By on December 20, 2021

We’ve got good news for people who want fewer choices in the type of cars they’ll be able to purchase in the future.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized strict new vehicle emissions requirements through 2026 that would reverse the current standards set by the agency under former President Donald Trump. The Trump administration rolled back some of the long-term environmental policies implemented under the Obama administration. However, the Biden administration has said its biggest focus will be on addressing climate issues by dissolving those policies restoring the targets established when Barack Obama was still in the White House. The agency released some proposals in August outlining the general path it would be taking. But the details dropped by EPA Administrator Michael Regan on Monday vastly exceed those Obama metrics serving as a benchmark. 

“The final rule for light duty vehicles reflect core principles of this Administration: We followed the science, we listened to stakeholders, and we are setting robust and rigorous standards that will aggressively reduce the pollution that is harming people and our planet – and save families money at the same time,” said Regan. “At EPA, our priority is to protect public health, especially in overburdened communities, while responding to the President’s ambitious climate agenda. Today we take a giant step forward in delivering on those goals, while paving the way toward an all-electric, zero-emissions transportation future.”

From the U.S. EPA:

The standards finalized today are the most ambitious vehicle emissions standards for greenhouse gases ever established for the light-duty vehicle sector in the United States. They are based on sound science and grounded in a rigorous assessment of current and future technologies with supporting analysis that shows the standards are achievable and affordable. EPA’s final standards for 2025 and 2026 deliver even greater net benefits and emissions reductions than those proposed in the initial rulemaking stage in August of 2021. Through 2050, the program will result in avoiding more than 3 billion tons of GHG emissions which is equivalent to more than half the total U.S. CO2 emissions in 2019.

These ambitious standards are cost-effective and achieve significant public health and welfare benefits. The benefits of this rule exceed the costs by as much as $190 billion. Benefits include reduced impacts of climate change, improved public health from lower pollution, and cost savings for vehicle owners through improved fuel efficiency. American drivers will save between $210 billion and $420 billion through 2050 on fuel costs. On average over the lifetime of an individual MY 2026 vehicle, EPA estimates that the fuel savings will exceed the initial increase in vehicle costs by more than $1,000 for consumers.

Your author has some serious doubts. Those Obama-era standards that would have originally seen Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rise to 54 mpg by 2025 were deemed unsustainable by that administration’s own EPA. The truth of the matter is that Americans have been transitioning to larger vehicles since the 1990s and the practical average fuel economy has been largely stagnant since 2014. The University of Michigan ran a great study tracking those figures on a monthly basis up through 2017. But the current EPA’s own research has the national average stuck around 25.0 mpg through 2020.

Officially, the Biden policies only seek to have CAFE requirements of about 40 mpg in 2026 due to ground lost during (and even before) the Trump years. Obama’s regulators originally required 5 percent annual increases. However, the previous administration’s EPA changed those yearly increments to just 1.5 percent after team Trump suggested it would be more feasible for the industry and agreeable to U.S. consumers who have a penchant for larger cars. The Biden rules will take effect for the 2023 model year and require a whopping 28.3 percent reduction in vehicle emissions through 2026.

The EPA’s August proposal had the number set at 38 mpg by 2026 while the Trump administration was targeting 32 mpg. Though I need to reiterate that the practical average economy for all light-duty vehicles sold in the United States has been hovering at 25 mpg for almost a decade.

Additionally, U.S. regulators are planning to add a new emphasis on fleetwide emission in a way that mimics how the European Union regulates its cars. Under the revised plan, the EPA is requiring a combined fleet-wide average of 202 grams of carbon dioxide per mile. This represents a 9.8 percent increase in austerity over the Trump-era standards for MY 2022. For the 2024 model year, requirements would tack on an additional 5.1 percent, followed by another 6.6 percent in MY 2025 and 10.3 percent in MY 2026.

“We are setting robust and rigorous standards that will aggressively reduce the pollution that is harming people and our planet – and save families money at the same time,” EPA Administrator Regan explained.

There are plenty of obstacles standing in the way, however. Smaller, more efficient automobiles have actually become less common on the North American market of late and EV adoption isn’t on track to come anywhere close to achieving the desired metrics. The Biden administration had hoped to spur electrification by pouring new incentives on the market and giving the industry more money to accelerate their production via provisions in the Build Back Better Act. But it has stalled in Congress after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) said he would not support a $2 trillion domestic investment bill that includes many items that have nothing to do with infrastructure (referencing adjusted tax codes and IRS funding), opens the door to additional government spending during a period of severe inflation, and carves out loftier, potentially unlimited EV tax credits that favor union automakers.

Public support for the bill also seems to be dwindling with polls showing a growing opposition to the Build Back Better agenda (Ed. note — other polls show more support for BBB, so, as is often the case with polling, results can be mixed.). Even Tesla CEO Elon Musk, America’s EV godfather, has expressed his distaste for how the plan was structured – though his company would arguably benefit from its existence and was already helped by the previous (now exhausted) credit scheme. Most manufacturers that aren’t one of the Big 3 have similarly decried the union aspects of the plan as unfair. However, global automotive lobbies still appear to be in favor of any plan that encourages more cooperation with government bodies if they’re willing to help by allocating taxed money for EV production.

“EPA’s final rule for greenhouse gas emissions is even more aggressive than originally proposed, requiring a substantial increase in electric vehicle sales, well above the four percent of all light-duty sales today,” the Alliance for Automotive Innovation stated in response to the EPA’s announcement.

“Achieving the goals of this final rule will undoubtedly require enactment of supportive governmental policies – including consumer incentives, substantial infrastructure growth, fleet requirements, and support for U.S. manufacturing and supply chain development. Collaboration between industries across the economy and government will be essential to achieving our shared goals for a cleaner transportation future that benefits all communities and enhances U.S. economic competitiveness.”

The EPA has estimated that its targets would achieve/require 17 percent of all new U.S. vehicle sales to be either EV or plug-in hybrids by 2026. That means the number of electric vehicles sold annually would need to more than quadruple within a few years. But the Biden administration said that CAFE standards would continue being an average, meaning automakers could continue building gas-guzzlers if the fleet included the right kind of vehicles to offset their presumably low mpg figures and high carbon output. The EPA likewise stated that carbon credits and trading would remain a useful tool for automakers that exceed or fail to achieve the desired government targets.

[Image: Ody_Stocker/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

112 Comments on “U.S. EPA Readies Strictest Vehicle Emission Requirements Ever...”


  • avatar
    Conslaw

    “We’ve got good news for people who want fewer choices in the type of cars they’ll be able to purchase in the future.” – If you want more choices in vehicles that emit more pollution fine, you can have it – IF you find a way to proportionally reduce the number of people who spewing out the garbage, something more efficient at population reduction than C19. More people on the same planet means we have to find a way to cut back somewhere.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “More people on the same planet means we have to find a way to cut back somewhere.”

      Why does the people of the United States always have to burden that both financially and in choice?

      Our air has never been cleaner. Our water has never been cleaner. Time to put the screws to India, China (releasing the China Virus doesn’t count), etc. That was the issue with the Paris Climate agreement (that actually had nothing to do with the climate).

      • 0 avatar
        MrIcky

        China would argue that America’s air is cleaner because we outsourced all the dirtiest manufacturing to other, poorer countries. Just sayin’

        • 0 avatar
          Matt Posky

          A lot of our environmental regulations encourage this. Look into the rules pertaining to oil refineries on the West Coast and the amount of fluid that gets shipped across the Pacific on dirty tankers as a result. Emissions are reduced in the United States but are multiplied on a global scale and China ends up making some money.

          Same is true for oil we import from OPEC in general. We could pump it more cheaply ourselves and move it around the country via pipelines. But the current administration has opted to ship it in from the outside and nix our own planned pipeline projects.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “But the current administration has opted to ship it in from the outside and nix our own planned pipeline projects.”

            Brandon’s pals are long rail stocks.

        • 0 avatar
          Funky D

          And China happily volunteered to be the low-cost coal-burning smoke-spewing smoggy manufacturing source for the world, just sayin’.

        • 0 avatar
          Mackey

          Mricky, only because the Chinese government was more than happy to let their land and people be used like consumable commodities, rather than respecting either.

          • 0 avatar
            MrIcky

            “only because the Chinese government was more than happy to let their land and people be used like consumable commodities, rather than respecting either.” – no argument from me there. It’s just hard to crow about how our air is the cleanest it’s ever been under those circumstances. I’m a hypocrite though and I loves me some consumer electronics.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          REST OF ECONOMY NEEDS TO HELP CUT EMISSIONS
          Regulators and environmentalists point out that the transportation sector accounts for most greenhouse gas emissions. That’s true. It used to be the electric utilities, but they’ve switched so much from coal to natural gas that their emissions are now less than the transportation sector. But don’t forget that the transportation sector includes ships, planes, locomotives, mining trucks, agricultural equipment and a host of other sources. And they’re not affected by these regulations. Here’s our Autoline Insight. Light duty vehicles only account for about 16% of emissions. And while we’re in favor of the auto industry doing its part, it seems to us that the other 84% of the economy is not doing its fair share. Autoline Daily

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “China would argue that America’s air is cleaner because we outsourced all the dirtiest manufacturing to other, poorer countries. Just sayin’”

          Of course they would. But that doesn’t make it true. They would also argue they didn’t release the China virus, intentionally, from a lab. China would also argue they they do not commit human rights abuses on a routine basis.

          But the fact is, there is nothing stopping China from reducing emissions and to try and blame the US for Chinas emissions is amazingly ignorant.

        • 0 avatar
          zerofoo

          If there were only a way we could financially “encourage” manufacturers to produce products in an environmentally responsible way….

          I’m thinking a tax on those goods….maybe we could call it a tariff?

      • 0 avatar
        jalop1991

        THIS RIGHT HERE.

        Because no doubt it would be “racist” or “poorphobic” or whatever for us to insist that OTHER countries participate in all of this.

        • 0 avatar
          JD-Shifty

          since when so we get to dictate what other countries do?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “since when so we get to dictate what other countries do?”

            It’s called Foreign Policy. The USA uses trade restrictions, embargoes, sanctions, monetary policy, clandestine, covert and overt military operations to “dictate what other countries do”.

            Any large country or association of countries engage in this sort of thing.

  • avatar
    kcflyer

    Had emissions on my mind just this morning. Drove wife’s suv. Was 26 degrees this morning but Lexus programmed the vehicle to rev instantly to 1500 rpm on every start. I assume this is done to quickly warm up the cats. That’s all well and good but normal idle is closer to 800. It worries me to rev that cold v8 so high immediately. I’ve always been taught to never rev a cold engine and let the engine warm gradually to avoid excessive wear. So to meet the emissions goals the automakers are sacrificing engine life. Take that far enough and you could end up having to replace the engine because of the extra abuse. Wouldn’t building another engine negate the emissions advantages of warming up the cats a few seconds quicker on each start? I love the outdoors. Hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing. I want to be a good steward. I just wish lawmakers would stop and think before taking the lobbyist provided legislation and rubber stamping it. Or worse, when unelected bureaucrats drop policy the same way. These are the same sorts of junk policies that get us start stop systems that need huge batteries and cause excessive wear and tare on the mechanicals.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Sadly, the engine only has to last as long as the lease, the loan, or the warranty. Most moderately abused engines will do that.

      What you describe becomes a headache for the next owner, and the mfrs know it.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Wow. 26 F is -3.3 C. That isn’t cold. How long does it run at 1,500 RPM? Newer vehicles are programmed to run rich at start up. My truck doesn’t protest a cold start until around -25C or -13F.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        @Lou:

        Agreed. For a modern engine, 1500 rpm is not excessive on a chilly morning. What, it can handle 900 RPM but not 1500? Doesn’t make much sense to me, particularly for a Toyota V8, which is NOTABLY durable.

      • 0 avatar
        kcflyer

        The high idle last about 20 seconds is my guess. The reality is it was much warmer than 23 degrees. Garage was probably closer to 55F. I was referring to outside temp, so sorry. Regardless, it does the same high rev on every cold start year round. I still think the 4.6 will last a long time but it would last even longer without this abuse. Why sacrifice big ticket items to save a few seconds of sub par emissions controls when long term the cost to the environment to replace those big items is higher?

    • 0 avatar
      MrIcky

      That’s not abuse. 1500 is not high. Maybe if it sat around unused for a month first it might be a problem, but it’s not for the cats. It’s mainly for the fuel injection system since fuel doesn’t vaporize fully until you get it warm enough. So if you don’t run extra fuel when you start up, it runs too lean and you get deposits and a bad idle. It’s better for your car then not doing it.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        1,500 rpm isn’t all that bad. We are accustomed to sophisticated fuel systems. Anyone my age will remember manual chokes and “automatic” mechanical chokes. 1,500 rpm was pretty much the norm.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      1500 rpm not under load won’t do any damage. The wear when cold comes not from the speed the engine is spinning but how much load it is under. Give the oil 30 seconds to circulate before you add any load, and keep the load light until the oil gets a bit warmer, and it will be fine.

      The emissions benefits of warming up the cats quickly are enormous. Modern gas cars emit something like 95% of their total HC emissions on cold starts.

      • 0 avatar
        randy in rocklin

        Modern cars burn unleaded to preventcontamination to the internal parts of the engine. Today’s oil are also lower viscosities, i.e. 5W-20 are usually the recommended viscosity.

    • 0 avatar
      Scoutdude

      You are right that the start up speed is for emissions, but it is not for the cats and it is to reduce wear on the engine. The higher idle speed allows for less warm up enrichment. That reduces emissions but it also reduces cylinder washing and carbon production both of which reduce cylinder and ring wear.

      • 0 avatar
        kcflyer

        Never heard that before. Very interesting. Thanks Scoutdude and others for the info.

        • 0 avatar
          AK

          Toyota V6s have always done the high idle on cold start for as long as I’ve been driving them (1995 Avalon, 2006 Rav4 and 2015 GS350). It’s especially noticeable when parked next to a Honda J series V6 which has a much quicker, quieter cold start up procedure in identical situations.

          That said, Toyotas are known for their durability so I’m sure they know what they’re doing when it comes to cold starts. I’ve also noticed that my wife’s 2017 Mazda does the same thing (and the Mazda’s skyactiv 2.5 sounds waaaay worse than the smooth Toyota V6s).

    • 0 avatar
      Dan

      My favorite part of the cold start high idle is how eager the car is to leap forward and clip something in the garage. Idle should creep, and manufacturers understand this because once it’s warmed up that’s exactly what it does, but the first couple of seconds of driving for the day when you’re still sleepy and parked just a couple of inches away from other expensive things and instead of creeping it’ll run 10-12 mph if you don’t feather the brake just right.

    • 0 avatar

      I recently saw a diagram of the world’s carbon emissions. “international shipping” was larger than most nations. Massive two stroke diesels burning bunker oil make all the cheap stuff possible, and there is no regulation. The Port of LA paid shippers not to use the worst of them as the idling ships caused pollution hot spots in LA, and all it did was displace those ships to other ports….not replace them.

      I guess my dislike of the can’t avoid it 2.0 four cylinder turbo is going to turn to love, huh ?

    • 0 avatar

      You are probably OK. I always thought the weak point was turbos…don’t spin them hard till the engine oil is flowing, but that car’s NA….also, EU regs allow for some brief pollution on startup via averaging, that US regs don’t…which is why we get air pumps on a lot of our Germans that don’t exist in the home market. The high idle to fire off the cats is probably such a workaround….

      I saw a BMW torture test once on youtube. Freeze engine hard. Start it. Run to redline. Keep it there till hot. Shut down. Rinse and repeat. Sadly, we don’t know when “boom” occurs….

  • avatar
    BSttac

    Increasing the cost of new vehicles further to go along with Bidenflation and Build Back Broken bill should really help the economy. Im just happy Biden agreed to stop using his Jet to travel everywhere. Leading by example and all

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    On one hand, the mfrs were foolish to think the tide of history would be permanently stayed by the Trump policies.

    On the other hand, the mfrs want to build vehicles that people want to buy, and be profitable.

    So now, the Biden Administration want to squeeze down the vehicle choices that people *can* buy, and incentivize people to buy them from the “right” mfrs (unionized). Problem is, Tesla dominates the market already, and the next EVs people want won’t necessarily be made by F or GM.

    A collateral problem: higher CAFE goals mean less gas taxes collected “for the roads”, so get ready for special EV taxes.

    I stand by my road tax formula: Tax = GVWR x annual miles, which would collect revenue from EVs and ICEs according to their impact on the roads. (Uncle Joe already knows how much your vehicle drives in a year, either through insurance checks or annual inspections). Then we could eliminate gas taxes at the pump.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “either through insurance checks or annual inspections”

      What are those?

    • 0 avatar
      khory

      You have to have your vehicle inspected annually?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @khory – I assume you are being sarcastic. In my province of BC they only place where annual inspections are mandatory are in the “Greater Vancouver Regional District” and/or areas referred to as the “lower mainland”. Those of us in the Great White North don’t have to worry about inspections unless a Motor Vehicle inspector or Police Officer issues you a notice to get your vehicle fixed and run through a licensed inspector.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “Then we could eliminate gas taxes at the pump.”

      You really can’t because the pricing will not go down, the refiners, wholesalers, and retailers will invent new “fees” to transfer the current amount into their pocket. That’s why the [awful] Governor’s plan to eliminate the fuel tax is so egregiously wrong (D-bags don’t like it because the law stipulates collected taxes must be spent on ***road repair***, no joke).

      https://www.penndot.gov/about-us/funding/Pages/default.aspx

      @ajla

      Not sure what an “insurance check” is but there is so much electronic data being generated now I’m sure when an agent wants to run a CLUE check much more than should be available is available:

      https://www.forbes.com/advisor/homeowners-insurance/clue-report

      The fine Commonwealth has a simple “safety” check (which is now up to 140 pages), including an annual registration tax, err “fee”, and an emissions tax, err “fee”, in a growing number of counties:

      https://www.dot.state.pa.us/public/dvspubsforms/
      BMV/BMV%20Manuals/Pub_45%20Inspections%20Regulations/PUB-45.pdf

      The ONLY benefit I have seen to this sh!tty state’s regime is 25yo antique cars are exempt from all stupidity and 15yo classic cars exempt from all but the safety stickers themselves (about $30 last year) with the trade off of limited use which I think is a reasonable compromise.

      Oh and to anyone reading, my notary informed me Saturday starting in January she is going to have to run your license through an online portal for title transfers. Evidently the process now is/was make paper copies of the people’s licenses and send them to DOT I suppose monthly. She said in almost thirty years they have never come back to her with person X had a fake id or that wasn’t a lawful transaction etc. Now just like the FFL, they will be running your license on the spot before transfer (and charging for it) which is just a tad Orwellian for an automobile (vs a firearm). The only reason I can think to do this is because they are slowly putting the pieces in for a police state – I’m quite serious. Dear Comrade, we see you did (or didn’t) do X therefore we’ve branded your license Y so you can’t buy or sell that car today.

  • avatar
    pmirp1

    So glad my Tahoe RST with the 6.2 liter lionheart engine will be delivered mid January. Branden has ZERO chance of getting re-elected and will lose mid term elections my friends. Do not worry, the ICE vehicles will continue to be built for another 30 years. His Bettter whatever program is also not going anywhere.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Amen. And Joe Manchin is a hero. That bill (much like this emissions nonsense) has nothing to do with making this country better. Just advancing a dangerous agenda.

    • 0 avatar
      Dipstick

      My Suburban also with a 6.2 donkeyass engine arrives soon. I picked one in black so I look like a federal agent. Pretty cool

    • 0 avatar
      JD-Shifty

      ” Branden has ZERO chance of getting re-elected and will lose mid term elections my friends. Do not worry, the ICE vehicles will continue to be built for another 30 years. His Bettter whatever program is also not going anywhere.”

      your ilk also said Trump would win a second term/

  • avatar
    probert

    “We’ve got good news for people who want fewer choices in the type of cars they’ll be able to purchase in the future.” What is wrong with you? Making Ed Niedermeyer look like a hippie.

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      Where’s the lie? You complain yet provide no evidence as to why his statement is wrong.

      • 0 avatar
        Margarets Dad

        I know it’s not fashionable to listen to scientists around these parts, but cutting greenhouses gases back as quickly as possible is the best chance we have of leaving our children a livable planet. Which is something people, other than sociopaths, want.

        • 0 avatar

          Sociopaths are the worst … except for libertarians. ;)

          • 0 avatar
            ToolGuy

            Jo Borrás,

            I would like to formally apologize for voting third party in the last two U.S. Presidential elections. I see now that the two individuals that everyone else elected were/are so very competent and effective (beyond their admirable personal traits, which I care much less about).

            I will never do it again, until the next time when I will definitely do it again. :-)

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        The author pretends that making vehicles smaller is the only way to increase efficiency, when there are a lot of other levers to pull.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          Imagine how nice it would be if they did make them smaller though.

        • 0 avatar
          Daniel J

          Well, they could use fancy computers and what not but…wait….

          I’ll be in the market in a few years and I won’t be settling for a slower vehicle or a smaller vehicle.

          Some models that will be out in the next year or two as all new will have to have detuned engines to satisfy the requirements. Then the subsequent models will revert back, the current accord will be 25 percent smaller.

          I honestly don’t see automakers getting there without More EV,.smaller cars, and detuned or underpowered engines.

          Where I live, the only way most will buy EVs is if our area gets 400 percent more charging network. Many people can’t park in garages

  • avatar
    MitchConner

    Democrats need to have their heads stuck in a paint mixing machine.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    “However, the Biden administration has said its biggest focus will be on addressing climate issues by dissolving those policies restoring the targets established when Barack Obama was still in the White House. ”

    Used car managers (UCMs) should lionize Brandon as the “best car salesman” of the year the way Obama was lionized as the “best gun salesman” in his time. Even without the administrations “chip shortage” policy their economic and currency destruction policies have driven valuations to impossible places, now let’s add some artificial “climate” costs to the mix. I so wish used car valuations could be traded as an index fund or even a commodity. Keep “voting” (D)umb, proles!

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    “China would argue that America’s air is cleaner because we outsourced all the dirtiest manufacturing to other, poorer countries. Just sayin’”

    You beat me to it. How self absorbed and bereft of intellect do you have to be not to see this.

    • 0 avatar

      No one prevents China from establishing more strict environmental policies.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      They are free to turn that work down and establish stricter standards. They like that money though.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Poor China. They just can’t wait to send manufacturing back to US

    • 0 avatar
      EBFlex

      “You beat me to it. How self absorbed and bereft of intellect do you have to be not to see this.”

      Shilling for China isn’t a good look kiddo. As has already been pointed out in response to your amazingly ignorant comment, nothing at all is stopping China from implementing standards that reflect a drive towards reducing emissions. You can continue to defend a country that routinely commits human rights abuses, pollutes with no shame, and intentionally released the China virus on this world, but you cannot dispute this or blame the US for their actions.

  • avatar
    alan996

    Let’s go Brandon

  • avatar
    dal20402

    The discussion of these measures is inane because everyone is pretending that making vehicles smaller and lighter is the only way to meet these standards, when we could get most of the way there by putting hybrid powertrains in everything. They have small batteries and motors so they don’t add much cost, and yet they can double city fuel economy and have enough of an effect on the combined numbers to get a lot closer.

    2010’s hybrid Tahoe, weighing almost three tons, got 20 mpg city. My 5000-pound Highlander Hybrid gets 24 to 27 mpg city depending on weather, and the current generation improves on that further.

    • 0 avatar
      Astigmatism

      Hell, the Accord Hybrid gets 48mpg, costs $26k, and fits five comfortably.

      • 0 avatar
        PlaysInTraffic

        …And is as boring and slow as paint drying; don’t want one.
        I would buy a new Accord with a V-6 and a 6-speed manual to replace what I once owned, if one was offered, but they are not due to over-regulation.

        I really resent the loss of vehicle choice. Currently there are no 6-cylinder sedans with a manual available for less than $70K. That is ridiculous. Meanwhile, taxpayers are forced to subsidize the purchase of electric cars that are priced even higher.
        So since your government nudging has priced me out of the market for what I actually want, I’m thinking I should settle for a sedan with an automatic as long as it has a big V8. Why? Because, screw you. You don’t get to nudge me into some craptastic little hybrid or downsized turbo 4-banger with a CVT. To hell with that. Instead, I’ll do the exact opposite. Maybe even step up to the larger Scat Pack V8.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          The 6M Accord is not gone because of “over-regulation,” it’s gone because nobody bought them. Nobody bought them with the V6, and nobody bought them with the 2.0T either.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            MT’s are dying out because of consumer demand not regulations.

          • 0 avatar
            PlaysInTraffic

            Oh right, regulatory costs had nothing to do with it. It costs nothing to certify another powertrain/body style combination. Companies willing leave money on the table because there isn’t that much competition in the auto industry and they just can’t be bothered.

            Oh, and it’s not like the Accord has ever been more than a niche model for Honda, so a small percentage of its total sales would never amount to much.

            All hail the wisdom on the anti-choicers! Screw what the customer wants! The customer is always wrong!

          • 0 avatar
            PlaysInTraffic

            Consumers can’t buy what isn’t offered. So your statement proves nothing, except your disrespect for individual consumers.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “Screw what the customer wants!”

            Yes. Basically.

            If it isn’t going to sell in a volume that is profitable, auto manufacturers aren’t going to make it.

            There’s aftermarket if you want a “one off” but you’d better be willing to pay for it.

          • 0 avatar
            Astigmatism

            Companies leave money on the table because it costs more to develop a transmission/powertrain option that 5% of consumers will buy than it will yield in revenue.

            It’s the same reason why cars are available in nine shades of silver and beige and maybe one red to put on the showroom floor.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “Oh right, regulatory costs had nothing to do with it.”

            I’m not sure if they had *nothing* to do with it but I don’t believe it was the primary driver. Vehicles with a high manual transmission take rate still offer one, even if it’s at the expense of fuel economy, and even on recent re-designs so it isn’t like they’ve been outlawed.

            “it’s not like the Accord has ever been more than a niche model for Honda, so a small percentage of its total sales would never amount to much.”

            Honda said the manual take rate on the Accord had been under 2% for several years. So at the Accord’s sales volume it would be 4k-5k units.

        • 0 avatar
          Matt Posky

          “Oh right, regulatory costs had nothing to do with it. It costs nothing to certify another powertrain/body style combination. Companies willing leave money on the table because there isn’t that much competition in the auto industry and they just can’t be bothered.”

          Bingo. This is why Subaru fans stopped getting the WRX with a hatchback.

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      I’m interested in the Hyundai/kia hybrids.

      I test drove the latest RAV 4 hybrid. It was slow as molasses if the battery isn’t charged and the engine sounded like it was going to explode on throttle.

      3/4 of my driving is rural and freeway driving. A hybrid gives me no advantage.

      I get 28mpg in my Mazda 6 with the 2.5T.

      Give me a hybrid that can do 0 to 60 in 6.5s or less and is midsize and I’ll consider it.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    He promised during his campaign to reverse the Trump administration’s rollbacks of automotive efficiency standards – in fact, he said on his campaign website that he would develop “rigorous new fuel economy standards aimed at ensuring 100% of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be electrified and annual improvements for heavy duty vehicles.” And he won that campaign.

    Seems reasonable that he’d start doing it.

  • avatar

    It all is BS because it will be changed back again in 2024.

    • 0 avatar
      PlaysInTraffic

      But whoever it is needs to do more than just roll things back to where they were before Pedo Joe. They need to go on the offensive. The other side callously limits our choices? Then let’s limit their choices. No more subsidies for electric cars, period.

      After that:
      Reduce the CAFE standard back to 27 mpg.
      Forget about the stupid 25-year rule; allow Americans to import cars from other countries. Give them real vehicle choice, like they haven’t had since the 60s.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    If this were to prevail — not likely IMO — wouldn’t it backfire when even MORE people just bought trucks instead of tiny, gas-sipping cars?

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    TTAC: fewer than 100 commenters on this website, 70% of whom are just trolls who like to rage on about politics and other things about which they are completely uninformed.
    Just wow.

    How about some vaccine conspiracy theories? I bet that would amp up your clicks.
    In your own words, tell us how you really feel about… ivermectin?

  • avatar
    kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

    “””There are plenty of obstacles standing in the way, however. Smaller, more efficient automobiles have actually become less common on the North American market of late and EV adoption isn’t on track to come anywhere close to achieving the desired metrics. “””

    Because Americans (I live in Oregon) are fat stupid short memory dick #$%^’s who don’t buy small cars until the gas costs ”too much”..

    make gas 10$ a gallon forever solved.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Give few months of inflation, it will be there

    • 0 avatar
      Matt Posky

      Why should they have to buy smaller cars when its totally possible to deliver larger ones while also cleaning up the environment using our own resources? And why would you want to bankrupt poorer drivers with insane gas prices and policies that force us to bring fuel in via giant, dirty, shipping tankers? Passenger vehicles are actually a fraction of the air pollution created by the transportation sector. You know what group pollutes the worst? International air and tanker ships.

      • 0 avatar
        kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh

        “”why would i …”

        Reduce overall demand for gas, reduce frivolous driving, reduce large displacement engines.. almost all ”TruckBro” owners never use them for more than urban haulers. All while getting 10-12 mpg city or a paltry mid 20’s highway. (eco-diesel aside).

        Until you make the gas cost too much to waste on ‘status’, people will keep wasting it on large displacement rigs with little purpose that could be solved at a U-haul truck rental for 48 hours.

        forgive the broad implication, but poor people dont drive f250’s, dodge charger 5.7’s and 6.2s or chevy v8-anythings. they will be less impacted.

  • avatar
    Jesse

    “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finalized strict new vehicle emissions requirements through 2026 that would reverse the current standards set by the agency under former President Donald Trump. The Trump administration rolled back some of the long-term environmental policies implemented under the Obama administration. However, the Biden administration has said its biggest focus will be on addressing climate issues by dissolving those policies restoring the targets established when Barack Obama was still in the White House. The agency released some proposals in August outlining the general path it would be taking. But the details dropped by EPA Administrator Michael Regan on Monday vastly exceed those Obama metrics serving as a benchmark.”

    I love how Trump is the only person in this paragraph whom Posky deems worthy of receiving the title of “President” next to his name. Editors: do you really believe he’s neutral in his rants (like he pretends to be)? The only thing Posky adds to this site is clicks. His content is complete garbage. I really miss the days of intelligent commenting here. Posky does not promote that.

    -A decade-and-a-half follower of this blog.

  • avatar
    mpalczew

    They love to pass laws like these without giving you any real information about the impact.
    How is one even supposed to know if this is a good idea. Some real reporting would tell you these facts.

    Would love to know what percentage of the world co2 emissions are in the united states?
    Of those co2 emissions what percentage are from vehicles?
    Of those emissions what percentage are from vehicles affected by the new rules?
    How much are these changes going to effect the amount of co2 produced by those vehicles?
    How much is this going to increase the cost of my next purchase?
    How much less power/safety/other features is my next vehicle going to have?
    Will this result in worse mileage?
    What are other options for reducing co2 emissions and their associated costs?

    Instead we have Brandon vs Orange man fight.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      Remember how Europe was passing laws that lead to diesel used everywhere. You walk in Prague and smell all that stuff all day. Great management. Now they scramble to remove diesel

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    Republicans have developed natural immunity from reality.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      That side of Uniparty isn’t at the wheel, so who is driving us into the ditch again?

    • 0 avatar
      Daniel J

      This is just a terrible statement. I used to agree with Democrats and moderate Democrats on most things. I can’t say today that I agree with democrats at the federal level for any issue. My politics haven’t changed in 20 years. It almost seems like the Republicans have moved farther left.

      • 0 avatar
        barksdale

        “It almost seems like the Republicans have moved farther left”

        Now THAT is just a terrible statement. Yes, the good news is that for all the headlines, people at a human one-to-one level seem to be more accepting of other cultures, races, etc. (if that’s what you mean by moving “left”). In other ways, they’re moving right.

        • 0 avatar
          barksdale

          The Republican party has moved farther RIGHT over the past two decades and has become tolerant of some really nasty behavior. But AT THE SAME TIME the Democratic party has moved farther LEFT and become tolerant of some really nasty behavior and intolerant itself. E.g., Defund the police is a ridiculous idea.

          My OPINION (and I’m not trying to convince anyone here because I think we all already have our minds made up) is the Republicans are supporting the worse behavior – a straight-up assault on the Capitol and treat it like it was justified, ignore it, or come up with fairy tales about inside jobs because the reality is too jarring? Are you kidding? City riots in multiple major cities (e.g., Portland) were/are nasty and people need to be arrested and charged (that’s a whole other whataboutism for another post) but give me a break – breaking into the capitol is worse TO ME for the symbolism and the disruption of a democratic process.

          • 0 avatar
            barksdale

            P.s., 28 Days Later (the movie) is looking more like a documentary – except the virus is information-based and turns everyone into lunatics.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Democrats were encouraging the rioting, and Kamala Harris contributed money to a fund to bail out the rioters. Perhaps they would be a little less tolerant of people destroying cities that they don’t live in if the same thing was encouraged in DC.

            Remember those old anti drug PSAs? Where the dad Is yelling at his kid for smoking pot and asking where he learned to do that? And the kid says, “from you dad. I learned it from you”. If you tell people that rioting, looting, and burning is ok when you feel righteously outraged, don’t be surprised when some idiot does it to you.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    This is what happens when your admin appointees are selected by gender, color, sexual orientation and level of leftism. They think that they are the smartest ones, that they can be GOD and change the climate. Dammmmn. Sometimes I hope some huge climate event happens so they lose all their investments into the weather. What are they thinking? That they are here forever?

  • avatar
    Daniel J

    When it comes to solving a problem at the scale of the climate change problem, there isn’t much the United States can do to prevent or slow down climate change. Whatever we do will be negated by other developed or developing countries.

    So, whatever we do as a country will be just a “feel good” or “we did the best we can, see” point, while burning everything down in the process.

    That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make cars more efficient as I think that is something we should always strive for. If EVs sell, sell EVs. The problem is just much larger than that, as someone in OK running a large ranch who travels miles and miles doesn’t have a charging network. What’s the point of an EV if there isn’t a charging network? What’s the point when most apartment complexes don’t have charging stations?

    Eventually, the Federal government imposing its will on a large industry will eventually backfire…on that industry, not the government. Of course, the government doesn’t care.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      In soccer the commentators often say that the best referee is the one you can’t see and hear from. Our gov. became a celebrity. A lot of talk, a lot of unneeded and unwanted moves. Optics, optics, optics. Political power is all then want now. They don’t want to quietly sit in their offices and manage. They want to be the center stage. The only things they want to be quiet is their total corruption.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: @ajla, pmirp1 said “Right now the one thing you can trust is having your car fill with gas at corner...
  • dal20402: LOL. I read your comment as I was stuffing a burger in my face. We have two cars. One of them can do the...
  • FreedMike: …and Mustang drivers… I don’t know what the issue is with being proud of your ride.
  • jalop1991: “EVs still require thought and planning.” This right here. I don’t want to think that...
  • ajla: Gold one seems okay as long as the continental kit isn’t screwed into the trunk and the grille mounting...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber