor is enough to get better mileage then new 2024 trucks

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The bel air probably doesn't have any emissions stuff. That's why it gets better gas milage than you expect, whereas the newer stuff absolutely does. Plus trucks are geared for torque, unlike a car, which reduces mpg. A more apt comparison would be to older ('50-'70s) trucks, where you were probably talking more around 9-10mpg without emissions.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

And both manage to have the same internal dimensions of a Nissan Micra.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Usually if you're hauling anything significant the bed isn't even used. You use a trailer.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (22 children)

Which one holds more cargo?

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

From what I've heard they're the same bed size, but the newer one has a back seat area too

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

People pussy foot around the answer and give you the wrong answer of the same, but the f-150 can haul up to 1000kg and tow 6300kg while the ranger can haul 850kg and tow a whooping 3,400kg.

load more comments (19 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Fuck the chicken tax

Capitalists hate competition

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

On the flip side, the number of people I see towing an RV behind a mid-sized SUV with the front wheels lifting off the ground is astounding. For every guy that bought a truck that never tows anything heavy and never sees any dirt, there's two idiots towing something 4x what their car is capable of putting you and everyone else on the road in danger.

https://i.imgur.com/vkI5EAG.jpeg

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

So tiny truck built on a car platform vs heavy duty pickup

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›