Trump kills MPG requirements...

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I said that the air quality has improved over the decades, but they still have the worst air quality in the nation. How is that incorrect?
Better is nice, but they still come in last place and last place sucks, what do they want a participation trophy?
The only thing that can make them not last place is lots of electrics.
Then every other state has been able to clean up their sky's better and faster with out imposing their own standards.

I interpreted you incorrectly there, but I'm not sure exactly what point you're trying to make. My understanding of the argument so far is something like:

States should not be able to maintain their own environmental regulations for things like vehicles, but must instead be subject to only a single federal standard. The reasoning is that CA has the worst pollution despite having their own environmental board. The implication is that CA will have better environmental quality if subjected only to federal standards?

It doesn't follow because CA has bigger environmental challenges simply due to population and geography. Having the worst air quality (which I'm only assuming is true) is evidence of that problem, and therefore justifies a special regulatory agency to address it, with protection from the tragedy of the commons being among the few useful purposes of bureaucracy.

I lean towards liberty, and although I personally dislike CARB and CA in general, they've got the right to run their state how they see fit, and I don't have to live there.

Federal rights trumping states rights is a precedent that shouldn't be set, because power should be allocated at the lowest levels possible rather than concentrated at the top.

If I've misunderstood your point, kindly elaborate.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The industry know about 12 years ago someone tried it.
GM built a hybrid Silverado back around 2008. It flopped, there were still new ones on dealer lots 2 years after they discontinued them. This is the main reason no one is trying to be first with an electric or hybrid pickups.

They developed a bit of a cult following after gas prices were stuck over $3 a gallon for a few years by 2013-2014.

So the industry knows gas prices will have to go up and stay up for an extended period of time to get people interested..

With the auto makers bleeding money from every orifice like an ebola victim no one can afford to launch a money pit.

GM made a crappy start/stop hybrid truck and priced it too high, and that scared others off perhaps. Sounds similar to how there was a huge gap between the EV1, and Tesla's first EV.

I'm not talking about a mild hybrid that is priced too high though, I'm talking about a true hybrid, perhaps even a plug in version. With $7,500 in federal subsidy on the table, it could probably be made to cost the same as the non-hybrid version, or at least easily pencil out factoring in the fuel savings.

The only thing I can think of, which is probably a huge consideration, is that a hybrid weighs more, and that cuts into payload and towing ratings. In an arms race to tow/haul more, coming in 200 lbs short won't cut it.

[oil pan 4]

1 standard, California can push all the electric cars they want.
50 years of having their own standard still gets them worst air quality in the nation. Time to try something radically different.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

... EPA and NHTSA have been historically more lenient when it comes to full-size trucks and SUVs.

That was my point. The Big 3 meet the 2025 fuel economy requirements today with pretty basic technology.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by JSH

The Big 3 meet the 2025 fuel economy requirements today with pretty basic technology.

It wouldn't be so easy without protectionist measures which set quite low standards for trucks.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

It wouldn't be so easy without protectionist measures which set quite low standards for trucks.

How is setting low fuel economy standards for trucks protectionist?

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by JSH

How is setting low fuel economy standards for trucks protectionist?

It's part of a whole deal which also embraces the Chicken Tax. Effectively blocking competition, while allowing automakers to keep selling vehicles with a seemingly outdated powertrain, is quite protectionist. Just look at how Ford and GM kept dumping gas-guzzlers in the U.S. and Canada benefitted from the lower fuel-efficiency standards instead of offering more efficient models which used to be available on overseas markets.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

It's part of a whole deal which also embraces the Chicken Tax. Effectively blocking competition, while allowing automakers to keep selling vehicles with a seemingly outdated powertrain, is quite protectionist. Just look at how Ford and GM kept dumping gas-guzzlers in the U.S. and Canada benefitted from the lower fuel-efficiency standards instead of offering more efficient models which used to be available on overseas markets.

I'm still not seeing how low fuel economy standards are protectionist.

Yes, the Chicken tax requires trucks and cargo vans to be made in North America to avoid large import taxes. It doesn't force manufacturers to build trucks with low fuel economy. Toyota, and Nissan set up factories in the USA and used them to build trucks with even worse fuel economy than the Big 3.

US trucks get poor fuel economy because gas is really cheap in the USA.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by JSH

I'm still not seeing how low fuel economy standards are protectionist.

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.

[JSH]

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.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by JSH

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.

OK, but it's still basically the heavier and inherently less efficient body-on-frame layout, even though many commercial operators could benefit of the unibody and front-wheel drive setup.

On a sidenote, look at this example: believe it or not, the Citroën Jumpy van rides on the same platform of the current-generation Peugeot 308. It has independent suspension all-around, so even with a 4WD conversion available for Citroën and Peugeot vans it's possible to keep the stock loading height instead of having to deal with the clearance issue which still plagues RWD and some 4WD trucks, vans and traditional SUVs with a rear live axle.