The Simple Reason Emissions Are NOT Going Down.. And How To Fix It!

Cars have become ever more efficient.. so how is it possible that in the last 12 years emissions have not come down? We have been making a very basic mistake in how we try and tackle reducing pollution from cars and electric cars are not going to resolve it.
Support NR27 And Get:
1. Members Only Monthly Live Chats 2. Priority Replies To Comments 3. Loyalty Badges
/ @number27

[@d8889]

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

[@GoalSquad666]

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.

[@miken389]

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.

[@richardconway6425]

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]

Wow… that’s really good I’m only getting over 20km/l in a perfect conditions on highway in my 2023 990cc Kia Moorning.

[@richardconway6425]

@@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.

[@mikefoley360]

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.

[@neilturner6749]

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.

[@jkarra2334]

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😊

[@petew1810]

Can’t believe my S1 Elise is half the weight of that Fiat 500e

[@leccybadger]

That was some of the most common sense spoken on the internet in days! Thanks Jack 👍🏻

[@freerkderuiter8822]

Boom, you nailed it, Jack. I'm glad I'm not alone in this reasoning.

[@MrSheymie]

And small cars have been removed from sale in Europe. Reason? Money.

[@dusankocisevic6823]

So true………

[@tobyholt4682]

?

[@konradgreen2567]

@@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.

[@jn904]

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. 🤔

[@Ribeirasacra]

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.

[@Dark_Flame_Master]

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.

[@johnathanpearson3203]

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.

[@zx7rzx7r25]

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!

[@georgebettiol8338]

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.

[@zx7rzx7r25]

@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) ?

[@julianbailey2749]

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.

[@keithposter5543]

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.

[@jsanders100]

Have a proper look at Tesla will you. The level of their lightweight tech and production techniques would impress chapman.

[@baoquoc3710]

@@jsanders100 no1gaf about vacuummobile

[@robertpatrick3350]

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.

[@gordtulk]

Need to differentiate between pollution and CO2. Pollutants like NOX etc are far lower than twenty years ago

[@paul29961]

CO2 still has its negative effects on the environment.

[@gordtulk]

@@paul29961 and positive ones. AGW CO2 emissions are not a signifiant factor in global Warming

[@MrSpanks]

@@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!!

[@perdanielsorensen7775]

@@gordtulk That's BS.

[@artillsdrive1335]

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.

[@jimwhittaker8860]

There was a bloke called Colin Chapman, whose manta was 'Build in Lightness'

[@neilturner6749]

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!

[@jamesengland7461]

Did he build durable family cars? No.

[@TheKsharm]

Yeah but looks at lotus now...

[@407j]

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.

[@GoalSquad666]

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.

[@truhartwood3170]

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

[@thinkabit7264]

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.

[@407j]

@@thinkabit7264 doesn’t take much “small car vs big car crash test” googling to show how naive you are. Thanks for your comment.

[@truhartwood3170]

@@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.

[@PJ-om2wq]

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.

[@thisiszaphod]

Precisely!

[@SF-jx6it]

Why would Khan need a car with armour plating?!? After all ,everybody loves him……..

[@simonacuthbert1]

Why? Because he's convinced he's better than plebs like you and I.

[@AndyK.1]

You should have got the 3 litre petrol Ford engine

[@Soulburn89]

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?

[@mattagnew206]

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.

[@baronvonjo1929]

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.

[@kurtstephan7039]

Videos like this are why Jack has become my favorite automotive KZbinr. I hope this video gets massive amounts of views and shares.

[@uleertel]

In France the heaviest electric cars are excluded from any bonus. They will probably be taxed in the future.

[@clownworld-honk410]

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.

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

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.

[@harryged53]

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.

[@branemadder]

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.

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

@@harryged53 so you drive the most comfortable car. A Citroën C4. That's not that big, is it?

[@lasskinn474]

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.

[@sebastiend.5335]

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?

[@taunuslunatic404]

Did you really think they were going to allow diesels back? 🤣 Of course not. They don't give a damn.

[@sebastiend.5335]

​@@taunuslunatic404I know, it was more retorical... ;)

[@gianni1isch]

@sebastiend.5335 Looks like a Weber DCOE, probably a 40 or 45 looking at the size of the trumpets.

[@sebastiend.5335]

@@gianni1isch Thanks! ;)

[@plonkster]

While Co2 is food for trees, it is possible (by analogy) to drown in a large amount of food. That's the problem.

[@mrfill9999]

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.

[@telemaster]

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.

[@brancomarcina5740]

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.

[@rjbiker66]

A Polestar 4 EV weighs more than a Ford Ranger dual cab

[@gwheregwhizz]

For comparison. The latest Polo GTI 1372KG, Audi Quattro B2 1350KG 😮

[@Bluescooby1]

Totally agree with you Jack butVED cash isn't used to repair the roads. Its not road tax.

[@davem9204]

I don't think any money is used to repair the roads around here!

[@sladehelicoptersgaming3148]

Cars used to be lightweight and then crash testing made them heavy

[@georgebettiol8338]

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.

[@keithposter5543]

@@georgebettiol8338 Quite right

[@davem9204]

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?

[@ianmangham4570]

Electric heated steering wheels made them heavy 😅

[@paul29961]

Crash testing made them safer.

[@Knackebrot]

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.

[@Fastvoice]

Paris just raised the parking fees for SUVs up to about three times the normal rate.

[@varsas10]

Bath charges parking rates based on emissions, which seems reasonable.

[@ryanwilliams6526]

​@@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.

[@tris7]

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.

[@tonymoreton7166]

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]

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. 🙄

[@siraff4461]

@@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.

[@John_Redcorn_]

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? 🤷‍♂️

[@siraff4461]

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.

[@John_Redcorn_]

@@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

[@siraff4461]

@@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.

[@John_Redcorn_]

@@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

[@huwprice881]

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]

It only weighed that little because it was made of tinfoil

[@huwprice881]

@@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!

[@425i]

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

[@grahamsmith2022]

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.

[@martinsvensson6884]

..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.

[@grahamsmith2022]

@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.

[@GoldenCroc]

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.

[@martinsvensson6884]

@@GoldenCroc Regulations is the exact reason they are heavy lol.

[@martinsvensson6884]

@@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.

[@jonhaddock1799]

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.

[@martinsvensson6884]

Co2 is completely irrelevant though.

[@GoldenCroc]

"high torque at low revs" = power.... (just a note). Its not the power alone either though, its the better thermal efficency.

[@jonhaddock1799]

@@GoldenCroc Totally agree, however the way that the power delivery makes a driver drive has a significant effect.

[@jonhaddock1799]

@@martinsvensson6884 I agree, but that doesn't stop it being something of a yard stick!

[@keithposter5543]

There are more factors than just a move away from diesel cars

[@benpenagonzales6014]

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.

[@dungareesareforfools]

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?

[@stewartwilson1325]

Anything over 2000Kg should have the same speed restrictions as commercial vehicles/non-car derived vans. 50mph in NSL and 60mph on a DC.

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

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]

What is wrong with you, go away

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

@@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.

[@martinsvensson6884]

@@asphalthedgehog6580 Because they are very maneuverable and safer than smaller cars.

[@martinsvensson6884]

No, the oppsite since they are safer.

[@rhettcorcoran2879]

Totally agree with your comments.

[@marinedrive5484]

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.

[@jannekiljunen6784]

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.

[@bigredtri]

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.

[@TheRip72]

DVLA still refer to is as tax in some contexts, but we all understand the term 'road tax'.

[@bigredtri]

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!

[@stephenricketts7764]

Yes quite right I forgot to mention that myself. It is just another Government tax for the treasury to do what they like with.

[@jamesengland7461]

How are UK fuel taxes ten times US fuel taxes and yet the roads are still bad???

[@richardsmith5249]

@@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.

[@Reargunner1275]

Brilliant Jack. You have my vote … Makes a lot of sense…

[@Turbotoaster1]

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.

[@davem9204]

Lots of great points Jack, and agree with pretty much everything you say. Apart from the "road tax" bit, which of course just goes into the central taxation pot to pay for everything. The other thing I think is a great contributor to the increase in emissions (in the UK at least, not such what the rest of the world is like), is the design of roads. We've got far more traffic lights, badly laid out junctions, speed bumps & pinch-points, excessively low speed limits, etc. than we did 20+ years ago. All these mean much more stop-start driving, longer journey times, thus more vehicles active on the road (rather than parked up at their destination), and therefore emitting more pollution. I bet the oil companies love all these "traffic calming" schemes. I remember driving out of the centre of London to beyond the M25 at around 3am a few years ago and despite only seeing a handful of over vehicles, I probably spent over 50% of the journey start stationary at traffic lights. I used to do that journey a decade or so before, and it used to take less time in the middle of the day with a lot more traffic because most of the junctions didn't have traffic lights back then.

[@mediocreman2]

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.

[@jtothepmusic]

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!

[@kristoffer3000]

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.

[@Richard-fm1cx]

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.

[@grievuspwn4g3]

Nuclear fuel is mined, nuclear is a distraction.

[@ogribiker8535]

Great idea, let's pollut the planet for 1000,000 years!!!

[@rtfazeberdee3519]

Time to tax these vanity SUVs out of existence

[@ariescustom]

Damn straight!

[@theadventuresofred19]

Energy Guzzlers

[@martinwood9014]

I agree

[@3ducs]

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?

[@John_Redcorn_]

Sounds very….communist

[@adamrowthorn6878]

This is something I have been saying for years, and it now has to happen, although not sure how. Excellent video.

[@russellhammond4373]

I'm doing my bit with a newish 1,100 kg Skoda Fabia. Thanks for this video.

[@broomad]

Well researched and argued video - makes complete sense 👍

[@savclaudiu2133]

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.

[@neilturner6749]

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?

[@savclaudiu2133]

@@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.

[@keithposter5543]

@@neilturner6749 What would be wrong with that?

[@EuropaSman]

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.

[@eddthirty4065]

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

[@stevenniels]

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".

[@Hvitserk67]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3LHnaBuYs2Sfac&ab_channel=Electrifying

[@neilturner6749]

Yeah but didn’t an unusually high % of his drivers get killed or badly injured?

[@triode2a3]

Colin is now turning in his grave... Lotuses are getting bloat too.

[@rjbiker66]

Oli is a concept car.

[@perdanielsorensen7775]

As Colin Chapman's customers said: Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious.

[@chriswilliams3345]

All good info and reasonable arguements. But my friend you yourself love your V8s and seem to use one as your daily polluter 😂😂😂

[@MS-yy2dh]

Absolutely right. Modern cars, especially SUVs, have become much larger and heavier, while often having less usable space on the inside. This reduced space efficiency is partly due to safety, and I suppose some might argue aerodynamics / economy, but much more styling. Take the Volvo V90. Much larger on the outside than the old 850 but with reduced cargo space. Also, I would have thought there are safety implications in having much heavier cars involve in collisions.

[@colinthorn]

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.

[@jenslindblad]

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.

[@t3chnno]

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.

[@georgebettiol8338]

@@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.

[@keithposter5543]

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.

[@beautgrainger147]

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.

[@peterj5751]

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.

[@mbkomfort]

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 😅

[@colinthorn]

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!

[@kayerickatson4814]

Jack … never mind about all this stuff, I’m waiting to see more about the Pantera!

[@markwgoldsmith]

Amongst our family cars we have both ends of the spectrum: an elderly BMW X5, & a newer Fiesta 1.0. We endeavour to use each for the journey most appropriate for it - for example, I use the X5 when I need to carry a lot of stuff, a long way, or tow a trailer, or head off the beaten track. If I have to go into the city, then the Fiesta is usually enough. We use the Fiesta, whenever we can. I cringe whenever I see an SUV chug a mile down the road on the school run. There's always a price to pay somewhere, but I tend to agree, it's how we minimise our use & mitigate the damage caused that's significant. The Fiesta is a lot more fun to drive, too!

[@Sandy-oy2lr]

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]

She'd probably like a Tesla better!

[@Sandy-oy2lr]

@@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.

[@truhartwood3170]

@@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.

[@peterhirt991]

Excellent video from a car enthusiast

[@ryanmccormick2150]

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 👍

[@MyMaxHeadroom]

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.

[@ontheroad4809]

We have to stop talking about electric cars, they are battery cars. And that is their problem!

[@paulmillington9035]

totally agree, everything we use with batterys are throw away items!!

[@MrAdopado]

@@paulmillington9035 Like fossil fuels are not thrown away throughout the life of every ICE vehicle ... leaving CO2 and pollutants in their wake.

[@truhartwood3170]

Why is this distinction important? I think everyone knows this. No one think they're trailing around extension cords or something.

[@truhartwood3170]

​@@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.

[@jsanders100]

@@truhartwood3170and the battery isn’t going into landfill, it’s worth a lot as scrap

[@FSMDog]

Everyone is buying 2 ton tanks.... Simple

[@John_Redcorn_]

Well when a 1-ton tank is basically the same price, why _wouldnt_ you buy the 2-ton? 🤷‍♂️

[@FSMDog]

@@John_Redcorn_ Because the road tax is more, the fuel is more...

[@John_Redcorn_]

@@FSMDog road tax? Nothing like that here

[@FSMDog]

@@John_Redcorn_ As the video maker is British, and so am I....

[@bobmcl2406]

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....

[@19892CV]

Brilliant video. This needed saying

[@andrewlucas6214]

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.

[@GoldenCroc]

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.

[@andrewlucas6214]

@@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.

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

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.

[@jamesengland7461]

In other words, you're deliberately causing problems for drivers. Got it.

[@digbysirchickentf2315]

@@jamesengland7461 I am pointing out that owning a fat car has unexpected disadvantages.

[@grahamstevenson1740]

Spot on.

[@brendanmccabe8769]

Thanks Jack, good video and well timed. Was discussing EV's with a colleague just yesterday, particularly that, due to the size/weight of batteries, any EV with a half decent range is going to be large and heavy so typically SUV format. This got me thinking about the possibility that over recent years we’ve been ‘encouraged’ into large, heavy, impractical SUV type cars which are unrewarding to drive to soften us up for when we are forced to move to EV’s. But maybe it’s the tax benefits as you say.

[@JohnComeOnMan]

This small car advert brought to you by The Hobbit Auto People's Party of Europe (Happ-E)

[@PJ-om2wq]

Cars *are* already taxed on their weight. It's the tax on fuel, which they use more of.

[@GoalSquad666]

Not really - EVs definitely not taxed on weight.

[@anthjs70]

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.

[@thatcheapguy525]

Jack, an excellent presentation of facts. not only are SUVs mobile environmental disaster zones, they are also chronically anti-social: try getting into your normal car when you're sandwiched by two of them in a car park, trying looking through one at a roundabout or when you're trying to overtake. emissions should be measured by volume from the exhaust pipe on a dyno at a simulated speed and load instead of percentages. the current antiquated test is biased against older small engined 'high poluting' cars completely misrepresenting their actual level of polution. EVs are only zero pollution at the point of use. pollution is created somewhere generating power part of which is lost in transmission and even more is lost during charging and discharging the car batteries. then we have the whole dirty lithium production story. one piece of really good news, as Lee has been noting on his Car UK channel in recent months, is that modern SUV & electric car resale values are completely collapsing whereas old small dependable simple family cars are holding up and even increasing in value.

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

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.

[@pbe6965]

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).

[@eugenydemin3023]

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]

They can be very practical. But noone might actually need a sports car... Want to ban those too?

[@martinsvensson6884]

@@eugenydemin3023 But usually winter tires and possibly 4WD are enough for those conditions. Unless you live outside civilisation.

[@asphalthedgehog6580]

@@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.

[@nickhaag7803]

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.

[@ryanwilliams6526]

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.

[@barneyc4919]

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.

[@jamesengland7461]

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.

[@luckylimbo4816]

I can’t help thinking that the electric dream will become a nightmare

[@MrAdopado]

We are already in the ICE nightmare! This level of denial from defenders of ICE vehicles is a massive part of the problem.

[@robertjones7695]

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.

[@thisiszaphod]

Ah. The EU. How about they ditch ALL their limos themselves, as an example, if they are so concerned? Won't happen.

[@Gorbyrev]

Well said. Gordon Murray's T25 and other extremely light cars always looked like a way forward. Advances in design and materials should make light vehicles a possibility. Also tailpipe emissions are not the the most harmful vehicle originated pollutants. Brake a tyre dusk are much more harmful to health. Heavy vehicles produce more of these.

[@rosewell8005]

The fashion created by manufacturers and sustained by customers is people liking the step in an SUV provides and the higher driving position that gives a feeling of confidence and security but we all suffer in reduced visibility and space when we drive around SUV's. I have a small EV and no home charging, a scenario which provides an appreciation of a vehicles efficiency so well said. 55 - 60 on the motorway, slipstreaming when I can, mainly 20mph about town. I don't miss the Ferrari 😁

[@avec4amadman1]

Excellent upload, excellent reasoning, 100% bang on

[@materialstwit]

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!

[@murrieteacher]

You got that right Jack. The monster Hyundai, the monster BMW, the monster Ford truck and the RAM. They all need to be taxed off the road. This has been done in the 1950's in Italy and France with engine size. Now is the time to go also to weight. But I do like my auto lights and wipers and my backup camera. In Australia we really do not have any use for heated seats. Oh and my air con, please do not take away my aircon.

[@paulgaida2601]

Totally agree with you Jack.

[@100brsta]

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.

[@slowerthinker]

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.

[@raydelamare5014]

Thank you Jack, I have been saying all of this for years....Colin Chapman rules!!

[@zaamuro8408]

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.

[@slowerthinker]

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.

[@slantfish65sd]

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

[@CherylCold]

Interesting subject Jack, from our four cars, which are older and bought second hand, compared to the equivalent ev's for sale these are the percentages of weight increase- 28, 33.4, 34 and 50.1.

[@MrSpanks]

I'm all for smaller, 'lightweight' cars - I love driving so my focus is on handling/performance. One problem is the majority of folk DON'T enjoy driving therefore their idea of a 'good' car is at odds with stripping the design back to the basics.

[@BadedasTheBlue]

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.

[@christophergavin9188]

Great film Jack. Fully agree - have just downsized to an Abarth 595. Plenty of fun in a small package. You just need to look at cars like the Audi Q7 to wonder how we have got to this state. Over-engineered cars, that are overweight and are quite frankly over-large (especially in cities).

[@andrewmoorhouse687]

It seems Land Rover are doing their best to stop their SUVs selling; so many are getting stolen, insurers are refusing to insure them or, if they do, it’s an arm and a leg 😂 Totally agree with your thoughts Jack. I’ma fan of small, light cars. We hired a Fiat Panda on holiday last year and it was great fun and really economical. I’m really not an SUV fan, but my only worry is if SUVs become enemy number one what is the next target? Sports cars? Coupés? Cars over 2 litres? For all of us the greenest car is the one we already own as the emissions in its manufacture are already in the atmosphere. Making something new just adds more. So keeping our cars longer, in fact indefinitely, is probably the greenest thing we could do, but of course people like shiny new things and manufacturers need to make cars to stay in business.

[@1maico1]

Not the current models. The theft rate is 0.08% one of the lowest of any vehicle. In fact none with the updated UWB security have been stolen by keyless theft. £650 was the quote I got from the Confused insurance comparison website.

[@igorfreeke8368]

Spot on Jack!