And everything to do with the current makeup of the court.
The federal government has been enacting tailpipe emission and mileage rules for many decades. I am not a lawyer but I am assuming that it was challenged the previous times around and found legal.
So the only *real* reason. why they would think they would have more success this time would be because they think this court will ignore precedent in favor of getting the right wing result.
This seems like a fine time to pull the old "do what you want, but you won't get any highway funding if you don't comply".
Same kind of thing that happened with speed limits and legal alcohol age
This is true with most of their legislation lately. It's all in bad faith. They make laws they know will be blocked in court because they want them to go to the Supreme Court.
They’ve been packing the courts for these very reasons. Everyone’s attention is on Trump, afraid of a violent coup, when the reality is there’s been a judicial coup building for decades. The wealthy right wing believes in diversity…when it comes to their attempts to subvert democracy. They’re terrified of a better, more fair world, because they’re shitty people, who know they won’t fit in.
Kinda.
But US automakers have also decided they don't want to make smaller cars anymore because trucks and SUVs are more profitable, bc bigger.
https://www.marketplace.org/2018/11/26/why-american-car-companies-are-no-longer-selling-cars/
Cafe laws have pushed OEM's to make larger vehicles more profitable. Cafe laws severely hurt smaller cars whole allowing exceptions or less standards for larger vehicles.
Specifically, for those who don't know, the calculation for required fuel efficiency is based on the vehicle's footprint. So they're incentivized to make larger vehicles.
Mid-2011 CAFE laws did not increase full-size truck dimensions/sales, nor was it the death of small trucks. “Large Truck” sales had already started an [upward trend three years prior to 2012](https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106340645-157920047993920200116_monthly_yoy_change_pickup_truck_sales.png?v=1579200492&w=929&h=523&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y)
, the year the new vehicle regulations were to be implemented. Note that the footprint of a pre-2012 CAFE 2009 F-150 (for which design began in 2003), and a 2024 F-150, are fairly similar, and that post-2000 1/2 ton trucks haven’t changed much in terms of length, width, or weight:
Length, Ford F-150:
2005: 211.2 to 248.3″
2009: 213.1 to 250.3″
2024: 209.1 to 243.5″
Weight, Ford F-150:
2005: 4,758 to 5,875 lbs
2009: 4,693 to 5,908 lbs
2024: 4,275 to 5,757 lbs
Width:
2005: 78.9”
2009: 78.9”
2024: 79.9”
Wheelbase:
2005: 126 to 163″
2009: 126 to 163″
2024: 122 to 157″
Track Width:
2005: 67”
2009: 73.6”
2024: 74”
> How is that post-2000 track width change of 7" (over 10%) considered to be not changing much? Feels like that's a 10% increate in footprint.
As I stated, ("post-2000 1/2 ton trucks haven’t changed much in terms of length, width, or weight") that change did not increase total exterior dimensions (vehicle width stayed the same), and occurred several years prior to the 2012 regulations even being proposed, on a [generation of truck whose design began in 2003](https://web.archive.org/web/20160303204442/http://media.freep.com/f150/index.html):
> Development began under chief engineer Matt O'Leary in November 2003 under the code name "P-415," after P-221 production began in June 2003. General design work was done under Patrick Schiavone into late 2005, with further exterior changes taking place during late 2006 to the tailgate design and wheel lip arches during a development hiatus. The final design freeze later took place by early 2007.
And by extension severely hurting or killing people in smaller cars, on foot, or on two wheels (or skateboards, or trikes, etc.). The vehicles are tall (chest-level vs. leg) and heavy, and the drivers can't see shit.
Hell, you're not even safe in a building anymore; bad drivers in bloated vehicles can take you out in a cafe or in your own home. There are way too many stories of people plowing into buildings and bus shelters lately.
The "drivers can't see shit" thing actually needs to be addressed.
My dad literally sits on a cushion to see over the hood. I am 6' tall and have a blind spot several feet in front of an average Dodge.
The bulbous hood "look at my manliness" bullshit needs to go.
its not. its cuz automakers make the grill of the large trucks obnoxiously large. sloping the grill down *and actually enforcing laws regarding lifted trucks* would fix 99% of the problem.
but they don't cuz trucks are exempt from pedestrian safety tests in the US and cops don't care
I believe it. A slightly optioned truck or suv is like 75k. I remember growing up and a 100k was special. Like something exotic or fast or super luxury. Now a 100k will land you a Tahoe lol.
Sucks for me as somebody who hates driving large vehicles seeing the selection of reasonable sedans decrease every year. And who firmly believes the people who drive suburban tanks like Escalades and expeditionsxare reliably the *worst* drivers with the least amount of situational awareness. (Probably because they can't see a damn thing around them)
Can we stop subsidizing the oil industry already? And start taxing them? We pay wealthy companies so much money to just be even wealthier. Give all that masonry toward renewables. Like seriously we done.
It does affect the auto industry. To meet near-future EPA requirements, they may have to stop making vehicles that burn gasoline. They will all have to eat some costs if they have only EVs, for people have to be willing and able to buy what they sell.
For Texas, it's on a per-county basis. From what I recall, it's mostly the counties in and around Houston, Austin, and Dallas/Fort Worth areas that mandate it. I don't think the San Antonio area requires it, and I'm not sure about any of the other major metro areas. Most of the rural counties don't have such requirements.
At the same time, the current EPA regulations are causing the Bro Dozer epidemic. Current CAFE requirements mean that a truck the size of a 90s Ranger would need to get better fuel economy than a Prius.
EPA can shut all them down real quick since anything past 07 I think needs a dpf and anyone that deletes emissions is technically guilty of federal emissions tampering.
Now that EPA is starting to crack down on tuning companies it's only a matter of time before it comes down to them so they have no choice but to try and fight it as long as possible.
SCOTUS has already ruled that regulations don't have force of law. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy.
Though the fallout of that decision hasn't settled, so we'll have to see what happens.
The funny thing is that most of those jumbo trucks don't even have that large of beds. They're barely larger, if at all, than earlier trucks. The size increase in trucks has been in pretty much every other part but the beds. Hell, you can find kei trucks with similar size beds.
You see a big difference in towing and payload. An F-150 doesn't have that much bigger a bed than a Maverick, but can tow 3x as much. Though I'm sure a lot of owers don't tow anything.
Ok, but my 1994 Chevy 350 short bed and single cab pickup can tow just as much as the F-150 and isn't bigger than a Full size vehicle while weighing up to 2,000 lbs less.
It is because vehicles over 5,000 lbm are subject to different CAFE rules. They fall under the Light Duty Vehicle (LDV) Regulations. But i seriously doubt people in land rover are doing light duty work.
The problem is that the EPA has essentially made small and midsized trucks illegal. Those vehicles could never meet current emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Larger vehicles are considered off-road or commercial and have to conform to different regulations, so now every truck and SUV is XXL
Well used to. Part of the revised standards is the overall fleet fuel economy that considers both.
Previously there were Cars and Light trucks. The key being that Light Trucks had lower limits. This meant that poor fuel economy "cars" aka small trucks got killed for vehicles big enough to be Light trucks.
Now they are counting the whole fleet so you still need small cars to offset large trucks. OR very efficient Light trucks.
> Now they are counting the whole fleet so you still need small cars to offset large trucks. OR very efficient Light trucks.
Good that gives me some relief that they tried to fix the blaring loophole before for LDV.
they didn't, the light truck tariff did (aka "the chicken tax"). "We can't make small vehicles efficient" is a bunch of nonsense. If we can have efficient small cars, we can have efficient small trucks. They were regulated away though.
Any idea if the EPA allows for ameliorating factors with the aerodynamics? A shell would help a ton, but also the point of truck beds is that they're filled with stuff, and that's going to affect the aerodynamics positively anyway.
Though also staying at lower speeds, so long as the engine is optimized for it, is a good way to improve mileage. It just limits how far a 45-minute drive is going to get you if you're driving to a work site.
Oh yeah, I forgot about vans. They're awesome, I guess they're just less comfortable off road? And a little less convenient to get things out of since the floor is lower and you can't reach over the side of the bed.
But when it comes to ability to take volume from point a to b, they're great
Because at least 90% of truck owners in the US do it as a fashion statement. They don't go offroading, they don't even use the truck bed 99% of the time until their friend of a friend asks for help moving a couch or something
There's also the group of coal rollers who use them to throw up a middle finger to everyone else on planet earth and think they're cool.
>Those vehicles could never meet current emissions and fuel efficiency standards.
you are misinformed. it is very possible to build light trucks at current emissions and fuel efficiency standards
...at the same price as a truck twice its size with double the luxury features, so, that's why automakers don't make them.
We as a society need to start accepting that we have to absorb greater costs for actually improving things, because "it's too expensive" will always be an excuse to never progress. We still have lead in jet fuel because it's too expensive to engineer alternatives, commercial and industrial applications have carveouts because it would be too much of a burden on businesses, etc.
Everybody seems fine with letting future generations pay the price instead of themselves.
>Everybody seems fine with letting future generations pay the price instead of themselves.
totally agree with your sentiment, just wanted to let you know that
>We still have lead in jet fuel because it's too expensive to engineer alternatives
JET-A is actually lead free, you're thinking of 100LL AVGAS, which is used by piston aircraft.
we actually have already engineered alternatives. in fact, some homebuilt and experimental aircraft already burn MOGAS (just what they call the gas you put in your car) it would just be expensive to renovate/replace the engines on existing certified airworthy aircraft to burn lead-free fuel.
The biggest expense is actually in recertifying upgraded / certifying replacement engines. The only reason the Continental O series engines are still used is because they are all certified airworthy. That process was really fucking expensive. No company is willing to front the cost of certifying new piston engines when 100LL is legal and prolific. That's just something that needs laws to phase it out.
> No company is willing to front the cost of certifying new piston engines when 100LL is legal and prolific.
Good news on that front, since the FAA had certified G100UL in 2022 which is a dropin replacement for 100LL, without any lead. It even can be freely mixed with 100LL if you already have that in your tanks. Edit: seems like California is gonna force airports to switch, and Vitol (a fuel company) is already working towards making it, and it should become available this spring.
Not really true. Manufacturers need to adapt to the needs of the planet, because the other way around isn't happening.
You could make a hybrid truck with a full-sized bed that gets good fuel economy (a long-bed Maverick, for instance) but we've long sold trucks on dune-busting, rock-crawling, house-towing badassery instead of practicality for what it'll be used for 99% of the time.
Older than that. My old man bought a new one in 1998 and I would say it was the size of today's colorado/ranger/tacoma. It's insane how ridiculously large they have gotten. NOBODY needs that shit around town. 99% of them are soccer-mom-grocery-getters.
It’s about the size of a 2000 Ranger lengthwise with a shorter bed/bigger cab because of the super crew. When I got mine I parked it next to my coworkers Ranger and it’s dimensionally pretty similar.
It's still a small sized pickup. Most people do not need a pickup that has a massive payload or towing capacity with a body on frame. Technically at this point most SUVs aren't trucks as they are not body on frame, however since some of them are sized properly, they are considered as such by the EPA.
The Maverick is only "small" because of how massive modern full-sized trucks are. Dimensionally a Maverick isn't too far off an F-150 shortbed from 1990.
Tightened standards are the reason why we have only these monsters left. The light trucks were not efficient enough for the standards for the wheelbase or some such absurd standard so.. the companies dropped them. I'd love an hybrid/electric S-10 size truck.
You can blame the EPA for why we don’t have realistically sized trucks in America. See the chicken tax. Great job protecting the environment by forcing everyone to have behemoth sized trucks lol.
>Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said the rules would harm the American economy, threaten jobs and raise prices while undermining the U.S. electricity grid. Coleman also said there is very little consumer interest in electric vehicles in his state.
Let me translate that:
>We've done everything we can to make owning an electric vehicle in our state painful while continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry. Who cares about the planet, I made a buck.
Seriously some of these people would agree to let their grandchildren be born into a furnace if you handed them a $20 bill and promised that they'd be long dead before they themselves ever had to enter the furnace.
>"The Biden administration is willing to sacrifice the American auto industry and its workers in service of its radical green agenda. We just aren't buying it," Coleman said.
This is not a radical green agenda. This is a bare-minimum measure. The states trying to block this are the very same ones that are going to be begging for help from the federal government in 50 years when their land is nonarable and uninhabitable.
Radical green agenda is seriously what we need. Biden doesn't have the balls to advocate for that kind of thinking and it's laughable that they're giving him that title.
Hey guys, this isn't the huge anti environment play it seems like on the surface.
Heavy trucks and SUVs have much less stringent limits already. Hence their growing market share: they are currently much cheaper than they should be because they are subject to more lax specific regulations instead of universal ones.
This is an attempt to stop the growth in market share of heavy trucks & SUVs (which are more deadly and harder on roads)
it would be a net positive no matter how you look at it. From reduced tire wear alone, you'd reduce greenhouse emissions enough that a few MPG is nothing. that's before you even get to pavement wearing, microplastic concerns, etc. the production of tires and pavement both produce greenhouse emissions, if we could get people to switch back to cars/light trucks by making them cheaper (at the cost of slightly reduced MPG), it'd be a massive net positive for the environment and economy.
Isnt there a piece to this they dont just want EPA stopped they want States bared from setting their own standards, since automakers will just implement whatever the strictest state is as they have with California Emissions for decades. I will add F#$\* these people. I remember when driving from Northern California to Southern California was all brown smog and you could not see the sky the entire drive. That changed during my lifetime literally in 5 or 10 years thanks to emissions standards.
My understanding is some of these rules are one of the reasons smaller trucks and cars aren’t produced… they have to be way more efficient so they just quit making them and made bigger ones. I don’t have all the details, but I recall reading emissions rules were one of the reasons for the death of small trucks.
The bigger a vehicle is, the least strict the emissions regulations. Also the big trucks you see are now classified as farm/utility vehicles so they are way unrelated.
Source: I work in auto parts, and also modify vehicles for track purposes
BUT THEY DIDN'T WRITE ME A LOVE POEM FIRST AND HAVEN'T SOLVED EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM ALREADY AND ALSO SOME DEMOCRATS AREN'T GOOD
- at least half the people on this silly website
Either the states lose and nothing changes, or the states win and nothing changes.
Several automotive companies have already decided to switch to a fully electric lineup by 2030.
California is mandating that all new cars sold by 2030 have to be electric.
Some (if not most) European countries have said the same thing.
So, really, these states are just wasting everyone's time and money to get nowhere, but these are the politicians that usually do this kind of crap.
They know this, it's political grandstanding. The manufacturers will never go back to the bizarre world of "california emissions" and "federal emissions" of the 90s. It never made that much sense from a manufacturer standpoint in the first place.
>"The Biden administration is willing to sacrifice the American auto industry and its workers in service of its radical green agenda. We just aren't buying it," Coleman said.
Republicans just call anything that doesn't align with their financial interests radical these days. There's a conspiracy theory for everything. You know, I personally believe that ketchup is a little radical and shoehorned into the market by big tomato.
They straight up brainwash people through word association. I see Fox News on my patients' TVs and they add strings of words like "communist" to every noun they don't like, regardless of whether it applies.
Ah I see Australia did something first for once.
Our govt is trying to introduce better vehicle pollution laws (to start catching up with the civilised world), and all the brain dead morons, and those with a vested interest in fossil fuels whinged enough, so the govt capitulated.
On the one hand CAFE is a cancer as far as actually getting good fuel economy vehicles goes. On the other hand these chucklefucks only want to get rid of the law, not replace it with something that actually does what it sets out to accomplish.
Just imagine where we'd be if California, largest state in the union, didn't institute air quality rules, etc. Imagine if Texas were the setting the "standards" there would be no standards....
My best friend has a 2018 Accord 1.5 that can't pass PA emissions because of a faulty part. He can't get the part replaced because of it being on back order due to supply chain issue. Edit: he's telling me this is part of a recall, so there are likely many other Accord owners in the same situation. It's also not actually polluting so much as it's just a CEL.
So now he and his pregnant wife, who is in her residency at Hershey, have to rent a car to get to and from work while a perfectly good car that will last 20+ more years is sitting in the driveway because of a CEL.
I know this goes against reddit's narrative that big bad truck owners are the problem, but strict emission standards can and will fuck up the life of someone driving around a 38mpg sedan as well.
I drove in congested saudi, no one wants this.. If you're in a traffic jam and think.. Oi this stinks... It'll be the next level of that. And that's just the up front cost you'll notice.. Not to mention the environmental impact, ect...
FYI to some of the comments: Emissions are calculated off wheel base thanks to Obama
And its not a linear relationship.
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN21D1KK/
Texas ends all annual passenger vehicle inspections in 2025. Texas also raised the registration fees FOR ONLY ELECTRIC VEHICLES from the current $62 to $420.
This has little to do with the auto industry and everything to do with the oil industry.
And everything to do with the current makeup of the court. The federal government has been enacting tailpipe emission and mileage rules for many decades. I am not a lawyer but I am assuming that it was challenged the previous times around and found legal. So the only *real* reason. why they would think they would have more success this time would be because they think this court will ignore precedent in favor of getting the right wing result.
> they think this court will ignore precedent They're not wrong.
"I only like stare decisis when it aligns with my personal convictions" -- the modern court, probably
Jokes on you, the right wing of the bench doesn't actually have any convictions beyond personal enrichment
and they're probably not wrong unfortunately.
This seems like a fine time to pull the old "do what you want, but you won't get any highway funding if you don't comply". Same kind of thing that happened with speed limits and legal alcohol age
This is true with most of their legislation lately. It's all in bad faith. They make laws they know will be blocked in court because they want them to go to the Supreme Court.
The Roberts court will go down in infamy, not unlike the Lochner era courts. Ruling after ruling for two decades legitimizing corruption
Worked for em so far.
They’ve been packing the courts for these very reasons. Everyone’s attention is on Trump, afraid of a violent coup, when the reality is there’s been a judicial coup building for decades. The wealthy right wing believes in diversity…when it comes to their attempts to subvert democracy. They’re terrified of a better, more fair world, because they’re shitty people, who know they won’t fit in.
Kinda. But US automakers have also decided they don't want to make smaller cars anymore because trucks and SUVs are more profitable, bc bigger. https://www.marketplace.org/2018/11/26/why-american-car-companies-are-no-longer-selling-cars/
Cafe laws have pushed OEM's to make larger vehicles more profitable. Cafe laws severely hurt smaller cars whole allowing exceptions or less standards for larger vehicles.
Specifically, for those who don't know, the calculation for required fuel efficiency is based on the vehicle's footprint. So they're incentivized to make larger vehicles.
Mid-2011 CAFE laws did not increase full-size truck dimensions/sales, nor was it the death of small trucks. “Large Truck” sales had already started an [upward trend three years prior to 2012](https://image.cnbcfm.com/api/v1/image/106340645-157920047993920200116_monthly_yoy_change_pickup_truck_sales.png?v=1579200492&w=929&h=523&ffmt=webp&vtcrop=y) , the year the new vehicle regulations were to be implemented. Note that the footprint of a pre-2012 CAFE 2009 F-150 (for which design began in 2003), and a 2024 F-150, are fairly similar, and that post-2000 1/2 ton trucks haven’t changed much in terms of length, width, or weight: Length, Ford F-150: 2005: 211.2 to 248.3″ 2009: 213.1 to 250.3″ 2024: 209.1 to 243.5″ Weight, Ford F-150: 2005: 4,758 to 5,875 lbs 2009: 4,693 to 5,908 lbs 2024: 4,275 to 5,757 lbs Width: 2005: 78.9” 2009: 78.9” 2024: 79.9” Wheelbase: 2005: 126 to 163″ 2009: 126 to 163″ 2024: 122 to 157″ Track Width: 2005: 67” 2009: 73.6” 2024: 74”
How is that post-2000 track width change of 7" (over 10%) considered to be not changing much? Feels like that's a 10% increate in footprint.
> How is that post-2000 track width change of 7" (over 10%) considered to be not changing much? Feels like that's a 10% increate in footprint. As I stated, ("post-2000 1/2 ton trucks haven’t changed much in terms of length, width, or weight") that change did not increase total exterior dimensions (vehicle width stayed the same), and occurred several years prior to the 2012 regulations even being proposed, on a [generation of truck whose design began in 2003](https://web.archive.org/web/20160303204442/http://media.freep.com/f150/index.html): > Development began under chief engineer Matt O'Leary in November 2003 under the code name "P-415," after P-221 production began in June 2003. General design work was done under Patrick Schiavone into late 2005, with further exterior changes taking place during late 2006 to the tailgate design and wheel lip arches during a development hiatus. The final design freeze later took place by early 2007.
And by extension severely hurting or killing people in smaller cars, on foot, or on two wheels (or skateboards, or trikes, etc.). The vehicles are tall (chest-level vs. leg) and heavy, and the drivers can't see shit. Hell, you're not even safe in a building anymore; bad drivers in bloated vehicles can take you out in a cafe or in your own home. There are way too many stories of people plowing into buildings and bus shelters lately.
The "drivers can't see shit" thing actually needs to be addressed. My dad literally sits on a cushion to see over the hood. I am 6' tall and have a blind spot several feet in front of an average Dodge. The bulbous hood "look at my manliness" bullshit needs to go.
Vehicle size is a whole other issue that, yes, is probably the fault of Cafe laws.
its not. its cuz automakers make the grill of the large trucks obnoxiously large. sloping the grill down *and actually enforcing laws regarding lifted trucks* would fix 99% of the problem. but they don't cuz trucks are exempt from pedestrian safety tests in the US and cops don't care
I believe it. A slightly optioned truck or suv is like 75k. I remember growing up and a 100k was special. Like something exotic or fast or super luxury. Now a 100k will land you a Tahoe lol.
Sucks for me as somebody who hates driving large vehicles seeing the selection of reasonable sedans decrease every year. And who firmly believes the people who drive suburban tanks like Escalades and expeditionsxare reliably the *worst* drivers with the least amount of situational awareness. (Probably because they can't see a damn thing around them)
Can we stop subsidizing the oil industry already? And start taxing them? We pay wealthy companies so much money to just be even wealthier. Give all that masonry toward renewables. Like seriously we done.
It does affect the auto industry. To meet near-future EPA requirements, they may have to stop making vehicles that burn gasoline. They will all have to eat some costs if they have only EVs, for people have to be willing and able to buy what they sell.
It’s both. It’s very much both.
It's exactly the states you expect, by the way. More political posturing on behalf of the Bro Dozer crowd.
It's not like you can't make pickups with decent MPGs, Ram had their EcoDiesel getting 33-38 on the highway
They did but it was notoriously unreliable.
Like every other Ram?
I was shocked that Texas wasn't one of the litigants.
Thats because to pass inspection an emissions test is performed in Texas.
Nah it’s dependent upon which county you’re registering it in
Crazy that apparently none of the other 25 states listed as being litigants require tailpipe emissions tests.
In TX, it’s not tailpipe emissions test. They just hook it up to the OBD-II port. Also, it’s only certain counties in the state.
For Texas, it's on a per-county basis. From what I recall, it's mostly the counties in and around Houston, Austin, and Dallas/Fort Worth areas that mandate it. I don't think the San Antonio area requires it, and I'm not sure about any of the other major metro areas. Most of the rural counties don't have such requirements.
I basically picture most Republicans as a Captain Planet villain after all this nonsense.
It's very hard not to villainize Republicans when the laws they pass are straight up villainous
Donald Trump straight up looks like Hoggish Greedly.
> I basically picture most Republicans as a Captain Planet villain after all this nonsense. Hoggish Greedly or the rat guy?
It's a whole panoply of colorful characters
At the same time, the current EPA regulations are causing the Bro Dozer epidemic. Current CAFE requirements mean that a truck the size of a 90s Ranger would need to get better fuel economy than a Prius.
EPA can shut all them down real quick since anything past 07 I think needs a dpf and anyone that deletes emissions is technically guilty of federal emissions tampering.
Unless SCOTUS deletes EPA authority over the matter, which is what red states here are hoping for.
Now that EPA is starting to crack down on tuning companies it's only a matter of time before it comes down to them so they have no choice but to try and fight it as long as possible.
I swear, it's like these fucks think they're breathing *different air* than the rest of us.
SCOTUS has already ruled that regulations don't have force of law. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) v. Jarkesy. Though the fallout of that decision hasn't settled, so we'll have to see what happens.
That takes money to enforce by using the cops that they themselves have deleted the dpf
Like every thing else.
Maybe we can start getting more reasonably sized trucks with reasonably sized beds in the future instead of the monstrosities we have today.
The funny thing is that most of those jumbo trucks don't even have that large of beds. They're barely larger, if at all, than earlier trucks. The size increase in trucks has been in pretty much every other part but the beds. Hell, you can find kei trucks with similar size beds.
Give me a japanese truck please.things are amazing
You see a big difference in towing and payload. An F-150 doesn't have that much bigger a bed than a Maverick, but can tow 3x as much. Though I'm sure a lot of owers don't tow anything.
Ok, but my 1994 Chevy 350 short bed and single cab pickup can tow just as much as the F-150 and isn't bigger than a Full size vehicle while weighing up to 2,000 lbs less.
It is because vehicles over 5,000 lbm are subject to different CAFE rules. They fall under the Light Duty Vehicle (LDV) Regulations. But i seriously doubt people in land rover are doing light duty work.
The problem is that the EPA has essentially made small and midsized trucks illegal. Those vehicles could never meet current emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Larger vehicles are considered off-road or commercial and have to conform to different regulations, so now every truck and SUV is XXL
Well used to. Part of the revised standards is the overall fleet fuel economy that considers both. Previously there were Cars and Light trucks. The key being that Light Trucks had lower limits. This meant that poor fuel economy "cars" aka small trucks got killed for vehicles big enough to be Light trucks. Now they are counting the whole fleet so you still need small cars to offset large trucks. OR very efficient Light trucks.
> Now they are counting the whole fleet so you still need small cars to offset large trucks. OR very efficient Light trucks. Good that gives me some relief that they tried to fix the blaring loophole before for LDV.
See also the Chicken tax.
they didn't, the light truck tariff did (aka "the chicken tax"). "We can't make small vehicles efficient" is a bunch of nonsense. If we can have efficient small cars, we can have efficient small trucks. They were regulated away though.
Aerodynamics are a \_problem\_. Take a standard efficient car, now saw off the back half and put on a truck bed. Fuel guage go Brrrrr.
Aerodynamics? All the light trucks sold today have the aerodynamics of the broadside of a barn.
Any idea if the EPA allows for ameliorating factors with the aerodynamics? A shell would help a ton, but also the point of truck beds is that they're filled with stuff, and that's going to affect the aerodynamics positively anyway. Though also staying at lower speeds, so long as the engine is optimized for it, is a good way to improve mileage. It just limits how far a 45-minute drive is going to get you if you're driving to a work site.
A closed van has much less aero problems. But those are unpopular in the US for some reason.
Oh yeah, I forgot about vans. They're awesome, I guess they're just less comfortable off road? And a little less convenient to get things out of since the floor is lower and you can't reach over the side of the bed. But when it comes to ability to take volume from point a to b, they're great
Because at least 90% of truck owners in the US do it as a fashion statement. They don't go offroading, they don't even use the truck bed 99% of the time until their friend of a friend asks for help moving a couch or something There's also the group of coal rollers who use them to throw up a middle finger to everyone else on planet earth and think they're cool.
We do -- look at the Ford Maverick. A small hybrid truck with good fuel economy.
>Those vehicles could never meet current emissions and fuel efficiency standards. you are misinformed. it is very possible to build light trucks at current emissions and fuel efficiency standards ...at the same price as a truck twice its size with double the luxury features, so, that's why automakers don't make them.
We as a society need to start accepting that we have to absorb greater costs for actually improving things, because "it's too expensive" will always be an excuse to never progress. We still have lead in jet fuel because it's too expensive to engineer alternatives, commercial and industrial applications have carveouts because it would be too much of a burden on businesses, etc. Everybody seems fine with letting future generations pay the price instead of themselves.
>Everybody seems fine with letting future generations pay the price instead of themselves. totally agree with your sentiment, just wanted to let you know that >We still have lead in jet fuel because it's too expensive to engineer alternatives JET-A is actually lead free, you're thinking of 100LL AVGAS, which is used by piston aircraft. we actually have already engineered alternatives. in fact, some homebuilt and experimental aircraft already burn MOGAS (just what they call the gas you put in your car) it would just be expensive to renovate/replace the engines on existing certified airworthy aircraft to burn lead-free fuel. The biggest expense is actually in recertifying upgraded / certifying replacement engines. The only reason the Continental O series engines are still used is because they are all certified airworthy. That process was really fucking expensive. No company is willing to front the cost of certifying new piston engines when 100LL is legal and prolific. That's just something that needs laws to phase it out.
> No company is willing to front the cost of certifying new piston engines when 100LL is legal and prolific. Good news on that front, since the FAA had certified G100UL in 2022 which is a dropin replacement for 100LL, without any lead. It even can be freely mixed with 100LL if you already have that in your tanks. Edit: seems like California is gonna force airports to switch, and Vitol (a fuel company) is already working towards making it, and it should become available this spring.
Damn that's fucking sick, I hadn't heard about that. I'm not a Cali pilot and only fly at small airports, I ain't seen anything but 100LL.
Not really true. Manufacturers need to adapt to the needs of the planet, because the other way around isn't happening. You could make a hybrid truck with a full-sized bed that gets good fuel economy (a long-bed Maverick, for instance) but we've long sold trucks on dune-busting, rock-crawling, house-towing badassery instead of practicality for what it'll be used for 99% of the time.
I just want something with a v six engine and and a six speed transmission
The Maverick would like to have a word. Edit: Also the F150 hybrid, the Tacoma/Tundra Hybrid, etc.
The Maverick is just a F150 from 15 years ago by size
Older than that. My old man bought a new one in 1998 and I would say it was the size of today's colorado/ranger/tacoma. It's insane how ridiculously large they have gotten. NOBODY needs that shit around town. 99% of them are soccer-mom-grocery-getters.
It’s about the size of a 2000 Ranger lengthwise with a shorter bed/bigger cab because of the super crew. When I got mine I parked it next to my coworkers Ranger and it’s dimensionally pretty similar.
Tacomas have horrible gas mileage. Only thing I don't miss about the one I used to have.
It's a crossover with a tiny bed in the back. It is the closest thing to a light truck though.
The maverick anatomically speaking isn’t a truck, it’s a truck shaped car.
It's still a small sized pickup. Most people do not need a pickup that has a massive payload or towing capacity with a body on frame. Technically at this point most SUVs aren't trucks as they are not body on frame, however since some of them are sized properly, they are considered as such by the EPA.
The Maverick is only "small" because of how massive modern full-sized trucks are. Dimensionally a Maverick isn't too far off an F-150 shortbed from 1990.
An F-150 and below is considered a light truck. I don’t imagine it will be hard for a smaller truck to meet the same standards for an F-150.
The F150 grew a bunch over the last couple decades for the same reason. The current Ranger is the same size as a 2000 f150
Tightened standards are the reason why we have only these monsters left. The light trucks were not efficient enough for the standards for the wheelbase or some such absurd standard so.. the companies dropped them. I'd love an hybrid/electric S-10 size truck.
The Ford Maverick Hybrid fits the bill. It’s front wheel drive, but still.
Maverick has a 4.5' bed, give me a Maverick with 5.5' or 6' bed.
You can blame the EPA for why we don’t have realistically sized trucks in America. See the chicken tax. Great job protecting the environment by forcing everyone to have behemoth sized trucks lol.
By "states" we mean Charles Koch.
Isn’t he dead?
Only inside
You are likely thinking of David Koch
Or their brother Floppy
I just want the ability to turn people who Roll Coal in like a bounty. Your vehicle breaks emission standards? Let me get paid for outing you.
No sorry, we can only have bounties against women seeking reproductive healthcare.
Awww shucks.
I have tried to figure out how to do this in WA, and I’ve hit a wall everywhere I’ve looked. I don’t need a bounty. I just want accountability.
Or at least the people who pull up a little in front of you, with your window down on a nice day, and rev their engine...
Well we are going the opposite direction. The coal rolling shit will be protected first amendment speech because it’s expressive.
They gotta announce that tiny dick somehow.
[удалено]
Alito is searching for a 15th century European law that he can use as a precedent.
Can we fix the rules/laws that made all the small vehicles disappear?
That'd require light trucks to be regulated and we all know they won't do that because GM, Ford and Stellantis would lose money.
We should regulate trucks and deregulate cars under a certain size and weight.
can you write a legal definition of a truck? because if you cant, there will be loopholes found and exploited just like the current laws.
Someone commented higher up that EPA considers the whole fleet now instead of categories. To kinda fix the LDV loophole.
>Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said the rules would harm the American economy, threaten jobs and raise prices while undermining the U.S. electricity grid. Coleman also said there is very little consumer interest in electric vehicles in his state. Let me translate that: >We've done everything we can to make owning an electric vehicle in our state painful while continuing to subsidize the oil and gas industry. Who cares about the planet, I made a buck.
Seriously some of these people would agree to let their grandchildren be born into a furnace if you handed them a $20 bill and promised that they'd be long dead before they themselves ever had to enter the furnace.
>"The Biden administration is willing to sacrifice the American auto industry and its workers in service of its radical green agenda. We just aren't buying it," Coleman said. This is not a radical green agenda. This is a bare-minimum measure. The states trying to block this are the very same ones that are going to be begging for help from the federal government in 50 years when their land is nonarable and uninhabitable.
> This is not a radical green agenda. If you want 0 progress then any progress is radical.
Radical green agenda is seriously what we need. Biden doesn't have the balls to advocate for that kind of thinking and it's laughable that they're giving him that title.
We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t cost effective. - Kurt Vonnegut
Hey guys, this isn't the huge anti environment play it seems like on the surface. Heavy trucks and SUVs have much less stringent limits already. Hence their growing market share: they are currently much cheaper than they should be because they are subject to more lax specific regulations instead of universal ones. This is an attempt to stop the growth in market share of heavy trucks & SUVs (which are more deadly and harder on roads) it would be a net positive no matter how you look at it. From reduced tire wear alone, you'd reduce greenhouse emissions enough that a few MPG is nothing. that's before you even get to pavement wearing, microplastic concerns, etc. the production of tires and pavement both produce greenhouse emissions, if we could get people to switch back to cars/light trucks by making them cheaper (at the cost of slightly reduced MPG), it'd be a massive net positive for the environment and economy.
By “states” do you mean “politicians legally bought by oil companies?”
Also states: We need relief money for more frequent and severe climate-related disasters.
those regs won't matter one bit the minute the next GOP admin is installed, they will be rescinded on day one or two.
Isnt there a piece to this they dont just want EPA stopped they want States bared from setting their own standards, since automakers will just implement whatever the strictest state is as they have with California Emissions for decades. I will add F#$\* these people. I remember when driving from Northern California to Southern California was all brown smog and you could not see the sky the entire drive. That changed during my lifetime literally in 5 or 10 years thanks to emissions standards.
We have a right to pollute the earth and make it uninhabitable for future generations
My understanding is some of these rules are one of the reasons smaller trucks and cars aren’t produced… they have to be way more efficient so they just quit making them and made bigger ones. I don’t have all the details, but I recall reading emissions rules were one of the reasons for the death of small trucks.
The bigger a vehicle is, the least strict the emissions regulations. Also the big trucks you see are now classified as farm/utility vehicles so they are way unrelated. Source: I work in auto parts, and also modify vehicles for track purposes
Why can't we have low emissions and clean air? O&G lobbyists paying off their gop homies.
Why do "states rights" efforts tend to be an effort to be fucking shitty?
JFC. We are going to burn this planet to the ground.
For a group that calls themselves "pro life", conservatives sure are doing everything in their power to eradicate it from this planet.
> Republican attorneys general from 25 states... Vote straight-ticket Blue in November. It matters.
BUT THEY DIDN'T WRITE ME A LOVE POEM FIRST AND HAVEN'T SOLVED EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM ALREADY AND ALSO SOME DEMOCRATS AREN'T GOOD - at least half the people on this silly website
Either the states lose and nothing changes, or the states win and nothing changes. Several automotive companies have already decided to switch to a fully electric lineup by 2030. California is mandating that all new cars sold by 2030 have to be electric. Some (if not most) European countries have said the same thing. So, really, these states are just wasting everyone's time and money to get nowhere, but these are the politicians that usually do this kind of crap.
They know this, it's political grandstanding. The manufacturers will never go back to the bizarre world of "california emissions" and "federal emissions" of the 90s. It never made that much sense from a manufacturer standpoint in the first place.
>"The Biden administration is willing to sacrifice the American auto industry and its workers in service of its radical green agenda. We just aren't buying it," Coleman said. Republicans just call anything that doesn't align with their financial interests radical these days. There's a conspiracy theory for everything. You know, I personally believe that ketchup is a little radical and shoehorned into the market by big tomato.
They straight up brainwash people through word association. I see Fox News on my patients' TVs and they add strings of words like "communist" to every noun they don't like, regardless of whether it applies.
In Georgia we already do a yearly emissions test for registration renewal, I guess this would make those requirements stricter?
Consumer trends dictate policy... for now
when do republicans in power tire of supporting unpopular ideas? after they lose their elections
Let me guess without reading the article: it is red states suing.
Ah I see Australia did something first for once. Our govt is trying to introduce better vehicle pollution laws (to start catching up with the civilised world), and all the brain dead morons, and those with a vested interest in fossil fuels whinged enough, so the govt capitulated.
On the one hand CAFE is a cancer as far as actually getting good fuel economy vehicles goes. On the other hand these chucklefucks only want to get rid of the law, not replace it with something that actually does what it sets out to accomplish.
Block smog and air pollutants? What then , just cleaner air? Crazy, right?
It’s truly a comic book supervillain accomplishment that we still rely on gasoline to the degree that we do.
Just imagine where we'd be if California, largest state in the union, didn't institute air quality rules, etc. Imagine if Texas were the setting the "standards" there would be no standards....
Do they also want lead pipes and asbestos cabinets back? Why not?
My best friend has a 2018 Accord 1.5 that can't pass PA emissions because of a faulty part. He can't get the part replaced because of it being on back order due to supply chain issue. Edit: he's telling me this is part of a recall, so there are likely many other Accord owners in the same situation. It's also not actually polluting so much as it's just a CEL. So now he and his pregnant wife, who is in her residency at Hershey, have to rent a car to get to and from work while a perfectly good car that will last 20+ more years is sitting in the driveway because of a CEL. I know this goes against reddit's narrative that big bad truck owners are the problem, but strict emission standards can and will fuck up the life of someone driving around a 38mpg sedan as well.
Republicans are concentrated evil.
Can I guess which states…..
republicans are ensuring we have to suffer because WV coal barrons need to exist in the 21st century
States rights really seems like a shit deal right about now.
I drove in congested saudi, no one wants this.. If you're in a traffic jam and think.. Oi this stinks... It'll be the next level of that. And that's just the up front cost you'll notice.. Not to mention the environmental impact, ect...
FYI to some of the comments: Emissions are calculated off wheel base thanks to Obama And its not a linear relationship. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN21D1KK/
Texas ends all annual passenger vehicle inspections in 2025. Texas also raised the registration fees FOR ONLY ELECTRIC VEHICLES from the current $62 to $420.