New ICE Vehicles Banned in California by 2035

[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.

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.thedrive.com/news/2024-c...ub-competition

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.thedrive.com/news/2024-c...ub-competition

It's not limited to the e-ray, and it isn't about the vehicles it's about safety at the track. The tracks aren't equipped to handle emergency situations with EV, PHEVs or HEVs. This is to allow them time to get up to speed on them.

As I've said before, I'm surprised they let them race in the first place given the lack of fire safety equipment and the real risk at a performance venue.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

It's not limited to the e-ray, and it isn't about the vehicles it's about safety at the track. The tracks aren't equipped to handle emergency situations with EV, PHEVs or HEVs. This is to allow them time to get up to speed on them.

As I've said before, I'm surprised they let them race in the first place given the lack of fire safety equipment and the real risk at a performance venue.

You’re funny. Your response assumes people are just reading the headlines, and then you are explaining what is easily inferred or outright explained in the body of the article.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by 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.

Agreed. The bare bones utility truck became a family vehicle with leather electric seats, premium features, space, short beds, etc. When Cadillac made this and people put dubs on hummers, I knew things had really changed.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You’re funny. Your response assumes people are just reading the headlines, and then you are explaining what is easily inferred or outright explained in the body of the article.

Hah, yea, I guess I am... You know because no one ever does what you sugges t right?

Actually I was just part of a very long thread on another forum about this very thing, and I guess I'm still shell shocked from it.

[alex87f]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You seem to be right.





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.







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



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

You're only seeing one side of the coin. CAFE European standards are indeed adjusted by mass (I would assume this is meant to protect upmarket carmakers from being hit too hard). But this is the business side only.

Consumers are also taxed when they buy a car, and there are typically no special allowances for heavier vehicles (although keep in mind we're talking about 27 different countries, I didn't check'em all ).

Most countries either have a yearly road tax or a registration tax, sometimes both. Those will generally take into account CO2 emissions, and possibly other parameters (hp, fuel used, etc.), and are generally meant to hit large vehicles harder.

Professional vehicles (vans) typically have some degree of leeway, but with diesel close to $8/ga, there's still a strong incentive for companies to use smaller engined vans / trucks. Company cars don't get this tolerance and are generally taxed as hard or harder than personal vehicles.

Despite this, there are loopholes. Defeat devices and workarounds helped manufacturers reduce advertised fuel economy to get around regulations, which means large vehicles weren't taxed as heavily as they should have been (for example, an X5M40i had an advertised fuel economy close to 30mpg..). That's been corrected thanks to new -if imperfect- testing cycles, but PHEVs are now the new easy workaround for manufacturers to sell large SUVs with low advertised fuel consumption, even though users may or may not actually charge them.

And despite all these measures, small cars are increasingly replaced by higher vehicles like Audi Q3s instead of A3s, GLAs instead of A Mercedes, etc.

Also, the autobahn is stricly a German thing and even there, half the motorway network has a 75mph limit

[Lantanafrs2]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...ic-car-drivers

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Lantanafrs2

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics...ic-car-drivers

That's to be expected, and many states already do it.

Using the Georgia fuel tax (Fed and State) of $0.395 per gallon, I already pay an average of $219 in road taxes per year in the FRS averaging about 19,000 miles a year. Georgia's annual renewal for an EV is $212.

So, to me this is a wash.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

That's to be expected, and many states already do it.

Using the Georgia fuel tax (Fed and State) of $0.395 per gallon, I already pay an average of $219 in road taxes per year in the FRS averaging about 19,000 miles a year. Georgia's annual renewal for an EV is $212.

So, to me this is a wash.

The only problem I see is that this fee is on top of the other registration fees, so instead of a $243 registration fee there is a $443 registration fee, which is a big one time payment for some people living month to month. Most EV drivers will feel fine with paying the small fee, and I don't know how much of a deterrent this would be for EV buyers.

The other issue is that the gas tax is a cost-for-use tax, so people who drive more who use more will pay more, but this bill introduces a fee that makes EVs pay irregardless of the miles, which doesn't seem fair.

This is also odd from a state that is typically anti-taxes.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

The only problem I see is that this fee is on top of the other registration fees, so instead of a $243 registration fee there is a $443 registration fee, which is a big one time payment for some people living month to month. Most EV drivers will feel fine with paying the small fee, and I don't know how much of a deterrent this would be for EV buyers.

The other issue is that the gas tax is a cost-for-use tax, so people who drive more who use more will pay more, but this bill introduces a fee that makes EVs pay irregardless of the miles, which doesn't seem fair.

This is also odd from a state that is typically anti-taxes.

Yea, agree with all that. In my case, it works out even because I drive a reasonably fuel efficient car, and I also drive a lot. GA already knows how many miles a year I drive (emissions inspection) so it would be easy enough for it to be mileage driven.

The only other fee Georgia has is tag renewal at $20. They converted away from other ad valorem/property tax around 2013. Now it's collected as a sales tax at purchase.