By on May 18, 2009

The NY Times is reporting that President Obama will announce new emissions standards tomorrow that are aimed at ending the discrepancy between Californian and national emissions standards. The federal effort will combine California’s emissions standards with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, creating a unified national benchmark. This will force OEMs to clean up emissions by 30 percent by 2016, while preventing California from moving the goalposts again, say industry officials. The upshot? By 2016 car offerings must average 42mpg while trucks will face a 26.2mpg average requirement.

“By 2016, the stringency of the national standard will be the same as the (California standard),” a Democratic congressional aide tells the Detroit Free Press. “Before 2016, the requirements in California and at the national level will be different. The automakers were already planning to be in compliance with the California standard in 2014 and 2015, so the difference between the two standards is only important in the early years.” Emissions guidelines have already been written for 2011, so it appears likely that  national standards will start ramping up in 2012.

And the OEMs are in no mood to fight the future. In fact, according to the NYT, this announcement may have been pushed up to provide some certainty for the bankrupt (and those who are about to be). Reportedly Detroit was willing to play ball as long as it received certainty on a timetable and a single national standard. Better the devil you know . . . .

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

55 Comments on “Obama To Nationalize California Emission Standard By 2016...”


  • avatar
    John Horner

    It looks like more and more ‘mericans and their cars are going to need to go on a diet.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    How many new cars get sold in non-CARB states versus CARB states today? I’ll bet it’ll end up being cheaper for the automakers, if they’re not already making 50-state fleets now.

    As much as people complain about it, you do have an option: vote in a secessionist state government. Since, on average, non-CARB states also take in more federal cash than they give back to the rest of the Union, they might not only succeed in walking out, but might get a nice “don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out” for their trouble.

    (yes, I’m being inflammatory)

  • avatar
    geeber

    psharjinian: Since, on average, non-CARB states also take in more federal cash than they give back to the rest of the Union, they might not only succeed in walking out, but might get a nice “don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out” for their trouble.

    The non-CARB states “give back” more cash than they take in because their higher cost-of-living means that a larger percentage of their residents are paying more federal income taxes. These states have generally voted for candidates who favor more government spending and higher taxes; if they don’t like paying them, well, that’s too bad.

    They are also less likely to experience natural disasters (not many hurricanes hit Michigan or Illinois, for example), and in most cases they are not retirement havens (which means that Medicare and Social Security payments will follow residents when they move to warmer climes, which are usually located in the South or Southwest).

    Contrary to the implication, it has nothing to do with the inherent virtue or fiscal responsibility of certain states versus others.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    “By 2016 car offerings must average 42mpg while trucks will face a 26.2mpg average.”

    Well, the SUV definitely won’t be going away.

    The unintended consequences here are so obvious that they have to be intentional. American Leyland has a lot of trucks to move.

    Here are the arbitrary requirements that are future cars will have to be designed around so that they “only” have to get 26.2 mpg as light trucks instead of 42 mpg as passenger cars:

    They will either have to be able to have a flat floor behind the front seats (sweet for carrying stuff), any size cargo bed (also sweet, get ready for the return of the El-Camino-Ranchero-Caballero-Caddy-RamPandapage), or certain off road attributes.

    The sedan is dead, but the station wagon will have a renaissance as long as the floors can be made flat, and my future sports cars will have to have truck beds.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Contrary to the implication, it has nothing to do with the inherent virtue or fiscal responsibility of certain states versus others.

    It’s not a case of virtue or fiscal responsibility, it’s that New York and California alone have a larger financial footprint than most of the rest of the United States combined. Those two, plus Texas, could pull out and it would leave the rest of the country in a lurch.

  • avatar
    findude

    Complex solutions are rarely superior to simple ones. There is a simple way to increase fleet fuel efficiency, and motivate consumers to really factor energy use into their buying decisions.

    No need for negotiations with states, no need for environmental studies, no need for lobbyists. Just impose a high fuel tax and set a path for it to increase steadily over time.

  • avatar

    with 42 mpg for cars, and 26 for trucks, its going to be trucks trucks trucks unless the fuel price goes back up and stays there. So I’m not sure what the point of this new standard is.

  • avatar
    Casual Observer

    Is anyone else tired of getting Canadian opinions on American politics?

  • avatar
    geeber

    psharjinian: It’s not a case of virtue or fiscal responsibility, it’s that New York and California alone have a larger financial footprint than most of the rest of the United States combined. Those two, plus Texas, could pull out and it would leave the rest of the country in a lurch.

    Which they will never do, because they suckle at the federal teat just as hungrily as any other state. They, too, depend on federal dollars to keep their states running.

  • avatar

    The non-CARB states “give back” more cash than they take in because their higher cost-of-living means that a larger percentage of their residents are paying more federal income taxes. These states have generally voted for candidates who favor more government spending and higher taxes; if they don’t like paying them, well, that’s too bad.

    Higher cost of living? Michigan? “bama? Ms Sippi? Than Massachusetts, NY and California? You could buy a palace in any of the first three for what ranch houses cost in Massachusetts

  • avatar
    bluecon

    With the present economic meltdown and the continueing government mishandling of the economy we will have returned to the horse by 2016.

    California is on the verge of bankruptcy. Why copy them?

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Is anyone else tired of getting Canadian opinions on American politics?

    Hey, there’s American opinions on Canadian politics on the front page.

    I’ll stop criticizing American politics when the US adopts an isolationist policy with regards to, oh, the whole rest of the planet that makes the Munroe doctrine look like a free-trade pact.

  • avatar
    bill h.

    “Is anyone else tired of getting Canadian opinions on American politics?”

    Oh, I don’t know, I like Canada.

    Plus, that standard has never stopped the US from commenting on other countries’ politics. Only we have been known to use Shock and Awe rather than verbal commentary.

  • avatar
    ajla

    2016 is a long way away. A lot is gong to happen between now and then.

    This isn’t worth having a coronary over.

  • avatar
    MrDot

    Goodbye diesel.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    with 42 mpg for cars, and 26 for trucks, its going to be trucks trucks trucks unless the fuel price goes back up and stays there. So I’m not sure what the point of this new standard is.

    CAFE Part Deux, the Return of the Son Of the Bride of the Light Truck Exemption.

    Or less obliquely, a subsidy in all but name for the domestic auto industry.

  • avatar
    tced2

    Hmm…take an industry that is in economic distress add a set of new government regulations a you get one of two things. Either more economic basketcases or more government “investments” in these industries. I wonder which Obama will choose? Oh and I wonder if the product will be wanted by any consumers?

  • avatar
    Jerome10

    Great. So if we look at cars on the road today, which ones meet this new standard? Maybe the Prius and Insight only? MAYBE.

    26mpg for trucks is higher, but might be do-able, especially if things like CR-Vs and Escapes count as trucks. Which means a return to the vehicles of the 90’s. They’ll probably be cheaper since they won’t need as much expensive technology to meet the requirements, offer more space and more comfort. Nobody is going to pay more money for a penalty box. I’m sure a lot of folks will be real happy when they visit their local Toyota dealer to find their beloved Camry’s either no longer exist or cost twice as much to purchase.

    So people that do buy will buy trucks, and AGAIN (and AGAIN AND AGAIN) CAFE will have FAILED at what it was intended to do. But hey, if 40 years of something doesn’t work, we should probably keep doing it, right?

    In addition, used cars will be held onto longer (why trade in your Accord when it fits your family, gets acceptable mileage, and a replacement costs way more and offers way less?). New car sales will be killed, and we’re back in the downward spiral of bad car sales that we’re currently seeing. Which of course will then require further government subsidy for the auto industry, which we all end up paying for but without the choice. Again.

    This is such a bunch of crap. I’m against increased taxes “just because” but if they really wanna make a freakin difference, RAISE THE GOD DAMN GAS TAXES. What is the matter with you people?! This is just more of the “we’re doing something….look” and idiot voters going “look, they did something, its those evil car companies who are causing this problem”, as they’re simultaneously complaining about their lack of choice in cars and how expensive they have become.

    And let California die. That god-awful state is dragging the rest of us down with it. They have set a national fuel standard. Not to mention their moronic fiscal policies over the past 25 years likely mean they’re gonna get bailed out by the rest of us. They set the policies, they get the benefits, and all of us pay into that?! They screwed themselves, now let them hang for it.

    I can’t take this governmental garbage any longer. I can’t deal with the rate at which it is becoming more involved in daily life, and how excessively other parts of the country are able to set policy for all the rest of us. It is absurd. Made even worse because no politician will actually do what is necessary to make the biggest difference for the least investment. All they care about it making it LOOK like they’re doing something, while taking our money, spending it how they want, and telling us to accept it for our own good. F That.

    I also enjoy the real unbiased reporting by the NYT. Evidence: Last sentence of that article: “That inaction has brought General Motors and Chrysler to their current dire state, requiring billions in federal bailouts and Chrysler’s forced marriage to Fiat to survive.” Really? Huh. I guess that’s the only reason since the NYT said it. Though I’m sure the New Yorkers who follow this cult like to see good reporting like this….

  • avatar
    Lokkii

    +1
    with 42 mpg for cars, and 26 for trucks, its going to be trucks trucks trucks unless the fuel price goes back up and stays there. So I’m not sure what the point of this new standard is.

    +1
    CAFE Part Deux, the Return of the Son Of the Bride of the Light Truck Exemption.

    We’ll all be driving 4 passenger pickup trucks with leather interiors. Mine will be the sports edition – lowered with AWD… Maybe the Porsche Cayenne isn’t so craze after all… at least compared to the Porsche El Cayenno pickup that this law will create.

  • avatar
    geeber

    David Holzman: Higher cost of living? Michigan? “bama? Ms Sippi? Than Massachusetts, NY and California? You could buy a palace in any of the first three for what ranch houses cost in Massachusetts.

    I meant to say that the CARB states – not the non-CARB states – supposedly “give back” more than other states. That was my mistake.

    As you noted, the CARB states have a higher cost of living, which means that salaries must be higher, which, in turn, pushes more residents into the higher federal income tax bracket.

    And please note that Michigan has been repeatedly cited on this site as a state that is on the short end of the stick when it comes to the receipt of federal dollars.

  • avatar

    The canine is being vacillated by it’s California-shaped tail.

    –chuck

  • avatar
    Casual Observer

    “I’ll stop criticizing American politics when the US adopts an isolationist policy…”

    Fine. Anyhow, we can do without the only Canadian contributions to American society: beer, bacon, and unfunny comedians.

  • avatar
    bluecon

    Maybe they will dust of the drawings for the Trabant.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Fine. Anyhow, we can do without the only Canadian contributions to American society: beer, bacon, and unfunny comedians.

    Now, now. William Shatner is funny, you just haven’t gotten the joke.

  • avatar
    geeber

    Shatner is best when he pokes fun at himself. And he was about the only reason to watch Boston Legal.

  • avatar
    Casual Observer

    Bill Shatner is Canadian? In that case, I rescind the “unfunny comedian” comment. Except for The Kids in the Hall; please take them back.

  • avatar
    no_slushbox

    Lokkii:

    Hey, the Porsche pickup won’t necessarily have to be Cayenne based. It could be Cayman based. There is precedent:

    http://jalopnik.com/164107/were-not-even-close-to-being-done-porsche-914amino

    http://jalopnik.com/121156/psych-its-real-porsche-928-dually

    http://jalopnik.com/163226/had-enough-yet-the-porsche-944amino

    Light trucks, all of them.

  • avatar
    James2

    I don’t mind Canadian opinions on US politics, but I do mind the imposition of Californian thinking on the rest of America.

    Am I alone in wishing for the Big earthquake to come and permanently dislodge the Golden State from the continent?

    I don’t know about Texas, but losing CA and NY –as well as DC– would make the USA a better country.

  • avatar
    vento97


    I don’t know about Texas, but losing CA and NY –as well as DC– would make the USA a better country.

    Throw Texas in with that decrepid bunch and this country would be an absolute freakin’ utopia…

  • avatar
    jkross22

    “I don’t mind Canadian opinions on US politics, but I do mind the imposition of Californian thinking on the rest of America. Am I alone in wishing for the Big earthquake to come and permanently dislodge the Golden State from the continent?”

    Doesn’t need to take out the entire state… just most of the politicians in Excramento.

    BTW, we out there in the land of fruits and nuts are voting tomorrow on a series of ballot initiatives (because the politicians don’t want to do their jobs) that would further increase taxes immediately… in the midst of a pretty bad recession and unemployment hovering around 10%.

    This is a good sample of the profound inflexibility that has infected politics out here.

  • avatar
    cleek

    They should rename this the Candian Fossil Fuel & Auto Recovery Act.

    Canadian energy policy allows for new exploration and production. The US, on the other hand, uses regulation to ensure we’re a net energy debtor nation. Calgary should give President Obama a key to the city. And if I recall correctly, Ford, Awerican Leyland and the Sopranos all build (or rather built?) a ton of SUV/CUV/Trucks in Canuckistan.

    Hell, I just hope they will still take our Obama Bucks in a few more years.

  • avatar
    Lokkii

    Hey, the Porsche pickup won’t necessarily have to be Cayenne based. It could be Cayman based. There is precedent:

    OMG – Is NOTHING sacred?

  • avatar
    RedStapler

    You can take back Shatner, I was always more fan of Steward and Brooks.

    Please do keep the oil, natural gas and hydro power flowing.

  • avatar
    Ferrygeist

    Question for the moderator:

    It’s okay to wish for the tectonic banishment of 55 million Americans, plus NY and maybe Texas, and to–unless I read it wrong–attack a fellow B&B member for being Canadian and daring to have an opinion on American auto politics but not okay to object to those who say such things? Because my deleted comment would suggest as much. Yes, it wasn’t directed at something sufficiently abstracted as a state, and something only slightly more concrete in the online profile name of a member, but how some of the comments that have remained above can remain, and be viewed as useful or relevant is beyond me.

    And that, perhaps, was my larger point.

    Not that anyone should particularly give a shit, but considering how much I was enjoying my discovery of this site a few months ago, its descent into a near total obsession with corporate and political failure–and the herd of disenfranchised, angry conservatives who have become a kind of chorus calling for the guilloutines for everyone from the UAW to Obama, and who will take seemingly any occasion in any post on any angle of the news of the day to justify another shitty little dig at this or that perceived boogy man–has become a huge disappointment.

    Honestly, the opinions of some of the people above so easily and frequently expressed make it easy for those of us who might not agree with you–and who happen to live in California, and who don’t like paying taxes to subsidize so many of the other state’s programs–to wish for that aforementioned secession, although, preferably, not via a very large quake.

    For some of us, it couldn’t come soon enough.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    Funny that this is all scheduled to take place during the last year of Obama’s presidency (IF he’s re-elected). I’m sad to say that the pussy population has surpassed the rest of us. Looks like I’ll be holding onto my Impala SS a little longer than expected. On a plus note, Camaro SS sales should be through the roof. RIP America. I’ll always remember the days you were free.

  • avatar
    RedStapler

    26mpg for a light truck is not that difficult. My aero-pig KJ Liberty Diesel manages 24-25mpg in mixed driving with no fuel economy optimization. With 3.23 gears, street tires and cleaner aerodynamics it could easily do 28-30 freeway.

    A Ford Ranger or Toyota Tacoma size truck could get there with a mild hybrid system or smallish diesel. I’m waiting for Toyota to create a hybrid 4×4.

    42mpg for a car is going to be a tough nut to crack. Under the current CAFE regeme the domestics used the triple word score bonus for E85 capable vehicles.

    I wonder if a similarly generous treatment for electrics and plug in hybrids will be used to offset 20–30mpg conventional cars. How do you quantify running your plug in Prisight for the 1st 15-20mi on the batteries alone?

    Don’t discount small clean Diesels as well once they figure out how to meet CA emissions without breaking the bank. I’m betting on Honda to lead us to the promised of efficient diesels that don’t need Captain Insaino levels of EGR or Urea injection. A Jetta or Passat with the 1.9 TDI is almost there already.

  • avatar
    carlisimo

    I feel the same way as Ferrygeist about the TTAC comments section the last several months. Yes, I’m Californian. I’m a structural engineer too, so it’s my job to think about all the nasty things The Big One will do to us. It won’t gracefully turn coastal California into a second Hawaii, I can tell you that! Actually, the coast is moving up towards Alaska, not away from Nevada.

    One thing to remember about CAFE – it’s not based on the latest EPA mileage test. When they say “42 mpg,” they mean something closer to 30 real-world mpg. I’m just guessing about the 30… it’s around there. Just remember that Civics used to get “40 mpg” and the Prius used to get “61 mpg,” and it won’t seem so bad. Still a big change, but not impossible. Both hybrids and diesels should look better under the old mileage calcs, which is in line with manufacturers looking like they’re making major progress even if they’re really not.

  • avatar
    agenthex

    Which they will never do, because they suckle at the federal teat just as hungrily as any other state. They, too, depend on federal dollars to keep their states running.

    The “federal dollars” are what they paided in. They pay in more than their share. They get less than $1 back for every $1 they pay.

    Therefore, if there’s a split, they would be much better off than having the backwards areas dragging along.

    It’s not that hard to get.


    I’m sad to say that the pussy population has surpassed the rest of us. Looks like I’ll be holding onto my Impala SS a little longer than expected.

    It must quite nice to have the pussies support the backwards state’s spending habits, while at the same time pretending to be self-reliant (and shit scared of “terrorists” as if they would waste their time on backwardsville).

  • avatar
    Neb

    Complex solutions are rarely superior to simple ones. There is a simple way to increase fleet fuel efficiency, and motivate consumers to really factor energy use into their buying decisions.

    No need for negotiations with states, no need for environmental studies, no need for lobbyists. Just impose a high fuel tax and set a path for it to increase steadily over time.

    This is true, though the only way to implement it would be to start low, and gradually scale it higher. That said, recent history has demonstrated that the only thing that genuinely changes people’s habits are fuel prices.

    On the one hand, I can see a benefit to this move: by nationalizing standards (and hopefully locking them in for a long time to come) car makers can engineer and plan for the long term, without having to worry about California trying to impose additional burdens on them. On the other, well, the Honda Fit is below avarage on this new scheme. Unless weight loss (and some safty loss) becomes a new design standard, I don’t see them meeting this goal.

  • avatar
    Jeff in NH

    Is anyone else tired of getting Canadian opinions on American politics?

    No. I, for one, appreciate intelligent commentary, regardless of its source.

  • avatar
    Monty

    “Is anyone else tired of getting Canadian opinions on American politics?”

    Ummm, no. Of course as a Canadian my opinion probably won’t carry the same weight as an American opinion I suppose.

    Wow, what a xenophobic comment.

    Is this site called “The American Truth About American Cars As Written By American Writers”? Not when I last checked, anyway; it’s available on the intertubes, free for anybody to log on and comment about any subject, as long as they restrain from flaming and insults.

    Wow. What a maroon.

  • avatar
    DarkSpork

    Goodbye diesel.

    I disagree, this could lead to more diesel vehicles being produced and sold in the states considering for full size truck it would be very difficult to meet the 26mpg requirement otherwise (I understand its an average). Could make sense, diesel Rangers are already being sold in Latin America and Europe, how much more would it cost to sell them here? Main issue, if I remember correctly, is that newer diesel vehicles had to be “clean burning” in California.

    Great. So if we look at cars on the road today, which ones meet this new standard? Maybe the Prius and Insight only? MAYBE.

    Currently being sold today? No, there’s also the TDI Jetta (green car of the year), and Toyota Yaris (epa may dictate otherwise). As far as “cars on the road today”, there are many older cars still on the road that meet the standard, such as Honda CRX, early Civic hatchbacks, Suzuki Swift/Geo Metro, TDI Golf.

    My main gripe is that it was a nuisance (to me at least), to need to pay every other year to get a technician to measure contaminants in my exhaust at various speeds for a few minutes just so I could pay even more to register my vehicle. I thought that was bogus. I also thought the limitations imposed on performance modifications was bogus (who cares if somebody wants to put a RSX engine in their early 90s civic). Just my two cents.

  • avatar
    pacificpom2

    So, there will be a market for the Holden/Chevy/Buick/(Pon… opps, sorry , dead) Crewman

    http://www.productreview.com.au/showitem.php?item_id=3700

  • avatar
    peterb

    I agree with DarkSpork — if anything, I would think this will accelerate the penetration of diesel into the US market. Which is a good thing.

    I’m not sure I buy the “Oh, everyone will just buy trucks!” the-sky-is-fallingism. Car vs. truck is largely a lifestyle choice. I’m not buying a truck. I doubt a truck would even fit in my garage. I suspect the same is true for many Americans. Likewise, people who need their trucks to make a living aren’t suddenly going to start buying Honda Insights just because gas gets expensive. I have a hard time imagining someone saying “Oh, force me to buy a Jetta TDI, will you? FINE, I’LL BUY AN F-150 INSTEAD. That’ll show ‘em!”

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    I’m not sure I buy the “Oh, everyone will just buy trucks!”

    It’s more like this: manufacturers will have to work a hell of a lot harder to meet safety, performance or mileage standards for passenger cars; trucks will be comparatively easy because the targets are lower, and thusly cheaper to make.

    Any bets on which kind of vehicle is going to be pushed harder by marketing?

    This is exactly what happened with CAFE and the previous LTE. The automakers more or less said: we could have made cars that do most of what trucks do, but that would cost more per unit to make them get the mileage and have the power that people want. Why do that when we can just sell a truck (that we already sell hundreds of thousands of) with concessions to general use (covered beds, two rows of seats)?

    And thus was borne the mass-market SUV.

    Crossovers are both a blessing and a curse in this respect. They’re good in that they’re built on car platforms, and behave more like a normal vehicle and less like some paleozoic body-on-frame relic, but they’re bad because they’re still an attempt by marketers to sell way, way more vehicle than most people need. You could sell a high-roof Toyota Camry with a low floor**, but there’s more money to be made in rebadging that Camry jacking the floor six inches, giving it a butch nose and—this is important—slapping a new badge on it that justifies the ten-grand price premium.

    This does nothing to fix the situation: there’s still a financial incentive to build gas-guzzlers, instead of a single cut-off line for all vehicles*** regardless of class or use.

    ** this is more or less what the Sienna is, or what the Avensis Verso is in Europe. There’s a reason why Toyota markets the shit out of the Highlander and the Venza, and it has everything to do with the margins they’ve been able to make.

    *** which would be fine. Despite common perceptions, landscapers for example, do not need F-350s to haul two lawnmowers, some shovels, some dirt and a couple of teenage flunkies. Commercial trucks suffered the same fattening as the retail market did.

  • avatar
    ruckover

    Does anyone else worry that the way most are defining “freedom” here is through our ability to consume what we want? This, perhaps, should be worrisome to all Americans.

  • avatar

    Which they will never do, because they suckle at the federal teat just as hungrily as any other state. They, too, depend on federal dollars to keep their states running.

    I know for a fact that California and Texas are both net losers in terms of federal tax dollars vs federal spending and I’m pretty sure that New York is as well.

    The west coast, industrial midwest, and mid-atlantic/northeast states get less than a dollar on their tax dollar. The states that gain the most are in the south, southwest and agricultural midwest.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    I don’t understand why the auto industry doesn’t just add “economy switches” to their vehicles. They could sell vehicles capable of achieving the underpowered, fuel efficiency that the government wants on one setting, but at the flip of a switch or push of a button (preferrably on the steering wheel or console) the vehicle would (via cylinder activation, turbo psi boost, etc) be able to produce the horsepower and performance people want when they want it. If all vehicles are sold with the default setting set to pussy, err I mean efficiency mode then auto makers would be within the confines of the law.

  • avatar
    mitchim

    Is anyone else tired of getting Canadian opinions on American politics?

    Great point Jeff in NH. As a canadian I enjoy views from a larger world. I beleave that canadian views on american politics can be just as valid as an american. Our countries are and always will be VERY interconneceted economically and politically

  • avatar
    sutski

    “This is such a bunch of crap. I’m against increased taxes “just because” but if they really wanna make a freakin difference, RAISE THE GOD DAMN GAS TAXES. What is the matter with you people?!”

    Nail, head, hit.

  • avatar
    Casual Observer

    “Is anyone else tired of getting Canadian opinions on American politics?”

    This was my comment, and it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I thought that was apparent with my ensuing posts.

    I thought Canadians were supposed to have a sense of humor?

  • avatar
    dwford

    These new rules will just result in smaller, less powerful vehicles. In Europe VW offers the midsize Passat with the 1.4L TSFI engine vs here in the US most midsize cars start out with a 2.5L. We will see alot more diesels (expensive) and fewer large utility vehicles (less choice).

    So we will have slower, smaller, more expensive vehicles that may not meet our space needs.

    I see alot of people hanging onto their large vehicles instead of upgrading to something that doesn’t meet their needs. And wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of the new regulations?

  • avatar
    Richard Chen

    @RedStapler: with the Tesla Roadster getting an EPA gas equivalent of 245mpg mixed, I’m pretty sure that we’ll be seeing lots of more EV’s and PHEV’s (Volt’s supposed to get 100mpg, I think) as a result of this legislation.

    Ford is planning to introduce an EV Transit Connect, presumably to offset F150’s and Expeditions. A single “200mpg” van plus a dozen 15mpg trucks would still average out to >27mpg.

  • avatar
    vento97

    I’m having a good laugh, since the majority of cars that I’ve owned over the past 30 years are four-cylinder vehicles getting at least 30+ mpg.

    Especially watching all the Johnny-come-lately hypocrites who are all-of-a-sudden trading in their gas-guzzling SUVs for hybrids in a lame attempt to appear “green” (I hate that word) and environmentally friendly… What a bunch of frauds…

  • avatar
    DarkSpork

    *** which would be fine. Despite common perceptions, landscapers for example, do not need F-350s to haul two lawnmowers, some shovels, some dirt and a couple of teenage flunkies. Commercial trucks suffered the same fattening as the retail market did.

    While landscapers may not need it there is a large demographic of people who do. Take farmers for example: many have a need to move hay bales, tractors, trailers (perhaps loaded with hay bales or other heavy product). What about tow truck operators (most tow trucks are built on a F350 or similar chassis, a compact truck would not be adequate). I know people that make a living using their heavy duty trucks (ram 3500) moving 20,000 lb trailers across a few states. Most compact trucks are inadequate for the needs of people who move large loads. Trucks are incredibly useful in climates that see a lot of snow (higher ground clearance, 4wd). While I won’t argue that urban America doesn’t need large trucks, I will argue until I’m blue in the face to anybody that honestly feels that there is no need for any individual in America to own a full sized truck. I’m tired of that hippie left-wing mentality because it shows that the individuals have seen very little of our country. On a side note, I know a number of people who own Cummins diesel Rams and get 23mpg highway (astonishing for a vehicle that heavy that makes over 600ft/lb torque).


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States