Vehicle makers say US fuel economy standards put a million jobs at risk

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by aerostealth

Why would anyone go back to driving a 17 mpg truck when they can have a 25 mpg truck that can do the same stuff.

Maybe for the same reason they use that 17/25 mpg truck for their urban commute?

And having autostop doesn't allow you to impress the people in adjacent lanes with the manly rumble of your mighty diesel engine.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by aerostealth

Why would anyone go back to driving a 17 mpg truck when they can have a 25 mpg truck that can do the same stuff?

ANS: because that old 17 mpg truck is paid-for and that new 25 mpg truck cost MORE and is NOT gonna be paid off for another 5-6 years?

[aerostealth]

As to driving a paid for truck that get 17 mpg v a 25 mpg new truck, the phrase "why would anyone go back" assumes you bought a 25 mpg vehicle then we're considering a newer one that only now get 17 mpg because the regs were rolled back. In that light it makes no sense.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by aerostealth

As to driving a paid for truck that get 17 mpg v a 25 mpg new truck, the phrase "why would anyone go back" assumes you bought a 25 mpg vehicle then we're considering a newer one that only now get 17 mpg because the regs were rolled back. In that light it makes no sense.

Maybe it makes no sense, but people do it. Consider the useful-sized pickups ("small" to some people) that were popular in the '80s, and which got better than 25 mpg. (My '88 Toyota 4WD still does.) Can you find anything of the same size today? Even Toyota's Tacoma has bloated out of all recognition, and they added a much larger model. Ford does its F-things, but I'm not sure they even do the F-150 any more, it's 250, 350, 450, "Super Duty", &c.

[gone-ot]

...blame some of that BLOAT on new/improved EPA regulations (wink,wink).

[oil pan 4]

The new 25mpg truck costs as much as an affordable house.
Why would you pay $400 a month in payments plus $200 a month for full insurance to get +5mpg?
The most common complaints about these trucks is they they are not getting the advertised fuel economy.

[vskid3]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Maybe it makes no sense, but people do it. Consider the useful-sized pickups ("small" to some people) that were popular in the '80s, and which got better than 25 mpg. (My '88 Toyota 4WD still does.) Can you find anything of the same size today? Even Toyota's Tacoma has bloated out of all recognition, and they added a much larger model. Ford does its F-things, but I'm not sure they even do the F-150 any more, it's 250, 350, 450, "Super Duty", &c.

If only America could have nice things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmpCWEAapQY

The Ute could satisfy most people's hauling "needs", move like a sports car, and still get 25-30MPG highway (probably even higher with a V6 or turbo 4).

[oil pan 4]

I don't know why Australia hasn't been exporting these here.
They would meet emissions because last I heard they were using American made GM LS6 engines in the V8 ute. Crash testing I don't knew but I think Australia has similar speed limits to the US.

[vskid3]

They did the GTO, G8, Caprice, and SS, but I think I read that it's pretty expensive for GM to build them in Australia and bring them here. The Chicken Tax (25% tariff on imported light trucks and other goods) is probably why they never imported any Utes. They would've had to build them here to make it feasible. There's also the Ford Falcon Ute sold in Australia. I bet the profit margins wouldn't be as high as the regular trucks they would steal sales from and that's why we don't get them.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Those utes are being phased out in Australia. Ford already phased the Falcon out in the last year, and this is the last year for the Commodore-based ute. The so-called "compact" trucks, due to their broader global marketing appeal, leads to a higher return of investment than the utes.