661
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
661 points (92.5% liked)
Degrowth
814 readers
1 users here now
Discussions about degrowth and all sorts of related topics. This includes UBI, economic democracy, the economics of green technologies, enviromental legislation and many more intressting economic topics.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is comparing a 3 series sedan with an SUV though. The closest modern analog to the E30 would be the 1 series, and while it’s larger and heavier it’s also more fuel efficient, faster, and safer.
The closest equivalent to the 3 series would be a 3 series since it showcases how much bigger got.
Though a lot of that size increase is due to better safety tech, better crumple zones, so OP isnt very intelligent with this critique, the ford F150 comparisons are more apt.
This is what I would expect to see. This graphic is a crap comparison.
Yes but the image is of an X3 I think so certainly not an apple to apple comparison.
It's a perfectly fine comparison, because people are buying them for the exact same thing. Just because they've been sorted into different categories for other reasons doesn't change that.
Lol any method of transportation is just a different category with this logic
No, because all methods of transportation are not used for "the exact same thing". If it was a 7 seater SUV, it would be a bad comparison, because that's for carrying more people and must be larger. Same for a motorcycle. But it's not, it's a five seater car with a moderate trunk that people are buying for the exact same use case.
You're right, they're not all used for transportation.
Yes I'm trolling a bit, one could argue a modern smart phone and the first cell phones are a bad comparison because they "aren't used for the same thing" but that's just needlessly pedantic.
In this case, I do think it's fair to point out a crossover/suv being compared to a sedan is different enough to be a bad comparison, it's not "Apples to Oranges" (why can't fruit be compared?) but it is intentionally misleading for comparing cars of the same type when they're not the same type and pointing at the size difference.
Yes it is very intentional, because the point is not to say, "look at this sedan and this suv", the point is, "look at cars and how they are becoming bigger", a major part of which is people unnecessarily buying bigger cars. It's comparing the "average" car of the past to the "average" car today. In fact, if you were to compare sedans to sedans while trying to make that point, I say that would be disingenuous.
By example, if I was comparing computer storage though the ages, I wouldn't compare magnetic tape to magnetic tape today, I'd compare it to ssds. And it wouldn't be disingenuous because they're different types of storage, because the point I'm making is about storage as a whole.
If SUVs are replacing sedans, I think it's entirely fair to compare them.
I just had to tow a U-Haul trailer with all of my furniture packed inside. A five seater car would not be able to do this.
You decided to do that, you didn't have to. Since the trailer was rented out, you could have just as well rented out a U-Haul truck.
You represent a minority
Especially a minority of their own time. Moving houses doesn't happen every day.