It’s a 50-50. I believe it’s mostly lower hoods that improve pedestrian safety, not necessarily just shorter hoods.
European compliant cars have a bunch of requirements for pedestrian collisions, particularly trying to improve head safety - the bonnet dents downwards, rather than either the bonnet being solid or the head hitting the windscreen.
Did you change the first graph from weight to horsepower?
Yeah, American cars have had a reputation as ‘land yachts’ for a long time.
The point being made is that a lot of that ‘extraneous bulk’ is actually crumple zones and structure. You can’t eliminate it without losing crash protection, and that includes pedestrian crash ratings.
Exception rear trays.
In the US? Definitely.
Worldwide, slightly less so, but generally agreed.
More expensive oil won’t help oversized EVs that much.
Large vehicles being expensive (both to buy and operate) also results in them becoming status symbols and then you get conspicuous consumption.
Both are very limited comparability especially between drive types.
Torque was normally measured ahead of the gearbox and that introduces a whole pile of extra messiness.
Power is relevant once you’re into higher-speed regimes e.g. merging onto a fast road, overtaking, and climbing hills (especially if towing).
Force-speed or acceleration-speed curves would be nice.
0-20 times and 0-60 times are not necessarily closely correlated.
Could argue that’s due to a reduction in manual vehicles, or a reduction in driver competence / medical status.
It explicitly says “on this chart, down is worse”.
I’m not sure it’s reasonable to directly complain about fast 0-60 times. Slower acceleration removes options and makes merging more difficult; not all high speed roads have onramps of adequate length.
Definitely agreed on weight.
The Y scale on the third graph is a joke; that’s like a 4% change over 20 years. Wheelbase is not the same as vehicle length.
An extra seat cushion can help lift you up; my mum used to drive that way.
I assume your seat is fully up already?