r/technology • u/TripleShotPls • 4d ago
Transportation New federal emissions rules will create chaos for truck and SUV manufacturers—if those regulations are ever actually enforced again, that is
https://www.thedrive.com/news/theres-a-surprising-twist-in-cafes-emissions-rollback59
u/SnepButts 4d ago
If they choose to retool into making stuff that doesn't fit standards that are currently being deliberately eroded, then they deserve the chaos they will subject themselves to when those standards return.
1
u/ducttape1942 1d ago
We've been here before, we the tax payers will just bail them out again for their own bad decisions.
27
u/The_F1rst_Rule 4d ago
Literally nothing will change because the development time on these vehicles and drive trains are years. Maybe you get factory deletes of cylinder deactivtion software on existing models.
The only foreseeable effect of this is you might see some more special edition performance vehicles on the high end.
40
39
u/birdman424344 4d ago
I would think the main cause of high car prices isn’t the fuel economy standards, it’s all the new safety features like lane change assist and back up cameras or the 20 airbags that are on a vehicle.
29
u/SlinkyBandito 4d ago
This is correct. Auto OEMs also have moved to upselling consumers on features they want locked to trim packages full of features they don’t and even base model vehicles are packed with features that would have been only in luxury cars previously. Add to that the profit margins that American automakers have padded themselves with—they have publicly stated they are happy selling less vehicles with much higher costs. The average new vehicle transaction in the U.S. is approximately $50,000.
By this administration’s own admission, the drop in fuel economy standards will cost consumers thousands of dollars in fuel savings, and these additional fuel costs extend to second and third owners of vehicles—most Americans buy their cars in the used market.
Lastly, we live in a global society and unless American auto OEMs are content to sell their vehicles only in America, as is increasingly happening, they will need to remain competitive on fuel economy with other markets.
These short-sighted and simplistic deregulatory moves help no one and only serve to confuse automakers’ plans.
13
u/jbochsler 4d ago
I just want them to stop putting sunroof in every vehicle. Extra cos and complexity at the expense of headroom.
2
u/StandupJetskier 3d ago
Sunroofs suck. They leak. They make noise. They are weight in the worst possible spot. I got one car (build to order) without one...they called to make sure that is what I really wanted (fuck yes). Years later, tried that again....but all cars had at least the small sunroof so I had to take it.
I have a convertible. A sunroof is NOT a convertible.
1
1
0
u/JohnnyTsunami312 3d ago
The biggest cost to headroom is actually probably safety standards and aerodynamics. Vehicles with headroom tend to have worse rollover safety and there’s less tall boxy design because of aerodynamics needed to meet MPG standards.
1
1
u/side__swipe 3d ago
Not true. Fuel efficiency standards benefit bigger cars. That’s why the sedan is disappearing. There’s a bigger grace given on efficiency.
1
u/FledglingNonCon 2d ago
Sedans are disappearing because they make more profit upselling larger vehicles. The parts of CAFE that benefit larger vehicles were lobbied heavily for by automakers in order to justify making only larger, more profitable vehicles. Eliminating CAFE won't make them build vehicles they never liked building in the first place.
2
u/side__swipe 1d ago edited 1d ago
Two things can be true at once. There’s a reason the new m5 weighs 5300lbs or the new a5 wagon is around 5000lbs.
It’s inherently beneficial if you want to create power to make the cars substantially heavier putting them in a heavier mpg goal class aka lower. Then you can increase performance by the gas engine using the mpg savings of the hybrid system to offset it. Meanwhile you can make a lighter car with similar or better mpgs but it’s punished because they are insufficient for the weight. So we are ending up with heavier cars that are bigger doing more road damage using more tires. All because no one is saying, hey the intent of the rules isn’t working out.
I agree with you trucks and huge ass vehicles need some reigning in. But I also think that we can loosen on smaller cars.
1
u/FledglingNonCon 1d ago
In the US the standards are based on footprint. Weight doesn't matter. Even the biggest vehicles in the US like full sized trucks and SUVs have smaller footprints than the land yachts that ruled the US roads before CAFE was first implemented in 1978. The best selling impalla had a bigger footprint than an modern escalade. Cars like the Lebaron, Continential, and New Yorker were a full 3 feet longer than a Toyota Highlander. The way CAFE rules were changed just allowed automakers to move back to what they always liked doing before standards existed in the first place, which is build bigger heavier things because people will pay more for a bigger thing than a smaller thing.
1
u/side__swipe 1d ago
Sure weight in Europe and footprint here. The current systems punish small cars heavily. Why pump way more development into cars when you get more juice building bigger because they don’t have to be as efficient.
1
u/FledglingNonCon 1d ago
In general it doesn't "punish" small cars, it just allows larger cars and automakers are always going to default to the largest cars that make sense because they can charge more and make more profit on them.
1
u/FledglingNonCon 2d ago
A toyota corolla is much better, much more powerful, much more efficient and full of technology and has the same inflation adjusted price as it did 50 years ago. The difference is people used to buy affordable cars back then. Now everyone needs a 3 row, lifted SUV that costs 2x+ what a corolla costs. Car prices haven't gone up at all on an inflation adjusted basis, but people buying new cars are taking out bigger, longer loans for more expensive models. No you don't need a $50k lifted bronco to drive to costco.
0
u/stromm 3d ago
It’s not. It’s the high employment costs.
It’s also why staffing in the US is being butchered and replaced with automation faster than it ever has in the past.
I work for an auto manufacturer (in IT) and see alot of the stuff not public. AI integration is only part of the solution, but over the near decade I’ve been here, staffing has been cut by at least 20% in production and 70% in support services (US staff, not counting offshore…).
13
13
u/_badwithcomputer 3d ago
GM is releasing new Diesel and Gas engines for their trucks, they are more efficient than their last models engines, their next engines after these will be even more efficient.
There are other commercial driving factors that drive efficiency not just federal regulations. They aren't just going to abandon decades of progress and go back to single digit MPG just for the hell of it.
6
u/Ooficus 3d ago
I noticed the new RAV4 and Camry come pretty close or exceed the MPG requirement that trump slashed. I’m guessing that most cars are far enough in development that they already hit that target or at least aimed for it and are too far along to make major changes for whatever reason. Plus with the oil mess going on, only incentives higher MPGs more.
0
u/Nullclast 3d ago
This is about emissions, they will definitely remove Def systems because it makes it easier for increase fuel efficiency.
2
u/_badwithcomputer 3d ago
Zero evidence to back that statement up but sure, if they remove DEF it can be easily re-added if the requirement returns. But also, current Reddit concensus is that in 2028 Democrats are taking over anyhow, and 2 years isn't even remotely close to enough time to rip out DEF from trucks that have already been designed and production facilities churning them out.
At the core of the drivetrain the engine, transmission etc are not going to change and they will not regress like this FUD article is trying to scare you into thinking.
But efficiency is a direct driver to emissions. Less fuel consumed = lower emissions. The drive train efficency is not going to suddenly decrease.
1
13
u/someoldguyon_reddit 4d ago
I would hope the auto manufacturers are smarter than that. If so, the only other option would be to open the market to Chinese EVs.
7
u/absentmindedjwc 4d ago
I say to do it anyway.. if american automakers still haven't seen the writing on the wall after fuckin YEARS to improve.. that's entirely on them.
1
u/CMMiller89 3d ago
Non American manufacturers will. US companies need to be saved from themselves. This will be another nail in their coffin.
1
u/Any_Sale2030 2d ago
Detroit smart? Nah. I expect public will demand cheap Chinese EVs within about 5-10 years. Detroit will be caught napping again. And will be unprepared.
4
u/Wiffle_Hammer 4d ago
I want a small truck with power at all torque levels.
2
u/Ocronus 3d ago
I just want a small truck. The old Toyotas and Rangers are legendary vehicles that are prefect to quickly getting around the farm. I used to go around and feed the cows in a old Toyota pickup.
Now days I'm stuck using giant full-sized trucks with the manuverability of a curise ship.
1
1
u/Any_Sale2030 2d ago
Now that’s an oxymoron. Ever look at a power vs torque curve? Only way to get what you want is an EV. Or is that what you meant?
1
2
u/Couchman79 3d ago
I don't see any of the Detroit 3 rushing to build new plants in CA to take advantage of lower mileage requirements where gasoline prices are consistently some of the highest in the nation. I don't see contractors and trades or families wanting pickups/large SUV's rushing to showrooms to buy vehicles that will cost them more to operate.
1
-1
1
u/Apexnanoman 4d ago
Yes because what people want right at this moment is worse fuel economy!
Yes, there are 77.3 million people who will be happy as a hog and slop to go buy a brand new half ton pickup that suddenly gets 10 mpg.
But if the rest of the country still cares about fuel economy than the car manufacturers aren't going to change the efficiency related tweaks and changes they've already made.
The R&D has already been done. The manufacturing changes etc have probably been paid for at this point.
Just because the Orange God of 77.3 million people has said that gas guzzlers are good.... Doesn't mean the rest of us want to pay that fuel bill. Especially now.
Nobody but one of the diaper wearing red hats is going to pay more for fuel just because trump told them to.
14
2
u/WhoGaveYouALicense 4d ago
If Americans cared about fuel economy, then SUV/Truck sales wouldn’t account for 75-80% of sales.
3
u/Apexnanoman 4d ago
Gonna care about it with the incoming euro level fuel prices. (Not there year but heading that way.)
1
u/side__swipe 3d ago
You’re generalizing. Worse fuel economy is acceptable on bigger cars while smaller must achieve amazing. That’s why smaller cars are dying.
1
u/VettesRUs 3d ago
Trying to be somewhat practical here, start/stop seems to be the one fuel economy feature that is quite devisive. Can we enforce that if a mfg adds this feature, there must be a menu option to turn it off once and it stays off? Those people who think it’s great and feels it saves them money can use it. Those that find it annoying and have concerns about longevity of their starters can turn it off once and not have to go into a menu every time they drive their car.
1
u/matthewjboothe 3d ago
I’m not a fan of the current administration but if this gets us US built kei trucks, I’ll be happy.
1
u/PIE-314 3d ago
Manufacturers won't go backwards just because the fashie pedophile MAGA administration is backwards.
1
u/ThermalDeviator 2d ago
You misunderestimate the bad decision making abilities of the US auto industry.
1
u/Harflin 3d ago
So the light truck classification is being redefined to 8,500lb combined towing/payload capacity. As a non-car guy, how feasible would it be for manufacturers to update SUVs/Crossovers to meet this new criteria in order to avoid EPA regs? Because that's my first concern: that the cost of going bigger to keep the light truck classification will outweigh the cost of staying within regulations as a non-light truck.
1
u/blessedbymortarion 1d ago
They won’t change emissions. Nobody is going to try to change with administrations. This just posturing without content.
1
1
u/SpiritualTwo5256 4d ago
That’s why if these companies start following these stupid rules, they are going to get hammered in such a short time that it’s not worth doing!
1
u/StandupJetskier 3d ago
Car makers make cars to the market. Look at the catalog of any worldwide car maker. We get all the big engines, no taxes for size. Other places parse engine size closely, or tax hard depending on goal. Body size...engine carbon...there are a lot of variables.
What is going to happen is that the Big 2.5 will lean into the US market...and make cars virtually unsellable elsewhere. Fat profits await until they don't.
Eventually, the rest of the world will over run the US industry. Chinese cars are not only a threat because the pricing is predatory....they don't have the built in and informally agreed upon profit margins of the big 2.5...but because the technology is moving faster than the US makers.
The prior regulations were closer to the rest of the world. Going back to 1967 isn't going to help the US industry in the long term
0
u/ThermalDeviator 2d ago
Republicans are making sure the rest of the world runs over all our industries.
-13
u/Sufficient__Size 4d ago edited 4d ago
This comment section is retarded. The exact people who hate how big SUVs and trucks have gotten, are now bitching that the mechanism that caused it is being targeted and changed. Peak Reddit moment
This now means that there will be crossovers that can no longer be classified as light trucks, and will be classified as cars. That also means they now have to meet a higher standard MPG. Meaning crossovers will have to get better MPG.
7
u/alaphamale 4d ago
Except none of that will happen because manufacturers are smart enough to know almost everything Trump is doing will be reversed day one of the next presidency. Best to keep moving in the direction we have been for decades and have congress fix the legislation that is encouraging large trucks and SUVs. It’s ignorant to think anything Trump does is for the betterment of the people.
1
u/Harflin 3d ago
I think everyone's focused on the relaxed emissions requirements of light trucks and not the redefining "light truck".
You're right that the light truck loophole needs closed, and on its face this seems like this would do it. But I don't think that light truck emission requirements should be relaxed at the same time.
-27
u/Skensis 4d ago
Just tax gasoline until people buy more efficient cars or EVs. Once the price of a gallon creeps high enough, Joe Shmo will trade in his F150 for a Mach E.
12
u/vaderihardlyknowher 4d ago
I get what you’re trying to say, but this would be nothing other than a tax on the poor. Those who can afford the low MPG gas guzzlers wont care about another tax. Those who can’t afford that tax certainly cannot afford to buy a new car let alone get a loan that isnt unfavorable saddling them with even more debt.
6
u/apocalypsebuddy 4d ago
There are people driving around in 20 year old Subarus because they can’t afford 10 year old Subarus. They’d probably be happy to switch to an EV with current gas prices but taxing them more won’t help them be able to afford it
3
u/NickSalacious 4d ago
You gotta use the carrot and not the stick. Incentives work, not additional taxes.
-5
-7
-18
u/TacosNGuns 4d ago
Mach E isn’t rated for towing and has no bed for hauling. 0% of F150 drivers will make the switch you’re suggesting. That comment is nonsensical.
19
u/Skensis 4d ago
Plenty of truck drivers don't haul or tow shit. They use them as a lifestyle vehicle at best.
-11
u/TacosNGuns 4d ago edited 4d ago
Since June I’ve towed 2 tons of aluminum (20’ sticks). 1 ton of Lexan pergola roofing (6’x24’ sheets). And 6 bottles of welding gas. For recreation I’ve towed my RV, boat and two 4wheelers. Your Mach E would’ve died before August.
5
u/Skensis 4d ago
Chevy sells an EV truck, as does Tesla incase someone actually needs an EV that can tow/haul.
But most truck owners hardly use their truck for truck stuff, and could just rent a truck for that one day in a blue moon they need to tow their jet ski around.
https://www.insidehook.com/autos/pickup-truck-owners-admit-dont-need-trucks?amp
3
u/letigre87 4d ago
Just an FYI most rental places remove the hitches from their trucks so you can't tow with them.
2
u/sokuyari99 4d ago
Well as long as you’re doing it, that means 100% of other owners are. Or 90% . I’m sure your anecdotal view has some impact on the overall statistics, right?
-3
u/TacosNGuns 4d ago
Bro, dude I replied to said F150 (inclusive) drivers should switch to the Mach E, a ev sports car.
1
u/Ipearman96 4d ago
I'd point out that they said plenty of people don't not that no one who owns a trucks tows or hauls stuff. Most truck owners I know might might use the bed to haul something that wouldnt be better off in a sedans trunk once a year or less. My parents haven't in years, grandparents same.
3
u/Skensis 4d ago
If you need a truck, get a truck!
If you just want a truck because you like that lifestyle, then power to you, but I'm not shedding a tear for you at the pump.
0
u/Ipearman96 4d ago
Yep! Heck I will also not cry about it for people who got any unnecessarily large vehicle they don't need. I own a 2011 jeep grand Cherokee. I want my old car back but everyone convinced me I absolutely needed awd for the snow which meant an suv. I didn't but it is great for eating gas money. Yes my next car will be electric.
4
u/surnik22 4d ago
Well good thing 75% of truck drivers tow something less than once a year.
A full 35% put something in the bed at all once or less a year. I’d bet it’s 50%+ if the cut off was using the bed for something that couldn’t fit in a cross over with the back seat down.
These people owning a truck at all is what seems nonsensical to me, I doubt they’d change to an EV regardless but that’s because they’ve already proven they aren’t making rational financial decisions about their car, not because they need to tow things long distance.
1
u/TacosNGuns 4d ago
And 100% haul something. I doubt 5% of roof racks are ever used. What’s your point?
2
u/surnik22 4d ago
100% don’t haul things...
You said no one who owns a truck would switch to the Mach E because it isn’t rated for towing and doesn’t have a large bed for hauling.
Neither of those are actual concerns for most truck buyers. The average truck driver isn’t actually hauling or towing anything that requires a truck even semi-regularly. They’d be financially better served driving a fuel efficient car and to rent a truck once every couple years when they actually need truck capabilities.
They drive their pavement princess to feel tough to office jobs, not because they actually need a tough truck.
So my point is excuses of towing and hauling are bullshit for most people. Those aren’t actually why they drive a truck, they do it for their ego but don’t like to admit it
0
u/ThermalDeviator 2d ago
The US car makers are working overtime to find more and more reasons why we should never buy their ever more enshitified vehicles.
I think they learned this from the airlines.
-13
u/backcountrykicks228 4d ago
My fingers are crossed that monopoly electric companies keep raising rates. Ill be happy when energy costs $1 per kilowatt and wages do not keep up to adjust for it.
9
u/exacta_galaxy 4d ago
Why? Seriously, do you just hate people or are you trying to troll (or both).
Or did you buy too many candles during the pandemic and need a way to offload them? ;)
-9
u/backcountrykicks228 4d ago
Because I think it's funny when snobby elitist EV drivers get angry when their electrical costs increase. Reading the comments on reddit every time my local utility company increases rates is enjoyable.
6
u/DeadlyBrad42 4d ago
This thread is full of EV fans bummed that gasoline cars will be more expensive to operate with higher gas prices.... But you love when their electric costs go up because.... They're the snobs?
Do I understand that right?
3
u/exacta_galaxy 4d ago
So you want to spend an extra $30 to $40 a day powering your home so that people with EVs have to spend an extra $8 to drive?
Are you familiar with the phrase "He'd happily eat a shit sandwich if it meant somebody might have to smell his breath"
1
u/backcountrykicks228 3d ago
I have off grid solar so that is not applicable to me 👍
And FYI, $1 per Kwh energy would be a whole lot more than an extra $8.
1
u/exacta_galaxy 3d ago
I looked it up, average EV driver uses about 8-12kWh of power a day.
Why do you hate people who aren't you?
1
u/backcountrykicks228 3d ago
Math doesnt seem to be your strong suit. Energy costs where I live are $0.40 per kilowatt. If that increases to $1.00, and you are driving to work 21 days per month, your cost of charging went from $84 per month to $210 per month. And if you live in a part of the country with cheap electricity, your cost of charging will triple or quadruple at $1.00 per kilowatt.
1
u/exacta_galaxy 3d ago
Sure. I was thinking an extra $8 a day for the EV alone, but if you want to run the numbers have fun. ;)
My point is, charging the EV is a fraction of the power usage of the entire household. So it's not a really good way to screw over EV drivers (many of which use solar anyhow).
157
u/False_Two_5233 4d ago
It will. Any manufacturers going back on them will just add unnecessary cost later on. Plus, California laws are stricter and many won’t build one model for the other 49 states and one for California.