New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Diarrhea of the keyboard seems to be one of your talents.

Just the kind of answer I expect from you

Try actually backing your words up with some evidence or rationale instead of just baseless statements and hateful rhetoric.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Yeah, I am onboard with the hypocrisy, but it is hard to create legislation that allows for big diesel vehicles to exist that are used for work, for their true utility, for hauling, etc, while also telling people they can't buy these types of vehicles for solo commuting. I think the government believed there was a need for a double standard, so these vehicles could exist, but they didn't expect the manufactures and public to make the exception the standard by taking something from 10-20% of the market to 80% of the market. I don't believe they drafted the legislation with the intention of manipulating the market to create the current situation where we have so many trucks and SUVs.

Trucks And SUVs Are Now Over 80 Percent Of New Car Sales In The U.S.
https://jalopnik.com/trucks-and-suvs...ale-1848427797

One could be tempted to ask whether work trucks are correctly sized for their use.

A US gardener using a 400hp 7.3L F250 probably does about the same job a European gardener does with a 120hp diesel van or a small diesel truck, either of which gets three times the F250's economy.

Point being: you can't say "hey it's a work truck" and expect that one should do away with regulations. Apart from the 2-3% of work trucks that actually require pulling heavy loads, there's no reason work trucks should have a different taxation / CAFE system.

The part I can't quite wrap my head around is why US carmaker's can't make a small-sized or mid-sized pickup at a competitive price. Logic would have it fleet buyers would only buy cost efficient vehicles, but there are other factors involved (guessing it might be harder to hire people when your employees drive small vans instead of large trucks, things like that).

I'd say you should just increase taxation on gas, but with PHEV / EV truck you'll be left with the same issue in a few year's time.

Weight tax might actually be the one thing that makes sens, with a 15% tolerance on PHEV & 30% on EVs.

France will give EV buyers a grant equal to 27% of the vehicle's cost capped at 5 000€ and zeroed if the vehicle costs over 47 000€ (20% sales tax included), only if it weighs less than 2.4 tons. That sort of makes sense and makes a Tesla M3 a 37 000€ car after sales tax. But it only applies to the base, SR model.

[Irace86.2.0]

[Lantanafrs2]

Over the last few yrs I've learned to trust trolls more than self appointed gurus of a given topic.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The fall of these vehicles is consumer based and manufacture based, but if people were demanding sedans, station wagons and minivans in droves then manufactures would sell them. They are selling SUVs because people want them and because it works for CAFE standards. The fall of cars is also driven by consumers to a point that manufactures now sell few, but it isn't like you can't buy a Camry, Model 3, Civic or BMW 3 series anymore. I drive past dealerships all the time and those models are just sitting there for the picking.

It's definitely a chicken and egg thing, I get that.

By the way, none of the cars you mention satisfy my "family road trip" scenario unless your family is four or less people.

[Lantanafrs2]

What doesn't help is that so many minivans were absolute pieces of shit along with domestic sedans. Lots of money went up in smoke.i see it almost every day.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

Over the last few yrs I've learned to trust trolls more than self appointed gurus of a given topic.

I see the logic. Would a smattering of random troll remarks by me instead of providing reason and evidence to my arguments mean you can trust what I say?

It sounds like you lack the ability to weigh the strength of the evidence for yourself and come to your own conclusions, so you need to trust groups for information. I say don't trust trolls or self-appointed gurus and use your own brain to determine what you want to believe or what may be true. That is probably the best thing over believing whatever someone says from their pulpit or soap box.

Regardless, a lot of what your bring to the conversation is snide remarks that aren't humorous or add to the conversation, which is very troll behavior. Just saying.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by alex87f

One could be tempted to ask whether work trucks are correctly sized for their use.

A US gardener using a 400hp 7.3L F250 probably does about the same job a European gardener does with a 120hp diesel van or a small diesel truck, either of which gets three times the F250's economy.

Point being: you can't say "hey it's a work truck" and expect that one should do away with regulations. Apart from the 2-3% of work trucks that actually require pulling heavy loads, there's no reason work trucks should have a different taxation / CAFE system.

The part I can't quite wrap my head around is why US carmaker's can't make a small-sized or mid-sized pickup at a competitive price. Logic would have it fleet buyers would only buy cost efficient vehicles, but there are other factors involved (guessing it might be harder to hire people when your employees drive small vans instead of large trucks, things like that).

I'd say you should just increase taxation on gas, but with PHEV / EV truck you'll be left with the same issue in a few year's time.

Weight tax might actually be the one thing that makes sens, with a 15% tolerance on PHEV & 30% on EVs.

France will give EV buyers a grant equal to 27% of the vehicle's cost capped at 5 000€ and zeroed if the vehicle costs over 47 000€ (20% sales tax included), only if it weighs less than 2.4 tons. That sort of makes sense and makes a Tesla M3 a 37 000€ car after sales tax. But it only applies to the base, SR model.

Manufactures are going to build vehicles to meet the demands of all different types of consumers. There are consumers that tow large vehicles or that need a dualie for load capacity. If a gardener buys a F350 to carry 500lbs of equipment, the misuse of the utility of that truck is not really something the government is involved in regulating. I'm a fairly liberal person, as you all know, but I feel like I am the conservative one preaching to the right about small government or something. The government is a bit more libertarian than you guys may think on this issue. They simply want to reduce carbon emissions without impacting businesses that depend on trucks; this was their initial intent, regardless of what happened with the increase in sales of trucks and SUVs. If a contractor had to buy ten to fifteen trucks that were either subject to a $5k gas guzzler tax or didn't exist because manufactures couldn't build a turbo diesel to meet regulations then that could be a problem in their eyes. The government tends to be pretty pro-business. On top of that, they probably didn't want to create a system where the IRS had to process tax write-offs based on proving a truck that was purchased was being used for a business and for its rated capacity. This would subject people to still have to come up with the payment up front in order to later be reimbursed, and it would place a burden on the IRS.

Try to consider that most of the trucks in the past were used for their utility when the laws were written. Why these laws haven't been modified since the increase in truck and SUV popularity has to got to do with preferences from different administrations, lobbyists and pressure from manufactures, public opinion, etc. Imagine if they reversed their position for the exemption and suddenly the manufactures had to have average fleet economy standards of cars be applied to trucks (no double standard). The SUVs and trucks would have to disappear. Even if trucks were only 20% of their business, those trucks would have disappeared in the past.

They can and do, but people and corporations want big. A huge UPS truck is more efficient than several smaller trucks. An Amazon van is more efficient than several Amazon sedans. Size isn't always bad. It is bad when it is mismatched, which happens more often at the consumer level and not the business level, and unfortunately, the consumer likes big. Part of it is safety. Part of it is perceived utility wanting a Swiss Army knife of vehicles when all they do is ever use a straight blade.

I think it would be hard to draft legislation that is ubiquitous and is pro-business, which is why we see this conflict, double-standard hypocrisy. If you have an idea that doesn't hurt businesses, but that reduces the use of trucks and SUVs for personal use then I'm all ears. I don't have a stake in this besides possible inflation from the increased costs to the business being passed to the consumer. I'm just trying to argue from the perspective of people who consider such talking points when drafting legislation. I'm trying to put myself in their shoes.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

It's definitely a chicken and egg thing, I get that.

By the way, none of the cars you mention satisfy my "family road trip" scenario unless your family is four or less people.

The eight/nine seat station wagons of the past or the seven seat Tesla Model S of today is not really safe. Giant overhang trunks and matching big engine'd sedans have been replaced by shorter overhands with trunks that have gone vertical. Front bench seats where you had to straddle the shifter as a kid are no longer safe, so many cars of the past would be five passenger vehicles today. What cars of the past were you thinking of? If anything, the average family size has only shrunk and people rarely use all of the seating capacity they need. Plus, a family of five with three teenagers is more likely to own five SUVs and not four compacts with one Suburban. It is a preference over utility thing.

I was born in 82' and can remember far more roof racks with camping equipment on the cars and bicycles and ski's attached to the top of vehicles. Now everything has been moved inside. Safety? Rain? Theft?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

What doesn't help is that so many minivans were absolute pieces of shit along with domestic sedans. Lots of money went up in smoke.i see it almost every day.

Friends and family had minivans and wagons. There wasn't anything inherently terrible about their powertrains or build quality relative to other sedans. They were incredibly easy to get into and out of. The swivel seating was great and comfortable, being able to spin around was fun and made interacting with the third row fun. Weight and gas mileage was better than SUVs of today.

They just had the bad rap of being family vehicles for soccer moms and not being cool, which is why many minivans these days are just SUVs with a sliding door.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

I was born in 82' and can remember far more roof racks with camping equipment on the cars and bicycles and ski's attached to the top of vehicles. Now everything has been moved inside. Safety? Rain? Theft?

The year you were born, I was one year out of college, so a different experience obviously.

Lots of sedans from the 60's and 70's could carry a family of 5 or 6 comfortably with luggage in the trunk. Yes, they were boats, but they got the job done. Safety was probably questionable. I suppose it's also true that we didn't pack for a week by bringing everything we owned with us. We packed packed one suitcase for the parents, one for the kids on most trips.

We were also known to travel a couple hundred miles to the beach with 4 kids in the back of a pickup truck. I loved riding in the back. I rode the wheel hump if the weather was good, and against the cab if it was raining.

That safety thing always gets in the way of fun doesn't it?

[Lantanafrs2]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Friends and family had minivans and wagons. There wasn't anything inherently terrible about their powertrains or build quality relative to other sedans. They were incredibly easy to get into and out of. The swivel seating was great and comfortable, being able to spin around was fun and made interacting with the third row fun. Weight and gas mileage was better than SUVs of today.

They just had the bad rap of being family vehicles for soccer moms and not being cool, which is why many minivans these days are just SUVs with a sliding door.

You're too young to remember honda odyssey transmission problems or the hideous quality of Chrysler minivans. There are other examples.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

You're too young to remember honda odyssey transmission problems or the hideous quality of Chrysler minivans. There are other examples.

We had two Chevy Astro "family cars" while our boys were growing up. One went to 245,000 miles, the other one to 280,000 miles nearly trouble free until they weren't at the end. I'd buy one today if Chevy still made them.

[Lantanafrs2]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

We had two Chevy Astro "family cars" while our boys were growing up. One went to 245,000 miles, the other one to 280,000 miles nearly trouble free until they weren't at the end. I'd buy one today if Chevy still made them.

My father had a 95 and a 2006. Mightve been the last yr for them. I could stuff 2 race bikes in either one no problem. Plenty of power too. They were good so gm discontinued them and went with fwd cookie cutter pos.