you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 20 points 2 months ago (43 children)

No more inexpensive cars for the masses. No one is building a sub-compact or a sedan anymore. Now I have 300 "options" I don't even want on a vehicle and no way to get out of paying for them. Driving is becoming more of an upper-class activity nowadays and we all know how size matters to that crowd.

  • source
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [+] -25 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (42 children)

    The EPA did this. It created a whole generation of customers wanting large vehicles because of their dumb emissions standards they wrote. Glad they are gone so we can make small cars again.

    Edit: boy lemmings be lemming.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Being this wrong takes effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (10 children)

    They are wrong but there is a grain of truth to this. NTSA regulations about fuel efficiency and emissions are part of the reason that car manufacturers made vehicles bigger and more expensive. It is significantly harder to meet emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards in the US in a sedan or small compact car and on top of that car manufacturers know that people aren't generally buying compact cars for $80-150K so it's a win win for them. It's greed, and them gaming the system in order to use the fact that larger vehicles aren't beholden to the same emissions standards or fuel efficiency standards. So car companies convinced consumers they don't want small cars, that instead they want SUVs and trucks and perhaps crossovers. And they lobbied to game the system and to continue pocketing money doing it.

    https://www.distilled.earth/p/the-loophole-that-made-cars-in-america

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    The problem are not the emission standards, the problem is that authorities allowed the huge loophole which allowed to ignore them but only if the vehicle is extra large, wasteful and dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I'll do you one better. Our laws about lobbying need a significant overhaul, so that's at least part of the problem. But also it can be more than one thing at a time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    Not gonna argue about the lobbying. That doesn't mean though that emission regulations were bad, not what was required was bad, what was exempted from that regulation was terrible. They allowed loopholes so huge, you could drive the entire car industry through it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    This is just another way of saying the policy lead to bigger vehicles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    No That is like saying that outlawing a cancerous die in fruit juice but not in lemonade lead to unhealthier diet because lemonades were exempted and remained exempted even when it became obvious that there was a huge loophole.

    You say, the problem was that they outlawed that cancerous substance in fruit juice, rather than that the problem was that authorities failed to include lemonades in that ban and insisted on not expanding it either. That is not the same because your position implies one should not ban that cancerous substance because that only pushes lemonade sales.

    The problem is not too much regulation it is deleberitely or by incompetence, too little regulation (vast exemptions)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    No regulation is a problem, and incorrect regulation is also a problem. Both led to terrible outcomes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago*

    That I can agree with. But in this concrete case, the regulation on cars was not what was off, it was the lack of extension of that regulation on oversized personal vehicles, ie private SUVs and pickup trucks. That is a key difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    yeah its all done to avoid the law. more free dumb.

    but since so many of these oversized vehicles are technically 'work trucks'...

    start giving out tickets when they are doing activities unrelated to a form of work (groceries, kids, etc.) or park in residential areas that are not a job site.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It wasn't emission standards it was the way they were enforced that was wrong. Smog filled cities were real things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    It was basing standards on vehicle footprints. Starting in 2012, a Toyota Corolla had less-strict emissions and fuel economy standards than a compact truck, so they stopped making the compact trucks after 2011.

    They brought back the Ranger, but it's larger than some of the older F150s.

    And as standards got tighter, it impacted more an more vehicles. All the compact cargo vans (Transit Connect, ProMaster City, and NV200) were discontinued in 2022 because they no longer meet standards at that size.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    What are you talking about? Why would companies be more fuel efficient if not forced to? That's why the regulations existed in the first place because companies weren't doing the right thing unless forced to by law

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    And the law made the cars bigger

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    The law didn't. Companies circumventing it did. Need more regulation not less

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    The company's didn't circumvent anything, they followed the regulation. The regulation was the problem. Car were getting better emissions and mileage, and emission standards were getting better. The law as written made selling small cars less profitable than selling large ones. So companies naturally went to selling large vehicles.

    More regulation could have helped in this situation sure, but they didn't do that. In the end they caused a generational problem instead of admitting they were wrong and changing the rules

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (8 children)

    People who work in environmental compliance. I worked for carb for 10 yrs

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Just goes to show you can do something without learning.

    “Mackerel are fish and thus all fish are mackerel.” -krisevol probably

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    No, that's a logical fallacy, and you are using another one called a strawman. It's common knowledge in the industry the epa created large vehicles. It's not even disputed except here on lemmy for some reason

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    I’m sorry I wasn’t even aware that the EPA made vehicles. That’s disappointing to hear that they were single-handedly responsible for making all these large fuel inefficient vehicles.

    Or maybe…. There was a rule made to prevent a problem that the infallible Free Market couldn’t solve. Then the mfgs found a loophole to exploit.

    Nah, it’s probably the first one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Your are the only one that thinks the epa didn't cause large vehicles. Just Google "suv loophole" and get some free knowledge.

    The policy had good intentions, but failed miserably. But keep defending a policy even the policy makers admit was a mistake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    car companies advertising like 3-4 decades to the masses about the big and powerful trucks and SUVs is what caused these customers to want large vehicles not some fucking government agency

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    That's not what the CEO of gm and ford said when the epa started these rules

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    I'm not sure why ur getting downvoted, I think most lemmings must be very uneducated on the auto industry. There are regulations that define fuel economy required for wheel base x track width. Basically, the smaller the footprint of the car the larger the mpg target so manufacturers skirt around that by making the vehicles larger. The regulations literally encourage vehicles to be larger, because adding wheel base is cheaper and easier than improving the economy of the existing engine their using in 12 other model cars. If ur interested in this sort of weird regulation stuff check out how the pt cruiser qualifies as a TRUCK. There is a reason new 3 series are bigger than old, and why shit like the smart car isn't sold in the US anymore, given it's wheelbase it cannot get good enough economy to meet our regulations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    It's largely the being glad the epa is gone and using ai as a source

    Cafe standards created a perverse incentive, that's not disputable by reasonable people. What is disputable is the EPA's involvement in this specific act of congress that was administered by the NHTSA.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Thanks. This is exactly what happened. And when vehicles started becoming larger, consumers wanted to feel safe so it become an arms race of size. Now we have a whole generation of drivers that demand large vehicles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Yea the down vote bombing with no counter points is pretty telling. The regulations are what they are, and since nobody here has a logical counterpoint they all resort to downvotes or a strawman. It is what it is, I have found the average Lemmy user may be technologically inclined but certainly not mechanically. I've been in the auto industry for over a decade and will get downvoted or told I'm wrong by people that don't know what end of the screw driver to hold 😂 keep sharing knowledge despite the echo chsmber down votes its in everybodies best interest!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment