I still drive a 1.2 litre Renault Clio 2 built in 2001. It's an icredibly light car ( less than 900 kg ) and I still get 20km out of one litre of gas. I do drive it a little bit more than 5000 km a year but I'll soon be forced to dump it because of its emission despite it's still a perfectly working vehicle. Scrap my car and manufacturing a new one will definitely cause more pollution than I do driving it for a few kilometres each year during the season in which traffic restrictions are enforced. That's madness, that' s hypocrisy
One of the best cars and engines out there are the 1.9 TDi and its little brother from Renault the 1.5dci in the Renault Clio; but only in the Clio and maybe Modus. The moment it is in a Megan or even Scenic, they keep blowing up as they simply can't handle the weight of them. A friend of mine got one 10 years ago, they did cost nothing, I think he paid less then £1000 for it and it had not even 60.000mls on the clock - now the same car has close to 400.000 mls on the clock - he looks after it, made some minor changes like sporty suspension. Does most of the service for it and it keeps flying through MOT. He did like 20 road trips to Europe with it and visits nearly every year his home country Italy. That thing is unkillable.
Mum's 1985 Civic is my go-to favourite.. 2bbl carb, 55mpg (5.4 l/100k). 880kg which is a few kg lighter than my Elan+2! Slots through gaps a tosser wagon doesn't even consider and carries loads beyond belief. Why the average punter needs a mobile sight screen/truck to run around town is beyond me.
Oh yeah, both civics and clios are great cars. I owned a little white clio, with a 1.2 petrol engine. It was a great little car, but it didn't have power steering! It's surprising how much even a little car like that can benefit from power steering, because at low speeds, the steering was surprisingly heavy.
@@10secondsrule yeah, I would be very sceptical of anyone claiming that kind of mileage in a gas powered car. A rate of 20km/litre is equivalent to 56 mpg in imperial gallons, and I just don't find that plausible. I don't think I ever achieved more than about 45 mpg in my little 1.2 petrol clio (1998). 50 mpg (imperial) has been the holy grail of petrol powered cars for quite a while now, and some cars have come close, but as far as I'm aware, there's still no petrol cars that can do it easily, or in anything like normal driving conditions. In the uk the Ford fiesta 1.0 litre ecoboost triple came very close with an attainable 49mpg, but this was in the hands of a very experienced driver, driving on main highway, and making a very big effort to conserve fuel. Diesels can do this easily, but that's another story.
Audi A2 is 25 years old. They stopped producing them in 2005 as nobody was buying them. Aluminum body and 50/70mpg depending on petrol/diesel. Big cars (SUVs) are a status symbol for the city and suburbs.
Nobody was buying them because they were roughly 50% more expensive to buy than most equivalent cars of their size, and that was on top of Audi itself swallowing a huge £loss on each unit produced. There was no bigger status symbol in London in the early noughties than driving an A2 or a Smart Brabus - how many people had £25k to spend on a small City Car at that time? It was considered crazy-money and decadence only the wealthy could afford. Like EVs today, the savings in fuel just didn’t add up versus the extra cost of production.
I had A2 3l, easy 75mpg all day long. Shame that those are somewhat collector items now, and you won't find low mileage ones anymore (under 10K€)drove 360.000km`s (220.000 Miles)with mine until it was rear ended and car was bought out by insurance company... In other hand my "old" 2015 Volvo V70 diesel can barely manage 55mpg but it's decent considering Volvo weights almost double what A2 did😊
@@tobyholt4682 just look at the Ford Fiesta. And yes, it's money. A friend of mine worked at Honda, pointed out that the cost difference to manufacture a Jazz is basically the same as the cost to make a CRV. The time needed, and the process is basically the same. The materials are slightly more, but really not much as a percentage of the whole thing. Yet they can charge significantly more for the bigger car, and people will pay it, due to the perceived status upgrade, so of course they are going to focus on the bigger profit margin car.
Paris is trying to put a stop on heavy cars by charging those who live outside of the city more to park. We need more MK1 Twingo type of cars. Lightweight, durable and not too expensive to repair.
Agreed. The Twingo 1 is awesome. Very cute and seems very practical and good for the environment. Some people in my neighbourhood have had one for as long as I can remember (so over 10 years at least). I hope they will keep owning it for many more years.
All these big, heavy, clunky SUVs around, and when we are lucky enough to get something light, sporty, exciting and relatively affordable like the Toyota GR86 - they kill it with legislation after it's only been out for a couple of years!
The BRZ/GR6 twins were launched in 2012 - so have enjoyed over 10 years of life. It's therefore understandable that a new model will be released to replace the ageing car.
@georgebettiol8338 Yes, that's a good point, my knowledge of the car scene isn't that great, having spent a couple of decades fixated on bikes, but the GR86 model was getting such rave reviews and recognition as an improvement on the previous model, that healthy sales justifying at least a few more years of production would surely have followed? Toyota put focused effort into improving the car (over the previous GT86) so I am guessing that they were anticipating more than just a two year production run for the GR86 (if the aformentioned EU safety protocols hadn't brought the axe down prematurely) ?
Going back a couple of decades before EVs where a proper part of the car market place, I considered how to reduce pollution from cars and the simple solution that I came up with was: Limit the power output of the car to 100kw (134hp) unless it can also achieve a pre-set efficiency standard (at the time I considered 45mpg). This is enough power to tow up to the 3.5 ton limit and enough power for any family car to get well past the legal speed limit. It is also a rule that allows car manufactures to make any car that they want to be fast, if they also make them efficient. What it encourages is that weight is an enemy to be removed from car construction. What the EU have done is bring in tighter crash protection measures that mean that a key measure of a car is how well is protects the occupants and the easiest way to do that is to add mass to the vehicle.
The push for emissions controls has lead to the loss of small light efficient small petrol cars the VAG group has lost the UP Mii and Citigo yet retained large heavy cars.
A friend of mine, who is a Medical practitioner (Urologist) pointed out a study which found that the average penis size in Europe has shrunk 22% on avg., in the last two decades. There must be a correlation with the sudden increase in the preferable vehicle size/footprint. 🤔
@@paul29961 True but bare in mind that, when an engine is running at its most efficient, it MAXIMISES the CO2 emissions i.e. it receives enough oxygen to convert ALL the carbon-hydrogen molecules in the fuel to just CO2 and H2O. (This, obviously, ignores the impurities in the fuel such as sulphur etc.) Engine designers aim for maximum fuel combustion i.e. maximum CO2 production to maximise efficiency. It's government legislation that puts an emphasis on reducing CO2. This results in car manufacturers designing their engines to run below their max efficiency, take advantage of the allowance in other emissions (eg. unburned hydrocarbons), to minimise their advertised CO2 emissions I.e. governments don't know what they're doing!!
Why is my light weight aluminium diesel Jag XJ, that regularly does over 40mpg now effectively banned from the *whole* of London, whereas Sadiq Khan's V8 armoured Range Rover, isn't.
Because the world we live in is f*cked, and the lawmakers are stupid and/or they also drive 3 tonn V8s. Because your regular 'eco' minded guy voted for them without understanding how physics work. Because they preffer to buy battery powered crap which is the most polluting thing to produce and dispose of, while burning, on a global energy production average, 50% coal. Because hey coal is more ecological, isn't it?
In the UK we should do a deal with the Japanese to let us have Kei cars (given they are already RHD), and we should then give them a big tax break, just like the Japanese do. I dont know if i would fit in a Honda S660, but if i did it would do very nicely for all my day to day driving. Yet in Europe we have killed off most of the City cars by making them far too expensive and setting targets just on CO2.
Lighter smaller cars in an accident with a heavy EV (which they are because of heavy battery packs) will result in deaths of those in the lighter smaller cars. Allowing government to design our vehicles is the problem. The fact is government produces nothing, but trouble.
Depending on the design, you could go away with larger crumple zones in bigger cars. Basically, make larger cars softer were smaller cars are stiffer/harder. In a certain way, it will balance out.
I just posted this in the main comment section but it applies specifically to your post (I abbreviated it here): These three cars are all about the same performance, size, price, etc: Tesla Model 3 (EV) : 3,549lbs BMW 320i Sedan (gas) : 3,370lbs Mercedes C300 (gas) : 3,471lbs
Ahhh, government doesn't design cars. What they do is set safety/survival standards. Oh and you don't understand Newtonian physics. If the lighter cars are designed as they currently are with crumple zones and airbags, they that are much more likely to be deflected or bounce off heavier vehicles with an axial/ rotational vector in typical collisions Their mass is less and so their kinetic energy is less to add to a collision. Two heavier cars colliding with create a MUCH more energetic collision to be distributed throughout the structure and the occupants. F=MA.
@@thinkabit7264 two cars of the same weight hitting each other will simply stop. The occupants go from moving to not moving. If one car is heavier, it will slow down less and the smaller car will be accelerated backwards. The occupants of that car will go from moving forward to moving backward - much more force applied to the occupants. It's not really that difficult. Like the other person said - takes a second to Google it if you're confused.
Big cars are a status symbol. So long as human nature is to look richer than other people then this problem won't go away unless manufacturers are ordered to make smaller vehicles.
That's rubbish. I've had big cars and never bought one of them to look, or be, like someone wealthy. I enjoy driving a big car mainly for comfort and if I can, will continue to do so.
It is not all due to people wanting big, heavy cars. It's that government's mandate heavier cars due to overreaching safety mandates. The addition of all the mandatory and optional safety equipment, pedestrian safety design constraints and etc. make it impossible to buy a cheap, light vehicle.
they also are more expensive. the answer seems obvious though! more poor people! and if you bought big cars for due to prioritizing comfort you could afford to prioritize comfort at expense of price. it's not like small modern cars that are the size of midsize or large car of 30 years ago didn't exist either.
In Rotterdam they analysed the air quality in the city centre and decided to ban old diesels. 2 years down the line, they retested and found the air quality to be just as 'bad'. Old diesels though are not allowed back. Makes one wonder... Greetings from the Netherlands PS: CO2 is food for trees! ;) PS2: what kind of carburator you have on your cupboard Jack?
And what he should’ve said to make clear to his drivers, but clearly thought better of it, was that he barely gave a shot about the reliability or safety consequences!
BRAVO JACK, BRAVO!!! 👍👍👍 As a lifelong car-nut who also has a degree in environmental science and owns an antique Lotus (simplify and add lightness!), I wholeheartedly agree with you! I will elaborate on one point you made- while it's true that all forms of generation due eventually pollute in one way or another, electricity is still fantastic because it gives the greatest FLEXIBILITY in the source of generation and it really excels in reducing the pollution that is concentrated in populated areas, especially cities- which is where the majority of people live and do around 99% of their driving. Electricity is also the easiest to de-centralise and generate at any scale from just-enough solar on a house to help charge one car all the way up to massive power-plants that run entire regions. Lighter weight helps with EVERYTHING and thank you for making the case for it! I know that you have a much larger audience than I or many others have, so I'm really grateful that you've put this idea more forward for everyone to start thinking about. They may have trouble wrapping their brains around it at first, and getting around the notions they've always accepted to be true, but unless their minds are kept forced-shut, I think the idea will percolate and gain traction because the logic in undeniable. And I very much agree that the size of many large vehicles is indeed more than what many families need. I was a kid in the 1970s and we did just fine without SUVs and mini-vans. Bring back the estate, or 'wagon' as we call them over here in the USA, not just because they're better vehicles but because they're also pretty cool once you look past the family-bus aspect of them. And there are a few that are fun to drive as well as being practical haulers, as some of your own videos illustrate. Thanks again Jack, and I'm looking forward to more good stuff!
Unfortunately, there is one thing lighter weight does not help with … It doesn’t help the manufacture make money. Less weight = less complexity = less ‘added value’ = less profit. You can see this in everything from burgers to washing machines to cyber trucks. (With the exception of aerospace 😊).
Fully agree with you on the weight, Jack. The most fun cars I have driven have been around the tonne mark (BMW 2002, NA Miata, '94 SE-R). Knock 500kg off my Leaf and it would be a hoot. I borrowed a mate's early 90's manual Corolla last year and was amazed at how sprightly it felt. Sadly, the US government has decided that tanks are passenger vehicles, and class them differently for emissions regulations. These legislative mistakes of the 80's and 90's paved the way for 2t+ SUVs and trucks that people use to commute/get groceries, and incentivising petrol-based toys (snowmobiles, powerboats, dirt bikes, none of which have emissions controls). The other elephant in the room is tyres. We still haven't figured out how to deal with millions of tonnes of tyre dust polluting our environment, or coming up with a good way to recycle them. Heavy cars, EVs included, are contributing to this. My proposal - your annual registration includes 1.5t. Anything over that is taxed at USD500/year/tonne except vehicles with agricultural registrations. I can just hear the squeals from Americans (of which I am by birth) that this infringes their "freedoms". News flash, there's nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to pollute more than anyone else because it suits your perceived lifestyle. EVs are the way forward - they are vastly more efficient at converting total energy into motion than ICE. ICEs are fun - if I didn't think so, I wouldn't subscribe to this channel. But ranting about EVs while ignoring all the faults of ICE is laughably ignorant. Tax heavy vehicles (EVs included) and make manufacturers more responsible for solutions for EOL traction batteries.
I know we have a lot of huge trucks here in the US. But honestly most people just buy crossovers. The most common size is a compact crossover which isnt that big. Not many can afford body on frame SUVs. The huge trucks are a issue. My boss just got one and it's giant compared to the old Silverado work truck we had. I don't understand how the only way to get as much space that truck gives is to buy a truck. It was one of the most comfortable cars I ever sat in. Americans like trucks but the only way to get a decent four door truck is to go full size. Stuff like the Tacoma and Rmager have rather poor back seats when I have been in them. Automakers need to start building smaller compelling versions of the large cars they currently offer if you want Americans to down size. I drive a small subcompact atm and plan on upsizing whenever I buy my next car. Other than the great turning circle, handling, mpgs, and ease to park I don't find any compelling reason to buy a small car again. I tried it out and like most Americans the flaws of such a car are too much. But even then there is not a single small car worth buying anymore. A Rio? Versa? Mirage? Pft.
Watched the whole video smiling. This is what I have been preaching since I got into cars and you just nailed virtually all agruments in a short kept format. Love it.
You sound like a budding eco-terrorist. Talk to the Chinese and other emerging countries about their coal fired power plants, far more emissions coming from those countries. Didn't Karl Marx spend a lot of time in England? Great Britain always did have a strong Socialist bent. A lot of class envy there. A mean, penny pinching population, most of whom would rather live elsewhere. In the meantime this American is looking to buy another Jaguar, a 2006 XJ8 VDP, to join his Jaguar F-Type in the garage. Be honest, wouldn't you really rather be driving a Jaguar more than the cramped little box you're in now?
Well i never saw this coming,James,with everyone driving around in 2.5 Tonne slabby ugly heaps of junk,the manufacturers are complicit in this as they push these ugly heaps of junk because they also have larger profit margins. Someone needs to grasp this nettle ,efficienct has always been light,aerodynamic with efficient propulsion. It's an absolute nightmare, but then add this to the two biggest polluters : The maritime industry and the aviation industry and we're truly cruising towards an epic crisis.
..but many also want a usable car. Small cars are ok inside a city. Even much preferable. But not for much else. And inside a city the correct means of transportation is probably a bicycle anyway.
@martinsvensson6884 a myth about Range Rovers and their 3 tonne counterparts is that they're roomy,In reality they have less room inside than a decent estate car.The truth of the matter is that the people that drive them are under the illusion that they will survive a huge impact and are willing to sacrifice the lives of you and your family in a smaller lighter " less safe" vehicle.
Dont agree they are complicit, you have to build what the customers want or go out of business.... They got no choice. Since customers wont change their mind, the only solution is regulatory.
@@grahamsmith2022 I know that cars like the older Mercede R-class or GL's are bigger inside than anything regular. They can be easier to get in and out of for older people also. At least cars like the R. But I can agree that building those really high SUVs is pretty unncessary for most. I'd rather have the R dims than the GL/GLS/GLE.
SUVs came about from the US where the makers were able to ignore some safety legislation by defining them as trucks. They also lobbied for vehicles over 6000 lbs to be exempt from fuel consumption regulations. They were able to make something big cheaply and were wildly profitable. The European makers saw this and jumped on the bandwagon spending billions in PR to convince the public that they really needed SUV type vehicles, especially as the jacked up version of their cars were sold at a great premium = more profit. It worked and people now buy them thinking they are safer (they're not for drivers, passengers or pedestrians) and roomier (they're always smaller inside than the hatchback they're based on). The public have been and still are conned. SUVs also killed off the properly useful car - the estate - although its nice to see they are making a bit of a comeback. So, not EU laws in particular, just PR and profit. Incidentally, nice to see Paris taking the bull by the horns and banging up parking rates for overweight cars. Its a good start.
Excellent. This is exactly why I bought a hot hatch i20N for my 3 kids and for me to have fun in. Less than 1.2 ton and over 45 mpg. With an LSD, and heated but manual seats. Charge pad etc.
Crash requirements are not the sole reason for heavier vehicles. In fact a current robust chassis is relatively light when compared to a similar chassis developed in the 1970s/80s - all due to computational mechanics which greatly assists in the efficient design of the chassis. The significant increase in vehicle mass is largely attributable to the larger size and the amount of technical gizmos incorporated within the vehicle. For example an electrically operated side window is significantly heavier than a manual wind-up type and you normally have four of those. My most recent bug-bear is wheels, with 21 or 22 inch wheels weighing circa 20kg or more - now they are a pain in the back when compared to 15 inch wheels that weigh circa half that.
Yes, safety regulations have got a lot to do with the increasing bulk of modern cars. I think safety regulations have ignored one major aspect and that's the ability to avoid having an collision in the first place. The safest car is one that doesn't have a collision, and while that's mostly down to the driver, by allowing the driver to see properly and have control helps a lot in that. When I get in a modern car I find visibility so much worse than my 30 year old hatchback. The massive A-pillars and tiny windows means massive blind spots, and seeing things close to the car is so much harder in a modern car. My old car is also light and nimble, so much easier to take avoiding action than in a lardy modern car carrying too much momentum. OK, my old car might not do well if it gets clobbered by a 2.5 tonne Range Rover, but I stand a better chance of avoiding it in the first place. I also wonder whether the false sense of security in these modern tanks has contributed towards the lowering of driving standards too?
Here in the US, we’ve made engines much more efficient but instead of reaping the benefit of increased MPG, the auto makers just increase the power! Its crazy. As a car guy, I love more power but the whole point of investing billions of dollars into making more efficient engines was to gain MPG, less pollution, right? 🤷♂️
If an American walks into a showroom and the salesman says "the new model does 3 more mpg" he's going to walk out. If the salesman says "the new model has a tonne more hp" he's going to buy it. Truth is people like better mpg but they like power more. It doesn't help when they have struggled to afford anything powerful for ages and they suddenly get offered a chance to drive something fun. Funny thing is more efficiency doesn't mean economy or power - its not mutually exclusive. The reason the big power cars use more fuel is usually because of the sticky rubber, and all the extras thown at them. An engine with a certain thermal efficiency will be just as good on fuel as any other with the same all being equal but that big spoiler makes quite a difference on a highway.
@@siraff4461 youre oversimplifying us. We 100% do look at mpg. Its just we dont have a choice when the auto makers force our hand with almost none of the options being better than the last generation model
@@John_Redcorn_ There are hardly any new cars sold in the US which aren't better or at least the same as the outgoing model. The problem is its hard to sell a small econobox to someone used to a big luxury pickup.
@@siraff4461 well yeah. I have a big pickup because i do pickup things; an econobox wouldnt work for me. And my new (2020) truck doesnt get any better mpg than my 2008 model did. Sure, i have more power but i didnt need it. Id rather have the better mpg. If i needed more power than my old 2008 gasoline truck i would have just jumped up to a 2500 diesel. The price on those are outrageous tho. Lol
Well said about taxing based on mass. I've long argued that the tax by emissions is dubious, because emissions are one thing that is almost impossible for the layperson to have any measure of, and that obscurity we now know has been used by manufacturers to game the system. Have you noticed how fuel consumption figures, even on paper, have not improved in line with the supposed reduction in CO2 over the years? The CO2 output figures for most cars are now maybe half of what they were 25 years ago, but fuel consumption has not halved. Where is that surplus carbon going exactly?
@@varsas10 How is it reasonable? Your car isn't producing any emmisions when it's parked there, and it doesn't take up more space than a less polluting one. They don't really care about emmisions, just making money and stopping people from having freedom. It's like ULEZ.
Jack, that's a very thoughtful diatribe, making a valid point. And for once I haven't just listened to an emotion driven anti-electric car rant. I'm sure it's possible to pick a few holes in some of your arguments (the very idea that a Range Rover weighs only 2.2 tons!), but the essence of what you say is bang on target. Now, I need a seven seater (which converts to a five seater with a huge boot) because my wife is disabled and we have to carry wheelchairs, mobility scooters, etc, but here's the thing - it manages 55mpg overall with an astonishing over 60mpg on a long run. How? It weighs just 1200Kg and has just a one litre petrol engine with 110bhp (no hybrid system). It's no sports car, but performance is more than adequate (I've had several Caterhams in the past, up to 250bhp). It even has heated seats if I really want to feel like I've just wet myself. What is it? A Dacia Jogger, which is even more useful than my old Scenic. Critics will point to its one star NCAP rating, but so far as I can find out, this is simply down to it's lack of lane assist and a myriad of other "features" I simply don't want; it's actual crash rating appears to be four star. We recently made a trip to the airport with four adults, four full size suitcases for the hold, four cabin bags, a wheelchair (not dismantled) and a rollator - and no one was squashed. Mind you, if I really want a light car, I take out my sixty five year old Frogeye which is only just over half the weight of the Jogger, and - well you know how much fun they are. Finally, you might have made a better case if you hadn't been sitting with a Weber DCOE in the background!!
Exactly: for every 100kg over 1000kg restrict max. speed. So: 200km/h for a sub 1000kg car, and 100km/h for a 2000kg car. Seen the Rivian experience? It's Like allowing cruise ships on the road.
@@OldSkoolUncleChris trucks have speed limits. Why would a big heavy car not have speed limits? On the other hand: I was in GB for two weeks last year, and no single car was driving faster than 115km/h.
succinctly put, and even more relevant here in Australia where massive dual-cab utes and SUVs have become the absolute norm. I despair at cars like the “environmentally friendly” CyberTruck, but I don’t think we’ll see a change any time soon.
Yes, I live in Melbourne and was wondering if I was the only one thinking this. Yes, the tax system is encouraging the big heavy dual cab utes (which are now like trucks). Time for a change.
If you look at the graphs, you'll see thatCo2 emissions were going down year on year up until 2017, when the 'Diesel gate' scandal essentially killed diesel car sales. The only thing bringing emissions down, in the face of rising vehicle weights, was diesel engines as their characteristics of high torque at low revs means much lower Co2 outputs during initial acceleration from rest. There is a direct correlation between the numbers of diesel vehicles sold, and Co2 produced.
I agree with everything you said until the end, when you perpetuated the myth that "road tax" (which hasn't existed since the 50's) is actually for spending on the roads, which it isn't.
@@jamesengland7461 Choices, policies. The US and the UK prioritise different things like, say, healthcare, where most Americans enjoy the get sick-lose the house-still die model, despite spending x2 or thereabouts per capita. Also a lot of it is stolen by the Tories.
The issue is that EVs were pushed on us too early, the tech isn’t clean or ready. As a consequence we have lost small ICE cars pretty much completely in favour of awful BEV SUVs. I’m keeping my old Volvo going. The government can try and stop me driving it, but I will simply refuse.
Good lad. Me too. I'll be synthesising my own fuel before some lunatic in Westminster plonks my arze in an EV. Except possibly, a very small, lightweight EV for a short inner city move.
@@truhartwood3170 Most cars new are on company car schemes. See how much difference there is in cost when you take the tax breaks in for ev's. You can in theory have an ice but you're going to be paying way over the odds for it. Thats before we get into "clean air zones" and all that grabbing rubbish.
Stop with the insane nonsense. ICE is still the dominant car on sale. "in favour of awful BEV SUVs" yet they are tiny slice of the market. Big EVs are not enough market share to cause small ICE cars to disappear. You're just spamming political nonsense.
My little Citroën AX GT was a great fun car, it weighed c.900kg, sipped petrol (however hard you drove it) and was just a great car. I still miss it, and I still think cars of that size, with modern materials and a small efficient engine are the way to go.
@@DjDolHaus86 plastic, mainly, I called mine Yog as it appeared to be made of recycled yoghurt pots. I took the (cardboard) door trims off once, there was just an outer skin and secondary ribs for strengthening. Thank God I never hit anything in it!
Jack this is a brilliant analysis . Taxing by weight is an excellent idea. It solves so many problems and gives all vehicle manufacturers no matter what power plant they use the perfect incentive to improve there engineering and design. Such a brilliant and original take on how to fix the problem. So much better than the idea of someone I was subscribed to of buying a diesel range rover and spraying every thing on a farm with round up
Finally someone is saying this i drive a 2019 honda civic it weighs 1290kg and has a huge boot and lots of space for passengers (i do a lot of travelling and move a lot of people and need space) however its a lightweight car on motorway runs acheives well over 50mpg (petrol) and a massive thing was built in the country that I drive it in so didnt need to be shipped half way across the world to get here. Ive been thinking this way for over 10 years. And im glad they're finally starting to look at the tyre emissions that large electric vehicles make and ahould go into consideration how much more energy and resources it takes to make a large tyre for these behemoths. Another point i would like to see be considered is electric chargers. Most of the time they are ripping up part of a serviceable car park to place these chargers (no idea how much resorces go into the manufacture of those) but they then usually take up more space than a usual (at least the soze of a disabled space) so can park less cars in the same space and then are placed on a concrete base, a terrible material for the environment with significant carbon emissions. I know it can be said that peteol stations are terrible masses of concrete but they are already built.
If politicians actually wanted less global emissions and they want EV's, they would be building nuclear power plants. Renewables will never be reliable enough. All manufacturers should be 3rd party audited for actual emissions from beginning to end. EV's are much worse for the environment than what we are told. But, having said that, if all of Europe and all of the US suddenly became non polluting countries, it would have virtually ZERO impact over the next 100 years to the climate. Why? Because of China, India, Africa, and any other country that doesn't care about anything you just mentioned. We as a people need to stop feeding the agenda that environmental issues are the biggest problem the world is facing. Can we improve it? Sure, but at what expense? Will it help? Not really.
100% And what makes me mad is that a lot of EVangelists spout their bull thinking they're saving the planet because they've bought an MG or a BYD made in ....China!
China are leading the way in emissions reductions and green energy so they absolutely do not deserve to be on that list. They're actually building more nuclear power than the rest of the world combined whilst also building a crazy amount of renewables. They also produce pretty much all of our crap whilst having far less emissions per capita than us.
Completely agree, Bjorn Lomborg makes some pretty strong arguments for world problems that would make real differences for fractions of the cost of this vanity project, which like you say won’t make any noticeable difference.
I'm very happy to say later this year, my girlfriend will be trading in her Jeep Compass for a Toyota Corolla SE. This should be a huge improvement in emissions, efficiency and, dare I say, much more fun and pleasurable to drive. She's gonna love it!
@@truhartwood3170 Ummm...Neither of us are Tesla or Musk fans. For a huge variety of reasons. And I believe a 3 is 2x the price. Used is out of the question.
@@Sandy-oy2lr when you calculate TCO (total cost of ownership), factoring in incentives, charging vs fueling,maintenance, and depreciation, they're actually pretty close depending on how much you drive (the more you drive, the more the EV makes sense). As for personal preference, we'll that's personal. I wouldn't get any EV other than a Tesla at this point though, they just give you the most of everything for the least money so any other EV means you're paying more money for a worse car. As for not liking Elon, I doubt you could name a single CEO of any other company you buy anything from. And the reason you probably don't like him or Tesla is the media love to hate on both. The more you learn about Elon and Tesla the more you'd probably change your mind.
I can’t believe that road tax is still charged based on engine displacement. Thisis since 20 years pure idiocy. How can my 3.6 993 that has 1400kg do more damage to the roas than a 2.5t SUV with a 2.0L turbocharged engine. Not even start to talk about electric cars bing nearly exempt. Pure idiocy, stupidity and an attack of the governments to make citizens pay for no rational reason.
I have been saying this for years. The engine efficiency progress made in the last decade has been completely negated by the rise and popularity of suvs.
I was thinking for a triple whammy taxing. Calculate the final tax by multiplying three coefficients based on weight, power and fuel consumption (maybe combined with pollution level). This way you cover all the bases, all combinations should be properly taxed: heavy but efficient EV; light but powerful sport cars; light but inefficient engine; and the triple whammy for SUVs , heavy, powerful and inefficient.
Why should power be in the equation and be a taxation factor - What’s that got to do with the environment? Or do you just want to tax the wealthy more, as I’m suspecting?
@@neilturner6749 Yes, but also to limit the power race. Beyond some amount of power the rest is just dangerous, and new ridiculously fast EV are not making things safer.
I worked in the auto industry until a couple of years ago and what you have said makes total sense. You could see it coming 10 years ago, and at the time it disgusted me. Especially the use of a weight factor in Fleet Average CO2 calculations. A couple of additional factors/datapoints: 1) The demonisation of diesel [lower CO2 than gasoline/petrol] by governments and city authorities hasn't helped. 2) The penalties you discuss, & reduced margins, now render small cars like the Fiesta and especially the Up/Mii/Citigo etc. unprofitable and they are being discontinued. 3) The impact of finance. In 1983, a family car such as a Ford Sierra cost £5000ish, the equivalent of about £15,000 today. Most were bought on HP, some cash. A 'family' car/SUV today costs 2-3 times that (£30-60k), and most people use PCPs. This is all well and good, but it means people are incentivised to change to a new car every 2/3 years. And guess what... that car will likely be bigger and heavier than the last one. Interesting side note: The price of 7-10 year old superminis remains inflated in the UK, presumably due to lack of supply. People do want small cars!
All true. The Citroen Oli is 1000kg and has a 40 kWh battery and a decent range. This is the way forward. Colin Chapman said "Simplify, then add lightness".
The Elephant in the room here is that these BEV’s have severely restricted rage without their 500 kgs batteri pack. That’s why they are so big and heavy.
The newest batteries weigh 2kg per kWh. If your battery pack is say 70kWh, that means about 140kg in battery weight. There is no reason why an electric car needs to be heavy.
@@t3chnno Based on the data provided by Tesla, their 75kW battery - i.e. Tesla Model S/X Pack - 75kWh / 214Ah / 350V - weighs circa 530kg. This suggests that your information is somewhat optimistic.
That's right. The thing is that most journeys are short. Big battery packs are being hauled around in order to give the driver a feeling of confidence in range, and of course to reduce the frequency of charging. Small and light EV's need to be encouraged, with good charging infrastructure.
Unless you want a car that can only be used for short journeys, a large battery pack is necessary. Most people can’t afford to have a different car for every occasion.
@@paulmillington9035Junk yards are a brand new thing with the introduction of EVs? I don't think so buddy. The average age of cars on the road is 12.5 years. Only 10% are older than 20. Current EVs are expected to last 35 years of average driving with almost no maintenance.
My two favorite cars from all the ones I've owned are a 1984 Renault 4l and a 1991 Fiat Cinquecento..Small, light, fast in an urban enviornment and , above all, huge fun. Both of them carried all of my famiys needs when required and left me with some beautiful memories. I sometimes wonder if todays cars will have the same impact on the memory, and the pocket, of my children.
You only have to look at ULEZ to see how screwed up our emissions policies are. I used to have a 1.9 diesel convertible that did 60 mpg on a motorway. It wouldn't pass the London ULEZ regs so now I have a 2.4 petrol saloon that does 26 mpg but is ULEZ compatible. The thing is, I could import in a 5.7 litre Toyota Tundra from the USA, which would do about 16 mpg, take up two parking spaces and still be ULEZ friendly.
100% agree. Lightest Lotus now is 1.5 ton Emira. Eletre weighs 2.6 tons! Our Audi A1 uses noticeably less fuel than our Lexus hybrid SUV and it has room for our entire family. Great car, also going out of production.
It simply stuns me that people haven't realised that a near 3-tonne Tesla Model X isn't the solution. The solution has been staring us in the face all along, and it's a Toyota Aygo. Or a Suzuki Swift. Or any number of other sub-tonne hatchbacks. The idea that the Ford Kuga, a truly a disposable, terribly designed shitbox with nothing to offer over the Focus it's based on, is replacing it, is so sad.
That's why parking with a 1600kg+ ICE or 2000kg+ EV is going to cost €225,- for 6 hours parking in Paris. It's about time. Let's hope the whole world follows. No-one needs an SUV.
But not for residents ... it's a step in the right direction, but if you live in Paris you can still own and park a huge SUV without any consequence (and it'll still cost 1.50€ per day).
Ok, imagine a winter that lasts 5 months with regular heavy snowfalls and your neighbourhood is only occasionally being cleaned. You may not like SUV but in these conditions you really need it...
@@martinsvensson6884 depends on the fuel consumption. Let's say one drives a Lamborghini 1000 miles/year. That's not a lot of pollution compared to an SUV that drives 20k miles with 98% of the miles with only the driver going to work. In fact, lambo is better, because it transports a lot less air.
SUV's are ridiculous they don't fit in parking spaces or on country roads , they guzzle fuel....I'm sure driving an SUV will be as fashionable as smoking in the not to distant future, You can't drive a Range Rover in London now anyway as they are pretty much uninsurable! Excellent stuff as always Jack buddy 👍
Parents today are often not very young and then you absolutely appriciate the higher back seat in a SUV when lifting kids in and out 😄 But a MPV or a "rised" estate would work just as good 😅
Yes, but in a lower car they can get in and out more easily by themselves (obviously after reaching a certain age). Also, they can hardly see out of the bloody things until they're nearly grown up!
I so much agree with this! I don't want to offend any suv owner but I just find unsuitable for our roads. When I drop of my girls to school, it's only the suv owners who are making long and laborious maneuvers to park the car and holding everyone up. Everyone should be free to chose which car suits them better but fairness is now needed.
@@davem9204 Good question. Given how densely pack modern (stupid) life is, probably none. If we all had less busy lives (e.g. reduce from 1,334,858 clubs a week, children's diaries more complicated than CEOs requiring a PA), then probably a good amount of them could just walk or cycle.
@@GoalSquad666 Because it would be pointless. FYI Model 3 and BMW F80 have negligible weight difference. ICE cars would be taxed just as badly. Now we can't have that can we?
CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's plant food. And even if you think it is, every nine months China adds another UK's worth of CO2. So if the UK vanished, China would make up the difference in 9 months. No doubt I'll be screamed at as a 'denier' but look at the science. Tip of the day: the output of computer models isn't evidence.
I heard a statistic that if China, Russia, and the USA reduced their total emissions by 1%, it would be the same as the UK stopping all together. I do wonder why we bother. Some say it's because we need to lead by example, but when China is building a new coal fired power station every week, I don't think they have any intention of reducing their output.
Hey number 27 I totally agree with you. I drive 8 series of vehicles here in the United States. They're all pickup trucks, but they're older pickup trucks in their lighter than they're more modern counterparts. And it's shocking to me how much just like a regular passenger car has grown in in weight and sometimes it's not even gotten that much bigger. It's just gotten much heavier because of all of the gadgets that people want in their cars these days and all of the luxury features and items. I mean it's staggering. When I came up when I grew up it was kind of rared to find a car with power seats, power windows, air conditioning, power door locks. It was kind of rare and but you kind of knew that that kind of stuff was going to be reserved for a more upscale more up-level car like a Lincoln or a Cadillac or maybe a Chrysler or a Buick. You knew that. Well now you find more base model cars and trucks too with power windows. And it's just crazy to me. It's I mean I like cars to be safer too. But I think somewhere along the line we've got to draw a line here somewhere to get the weight down on vehicles to get the weight down to where it's manageable. I think in this country we've here in the US. We've had this idea of having your cake and eat it too and it just isn't working. Also, I'd like to say thank you for such a great channel. Keep up the great work. Love the cars you feature on here. A lot of which isn't available here in the states. The stuff that we rarely ever see or never see. Keep up the great work
Always a sad day when one of my favorite channels falls for the “official” climate narrative. Quoting official reports and documents from corrupt bodies is no foundation for an argument. There is so much hypocrisy in their approaches to, so called, problems. After being in the motor industry since the mid seventies, I have seen cars get cleaner and cleaner. I agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward such as smaller more efficient cars but, none of these official bodies are coercing manufacturers to scale down production of larger cars. Yet we, the working masses, are made to feel guilty about buying these cars that are so heavily promoted! At the same time, roads are shrinking, speed limits are being lowered, fines for minor car park infractions are increasing, not to mention fuel, insurance and tax increases. It seems like the climate argument is very useful to get us out of our cars altogether! One final point. Based on your theory, use of motorcycles should be promoted but, the governments are bringing the same draconian measures on them despite them being a tiny demographic! Utterly preposterous.
I will adress the part of "feel guilty about buying these cars that are so heavily promoted" ....Feel guilty and heavily promoted how? People buy what they want, if anything there are every incentive for normal people to not buy large, heavy cars. Yet they do it. So in my mind, if they purport to care, they should feel guilty because they are hypocrites.
@@GoldenCroc every car manufacturer makes them and adverts are plentiful. Consumerism is promoted in all forms then we are told we are ruining the planet by the people that promote consumerism. Doesn’t make sense. It’s a culture war and personal transport is on the hit list.
I see a trend here in the comments: force others to behave differently by use of bullying by government thugs. We here in the colonies use to frown on such taxation without representation.
As a cyclist in London I am frequently stuck behind large cars that have stopped abruptly in the middle of the road because they are too fat to pass safely down narrow streets. Also I struggle to see passed these cars to judge the traffic ahead. They are typically driven by a short female - the ones that stop at random leaving no room to pass around... grrr. Cycling around these huge tanks is also intimidating, and the frequenty blacked out windows are also annoying. Generally I obstruct large SUV's from passing if I can to make the owners life slightly more miserable, you're welcome.
Excellent video production quality, Jack. You really are guilty of making too much sense because you have laid out your case logically and coherently, unlike those who formulate vehicle emissions policy. I have recently gone from a mid-sized saloon to a smaller car, both ICE.
Like the diesel dream rather politicians foisted on us at the turn of the century. Yes, they produce slightly less CO2 but much more NOX and small particulates. Windmills are fine for the oil industry as there are tons of fibreglass resin and plastic insulation in each one.
I've never subscribed to the SUV trend. As an aerospace engineer I see the issues with these larger cars like the increased weight, lager frontal area, etc. I prefer the Lotus approach; simplify and add lightness. The largest car I have is a C segment family hatchback. If I need a bigger car I'll go for an estate. I don't need an SUV. Having looked at C segment SUVs against estate cars (3rd generation Ford Kuga vs 4th generation Focus), just by looking around the vehicles (and not referring to the sales blurb) I saw no benefit in terms of more boot space in the SUV. My conclusion was that visually the volumes were similar, just differently shaped. In fact, the Focus estate's cargo volume was about 77 litres larger, seats down compared with the Kuga with the seats down too. To me that's enough not to justify having an SUV. In my book bigger is not better. I guess I'll be keeping my Elise too.
You are so very correct. On the subject of electric cars the fuel consumption in miles/kWh = CO2 emissions in use seems to be ignored, people drive around in supersized electric SUV's with high electricity consumption whilst patting themselves on the back for being green.
Absolutely. The way to make this effective is nudge group behaviour by taxing it; the way to get governments to do this is to make it fiscally beneficial, by taxing it. Something like production emissions + weight - (%offset for power train) + running emissions
Totally support this. As it looks like we're going to get a change of government in the UK this year now might be the time to lobby. Taxing vehicles by emissions is not the driver it once was. Tax by weight and distance covered each year. Also apply it retrospectively to every vehicle not tax exempt to reward people who have smaller lighter vehicles and who don't use them that much and people who are responsible enough to keep older vehicles on the road in good condition.
Totally nailed it. Autobesity. I have a 2019 Suzuki Swift hybrid. Very fun car, pretty well specced. Sub 1000 kg - quite a design and engineering achievement, I would say. In "hypermiling mode" out of town I get up to 28 km/l (nearly 80 mpg). I bet no more than 10% of that is from the "boost" from the mild hybrid system. Suzuki also make some heavy hybrid monstrosities (thereby negating the aforesaid engineering effort), in Italy typically driven on often narrow roads by insecure pensioners to the supermarket or post office. It's absolutely insane.
Imagine growing up idolizing BMW and finally as an established professional your option is to buy... a 1760KG "sports coupe". It's tragic what happened to them.
I was thinking exactly this whilst watching, and not focusing on said lump of metal parked under the carport. Virtually identical in size to my 04 plate E46 coupe, yet because of standard X drive and more gadgets, far heavier....
In my youth I too liked BMWs. However, they are now styled with what appears to be cartoonish (exaggerated) frontal features and are appallingly unreliable with lots of poor quality 'breaky-breaky' plastics located under the bonnet. How sad.
Two additional advantages to having smaller / lighter cars not mentioned in this video. 1. They do far less damage to people's health when they collide with pedestrians. 2. They do not block narrow city streets as much as SUVs.
Thank you for another great video! You are totally correct in my opinion, cars have become too big and heavy for road and energy infrastructure. I can understand SUVs in some ways for families and older people as they are easier to get into and the driving position might be more favorable. Still I've heard lots of people claiming they need SUVs and such because roads are trash nowadays but it just contributes to the problem. Unfortunately car market today is old people's market and the offering matches that, I for one will never buy an SUV. Most of the fun cars cost way too much and have become almost non-existent and I also intensely dislike making everything touch screen and menus upon menus, makes one really appreciate good switch gear. Going to have to keep my Genesis Coupe running forever at this rate.
Nice to hear this argument from you, Jack. I have felt like "the voice in the wilderness" for decades. Even the original ICE emission standards got it wrong, because pollutants were controlled as a percentage of total emission volume, rather than in absolute terms. As a result, massive V8s dumped many times larger amounts of pollutants than my typical sub-2-litre compact cars. With regard to the EV "revolution", there is no way that 7,500 lb pickups and 9,000 lb EV Hummers are going to slow climate change. Another consideration for the move to EVs, is it really doesn't make sense to lug around a 400+ km range battery pack every day, when you are likely only driving 100 km between recharges. I hope the Chinese manufacturers come to market with a small, light EV, possibly with a modular-repairable battery pack. Honestly, I really like the Citroen OLI concept. But of course Citroen brought us the finest example of effective automotive minimalism with the Citroen 2CV. Everything you said about the snowball effect of reducing weight is evident in the 2CV. Imagine that I can put four people in my 2CV and run down the motorway at 100 kph, with a 602cc engine....
In 2020 I wanted to replace my small sub 1000kg litre petrol engined city car. I was astonished to find that there was so very little choice as nearly all manufacturers had stopped making them. My jaw dropped when I first read then that emissions legislation _discouraged_ small car production. It dropped even further when I read that CO2 production based VED bands had been dropped and now it was a flat £140 a year in the UK for anything with an engine regardless of emissions or vehicle mass.
The car you are looking for was on the market from 2000 to 2005. The 825kg Audi A2 3L. Mine has done 430000km, and my son is on 580000km in his. That is a real environmental car. without DPF filter it only puts out 86g.
Totally agree. In 2013, I thought that small cars were good enough for safety and decent comfort, after having an Audi A6 Quattro for 15 years, I bought a new BMW i3. The net weight of the 1st gen was 1200 kg. Suitable big car for us two adults and a small child. My sister with 3 children did the same, changed her SUV to a BMW i3. But then I was wrong, it was up and down in the media, car RUclipsrs and Tesla fans how silly and ugly the i3 was. Had i3 for 5 years 120,000 km Edit - missing part from my text: Had i3 for 5 years 120,000 km perfect car for us, but market went the other way to bigger cars, finally gave up driving a small car and now drives a 2.3 tonne BEV SUV. My sister still drives the i3. Would been fine with an electric VW Golf Alltrack/1st gen Audi A4 Allroad or a BEV Land Rover 1st gen Freelander 3 doors with alu/plastic structure.
I have followed EV matters on a daily basis for years and have yet to read any "Tesla fans" saying how "silly and ugly the i3 was"! It always got serious respect in any EV discussion I have seen or participated in.
@@MrAdopado Example here, ruclips.net/video/M50Jd8vhwvM/видео.html A lot of people tried to find fault with the I3, the doors, narrow wheels, "small" luggage compartment, etc. To be compact 4 meters with low pavement pressure, none of the so-called weaknesses were an issue for me. Good space, drives well and efficiently, but if you compare it to the Audi A8 or Model S, the car is small, strange doors and small wheels. Drove it 115'km in less than 5 years with minimal wear and tear, simple and decent BEV that can be kept in operation for many years due to its design. the car was brilliant and had wanted the BMW came up with a sequel to the i3. Looks like some of the ALU/CFRP technology has been continued in the iX series.
Here in NZ we have a 2005 Honda Fit and a 2014 Suzuki Swift, either of which we would happily jump in and tour the country. The Fit is, in our opinion, one of the best-designed cars ever produced. Astonishingly roomy, quiet and smooth (1.5L V-Tec), amazing economy, cool interior that just doesn't date, and the Swift is well, a Swift. Sport. It goes great, sounds great, drives great, and has the best seats of any car I've ever owned. Have kids? Buy the Fit. HEAPS of room for all the crap needed. And runs on fumes.
I live in a snall European capital that has a high proportion of SUVs, EVs and destroyed roads as a result. To me it's a no-brainer that vehicles should be taxed by weight, as I mentioned to my wife just the other day (probably after hitting another pothole) - thanks for the video supporting my assertion!
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I still drive a 1.2 litre Renault Clio 2 built in 2001. It's an icredibly light car ( less than 900 kg ) and I still get 20km out of one litre of gas. I do drive it a little bit more than 5000 km a year but I'll soon be forced to dump it because of its emission despite it's still a perfectly working vehicle. Scrap my car and manufacturing a new one will definitely cause more pollution than I do driving it for a few kilometres each year during the season in which traffic restrictions are enforced. That's madness, that' s hypocrisy
One of the best cars and engines out there are the 1.9 TDi and its little brother from Renault the 1.5dci in the Renault Clio; but only in the Clio and maybe Modus. The moment it is in a Megan or even Scenic, they keep blowing up as they simply can't handle the weight of them.
A friend of mine got one 10 years ago, they did cost nothing, I think he paid less then £1000 for it and it had not even 60.000mls on the clock - now the same car has close to 400.000 mls on the clock - he looks after it, made some minor changes like sporty suspension. Does most of the service for it and it keeps flying through MOT.
He did like 20 road trips to Europe with it and visits nearly every year his home country Italy.
That thing is unkillable.
Mum's 1985 Civic is my go-to favourite.. 2bbl carb, 55mpg (5.4 l/100k). 880kg which is a few kg lighter than my Elan+2! Slots through gaps a tosser wagon doesn't even consider and carries loads beyond belief. Why the average punter needs a mobile sight screen/truck to run around town is beyond me.
Oh yeah, both civics and clios are great cars. I owned a little white clio, with a 1.2 petrol engine. It was a great little car, but it didn't have power steering! It's surprising how much even a little car like that can benefit from power steering, because at low speeds, the steering was surprisingly heavy.
Wow… that’s really good I’m only getting over 20km/l in a perfect conditions on highway in my 2023 990cc Kia Moorning.
@@10secondsrule yeah, I would be very sceptical of anyone claiming that kind of mileage in a gas powered car.
A rate of 20km/litre is equivalent to 56 mpg in imperial gallons, and I just don't find that plausible. I don't think I ever achieved more than about 45 mpg in my little 1.2 petrol clio (1998).
50 mpg (imperial) has been the holy grail of petrol powered cars for quite a while now, and some cars have come close, but as far as I'm aware, there's still no petrol cars that can do it easily, or in anything like normal driving conditions.
In the uk the Ford fiesta 1.0 litre ecoboost triple came very close with an attainable 49mpg, but this was in the hands of a very experienced driver, driving on main highway, and making a very big effort to conserve fuel.
Diesels can do this easily, but that's another story.
Audi A2 is 25 years old. They stopped producing them in 2005 as nobody was buying them. Aluminum body and 50/70mpg depending on petrol/diesel. Big cars (SUVs) are a status symbol for the city and suburbs.
Nobody was buying them because they were roughly 50% more expensive to buy than most equivalent cars of their size, and that was on top of Audi itself swallowing a huge £loss on each unit produced. There was no bigger status symbol in London in the early noughties than driving an A2 or a Smart Brabus - how many people had £25k to spend on a small City Car at that time? It was considered crazy-money and decadence only the wealthy could afford.
Like EVs today, the savings in fuel just didn’t add up versus the extra cost of production.
I had A2 3l, easy 75mpg all day long.
Shame that those are somewhat collector items now, and you won't find low mileage ones anymore (under 10K€)drove 360.000km`s (220.000 Miles)with mine until it was rear ended and car was bought out by insurance company...
In other hand my "old" 2015 Volvo V70 diesel can barely manage 55mpg but it's decent considering Volvo weights almost double what A2 did😊
Can’t believe my S1 Elise is half the weight of that Fiat 500e
And small cars have been removed from sale in Europe. Reason? Money.
So true………
?
@@tobyholt4682 just look at the Ford Fiesta.
And yes, it's money. A friend of mine worked at Honda, pointed out that the cost difference to manufacture a Jazz is basically the same as the cost to make a CRV. The time needed, and the process is basically the same. The materials are slightly more, but really not much as a percentage of the whole thing. Yet they can charge significantly more for the bigger car, and people will pay it, due to the perceived status upgrade, so of course they are going to focus on the bigger profit margin car.
That was some of the most common sense spoken on the internet in days! Thanks Jack 👍🏻
Boom, you nailed it, Jack. I'm glad I'm not alone in this reasoning.
Paris is trying to put a stop on heavy cars by charging those who live outside of the city more to park.
We need more MK1 Twingo type of cars. Lightweight, durable and not too expensive to repair.
Agreed. The Twingo 1 is awesome. Very cute and seems very practical and good for the environment. Some people in my neighbourhood have had one for as long as I can remember (so over 10 years at least). I hope they will keep owning it for many more years.
Crash tests mean you need a heavy car to get 5 stars. Nobody wants a small car in a big car crash. They could make larger cars softer but they won't.
All these big, heavy, clunky SUVs around, and when we are lucky enough to get something light, sporty, exciting and relatively affordable like the Toyota GR86 - they kill it with legislation after it's only been out for a couple of years!
The BRZ/GR6 twins were launched in 2012 - so have enjoyed over 10 years of life. It's therefore understandable that a new model will be released to replace the ageing car.
@georgebettiol8338 Yes, that's a good point, my knowledge of the car scene isn't that great, having spent a couple of decades fixated on bikes, but the GR86 model was getting such rave reviews and recognition as an improvement on the previous model, that healthy sales justifying at least a few more years of production would surely have followed? Toyota put focused effort into improving the car (over the previous GT86) so I am guessing that they were anticipating more than just a two year production run for the GR86 (if the aformentioned EU safety protocols hadn't brought the axe down prematurely) ?
Going back a couple of decades before EVs where a proper part of the car market place, I considered how to reduce pollution from cars and the simple solution that I came up with was:
Limit the power output of the car to 100kw (134hp) unless it can also achieve a pre-set efficiency standard (at the time I considered 45mpg). This is enough power to tow up to the 3.5 ton limit and enough power for any family car to get well past the legal speed limit.
It is also a rule that allows car manufactures to make any car that they want to be fast, if they also make them efficient. What it encourages is that weight is an enemy to be removed from car construction.
What the EU have done is bring in tighter crash protection measures that mean that a key measure of a car is how well is protects the occupants and the easiest way to do that is to add mass to the vehicle.
Absolutely spot on sir - we could have listened to Colin Chapman in the '50's and '60's. Just add lightness. It makes everything more efficient.
Have a proper look at Tesla will you. The level of their lightweight tech and production techniques would impress chapman.
@@jsanders100 no1gaf about vacuummobile
The push for emissions controls has lead to the loss of small light efficient small petrol cars the VAG group has lost the UP Mii and Citigo yet retained large heavy cars.
A friend of mine, who is a Medical practitioner (Urologist) pointed out a study which found that the average penis size in Europe has shrunk 22% on avg., in the last two decades.
There must be a correlation with the
sudden increase in the preferable vehicle size/footprint.
🤔
Need to differentiate between pollution and CO2. Pollutants like NOX etc are far lower than twenty years ago
CO2 still has its negative effects on the environment.
@@paul29961 and positive ones. AGW CO2 emissions are not a signifiant factor in global Warming
@@paul29961 True but bare in mind that, when an engine is running at its most efficient, it MAXIMISES the CO2 emissions i.e. it receives enough oxygen to convert ALL the carbon-hydrogen molecules in the fuel to just CO2 and H2O. (This, obviously, ignores the impurities in the fuel such as sulphur etc.)
Engine designers aim for maximum fuel combustion i.e. maximum CO2 production to maximise efficiency. It's government legislation that puts an emphasis on reducing CO2. This results in car manufacturers designing their engines to run below their max efficiency, take advantage of the allowance in other emissions (eg. unburned hydrocarbons), to minimise their advertised CO2 emissions I.e. governments don't know what they're doing!!
@@gordtulk That's BS.
Why is my light weight aluminium diesel Jag XJ, that regularly does over 40mpg now effectively banned from the *whole* of London, whereas Sadiq Khan's V8 armoured Range Rover, isn't.
Precisely!
Why would Khan need a car with armour plating?!?
After all ,everybody loves him……..
Why? Because he's convinced he's better than plebs like you and I.
You should have got the 3 litre petrol Ford engine
Because the world we live in is f*cked, and the lawmakers are stupid and/or they also drive 3 tonn V8s. Because your regular 'eco' minded guy voted for them without understanding how physics work. Because they preffer to buy battery powered crap which is the most polluting thing to produce and dispose of, while burning, on a global energy production average, 50% coal. Because hey coal is more ecological, isn't it?
In the UK we should do a deal with the Japanese to let us have Kei cars (given they are already RHD), and we should then give them a big tax break, just like the Japanese do. I dont know if i would fit in a Honda S660, but if i did it would do very nicely for all my day to day driving.
Yet in Europe we have killed off most of the City cars by making them far too expensive and setting targets just on CO2.
Lighter smaller cars in an accident with a heavy EV (which they are because of heavy battery packs) will result in deaths of those in the lighter smaller cars. Allowing government to design our vehicles is the problem. The fact is government produces nothing, but trouble.
Depending on the design, you could go away with larger crumple zones in bigger cars.
Basically, make larger cars softer were smaller cars are stiffer/harder.
In a certain way, it will balance out.
I just posted this in the main comment section but it applies specifically to your post (I abbreviated it here):
These three cars are all about the same performance, size, price, etc:
Tesla Model 3 (EV) : 3,549lbs
BMW 320i Sedan (gas) : 3,370lbs
Mercedes C300 (gas) : 3,471lbs
Ahhh, government doesn't design cars. What they do is set safety/survival standards. Oh and you don't understand Newtonian physics. If the lighter cars are designed as they currently are with crumple zones and airbags, they that are much more likely to be deflected or bounce off heavier vehicles with an axial/ rotational vector in typical collisions Their mass is less and so their kinetic energy is less to add to a collision. Two heavier cars colliding with create a MUCH more energetic collision to be distributed throughout the structure and the occupants. F=MA.
@@thinkabit7264 doesn’t take much “small car vs big car crash test” googling to show how naive you are. Thanks for your comment.
@@thinkabit7264 two cars of the same weight hitting each other will simply stop. The occupants go from moving to not moving. If one car is heavier, it will slow down less and the smaller car will be accelerated backwards. The occupants of that car will go from moving forward to moving backward - much more force applied to the occupants. It's not really that difficult. Like the other person said - takes a second to Google it if you're confused.
Big cars are a status symbol. So long as human nature is to look richer than other people then this problem won't go away unless manufacturers are ordered to make smaller vehicles.
In my experience SUV owners can't drive, at least: I never met one. So to me it's the exact opposite of a status symbol.
That's rubbish. I've had big cars and never bought one of them to look, or be, like someone wealthy. I enjoy driving a big car mainly for comfort and if I can, will continue to do so.
It is not all due to people wanting big, heavy cars. It's that government's mandate heavier cars due to overreaching safety mandates. The addition of all the mandatory and optional safety equipment, pedestrian safety design constraints and etc. make it impossible to buy a cheap, light vehicle.
@@harryged53 so you drive the most comfortable car. A Citroën C4. That's not that big, is it?
they also are more expensive. the answer seems obvious though! more poor people!
and if you bought big cars for due to prioritizing comfort you could afford to prioritize comfort at expense of price.
it's not like small modern cars that are the size of midsize or large car of 30 years ago didn't exist either.
In Rotterdam they analysed the air quality in the city centre and decided to ban old diesels.
2 years down the line, they retested and found the air quality to be just as 'bad'.
Old diesels though are not allowed back.
Makes one wonder...
Greetings from the Netherlands
PS: CO2 is food for trees! ;)
PS2: what kind of carburator you have on your cupboard Jack?
Did you really think they were going to allow diesels back? 🤣
Of course not. They don't give a damn.
@@taunuslunatic404I know, it was more retorical... ;)
@sebastiend.5335 Looks like a Weber DCOE, probably a 40 or 45 looking at the size of the trumpets.
@@gianni1isch Thanks! ;)
While Co2 is food for trees, it is possible (by analogy) to drown in a large amount of food. That's the problem.
There was a bloke called Colin Chapman, whose manta was 'Build in Lightness'
And what he should’ve said to make clear to his drivers, but clearly thought better of it, was that he barely gave a shot about the reliability or safety consequences!
Did he build durable family cars? No.
Yeah but looks at lotus now...
Videos like this are why Jack has become my favorite automotive RUclipsr. I hope this video gets massive amounts of views and shares.
BRAVO JACK, BRAVO!!! 👍👍👍
As a lifelong car-nut who also has a degree in environmental science and owns an antique Lotus (simplify and add lightness!), I wholeheartedly agree with you!
I will elaborate on one point you made- while it's true that all forms of generation due eventually pollute in one way or another, electricity is still fantastic because it gives the greatest FLEXIBILITY in the source of generation and it really excels in reducing the pollution that is concentrated in populated areas, especially cities- which is where the majority of people live and do around 99% of their driving. Electricity is also the easiest to de-centralise and generate at any scale from just-enough solar on a house to help charge one car all the way up to massive power-plants that run entire regions.
Lighter weight helps with EVERYTHING and thank you for making the case for it! I know that you have a much larger audience than I or many others have, so I'm really grateful that you've put this idea more forward for everyone to start thinking about. They may have trouble wrapping their brains around it at first, and getting around the notions they've always accepted to be true, but unless their minds are kept forced-shut, I think the idea will percolate and gain traction because the logic in undeniable.
And I very much agree that the size of many large vehicles is indeed more than what many families need. I was a kid in the 1970s and we did just fine without SUVs and mini-vans. Bring back the estate, or 'wagon' as we call them over here in the USA, not just because they're better vehicles but because they're also pretty cool once you look past the family-bus aspect of them. And there are a few that are fun to drive as well as being practical haulers, as some of your own videos illustrate.
Thanks again Jack, and I'm looking forward to more good stuff!
Unfortunately, there is one thing lighter weight does not help with …
It doesn’t help the manufacture make money.
Less weight = less complexity = less ‘added value’ = less profit.
You can see this in everything from burgers to washing machines to cyber trucks.
(With the exception of aerospace 😊).
@@Hickalum Humanity is screwed.
Fully agree with you on the weight, Jack. The most fun cars I have driven have been around the tonne mark (BMW 2002, NA Miata, '94 SE-R). Knock 500kg off my Leaf and it would be a hoot. I borrowed a mate's early 90's manual Corolla last year and was amazed at how sprightly it felt. Sadly, the US government has decided that tanks are passenger vehicles, and class them differently for emissions regulations. These legislative mistakes of the 80's and 90's paved the way for 2t+ SUVs and trucks that people use to commute/get groceries, and incentivising petrol-based toys (snowmobiles, powerboats, dirt bikes, none of which have emissions controls). The other elephant in the room is tyres. We still haven't figured out how to deal with millions of tonnes of tyre dust polluting our environment, or coming up with a good way to recycle them. Heavy cars, EVs included, are contributing to this. My proposal - your annual registration includes 1.5t. Anything over that is taxed at USD500/year/tonne except vehicles with agricultural registrations. I can just hear the squeals from Americans (of which I am by birth) that this infringes their "freedoms". News flash, there's nothing in the constitution that gives you the right to pollute more than anyone else because it suits your perceived lifestyle. EVs are the way forward - they are vastly more efficient at converting total energy into motion than ICE. ICEs are fun - if I didn't think so, I wouldn't subscribe to this channel. But ranting about EVs while ignoring all the faults of ICE is laughably ignorant. Tax heavy vehicles (EVs included) and make manufacturers more responsible for solutions for EOL traction batteries.
I know we have a lot of huge trucks here in the US. But honestly most people just buy crossovers. The most common size is a compact crossover which isnt that big.
Not many can afford body on frame SUVs. The huge trucks are a issue. My boss just got one and it's giant compared to the old Silverado work truck we had. I don't understand how the only way to get as much space that truck gives is to buy a truck. It was one of the most comfortable cars I ever sat in.
Americans like trucks but the only way to get a decent four door truck is to go full size. Stuff like the Tacoma and Rmager have rather poor back seats when I have been in them.
Automakers need to start building smaller compelling versions of the large cars they currently offer if you want Americans to down size. I drive a small subcompact atm and plan on upsizing whenever I buy my next car. Other than the great turning circle, handling, mpgs, and ease to park I don't find any compelling reason to buy a small car again. I tried it out and like most Americans the flaws of such a car are too much. But even then there is not a single small car worth buying anymore. A Rio? Versa? Mirage? Pft.
Watched the whole video smiling. This is what I have been preaching since I got into cars and you just nailed virtually all agruments in a short kept format. Love it.
In France the heaviest electric cars are excluded from any bonus. They will probably be taxed in the future.
Features like heated seats and steering wheel are sheer madness
and elec seats should b a disabled option
Time to tax these vanity SUVs out of existence
Damn straight!
Energy Guzzlers
I agree
You sound like a budding eco-terrorist. Talk to the Chinese and other emerging countries about their coal fired power plants, far more emissions coming from those countries. Didn't Karl Marx spend a lot of time in England? Great Britain always did have a strong Socialist bent. A lot of class envy there. A mean, penny pinching population, most of whom would rather live elsewhere. In the meantime this American is looking to buy another Jaguar, a 2006 XJ8 VDP, to join his Jaguar F-Type in the garage. Be honest, wouldn't you really rather be driving a Jaguar more than the cramped little box you're in now?
Sounds very….communist
Well i never saw this coming,James,with everyone driving around in 2.5 Tonne slabby ugly heaps of junk,the manufacturers are complicit in this as they push these ugly heaps of junk because they also have larger profit margins. Someone needs to grasp this nettle ,efficienct has always been light,aerodynamic with efficient propulsion.
It's an absolute nightmare, but then add this to the two biggest polluters : The maritime industry and the aviation industry and we're truly cruising towards an epic crisis.
..but many also want a usable car. Small cars are ok inside a city. Even much preferable. But not for much else. And inside a city the correct means of transportation is probably a bicycle anyway.
@martinsvensson6884 a myth about Range Rovers and their 3 tonne counterparts is that they're roomy,In reality they have less room inside than a decent estate car.The truth of the matter is that the people that drive them are under the illusion that they will survive a huge impact and are willing to sacrifice the lives of you and your family in a smaller lighter " less safe" vehicle.
Dont agree they are complicit, you have to build what the customers want or go out of business.... They got no choice. Since customers wont change their mind, the only solution is regulatory.
@@GoldenCroc Regulations is the exact reason they are heavy lol.
@@grahamsmith2022 I know that cars like the older Mercede R-class or GL's are bigger inside than anything regular.
They can be easier to get in and out of for older people also. At least cars like the R.
But I can agree that building those really high SUVs is pretty unncessary for most.
I'd rather have the R dims than the GL/GLS/GLE.
SUVs came about from the US where the makers were able to ignore some safety legislation by defining them as trucks. They also lobbied for vehicles over 6000 lbs to be exempt from fuel consumption regulations. They were able to make something big cheaply and were wildly profitable. The European makers saw this and jumped on the bandwagon spending billions in PR to convince the public that they really needed SUV type vehicles, especially as the jacked up version of their cars were sold at a great premium = more profit. It worked and people now buy them thinking they are safer (they're not for drivers, passengers or pedestrians) and roomier (they're always smaller inside than the hatchback they're based on). The public have been and still are conned. SUVs also killed off the properly useful car - the estate - although its nice to see they are making a bit of a comeback. So, not EU laws in particular, just PR and profit.
Incidentally, nice to see Paris taking the bull by the horns and banging up parking rates for overweight cars. Its a good start.
Excellent. This is exactly why I bought a hot hatch i20N for my 3 kids and for me to have fun in. Less than 1.2 ton and over 45 mpg. With an LSD, and heated but manual seats. Charge pad etc.
Cars used to be lightweight and then crash testing made them heavy
Crash requirements are not the sole reason for heavier vehicles. In fact a current robust chassis is relatively light when compared to a similar chassis developed in the 1970s/80s - all due to computational mechanics which greatly assists in the efficient design of the chassis. The significant increase in vehicle mass is largely attributable to the larger size and the amount of technical gizmos incorporated within the vehicle. For example an electrically operated side window is significantly heavier than a manual wind-up type and you normally have four of those. My most recent bug-bear is wheels, with 21 or 22 inch wheels weighing circa 20kg or more - now they are a pain in the back when compared to 15 inch wheels that weigh circa half that.
@@georgebettiol8338 Quite right
Yes, safety regulations have got a lot to do with the increasing bulk of modern cars. I think safety regulations have ignored one major aspect and that's the ability to avoid having an collision in the first place. The safest car is one that doesn't have a collision, and while that's mostly down to the driver, by allowing the driver to see properly and have control helps a lot in that. When I get in a modern car I find visibility so much worse than my 30 year old hatchback. The massive A-pillars and tiny windows means massive blind spots, and seeing things close to the car is so much harder in a modern car. My old car is also light and nimble, so much easier to take avoiding action than in a lardy modern car carrying too much momentum. OK, my old car might not do well if it gets clobbered by a 2.5 tonne Range Rover, but I stand a better chance of avoiding it in the first place.
I also wonder whether the false sense of security in these modern tanks has contributed towards the lowering of driving standards too?
Electric heated steering wheels made them heavy 😅
Crash testing made them safer.
For comparison. The latest Polo GTI 1372KG, Audi Quattro B2 1350KG 😮
Here in the US, we’ve made engines much more efficient but instead of reaping the benefit of increased MPG, the auto makers just increase the power! Its crazy. As a car guy, I love more power but the whole point of investing billions of dollars into making more efficient engines was to gain MPG, less pollution, right? 🤷♂️
If an American walks into a showroom and the salesman says "the new model does 3 more mpg" he's going to walk out. If the salesman says "the new model has a tonne more hp" he's going to buy it.
Truth is people like better mpg but they like power more.
It doesn't help when they have struggled to afford anything powerful for ages and they suddenly get offered a chance to drive something fun.
Funny thing is more efficiency doesn't mean economy or power - its not mutually exclusive. The reason the big power cars use more fuel is usually because of the sticky rubber, and all the extras thown at them. An engine with a certain thermal efficiency will be just as good on fuel as any other with the same all being equal but that big spoiler makes quite a difference on a highway.
@@siraff4461 youre oversimplifying us. We 100% do look at mpg. Its just we dont have a choice when the auto makers force our hand with almost none of the options being better than the last generation model
@@John_Redcorn_ There are hardly any new cars sold in the US which aren't better or at least the same as the outgoing model. The problem is its hard to sell a small econobox to someone used to a big luxury pickup.
@@siraff4461 well yeah. I have a big pickup because i do pickup things; an econobox wouldnt work for me. And my new (2020) truck doesnt get any better mpg than my 2008 model did. Sure, i have more power but i didnt need it. Id rather have the better mpg. If i needed more power than my old 2008 gasoline truck i would have just jumped up to a 2500 diesel. The price on those are outrageous tho. Lol
Well said about taxing based on mass. I've long argued that the tax by emissions is dubious, because emissions are one thing that is almost impossible for the layperson to have any measure of, and that obscurity we now know has been used by manufacturers to game the system. Have you noticed how fuel consumption figures, even on paper, have not improved in line with the supposed reduction in CO2 over the years? The CO2 output figures for most cars are now maybe half of what they were 25 years ago, but fuel consumption has not halved. Where is that surplus carbon going exactly?
Paris just raised the parking fees for SUVs up to about three times the normal rate.
Bath charges parking rates based on emissions, which seems reasonable.
@@varsas10 How is it reasonable?
Your car isn't producing any emmisions when it's parked there, and it doesn't take up more space than a less polluting one.
They don't really care about emmisions, just making money and stopping people from having freedom. It's like ULEZ.
Jack, that's a very thoughtful diatribe, making a valid point. And for once I haven't just listened to an emotion driven anti-electric car rant. I'm sure it's possible to pick a few holes in some of your arguments (the very idea that a Range Rover weighs only 2.2 tons!), but the essence of what you say is bang on target. Now, I need a seven seater (which converts to a five seater with a huge boot) because my wife is disabled and we have to carry wheelchairs, mobility scooters, etc, but here's the thing - it manages 55mpg overall with an astonishing over 60mpg on a long run. How? It weighs just 1200Kg and has just a one litre petrol engine with 110bhp (no hybrid system). It's no sports car, but performance is more than adequate (I've had several Caterhams in the past, up to 250bhp). It even has heated seats if I really want to feel like I've just wet myself. What is it? A Dacia Jogger, which is even more useful than my old Scenic. Critics will point to its one star NCAP rating, but so far as I can find out, this is simply down to it's lack of lane assist and a myriad of other "features" I simply don't want; it's actual crash rating appears to be four star. We recently made a trip to the airport with four adults, four full size suitcases for the hold, four cabin bags, a wheelchair (not dismantled) and a rollator - and no one was squashed. Mind you, if I really want a light car, I take out my sixty five year old Frogeye which is only just over half the weight of the Jogger, and - well you know how much fun they are. Finally, you might have made a better case if you hadn't been sitting with a Weber DCOE in the background!!
Anything over 2000Kg should have the same speed restrictions as commercial vehicles/non-car derived vans. 50mph in NSL and 60mph on a DC.
Exactly: for every 100kg over 1000kg restrict max. speed.
So: 200km/h for a sub 1000kg car, and 100km/h for a 2000kg car.
Seen the Rivian experience? It's Like allowing cruise ships on the road.
What is wrong with you, go away
@@OldSkoolUncleChris trucks have speed limits. Why would a big heavy car not have speed limits?
On the other hand: I was in GB for two weeks last year, and no single car was driving faster than 115km/h.
@@asphalthedgehog6580 Because they are very maneuverable and safer than smaller cars.
No, the oppsite since they are safer.
succinctly put, and even more relevant here in Australia where massive dual-cab utes and SUVs have become the absolute norm. I despair at cars like the “environmentally friendly” CyberTruck, but I don’t think we’ll see a change any time soon.
Yes, I live in Melbourne and was wondering if I was the only one thinking this. Yes, the tax system is encouraging the big heavy dual cab utes (which are now like trucks). Time for a change.
A Polestar 4 EV weighs more than a Ford Ranger dual cab
“environmentally friendly” CyberTruck, that is some delusional nonsense if you believe other people actually say that.
Totally agree with your comments.
If you look at the graphs, you'll see thatCo2 emissions were going down year on year up until 2017, when the 'Diesel gate' scandal essentially killed diesel car sales. The only thing bringing emissions down, in the face of rising vehicle weights, was diesel engines as their characteristics of high torque at low revs means much lower Co2 outputs during initial acceleration from rest.
There is a direct correlation between the numbers of diesel vehicles sold, and Co2 produced.
Co2 is completely irrelevant though.
"high torque at low revs" = power.... (just a note). Its not the power alone either though, its the better thermal efficency.
@@GoldenCroc Totally agree, however the way that the power delivery makes a driver drive has a significant effect.
@@martinsvensson6884 I agree, but that doesn't stop it being something of a yard stick!
There are more factors than just a move away from diesel cars
I agree with everything you said until the end, when you perpetuated the myth that "road tax" (which hasn't existed since the 50's) is actually for spending on the roads, which it isn't.
DVLA still refer to is as tax in some contexts, but we all understand the term 'road tax'.
Oh, it's definitely still a tax. It just goes into a big pot with all the other taxes, so can be spent on anything from Schools to MP's expenses!
Yes quite right I forgot to mention that myself. It is just another Government tax for the treasury to do what they like with.
How are UK fuel taxes ten times US fuel taxes and yet the roads are still bad???
@@jamesengland7461 Choices, policies. The US and the UK prioritise different things like, say, healthcare, where most Americans enjoy the get sick-lose the house-still die model, despite spending x2 or thereabouts per capita. Also a lot of it is stolen by the Tories.
right you are ... and the reason I drive a 25 Civic SI weighing in at "only" 3000lbs ... Thanks Keith Chicago IL ...
The issue is that EVs were pushed on us too early, the tech isn’t clean or ready. As a consequence we have lost small ICE cars pretty much completely in favour of awful BEV SUVs. I’m keeping my old Volvo going. The government can try and stop me driving it, but I will simply refuse.
Good lad.
Me too.
I'll be synthesising my own fuel before some lunatic in Westminster plonks my arze in an EV.
Except possibly, a very small, lightweight EV for a short inner city move.
EVs are being forced on people? What? Go try to buy a gas car and see if anyone stops you. Most new cars sold are still gas. 🙄
@@truhartwood3170 Most cars new are on company car schemes. See how much difference there is in cost when you take the tax breaks in for ev's. You can in theory have an ice but you're going to be paying way over the odds for it. Thats before we get into "clean air zones" and all that grabbing rubbish.
Stop with the insane nonsense. ICE is still the dominant car on sale. "in favour of awful BEV SUVs" yet they are tiny slice of the market. Big EVs are not enough market share to cause small ICE cars to disappear. You're just spamming political nonsense.
This is something I have been saying for years, and it now has to happen, although not sure how. Excellent video.
My little Citroën AX GT was a great fun car, it weighed c.900kg, sipped petrol (however hard you drove it) and was just a great car. I still miss it, and I still think cars of that size, with modern materials and a small efficient engine are the way to go.
It only weighed that little because it was made of tinfoil
@@DjDolHaus86 plastic, mainly, I called mine Yog as it appeared to be made of recycled yoghurt pots. I took the (cardboard) door trims off once, there was just an outer skin and secondary ribs for strengthening. Thank God I never hit anything in it!
Jack this is a brilliant analysis . Taxing by weight is an excellent idea. It solves so many problems and gives all vehicle manufacturers no matter what power plant they use the perfect incentive to improve there engineering and design. Such a brilliant and original take on how to fix the problem. So much better than the idea of someone I was subscribed to of buying a diesel range rover and spraying every thing on a farm with round up
Brilliant Jack. You have my vote …
Makes a lot of sense…
Finally someone is saying this i drive a 2019 honda civic it weighs 1290kg and has a huge boot and lots of space for passengers (i do a lot of travelling and move a lot of people and need space) however its a lightweight car on motorway runs acheives well over 50mpg (petrol) and a massive thing was built in the country that I drive it in so didnt need to be shipped half way across the world to get here. Ive been thinking this way for over 10 years. And im glad they're finally starting to look at the tyre emissions that large electric vehicles make and ahould go into consideration how much more energy and resources it takes to make a large tyre for these behemoths.
Another point i would like to see be considered is electric chargers. Most of the time they are ripping up part of a serviceable car park to place these chargers (no idea how much resorces go into the manufacture of those) but they then usually take up more space than a usual (at least the soze of a disabled space) so can park less cars in the same space and then are placed on a concrete base, a terrible material for the environment with significant carbon emissions. I know it can be said that peteol stations are terrible masses of concrete but they are already built.
If politicians actually wanted less global emissions and they want EV's, they would be building nuclear power plants. Renewables will never be reliable enough. All manufacturers should be 3rd party audited for actual emissions from beginning to end. EV's are much worse for the environment than what we are told.
But, having said that, if all of Europe and all of the US suddenly became non polluting countries, it would have virtually ZERO impact over the next 100 years to the climate. Why? Because of China, India, Africa, and any other country that doesn't care about anything you just mentioned.
We as a people need to stop feeding the agenda that environmental issues are the biggest problem the world is facing. Can we improve it? Sure, but at what expense? Will it help? Not really.
100% And what makes me mad is that a lot of EVangelists spout their bull thinking they're saving the planet because they've bought an MG or a BYD made in ....China!
China are leading the way in emissions reductions and green energy so they absolutely do not deserve to be on that list.
They're actually building more nuclear power than the rest of the world combined whilst also building a crazy amount of renewables.
They also produce pretty much all of our crap whilst having far less emissions per capita than us.
Completely agree, Bjorn Lomborg makes some pretty strong arguments for world problems that would make real differences for fractions of the cost of this vanity project, which like you say won’t make any noticeable difference.
Nuclear fuel is mined, nuclear is a distraction.
Great idea, let's pollut the planet for 1000,000 years!!!
What this guy says here is spot on !!!
Good video ❤️👍
I'm very happy to say later this year, my girlfriend will be trading in her Jeep Compass for a Toyota Corolla SE. This should be a huge improvement in emissions, efficiency and, dare I say, much more fun and pleasurable to drive. She's gonna love it!
She'd probably like a Tesla better!
@@truhartwood3170 Ummm...Neither of us are Tesla or Musk fans. For a huge variety of reasons. And I believe a 3 is 2x the price. Used is out of the question.
@@Sandy-oy2lr when you calculate TCO (total cost of ownership), factoring in incentives, charging vs fueling,maintenance, and depreciation, they're actually pretty close depending on how much you drive (the more you drive, the more the EV makes sense). As for personal preference, we'll that's personal. I wouldn't get any EV other than a Tesla at this point though, they just give you the most of everything for the least money so any other EV means you're paying more money for a worse car. As for not liking Elon, I doubt you could name a single CEO of any other company you buy anything from. And the reason you probably don't like him or Tesla is the media love to hate on both. The more you learn about Elon and Tesla the more you'd probably change your mind.
I can’t believe that road tax is still charged based on engine displacement. Thisis since 20 years pure idiocy. How can my 3.6 993 that has 1400kg do more damage to the roas than a 2.5t SUV with a 2.0L turbocharged engine. Not even start to talk about electric cars bing nearly exempt. Pure idiocy, stupidity and an attack of the governments to make citizens pay for no rational reason.
Well researched and argued video - makes complete sense 👍
I have been saying this for years. The engine efficiency progress made in the last decade has been completely negated by the rise and popularity of suvs.
I was thinking for a triple whammy taxing. Calculate the final tax by multiplying three coefficients based on weight, power and fuel consumption (maybe combined with pollution level). This way you cover all the bases, all combinations should be properly taxed: heavy but efficient EV; light but powerful sport cars; light but inefficient engine; and the triple whammy for SUVs , heavy, powerful and inefficient.
Why should power be in the equation and be a taxation factor - What’s that got to do with the environment? Or do you just want to tax the wealthy more, as I’m suspecting?
@@neilturner6749 Yes, but also to limit the power race. Beyond some amount of power the rest is just dangerous, and new ridiculously fast EV are not making things safer.
@@neilturner6749 What would be wrong with that?
I worked in the auto industry until a couple of years ago and what you have said makes total sense. You could see it coming 10 years ago, and at the time it disgusted me. Especially the use of a weight factor in Fleet Average CO2 calculations.
A couple of additional factors/datapoints: 1) The demonisation of diesel [lower CO2 than gasoline/petrol] by governments and city authorities hasn't helped. 2) The penalties you discuss, & reduced margins, now render small cars like the Fiesta and especially the Up/Mii/Citigo etc. unprofitable and they are being discontinued. 3) The impact of finance. In 1983, a family car such as a Ford Sierra cost £5000ish, the equivalent of about £15,000 today. Most were bought on HP, some cash. A 'family' car/SUV today costs 2-3 times that (£30-60k), and most people use PCPs. This is all well and good, but it means people are incentivised to change to a new car every 2/3 years. And guess what... that car will likely be bigger and heavier than the last one.
Interesting side note: The price of 7-10 year old superminis remains inflated in the UK, presumably due to lack of supply. People do want small cars!
All true. The Citroen Oli is 1000kg and has a 40 kWh battery and a decent range. This is the way forward. Colin Chapman said "Simplify, then add lightness".
ruclips.net/video/MAdlm8-h_GE/видео.html&ab_channel=Electrifying
Yeah but didn’t an unusually high % of his drivers get killed or badly injured?
Colin is now turning in his grave... Lotuses are getting bloat too.
Oli is a concept car.
As Colin Chapman's customers said: Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious.
I'm doing my bit with a newish 1,100 kg Skoda Fabia. Thanks for this video.
The Elephant in the room here is that these BEV’s have severely restricted rage without their 500 kgs batteri pack. That’s why they are so big and heavy.
The newest batteries weigh 2kg per kWh. If your battery pack is say 70kWh, that means about 140kg in battery weight. There is no reason why an electric car needs to be heavy.
@@t3chnno Based on the data provided by Tesla, their 75kW battery - i.e. Tesla Model S/X Pack - 75kWh / 214Ah / 350V - weighs circa 530kg. This suggests that your information is somewhat optimistic.
That's right. The thing is that most journeys are short. Big battery packs are being hauled around in order to give the driver a feeling of confidence in range, and of course to reduce the frequency of charging. Small and light EV's need to be encouraged, with good charging infrastructure.
Surely this makes a case for small battery hybrids.. tbf, that even includes stuff like the old BMW hybrid supercar with a 1.5ltr engine.
Unless you want a car that can only be used for short journeys, a large battery pack is necessary. Most people can’t afford to have a different car for every occasion.
Spot on.
We have to stop talking about electric cars, they are battery cars. And that is their problem!
totally agree, everything we use with batterys are throw away items!!
@@paulmillington9035 Like fossil fuels are not thrown away throughout the life of every ICE vehicle ... leaving CO2 and pollutants in their wake.
Why is this distinction important? I think everyone knows this. No one think they're trailing around extension cords or something.
@@paulmillington9035Junk yards are a brand new thing with the introduction of EVs? I don't think so buddy. The average age of cars on the road is 12.5 years. Only 10% are older than 20. Current EVs are expected to last 35 years of average driving with almost no maintenance.
@@truhartwood3170and the battery isn’t going into landfill, it’s worth a lot as scrap
My two favorite cars from all the ones I've owned are a 1984 Renault 4l and a 1991 Fiat Cinquecento..Small, light, fast in an urban enviornment and , above all, huge fun. Both of them carried all of my famiys needs when required and left me with some beautiful memories. I sometimes wonder if todays cars will have the same impact on the memory, and the pocket, of my children.
All good info and reasonable arguements. But my friend you yourself love your V8s and seem to use one as your daily polluter 😂😂😂
You only have to look at ULEZ to see how screwed up our emissions policies are. I used to have a 1.9 diesel convertible that did 60 mpg on a motorway. It wouldn't pass the London ULEZ regs so now I have a 2.4 petrol saloon that does 26 mpg but is ULEZ compatible. The thing is, I could import in a 5.7 litre Toyota Tundra from the USA, which would do about 16 mpg, take up two parking spaces and still be ULEZ friendly.
Excellent video from a car enthusiast
100% agree. Lightest Lotus now is 1.5 ton Emira. Eletre weighs 2.6 tons! Our Audi A1 uses noticeably less fuel than our Lexus hybrid SUV and it has room for our entire family. Great car, also going out of production.
Hey dude!! Nice to hear from you.. hope all good!!
@@Number27 good thanks, glad to see your channel doing so well, congrats 👍
Everyone is buying 2 ton tanks....
Simple
Well when a 1-ton tank is basically the same price, why _wouldnt_ you buy the 2-ton? 🤷♂️
@@John_Redcorn_ Because the road tax is more, the fuel is more...
@@FSMDog road tax? Nothing like that here
@@John_Redcorn_ As the video maker is British, and so am I....
It simply stuns me that people haven't realised that a near 3-tonne Tesla Model X isn't the solution. The solution has been staring us in the face all along, and it's a Toyota Aygo. Or a Suzuki Swift. Or any number of other sub-tonne hatchbacks. The idea that the Ford Kuga, a truly a disposable, terribly designed shitbox with nothing to offer over the Focus it's based on, is replacing it, is so sad.
The truth is, "nobody" cares about any solution, thats only lip service. Same as always, and with everything. So SUVS will reign supreme.
That's why parking with a 1600kg+ ICE or 2000kg+ EV is going to cost €225,- for 6 hours parking in Paris. It's about time. Let's hope the whole world follows.
No-one needs an SUV.
But not for residents ... it's a step in the right direction, but if you live in Paris you can still own and park a huge SUV without any consequence (and it'll still cost 1.50€ per day).
Ok, imagine a winter that lasts 5 months with regular heavy snowfalls and your neighbourhood is only occasionally being cleaned. You may not like SUV but in these conditions you really need it...
They can be very practical. But noone might actually need a sports car... Want to ban those too?
@@eugenydemin3023 But usually winter tires and possibly 4WD are enough for those conditions. Unless you live outside civilisation.
@@martinsvensson6884 depends on the fuel consumption. Let's say one drives a Lamborghini 1000 miles/year. That's not a lot of pollution compared to an SUV that drives 20k miles with 98% of the miles with only the driver going to work. In fact, lambo is better, because it transports a lot less air.
SUV's are ridiculous they don't fit in parking spaces or on country roads , they guzzle fuel....I'm sure driving an SUV will be as fashionable as smoking in the not to distant future, You can't drive a Range Rover in London now anyway as they are pretty much uninsurable! Excellent stuff as always Jack buddy 👍
Parents today are often not very young and then you absolutely appriciate the higher back seat in a SUV when lifting kids in and out 😄 But a MPV or a "rised" estate would work just as good 😅
Yes, but in a lower car they can get in and out more easily by themselves (obviously after reaching a certain age). Also, they can hardly see out of the bloody things until they're nearly grown up!
I so much agree with this! I don't want to offend any suv owner but I just find unsuitable for our roads. When I drop of my girls to school, it's only the suv owners who are making long and laborious maneuvers to park the car and holding everyone up. Everyone should be free to chose which car suits them better but fairness is now needed.
How many them also live within walking distance of the school too?
@@davem9204 Good question. Given how densely pack modern (stupid) life is, probably none. If we all had less busy lives (e.g. reduce from 1,334,858 clubs a week, children's diaries more complicated than CEOs requiring a PA), then probably a good amount of them could just walk or cycle.
Cars *are* already taxed on their weight. It's the tax on fuel, which they use more of.
Not really - EVs definitely not taxed on weight.
@@GoalSquad666 Because it would be pointless. FYI Model 3 and BMW F80 have negligible weight difference. ICE cars would be taxed just as badly. Now we can't have that can we?
Excellent upload, excellent reasoning, 100% bang on
CO2 isn't a pollutant. It's plant food. And even if you think it is, every nine months China adds another UK's worth of CO2. So if the UK vanished, China would make up the difference in 9 months. No doubt I'll be screamed at as a 'denier' but look at the science. Tip of the day: the output of computer models isn't evidence.
I heard a statistic that if China, Russia, and the USA reduced their total emissions by 1%, it would be the same as the UK stopping all together.
I do wonder why we bother. Some say it's because we need to lead by example, but when China is building a new coal fired power station every week, I don't think they have any intention of reducing their output.
Hey number 27 I totally agree with you. I drive 8 series of vehicles here in the United States. They're all pickup trucks, but they're older pickup trucks in their lighter than they're more modern counterparts. And it's shocking to me how much just like a regular passenger car has grown in in weight and sometimes it's not even gotten that much bigger. It's just gotten much heavier because of all of the gadgets that people want in their cars these days and all of the luxury features and items. I mean it's staggering. When I came up when I grew up it was kind of rared to find a car with power seats, power windows, air conditioning, power door locks. It was kind of rare and but you kind of knew that that kind of stuff was going to be reserved for a more upscale more up-level car like a Lincoln or a Cadillac or maybe a Chrysler or a Buick. You knew that. Well now you find more base model cars and trucks too with power windows. And it's just crazy to me. It's I mean I like cars to be safer too. But I think somewhere along the line we've got to draw a line here somewhere to get the weight down on vehicles to get the weight down to where it's manageable. I think in this country we've here in the US. We've had this idea of having your cake and eat it too and it just isn't working. Also, I'd like to say thank you for such a great channel. Keep up the great work. Love the cars you feature on here. A lot of which isn't available here in the states. The stuff that we rarely ever see or never see. Keep up the great work
Always a sad day when one of my favorite channels falls for the “official” climate narrative. Quoting official reports and documents from corrupt bodies is no foundation for an argument. There is so much hypocrisy in their approaches to, so called, problems. After being in the motor industry since the mid seventies, I have seen cars get cleaner and cleaner. I agree with a lot of the ideas you put forward such as smaller more efficient cars but, none of these official bodies are coercing manufacturers to scale down production of larger cars. Yet we, the working masses, are made to feel guilty about buying these cars that are so heavily promoted! At the same time, roads are shrinking, speed limits are being lowered, fines for minor car park infractions are increasing, not to mention fuel, insurance and tax increases. It seems like the climate argument is very useful to get us out of our cars altogether! One final point. Based on your theory, use of motorcycles should be promoted but, the governments are bringing the same draconian measures on them despite them being a tiny demographic! Utterly preposterous.
I will adress the part of "feel guilty about buying these cars that are so heavily promoted" ....Feel guilty and heavily promoted how? People buy what they want, if anything there are every incentive for normal people to not buy large, heavy cars. Yet they do it. So in my mind, if they purport to care, they should feel guilty because they are hypocrites.
@@GoldenCroc every car manufacturer makes them and adverts are plentiful. Consumerism is promoted in all forms then we are told we are ruining the planet by the people that promote consumerism. Doesn’t make sense. It’s a culture war and personal transport is on the hit list.
I see a trend here in the comments: force others to behave differently by use of bullying by government thugs. We here in the colonies use to frown on such taxation without representation.
As a cyclist in London I am frequently stuck behind large cars that have stopped abruptly in the middle of the road because they are too fat to pass safely down narrow streets. Also I struggle to see passed these cars to judge the traffic ahead. They are typically driven by a short female - the ones that stop at random leaving no room to pass around... grrr.
Cycling around these huge tanks is also intimidating, and the frequenty blacked out windows are also annoying. Generally I obstruct large SUV's from passing if I can to make the owners life slightly more miserable, you're welcome.
In other words, you're deliberately causing problems for drivers. Got it.
@@jamesengland7461 I am pointing out that owning a fat car has unexpected disadvantages.
Excellent video production quality, Jack. You really are guilty of making too much sense because you have laid out your case logically and coherently, unlike those who formulate vehicle emissions policy. I have recently gone from a mid-sized saloon to a smaller car, both ICE.
I can’t help thinking that the electric dream will become a nightmare
We are already in the ICE nightmare! This level of denial from defenders of ICE vehicles is a massive part of the problem.
Like the diesel dream rather politicians foisted on us at the turn of the century. Yes, they produce slightly less CO2 but much more NOX and small particulates. Windmills are fine for the oil industry as there are tons of fibreglass resin and plastic insulation in each one.
Jack … never mind about all this stuff, I’m waiting to see more about the Pantera!
Ah. The EU.
How about they ditch ALL their limos themselves, as an example, if they are so concerned?
Won't happen.
I've never subscribed to the SUV trend. As an aerospace engineer I see the issues with these larger cars like the increased weight, lager frontal area, etc. I prefer the Lotus approach; simplify and add lightness. The largest car I have is a C segment family hatchback. If I need a bigger car I'll go for an estate. I don't need an SUV. Having looked at C segment SUVs against estate cars (3rd generation Ford Kuga vs 4th generation Focus), just by looking around the vehicles (and not referring to the sales blurb) I saw no benefit in terms of more boot space in the SUV. My conclusion was that visually the volumes were similar, just differently shaped. In fact, the Focus estate's cargo volume was about 77 litres larger, seats down compared with the Kuga with the seats down too. To me that's enough not to justify having an SUV. In my book bigger is not better. I guess I'll be keeping my Elise too.
This small car advert brought to you by The Hobbit Auto People's Party of Europe (Happ-E)
You are so very correct. On the subject of electric cars the fuel consumption in miles/kWh = CO2 emissions in use seems to be ignored, people drive around in supersized electric SUV's with high electricity consumption whilst patting themselves on the back for being green.
Absolutely. The way to make this effective is nudge group behaviour by taxing it; the way to get governments to do this is to make it fiscally beneficial, by taxing it.
Something like production emissions + weight - (%offset for power train) + running emissions
Totally support this. As it looks like we're going to get a change of government in the UK this year now might be the time to lobby. Taxing vehicles by emissions is not the driver it once was. Tax by weight and distance covered each year. Also apply it retrospectively to every vehicle not tax exempt to reward people who have smaller lighter vehicles and who don't use them that much and people who are responsible enough to keep older vehicles on the road in good condition.
Totally nailed it. Autobesity. I have a 2019 Suzuki Swift hybrid. Very fun car, pretty well specced. Sub 1000 kg - quite a design and engineering achievement, I would say. In "hypermiling mode" out of town I get up to 28 km/l (nearly 80 mpg). I bet no more than 10% of that is from the "boost" from the mild hybrid system. Suzuki also make some heavy hybrid monstrosities (thereby negating the aforesaid engineering effort), in Italy typically driven on often narrow roads by insecure pensioners to the supermarket or post office. It's absolutely insane.
Imagine growing up idolizing BMW and finally as an established professional your option is to buy... a 1760KG "sports coupe". It's tragic what happened to them.
I was thinking exactly this whilst watching, and not focusing on said lump of metal parked under the carport. Virtually identical in size to my 04 plate E46 coupe, yet because of standard X drive and more gadgets, far heavier....
In my youth I too liked BMWs. However, they are now styled with what appears to be cartoonish (exaggerated) frontal features and are appallingly unreliable with lots of poor quality 'breaky-breaky' plastics located under the bonnet. How sad.
Totally agree with you Jack.
Two additional advantages to having smaller / lighter cars not mentioned in this video.
1. They do far less damage to people's health when they collide with pedestrians.
2. They do not block narrow city streets as much as SUVs.
Thank you for another great video! You are totally correct in my opinion, cars have become too big and heavy for road and energy infrastructure. I can understand SUVs in some ways for families and older people as they are easier to get into and the driving position might be more favorable. Still I've heard lots of people claiming they need SUVs and such because roads are trash nowadays but it just contributes to the problem. Unfortunately car market today is old people's market and the offering matches that, I for one will never buy an SUV. Most of the fun cars cost way too much and have become almost non-existent and I also intensely dislike making everything touch screen and menus upon menus, makes one really appreciate good switch gear. Going to have to keep my Genesis Coupe running forever at this rate.
Nice to hear this argument from you, Jack. I have felt like "the voice in the wilderness" for decades. Even the original ICE emission standards got it wrong, because pollutants were controlled as a percentage of total emission volume, rather than in absolute terms. As a result, massive V8s dumped many times larger amounts of pollutants than my typical sub-2-litre compact cars.
With regard to the EV "revolution", there is no way that 7,500 lb pickups and 9,000 lb EV Hummers are going to slow climate change. Another consideration for the move to EVs, is it really doesn't make sense to lug around a 400+ km range battery pack every day, when you are likely only driving 100 km between recharges. I hope the Chinese manufacturers come to market with a small, light EV, possibly with a modular-repairable battery pack. Honestly, I really like the Citroen OLI concept. But of course Citroen brought us the finest example of effective automotive minimalism with the Citroen 2CV. Everything you said about the snowball effect of reducing weight is evident in the 2CV. Imagine that I can put four people in my 2CV and run down the motorway at 100 kph, with a 602cc engine....
Thank you Jack, I have been saying all of this for years....Colin Chapman rules!!
Spot on Jack!
In 2020 I wanted to replace my small sub 1000kg litre petrol engined city car. I was astonished to find that there was so very little choice as nearly all manufacturers had stopped making them. My jaw dropped when I first read then that emissions legislation _discouraged_ small car production. It dropped even further when I read that CO2 production based VED bands had been dropped and now it was a flat £140 a year in the UK for anything with an engine regardless of emissions or vehicle mass.
The car you are looking for was on the market from 2000 to 2005. The 825kg Audi A2 3L. Mine has done 430000km, and my son is on 580000km in his. That is a real environmental car. without DPF filter it only puts out 86g.
Totally agree. In 2013, I thought that small cars were good enough for safety and decent comfort, after having an Audi A6 Quattro for 15 years, I bought a new BMW i3. The net weight of the 1st gen was 1200 kg. Suitable big car for us two adults and a small child. My sister with 3 children did the same, changed her SUV to a BMW i3. But then I was wrong, it was up and down in the media, car RUclipsrs and Tesla fans how silly and ugly the i3 was. Had i3 for 5 years 120,000 km
Edit - missing part from my text:
Had i3 for 5 years 120,000 km perfect car for us, but market went the other way to bigger cars, finally gave up driving a small car and now drives a 2.3 tonne BEV SUV. My sister still drives the i3.
Would been fine with an electric VW Golf Alltrack/1st gen Audi A4 Allroad or a BEV Land Rover 1st gen Freelander 3 doors with alu/plastic structure.
I have followed EV matters on a daily basis for years and have yet to read any "Tesla fans" saying how "silly and ugly the i3 was"! It always got serious respect in any EV discussion I have seen or participated in.
@@MrAdopado Example here, ruclips.net/video/M50Jd8vhwvM/видео.html
A lot of people tried to find fault with the I3, the doors, narrow wheels, "small" luggage compartment, etc. To be compact 4 meters with low pavement pressure, none of the so-called weaknesses were an issue for me. Good space, drives well and efficiently, but if you compare it to the Audi A8 or Model S, the car is small, strange doors and small wheels.
Drove it 115'km in less than 5 years with minimal wear and tear, simple and decent BEV that can be kept in operation for many years due to its design. the car was brilliant and had wanted the BMW
came up with a sequel to the i3. Looks like some of the ALU/CFRP technology has been continued in the iX series.
Brilliant video. This needed saying
Here in NZ we have a 2005 Honda Fit and a 2014 Suzuki Swift, either of which we would happily jump in and tour the country. The Fit is, in our opinion, one of the best-designed cars ever produced. Astonishingly roomy, quiet and smooth (1.5L V-Tec), amazing economy, cool interior that just doesn't date, and the Swift is well, a Swift. Sport. It goes great, sounds great, drives great, and has the best seats of any car I've ever owned. Have kids? Buy the Fit. HEAPS of room for all the crap needed. And runs on fumes.
I live in a snall European capital that has a high proportion of SUVs, EVs and destroyed roads as a result. To me it's a no-brainer that vehicles should be taxed by weight, as I mentioned to my wife just the other day (probably after hitting another pothole) - thanks for the video supporting my assertion!
The irony is, the worse condition the roads are in, the more people want "heavy-duty" SUVs with big tyres...