Bigger Cars, Bigger Profits?

The automotive industry’s size dilemma, recent casualties:

• VW Up! – gone

• Smart Fortwo – phased out

• Renault Twingo – soon no more

• Opel Adam – discontinued

• Ford Ka – axed

A Look Back

Historical compact models like the VW Fox, Mercedes A-Class, Audi A2, R4, Citroën 2CV and others stood for efficient utilization of resources. Today’s ‘compact’ successors, including the modern VW Golf, Fiat 500, Mini Cooper, and Volkswagen Beetle, have swelled in size, betraying their original ethos.

The legacy of efficient design

In the 1960s-80s, many small, low-cost vehicles were conceived not primarily as symbols of sustainability but as democratising tools to make private transportation accessible to all.

These cars were designed to be as affordable as possible, often resulting in the use of fewer materials and lightweight designs.

Consequently, they typically accommodated 4-5 passengers and were fuel-efficient, with their lower horsepower engines. While the term ‘sustainability’ might not have been a common buzzword then, these cars inadvertently embodied sustainable principles through their efficient use of materials and fuel.

Light, affordable, and fuel-efficient, they showcased what was possible even with limited technology. The potential of such designs with contemporary technology could be revolutionary.

The contemporary paradox

Today’s car designs seem out of sync with global imperatives like resource conservation and climate action. Instead of smaller, more efficient designs, the mantra is: bigger and more powerful.

This trend feels like an anachronism – relics from the past in today’s forward-thinking world.

Profits over purpose

It’s not merely about size; it’s about margins.
Larger vehicles generally carry heftier price tags, and their production often results in better manufacturer profit margins. This profit-driven focus has often overshadowed the broader responsibilities manufacturers should be considering.

Designers have, over time, recognized the pitfalls of blind user-centrism. Designing solely around user demands without considering broader societal impacts can lead to unsustainable trends and reinforce egocentric behaviours.

As design theory has evolved, the emphasis has shifted from pure user-centered design to context-aware design. After all, cars don’t operate in a vacuum.

They share space with pedestrians, cyclists, and other motorists. They consume resources not just in their production but throughout their lifecycle. 

Negative externalities

The automobile industry often minimizes the multifaceted consequences of producing larger vehicles. Whether they run on gasoline or electricity, bigger cars bring a multitude of challenges.

They place increased wear and tear on roads and, in the case of electric vehicles, demand more resource extraction for battery production.

The trend isn’t confined to luxury models. Surprisingly, even budget-friendly brands now promote size and aggressive car designs as markers of status. This mainstreaming of ‘status symbols’ has broadened the pool of drivers who may feel a heightened sense of dominance on the road, potentially leading to more aggressive driving behaviours.

As urban areas wrestle with congestion and parking constraints, this ongoing push towards larger vehicles across all price points exacerbates these city challenges, overshadowing the perceived environmental benefits of electric vehicles.

Moreover, the psychological impacts are profound. Driving a larger car can sometimes foster a sense of superiority, indirectly encouraging road behaviours that endanger smaller vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians.

Car manufacturers are responsible for shifting gears as the world stares down challenges like climate change, declining resources, and urban congestion. 

Prioritising profit at the planet’s and people’s expense is not a sustainable model. 

It’s time for the industry to align its designs with the needs of the broader context and not just the desires of individual consumers.

 (Picture Source: Miguel, CC BY-NC 2.0)