News: 0180278557

  ARM Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life (Terry Pratchett, Jingo)

White House Rolls Back Fuel Economy Standards (caranddriver.com)

(Wednesday December 03, 2025 @10:03PM (BeauHD) from the change-of-plans dept.)


Longtime Slashdot reader [1]sinij shares a report from Car and Driver:

> [T]he Trump administration announced less stringent [2] Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in an effort to bring down the price of new vehicles. The administration says that rules put in place by the Biden administration broke the law by going beyond the requirements mandated by Congress when the CAFE program was started. The new regulations will [3]require automakers to meet an average fuel-economy figure of 34.5 mpg across 2031-model-year vehicles , instead of the 50.4 mpg that would have been required under the [4]previous regulations .

sinij comments: "This is a much-needed move as they also recently closed a number of loopholes, such as the assumed fuel-savings credit for engine start-stop technology, that made it more difficult to meet these goals. More so, a recent string of engine and transmission failures from multiple manufacturers shows that meeting fleet standards came at a very significant cost of reduced reliability."



[1] https://slashdot.org/~sinij

[2] https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy

[3] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a69619920/trump-administration-relaxed-fuel-economy-regulations-proposal/

[4] https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/12/20/209235/epa-issues-new-rule-to-curb-tailpipe-pollution-fight-climate-change



My honda does that now (Score:2)

by Archfeld ( 6757 )

My civic...all gas...gets 34.8 on ave now. I guess that means Honda can fire the dev staff and save some money. AI will of course take over any new requirements...

Re: (Score:2)

by dfghjk ( 711126 )

"AI will of course take over any new requirements..."

by simply reporting what it's told to. You need the average to be 40 mpg, then it's 40 mpg. There's a reason Teslas have such good range, the company is run by pathological liars.

Re: (Score:2)

by Fly Swatter ( 30498 )

I guess that's sarcasm and AI humor, but remember that the average is across all vehicles for a manufacturer. Most trucks still get around 20 to 24. To offset that there will need to be lighter cars that get near 50, and not just a handful - trucks are top heavy sellers for some manufacturers not named Honda.

Re:My honda does that now (Score:5, Informative)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

> I guess that's sarcasm and AI humor, but remember that the average is across all vehicles for a manufacturer. Most trucks still get around 20 to 24. To offset that there will need to be lighter cars that get near 50, and not just a handful - trucks are top heavy sellers for some manufacturers not named Honda.

Nope.

Trucks, including the light trucks sold to consumers, are a separate category in DAFE. You don't average trucks in with cars.

Re: (Score:3)

by Xenx ( 2211586 )

The link in the summary to the CAFE standards specifically mentions it includes light trucks.

Correction noted [Re:My honda does that now] (Score:2)

by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 )

> The link in the summary to the CAFE standards specifically mentions it includes light trucks.

Looks like the standard must have changed, and my information is out of date. In the past, there hadseparate standards for cars and light trucks (e.g., [1]https://afdc.energy.gov/data/1... [energy.gov] ).

I stand corrected.

[1] https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10562

Re: (Score:2)

by UnknowingFool ( 672806 )

> Trucks, including the light trucks sold to consumers, are a separate category in DAFE. You don't average trucks in with cars.

It literally says in the very first sentence of the government page on CAFE: "NHTSA's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards regulate how far our vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel. NHTSA sets CAFE standards for passenger cars and for light trucks (collectively, light-duty vehicles) , and separately sets fuel consumption standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and engines."

How did this blatant misinformation get marked as "Informative", I'll never know..

Re: (Score:2)

by JamesTRexx ( 675890 )

The 1996 Opel Astra 1.6 does even better by my quick calculation. Been driving it because mum can no longer drive it and the last two long trips ended up roughly at 1 litre per 19.8 km, and 17.2 km.

My best mate noted the supposed better economy of the lease cars he rode wasn't all that better over the years. Not surprisingly with the average weight of cars going up.

Re: (Score:3, Informative)

by hdyoung ( 5182939 )

The only automakers affected by this will be the legacy US manufacturers. The ones that abandoned any make/model that weighs less than 8 metric tons. Yeah, that’s an exaggeration. More accurate to say that a US automaker considers a medium-sized SUV to be a “compact car” in their product lineup (Tesla being the one exception). It’s not that US cars use old tech - recent model US cars are pretty polished. But there’s no getting around the gas mileage issue. Big tall cars = more

Re: (Score:2)

by LDA6502 ( 7474138 )

> The only automakers affected by this will be the legacy US manufacturers. The ones that abandoned any make/model that weighs less than 8 metric tons.

Japanese automakers have also found large SUVs to be quite profitable for markets like the USA. I can't really see Toyota Grand Highlanders and Sequoias rolling down the streets of Tokyo. And they've also been slow to adopt electrification. Back in the earliest days of the Prius, one of Toyota's executives said that every model would be offered as a hybrid in about a decade. That might happen after three decades.

Re: (Score:2)

by timeOday ( 582209 )

> one of Toyota's executives said that every model would be offered as a hybrid in about a decade. That might happen after three decades.

Really? The only ones available without a hybrid option that I can see are the GR 86 rwd coupe and the GR Supra.

We could include the GR Corolla and Hatchback Corolla if you don't consider them "Corollas."

Re: (Score:2)

by ThumpBzztZoom ( 6976422 )

I looked this up last week, and it surprised me:

Number of cars (not trucks or SUVs) made by US based manufacturers:

Ford: 1 (Mustang)

Chevrolet: 1 (Corvette)

Cadillac: 2 (CTS4 & 5)*

Tesla: 2 (Model S & 3)

Lucid : 1

Lincoln : 0

Buick (yes, they still exist) : 0

Chrysler: 0

Dodge: 0

That's it. There are only 7 car models available total from 9 US manufacturers, the rest of the models are all trucks and SUVs.

In contrast, there are 14 Japanese brand car models made in the US.

* - I did not include the $400K+, hand

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

Technically Chevy is bringing the Bolt EUV back soon. They call it a compact SUV, but it's really just a small hatchback car with some adornments to make it look more SUV-ish. I've heard that they've scaled back production targets since the EV tax credit went *poof* though, so they're probably not planning on selling many of them.

Re: (Score:2)

by supremebob ( 574732 )

Dodge has the new Charger now. While bigger than the old one, it's considered to be a "car". It's not every popular at the moment because it's overpriced, but it does exist?

a much needed move? (Score:4, Insightful)

by dfghjk ( 711126 )

"This is a much-needed move..."

Nothing the Trump does is a "much needed move" unless you are a criminal. I guess that tells us who sinij is.

Re:a much needed move? (Score:5, Insightful)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

A "much-needed move" would be to allow BYD cars to be sold here and let the free market economics (that conservatives ostensibly claim to love) sort everything out. But nope, gotta keep selling those high profit margin gas guzzlin' pickup trucks that over half of Americans can't actually afford.

The only solace I take from this is that Musk screwed himself by supporting this administration, because [1]Tesla's sales are down, too. [eletric-vehicles.com]

[1] https://eletric-vehicles.com/tesla/tesla-us-sales-reach-new-2025-low-in-november-mi-says/

Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

by Xenx ( 2211586 )

> A "much-needed move" would be to allow BYD cars to be sold here and let the free market economics (that conservatives ostensibly claim to love) sort everything out.

I'm not going to argue about the merit of allowing BYD or not. This is only about free market economics. BYD is heavily subsidized, and their entry in the market would skew any possible free market economics. That said, it isn't like Tesla didn't directly or indirectly receive subsidies. It might look closer to a free market if everyone has their thumb on the scale, but it wouldn't be.

Re: (Score:3)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

Well, whatever we've currently been doing certainly hasn't incentivized domestic auto manufacturers to produce affordable cars. Or very many cars that are actually "cars" (as opposed to SUVs and pickup trucks), for that matter.

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

Toyota still sells A LOT of Corollas, even in US. These are offset by Toyota hybrids that they sell a lot of. Domestic car manufacturers abandoned that segment at least partially because of CAFE.

Re: (Score:3)

by Cyberax ( 705495 )

> BYD is heavily subsidized

No, it's not. The exported BYD cars do not get any unusual subsidies. Their initial R&D was subsidized, but not the production.

Re: (Score:1)

by Xenx ( 2211586 )

You say that like R&D doesn't affect the cost. However, the point is that they are subsidized. And to be clear, I'm counting indirect subsidies. It's not a situation unique to them. I'm not saying it's a problem that they are. I'm merely pointing out that when subsidies are involved it's not as free of a market.

Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

by sinij ( 911942 )

You are deranged. What crimes have I committed?

Re:a much needed move? (Score:4, Insightful)

by sinij ( 911942 )

Just admit it already, you want to see me jailed for a crime of political differences with you. How liberal minded of you.

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

Yes, there always been unreliable manufacturers, but Toyota and Honda both having issues at the same time? All while stuffing 4-cyl engines into full sized pick up trucks?

Re: (Score:2)

by Rumagent ( 86695 )

Every accusastion is and admission. How maga minded of you.

Re: (Score:2)

by Rumagent ( 86695 )

Still unable to fix typos. Never change, slashdot.

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

You have odd fantasies and a persecution fetish.

Re: (Score:2)

by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 )

Editorializing in posts. Save it for the comments.

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

It is not just allowed but necessary, this way the whole article is commentary and not a copyright violation.

The old auto makers are fucked. (Score:5, Insightful)

by supabeast! ( 84658 )

In the USA car companies are bribing politicians to keep fuel economy standards low because they do not want to spend money on R&D. Meanwhile the Chinese car makers are designing dark factories that crank out electric cars that are better and less expensive than anything made in the USA. Ten years from now there are going to be Chinese factories in the USA cranking out amazing cars. And it is going to be a bloodbath for the companies that want to keep living in the past.

Re: The old auto makers are fucked. (Score:2)

by Tomahawk ( 1343 )

It's fine -- the Republic-bans will just ban them, keeping the expensive and crappy American-made cars the only options to buy. They need to keep their rich friends happy somehow, you know!

Or "tariff" them. One of.

Re:The old auto makers are fucked. (Score:5, Insightful)

by XXongo ( 3986865 )

> In the USA car companies are bribing politicians to keep fuel economy standards low because they do not want to spend money on R&D.

Worse. Oil companies are driving the lobbying (i.e., bribing politicians) because they make trillions from people burning as much gasoline as possible.

Re: (Score:2)

by timeOday ( 582209 )

But I was told the [1]opposite: [detroitnews.com]

> "We were ahead of them by a mile, by 10 miles, on the internal combustion engine. They went into EVs, and then they convinced the Western world to go into EVs and play their game," the freshman Republican lawmaker from Ohio said during an auto industry conference. "That was just irrational, dumb policy."...

> "I pushed back on the premise that EV somehow is about innovation," he said. "Electric vehicles were around in 1910. It's not like this is new technology."

Here's a guy wo

[1] https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2025/12/02/moreno-says-united-states-allies-dumb-to-compete-with-china-on-evs/87566739007

Re: (Score:2)

by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 )

> Here's a guy working hard to ensure the US not only loses the global competition for auto production, but becomes the last bastion of tailpipe emissions.

Well, don't forget that the US does produce a LOT of oil domestically, and the fortunes of those oil billionaires aren't going to protect themselves!

Re: (Score:2)

by bussdriver ( 620565 )

Exon is making a move to expand plastics. Whatever that means. I suppose PLA will be banned next?

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

Only it is not just US manufacturers that are struggling. Toyota [1]had to recall 200K+ V35A-FTS V6 engines [thedrive.com]. [2]Honda also having massive issues. [caranddriver.com] These are new engines that were recently designed with fuel gas mileage targets in mind. Turns out that meeting them and still have reliable engine is a much harder problem.

You are also delusional if you think that Chinese cars are anything but unreliable [3]junk [jdpower.com] that you can laugh at while [4]they catch on fire [youtube.com].

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/total-bs-engine-teardown-specialist-says-toyotas-explanation-for-v6-failures-doesnt-make-sense

[2] https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a65887327/nhtsa-probe-1-million-hondas-engine-failure/

[3] https://www.jdpower.com/business/press-releases/2025-china-vehicle-dependability-study-vds

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMKpCiDomgM

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

I fail to see how fuel economy legislation is responsible for rod bearing failures.

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

[1]Thinner engine oils cause less friction between the components [enginebuildermag.com] of an engine and result in a lower amount of energy loss from the movement in the engine, but engage reduced oil film thicknesses, which requires higher tolerances and better oil or it will generate more wear and limit durability. Basically manufacturing techniques and oil chemistry does not yet allow reliably do what is necessary. What they have now is similar to low-yield chip fab process, only they have not developed a good way to test it be

[1] https://www.enginebuildermag.com/2020/10/the-drive-toward-thinning-engine-oils/

Re: (Score:3)

by ksw_92 ( 5249207 )

It's really quite simple if you've ever gone elbows deep into a modern engine...

To meet new CAFE numbers, you have to get your engine as small and light as possible for the parameters it needs to meet for the product. So, all aluminum 3 or 4 cylinder blocks, under 3 liters of displacement. These don't produce great power naturally aspirated so you add some form of forced induction. Turbocharging tends to be the most efficient and easiest to control to provide variable boost so you bolt one of those on, with

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

> Finally, your average car owner in the US is not the best when it comes to maintenance and will run an engine long past its oil-change point.

Manufacturers themselves recommend crazy long oil change intervals, with 10K or longer, because, you guessed it CAFE and EPA regulations count oil changes against your lifetime emissions.

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

Why do European companies not have this problem?

Re: (Score:2)

by jonwil ( 467024 )

The Chinese-made cars being sold in Australia by brands like BTD and MG and GWMHaval are not "unreliable junk".

Oil profits (Score:4, Insightful)

by Local ID10T ( 790134 )

Gotta keep the demand up so the profits can go UP. Drill baby drill!

The world is moving on from inefficient oil-burners whether we like it or not.

What raised prices (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

Gee I wonder what caused vehicle prices to rise?

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

> Gee I wonder what caused vehicle prices to rise?

The weird thing about the USA is that inexpensive new cars don't sell well. Probably because if you've got decent credit you can just stretch the loan out until the heat death of the universe and get something fancier.

If you don't have good credit, even a cheap car quickly becomes too expensive once those awful interest rates do their thing.

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

> The weird thing about the USA is that inexpensive new cars don't sell well.

They do sell well in recession, which we are now in.

Re: (Score:2)

by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

The 3 cylinder Geo Metro in the 1990s achieved over 40 miles per gallon. 30 years later you're telling me we lost that ability?

Re: (Score:2)

by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 )

> Automatic start/stop? Did they actually engineer the starter and electrical system to compensate? I have my doubts.

I'm very happy I was able to code that shit out on my car. I have my doubts too but if we are wrong the worst that will happen is my starter will last forever.

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

> Automatic start/stop? Did they actually engineer the starter and electrical system to compensate? I have my doubts

They actually did in every case I looked. The next question is how much a replacement starter costs on such car. It cost A LOT.

Re: (Score:2)

by kurkosdr ( 2378710 )

Good points, too bad they are peppered with some abhorrent language. Anyway, you also forgot to mention the whole mild-hybrid deal (basically using the starter as a generator for regenerative braking and to provide a boost to the engine during acceleration), which assumes the whole integrated starter-generator is properly engineered (doubtful), and shaving every last gram of weight to improve mileage (which often comes at the expense of component sturdiness).

Good. Now bring in the smaller vehicles sold in EU (Score:3)

by schwit1 ( 797399 )

I want to see this at the Toyota dealership.

[1]https://www.toyotahiluxchamp.c... [toyotahiluxchamp.com]

And many others with much better gas mileage.

[1] https://www.toyotahiluxchamp.com/

Re: (Score:2)

by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *

We can't have those because they wanted to sell chicken meat to Germany after WWII.

No, really, Fat Electrician has a good video on it.

(our government is just a loony bin now)

CAFE needs reform (Score:3)

by packrat0x ( 798359 )

CAFE standards and testing have a [1]shoddy [wikipedia.org] basis in science. The standards need more than a rollback, but a complete rewrite.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#Calculation

Re:CAFE needs reform (Score:5, Insightful)

by Himmy32 ( 650060 )

For some reason, I don't think this is foreshadowing saner regulation. Just less.

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

> Unless you think that anything that bad for car owners is inherently a good thing because everyone should be riding a bicycle.

With new car prices the way they are, a lot of people actually are taking more serious looks at e-bikes and e-scooters. Heck, [1]Car and Driver Magazine even did an e-scooter review. [caranddriver.com]

I live in a part of central Florida that's not particularly affluent and have noticed that these things have absolutely become the "poor man's Tesla".

[1] https://www.caranddriver.com/car-accessories/g62530668/best-electric-scooters-tested/

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

I don't think we should be cheering on slide of our living standard to third-world country status. I traveled to poor countries where traffic is 90% scooters. This is all they can afford. I hope we can do better.

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

Oh, I think people will still be riding in plenty of cars - they'll just be Waymos, Tesla Robotaxis, etc. When people can't afford to buy, they rent.

We're probably never going back to truly affordable new cars in this country, because there's too much money to be made selling transportation as a service to those who can't afford a car.

This will cost you money (Score:5, Insightful)

by rsilvergun ( 571051 )

the reason gas prices have been stable is we keep pushing for more fuel economy keeping demand down. EVs help some too, but the huge push for fuel economy is why the national average is only $3/gallon.

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

I like to say that gas is currently cheap because anywhere you'd want to drive to spend money has become too fucking expensive.

As for EVs reducing demand, ChatGPT estimated that if all of the roughly 4 million EVs in the USA were magically transformed into ICE vehicles, the price of gasoline would raise by about 1.3%, which is well within normal market fluctuations. So no, you don't really have to thank us EV drivers for cheaper gas.

At least now I know that my own individual contribution in lowering gas pr

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

> the reason gas prices have been stable is we keep pushing for more fuel economy keeping demand down.

Absolute bullshit. a) Gas prices have no been stable; b) It is supply side that largely fluctuated, not demand; c) The biggest contributor to lower gas prices is the U.S. shale revolution, where a new technology allowed US-based production to increase.

Roll backs (Score:2)

by buss_error ( 142273 )

Can we roll back the Chicken War tariffs that have been in place since 1964? (Yes, it's vehicle related.)

How about eliminating the "foreign oil" exemption to windfall profits tax? Especially US oil that is exported then re-imported at a higher price to evade the tax.

While we're at it, delete the Jones Act (Which is why the East Coast imports oil rather than pipe it in), add in Right To Repair, Right To Own, One Touch Make Ready, Repeal of all cable and telephone monopolies, escheat back to the government le

Re: (Score:1)

by Anonymous Coward

The problem isn't the steel but the fragile meat bag strapped inside. Thanks to modern crumple zones and engineering people walk away from crashes that would have otherwise been fatal. That said, I do agree that vehicle bodywork is insanely expensive today. But I'll take that over being crushed in a steel can or experiencing fatal G forces.

Re: (Score:2)

by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 )

> I remember when cars were made from STEEL, had STEEL chrome bumpers. If you bumped into someone, you might scratch the chrome. Now, bump into someone and it is a multi-thousand dollar repair! Plus, with all the electronic sensors and what not, makes it even more expensive. ...

[1]Rivian R1T Fender Bender Turns Into $42,000 Repair Bill [thedrive.com]

[2]Here’s Why That Rivian R1T Repair Cost $42,000 After Just A Minor Fender-Bender [theautopian.com]

[1] https://www.thedrive.com/news/rivian-r1t-fender-bender-turns-into-42000-repair-bill

[2] https://www.theautopian.com/heres-why-that-rivian-r1t-repair-cost-42000-after-just-a-minor-fender-bender/

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

Shocking repair costs for EVs are not limited to Rivian. [1]Hyundai EV totaled due to some dents on the under-body [autoevolution.com]. Insurance is catching up to this, making it very costly to insure an EV.

[1] https://www.autoevolution.com/news/yikes-the-60000-hyundai-ioniq-5-battery-replacement-saga-continues-226590.html

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

That's not what's going to change. What's likely going to change is that domestic manufacturers can scale back production and sales targets of their EV models, since fleet efficiency numbers won't be as important, and they might tweak ICE vehicle software to have the start-stop systems default to being disabled.

There's not going to be any major retooling happening, because administrations change.

Those failing engines and transmissions. (Score:5, Insightful)

by Fly Swatter ( 30498 )

Have little to do with this. Much of it was poor quality control on the engine block milling line, specifically not cleaning out shavings and debris which causes bearing failure sometime into ownership. Toyota made a big recall, but my Ford now has a 10 year long block warranty for the same thing 'just in case.' It's just simply downhill craftsmanship in general for the entire industry - my vehicle was made pre-covid so the problem is mostly unrelated to that.

The GM transmission problem is apparently a bad valve design that wears out fast, which is just another sign of declining engineering and craftsmanship abilities at least in the US; but for at least Toyota their machining problem was also within Japan made parts. The entire world is just getting sloppy.

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

> specifically not cleaning out shavings and debris

This explanation was [1]discredited [autoblog.com] in [2]every [usatoday.com] case. That reason was provided to avoid stop-sale order by NHTSA.

[1] https://www.autoblog.com/news/engine-teardown-exposes-whats-really-wrong-with-toyotas-problematic-v6

[2] https://www.usatoday.com/story/cars/recalls/2025/10/30/gm-recalls-investigation-engine-failure/86992798007/

Re: (Score:2)

by Mspangler ( 770054 )

The direct fuel injection does seem to cause more trouble than it's worth. Small gain in fuel efficiency, large increase in maintenance cost.

Leave direct fuel injection to the diesels and race cars.

GM's transmission problems are due to other issues.

More expensive gas? (Score:3)

by i_ate_god ( 899684 )

Won't this mean gas will go up?

In other words: (Score:1)

by greytree ( 7124971 )

Fuck the planet, vote for me !

Re: (Score:1)

by Nicholas Grayhame ( 10502767 )

don't forget the higher cost of fuel needed to travel the same distance

if we assume a 15 gallon capacity, then a 50mpg fuel standard means you would be able to travel 750 miles on a full tank. but a 35 fuel standard means you would be able to travel only 525 miles on a full tank. so you would have to buy gas to travel 225 more miles. that's about an extra 6.5 gallons of gas. assuming a $3/gallon price that's an extra $20.

so, not only we screw the environment, but we also need to buy more gas from shell, bp

Re: (Score:2)

by Pentium100 ( 1240090 )

If it makes the car less complicated and more reliable then it's worth it.

The fact that the government is mandating fuel efficiency means that most people don't care. If they cared, nobody would buy the inefficient cars so the manufacturers wouldn't make them, no need for government intervention.

Committee (Score:1)

by Iamthecheese ( 1264298 )

This is the purest illustration of rule by committee. It beautifully illustrates how competing interests result into something that's somehow worse for almost all involved than doing nothing. On paper, the goals sounded noble: Reduce emissions from fleets. Avoid crushing small businesses that genuinely need work trucks. Nudge consumers toward cleaner, more efficient vehicles.

In practice, CAFE is an abomination. They created a loophole big enough to drive a Ford Super Duty through, and then the automakers d

Re: (Score:2)

by PPH ( 736903 )

> Because automakers must meet only a fleet-wide average

Hey! I know! For every Ford Super Duty sold, just throw in a 10-speed bicycle.

What's the fleet average of 20 MPG and infinity?

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

Pretty much if you buy anything made by Ford it should come with a backup vehicle. /s

here we go again (Score:3)

by zeiche ( 81782 )

it seems like you can count on the current administration to make the wrong decision every time.

Small pickup trucks (Score:2)

by Pezbian ( 1641885 )

Wake me when we can have small, cheap gas/diesel pickup trucks like the classic S10, Ranger, Hilux, Tacoma, Brat, etc.

I only need to haul a couple dirt bikes in the bed. There's no reason for basic trucks to be so goddamn big now.

And why the hell did we never get Utes here in the US? The El Camino was popular for a reason.

Re: (Score:2)

by sinij ( 911942 )

Actually, Ford Maverick already exists. Surprisingly.

Re: (Score:2)

by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 )

I must admit I didn't know about the Maverick until a couple weeks ago. It's certainly never in the news.

It's also interesting that Ford is apparently planning an EV version (eventually).

Re: (Score:2)

by Powercntrl ( 458442 )

This is what the Slate EV is supposed to be. Granted, it's a bit more spartan than even the smaller pickup trucks of the late 90s and even after adjusting for inflation will be slightly less affordable, as well.

And for better or worse, it's an EV, so that rules out some of the use cases where you might want to drive it out to the middle of BFE without worrying about charging infrastructure.

Re: (Score:2)

by bussdriver ( 620565 )

Long ago, Japan kicked their ass. Foreign companies beat American laziness. Long ago, new laws protected American auto companies and harmed foreign ones in the market with the deal essentially being, cars can be imported with tariff or somewhat made here without. I don't remember the details but it also helped spawn fake car companies under a parent company. TRUCKS were functionally banned which weren't a big deal to the foreign companies plus they made more profit... a chunk of that profit is LOANS which i

Great! (Score:2)

by dskoll ( 99328 )

Now US manufacturers can go even more all-on on the stupidly-large vehicles they sell domestically (because of higher profit margins.)

Of course, it means they won't be able to sell anything in Europe or Asia.

This is good (Score:2)

by sizzlinkitty ( 1199479 )

Now auto makers can start making smaller vehicles and not relying on the exception to get around requirements. I'm also hoping Trump kills the mandate for alcohol detection. I don't drink and drive but I think it's going to increase prices, and it's putting the burden on everyone else.

Air Force Inertia Axiom:
Consistency is always easier to defend than correctness.