New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires]

Originally Posted by ZDan

2+2 = 4, it's that simple.

Domestics have had trouble selling *cars*, an easier time selling *trucks and SUVs*. So EPA regs have been skewed to favor trucks/SUVs. Likewise, domestics prefer to build bigger cars, and bigger trucks, so larger-footprint vehicles get breaks as well. This is one reason *cars*, and particularly smaller cars, and also smaller trucks are disappearing.

If you don't think that these regs have affected what kinds of cars manufacturers build for and sell in the U.S., you might think about it a little more...

It's beyond absurd that half the vehicles I see on my commute to workie are HUGE trucks and SUVs while CO2 continues to climb. Stupid...

he's google searching his way through every single discussion here, its not fair to expect him to do any thinking about this subject

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

2+2 = 4, it's that simple.

Domestics have had trouble selling *cars*, an easier time selling *trucks and SUVs*. So EPA regs have been skewed to favor trucks/SUVs. Likewise, domestics prefer to build bigger cars, and bigger trucks, so larger-footprint vehicles get breaks as well. This is one reason *cars*, and particularly smaller cars, and also smaller trucks are disappearing.

If you don't think that these regs have affected what kinds of cars manufacturers build for and sell in the U.S., you might think about it a little more...

It's beyond absurd that half the vehicles I see on my commute to workie are HUGE trucks and SUVs while CO2 continues to climb. Stupid...

Again, EV trucks will be meeting passenger car CAFE standards, so your point is irrelevant. Changing from the Bolt to the SUVs/trucks removes more ICE trucks from their production numbers. It would be far easier to make another ICE car to pass CAFE standards than an ICE truck to pass CAFE standards, even with the softer regulations. It makes far more sense for them to eliminate ICE SUVs/trucks from the books, besides the fact that SUVs/trucks are far more popular.

You are making a claim without substantiating it. You’re trying to make a ligic argument over an evidence based argument. It’s a claim I’ve made too, but I have realized that it is vacuous claim without any hard numbers to back it up. Here are the hard numbers for you to make some calculations:

https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulatio...e-fuel-economy
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-4.../section-531.5
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-4...ter-V/part-533

What you need to show is more than just that the CAFE standards are less for SUVs and trucks, but that it would be easier to pass CAFE standards with an SUV over a car despite the SUV weighing more, having parasitic AWD/4WD, worse aerodynamics, a larger engine, etc.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sasquachulator

I dunno what platform the bolt is on but the Equinox EV is on its own dedicated EV platform (Ultium) is it not? That probably helps keeps the costs down. Look what Toyota had to do, they didnt do a good job of making an EV transition platform (E-TNGA) or even use it all that well and now they're fast tracking a pure dedicated EV platform for next gen EV use. ANd alot of this is due to how Tesla manufacturers an EV....aside from cost cutting to shit they dont have to share anything in an ICE counterpart, so they're not restricted by ICE packaging.

GM was and is still losing money on every Bolt were they not?
Besides, small cars dont sell in the N/A market anymore (Which the Bolt is...and dont care how many EV nutjobs cry about how the Bolt is the cheapest EV out there...not everyone wants a Bolt or can use its size, especially in North America) so getting an Equinox sized CUV/SUV is probably automatically better for the bottom line and sales numbers.

Again, like I said a few posts ago, they could have built a new Bolt on the new platform instead of building a new Equinox on the new platform, but they are doing the Equinox because it sells better and has higher margins.

I don’t know if they are losing money on the base Bolt like GM said they were losing money on the base model Corvette, but they sold $50k Bolts as well. Kind of a harder sell for people to buy a $50k Bolt, regardless of being fully loaded.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by MyHybridBurnsGasAndTires

he's google searching his way through every single discussion here, its not fair to expect him to do any thinking about this subject

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Again, EV trucks will be meeting passenger car CAFE standards, so your point is irrelevant.

Point is, we should never have given non-work trucks/SUVs a break on CAFE. The transition from ICE to electric could have been smoothed out a LOT if we hadn't decided that it was good for more and more people to switch over from 3400-3600 lb. somewhat aerodynamic cars to 4000-5000-6000+ lb. gigantic bricks. Still should do it, get the major CO2 emitters out of daily-commute duty.

It makes far more sense for them to eliminate ICE SUVs/trucks from the books, besides the fact that SUVs/trucks are far more popular.

Part of the reason they are more popular is because regs have made them easier to develop.

You are making a claim without substantiating it.

My claim is this: They have made it much easier on trucks/SUVs, and they have also made it easier on bigger cars vs. smaller cars. The effect that has had on what manufacturers make available is non-zero.

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Point is, we should never have given non-work trucks/SUVs a break on CAFE.

I'm sure truck breaks on CAFE helped, but compare to Europe, where there are no breaks for larger vehicles, people still prefer crossovers to hatchbacks. I'm sure you can fill books and doctoral theses on the relation between car manufacturers, car regulations and car buyers, but my dumbed down take is that it's preferable for everyone to have bigger vehicles (at least in the short term).

Well, everyone except the environment (and us in the long run).

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

I'm sure truck breaks on CAFE helped, but compare to Europe, where there are no breaks for larger vehicles, people still prefer crossovers to hatchbacks. I'm sure you can fill books and doctoral theses on the relation between car manufacturers, car regulations and car buyers, but my dumbed down take is that it's preferable for everyone to have bigger vehicles (at least in the short term).

Well, everyone except the environment (and us in the long run).

I'm not entirely sure this is true.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I'm not entirely sure this is true.

Afraid it is :/

Not as much as on the US market, but it's an issue nonetheless.

[Ohio Enthusiast]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I'm not entirely sure this is true.

One of many analysis on this - https://www.jato.com/oems-are-sellin...more-vehicles/

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by ZDan

Point is, we should never have given non-work trucks/SUVs a break on CAFE. The transition from ICE to electric could have been smoothed out a LOT if we hadn't decided that it was good for more and more people to switch over from 3400-3600 lb. somewhat aerodynamic cars to 4000-5000-6000+ lb. gigantic bricks. Still should do it, get the major CO2 emitters out of daily-commute duty.

I don't think you have thought through what you are proposing. How would they have prevented people from buying trucks and SUVs or how would they verify the vehicles were used for work or towing? Is this only for new cars or old cars? What if someone wanted to just have it for personal use to tow a trailer or haul stuff on their property? What if people wanted to go off-roading, camping, rock crawling, etc? If they had the exact same standards regardless of class then we would either see looser standards for cars too or the sharp decline of many trucks from the already low percentage of 10-15% at the time, or we would have seen inflation (passing down the cost of work trucks) at a time when the country was at record inflation with interest rates around 18% and facing a gas crisis.

Should the government penalize people for polluting more by driving too much and living too far away from work, so could someone own a truck if they drove it less than 5k miles a year? I'm trying to wrap my head around how you expect the government to regulate this industry or what people want to buy.

Originally Posted by ZDan

Part of the reason they are more popular is because regs have made them easier to develop.

My claim is this: They have made it much easier on trucks/SUVs, and they have also made it easier on bigger cars vs. smaller cars. The effect that has had on what manufacturers make available is non-zero.

How have CAFE regulations made them easier to develop? How have CAFE standards incentivized them to be bigger? Again, you are making claims without evidence. You are trying to rationalize your way without anything concrete. You are trying to say CAFE regulations are disproportionately soft on SUVs and trucks, but this is an unsubstantiated claim. All we know is that trucks get a softer standard, but that standard could be proportional to cars or could be even worse than it is for cars pound-for-pound or something.

There are other reasons vehicles are bigger and people like SUVs/trucks. Crash/safety standards have required cars to be heavier/bigger/taller hoods (trucks and SUVs were already big). Manufactures have also developed vehicles on global architectures that are bigger than bespoke platforms, and they do this because those bigger platforms are more accommodating to multiple models. To offset this bulk, manufactures have made ever more efficient powertrains, downsized engines, used lighter materials, decreased drag, etc. As people left the cities for the suburbs, they had the space for larger vehicles too. The rise of SUVs and trucks happened when the price of gas plummeted during the late eighties and nineties. When I was in high school in 2000, gas was 99 cents a gallon, which was cheap for that time, equivalent to $1.75/gal today, where it is $5.50+ right now. Manufactures were able to sell the Hummer or other cars because people had no problem affording the gas.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Spuds

I'm not entirely sure this is true.

You seem to be right.

Originally Posted by alex87f

Afraid it is :/

Not as much as on the US market, but it's an issue nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

I'm sure truck breaks on CAFE helped, but compare to Europe, where there are no breaks for larger vehicles, people still prefer crossovers to hatchbacks. I'm sure you can fill books and doctoral theses on the relation between car manufacturers, car regulations and car buyers, but my dumbed down take is that it's preferable for everyone to have bigger vehicles (at least in the short term).

Well, everyone except the environment (and us in the long run).

This doesn't seem to be correct. The EU and US differ, but both allow for looser emissions with larger vehicles. The EU is/was based on mass, and the US based their standards more on footprint than just weight, which encouraged light-weighting. If anything, Europe had policies that at times would have incentivized manufactures to increase vehicle size, as the links mentioned.

The US is much more stringent on diesel emissions for passenger cars (especially after VW diesel-gate; they give more allowances for diesel trucks, except for their recent crackdown on cheat devices), which is why the EU has so many diesel options, with many diesel engine options, and with 50% of vehicles being diesel. They have more cities in the EU, so cars tend to be smaller to park. Manual transmissions are still far more popular. Gas is more expensive and public transportation is more available. The US has more open highways and larger B roads than the EU, but the EU has the autobahn. With all these differences, it is probably hard to do an apples to apples comparison to the buying habits and market pressures between the EU and US, even if the trends are to buy more SUVs in both markets.

Under all European CO2 standards adopted and proposed, individual manufacturer targets are adjusted by the average mass of the manufacturer’s fleet. The heavier the fleet, the higher the CO2 emissions target, and vice versa.

While a utility parameter was introduced into the regulation for the practical purpose of maintaining diversity in the vehicle market and accounting for varying consumer needs, it was at the same time a political compromise intended to protect the competitive positions of European automakers. German manufacturers of premium brands could continue selling larger, heavier cars with comparatively high CO2 emissions, while their French and Italian competitors continued to sell smaller and lighter vehicles with lower CO2 values.

Vehicle footprint, a measure of the size of a vehicle, is the utility parameter used in greenhouse-gas vehicle standards in the United States.3

https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploa...ief_201808.pdf

Thus, in the US, currently two sets of legislation for fuel efficiency and CO2 exist side by side; the CAFE standards set by the NHTSA, which govern fuel economy; and EPA standards for CO2 emissions. Both sets of legislation are based on the vehicle’s footprint.

In the EU, standards are set for GHG emissions in grams emitted per kilometre driven (g/km)34. The first CO2 targets in the EU were set as early as 1998 through voluntary agreements between the automotive industry and the European Commission, and later through mandatory emission reduction targets set in legislation as outlined in section 2.5 below.

One area in which GHG standards in the US and EU differ is in how emissions are calculated. In the US, all GHG emissions from vehicles are counted in terms of their CO2-equivalents (e.g. CO2, N2O and CH4). In contrast, the EU regulates only CO2.

Additionally, while the EU, after some debate during the development of and adoption of the regulation on CO2 emissions from passenger cars35, sets its GHG emissions standards (see section 2.6 below) on a fleet-average basis calculated by the mass of each vehicle, the fleet- average standards in the US are based on the “vehicle footprint”.36 The latter approach has the advantage that manufacturers have a stronger incentive to reduce emissions by the use of lighter materials, as well as other methods.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegDa...)587331_EN.pdf

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Ohio Enthusiast

One of many analysis on this - https://www.jato.com/oems-are-sellin...more-vehicles/

Seems like this introduction pretty much parrots what I was saying that SUVs were a marketing strategy in mature markets to increase revenue streams and were consumer preferences over their alternative predecessors:

With a limited number of new customers entering Europe’s new car market each year, OEMs have created new segments to attract consumer attention. Developed in the US in the late 90s, SUVs were quickly picked up by European manufacturers and when formally introduced to the market, these vehicles soon became a real alternative to the traditional hatchbacks, wagons and MPVs that dominated Europe’s roads for decades. For OEMs, SUVs allowed them to enhance their model offering while charging more for vehicles that were largely identical to their hatchback equivalents.

Consumers were, and still are, willing to pay more for an SUV than the traditional alternatives. For manufacturers that have struggled to hit targets over the last 10 years, they have become a welcomed revenue stream, however the surge in SUV sales has not come without negative consequences. The most significant of which has been the impact on CO2 emissions.

[Irace86.2.0]

Just for some comparison, since 2016 to 2025 standards, cars will need to reduce their output from 163 to 89, which is a difference of 74, and light trucks will need to reduce their output from 215 to 126, which is a difference of 89, so trucks would have further to go, even if the percentage drop is 41% vs 45%. There was a gap of 52 between cars and trucks (the loophole) in 2016 and that gap will close to 37. On a long enough timeline, even if there wasn't EVs to speed the process, this gap would continue to close by the standards unless they modified the trajectories or capped the emissions, so again, it appears that making large trucks and SUVs would get harder and harder over time.

The consumers are driving demand, and the regulations aren't stopping consumers. How could they? Manufactures also can just pass the price to consumers by taking the fines and buying carbon credits. Seems like the price of SUVs provides the profit motive and people are willing to pay the premium.

[Dadhawk]

@Irace86.2.0 in regard to the chart about truck/car prices above, part of that crossover was the fact that around the mid 90's is when buyers began demanding trucks that were basically big cars with all the features and cup holders and conveniences.

As far as those saying small trucks are dying out, you aren't paying attention. Think Ford Maverick and Ranger, the Santa Cruz, Chevy Montana, etc.

There isn't some secret society or conspiracy amongst the manufacturers to only sell gas guzzling trucks. They are in the business of making money, so if there was a market for small cars they would sell them. Until recently GM and others have had small cars, but guess what, no one bought them. Even the vaunted Japanese OEMs no longer build true small cars. My son just bought a 2023 Honda Accord. It is almost a foot longer, and several inches wider than the 2002 Honda Accord it replaced. The 2023 Honda Civic is nearly over 40" longer (184 vs 147") than the 1977 Honda Civic I owned and loved.

As for the Bolt, unfortunately I think they had to retire the name because of the bad press on the batteries. Never mind they sell every one they build and they did the right thing on the battery issue, it does have a negative connotation they likely don't want to carry over to the Ultium platform.