Small / economy car deathwatch: we've passed "peak econobox" again

[Xist]

Which does not make any sense when you end up with Yahoos Tahoes in hybrid-only spots.

How big does an electric vehicle need to be to be less efficient than driving a mirage?

Well, a Model X is rated 93 MPGE.

The Tesla semi would be less efficient than a Mirage, right?

[Hersbird]

Hybrid vs diesel, I found this article while shopping Touaregs. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...mparison-test/
This chart stood out to me the most

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod...g?resize=480:*

I like these kinds of apples to apples. Then again it turns out they had to cheat, but I have a feeling even with the fixed emissions the TDI beats the hybrid in most situations.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

That is 54.5 mpg CAFE which is about 36 mpg combined on the window sticker. That also assumed that the mix of cars / trucks would be 67 /33 when it is about opposite of that today. Of course that was just an estimate.

Good thing for the automakers that there no longer is one CAFE standard for all companies. Bush changed things way back in 2007 so that each vehicle sold has it's own CAFE requirement based on footprint (track x wheelbase) and whether it is classified as a car or a light truck. At the end of the year each company has their own CAFE standard calculated based on the actual mix of vehicle they sold in that year. This is why companies can kill off all their cars and still hit CAFE numbers.

To meet the 2025 standard a full size truck only needs to get 23 mpg combined on the EPA window sticker.

• The RAM 1500 gets 23 mpg today.
• Ford is at 22 mpg
• GM is at 21 mpg
• Nissan is at 17 mpg
• Toyota brings up the rear with 16 mpg

So the technology is there today to meet the 2025 standard. The automakers just have to market it instead of continuing the endless cycle of who can haul and tow the most.

Also, Trump does not have the authority to revoke California's waiver. It is in Section 209 of the Clean Air Act and the text has no provision to revoke a waiver that has already been granted. California's most recent waiver was granted in 2013 and the regulations phase in from 2017 to 2025. The most likely outcome is: California sues, the court suspends Trump's attempt to revoke the waiver, lawyers get rich until Trump is out of office.

This highlights the absurdity of setting MPG requirements on the industry in the first place. What if an automotive company only builds trucks because that is their specialty? There's no reason they should be penalized or worse, not exist due to not being able to achieve arbitrary fleet MPG numbers. There are legitimate use cases for pickups.

As I keep saying, the correct way to limit a pollutant or otherwise conserve a resource is to determine the optimal or maximum consumption level and target that via tax policy.

All other schemes are open to corruption as we witness all the time, and you highlight. I'm not a fan of Trump trying to seize power and authority in what is clearly a state's right. That grows the size of federal government, which is already way too large. At most, the legitimate authority of the federal government would be to limit pollution from states; not to overturn state laws that set stricter requirements.

Why we allow presidential candidates that promise to grow the size of federal government, usurp local authority, and reduce liberty is beyond me. Could a candidate be successful on a platform of shrinking their authority and returning it to local government, and maximizing liberty?

[JSH]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

This highlights the absurdity of setting MPG requirements on the industry in the first place. What if an automotive company only builds trucks because that is their specialty? There's no reason they should be penalized or worse, not exist due to not being able to achieve arbitrary fleet MPG numbers. There are legitimate use cases for pickups.

You seem to have missed this part:

Originally Posted by JSH

]Good thing for the automakers that there no longer is one CAFE standard for all companies. Bush changed things way back in 2007 so that each vehicle sold has it's own CAFE requirement based on footprint (track x wheelbase) and whether it is classified as a car or a light truck. At the end of the year each company has their own CAFE standard calculated based on the actual mix of vehicle they sold in that year. This is why companies can kill off all their cars and still hit CAFE numbers.

A company can sell nothing but full size trucks in 2025 and would meet CAFE if they averaged 23 mpg (EPA window sticker)

The RAM 1500 does that today with a 305 hp engine.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by JSH

You seem to have missed this part:



A company can sell nothing but full size trucks in 2025 and would meet CAFE if they averaged 23 mpg (EPA window sticker)

The RAM 1500 does that today with a 305 hp engine.

I got it, but there seemed to be an implication that the original CAFE standards were compromised for political/business reasons.

While it probably does make more sense to set MPG standards based on category of vehicle, it introduces more loopholes and encourages further bad/inefficient behavior.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

What if an automotive company only builds trucks because that is their specialty? There's no reason they should be penalized or worse, not exist due to not being able to achieve arbitrary fleet MPG numbers. There are legitimate use cases for pickups.

You mean like Kenworth or Hino? You know, companies that specialize in making trucks.

Seriously, the "light truck" market is a joke. They're passenger cars for guys who pretend their balls are so big they need a truck to lug them around in.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Seriously, the "light truck" market is a joke. They're passenger cars for guys who pretend their balls are so big they need a truck to lug them around in.

Being born in a 3rd-world sh*thole where I occasionally see Korean cabover mini trucks with a 4-cyl turbodiesel below 3-litre (sometimes even a non-turbo) able to perform the same task an average American wouldn't expect anything with less than 6 cylinders and less than 4-litre to do, I'm sure I agree with you.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

You mean like Kenworth or Hino? You know, companies that specialize in making trucks.

Seriously, the "light truck" market is a joke. They're passenger cars for guys who pretend their balls are so big they need a truck to lug them around in.

It is funny that a F-150 Platinum costs the same as a F-750.

Lots of auto DNA in truck companies:

Hino is Toyota's medium and heavy duty truck brand.
Freightliner is is owned by Daimler (Mercedes)
International is jumping into bed with GM and VW
Mack is owned by Volvo (Trucks not cars)

Kenworth and Peterbilt are the same company (PACCAR) and really the only independent truck company left in the USA.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

You mean like Kenworth or Hino? You know, companies that specialize in making trucks.

Seriously, the "light truck" market is a joke. They're passenger cars for guys who pretend their balls are so big they need a truck to lug them around in.

I mean that it's wrong to think we know what a legitimate use case for a truck is, and that the proper way to reduce fossil fuel burning isn't to promote philosopher kings to dictate to the nth degree of infinite uses what is legitimate and what is not, but instead to just make it more costly to burn fossil fuels.

Usually I'm saying that issues are much more complex and difficult to solve than we realize, but in this particular case, it's way easier, and I suspect all the dumb and wasteful programs that exist ostensibly to curb fossil fuel burning is the product of profound ignorance at best, or extreme corruption at worse, and both seem likely.

[Hersbird]

But as Redpoint points out, what if a company just wanted to make medium duty trucks targeted at say a 15,000 pound tow rating and a 3000 pound payload with 4wd and aggressive off road ability. No way they are going to be able to meet those cafe requirements. That company will have to be absorbed by a big corporation or build something else they don't want to. The big makers would be allowed to because they can average the heavy duty off road versions to their plumber 2wd v6 contractor specials.

Kenworth and Hino don't count as they are outside the laws as they already got a carve out. So that means this specialty company in my example has to try and shoot for a loophole and make their product even bigger. Just let companies make what consumers will buy, it works every time it is allowed.