Bring Back the Land Yacht! 

i demand body-on-frame sedans like the Panther platform cars

YES!!!

A THOUSAND TIMES YES

VW brought them back briefly, in the form of the Sportwagen

The Dodge Charger Wagon was still made up until last year I believe. It's a fullsize wagon. I believe you have a high output V6 option or multiple V8 options including a Hemi and a Hellcat supercharged V8 version.

Youll pry my 3/4 ton Suburban from my cold dead hands.

Frontal surface area is the biggest factor in wind resistance. A wagon makes more sense than a SUV

@Eluderatnight honestly you couldn't pay me to take an suv. They're as big and cumbersome as a truck with the capacity if a car and the fuel efficiency of a tank. Basically the worst possible vehicle

@@bobowon5450 both my bmw x5 and honda pilot are pretty nimble. The pilot gets 22-27mpg with normal driving on 87.

@@Eluderatnight you say that like 22-27 mpg is good.

And a tumble overtop is potentially survivable, unlike becoming street pizza.

Not to mention that most sedans can deflect the victims better because of how low their bumper sits... Compare a Corolla to a Silverado, and immediately you can see it's like getting hit by a scooter vs a giant Sledgehammer. The force applied from the initial impact might kill you first, and if that doesn't the weight under the tires will

i'm keeping my 05 lesabre on the road as long as i can financially afford to

Three quarter ton truck? That's 1500 pounds. Most sedans weigh more than that.

@@blargcoster three-quarter ton is the weight designation. An F150 is a half ton. It obviously doesn’t weigh 1000 pounds. My three-quarter ton diesel weighs 7000 pounds. A good example of a three-quarter ton truck is an F250, and an F350. You go up to one ton truck with the F450. and no, that doesn’t mean that it’s all a can hold. We had an old ranger that routinely took 1 ton loads in the 7 foot bed. Different terminology for different types of vehicles

@@killer13324 I have an 02

"Treat every frenchman as if he were the devil himself!" - I forget who but its some british guy and the quote is funny

@@spiffygonzales5160 Vice-Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson.

Exactly. He is a very wise man. I heard it as "There are no solutions, only trade offs".

"There are no solutions, only compromises." - A Guy Who Says Things That Sound Wise Until You Think About Them

@@spiffygonzales5160 Vice-Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson

They're great

Cannot go wrong with the Panther Platform.

Good for you for buying a pedestrian-friendly truck

And yet I've seen so many Commercial vehicle drivers who act as if they think like a certain portly jerk from Austin Powers 2.

Written from the perspective of a commercial driver with superiority complex. 🙄🙄 I love that commercial truckers do what they do so we can have goods in the world keeps running, I have many friends that are professional truck drivers, but that attitude is overconfidence and it's going to bite you someday. Not all four wheelers are a**holes on the road.

All vehicles have blind spots. Your issue is with driver training, not vehicle design.

Who smelt it, dealt it

My cats went smashy smashy I live in Florida

If temp' goes up, there less ice? Less ice mean more trees, where ice was? Grug doesn't think the Watermeloon people speak truth 'bout the whole "cluh-mut kshang"! Dey green on de outside, red on de inside! Seriously tho' higher temp' would mean longer "vegetative season", so less "off time" for plants. Also I remember a piece of news, about the increased CO2, allowing plants operat in less humid areas... which would further demolish the whole "cluh-mut kshang" narrative, but as the name suggests it's tribal magic... As a great philosopher once said to a "cluh-mut denier": - Sticks and stones may break Your bones, but it's the Animal that will eat Ya. Really great guy, a true inspirations for the melon-masses. Greetings

Wanna hear something fun? China actually wants natural gas plants, not coal plants. They lack the natural gas to do so, and don't want to buy from Russia. Canada is one of if not the biggest target for potential buyer. Natural gas is 60% cleaner than coal, and Canada has bordering on infinite amounts. If Canada were to sell china enough natural gas to fully transition from coal to natural gas, total CO2 emissions would drop by something along the lines of 2.7 billion metric tons a year, just from China transitioning to natural Gas. Canada meanwhile would make billions doing this and create thousands if not tens of thousands of new jobs. ...Our Prime Minister has said that exploiting natural gas would not make financial sense.

Facts.

Im just gonna drive a 6 Ton truck

That's... That's literally the point of the show.

I have yet to be caught off guard while arguing with a Democrat. They are the most monolithic, group think, unoriginal crowd out there. They all repeat the same tired straw man points or bad statistics. I’ve gotten so bored with their conversations I’ve actually given some help at least asking an interesting question. You can bring up any subject you want around a leftist and it’s like a “choose your own adventure” story where once you’ve read it a couple times you at best are just reading the same pages in a different order and always having three endings. They scream out ad-hominem attacks They look confused and say they have to go Or rarely they think and actually agree with you but are too afraid of loosing their friends that they go back to the same points they now understand are wrong but won’t admit it to anyone but you. Ultimately either Society is doomed Or They don’t have kids so conservatives inherent the earth.

@@nemoexnuqual3643Tell me about it, I’m not one who likes to identify as a rightist or leftist, but every time I talked to a mainland NPC, they would resort to using the same ass talking points and if not raising their voices, they’ll literally IGNORE a real good point you just made. Now I was guilty of raising my voice as a middle schooler (because they would set the tone) but now it’s actually sad, I too, have yet to encounter an actually talented debater- OUTSIDE the internet, I mean, I did encounter some nerds here and there with good points, but they were fricking Redditors. And well, apparently, there are indeed some liberal white girls who can breed- and women in Communist countries can also breed- So it’ll be a while before we can get our planet back.

@@rainynight02I know, I love that, and I just decided to really notice it.

@@ContentEnjoyer-gm3ky part of the problem is the short attention span. Online a person will make a statement or ask a question that can not be adequately responded to in one sentence. For example: The electric car. Democrats think they will save the environment, they won’t. Conservation of energy and combined inefficiencies of the grid and power plants actually make them about 12% less energy efficient than a comparably sized modern gasoline powered vehicle. Republicans tend to say: they suck and they are useless. They aren’t. There are significant advantages to electric cars for people who live in cities in temperate areas with short commutes. As a suburban grocery getter in western California they would be great but no they can’t tow a horse trailer through a sun zero mountain pass in Wyoming. So often everyone jumps to the farthest possible conclusion when the truth is usually a bit right of center by 90’s standards and “far right” by today’s (but so is a glass of milk). The left is just especially bad because they attack each other for any deviation from the prescribed talking points and opinions. Their political orthodoxy is far more strict than the Spanish Inquisition was, they could at least disagree on farming practices. This has lead to the most extreme in the box slogan regurgitation since the communist required political meetings of the Cold War where all questions and responses were basically scripted.

i'm keeping mine as long as i can, though im pretty sure the 05 lesabre isn't much of a land yacht unlike the crown victoria

I had a Grand Marquis, the mercury branded crown vic. Loved that thing.

@@spartaninvirginia i love my lesabre. it's my first car and i'm keeping that bitch on the road for as long as i can afford to

Same :( 99 DeVille with the head gasket fix.

I'm still sticking eith my 05 Lincoln town car. Love that power, room and ride.

Oddly, safety standards for cars require a MINIMUM hood height.

Just like a firearm has never ended anyone, a vehicle of any kind has never offed a pedestrian. 100% of pedestrian collisions are caused by one of two factors. Poor training or judgment by the pedestrian or poor training and judgment by the operator of the vehicle. Period.

Not that it doesn't matter at all, but the argument here is rather, take your V-70. Make a compact version and a land yacht version and standardize your variables as much as possible. The land yacht will be overall safer than the compact purely due to the excess bulk the land yacht has to add more safety features and absorb the forces applied to the vehicle and drivers when a crash happens. Of course getting in a wreck with a 60's Suburban vs. a modern one will be more dangerous, no one's really contesting that, but rather we need to compare comparable cars.

@@Harley_Mitchelly you are just wrong about that. Heavier cars are not safer because they are heavier bur because they are larger

@@matsv201 ... That... was the point... A subcompact is small car. Land yacht is big car. Big car have more bulk for crumple zones, air bags, and sheer cubic feet of car to take force instead of squishy person inside. Subcompact does not have room and bulk for that. You... corrected me and then agreed with what I said.

@@Harley_Mitchelly bulk and crumplezones is not the same thing. A modern normal 2024 sedan actually have lowe density than a 1960 eqvivalent sedan. Its the reash protection. If two cars run into each other they share each other crumple zone. So say a very small car,.like a C1 that is say 1 ton and 20 cm crunpoe sone. And it crash with say a S90 thst is 2 ton wirh 50cm crample zone. The C1 will actually crunple into the S80 taking advantage of the S80 crumple zone. The net result is that a C1 that run into a S80 will be better of than a tree, even if the S80 is moving to it and its a fron accident.

@@matsv201 So... uhhh... I was never talking about weight or density. Like... you're making this wonderful argument... and I was talking about actual, cubic feet of size in the car. The S90 can have a 50 cm crumple zone because it has 50 cm to crumple into. That's a space question, not density.

What was it that Reagan said? The scariest words in the English language: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." and something about governments don't solve problems, they are the problem.

@@rtyria the "myself" is ever silent.

Coming from a Crosstrek, being up in a Yukon feels much nicer and safer. But my wallet isn’t safe. I joined the $100 fill up club lol

There's also another safety issue that wasn't brought up. Small cars have their visibility cut down by larger SUVs and trucks. I've actually had impatient drivers honk at me because I'm playing it safe and not going around the big SUV in front of me because I can't see what's coming the other way.

​@@canisblack And these giant pickup trucks have their headlights extremely bright and directly in your face

@@canisblack that's when i wait for that SUV to hug the right line so i can hug the left and get a better visual on what's in front of them.

@@jingles123456789ify You do realize that ALL cars have painfully bright LEDs pointed into your cabin, right?

Likewise, what do you drive?

@@DesFTW_ an Impala, with performance aftermarket parts for brakes

@@blazingfuryoffire1 So not an economy turbo 3-cylinder then haha

@@DesFTW_ Where I live, you need a fast 0-60 to survive these idiots. Anyone who says 0-60 doesn't matter for personal vehicles has not been stopped on a highway on ramp.

Yea, and were you hurt? I think you missed the point.

​@@GrumpyWolfTech Something dear to him was hurt. You keep that same vehicle for long, and you'll see it as something dear, like a favored horse.

@@GrumpyWolfTech The car was totalled while the truck had a minor dent from a fender bender. I think YOU missed the point. If you're going to comment, you should probably insure that you don't make a fool of yourself.

I'll do you one better. Last summer, a guy in a 1st gen Toyota Tundra rear-ended me at a stoplight. I was in my 94 F-350 4x4. His truck was totalled while my truck literally did not have a stratch on it. I felt sooo bad for the guy.

So you decided to contribute to the problem?

Geo metros got great mileage but where death traps due yo the design.

​@jonathanjones3126 drove one through high-school and never died once. Your theoretical paramedic grandfather's experience is useless in the conversation of vehicle design, mass, operation, and safety of vehicles today.

Well u got lucky

@@adamhauskins6407 No. I drove responsibly, alertly, and competently. Ya know... the thing that would solve every problem you idiots are blaming on vehicle shapes and sizes. This is a gun control debate for people too stupid to realize they are debating the same damn thing.

Well, its not wrong. But it is pretty unnecessary because higher emissions and energy usage is almost guaranteed with progress. what changes is how efficient we use energy but adding anything to the scale of consumption (which kids do) will cause more of a threat to the environment than not. However having more kids means more potential for innovation to make the world cleaner, but generally because children are so energy and time sensitive to raise, takes more than it gives but everything is a tradeoff and the decision to have a lot of kids is generally not a decision you make based on financial or energy reasons. if you want a lot of kids, you're probably going to have a lot of kids unless you physically cant sustain it. However, you know what also does just this? our species existing and expanding in the first place. So bringing it up is pretty useless since if we said the same thing thousands of years ago or regulated the number of children people could have (like China), we wouldn't be here today and its possible we may even be wiped out or struggling to survive and progress. China is already experiencing these problems and thats just within our lifespan.

You mean those polar bears on icebergs because it was the height of summer in that area they took the photo... in other words, a normal happening for the season?

all this jargon has one simple question why aren't climate activists forcing regulations and protesting in third world countries that contribute to 70% of carbon footprint?

Just wait until the next ice age.

Perfectly acceptable rounding.

The 'two' sound got cut out during editing?

I see nothing rong here.

At least the Malibu was somewhat affordable. A Lucid Air though? Yeah right!

Mine is a 74 with a 300 straight 6.

...well the thing is... he kinda does mention that it is just that he worded it differently specifically when he mentions that on average larger vehicles kill on average 50 more pedestrians per year, but he also points that more children are killed each year in bike accidents to help give a better comparison, and for your second point he also addresses in 0:58-1:44 where he mentions that if it was purely case of larger vehicles keeping their passengers safe at the expense of the passengers in the smaller vehicle it would be a moral dilemma, but the problem is that if you hyperfixate on only that you would miss out on the fact 1/3 of all fatal collision don't involve another vehicle at all in which if you were in a larger vehicle you and your passengers would more likely survive. The thing is when rating the total safety of a vehicle it is very important to include all the categories for both the driver/ passengers and other people to get whole picture because, if people exclude certain categories it would lead to bad results where a few people would be saved in a certain areas but a greater amount of people would be killed in others.

@@abyssaldragon2442 I honestly have no idea where he got that 50 number from, especially with pedestrian deaths spiking across the entire US. Additionally, the moral dilemma doesn’t go away when only 1/3rd of collisions are with objects, especially when you are ay more dangerous in the other 2/3rds of accidents

Bicycle related accidents includes deaths from cars and the deaths not from cars, of course there will be more deaths from bicycles in general. For context, bicycle/vehicle collisions resulted in the deaths of nearly a thousand people in 2021. A number of those were children, and the time of day they were most likely to be killed, was 6pm-9pm, later in the evening when drivers who don’t pay enough attention at night hit them with their cars. Sorry, but the stats don’t lie, cyclists die because of arrogant and irresponsible drivers, not because bicycles are dangerous.

And what of selfish cyclists barreling down the pavement hogging all of it's width? (Who by UK law should be on the road.)

@@strangelyukrainian7314 thanks for clarifying that

Yes

Honestly the last line kind of killed the whole video since it puts into question the data being used.

Except it's a terrible point since there hasn't been a change in decades and all people cite are people like Al Gore or other politicians/pundits who lied about what the data said rather then any actual change in the data.

Science is supposed to change based on new experiments bearing fresh evidence. Where someone got the idea that science was settled, I don't know.

@@veganconservative1109 It stems from the overwhelming nature of the evidence and complete lack of evidence against it, it could hypothetically be disputed but the sheer amount of evidence needed would basically upend what we know about science in terms of just the sheer volume needed. It's like disputing gravity, a theoretical possibility but not realistic in practical terms.

@@ZontarDow People in my circles (science) argue against gravity as a theory all the time. I have seen the whole "Climate Change" controversy switch from hot to cold to hot and now? Yeah, no. The "preponderance of evidence" might be interesting, but when it's lay people talking about how it *feels* hotter now than it ever has before, I have to push my "I believe" button and just nod and smile. I have yet to see the overwhelming tide of evidence that all the climate change folk keep telling me exists. Just wait a few years. The data will change. That's the fun of actual Science.

​@veganconservative1109 The contrast is "know" and "subject to change." You are right, science isn't settled, but all too often people arrogantly presume that the newest studies that haven't even had time to be duplicated must be right because it is new, and everything before it must be "debunked." When it changes, those same people that were so smug before then respond to smugness directed at them with "it was the best we could have known at the time." No it wasn't, you jumped the gun for gotcha points and paid the price. Same thing the news does essentially, people just parrot that.

Because that's not what's being defended. A bunch of SUV drivers ultimately wouldn't exist if large sedans, which are being defended, were allowed to be made. In order to make this point though, you do need to explain why people may see SUVs as safe in the first place. Given a sedan's ride height is... well... a sedan's, there's no reason to bring this up since, if you're driving, a big car is going to be safer than a small car, all else being equal, and that's why SUVs are a popular choice. So it's not that you're wrong here, just that it's tangentially related to the actual point, which is to say that while both options may suck, you're relatively better off getting hit with a 90's Crown Victoria than you would a 90's K-5 Blazer, but no one can really make and sell the Crown Vic anymore so everyone goes to the Blazer for driver safety. Just rinse and repeat for your model year.

he pointed those out in a previous video, it's yet another thing for which you have the government to blame due to the EPA's CAFE standards.

A truck or SUV has never been responsible for a pedestrian termination. Not one time

I love my Caddys, but only with the 307 Olds small block V8. I learned my lesson with the 4100 and the 4.9.

@waitwhat1320 i was born in 92. for me, those are the classics. Don't get me wrong, they've never made an ugly Coup DeVille, but the 90's are where my nostalgia lies...we also had the best cartoons.

​​@waitwhat1320not just the Northstar engine, but also a FRONT👏WHEEL👏DRIVE👏 "luxury" car. Squeezing a massive V8 sideways into a car smaller than a crown vic just so that it gets 20 feet more per gallon is part of the reason why Northstar is so awful. There's no space for the head screw surgery needed, you need to pull the engine out. Had they been RWD applications they instead would've been your typical badly engineered GM product that gets crushed once warranty expires, and the surviving 10% will be sold for 25 grand 30 years later.

@waitwhat1320 Absolutely, mine were probably the worse looking, it's really hard to beat the look of the old school Caddys, but the 90+ models still strike a chord for me.

Yeah it usually involves excessive speeds in a turn or emergency maneuvers. Being aware as best you can can prevent a majority of rollovers.

So true I mean this isn't the 90's anymore your current year bronco ain't flipping without some serious effort..

@madogthefirst Even back in the day, rollover were rare. "Unsafe at ANY Speed" created a LOT of myths, such as Jeep CJ-5s being prone to rollover and the Ford Pinto being prone to catching fire in rear-end collisions.

I'm just gonna keep driving my 1948 sherman tank lol

Depends on how bad of a scooter driver you are.

Just dont hit them and you will be fine. Cn250

The headlight issue isn't from tall vehicles. It's how they're focuses (or not) and aimed (or not). Properly aimed and focused headlights don't blind you almost regardless of how tall they are. Also same for brightness. High beams aren't used when in traffic not because they're brighter (they're not brighter) but because they're aimed higher letting them shine further. Low beams aren't dimmer, they're aimed lower. The issue is few people know how to aim headlights or that it's necessary and they don't even know it's possible. The number of even mechanics who tell me it's not possible to aim modern headlights is staggering, it is and I have done it. A lowered car with the headlights aimed improperly will blind you just the same as a lifted truck.

This is a driver training and competence issue. Not a vehicle design issue.

Citation needed. :P

I would also suggest reducing car usage overall through redevelopment of urban environments and limit them for commercial use only.

@@Ixmore dont really agree with that "commercial use only" part. I've lived in suburban/rural areas where there arent enough people to make public transit even potentially viable. I'm currently living in an unincorporated town where even the post office is struggling and was completly abandoned by the US post service, and only saved by local funding and a gift shop next door. Limiting car use to commercial use would kill every suburban and smaller area instantly. Not sure if your a resident of the US or EU but here public transit is a completly different story compared to europe. Unreliable, unsanitary at times and just not enough public interest to make it work everywhere. And thats before you get into the issues of the vast countrysides. Running costs too, Amtrack has yet to make a single profitable year since its inception and is only propped up by government subsidies.

SHUT UP! Can't you see that everyone in this entire comment section is going back and forth about what vehicles should be banned and what things we should be allowed to use by our lord and savior govt. Govt will save us and SUVs attack and kill over 50k pedestrians every hour all by themselves! We don't have time to stop being so stupid to realize that literally everything everyone has said is not a vehicle size, design, mass , or safety issue.... they are all 100% driver training and competency issues! That would mean we would have to take responsibility for our actions. I would rather the govt come take the stove away because I keep touching it and getting burned.

It's disingenuous when you remove the stat from the context. If all car accidents were with cars and you wanted to measure the safety of car riders, a global reduction in car size wouldn't produce any statistical noise. All cars are less safe, but all collisions are less forceful, and everything would come out relatively equal. But with that 1/3 being with inanimate objects, the tree, telephone pole, median, etc. are not getting smaller, meaning the driver and passengers are more at risk. "But internet commenter, what of SUVs!?!" Look at the title of the video. What's ultimately being defended here is not the SUV, but the large size sedan that would be safer to pedestrians relative to an SUV. Thanks to regulatory issues, the large-size sedan offerings don't exist while the market still does. If you want a big car, your options that used to be SUV, Truck, or Sedan are now SUV and Truck. There are now more Trucks and SUVs on the roads, threatening pedestrians more than a sedan would, because regulation soft forbids the large sized sedan from being manufactured. Being hit with a Cadillac El Dorado probably isn't going to be nice regardless, but if we're speaking relatively, I'd probably prefer getting hit with a modernized version of that over an F-250.

The point was made after the note that studies show that since 2002 bigger cars have increased pedestrian deaths by about 50. The point being made is that 1/3 of accidents is a number larger than 50 by enough to assume that the net change to human life is positive (based on studies showing that people are less likely to die in an accident if they are in a bigger vehicle). Whether or not you agree that 1/3 of accidents is larger than 50 by enough to make that assertion when paired with the data on fatality rates is up to you.

1/3 of collisions relate to drunk drivers, we never hear plans to reduce the other 2/3. Government focuses on the conditions that generate more revenue, if citizens are made safer then that is a nice side-effect.

I'm guessing some involve wild animals

I love my European estate car, but I wouldn’t say no to an SUV if I could afford the fuel

The blond lady's husband is in jail.

​@@CowCommandoNobody asked about the husband. 😂 And to the original poster, Im pretty sure Bob has always been her brother. I think it was mentioned, or hinted at, before. Dont know when though, i don't write this stuff down.

@@CowCommando I knew that. I just never knew that Bob was her brother. I just thought that the blonde lady and her husband were simply friends of Bob and Seamus.

@@the_SolLoser The biggest hint that I can possibly think of is that Bob is usually playing with the Blonde lady's kid since the husband went to prison, which makes more sense now that I know Bob is his uncle. It would also explain why the blonde lady hasn't kicked her jailbird husband to the curb yet and got with Bob considering he is less of an idiot and is a better male role model for her kid.

The modern giant short-bed trucks are such embarrassing vehicles. Can't haul anything because the bed is too small. Can't navigate any space because the turning radius is huge due to the stretched wheelbase and the cab height is so high that you can't see objects around you in a parking lot. _And_ they cost a small fortune to purchase. It's like people are in a competition with each other to see who's the dumbest consumer.

Drive like Bob Parr to save the planet! Sure everyone will wonder how you got in, and your not sure yourself. And I suppose you may be stuck once you're in. But we gotta think of the children!

As that was about 2800 BC, um....... an upturned amphora?

It's not really a large sedan, in terms of length and interior space, compared to the vehicles referred to as land yachts

However, those people are also dodge charger drivers.