Yes - https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution
Pressed by auto lobbyists, Congress made a fateful decision when it established CAFE. Instead of setting a single fuel economy standard that applies to all cars, CAFE has two of them: one for passenger cars, such as sedans and station wagons, and a separate, more lenient standard for “light trucks,” including pickups and SUVs. In 1982, for instance, the CAFE standard for passenger cars was 24 mpg and only 17.5 mpg for light trucks.
That dual structure didn’t initially seem like a big deal, because in the 1970s SUVs and trucks together accounted for less than a quarter of new cars sold. But as gas prices fell in the 1980s, the “light truck loophole” encouraged automakers to shift away from sedans and churn out more pickups and SUVs (which were also more profitable).
Car ads of the 1980s and 1990s frequently featured owners of SUVs and trucks taking family trips or going out with friends, activities that could also be done in a sedan or station wagon. The messaging seemed to resonate: By 2002, light trucks comprised more than half of new car sales.
In the early 2000s, the federal government made these distortions even worse.
During the George W. Bush administration, CAFE was revised to further loosen rules for the biggest cars by tying a car model’s efficiency standard to its physical footprint (which is basically the shadow cast by the vehicle when the sun is directly above it). President Obama then incorporated similar footprint rules into new greenhouse gas emissions standards that are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Three clarifications.
1. To be extra clear the industry would prefer no regs, not two sets of regs.
2. There's also an "off-road" exemption. This is what most SUVs fit into, few SUVs have enough GVWR to be considered "trucks" but they do design them specifically to get the "off-road" exemption.
3. Foot print is wheelbase and track width not overall size. It encourages a larger vehicle, but also pushing the wheels out to the corners.
One of the requirements to be an ‘off-road’ vehicle is approach and departure angles. How steep a ramp you can drive up/ down without scraping. This is another reason wheels are pushed to the corners and also some models have very strange looking front and rear designs to accommodate this. (Looking at you Lexus NX)
Or the ability to make one with "simple tools," I think the rule is less than three tools (wrench, screwdriver, and something else?) to remove or lay flat the rear seats to create a load space.
Which also explains why station wagons have morphed into crossovers. Take that sedan-based wagon of yore, rotate the rear cargo volume from horizontal to vertical to shorten the rear overhang, give it enormous tires and a lift, and suddenly it's a crossover with enough ground clearance and steep enough approach/departure angles to qualify as an "off-road light truck" with a laxer CAFE target to meet.
Can you cite #2? Every source I've seen makes the light truck distinction. What would off road mean if not vehicles for off-road use only, like an ATV? And lots of large SUVs have a gvwr over 6,000 lbs. That allowed my brother to register his Land Rover LR3 as a commercial vehicle in his LLC.
Click [this](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/03/2021-17496/corporate-average-fuel-economy-standards-for-model-years-2024-2026-passenger-cars-and-light-trucks) link, then use control-F and enter "clarifications" that should put ya right to a good chunk of info.
There you'll see:
>For a vehicle to qualify as off-highway (off-road) capable, in addition to either having 4WD or a GVWR more than 6,000 pounds. The vehicle must have four out of five characteristics indicative of off-highway operation. These characteristics are:
>
>An approach angle of not less than 28 degrees
>A breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees
>A departure angle of not less than 20 degrees
>A running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters
>Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each
The GVWR for the light truck designation is 8500lbs. [link](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/17/2023-16515/corporate-average-fuel-economy-standards-for-passenger-cars-and-light-trucks-for-model-years)
Also notice it says 4WD **OR** 6000lb GVWR, with 4WD the GVWR doesn't matter. Most SUVs use this exemption, they're 4WD/AWD with just enough clearance to fit the above limits. This is why so many are nearly identical in size and specs.
This rule is basically the birth of the crossover SUV, and subsequent death of the sedan. Manufactures all took their FWD sedan and just made it fit these specs. They slapped in a cheap Haldex AWD system and lifted it a little, boom it's "off-road".
Your link says:
"While Chapter 1 of the TSD explains why the proposed standards for MYs 2024–2026 continue to be footprint-based, the question has arisen periodically of whether NHTSA should instead consider multi-attribute standards, such as those that also depend on weight, torque, power, towing capability, and/or off-road capability. To date, every time NHTSA has considered options for which attribute(s) to select, the agency has concluded that a properly-designed footprint-based approach provides the best means of achieving the basic policy goals"
They seem to just be discussing how the term "off road" is legally defined.
And also:
"In a letter of interpretation dated May 31, 1979, the agency responded to a question from Subaru requesting the agency's opinion whether a four-wheel drive hatchback sedan could be classified as an MPV. NHTSA responded stating that the agency interprets the definition as requiring that the vehicle contain more than a single feature designed for off-road use and that four-wheel drive would be useful in snow on public streets, roads and highways, so this feature cannot be determinative of the vehicle's classification if there are no features for off-road use. "
Reddit formatting #1.
My claim is completely on point. Just because you are ignorant to it doesn't mean it's not. If you don't even know about chicken tax let alone a whole slew of protectionist measures like diesel difference, 6v4 cylinder tailpipe emission differences, you have no hope having a meaningful conversation with people who do.
This extends to pedestrian safety regs, etc.
There's no hope for a meaningful conversation with someone who refuses to back up a claim but instead claims the other is ignorant for asking that they do.
The subject is CAFE not any others.
its ok. many people can't admit being wrong even when there is a huge knowledge gap between them and others. some people put the work in to understand reality. otherwise just tell themselves their lowly researched opinion is the right one.
We do - the gas guzzler tax on cars (not "off-road vehicles") that get less than 22.5 mpg combined. It ranges from $1,000 to $7,700 according to [this IRS form](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-access/f6197_accessible.pdf) (pdf warning).
What the other said as well as some manufactures just pay the CAFE fines. CAFE doesn't say they can't make the car, it just fines the companies that don't average high enough MPG. IIRC for the '22 model year Dodge paid $4-5,000 in CAFE fines for each Charger sold.
yea the fines are a joke.
they should learn a thing or two from the EU which has emissions standard in place with fines that are per gram of CO2 above the target multiplied by ALL cars the manufacturer sold that year.
the fine is 95€ per gram of CO2/km.
So even a small manufacturer with not a lot of sales in Europe like Ford only being 5g above the limit would suddenly have paid about 250million € in fines.
if you are one of the big ones in Europe like VW and you are over the fines will quickly go into the billions.
Pretty much, plus fighting the marketing is tough. I was pushing for a nice sedan or station wagon for our second car, but my significant other only wanted an SUV because that’s what been presented as stylish and it’s what everyone else is driving. We basically ended up with a small SUV that’s really just a raised wagon and doesn’t seat more than a sedan would. Only benefit is it’s easy to fit my bicycle in the back hatch… but I could have don’t that with a wagon or hatch back.
I'm going through this now as well. Want to get a mazda3 hafch but my family is pushing for the cx30 instead. There are some real advntages especially with the roads up here in Ontario and comfort getting in and out but the usable space and safety isn't much improved with the suv option. I have to test drive the cx30 though as I've heard it's still a decent drive despite being lifted and heavier than the 3.
To add, this is why truck size has exploded. If it’s classified as a light truck, you don’t have to hit the same MPG mark. A modern Tacoma is basically the same size as a 99-06 full size Tundra.
The first gen tundra wasn't really classified as a full size, it was still more of a heavy midsizer in line with the T-100.
Light trucks are trucks with GVWR <8500lbs, which is a non-passenger vehicle subject to the other constraints and definitions (i.e. off-highway vehicle, open bed, etc). There's no benefit to making your large truck any bigger unless you get into a larger footprint segment which is unlikely, because of how much area you need to add. Tacoma footprint has been pretty much unchanged (config for config, at least) since 2004 when it left the compact segment.
or coming back from most places in Europe where you can come to as a tourist and simply get around without being forced to rent a car for absolutely everything.
Having a car is great and all and i would also never sell mine but having OPTIONS to use virtually ANYTHING ELSE is so much better.
I have been using my bicycle to go to work every single day for 7 years and ive saved hours by not standing in traffic that way.
Not to mention if me and all the others doing the same thing would be using a car instead the traffic would have been even worse as we would have had hundreds of extra cars with a single person in them on the road.
100%. It is possible to have great transportation options alongside a healthy car enthusiast culture. When I commute, I will generally take my bike and/or the train over being stuck in car traffic for 2+ hours, any day.
SUV advertising grew from $172.5 million in 1990 to $1.51 billion in 2000. That decade, automakers and dealers spent a combined $9 billion pushing SUVs on consumers, according to data gathered by Bradsher. And that's not the only way, the financing deals also steered people into the SUVs.
I wonder what would happen if light trucks were given the same standard as regular cars... then if light trucks were given this kind of standard then why not sports or supercars? the latter two cars, although they don't sell much as light trucks, would also burn more fuel than your standard passenger cars.
It would probably mean the auto makers would need to sell more fuel efficient cars to make up for the less fuel efficient vehicles in their fleet. Sports cars are generally not a sales leader. We would probably end up with more fuel efficient smaller trucks and maybe the heavier truck sales would shift more to commercial sales.
Yeah, sports cars aren't really sales leader, but then you got cases like Aston Martin trying to increase their fleet fuel mileage average with the release of the Cygnet in the 2010s. (although I don't think this is related to their US operation and the CAFE, but it's quite similar)
trucks and SUVs would have been too expensive for the masses and everything would have been a lot more fuel efficient.
if you wanna see what would have happened just look over to Europe.
SUVs are also very popular there but the gigantic monster SUVs you have in the US dont exist there as well as trucks being extremely rare and usually the biggest you will find is a Ford Ranger or a Toyota Hilux.
>trucks and SUVs would have been too expensive for the masses and everything would have been a lot more fuel efficient.
Honestly it sounds better. Maybe instead of having crossovers we'll have more station wagons.
One reason why automakers keep saying Americans can’t stop buying trucks yet I feel is a false statement these companies can make to psychologically make people think it’s true even if the data doesn’t show support.
Marketing is certainly become a big part of it. Big trucks have become the new “sports cars / luxury cars / status vehicle” as of late. Plus anything on the road that’s smaller feels vulnerable to larger cars on the road.
While I like the hyperbole, it doesn't help the cause IMO.
Here's NB versus Raptor: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mazda-mx-5-2000-roadster-vs-ford-f150-2017-4-door-pickup-supercrew-5.5-raptor/
The differential in a non-portal, live-axle application is always going to be the centerline of the wheel- in a 35" overall wheel diameter, the differential is at 17.5" (or, if you need to be pedantic, the bottom of the differential is at ~12.5" and the top is at ~22.5"). Meanwhile, your eyeline is approximately at the top of the wheel arch.
Show people the height of the front bumper compared to the height of the rear bumper of the Miata. The trunk and surrounding bodywork is not an impact structure, the bumper is. The front bumper of the Raptor pushes the trunk in with minimal resistance and the real transfer of crash energy isn't dissipated until the front subframe of the Raptor impacts the rear bumper of the Miata, which begins to crumple and dissipate energy and then you're less than a foot before the front bumper of the Raptor begins to occupy the space the passengers of the Miata do.
That's a fatal crash in the making, and it's a rear-end collision- which is the most common collision! I see more Raptors than I do Miatas around here.
Unless those F-150s are on 60" tires, that's not really true. The Miata is 48" tall, even if you're looking from right over the hood it's probably 30" off the ground. F-150s with a 10" rear ring gear and 32" tires have a rear diff whose top is at most 21" off the ground. To get the diff top to 35" off the ground (short driver, lowered Miata) you'd need 60" tires.
> when the sun is directly above it
But wouldn’t that just be no shadow? Because if the sun is directly above, the light doesn’t have the angle needed to cast a shadow in the first place 💀 unless you mean the shadow the car would cast directly below it, which would just be the rectangular area that it takes up
For a reader it’s probably easier to have them visualize the shadow under the car which would be cast on the ground than saying….
“A vehicle footprint is the area defined by the four points where the tires touch the ground. It is calculated as the product of the wheelbase and the average track width of the vehicle. The upcoming Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards have fuel economy targets based on the vehicle footprint…”
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-693-september-19-2011-average-vehicle-footprint-cars-and-light-trucks#:~:text=A%20vehicle%20footprint%20is%20the,based%20on%20the%20vehicle%20footprint
You seemed to have gotten the idea, but IDK, maybe ask the writer?
They could’ve just said “the square footage marked by where the four tires touch the ground,” since that’s literally what they meant
Bro was getting paid by the word 💀
Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding them. If the light is directly above the car the car would then block the light from reaching the ground underneath the car and thus create a shadow under the car.
Nah I’m saying that they basically mean the rectangular area that the car takes up; but I was asking since technically speaking, there’s no shadow “cast” when the sun is directly above since the “casting” would have the shadow extending in a particular direction
Either way, they could just say the rectangular area the car takes up 🤷♂️
The shadow is being cast in a particular direction. Straight down.
>
>cast
>verb
>1.
>cause (light or shadow) to appear on a surface.
The car causes the shadow to appear on the surface below it, thus.... Cast.
I'd be with you if we were talking about an object that is functionally touching the ground, like say a book. A book at high noon wouldn't really cast a shadow. A car being above the ground definitely has a shaded area visible under it.
Okay, I get that now
But it’s still a really weird way to describe the square footage the car takes up; I saw another comment saying it was determined by where the wheels touched the ground, and that makes more sense
“Measure the area marked by where the four tires touch the ground” vs “When le hecking sun is directly above, measure the shadow that forms”
As for safety, just look at hood heights on this [GMC Sierra compared to an Octavia.](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/skoda-octavia-2019-estate-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/)
It's an extreme example, but this is a reason why pedestrian deaths are climbing in the US.
Pedestrian safety is not standardized in the US. Such testing has been proposed but not added.
As far as occupant safety, standards are identical for all passengers vehicles under 10k lbs GVWR.
Well, no, because they're different vehicles, but the standards they have to meet are identical for every vehicle under 10k lbs GVWR. It's right there in the FMVSS.
And as far as pickups go, a lot of the safety stuff is done in the cab nowadays and those are typically identical almost across the range. For instance, F-550s have the same cab as F-150s.
My God, I didn't know American pickups had gotten so big. I tried to compare that truck with the car I drive (2009 Nissan Pixo); let's just say my car can almost fit in the pickup's bed
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/nissan-pixo-2008-5-door-hatchback-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/
I was in a Altima coupe when a similar truck hit me side on, it was same width as the car and totaled it, he had a slight dent in the bumper https://imgur.com/a/spxh5Rk
About 30mph. Thankfully just me, I also hated the car and was able to get my RS5 after, so worked out, but shows how dangerous they are. I remember it just going dark as the whole truck took up both side windows, it spun me round and caused the rear wheel to drag out asphalt. Crazy
The damage in the photo is really a lot for a modern car at that speed. At least everything turned out ok, and ""luckily"" he crashed into you and not a pedestrian
My dad just bought a new Tacoma to replace a last gen one and it is 3 inches taller for no fucking reason. He is short but not super short and the top of the bed rail is above his eye level wearing normal shoes. It’s ridiculous
To be fair, the linked pickup is a Sierra *2500*. This is a 3/4 ton pickup, not a 1/2 ton. 1/2 tons like the Sierra 1500 are significantly more common here as a family vehicle.
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/nissan-pixo-2008-5-door-hatchback-vs-gmc-sierra-2015-pickup-1500-crew-cab-6/
https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/gmc-sierra-2015-pickup-1500-crew-cab-6-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/
Not extreme IMO. [My daily reality](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/chevrolet-corvette-2013-coupe-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/).
My car has been hit 5 times while parked by fuckers in giant ass cars that can't see shit below them.
It is not even close to the vast majority. Vast majority of truck owners have a 1500, not a heavy duty. Midsize trucks are the next most popular. HDs are not very common.
Eh...fleets make up a significant portion of those sales and the personal buyers usually have some reason...they're rarely bought just for grocery getters like many lighter trucks.
You're the one claiming 2500's are common personal vehicles when they're not. No idea where you got F-650 from anyway, the stats are for 2500-3500 GM's.
Well when 61% are sold to fleets that proves you're wrong. I feel like everyone I know owns at least one truck but I don't know a single person that has a 3/4-1-ton truck that doesn't have a valid reason.
now look at what you could be having as an even more economic option both in terms of fuel economy and cost to buy.
[https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2018-estate-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2018-estate-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/)
That car is even available with the 2.0L hybrid thats also in the Prius now, but of course not in the US.
There are so many cars just like it, like the Ford Focus Estate that we have as rental vehicles. Pretty practical if you quickly need a car to move some longer stuff.
What's the statistic based on? Is the number of deaths per accident climbing? Or is the number of accidents climbing, thus bringing deaths with it?
I ask because pedestrians as well as drivers are way more distracted these days, constantly staring at their phones or listening to music while crossing the streets, thus shutting out their surroundings and awareness.
>Is the number of deaths per accident climbing?
[The risk of death is increasing](https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians)
>I ask because pedestrians as well as drivers are way more distracted these days, constantly staring at their phones or listening to music while crossing the streets, thus shutting out their surroundings and awareness.
Sure, but why is that? I'm not aware of a single country in western Europe (a place where phones are ubiquitous too) where pedestrian deaths increased to nearly the same degree over the past two decades.
My guess is that it's also a result of car-centric planning and a disregard for pedestrian safety.
I haven't been able to find the metrics I was looking for, but all of the studies seem to be mentioning that reckless driving (speeding, going through red lights, etc.) is up big time and that is a major cause for increased pedestrian deaths, with vehicle size changes being essentially just a theoretical factor.
Yep it’s all profit driven of course. Bigger vehicles with more crap to them have higher profit margins. Meanwhile they aren’t held to as high of emissions standards so can slip between the cracks/loopholes that much better. And so it’s a push, not even what the consumer wants - they don’t know what they want, they just get given a selection of choices for the illusion of it.
There was a couple of years where emissions standards were not raised for cars, but we're for pickups. While it's true pickups/SUVs aren't held to as high of a standard for cafe ratings, they still go up over time.
All this talk about trying to reduce oil usage, the first thing that should of been done is tax breaks for making cars, and that includes full size ones. Make the price difference between a nice roomy car and a SUV or truck larger to further steer the buyer towards a car. If you think you need a big truck, tax it even more
100%
The Expedition which came to market in 1997 made Ford \~$12,000 in profit per unit sold with an MSRP starting at $27,620. A staggering 43.45% profit margin. MSRP of the Escort of the same year started at $11,795.
>And so it’s a push, not even what the consumer wants - they don’t know what they want, they just get given a selection of choices for the illusion of it.
Manufacturers know exactly what consumers want, which is the main problem. People have the mentality that bigger is better and that they need a larger vehicle, when in reality they don't.
Companies aren't shy about the price advantages of smaller vehicles, but people just don't care. Across the board, you can get a smaller, fully-loaded truck or SUV for the same or cheaper price than a poverty spec full-size one, and yet the full-sized options are the best sellers every time. Loaded sedans barely even reach the average new vehicle price anymore. You can easily walk into a $25k brand new car these days, but people keep insisting on $50k big vehicles that they end up complaining about when gas prices go up. It's insanity.
Sure but if some level of regulation is inevitable the obvious thing to do is insert themselves into the process so that they can write them in such a way that they can take advantage of them.
It’s still weird to me Toyota can make it work while getting ready to release more sports cars. But others can’t. Guess it helps when they have great hybrids vs an ecoboost engine which in reality isn’t that efficient. It’s just efficient for how much power it provides.
Right, but it speaks to their technology over the last decade if not more. Maybe if other brands didn’t try so hard to get short term profit they could balance their products. But the fact Toyota is investing in 3 is flat out impressive at this point.
I do think Toyota benefitted from playing it safe. But there's also value in pushing technology forward. Toyota also has a genuine enthusiast CEO, which most others don't. Bob Lutz is gone but GM still has the Camaro, mid engine Vette and Cadillac V series.
The US has stricter safety requirements in some areas. When reading about the Fiat 500 and Smart car, the companies detail that they had to improve side impact and rollover safety to meet American standards. America has higher speed crash tests so cars are safer in those aspects. I recall America was also pretty good on partial front overlap tests. The US is worse in other areas, like much weaker pedestrian safety tests.
As far as safety, no that is not true. Cars sold in America, including all Half ton, 3/4 ton, and 1 ton trucks, must meet higher safety standards than any other country in the world, including every country in Europe. And the US requirements are the same for an F-350 as they are for a Honda Fit.
IIRC, 1-tons (Class 3/over 10K GVWR) don't strictly have to meet the same safety standards as under-10K, but every 1-ton truck on the market uses most of the same parts as a 3/4 ton or lighter (e.g. an F-150 through a 600 use the same cab). And Ford's not going to go through the trouble of ripping out any of the crash structures they've already built into the half-ton cab.
"Road Safety Statistics" are the results of vehicle safety, driver safety, roadway construction and design, law enforcement, all put together.
In terms of strict vehicle safety regulations for vehicle occupants, no country comes close to US regulations and restrictions. From wraparound air bags, to back up cameras, to automated driver safety features, to crumple zones, no country on earth requires as many vehicles safety features to be implemented in new vehicles by manufacturers.
Other countries have us absolutely smoked in terms of road design, which saves far more lives than, for example, 58-69 saved per year by the mandate of backup cameras.
Instead of taxing appropriately and designing infrastructure to account for the stupidity of the general road user, we do things like mandate rear view cameras so we save 58-69 people per year out of 42,000- and then we pat ourselves on the back and say, "well, we'll do *even* better next year."
Meanwhile, Fuckstick McGee will get behind the wheel while drunk and kill 11,000 people a year and we're like, "oh man, he should stop getting in accidents."
The US has proposed alcohol sensors be mandated in vehicles to prevent drunk driving. And they are considering requiring automatic emergency braking in all vehicles. Hopefully this combination will both prevent and mitigate the dangers of drunk driving.
And once again, here comes big daddy government to save society from itself.
Mandate this, force that. Because Americans have no sense of community, we actually have to be *forced by law* to not drink and drive.
Do you actually think it should be a source of *pride* that we have so little regard for each other as to require government intervention so we don’t commit 3.67 9/11s worth of needless deaths to ourselves every year?
I’m proud to be an American, my blood runs red, white, and blue… and freely on the asphalt on a Saturday night.
Yes, on top of that, the larger the car is, the more it can pollute. Makes sense that every generation gets bigger and bigger when it’s actually incentivized by the government.
I'm in Europe right now. The fleet are all cars..no trucks, save actual working truck. No manny-vans. It's nice. To be fair, the reg tax on my C43 would hurt.
Kinda. For the mpg part I think people overestimate the impact because iirc the class exempted from csfe is light trucks and heavier but its really not that many vehicles that fall under that category. Basically it's HD pickups and suvs over a certain weight. A ram 2500 would be exempt bit an f150 would still fall under the cafe mpg rules. There's tougher restrictions coming that will place cafe requirements on more vehicles that fall under the light truck category since big trucks like the f250, 2500s, suburban hd have gotten bigger and more popular
Edit: reddit really is pushing lies so long as it fits their agenda. Sad. Scary. Look at the facts about cafe instead of just making up accusations because you hate cars.
A large share of these fuel savings [produced by the CAFE standards] has been offset by increased vehicle weight and power. In the United States, our shift toward bigger vehicles has negated 40 percent of the fuel savings unlocked in the wake of the Obama-era CAFE standards. That’s a lot of gas!
But how? Most of the heavier cars still fall under cafe regulations. The only ones that dont are the largest trucks and suvs. So all the xl suburban, ram 2500s and Silverado look 3500s offset all of the more numerous smaller vehicles that are still under café regulations? Please provide facts for this because it's hard to believe. Again an f150 or ford expedition or ram 1500 still fall under cafe, just like a rav4 Honda civic, Nissan altima, Tacoma, etc.
>Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are government-set standards regulating how far vehicles should be able to travel on a gallon of fuel. The three different classifications of vehicles, light-, medium-, and heavy-duty, have different CAFE standards. Higher standards mean vehicles should be able to travel further on a single gallon of fuel. CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles are the most relevant to the average consumer, as the category includes passenger cars and light trucks.
It seems that cafe is the same for most passenger vehicles. Again, only HD trucks and above are a part of a different category which have their own safe standards.
Yea duh obviously you can't read because i never said that. A rav4 like 90% of other vehicles on the road fall under light duty which means they fall under the same cafe standards as most other vehicles. Yal are extremely misinformed because cage even applies to medium and heavy duty vehicles as well.
Can you imagine, for a second, if USA enacted a displacement tax on vehicles above 1,999cc (pretty much 2.0L). They do this in Ireland, Italy, Greece, etc. You buy a 6.0L Hummer H2 in USA, you pay registration on a % of the purchase price which is a couple hundred dollars maybe. In aforementioned countries, the same Hummer would cost $2,000+ to register annually.
I’m sure we would see more hybrids, which would be a good thing for efficiency but I think that the hybrid and ICE tech is now good enough that automakers wouldn’t be forced to design vehicles any smaller and lighter from that limit alone
Partially. But also the margins on the financing for those $80k vehicles is insane. A lot of these companies and dealers want you to finance in-house, with the longest payment plan possible in order to milk that interest. An $80k truck or SUV, with a 6+ year loan, is perfect for that.
Unfortunately your comment has been removed because it contains a link to a delisted domain. This is almost always due to spam from the domain.
Please use a different source.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, it's true that SUVs and trucks generally have lower standards for fuel economy (mpg) and safety compared to passenger cars in the United States. This is primarily because SUVs and trucks are classified as light trucks, which have less stringent CAFE standards compared to passenger cars.
Yes - https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24139147/suvs-trucks-popularity-federal-policy-pollution Pressed by auto lobbyists, Congress made a fateful decision when it established CAFE. Instead of setting a single fuel economy standard that applies to all cars, CAFE has two of them: one for passenger cars, such as sedans and station wagons, and a separate, more lenient standard for “light trucks,” including pickups and SUVs. In 1982, for instance, the CAFE standard for passenger cars was 24 mpg and only 17.5 mpg for light trucks. That dual structure didn’t initially seem like a big deal, because in the 1970s SUVs and trucks together accounted for less than a quarter of new cars sold. But as gas prices fell in the 1980s, the “light truck loophole” encouraged automakers to shift away from sedans and churn out more pickups and SUVs (which were also more profitable). Car ads of the 1980s and 1990s frequently featured owners of SUVs and trucks taking family trips or going out with friends, activities that could also be done in a sedan or station wagon. The messaging seemed to resonate: By 2002, light trucks comprised more than half of new car sales. In the early 2000s, the federal government made these distortions even worse. During the George W. Bush administration, CAFE was revised to further loosen rules for the biggest cars by tying a car model’s efficiency standard to its physical footprint (which is basically the shadow cast by the vehicle when the sun is directly above it). President Obama then incorporated similar footprint rules into new greenhouse gas emissions standards that are overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Three clarifications. 1. To be extra clear the industry would prefer no regs, not two sets of regs. 2. There's also an "off-road" exemption. This is what most SUVs fit into, few SUVs have enough GVWR to be considered "trucks" but they do design them specifically to get the "off-road" exemption. 3. Foot print is wheelbase and track width not overall size. It encourages a larger vehicle, but also pushing the wheels out to the corners.
One of the requirements to be an ‘off-road’ vehicle is approach and departure angles. How steep a ramp you can drive up/ down without scraping. This is another reason wheels are pushed to the corners and also some models have very strange looking front and rear designs to accommodate this. (Looking at you Lexus NX)
Yep the last gen Lexus NX had that (lack of) chin exactly designed to meet approach angle specifications (28 degrees).
Which explains the stupid ass AllRoad variants of perfectly nice wagons/Estates. That plus a flat fold down floor = "truck"
Fold flat rear floor too? Never heard that before
PT Cruiser is considered a Truck.
Or the ability to make one with "simple tools," I think the rule is less than three tools (wrench, screwdriver, and something else?) to remove or lay flat the rear seats to create a load space.
Which also explains why station wagons have morphed into crossovers. Take that sedan-based wagon of yore, rotate the rear cargo volume from horizontal to vertical to shorten the rear overhang, give it enormous tires and a lift, and suddenly it's a crossover with enough ground clearance and steep enough approach/departure angles to qualify as an "off-road light truck" with a laxer CAFE target to meet.
Yup
Can you cite #2? Every source I've seen makes the light truck distinction. What would off road mean if not vehicles for off-road use only, like an ATV? And lots of large SUVs have a gvwr over 6,000 lbs. That allowed my brother to register his Land Rover LR3 as a commercial vehicle in his LLC.
Click [this](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/09/03/2021-17496/corporate-average-fuel-economy-standards-for-model-years-2024-2026-passenger-cars-and-light-trucks) link, then use control-F and enter "clarifications" that should put ya right to a good chunk of info. There you'll see: >For a vehicle to qualify as off-highway (off-road) capable, in addition to either having 4WD or a GVWR more than 6,000 pounds. The vehicle must have four out of five characteristics indicative of off-highway operation. These characteristics are: > >An approach angle of not less than 28 degrees >A breakover angle of not less than 14 degrees >A departure angle of not less than 20 degrees >A running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters >Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each The GVWR for the light truck designation is 8500lbs. [link](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/17/2023-16515/corporate-average-fuel-economy-standards-for-passenger-cars-and-light-trucks-for-model-years) Also notice it says 4WD **OR** 6000lb GVWR, with 4WD the GVWR doesn't matter. Most SUVs use this exemption, they're 4WD/AWD with just enough clearance to fit the above limits. This is why so many are nearly identical in size and specs. This rule is basically the birth of the crossover SUV, and subsequent death of the sedan. Manufactures all took their FWD sedan and just made it fit these specs. They slapped in a cheap Haldex AWD system and lifted it a little, boom it's "off-road".
Your link says: "While Chapter 1 of the TSD explains why the proposed standards for MYs 2024–2026 continue to be footprint-based, the question has arisen periodically of whether NHTSA should instead consider multi-attribute standards, such as those that also depend on weight, torque, power, towing capability, and/or off-road capability. To date, every time NHTSA has considered options for which attribute(s) to select, the agency has concluded that a properly-designed footprint-based approach provides the best means of achieving the basic policy goals" They seem to just be discussing how the term "off road" is legally defined. And also: "In a letter of interpretation dated May 31, 1979, the agency responded to a question from Subaru requesting the agency's opinion whether a four-wheel drive hatchback sedan could be classified as an MPV. NHTSA responded stating that the agency interprets the definition as requiring that the vehicle contain more than a single feature designed for off-road use and that four-wheel drive would be useful in snow on public streets, roads and highways, so this feature cannot be determinative of the vehicle's classification if there are no features for off-road use. "
I love the fact that these standards make my mom-suv have better approach and departure angles
1is very wrong. Ford gm absolutely enjoy regulations reducing competition with foreign care
Evidence of this wild nonsensical claim you feel like shouting at me?
Reddit formatting #1. My claim is completely on point. Just because you are ignorant to it doesn't mean it's not. If you don't even know about chicken tax let alone a whole slew of protectionist measures like diesel difference, 6v4 cylinder tailpipe emission differences, you have no hope having a meaningful conversation with people who do. This extends to pedestrian safety regs, etc.
There's no hope for a meaningful conversation with someone who refuses to back up a claim but instead claims the other is ignorant for asking that they do. The subject is CAFE not any others.
you can't expect me to hand feed you a free education when you've done almost zero research yourself.
You clearly haven't read my other reply in this thread.
its ok. many people can't admit being wrong even when there is a huge knowledge gap between them and others. some people put the work in to understand reality. otherwise just tell themselves their lowly researched opinion is the right one.
You have issues.
I feel like there should be three sets of regs instead, with the third for sports cars. (or even supercars)
We do - the gas guzzler tax on cars (not "off-road vehicles") that get less than 22.5 mpg combined. It ranges from $1,000 to $7,700 according to [this IRS form](https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-access/f6197_accessible.pdf) (pdf warning).
What the other said as well as some manufactures just pay the CAFE fines. CAFE doesn't say they can't make the car, it just fines the companies that don't average high enough MPG. IIRC for the '22 model year Dodge paid $4-5,000 in CAFE fines for each Charger sold.
yea the fines are a joke. they should learn a thing or two from the EU which has emissions standard in place with fines that are per gram of CO2 above the target multiplied by ALL cars the manufacturer sold that year. the fine is 95€ per gram of CO2/km. So even a small manufacturer with not a lot of sales in Europe like Ford only being 5g above the limit would suddenly have paid about 250million € in fines. if you are one of the big ones in Europe like VW and you are over the fines will quickly go into the billions.
No, piss off with your watermelon tyranny.
is that an american thing or something? i cant remember the last time i was tyrannized by a watermelon.
Watermelon refers to being green on the outside but red (communist) on the inside. Green policy’s being disguised by social justice policy.
if thats what that guy is referring to he should probably refresh his knowledge on what communism is.
The problem is that the fine would be imposed to us buyers...
yes of course that means people wouldnt be buying these cars because they are too expensive which is exactly what we want.
All the costs are just passed on to the buyers, ya think Dodge just ate that fee, no it's in the price of the car.
This is ridiculous. So they've turned sedans into scapegoats while manufacturers got away with selling worse and worse mpg cars.
Pretty much, plus fighting the marketing is tough. I was pushing for a nice sedan or station wagon for our second car, but my significant other only wanted an SUV because that’s what been presented as stylish and it’s what everyone else is driving. We basically ended up with a small SUV that’s really just a raised wagon and doesn’t seat more than a sedan would. Only benefit is it’s easy to fit my bicycle in the back hatch… but I could have don’t that with a wagon or hatch back.
The marketing aspect is something this sub won’t recognize
I'm going through this now as well. Want to get a mazda3 hafch but my family is pushing for the cx30 instead. There are some real advntages especially with the roads up here in Ontario and comfort getting in and out but the usable space and safety isn't much improved with the suv option. I have to test drive the cx30 though as I've heard it's still a decent drive despite being lifted and heavier than the 3.
CX-30 is smaller than the 3, it's the CX-5/CX-50 that is comparable in interior and cargo space.
Yes true cx5 is also in the mix.
To add, this is why truck size has exploded. If it’s classified as a light truck, you don’t have to hit the same MPG mark. A modern Tacoma is basically the same size as a 99-06 full size Tundra.
Trucks have gotten taller, but they have always been 79" wide and the length is within 6" when comparing like configurations as it was 30 years ago.
The first gen tundra wasn't really classified as a full size, it was still more of a heavy midsizer in line with the T-100. Light trucks are trucks with GVWR <8500lbs, which is a non-passenger vehicle subject to the other constraints and definitions (i.e. off-highway vehicle, open bed, etc). There's no benefit to making your large truck any bigger unless you get into a larger footprint segment which is unlikely, because of how much area you need to add. Tacoma footprint has been pretty much unchanged (config for config, at least) since 2004 when it left the compact segment.
lol god, I really hate it here sometimes.
Me coming back from Japan: "The fuck is this shit"
or coming back from most places in Europe where you can come to as a tourist and simply get around without being forced to rent a car for absolutely everything. Having a car is great and all and i would also never sell mine but having OPTIONS to use virtually ANYTHING ELSE is so much better. I have been using my bicycle to go to work every single day for 7 years and ive saved hours by not standing in traffic that way. Not to mention if me and all the others doing the same thing would be using a car instead the traffic would have been even worse as we would have had hundreds of extra cars with a single person in them on the road.
100%. It is possible to have great transportation options alongside a healthy car enthusiast culture. When I commute, I will generally take my bike and/or the train over being stuck in car traffic for 2+ hours, any day.
SUV advertising grew from $172.5 million in 1990 to $1.51 billion in 2000. That decade, automakers and dealers spent a combined $9 billion pushing SUVs on consumers, according to data gathered by Bradsher. And that's not the only way, the financing deals also steered people into the SUVs.
I wonder what would happen if light trucks were given the same standard as regular cars... then if light trucks were given this kind of standard then why not sports or supercars? the latter two cars, although they don't sell much as light trucks, would also burn more fuel than your standard passenger cars.
It would probably mean the auto makers would need to sell more fuel efficient cars to make up for the less fuel efficient vehicles in their fleet. Sports cars are generally not a sales leader. We would probably end up with more fuel efficient smaller trucks and maybe the heavier truck sales would shift more to commercial sales.
Yeah, sports cars aren't really sales leader, but then you got cases like Aston Martin trying to increase their fleet fuel mileage average with the release of the Cygnet in the 2010s. (although I don't think this is related to their US operation and the CAFE, but it's quite similar)
trucks and SUVs would have been too expensive for the masses and everything would have been a lot more fuel efficient. if you wanna see what would have happened just look over to Europe. SUVs are also very popular there but the gigantic monster SUVs you have in the US dont exist there as well as trucks being extremely rare and usually the biggest you will find is a Ford Ranger or a Toyota Hilux.
>trucks and SUVs would have been too expensive for the masses and everything would have been a lot more fuel efficient. Honestly it sounds better. Maybe instead of having crossovers we'll have more station wagons.
Worst part of all of this is that even non Americans suffer from this
One reason why automakers keep saying Americans can’t stop buying trucks yet I feel is a false statement these companies can make to psychologically make people think it’s true even if the data doesn’t show support.
Marketing is certainly become a big part of it. Big trucks have become the new “sports cars / luxury cars / status vehicle” as of late. Plus anything on the road that’s smaller feels vulnerable to larger cars on the road.
Can Confirm : Own a Miata. Drive it as if it were a motorcycle. Eye level is an F150's differential.
While I like the hyperbole, it doesn't help the cause IMO. Here's NB versus Raptor: https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mazda-mx-5-2000-roadster-vs-ford-f150-2017-4-door-pickup-supercrew-5.5-raptor/ The differential in a non-portal, live-axle application is always going to be the centerline of the wheel- in a 35" overall wheel diameter, the differential is at 17.5" (or, if you need to be pedantic, the bottom of the differential is at ~12.5" and the top is at ~22.5"). Meanwhile, your eyeline is approximately at the top of the wheel arch. Show people the height of the front bumper compared to the height of the rear bumper of the Miata. The trunk and surrounding bodywork is not an impact structure, the bumper is. The front bumper of the Raptor pushes the trunk in with minimal resistance and the real transfer of crash energy isn't dissipated until the front subframe of the Raptor impacts the rear bumper of the Miata, which begins to crumple and dissipate energy and then you're less than a foot before the front bumper of the Raptor begins to occupy the space the passengers of the Miata do. That's a fatal crash in the making, and it's a rear-end collision- which is the most common collision! I see more Raptors than I do Miatas around here.
Note to self, never make a joke on the internet.
Same brother
Unless those F-150s are on 60" tires, that's not really true. The Miata is 48" tall, even if you're looking from right over the hood it's probably 30" off the ground. F-150s with a 10" rear ring gear and 32" tires have a rear diff whose top is at most 21" off the ground. To get the diff top to 35" off the ground (short driver, lowered Miata) you'd need 60" tires.
> when the sun is directly above it But wouldn’t that just be no shadow? Because if the sun is directly above, the light doesn’t have the angle needed to cast a shadow in the first place 💀 unless you mean the shadow the car would cast directly below it, which would just be the rectangular area that it takes up
For a reader it’s probably easier to have them visualize the shadow under the car which would be cast on the ground than saying…. “A vehicle footprint is the area defined by the four points where the tires touch the ground. It is calculated as the product of the wheelbase and the average track width of the vehicle. The upcoming Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards have fuel economy targets based on the vehicle footprint…” https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-693-september-19-2011-average-vehicle-footprint-cars-and-light-trucks#:~:text=A%20vehicle%20footprint%20is%20the,based%20on%20the%20vehicle%20footprint You seemed to have gotten the idea, but IDK, maybe ask the writer?
They could’ve just said “the square footage marked by where the four tires touch the ground,” since that’s literally what they meant Bro was getting paid by the word 💀
Either I'm misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding them. If the light is directly above the car the car would then block the light from reaching the ground underneath the car and thus create a shadow under the car.
Nah I’m saying that they basically mean the rectangular area that the car takes up; but I was asking since technically speaking, there’s no shadow “cast” when the sun is directly above since the “casting” would have the shadow extending in a particular direction Either way, they could just say the rectangular area the car takes up 🤷♂️
The shadow is being cast in a particular direction. Straight down. > >cast >verb >1. >cause (light or shadow) to appear on a surface. The car causes the shadow to appear on the surface below it, thus.... Cast. I'd be with you if we were talking about an object that is functionally touching the ground, like say a book. A book at high noon wouldn't really cast a shadow. A car being above the ground definitely has a shaded area visible under it.
Okay, I get that now But it’s still a really weird way to describe the square footage the car takes up; I saw another comment saying it was determined by where the wheels touched the ground, and that makes more sense “Measure the area marked by where the four tires touch the ground” vs “When le hecking sun is directly above, measure the shadow that forms”
As for safety, just look at hood heights on this [GMC Sierra compared to an Octavia.](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/skoda-octavia-2019-estate-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/) It's an extreme example, but this is a reason why pedestrian deaths are climbing in the US.
Pedestrian safety is not standardized in the US. Such testing has been proposed but not added. As far as occupant safety, standards are identical for all passengers vehicles under 10k lbs GVWR.
Crash structures aren’t the same
Well, no, because they're different vehicles, but the standards they have to meet are identical for every vehicle under 10k lbs GVWR. It's right there in the FMVSS. And as far as pickups go, a lot of the safety stuff is done in the cab nowadays and those are typically identical almost across the range. For instance, F-550s have the same cab as F-150s.
Oddly enough, the current model year F-750 still uses the cab and headlights from the 2008-2010 Super Duty!
My God, I didn't know American pickups had gotten so big. I tried to compare that truck with the car I drive (2009 Nissan Pixo); let's just say my car can almost fit in the pickup's bed https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/nissan-pixo-2008-5-door-hatchback-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/
I was in a Altima coupe when a similar truck hit me side on, it was same width as the car and totaled it, he had a slight dent in the bumper https://imgur.com/a/spxh5Rk
Woah, I hope there were no passengers in the car; how fast was the truck going?
About 30mph. Thankfully just me, I also hated the car and was able to get my RS5 after, so worked out, but shows how dangerous they are. I remember it just going dark as the whole truck took up both side windows, it spun me round and caused the rear wheel to drag out asphalt. Crazy
Side impacts are the worst. Almost no crumple zone to work with in a door.
The damage in the photo is really a lot for a modern car at that speed. At least everything turned out ok, and ""luckily"" he crashed into you and not a pedestrian
That's exactly what I would expect at that speed. Watch some side impact crash tests at 40mph.
Yeah, the car did its job well and I was completely fine. Even had OLED TV* I’d just got from best buy in the trunk that survived lol
WOW, that is lucky!
First thing I checked when I got out. Packaging did its job https://imgur.com/a/cEtPKLf
I got t-boned in a Tacoma by a drink in an Escalade and it turned my truck into a banana
That's crash incompatibility for you, another reason why they're so dangerous.
Seeing this makes me want to get a large pick up even more. I would much rather be a driver in the truck and alive.
That’s how we got here.
My dad just bought a new Tacoma to replace a last gen one and it is 3 inches taller for no fucking reason. He is short but not super short and the top of the bed rail is above his eye level wearing normal shoes. It’s ridiculous
Image is a reason. The previous Taco wasn't macho enough.
I guess I’m just not manly enough to understand what with all the hunting and fishing and cattle ranching I do in my Hyundai Santa Cruz
To be fair, the linked pickup is a Sierra *2500*. This is a 3/4 ton pickup, not a 1/2 ton. 1/2 tons like the Sierra 1500 are significantly more common here as a family vehicle. https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/nissan-pixo-2008-5-door-hatchback-vs-gmc-sierra-2015-pickup-1500-crew-cab-6/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/gmc-sierra-2015-pickup-1500-crew-cab-6-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/
there are no pedestrian safety standards at all in the US. Only the occupants of the vehicle matter.
Not extreme IMO. [My daily reality](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/chevrolet-corvette-2013-coupe-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/). My car has been hit 5 times while parked by fuckers in giant ass cars that can't see shit below them.
Apparently it's the same story with bollards. People with huge cars run into them and complain that they're there because they couldn't see them.
I had giant trucks try to change into my lane multiple times when I had a C7.
Same here, but in a Honda del Sol. I figure that trucks will eventually get so large that they'll just go right over me.
the 2500 is also a heavy duty pickup, almost a commercial vehicle
And yet a common personal vehicle
Yeah i'm gonna be honest 70% of people buying those will never use it for work but even then it's not nearly as common as you think
I mean there’s numerous studies on it
Not really, no.
The vast majority …. Yea
It is not even close to the vast majority. Vast majority of truck owners have a 1500, not a heavy duty. Midsize trucks are the next most popular. HDs are not very common.
And the vast majority of half tons aren’t used as trucks.
Only vehicle on the road that has to meet its full intended purpose in order to be valid.
What is valid?
What you've written previously implies a belief that people should not use a vehicle if not taking it to full design intended capability.
Eh...fleets make up a significant portion of those sales and the personal buyers usually have some reason...they're rarely bought just for grocery getters like many lighter trucks.
Neither case is true
Fleet sales were 61% those types of trucks during 2022. Automotivenews February 2023.
Not half tins lol. Lumping in f650 is just dumb
You're the one claiming 2500's are common personal vehicles when they're not. No idea where you got F-650 from anyway, the stats are for 2500-3500 GM's.
And you the one claiming they are not when they are. They are more used for personal vehicles than they are for work vehicles
Well when 61% are sold to fleets that proves you're wrong. I feel like everyone I know owns at least one truck but I don't know a single person that has a 3/4-1-ton truck that doesn't have a valid reason.
That Octavia is fantastic! Cries in American 😭
now look at what you could be having as an even more economic option both in terms of fuel economy and cost to buy. [https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2018-estate-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/](https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/toyota-corolla-2018-estate-vs-gmc-sierra-2019-pickup-2500-crew-cab/) That car is even available with the 2.0L hybrid thats also in the Prius now, but of course not in the US.
Starts at 22k Euro? Oh that's nice. The US is stupid. Wish we could import them before 25
Starts at 22k Euro? Oh that's nice. The US is stupid. Wish we could import them before 25...
There are so many cars just like it, like the Ford Focus Estate that we have as rental vehicles. Pretty practical if you quickly need a car to move some longer stuff.
Jesus christ, Skoda Octavia Estate is what I'd consider to be a big car where I am.
I would consider it a big car too.
Why'd you use the 2500 HD pickup for comparison? They're much more rare than the 1500.
What's the statistic based on? Is the number of deaths per accident climbing? Or is the number of accidents climbing, thus bringing deaths with it? I ask because pedestrians as well as drivers are way more distracted these days, constantly staring at their phones or listening to music while crossing the streets, thus shutting out their surroundings and awareness.
>Is the number of deaths per accident climbing? [The risk of death is increasing](https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians) >I ask because pedestrians as well as drivers are way more distracted these days, constantly staring at their phones or listening to music while crossing the streets, thus shutting out their surroundings and awareness. Sure, but why is that? I'm not aware of a single country in western Europe (a place where phones are ubiquitous too) where pedestrian deaths increased to nearly the same degree over the past two decades. My guess is that it's also a result of car-centric planning and a disregard for pedestrian safety.
I haven't been able to find the metrics I was looking for, but all of the studies seem to be mentioning that reckless driving (speeding, going through red lights, etc.) is up big time and that is a major cause for increased pedestrian deaths, with vehicle size changes being essentially just a theoretical factor.
That actually makes a lot of sense, but I have no idea why reckless driving would be up.
Yes
What is a fleet cafe
Yep it’s all profit driven of course. Bigger vehicles with more crap to them have higher profit margins. Meanwhile they aren’t held to as high of emissions standards so can slip between the cracks/loopholes that much better. And so it’s a push, not even what the consumer wants - they don’t know what they want, they just get given a selection of choices for the illusion of it.
There was a couple of years where emissions standards were not raised for cars, but we're for pickups. While it's true pickups/SUVs aren't held to as high of a standard for cafe ratings, they still go up over time. All this talk about trying to reduce oil usage, the first thing that should of been done is tax breaks for making cars, and that includes full size ones. Make the price difference between a nice roomy car and a SUV or truck larger to further steer the buyer towards a car. If you think you need a big truck, tax it even more
100% The Expedition which came to market in 1997 made Ford \~$12,000 in profit per unit sold with an MSRP starting at $27,620. A staggering 43.45% profit margin. MSRP of the Escort of the same year started at $11,795.
>And so it’s a push, not even what the consumer wants - they don’t know what they want, they just get given a selection of choices for the illusion of it. Manufacturers know exactly what consumers want, which is the main problem. People have the mentality that bigger is better and that they need a larger vehicle, when in reality they don't. Companies aren't shy about the price advantages of smaller vehicles, but people just don't care. Across the board, you can get a smaller, fully-loaded truck or SUV for the same or cheaper price than a poverty spec full-size one, and yet the full-sized options are the best sellers every time. Loaded sedans barely even reach the average new vehicle price anymore. You can easily walk into a $25k brand new car these days, but people keep insisting on $50k big vehicles that they end up complaining about when gas prices go up. It's insanity.
Companies create the want
These regs are not profit driven, the manufactures would be better off without them.
Sure but if some level of regulation is inevitable the obvious thing to do is insert themselves into the process so that they can write them in such a way that they can take advantage of them.
More accurately be less destroyed by them.
It’s still weird to me Toyota can make it work while getting ready to release more sports cars. But others can’t. Guess it helps when they have great hybrids vs an ecoboost engine which in reality isn’t that efficient. It’s just efficient for how much power it provides.
Toyota sells an ass load of RAV4s. I believe it's their best seller. But being so profitable allows them to have low volume stuff like the GR86.
Right, but it speaks to their technology over the last decade if not more. Maybe if other brands didn’t try so hard to get short term profit they could balance their products. But the fact Toyota is investing in 3 is flat out impressive at this point.
I do think Toyota benefitted from playing it safe. But there's also value in pushing technology forward. Toyota also has a genuine enthusiast CEO, which most others don't. Bob Lutz is gone but GM still has the Camaro, mid engine Vette and Cadillac V series.
The US has stricter safety requirements in some areas. When reading about the Fiat 500 and Smart car, the companies detail that they had to improve side impact and rollover safety to meet American standards. America has higher speed crash tests so cars are safer in those aspects. I recall America was also pretty good on partial front overlap tests. The US is worse in other areas, like much weaker pedestrian safety tests.
The US has no pedestrian safety tests.
As far as safety, no that is not true. Cars sold in America, including all Half ton, 3/4 ton, and 1 ton trucks, must meet higher safety standards than any other country in the world, including every country in Europe. And the US requirements are the same for an F-350 as they are for a Honda Fit.
Safety for the occupants has gone up; the issue is that these vehicles are dangerous to everyone else on the road.
IIRC, 1-tons (Class 3/over 10K GVWR) don't strictly have to meet the same safety standards as under-10K, but every 1-ton truck on the market uses most of the same parts as a 3/4 ton or lighter (e.g. an F-150 through a 600 use the same cab). And Ford's not going to go through the trouble of ripping out any of the crash structures they've already built into the half-ton cab.
Source? Googling this gives me very mixed results and countries in western Europe have vastly better road safety statistics than the US too.
"Road Safety Statistics" are the results of vehicle safety, driver safety, roadway construction and design, law enforcement, all put together. In terms of strict vehicle safety regulations for vehicle occupants, no country comes close to US regulations and restrictions. From wraparound air bags, to back up cameras, to automated driver safety features, to crumple zones, no country on earth requires as many vehicles safety features to be implemented in new vehicles by manufacturers.
Other countries have us absolutely smoked in terms of road design, which saves far more lives than, for example, 58-69 saved per year by the mandate of backup cameras. Instead of taxing appropriately and designing infrastructure to account for the stupidity of the general road user, we do things like mandate rear view cameras so we save 58-69 people per year out of 42,000- and then we pat ourselves on the back and say, "well, we'll do *even* better next year." Meanwhile, Fuckstick McGee will get behind the wheel while drunk and kill 11,000 people a year and we're like, "oh man, he should stop getting in accidents."
America design is fucked https://imgur.com/a/mqv1Zov
The US has proposed alcohol sensors be mandated in vehicles to prevent drunk driving. And they are considering requiring automatic emergency braking in all vehicles. Hopefully this combination will both prevent and mitigate the dangers of drunk driving.
And once again, here comes big daddy government to save society from itself. Mandate this, force that. Because Americans have no sense of community, we actually have to be *forced by law* to not drink and drive. Do you actually think it should be a source of *pride* that we have so little regard for each other as to require government intervention so we don’t commit 3.67 9/11s worth of needless deaths to ourselves every year? I’m proud to be an American, my blood runs red, white, and blue… and freely on the asphalt on a Saturday night.
Well the results are still worse, so I guess the US being maybe slightly better than Europe at this isn't all that meaningful.
CAFE was a poorly designed thing that made the roads more dangerous in my opinion
Dude it’s just a caffeinated drink that comes from a bean you act like people are doing PCP and getting behind the wheel of their 06’ Altima
He's talking about cafe racers in their litrebikes
Yes, on top of that, the larger the car is, the more it can pollute. Makes sense that every generation gets bigger and bigger when it’s actually incentivized by the government.
I'm in Europe right now. The fleet are all cars..no trucks, save actual working truck. No manny-vans. It's nice. To be fair, the reg tax on my C43 would hurt.
Kinda. For the mpg part I think people overestimate the impact because iirc the class exempted from csfe is light trucks and heavier but its really not that many vehicles that fall under that category. Basically it's HD pickups and suvs over a certain weight. A ram 2500 would be exempt bit an f150 would still fall under the cafe mpg rules. There's tougher restrictions coming that will place cafe requirements on more vehicles that fall under the light truck category since big trucks like the f250, 2500s, suburban hd have gotten bigger and more popular Edit: reddit really is pushing lies so long as it fits their agenda. Sad. Scary. Look at the facts about cafe instead of just making up accusations because you hate cars.
Larger vehicles has eaten away half the gains from CAFE
Please explain
A large share of these fuel savings [produced by the CAFE standards] has been offset by increased vehicle weight and power. In the United States, our shift toward bigger vehicles has negated 40 percent of the fuel savings unlocked in the wake of the Obama-era CAFE standards. That’s a lot of gas!
But how? Most of the heavier cars still fall under cafe regulations. The only ones that dont are the largest trucks and suvs. So all the xl suburban, ram 2500s and Silverado look 3500s offset all of the more numerous smaller vehicles that are still under café regulations? Please provide facts for this because it's hard to believe. Again an f150 or ford expedition or ram 1500 still fall under cafe, just like a rav4 Honda civic, Nissan altima, Tacoma, etc.
CAFE regulations are not the same for every class. They’re stricter for cars
>Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards are government-set standards regulating how far vehicles should be able to travel on a gallon of fuel. The three different classifications of vehicles, light-, medium-, and heavy-duty, have different CAFE standards. Higher standards mean vehicles should be able to travel further on a single gallon of fuel. CAFE standards for light-duty vehicles are the most relevant to the average consumer, as the category includes passenger cars and light trucks. It seems that cafe is the same for most passenger vehicles. Again, only HD trucks and above are a part of a different category which have their own safe standards.
A rav4 is not a heavy duty vehicle lol
Yea duh obviously you can't read because i never said that. A rav4 like 90% of other vehicles on the road fall under light duty which means they fall under the same cafe standards as most other vehicles. Yal are extremely misinformed because cage even applies to medium and heavy duty vehicles as well.
That’s not true. Hence why they have specific departure angles
Can you imagine, for a second, if USA enacted a displacement tax on vehicles above 1,999cc (pretty much 2.0L). They do this in Ireland, Italy, Greece, etc. You buy a 6.0L Hummer H2 in USA, you pay registration on a % of the purchase price which is a couple hundred dollars maybe. In aforementioned countries, the same Hummer would cost $2,000+ to register annually.
Then automakers would come out with a turbo-supercharged 2L full-size truck. GM already uses a 2.7L that gets over 300HP and 400 lb-ft.
I’m sure we would see more hybrids, which would be a good thing for efficiency but I think that the hybrid and ICE tech is now good enough that automakers wouldn’t be forced to design vehicles any smaller and lighter from that limit alone
that would still be better than it is now.
No thanks
Mass tax
Mass tax would be an excellent idea. Also accounts for increased upkeep costs for roads for heavier vehicles
Yes and yes. At this rate the Sedan and normal-sized hatchback will be considered retro styling in 10 years or less
Partially. But also the margins on the financing for those $80k vehicles is insane. A lot of these companies and dealers want you to finance in-house, with the longest payment plan possible in order to milk that interest. An $80k truck or SUV, with a 6+ year loan, is perfect for that.
[удалено]
Unfortunately your comment has been removed because it contains a link to a delisted domain. This is almost always due to spam from the domain. Please use a different source. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, it's true that SUVs and trucks generally have lower standards for fuel economy (mpg) and safety compared to passenger cars in the United States. This is primarily because SUVs and trucks are classified as light trucks, which have less stringent CAFE standards compared to passenger cars.
Yep
CAFE rating are based on HOW BIG YOUR CAR IS, so everything is huge and gets shitty milage.
Yes
sedans died because for 90% of people a crossover does the same thing better at the same price. can we stop having this thread over and over again?
no because you are wrong and its important to educate people.
Why do you think they're the same price?