Quote:
Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr
Allowing automakers to keep seemingly outdated engines, which may not seem so easy to keep up-to-date to emission standards at a first glance, which the tooling and development cost had already been paid-off, seems quite protectionist. And the SUV craze favored by some vehicles that are clearly not a commercial vehicle being certified as a "light truck" just to enable the usage of such inneficient powertrains, which end up not being so favored on export markets anymore, makes it clear that protectionist measures allowed the Big Three to keep dumping gas-guzzlers just because they were cheaper to make and didn't have to pay the same amount of tax as a station-wagon for example. Even though other automakers embraced the SUV/crossover bandwagon in order to benefit from this approach too, rendering uneffective the protectionist bias, it still seems to have been initially a part of a set of protectionist measures.
|
You seem to be missing what is happening in the USA. Automakers are not just selling the same old designs year after year. They are repeatedly updating and redesigning both engines and chassis on a quicker design cycle than cars. Low fuel economy standards simply allow them to continue to compete based on horsepower, towing capacity, and payload.
The Ford F-150 is on a 5 year design cycle with mid-cycle refresh. The current generation F-150 was resigned for the 2015 model year, refreshed for 2018, and will be replaced in 2021.
SUVs and CUVs are not affected by the Chicken Tax. International trade and tariffs are covered by Standard International Trade Classification. The Chicken Tax applies to SITC 782.19 (Motor vehicles for the transport of goods)
How the NHTSA classifies light trucks for fuel economy doesn't effect tariff rates.