President Plans To Roll-Back EPA Fuel Rules And Eliminate Burdensome Automaker Regulations

maybach
landaulet

#1

Good news. Help is on the way.
President Trump is heading to Detroit tomorrow (Wednesday) and will meet with automakers from GM, Fiat Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota, Hyundai, etcetera.

Apparently, since smaller and electric vehicles don’t sell very well, those arbitrary EPA fuel economy regulations are not achievable and will need review and revision.

The results should produce more realistic goals and meaningful job growth.

CSA


#2

Americans jumped all over the Mustang in 1964. It was just a Falcon with the hood stretched the back seat shrunk and the rear end hacked down but America is all about image in so many ways.


#3

You jogged my memory bank. I was a teen-ager and my friend’s mother put in an order for a brand new 64 Mustang before they hit the dealers.

My friend was driving it constantly and I logged a lot of time in it. It was a burgundy, vinyl roof, automatic, in-line 6, but was actually a pretty good car.
CSA


#4

Yup…like deregulating Coal mining waste. That’s always good for the environment and is going to generate THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of jobs.

If Trump cared so much about American jobs he wouldn’t have outsourced jobs for his companies. Sorry…not buying it.


#5

Will Trump call for the return of leaded gas too?


#6

I think this is a good move, especially if it gets rid of the need for all these four cylinder “engines” as standard. I rented a Ford Focus last week and it really was not a bad little car except that 4 cyl cannot get out of its own way, plus revs to close to 3000 rpm before shifting. I had the same experience in a little Jeep that would be a nice little car if it weren’t for the little engine. My V6 G6 rarely goes over 2000 rpm, shifts smooth and has plenty of excess power when wanted, plus doesn’t scream down the road. Thinking 4 cyl, even turbos, are going to cut it here in the US is just crazy.


#7

That horse is out of the barn, over the hill, and in the next county.

My next car will be a 1.0L, 3-cyl, turbo Focus.


#8

Next time try moving the seat forward. My 4 cylinder Dodge shifts @4000 RPMs and I pass others just fine.


#9

I’ve rented several Ford Focus’s this past year. At least 5 times. Never had a problem with acceleration. It seemed like a decent car. Not too sure of longevity. It’s one of my go to small cars. That and the Kia Soul. Both of those seem very popular with rental companies.


#10

I’m the kind of person that likes his cars to have ample power ( the smallest engine I’ve ever had in a daily driver was a supercharged 3.8L V6). But for the past decade and a half or so, four cylinders have come a long way. A year or so ago I ended up inheriting two vehicles, one of which was a 2008 Chevy Mailbu with the normally aspirated 2.4L I4, only 12k miles on it. It was perfectly adequate, it wasn’t a rocket or anything, but it moved the car fine. They did offer a V6 with the 2008 Malibu, but I can see why original owner of the car didn’t opt for it. The standard I4 was fine, and while the V6 would’ve no doubt been more powerful, I don’t think the difference would’ve warranted the extra $2500 outlay for it.

The 4 cylinder Accord gets to 60 MPH in 7 seconds these days, the new Miata only takes 6 seconds to get to 60. And if you want low end torque, there are many I4’s with a twin scroll turbo that will torque most larger V6’s. The 2.3L Ecoboost can easily be taken up to around 390 ft/lb of torque with an air filter and a warranty-friendly tune.

With that said, I have V8 Mustang, a V8 F-150 and I6 Triumph. But if I had to commute 50 miles to work every day, I certainly wouldn’t overlook something a like Focus ST or WRX. I have a buddy who has a 2008 Mustang GT, a 1988 Mustang with a 427W, a 2015 V6 Ecoboost F-150 , a 1992 Bronco, and a 1967 Bronco. But he drives a 2012 Focus as his daily. A four cylinder makes alot of sense for alot of people, I’d bet that most cars sold in the U.S. have had four cylinders for some time now.


#11

The only reason those four cylinder jokes are needed is because they sell 700 horsepower cars and monster SUVs and trucks that hardly anyone uses for their actual capabilities on the other end of the spectrum. No one needs 700 horsepower, most people driving around in giant F150s the size of aircraft carriers don’t put anything more than groceries in the bed, and making such things accessible to the masses is just asking for people to die, to say nothing of the ridiculous fuel burn.

If we’d quit being stupid at both ends, we’d be fine. I’m perfectly happy with my 270hp v6 which gets 32mpg on the highway and is plenty fast for daily driving.


#12

Are carmakers going to stop making smaller cars with smaller engines because of this? What would they sell in other parts of the world where fuel efficiency standards remain in force?
The world is bigger than, and has more people than, the US alone.


#13

Like I said I’m not a big fan of Consumer Reports but before buying a Focus, they rated them pretty low for reliability. Based on what again, who knows? But fun to drive.


#14

The automobile industry has gamed the EPA and twisted the CAFE standards into a “biggest is best” mandate while convincing the public that we need all the truck our driveways will support and our monthly budgets can squeeze in. When fuel costs approach $4/gallon again how quickly will the Hilux return to the show rooms and what kind of trade in can be made with an F-150 that is $10,000 under water?


#15

So Ford is going to make the Ranger again to provide a small pick up? Because they were losing market share to others. They are always a few years behind consumer preferences for lots of folks that don’t want a big truck.

I’m still fuming over the closing of the St. Paul Ranger plant though. They took one of Fords historical plants with its own power, glass, etc. capability and they’ll make apartments out of the land. A great study in self-sufficiency and vertical integration and threw it all away.


#16

(conservative VA congressman) Brat has supported several resolutions in the House that would overturn Obama-era rules affecting energy and the environment, including venting and flaring standards to reduce methane emissions, key land-management planning regulations, and predator-killing measures in national wildlife refuges in Alaska (Greenwire, Feb. 20)

. “Do you want to be poor or do you want to be rich?”

“Rich people, it turns out, like clean air and clean water,” said Brat, tying a safe environment to a strong economy"

See we don’t need no stinkin costly regulations,


#17

I think Ford also shortened the wheel base from the Falcon. Spawned a whole range of pony cars that became quite muscular. I liked the first generation of the Barracuda too even if it was a Valiant with a fastback.


#18

Speaking of Regulations…

…I’m not a big fan of most government regulations, most too costly, but there is a new one that I can appreciate.

President Trump signed an executive order demanding that for every new federal regulation, two existing rules must be eliminated.

That’s huge! It’s just too bad we didn’t start that a couple hundred years ago, but it’s a start.

CSA


#19

Hmmm Irony missed on the crowd. You can click on the picture of the cutest dog on the right side with the big brown eyes and button nose while sitting on a kneeboard in one of the cleanest lakes in minnesota if you wish to review the crapolius info, but do they get made up names, Brat, Weiner, Bohner, Sessions, Walker, Dick Swett
Dick Armey
Dick Mountjoy
Krystal Ball
Harry Baals
Bill Boner
Dave Obey
Tiny Kox
Mike Hunt


#20

Some burdens are worth the trouble, some not I guess. Just depends on your perspective.