427
US gasoline crosses $3 per gallon mark in test of Trump's Iran war
(www.reuters.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2026
427 points (100.0% liked)
News
36292 readers
2643 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The classification doesn't determine what it actually is. It is an arbitrary label.
SUVs and crossovers are functionally different. I don't really give a shit that someone decided to group them together and dont feel bound to perpetuating their error.
I'm not being hostile, I'm just pointing out that crossovers are more similar to cars rather than SUVs, which is something that is very relevant to the discussion of fuel economy.
Well, I disagree with your argument about SUV classification so we will agree to disagree here.
I think my issue is that SUV efficiency is a range just like sedans are a range, trucks, vans, compacts, etc. So at what point is it really fuck this type of car versus fuck vehicles that have this specific fuel efficiency.
My entire point was the person I replied to said fuck SUVs and AI. Hey, I get it but SUVs aren’t the problem, vehicle efficiency is and many classes cross over into that “fuck this” point. That's really the crux of my first reply here was that it was a broad stroke and if you’re going to say fuck something because of its contribution then maybe don’t be so broad and targeted?
That is certainly your prerogative; many people have chosen to group them together. But it does mean that the "sedan vs SUV" MPG comparison is obfuscated by a faulty premise.
I'm curious though, what in your mind makes a Forester an SUV rather than a wagon? Disregard any external labels that others have applied. How you would classify the vehicle.
Great question. I’ve never really thought about that, but I’d probably say size and design (boxy-ish looks). Beyond that, categorization by the companies making and rating them is what I go by.
What faulty premise? Do mid size and large sedans have fuel efficiency and vehicle length that cross into the small and mid size SUV range? I compared them because the original comment was essentially “I hope the high gas really fucks SUVs”. Why SUVs specifically? Which SUVs? No mention of large sedans, trucks, vans, etc.
My comparison was to point out that a singular broad criticism was sort of a weird idea when there are so many other factors.
If you start adding a bunch of caveats it diminishes the fun of saying it.
"fuck everyone driving a giant ass gas vehicle to the point where the avg SUV driver is crying about it." Just isn't as fun to read or write. SUVs are generally smaller than trucks so trucks are implicit.
I think if people took "SUV" in this context to mean "traditional SUV" (i.e. to exclude crossovers) it would avoid a lot of the confusion.
So styling and marketing?
Fwiw, the Sonata is actually longer and wider than the Forester, though the Forester is taller due to the wagon bodystyle and a higher suspension/larger tires: carsized.com is an interesting site
Yeah. The Sonata is a fairly big for a mid-size sedan.
I guess when I say size it’s a combo of length and width but also height. Ground clearance is a big one.
So putting a lift kit on the Sonata would make it an SUV? Actually...Subaru did just that very thing! The Crosstrek is an Impreza (hatchback body) with a lift kit.
No, lifting an original vehicle type doesn’t change its type unless we collectively decide as a society or industry that it does. Your point is true for first generation Foresters. It’s not for today’s, though, which mine is as a 2025.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue or trying to get me to change my mind about it, but a crossover is literally an SUV by today’s standards. Definitions change and there are a multitude of articles that discuss this.
“…over time, crossover came to refer predominantly to unibody-based SUVs. The term SUV is often used as an umbrella term for both crossovers and traditional SUVs due to the similarities between them.”
Like I said, if you want to disagree then fine. I’m not changing my stance because there are plenty of articles from the industry that support my point about crossovers being an SUV.
I do appreciate you having me think more about this though! It’s an interesting discussion.
So what terminology would you recommend that people use when discussing non-crossover SUVs and crossovers to distinguish them from each other in contexts where the differences are important?
I suppose people could say "non-crossover SUV" but it is a bit verbose, particularly when writing it out and using it for something that would otherwise be denoted by 3 letters.