• random65837@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ahahahahaha, fucking station wagon? Seriously? Sorry, the 1980’s are long gone.

    The ridiculous arguments here are priceless. Guns kill people, pencils misspell words, and spoons make people fat right? Why blame the person behind the wheel, when you can blame the tool right? Personal responsibility? What’s that?

    I’m seriously questioning at this point if you people even grasp what a CUV is, because that’s the overwhelming majority herez not the SUVs of 15yrs ago. I for your sake, I hope station wagon means something else there as well. NOBODY wants to be caught dead in a fucking station wagon

    • bigschnitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Ok so we could’ve saved time if you just said you’re the least cool person imaginable with negative sense of style. Claiming that this is somehow cooler than this is entirely indefensible, SUVs are the literal antithesis of cool, the “soccer mum” moniker is not a term of endearment and your insinuation that wagons are uncool or old fashioned is, at best, misinformed.

      Aside from just being criminally uncool and unsexy, there are objective ways that SUVs/CUV are worse as well, most notably safety for other road users but also higher cost and of course the one people like me care about: that they also that they universally drive worse than a comparable passenger car.

      I guess you didn’t Google the safety stats on SUVs vs passenger cars, your allegory to blaming the tools is flawed. It’s more like saying guns without safetys are more dangerous than those with them. All cars (much like all guns) are dangerous, but some are more likely to be involved in accidents than others.

      • random65837@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aside from those station wagons literally not exiting here, that I’d assume cx60? Is a lot more plain will less body lines than what we have, that stwag isn’t terrible looking, but still couldn’t do it. If people wanted them, they’d sell them here.

        Also seems they have bigger engines and clearly a larger physical footprint than my wife’s CUV, so that argument is gone as well.

        • bigschnitz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If people wanted them, they’d sell them here.

          Yeah depending on where “here” is different things are available. If people don’t buy them or if dealers make more money off SUVs, then they will be gone.

          Also seems they have bigger engines and clearly a larger physical footprint than my wife’s CUV, so that argument is gone as well.

          Size and fuel economy weren’t things I mentioned above, but yeah I agree with you. Usually station wagons, like SUVs, have different engine configurations which dictates fuel economy more than ride height. The fuel efficiency argument against SUVs is a little out of date, the smaller ones are shared chassis with passenger cars often with the same engine, so fuel economy is more or less unchanged (the aero is worse on an SUV, but the kind we are discussing it’s not really significant). By footprint I guess you mean length, which in the example I have is right, obviously height goes the other way. Smaller SUVs are more comparable to hatchbacks (eg Mazda 3 is the same as CX-30), I don’t think the mid sized car platform is as directly comparable to the mid sized CUV/SUV.