Automakers are not going to reverse course on emissions/economy. It would be too costly. Too many shared engines/components with export/overseas models.
Pretty much this; many of the largest manufacturers have put the bulk of their vehicles on “global platforms”. So apart from most manufacturers looking further than 3 years in their manufacturing and R&D planning. They are also looking globally. Most of the rest of the world is still marching toward cleaner vehicles.
What this really means in the short term. Is we might see manufacturers trade efficiency for performance. Because these are things that can be wrenched back/simply reprogrammed back if the next admin flips everything back.
The only segment that remotely benefits is pickup trucks. Since they sell so many and really only here in the US. But also these things are costing all time highs and then to tank fuel efficiencies. I can’t imagine the majority of pavement princess’s can be kept on the road if fuel prices stay where they are but fuel economies drop. So just as the overall sentiment is, this is still a bit of an empty handed piece of legislature.
Never, see Chicken Tax, and with the current Tariff situation it'll probably get worse, it's also why were stuck with the 30+ year old Frontier when the Navara replaced it everywhere else.
Kind of weird that Nissan didn't keep the Frontier based on the Navarra. Great for me though as I own a 2nd gen Frontier, which is 99% the same as the Navarra. Parts galore for these trucks. So cheap to repair, which I really don't have to, because I've had practically nothing break on it in almost 240k miles.
Hilux won't ever make its way here.
Not even because of emissions but because of the engine options. Mazda designed an entirely new engine architecture for EU market and when asked if they would bring it over they just said *"¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Americans don't give a shit about fuel economy, they want horsepower*"
Even if they brought the regular Hilux over a $35,000 truck to the US market with 145hp and 300 ft-ib diesel engine with a 12 second 0-60 would get laughed off Reddit.
Now, with that all said.
I absolutely agree. Give me the champ you cowards.
I have a mustang. I just want something simple, cheap and reliable. I want the hikux champ. I'm so sick of all the new technology. Gimme my 90s ranger back.
If they find a way to market it, it could work. My car is a plug-in hybrid with 150hp from electric. It also weighs 4500lbs. And honestly driving around in electric only mode is perfectly fine, maybe with the exception of occasional short highway on ramps. 150-200 hp is realistically all you need for comfortable regular driving.
I daily drove a 110hp 1999 ford escort wagon for years with no issue. It wouldn't win any races, but it did highway speeds acceptably. It was also only 2500 pounds and got 35 mpg out of a naturally aspirated 2.0L 4 cylinder and it was super easy to work on. I sold it running at 228k miles. It could comfortably do 70-75 on the highway and the fastest I got it was 96. More than enough for normal driving
Left Hand Drive version of Hilux Champ is available in the form of Philippine-assembled Toyota Tamaraw (which is the Tagalog word for Water Buffalo)
Perhaps in a few years, you can import one to North America
You underestimate how much in debt truck bros are willing to go into just so they can sustain their "lifestyles". Next up, we will start to see 25% interest buy-now-pay-later options at gas pump POS systems.
I like when they speed up when I pass them on the highway in my Prius and I just keep speeding up too. Like I'm still getting 40mpg bro, how long can your bank account keep up?
I saw some bro struggling with literally 50-60 bags of mulch at home depot, for 1/2 the price and one phone call would have landed a mountain of mulch in his driveway, but they do stuff like this to justify needing their trucks.
This wouldn't change the choices of truck bros. But it will change the choices of (old) Gen Xers. They're the ones starting to get a disposable income now.
> buy-now-pay-later options at gas pump
Wait, why is this an excellent idea? I'm not ever not going to gas up so might as well make the action even quicker.
Detroit 2.5 won't have to build as much BEV/HEV/PHEV to cancel out the fuel economy of their full-size pickups. Since these full-size already only sell in quantity in North America (US/Canada/Mexico), in the short term we'll probably see a slowdown in efficiency investments too.
The Germans, who also tend to lag behind in efficiency may also likely slow down their EV and mild-hybrids for the US market to save cost.
Neither side will do anything drastic since we never know when the administration change and we revert again. But I doubt the impact is zero.
I hope what this means for trucks is that we can get a modern interpretation of the 90s rangers/ chevy 10. 2 door/access cab and 6 foot bed in a 3500 pound body on frame platform with some sort of throttle body injected NA V6 would go so hard. Little to no tech, just a simple inexpensive reliable vehicle. I'm so sick of all the screens and shit.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This, plus they know the government will eventually change and bring back emissions regulations. So spending billions to create a new dirty engine that will most likely be banned in a few years is a complete waste of money.
Fuel economy is also such a big selling point for new cars. Not always the most important factor, but nobody would want a 15 mpg Accord when you can already buy one that’s rated for almost 50 mpg.
Heck I'll take insane reliability and simplicity in exchange for 15mpg make the simplest possible engine and make it all iron and cam in block with timing gears, throttle body injection and no computer control. I'll gladly trade efficiency for reliability.
Well if you can find a rust free late 90s to early 2000s blazer that was darn near it.
But you can have solid reliability without those things so long as the design isn't penny pinched to death. You don't need to have an iron block and pushrods to have extremely long service lives. You don't even need a super under stressed engine. You just need it to be built right, not have a ton of brittle plastic fittings, and not have it be so awful to work on that its prohibitively expensive to service. And no damn wet belt driving the oil pump \*glares at GM for that decision on the 3.0 diesel\* or rear mounted timing chains.
Nobody wants an 800 hp 15 mpg Accord.
They discontinued the 2.0T because 252 hp and 26 mpg was too much power and too little gas mileage for most people.
This is now my dream for Honda to make an Accord with a V10 and 8 hundred horsepower for $50k that they’ll sell like 12 of and then discontinue after 2 years
And the next president will likely (hopefully) reverse or reinstate the laws in some way. The US market is too volatile to change course on a design that might have to be changed again soon. I'm sure there will be exceptions but gas is still expensive and people still want economy.
Also, compact trucks. Right now, the minimum requirement is 50.4 MPG. That is almost impossible, even with a diesel engine.
I hope this means the return of trucks like the S-10.
It won’t. These emissions laws aren’t actually being removed, the government is just pausing enforcement on them. Enforcement can resume immediately at any point in the future. It would greatly surprise me if we see any entirely new vehicle models based on this ruling, since they could become unsellable overnight when the government changes its mind.
You make strong points. The regulations are too volatile for manufacturers to bet much money on them. I wonder if some smaller vehicles that are currently sold in other countries will come to the USA. I suppose that all depends on the tariffs, and they are also volatile.
Especially since CAFE isn't actually repealed. Now if that happened, maybe we'd see some changes.
I have no problem having mileage standards if they're realistic, make sense, and don't have unforeseen side effects like making certain types of vehicles disappear that'd actually be beneficial in the bigger picture.
You're right. Cars are designed with lead times I'd guess in the 4+ year range for all new models. Nobody is going to make any big plans based around this because the rules could be totally different again by the time the cars they design today are released.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God I'd go for a small useful truck. I don't want a 4 door. Gimme a modern 90s ford ranger with an actual truck bed and a body on frame and solid rear axle. The 90s ranger was the size of a maverick but had a 6 foot truck bed and wasn't unibody making it just overall a better truck it also started at 15k
The 90s Ford Rangers are the only acceptable pickups to drive around as a sedan owner. I can see over and around it while it still has the ability to haul small stuff.
I agree. The closest things that I see on the horizon are the Telo and the Slate. I wouldn't mind a classic "extended cab," but I would prefer a single cab to a four-door. I want a truck that is economical, simple, and that can fit into tight spaces. And a 4-1/2 foot box (i.e., the Maverick) is about as useful to me as a screen door on a submarine.
The telo is ugly AF and only electric. The slate is completely useless. 1,000 pounds towing and 194 mile range is worse than my fucking ATV. The slate would be great with a actual body on frame design, a solid rear axle and a small 2.0L diesel with a 5 speed manual or a 6 speed auto. My 1995 ranger could tow 3500 pounds and was an actual truck unlike those which are glorified golf karts.
Apparently, you want a much larger truck than I. I never need to haul or tow more than about 1,000 pounds and I want something reliable and economical with lots of torque, which rules out gasoline and diesel engines.
But I understand that different people have different priorities.
I need at most 4500 pounds towing and at least 2500. I have a 16ft bass boat that is 2,200 pounds full of gas sitting on its trailer. With full gear it's around 2500 pounds. I used to tow it with a 1995 ford ranger which pulled it fine. I don't need a F150 but the maverick's bed is way too small for me as I need at least 6 feet to fit my ATV. The ranger did that too.
I hear you. I had a first-generation Dakota. It was considered "mid-sized" at the time, but it was tiny in comparison to the modern Ranger or Colorado.
I could squish that truck into a narrow parking space and it would still tow and haul as much as a half-ton truck. The bed was 6-1/2 feet / 2 meters, which was a perfect size. And it was low to the ground, so it was easy to load and unload cargo (i.e., the purpose of a truck).
Exactly. So you know how great those old 1/4 ton trucks were. That's what I want, enough capability to justify it being a truck but not feeling like you are driving a small apartment block around. The low bed height also makes loading things so much easier.
I agree. I have cautious optimism that we may have some options in the market soon. There are still opportunities between tiny trucks like the Slate and enormous bloated trucks like the modern Ranger.
I'm still hanging into my 93 Ranger because it has a 7ft bed. The only thing I wish is that it had an extended cab but the 7ft bed trucks only came with the regular cab. If it had an extended cab it'd be perfect honestly. I don't need a 4 door pickup. That's what SUVs and cars are for.
I had the chance to buy a 2011 with 32k on it but couldn't get to the dealer in time. It was a few hours from me and I couldn't take off from work that day. They only wanted around 8k for a spotless truck. I'd be driving that thing as my daily driver. Haha
It isn't but it is a large number of people. OP didn't ask for a majority, he just said "who wants to buy a shit mileage car" and we're unfortunately exactly who
It's also the fastest powertrain outside of the raptor. I had one as a rental for a few days and it's stupid quick for a full-size truck. If I had the cash for a new truck I'd be getting that hybrid for sure.
For now. The value prop isn't there, and they lose their ass on every one they sell. I'm a buyer as soon as I can get a Lariat trim ER without the moonroof for under $50,000.
I agree, it's a fantastic truck but far too expensive for what you get. As battery tech continues to advance I think things will get cheaper, but it'll take time. On the other hand, used EVs are generally a fantastic value proposition, so there's always that haha
The downside of this is consumption and pollution are not always directly correlated. Sure they're connected, because a lot of pollution comes from imperfect combustion, and by definition any fuel that's not getting converted into kinetic energy to turn the crankshaft is waste, but there's a lot of ways you could prioritize mpg while compromising on pollution prevention.
At the car companies if the bean counters say it's what they need age the lawyers say it's allowed, the executives will tell the engineers to do it.
Mine is deleted and i went from around 13mpg on stabdard tune with DEF/DPF/EGR to around 19.2 on standard tune or 21 on eco tune. Allowing the engine to actually breathe does wonders
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Just like when the feds made it illegal to have speedometers that went over 85mph. Companies like GM just stopped printing the numbers past 85 but left the speedometer entirely intact otherwise. When the stupid law got reversed a short while later they continued using the same speedo's but fully printed.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
afaik US auto regulations are actually one of the most strict in the world in a fair number of areas, and CAFE fuel standards and NOx emissions are a few examples. That said the EU is rapidly tightening the regulations
Shit, NOx restrictions make for worse fuel economy. You can run far leaner than stoich at low loads, but it generates more NOx.
But burning a little more fuel is a pretty good trade off for dramatically reducing smog and acid rain.
Yep. I wish car people actually learned about what emissions and CO2 and all the intricacies of combustion, because I think that stuff is often overlooked but teeming with technical excellence.
The OEM powertrain engineers at the big companies all have PhDs and MS/MEng regarding combustion science and it’s an extremely advanced field with millions and millions of dollars of lab equipment and fancy instrumentation.
This. So many people think that EU has the strictest emissions, but CAFE is historically much tougher to hit. Additionally, the EU didn't even have universal emissions standards till 1996, whereas the US began in the 70s.
CAFE in many ways was counter productive. European cars are generally more fuel efficient because gas costs a lot more there and people demand it. Here we make the cars more fuel efficient and people just buy bigger cars and drive more. I doubt any US politician would dare to raise the gas tax though.
CAFE also encouraged the shift from smaller and more efficient commuter cars to larger and heavier crossovers since the requirements are less stringent for 'light trucks.'
Per the article, it’s already happening:
> Stellantis, parent company of Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and other brands, recently brought its lineup of Hemi V8 engines back from exile.
> The company then announced the return of its SRT speed shop, famed for cranking the Hemi to extremes.
Also, the development cycles for vehicles is typically MUCH longer than an election cycle. Automakers aren't going to scrap their current vehicle development plans when those efficiency standards might be reinstated by the next congress or administration.
I know this has been upvoted, but it’s simply not accurate.
In reality, many parts of the world have looser fuel economy and emissions regulations than North America. That’s one of the reasons why numerous European vehicles can’t be sold here they don’t meet North American standards.
Of the four largest auto markets globally, three China, Japan, and India—have comparatively relaxed fuel efficiency requirements. Japan, for instance, introduced the Top Runner program aiming for 25 km/L, but even the government has acknowledged that goal is unrealistic and is considering dismantling the program altogether.
Europe, facing a wave of struggling automakers, has also begun easing fuel economy standards in an effort to make vehicles more affordable and prevent brands from collapsing or being sold to foreign buyers.
Over time, fuel economy mandates have made cars far more complex, which in turn has increased costs, led to more recalls, and caused frustration for consumers. Yet the actual improvements in real-world fuel efficiency have been minimal—outside of pickup trucks. My old Accord from when I was 16 got just 2 MPG less than my 2020 2.0T, despite the newer model having a far more complex engine, transmission, and hundreds of additional parts. And while the 2.0T is considered one of Honda's most reliable recent engines, it's unlikely to last as long as the older one.
As for environmental impact, it's been marginal. The most expensive vehicles on the road are often exempt from these regulations. Fuel economy rules disproportionately affect lower- and middle-income drivers they don’t prevent wealthy individuals from flying privately, operating massive ocean freighters, or owning yachts worth tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, none of which are bound by the same standards.
As an engineer with 20 years of experience, I can say this with confidence: today’s vehicles are more complicated, less reliable, and only marginally more fuel-efficient than cars from 15 or even 20 years ago.
You underestimate how much savings can be had by reducing the precious metals in the catalyst even in a small amount. That reduction is imperceptible to the customer but can increase emissions by double digit percentages. Add to that, worse aerodynamics and less efficient tires and the savings can be huge. So while the OEM may not change from a 4cyl hybrid to a V8, the small changes will have a measurable impact. I know this because I was responsible managing these small changes when the prices of those precious metals increased during/after the pandemic.
Seeing as you are an Esq: could the changes in the law also cut down on states' ability to require "boutique" fuel formulations that are cleaner burning/less volatile than the national rules?
No, because this is purely about CAFE standards, which is fuel efficiency. It does not touch the federal Clean Air Act which requires non-attainment areas to do things like run special reformulated gasoline designed to reduce air pollution.
FYI, CARB and EPA reformulated gasoline standards are almost identical these days and the difference in pricing is because there's no pipeline from Texas/Louisiana to CA. So the Jones Act imposes a pretty significant cost on transporting fuel between east and west which means the 8 refineries (soon to be 6 if Valero Benicia and Phillips 66 Los Angeles shut down) get more leeway to demand higher profits in refining. Not like the gulf states.
I do understand the power of profits, which is exactly why no automaker is going to reverse course on decades of R&D for a product that frankly very few people want anymore. That product being big vehicles with poor MPG pushrod V8s.
It's considerably more profitable to develop and market vehicles which can use shared engines and platforms in multiple markets/continents.
How exactly do you think carmakers will use the CAFE axe to make more profit?
And chances are pretty big that it’s going to be a PHEV like the M5. That’s pretty much the only way to get large engines past regulators anywhere else in the world
It already is one with the current 2.0 4cyl. It makes like 500hp, it’s no slouch. But seems people are still too attracted to and want the “6.3 V8” badge on the side and not just a regular “Turbo” badge like an A45. Even in Europe.
If the cost of planned and unplanned maintenance exceeds the economy savings, then the pushrod V8 still has a fighting chance. Ford developed a brand new pushrod motor only five years ago because the complexity of modern diesel and DOHC-gas engines was breaking the efficiency argument for the both of the previous generation engines.
There's no profit to be made right now though. Anything developed would be exclusive to America, and would take a minimum of 3 years to get designed and approved. At which point a new administration would be in office and who knows what they are going to do with these laws.
I believe a super majority is required to replace these rules
Removing: auto start stop, multiple cylinder deactivation, skip shift on remaining manual v8 Chevy
These would be easy targets to remove, consumers would appreciate, and save a tiny bit per a vehicle.
Diesels will be interesting as you can gain mpg, increase reliability, and drop thousands in emissions equipment.
But it’s not gonna get any *better*. And that’s fucking lame. Because capitalism as we’ve all been told to understand it is a lie.
The free market will NOT give you the best product purely by supply and demand. The free market does not chase demand. The free market chases PROFIT, and that is a VERY important distinction.
Also there are plenty of ways they can cut costs with similar components, giving us shittier cheaper engines. Your confidence is misplaced.
Negative smart decisions lol.
I'm just sad because I actually liked the styling of the new charger... But holy fuck they misread the market on that product.
Sort of. There are now less fines and limits on vehicles like the Wrangler 392 and TRX, or Escalades and suburbans. These are already absurd profit margins even with fuel economy and emissions rules, if those go away it helps profits a TON.
Basically, bringing back any recent engine that was retired for emissions reasons, or unconstraining the amount that can be produced is feasible now. Depending on the total ruleset of course
The only thing I could potentially see with this is some platform engineered larger engine options in smaller vehicles. Things like the 2.3L Ecoboost in a Maverick and such.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A sane President might understand US emission standards as they were incentivized the production of gargantuan SUVs and Pickups which presently dominate the market. Realize that, for that reason, they’re sort of counterproductive and silly, and choose not to undo it all.
With the emissions tech, fuel formulation, specific engine design, and AFR from whatever test that was done with, perhaps.
I'm not saying that burning less gas won't REDUCE emissions, I'm just saying they aren't intrinsically tied together. I can have a highly modified Corvette that makes significantly more power than stock due to improvements in the head and combustion chamber, can get roughly the same economy as stock due to the same improvements, but has significantly worse emissions because I decided to run a catless exhaust system.
Similar idea with VWs Dieselgate crap. The cars ran great in the normal mode and got better fuel economy, but worse emissions. Meanwhile, whenever a diesel does a DEF cycle it runs like shit and gets worse economy, but it's literally doing a filtering cycle to reduce emissions.
No rage bait, memes, trolling, copypasta, or low-quality joke posts or comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's basically no way we'll go back to that, even with these loosened rules. Cars have gotten infinitely cleaner since 1975 with the introduction of catalytic converters, and standards have only tightened since then by orders of magnitudes.
exactly. fuel economy rules =/= the Clean Air Act. loosening fleet requirements around MPG have nothing to do with how clean the tailpipes are required to be.
Yep I said the same thing elsewhere. MPG isn't the same as unburned hydrocarbons, particulates, SOx and NOx. We have better fuel, catalysts, and computer controlled engines with Oxygen sensors now. It'll never be like it was.
Exactly. There's over double the vehicle traffic in LA than there was in the peak smog days of the 70's and no where near the smog. That wasn't CAFE standards.
I mean they took away the MPG penalty, that won't change smog significantly. Catalytic convertors and getting rid of carburetors took care of most of that.
I remember when outdoor recess in the 90s get cancelled in LA on the days the smog gets bad
Hell, even today you can see the smog if you look at the horizon you'll see a brownish haze. Not as bad as it was decades ago, but still got room for improvement.
Noxious and polluting exhaust fumes was, and still is, a big problem for air quality in general. I mostly don’t understand why anyone would want to go backwards on any air quality regulations, bar none
I liked it as a child, but I hate getting stuck behind cars without catalytic converters. It turns my stomach. And modified diesels spewing black smoke clouds are the worst.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Emissions standards haven't changed. The standards for NOx, SOx etc are set by g/mi or mg/mi so every giant truck or small car has to meet the same standards.
I just heard about this and im happy good cars are back. It was such a stupid law anyways making truck have to be bigger to meet the stupid mpg standards. Now they can make smaller trucks with more power.
Honestly, this doesn’t mean your current car will suddenly become less efficient. Automakers have already built fuel-saving tech into modern vehicles, and that won’t just disappear.
What it *does* mean is future cars might not be pushed to get better mileage. Without federal pressure, automakers could focus more on power and size, not efficiency. That might cost drivers more at the pump in the long run.
The good news? You can still control a lot. Regular oil changes, proper tire pressure, and fuel system service can do wonders for mileage. We see it every day in the shop.
If you're in Houston and want to make sure your car’s running efficiently, swing by Eric’s Car Care. We’ll help you get the most out of every gallon.
That source does not support your argument. Nowhere does it state rolling back emissions regs for vehicles. Fuel economy is tied to CO2 emissions, it does not constitute more NOX, CO, or hydrocarbon emissions from vehicles, which removing catalytic converters would do.
650, out of 8.4, but who's checking? I mean apparently not you.
Cam-in-block engines get significantly less power per liter than double overhead cam engines, but they are also significantly smaller and lighter per liter, and their weight is also less concentrated at the top. The OHV vs DOHC debate can last forever, but the gen 5 viper with a good ol 6 speed manual was the fastest car at many tracks, during its lifetime, beating out just about every exotic.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of good engine design is how well it does in the cars it sits in and vice versa. Can't really say the viper ever did poorly from an objective point of view. You can debate HP/L numbers all day long but the package was obviously solid.
I don’t know that it is by much. Plus, you are talking about a Viper from the 2000s which was actually 8.2 liters. That’s pretty sad for 50 years of progress. The original Viper was 400hp from 8 liters.
There are so many factors that determine an engine’s specific output. The only real measurement of internal combustion engine efficiency is thermal efficiency.
Big ass engines are super exciting today because they don't exist.
If the viper was released today, with the exact same power figures people would freak because there would be an 8L v10 sports car.
Old school lazy power actually has a lot of benefits. An engine that isn't strung out is typically going to be very reliable as you aren't putting a lot of stress on it.
Also worth noting that they got 640hp out of the last Gen viper. Could almost certainly have gotten more, but that wasn't how they wanted to build the engine.
Most of the people in this subreddit are just spec sheet warriors who think knowing how to divide horsepower by displacement makes them smarter than actual automotive engineerings.
From a n/a engine, and with a powerband flat enough that you could model a kitchen table after it.
It had over 500 pounds of torque, remember, and made over 450hp all the way from 2.5k RPM to just shy of its redline.
"Lady?" Yeah, that's the sort of casual sexism I'd expect from a diesel stan.
There are plenty of gasoline engines that pull just fine.
And if you absolutely "need" a huge diesel... get it in a commercial vehicle. There's no need these days for consumer *passenger vehicles*, which I specified in my original comment, to have diesel. Except to "own the libs."
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah I get it youre saving the planet with your power wheel... I work outside .. spend all my time outside air seems pretty fresh to me ... maybe you live in a big city?
That's great... doesn't answer my question... if you want an electric vehicle more power to ya... they dont do so hot here when its -20 ... my diesel pulls what I need ... I can work on it... and gets reliable range... to each their own.
Fun fact: the 2023(?) Mercedes-Benz F1 car technically had cleaner emissions than an EV in many countries they raced in, depending on the power grid of said country.
That's only because of its exceptionally efficient electric turbo charger and robust hybrid system though. No other car could claim this, and even other F1 powertrains were less efficient.
Depending on where you live, a mix of coal, natural gas, biomass, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Am I missing anything?
Most states where EVs are popular have their power come from a mix of the above less coal. A lot of people charge right off their roof top solar.
It's so funny seeing a diesel car that's had all its emissions stuff deleted, because the entire rear of the car will inevitably be covered in a thick layer of black soot
They are great motors for running WVO, had a couple of old mercedes' and set up that system it's a bit of a pain to deal with heating the oil and what not but then you get the sweet smell of french fries running down the road and two fuel tanks to nearly double the range if so desired.
I've heard a ton of positive stuff too, at least from owners who bought recently, but I've seen a bunch of intake/exhaust ports that are choked almost completely with the black soot residue you get from burning DEF.
The unfortunate part is there's no good fix. It's not like you can just replace a part. Nearly the entire airway for the engine is basically choked completely. Super expensive and labor intensive to fix.
Yup. I've debated doing it on my jetta. It's just so expensive I don't know if I can justify it. Also helps that the car goes through a whole 5 gallon jug of Def literally once every 20k miles
I think that's actually a fine idea so long as it's implemented well which I have seen function great on many vehicles even from brands not known for reliability like semi-recent jeep/fiat. There's nothing inherently good about burning fuel while sitting still, particularly for those that sit at some sort of drive thru or hit a lot of stop lights.
I am 100% for it existing and being on by default but for the love of god, there needs to be a setting somewhere that either flips the behavior so it's off every time the car starts or an option for it to just remain in whatever mode it was last in.
Modern cars consume between 0.2 and 0.5 gallons of fuel per hour when idling. That means you need to shut down the engine 500+ times for 15 seconds to save a whopping $3 in gas.
"The average American spends approximately 58 hours per year waiting at red lights, according to a study by AAA. This translates to roughly 34.2 hours per year" Average time sitting at drive thru's is 5 and a half minutes per stop, most people will use a drive thru average a few times a week between coffee and fast food etc. It certainly adds up. That's another 14 hours a year. add those up and multiply that by .35 to balance between the .2 and .5 numbers and you get a couple fill ups a year of unused fuel per vehicle which should be no surprise to you comes out to quite a bit of fuel saved for the nation country etc when applied to a larger scale.
What in the world is that quote you shared??? 58 hours per year translates to roughly 34.2 hours per year? Huh??? LOL
And whether it is 58 hours or 34 hours, start/stop is nowhere near that efficient. It doesn't activate until the car is up to temperature, and it restarts the engine after 15-30 seconds of sitting for both lubrication and passenger comfort (climate control) purposes. So the actual engine off time is far less than the above quoted total stopped time.
The start/stop "feature" was 100% implemented as a way to game the government's fuel standards tests, and its real-world performance is very, very marginal.
‘Abomination’? I have it in my bronco and it works pretty well. The engine is always on by the time my foot is on the gas and it definitely saves fuel sitting at lights. I really like the fat ass battery they gave me to support it too, makes powering accessories very easy
An idling car burns between 0.2 and 0.5 gal per hour. That means you need the engine to shut off at 500 stoplights for 15 seconds to save $3 in gas.
Personally, I'd be happy to pay $3 to have cool air blowing in my face when I'm stationary at the next 500 stoplights.
Yeah I don’t really understand why people don’t like it.
In the summer I’ll lift my foot off a little if it’s so hot that I need the cold AC but most often I just let it go because it still blows cold enough for the time that I’m stopped.
Really varies from car to car. It's terrible in my nissan and very inconsistent and I hate it. My bmw it is pretty good and I use it sometimes. Has a Gensis rental once and it was very aggressive about cutting off but overall worked well.
Mine has stayed off since I first bought my car. I recently had my A/C serviced though and the tech must have turned it back on by accident. I drove away and the first stoplight I came to my car shut off. I thought it died so I put it in park trying to figure out what tf happened!
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Chicken tax isn't what is stopping the small trucks at this point, considering we literally had them while it was in effect for decades.
It's the CAFE footprint calculations that prevent them from existing. The last gen real Ford ranger has about the footprint (wheelbase x wheel track) of a current Camry, it would need to get close to 40 mpg. That simply isn't feasible with pickup truck aerodynamic even if you stuffed in a small engine and hybrid system.
This kneecapping of CAFE actually does open this door up, but with it likely being reversed next time the parties swap they won't invest in taking advantage of it.
> It's the CAFE footprint calculations that prevent them from existing.
No, it's not. Crossovers are also light trucks for emission purposes so you're basically trying to argue the most popular class of cars can't exist. There's no difference between a pickup and crossover as far as how this works.
>it would need to get close to 40 mpg at that size
No, it wouldn't, because CAFE MPG is not calculated the same way as the EPA MPG is.
The footprint guidelines apply to light trucks and cars. They light trucks/crossover requirements are much more lenient than cars but still apply.
This video is what I'm basing what I'm saying on.
https://youtu.be/azI3nqrHEXM?si=3muEHmSPJoofk81V
> The footprint guidelines apply to light trucks and cars.
Yes mate. Crossovers sre light trucks. There’s no difference between the fuel targets of a RAV4 or a RAV4 based pickup. The fact Toyota will happily sell you a RAV4 should be enough evidence that the target isn’t the issue.
Oh you've been talking about unibody "pickups". I was talking about real trucks, they inherently will have more trouble hitting mpg goals. I think I remember the video I linked even specificly talks about the Maverick, it just barely squeaks by the requirements, which is why a proper body on frame that is the same size would obviously not meet regulations.
They pay the CAFE fines for those... Hell famously Fiat-Chrysler paying out those fines year had basically been subsidizing Tesla. https://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/CAFE-Fines-through-2019-1500x900.jpg
So what you're saying is if the automaker wanted to they could still build one anyway and just pay the fines, which is another argument against the CAFE rules being the issue here, no?
Like you fully realise you can't buy BoF compact trucks anywhere else either, right? They're all midsized and it's got nothing to do with the CAFE rules that don't apply outside of the US...
I've never said or implied otherwise. The automakers make a calculation on whether the fines would be worth the sales. Fiat-Chrysler for example for years felt it was worth it, selling millions of crossovers getting low 20mpgs and just paying the fines/buying the credits since it was still net profit from such a huge product segment.
Small trucks were always a much smaller market than full size. It's just that prior to these regulations getting so strict, companies could cater to smaller markets and still make a decent profit.
On the new ranger specifically, I actually have suspicions that Ford limits the US sales/allocation of these both to push people to the higher margin F150s, and because it still would hurt their CAFE scores due to the awkward size slot it fits in due to being originally an international model, i.e. it wasn't originally designed to game the CAFE requirements.
It's actually pretty analogous to the death of the economy car coupe, used to be worth putting it out despite it only being a fraction the sales volume of the sedan. Now they have to seriously contend with fines, so the coupes would need to match the size of the sedan, lest they be subject to stricter requirements, so they just all were killed off eventually, "what's the point if it's just as big". The new prelude is just a civic hybrid coupe, and seems like it will match the sedan's dimensions too.
>It's actually pretty analogous to the death of the economy car coupe, used to be worth putting it out despite it only being a fraction the sales volume of the sedan. Now they have to seriously contend with fines, so the coupes would need to match the size of the sedan
Again, not how it works lol. Most of the times the coupes had the same footprint anyway (like the coupe version of my Camry) or at most differed by a few inches in wheelbase like the Civic or Accord.
And this footprint calculation is a scale so a few inches obviously doesn't matter much if those automakers sold smaller cars than those coupes anyway.
This is not good news at all actually. I personally really like being able to breathe the air outside and also know that cars can be fun without completely destroying the environment
Agreed. This likely has very little impact on anything besides clickbait headlines.
I highly doubt any manufacturer is going to stop current R&D or change future plans for something that will in all likely hood be changed in 3 years.
Not to mention manufacturers have been abusing CAFE standard loopholes for decades. Ie- the PT Cruise was considered a truck.
Though yanking cats and a rear O2 sensor could save quite a bit of money for the car maker and easy enough to implement in the next model year. Then put them back on when required for the future model year.
I admittedly don’t know the ins and outs of the entire law. But isn’t this about fuel efficiency, not tailpipe emissions.
Also modern cars are so complicated. I highly doubt you can just yank out components like that without massive reengineering.
An engine can be tuned for better mpg with the expense of dirtier air. And it’s just programming to ignore the cleaning parts to get it tuned properly.
Automakers need to find a balance between mpg, cleanliness and warranty and cost and legality
Still won’t happen though. Brands need to meet California emission standards which like 16 other states match. Effectively the entire country is sold cars that meet CARB.
Until that is challenged and overturned in the Supreme Court, emissions aren’t going anywhere.
But modern engines are more powerful, more reliable and cleaner than anytime in history. Why would the brands change anything?
This whole article is a big fat nothing-burger just designed to save brands like Chrysler a few bucks who can’t build a competitive modern vehicle.
Modern engines, and by that I mean the last 10 years, are not more reliable than engines of the engines from the late 90's to the early 2010's. Talk to any mechanic with some time in the industry and they will tell you the same thing.
Show me the data. “Talk to a guy” doesn’t count.
Time has a habit of blurring our memories. Modern cars are definitely more complex—especially with electronics—but that doesn’t automatically mean they’re less reliable.
They could be dramatically more reliable and powerful without some of the fuel economy shenanigans they have to add. For example, look at GMs cylinder deactivation bits. One thing that people have been doing for over a decade to increase reliability is to rip them out or otherwise disable them. And don’t even get me started on EGR, which is basically forcing your engine to breathe its own farts.
let’s not pretend the “old engines” were bulletproof either. Plenty had their own issues—we’ve just had more time to forget about them.
Also, I’d love to see real data, not just anecdotes from forums where a handful of loud voices make it seem like every engine is doomed. It turns into an echo chamber of imagined problems. When in the real world it’s really not a problem.
I’m not saying that old engines were more reliable, I’m saying that *modern* engines could be *more reliable than they are* if not for emissions regulations forcing them to be designed to meet arbitrary efficiency targets.
Yup agree... Most people don't know this, but modern car engines have to do a lot of tricks to achieve high fuel efficiency, many at the cost of engine reliability.
A few examples that come to mind... Going to small block turbos instead of larger displacement naturally aspirated engines. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). Lower viscosity engine oil (0W8 anyone). Belt and chain CVTs (Nissan looking at you). Cylinder deactivation. Higher compression ratios. Variable compression engine (Nissan).
All of these are things to help with fuel efficiency, at the cost of reliability. It's actually a bit of an engineering marvel when you think about how some car manufacturers do many of these things and still can keep their cars relatively reliable.
And the stupid thing about all of this is that there are different rules for cars vs "trucks." All these SUVs are on the road today because we had more lax fuel efficiency requirements for trucks, which these SUVs actually are classified as. So instead of buying smaller, fuel efficient cars, we end up with this SUV-pocalypse. And because of all these heavy big cars crash safety get challenged, so you end up requiring thicker and heavier car frames and larger cars for safety, further reducing fuel economy...
CVT being lighter and having infinite ratios both help fuel economy.
You're right that I mixed up emissions with fuel economy. Big idea is the same, that we have tighter regulations for both, which push car manufacturers towards these technologies that reduce reliability.
I really don’t know about modern cars being less reliable. Modern engines save for some notable examples have been awesomely powerful and more reliable than ever. Not to mention the non-powertrain stuff like wheel bearings are also incredibly reliable these days
I never said there are no more reliable cars, there are absolutely modern and reliable choices still. But things like cylinder deactivation and EGR absolutely reduce reliability. Reliable engines today can be even more reliable if we removed those features, they purely exist to reduce emissions.
I also never said we shouldn't try to improve fuel economy and emissions, but things don't come for free. Things today are very complicated.
Guessing the cost of a single cat is about $25. O2 is probably $3. It adds up quick when Subaru makes 600k cars, Nissan makes 1.4mil and I don’t know any domestics qty.
Wouldn't that still hurt their fuel economy though? The sensors are there for a purpose and modern cars do use them to calculate fuel ratios and to detect engine problems. If they got rid of them I'd imagine there would be some reduction in their reported fuel economy which could push some buyers away.
Maybe in 1987. Modern stuff is extremely well integrated and convertors don't hinder flow, power, or economy. They do cost a ton though. But no automaker is going to be making massive backwards changes for what will be a temporary blip in the timeline.
Although some Facebook groups seem convinced you'll soon be able to buy a new, <$10k Chevy Vega with carburetor, no cat, no airbags, etc, like it would be some great thing.
>Then explain how putting on high-flow cats or straight pipes can gain 10-20hp on modern engines.
Which modern engines? Real dyno results, or marketing's numbers?
In the modern world of Corvettes, Mustangs etc there are tons of end-user dyno runs floating around showing little to no gain from high flow cats or test pipes. Hot Rod had a good article last year showing stock vs high flow vs straight pipes on a turbo'd Vette showing something like 7 hp max gain on a 650+ whp car. So 1%, or effectively nearly nothing. I have seen similar for Mustangs and even Miatas as well. Gains of maybe 0-2%.
Now, get into the turbo car world and I'll still argue there is almost no gain to just a high flow cat or test pipe. But there is potential gain when coupled with increased boost, turbo speed, etc. High flow cat coupled with annaggressive tune (in the face of emissions and long term durability) can in some cases allow more pressure drop across the turbine, less backpressure, and more effective boost before getting into heat issues. So a 300 hp car might make 304 hp with high flow cats, or 340 tuned back on stock cats, and 360 hp tuned but on high flow cat/downpipe.
So again, I'd challenge you to find end user or 3rd party dyno runs showing cats on modern cars clog up much power.
What exactly do you mean by “modern” engines? You previously drew the line at 1987, so I’m going to say my F136 is well within the category of “modern” even though AFAIK the last cars with it rolled off the line in 2019. This engine absolutely has dyno-proven gains from less restrictive cats.
it's mostly true, but "emissions" (NOx, CO, HC, etc) and "fuel consumption" occasionally are at odds with each other.
the recent small engine big turbo formula that a lot of automakers are fond of is a natural way of getting at both emissions and fuel consumption during regulatory compliance testing, but in real life, these engines often have pretty bad emissions because of enrichment on high load.
another example is in the 90s automakers experimented with lean burn which had very lean mixtures to get more fuel economy but it was horrific for emissions. Diesels have the same problem and that's why they have DPFs and SCRs and all this other shit to make it emit less emissions.
All very true. A good number of engines could run leaner and hit a better BSFC, but NOx puts a nail in that coffin.
What could really help fuel economy? Smaller vehicles and lower power engines. Of which they would sell several. Maybe. Probably not.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to optimize for efficiency when you don't have to simultaneously optimize for emissions. Dieselgate was analogous, but instead of deleting the catalytic converter VW got rid of the expensive SCR urea injection system and came up with a much cheaper alternative. The cheaper alternative caused lousy mileage, so the ECU only turned it on when it detected that an emissions test was being done. Results: good mileage, low cost, 40x higher NOx emissions.
Nah. A lot of emissions equipment on cars actually makes them less efficient. The big issue that catalytic converters, EGR, and DEF systems work on is reactive hydrocarbons and NOx in exhaust. Eliminating CAFE standards isn't great for consumers on the basis that less efficient vehicles cost more in the long term, but it doesn't do anything to delimit NOx and particulate emissions (which cause respiratory disease) or carbon monoxide emission.
> A lot of emissions equipment on cars actually makes them less efficient.
Honestly, the biggest part is probably that running lean mixture causes of bunch of smog. So when it comes to choosing fuel mixture, smog and CO2 are opposing goals.
That's why you can mod your diesel truck to use less fuel AND produce more power - at a cost of increasing smog pollution like 50-500x.
Front O2 sensor does the engine stuff, rear O2 sensor just calls you out when your cat isn't working well enough and needs to be replaced... or is missing.
CO, CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, MN, NV, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, VA, WA, and DC, all have standards that yanking cats and rear O2 sensors would likely run afoul of, so while there may be no *national* standard, it's not auto manufacturers are going to make different cars for different states.
CAFE is separate from the clean air act that mandates cats and tailpipe nox emission controls. CAFE is only about fuel efficiency, so it won't affect emission standards.
that's clean air act emissions (NOx, HC, CO, etc) not fuel economy. Fuel economy should never ever be compared to emissions because even though logically they seem very similar, it's vastly different and often the goals of two regulations conflicts with each other (!!!)
People are ripping apart the new EV Charger for being way too big and it's still a couple of inches shorter than a '69
Plus the Charger wasn't even close to being the largest coupe in that era, it was only a midsize
Unlikely. Automakers lobbied for the loopholes in CAFE because they didn't want to build smaller vehicles. They like to use CAFE as an excuse, but bigger vehicles are more profitable, and they have no real interest in delivering many smaller trucks to cannibalize their primary profit driver.
Agreed. It certainly opens up some opportunities for new types of vehicles.
I don’t think any reasonable person would argue the current CAFE standards are out of date and needed a massive overhaul.
Right, but could we maybe see some models already produced for other markets brought here? Perhaps some diesel Toyotas or VWs?
I'd love a VW California...
Maybe. Crash tests/safety stuff might come into play.
But it would be great if we could figure out a set of world wide standards. That way consumers can buy anything they want from anyone.
Yeah, I misread the headline thinking it was emissions rules, whoops.
They're 100K USD in the UK, even if they were $125-150k in the US they would sell tons.
Dodge and other American manufacturers were phasing out wildly popular V8s due to CAFE regs putting pressure on them. This is great, it will allow the Hemi to keep going for a while longer.
How do you know?
If someone has $50k, and they spend $50k on a new car, they cannot in fact afford gas. Vehicle newness and gas affordability are uncorrelated.
Where I live, I’m surrounded by jabronis who modify their vehicles to intentionally get **worse** fuel economy, and then seem to just pointlessly drive circles around town gunning the engine.
It hasn't bitten Toyota in the ass yet that they are the third largest lobbyist against climate policies:
https://driving.ca/auto-news/industry/toyota-ranked-third-worst-company-for-lobbying-against-climate-policies-report
So were just going to ignore how there were legitimate EPA rules making cars unreliable and overly complicated that just added extra cost? Stop/start doesn’t save that much in fuel economy. Customers will still demand good fuel mileage, I don’t anticipate we go back to the days of 14mpg average but maybe 1-2 to gain back reliability.
> I’m sure there are people who like to spend hundreds per month on gas but most don’t.
LOL what's what most people who have trucks and SUVs are spending already.
Priuses are slow and aren’t very efficient compared to EVs which are both fast and get double the miles per energy. The Tesla Model Y had been one of the best selling vehicles in the country.
The Prius has been around for 20 years. I didn't say it was a perfect vehicle, just that Americans buy what they want, not what is best for the environment
Yup, they only way auto manufacturers are going to go backwards on fuel economy is if the govt mandates it. There's really no downside for them to have more fuel efficient cars at this point.
They make very few fast cars because the poor fuel economy hurt their average economy. This removes that disincentive. We might actually see more than 2-5 thousand Corolla GR per year thanks to the change.
>The manufacturers will still strive to squeeze every place of efficiency out of combustion.
This thread is so naïve. **NOT if they assess that better profits lie elsewhere**.
Okay genius, what happens when Honda realizes that they only have to beat Toyota by 1-2% in order to get the sale? What’s your solution for when they both realize they can get away with dropping efficiency by around 6mpg, and they’re competing with 25/26 mpg instead of 30/31 mpg?
Dude that is exactly how the free market has fucked us over for decades. Companies are always striving to do **barely** enough to get the sale. They are not motivated by “optimizing the product”.
They kind of already are to an extent. The EPA regs on I think NOX killed the super lean burn that manufacturers used to get really good mpg numbers in the 90s with minimal effort. The original Honda insight took full advantage of it (25.8 - 1) to help hit those crazy numbers it did.
We've effectively traded HP for mpg though. Imagine the kinds of mpg we'd see if we weren't limited by NOX and the massive sizes of modern cars.
Stuff a modern hybrid drivetrain in an old CRX and you'd probably be hitting 70+ mpg. Or a redo on the first gen insight with some 660cc kei car engine paired to Honda's new hybrid cvt.
Lean burn is less relevant because of Atkinson cycle engines. With that said manufacturers are still unclear on whether ICE bans will truly come to pass so there will be one last generation of gasoline engines likely with active turbulent jet ignition which will achieve lean burn with current emissions standards.
But the cost of obtaining gas doesn't represent the cost to our environment of burning it. If the cost to our environment were factored into the price of gas (like it is in Europe for example), maybe people would drive more economical cars.
Also worth mentioning that manufacturers aren't going to change shit if they believe the next administration will just reinstate the economy standards.
>Do they still have to post it on the window sticker? Consumers will vote with their wallets.
What are they gonna do when all manufacturers collectively do the same thing? Your confidence is very misplaced.
Those stickers are less than honest. For me, the bigger non-turbo engines got better gas mileage than the smaller turbo engines. Not to mention the added complexity and repair costs associated with turbocharging.
It’s probably a net good for enthusiasts. Automakers have the freedom to experiment with niche cars and not have to worry about fuel economy standards while they keep the fuel economy numbers high for the mass market cars.
this
people won't care about 2-3 mpg, but when it costs over $100 to fill up people will turn their car back into the dealer
the best thing is, we can rethink this water thin oil and cylinder deactivation and hopefully come up with a better way that doesn't kill engines prematurely
Could you just theoretically run lean and make absurd mpg at the cost of the environment? and then just reverse the tune and add back cats when the time comes?
I can't see any automaker really doing anything.
Other than putting off retiring certain models/trims for 3 years but that's always an economic choice rather emissions.
What manufacturer will gamble on building a brand new high performance fuel guzzling power train that will come to market before next US president reintroduces fuel economy legislation??!?
Keeping in mind Europe and rest of the world has something.
Wonder if some manufacturers will remove auto stop start for US models.
Didn't some manufacturers do that during the chip shortage, could be a nice little change that pretty much every consumer despises, and doesnt really change fuel economy that much.
Removal of AS/S would be a big bonus TBH.
Some people would also probably appreciate being able to buy a couple years of DEF-less diesels if that's gone...
I don't know what you drive but I was able to have a guy program my car to "remember last setting" and it was never a problem for me again. Dealership refused to do it even after I showed them exactly how to do so. They were afraid to get in trouble.
At this point the only auto-stop starts that suck is from companies that suck at doing it. Both my 2 last cars the auto stop start is has been completely seamless. Theres zero reason why 20 cars should be burning fuel at a stop light or in a drive through line unless the weather is extreme enough to require running the engine for heating/cooling.
It’s not gonna be a sweeping turnaround. It’s gonna be death by a thousand paper cuts. Cut some corners here. A little worse efficiency there. A dash of higher emissions here. Etc.
This thread needs to understand that if they assess better profits with cost cutting on these engines, they’ll do it in a heartbeat and weather the PR storm.
Some auto makers are already walking back plans to switch to 4 cylinder engines and continuing their 6 and 8 cylinder engines. Stelantis is resuming production of v8 engines for their trucks; Mercedes is resuming production of v8 engines for their sports cars.
Auto journalists whined when 8 cylinder engines were no longer available (even tho the 4 cylinder engines got better efficiency and the same power.) Sales \_were\_ down, but auto makers think those two are connected, when the root cause of dropping sales is really the economy collapsing and prices skyrocketing.
Yeah exactly. They know there will be a new administration someday soon and it’ll likely be closer in align with the global goals of fuel efficiency for vehicles. The Asia market is already switching over to economical EVs. If anything this just allows manufacturers to keep selling some of their older gas models a little bit longer
Damn. Reddit echo chamber really got you there... Even though you're most definitely right in some ways...
Some regulations are just pointless when we've already done the biggest (smog free cities).
What other crazy minivans have been produced that aren't one offs/concept cars/SEMA builds?
And after a certain point practicality and car cost start to have an inverse relationship. The fact that something like a 911 exists and sells does not invalidate my point about the r63 being too expensive.
I wouldn't call that a minivan that fucks, now if they made a caravan with something like the turbo V6 from a GMC cyclone (I realize different brands just throwing out a comparison) that was good for 280hp it would be pretty sweet.
I read it on the internet in an article says '5 performance minivans you didn't know existed', I know about all 5 and the Turbo caravan is the only other one that was a production model.
Toyota did make an AWD Mid-Engine Supercharged Previa, not sure why that wasn't listed.
https://www.drivingline.com/articles/5-high-performance-minivans-you-didnt-know-existed/
I know mid engine really takes away some of the practicality and definitely wouldn't sell well but how sweet would that Renault F1 minivan be? Sorry kids, you have to learn to nap with a screaming v10 in the background on our road trips
How did you get upvotes? The last time I tried to explain on reddit that fuel comsumption and emissions are NOT the same thing and that an old diesel or 40+ year old car that gets the same MPG as a brand new car has much more toxic emissions I got literally hundreds of downvotes...
Because you're objectively wrong on the "a brand new car has much more toxic emissions" front
You couldn't homologate the average 80s car with 2000s emissions standards, and you couldn't homologate the average 2000s car with todays standard. Just look at [this chart](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/EURO_Standards_Diesel.png/1280px-EURO_Standards_Diesel.png) for example
>Because you're objectively wrong on the "a brand new car has much more toxic emissions" front
I never wrote that, anyone can see what I wrote, how about you stop gaslighting? I literally wrote the exact opposite...
>You couldn't homologate the average 80s car with 2000s emissions standards, and you couldn't homologate the average 2000s car with todays standard
That's exactly what I was saying in another post, people got mad and I got tons of downvotes.
put the same catalytic converted/def system on a old vehicle, suddenly its the same as the new one
you don't even have an argument based in logic or fact, you're just saying things for the sake of saying them
like imagine telling people new cars have better paint than old cars, like duh? but unless like you get your old car repainted or it stayed inside for 30 years then nah its the same
>put the same catalytic converted/def system on a old vehicle, suddenly its the same as the new one
No. The engine is still different. You are just making up nonsense about things you know nothing about.
Diesel specifically has gotten worse for reliability and cost directly related to emissions, so it stands to reason anyone who has to work or buy things and likes a the fuel efficiency or torque of a diesel would like an older one.
It could still change I guess, over all like was stated by others factoring in the manufacturing emissions could even the field in terms of lifetime emissions but until they make cars that last hundreds of 1000s of miles with little maintenance it’s tough to sell people on keeping their car for 25 years, never mind any other reason they may need a new car, change in needs or use and accidents. In WNY where I live unless you are proactive and get your car oiled/under coated and keep it in clean overall the road salt will render most daily driven vehicles scrap metal within 15-20 years. Yes complicated emissions systems are costly and annoying but they have done more for air quality than fuel economy. Fuel prices affect a customer’s fuel economy requirements/desires more than regulation. If gas was $10 the number of large trucks and SUVs being daily driven with one person inside would take a sharp decline. The average car on the road is nearly 13 years old in the USA, any changes made to policy or the public’s buying habits take years to have a measured effect.
You have to take into account the environmental impact of building the vehicle in the first place. You’re better off continuing to drive the same car for 15 years than getting a new one every 3 that gets better MPGs and emissions if your primary purpose is environmentalism.
Yes if it's only 3 mpg. No if you switch to an EV. We should definitely follow reduce, reuse, recycle. If it's old vs new ice, you can make an argument for reuse. If you're looking at an EV, the environmental payback is fast, so you go the recycle route.
[engineering explained](https://youtu.be/6RhtiPefVzM?si=tMbwNI-k7DULOfsT&utm_source=ZTQxO) covered this. A channel I like.
Correct, more accurately they are not just high correlated, for all practical purposes its a perfect positive correlation. Useless you want try get ride of that carbon as soot and CO in ridiculous amounts the carbon has to leave as CO2 in exact ratio to the amount of fuel used.
Mercedes GLS 3-row SUV gets 21 mpg combined, but the emissions are EPA bin 30, which means 30 micrograms of pollutants per mile, the same as a Toyota Prius.
A Ford Explorer with the same size engine (3.0L) is a bin 70, more than twice as much pollution per mile.
Sounds like the Mercedes has a cleaner burning engine/battery emission system. The only admission that is probably gonna be somewhere between the two the CO2 which pretty much directly correlates to how much fuel is actually burned
Yup, particulate matter (soot) is just easier to keep low with otto cycle engines compared to atkinson cycle engines like in the Prius. Soot and CO (not to be confused with CO2) are the downsides of atkinson cycle.
Also, this is a relatively new development for years European emission standards lagged behind the United States. They’ve just started to get more strict than the USA.
I love seeing the people excited about this.
I bet they also complain about fuel costs, and blame the opposing political party for the fluctuations in gas prices in a 'free market'.
There's too much invested in status quo from manufacturers. Plus the mind of the customer has economy and ecology in mind when shopping. You won't get back peddling. They vehicle systems are designed to operate together.
There’s no federal enforcement, but you damn well can bet California will still enforce their stricter standards. Car makers will make their cars adhere to California’s rules for the entire country.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Great news. To save money, use a high mph car, drive less, and or combine trips and car pool.
No more arbitrary laws with size and weight tiers encouraging unnecessarily large vehicles for everyday use.
> Automakers aren't going to suddenly stop trying to improve fuel economy because of a temporary halt in enforcement
average fuel economy basically hasn't changed in 30 years (unless youre talking hybrids), but average horsepower has gone up immensely. automakers have literally never cared about making efficient engines. when it comes to fuel economy, all the do is make smaller/lighter cars
Diesel emissions are way more complex and strict than gasoline. If it was just fuel economy everyone would’ve realized “hey why can’t this car do this when it said it could do this” and they would’ve been caught immediately after.
Unless the rest of the world did it too, and things like CARB still exist, wonder how much pull individual states have, a bunch of states now use CARB standards.
What? Those engines made shit power BECAUSE of the emissions regulations. They were the same engines just with drastically lowered compression and restricted air and fuel flow.
American engines were crap because they refused to make efficient, low-pollution engines until the last minute. Like how GM refused Honda's licencing offers.
> American engines were crap because they refused to make efficient, low-pollution engines until the last minute.
There was 5 years between the rules being created and when they went into force. The US had to develop large scale catalytic converter assembly lines and roll out unleaded fuel in that same timeframe. This was also the first large scale emissions rollout and Europe would not follow for another 15 years.
> Like how GM refused Honda's licencing offers.
GM refused the CVCC system because it was a [vacuum line hellhole](https://i.imgur.com/5ZUeL9q.jpeg) that wasn’t really any better than slapping cats on and didn’t pass NOx emissions. Honda only got about 10 years out of it before they had to put cats on their own CVCC cars anyway.
I used to have a vacuum line hellhole, Toyota carb e series. Thing was a nightmare, you couldn't even reach half of the lines without removing other major components. I realized it was rubbish when I'd cap off certain lines out of curiosity and it would run better. Eventually deleted it all and put a Weber on there. So much better.
A 1967 mustang with the 302 made a whopping 210 horsepower with the 2 barrel carb, about 230 with the 4. That’s before all the emissions regulations really kicked in. The 70s would see v8s well under 200hp
There was no 302 in 1967. There was a 289 which made 200 to 270HP depending on options. The 390 which made 320HP was more popular. A year later some of their V8s were pumping out 365hp. The emissions regs were a good thing but it had a dramatic effect on engine performance.
Eh, those engines you’re talking about didn’t actually make the hp in the real world that the specs claimed. A “200hp” engine back then would dyno around 120whp, which in today’s hp numbers is around 140hp. What came about around the same time as the emissions regs was measuring hp differently in 71/72 which dropped the hp to closer to their actual numbers.
No.
Manufactures back then released numbers in SAE but routinely underrated their cars.
The L88 427 in the 1969 corvette was dynoing around 550 rwhp while only being rated at 430.
Check out the 1/4mi times and trap speeds of the old top of the line muscle cars back then and it’s pretty clear how much power they were putting down. Tons of cars running 11s trapping 120+.
It’s ok to be wrong.
I encourage you to check some of these cars out.
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-z3ZYaeKZ7p4oT41ki9tD5LNOoPtQw3q&si=Pto32q7_iKqmRR4U
You’ve got that totally backwards. They made no power because they were CHEAP. Cheap inefficient engines meant higher profit margins. You are out to lunch.
worth noting the malaise era cars were due to unleaded gas regulations, not efficiency regulations. I think we're all in agreement that we don't want fucking lead in our blood anymore.
Yup. The weakest engine in the 1968 corvette was the L79 327 (5.3L) and it was rated at 300hp. Just 6 years later, the most powerful 1974 corvette with its monster LS4 454 (7.4L) was rated at only 270hp.
Even worse was the 1982 corvette which produced only 190hp from its L48 350 (5.7L) v8. A full 110 hp less than the 1970 Corvette with the exact same engine.
People didn't suddenly just forget how to make power. They just weren't able to.
And here we are 45 years later with top end corvettes making over 1000hp with emmisons controls
Take a look at aeroengines
Piston engines on airplanes have no emmisons requirements and still use leaded fuel and are not all that more power dense then automotive engines.
> Piston engines on airplanes have no emmisons requirements and still use leaded fuel and are not all that more power dense then automotive engines.
That's because all of the requirements for aviation engines are based on reliability.
You can ignore those engines for years and they will still run. It'll be illegal as hell to skip that many mandatory services, but they're basically approved because they have been designed to be abused to hell and back and still continue running because it's a big problem if they die since you can't pull over on the side of the cloud and call AAA for a tow.
Aviation and marine engines have way lower relative power ratings because they’re designed to sit flat out while a car engine makes ~20 odd hp most of the time.
Most car engines will throw a rod through the side if you held them at WOT near the redline for 5 minutes straight but that’s takeoff power for a plane.
The engines are also usually limited by the speed of the propeller (both plane and boat) and don’t make much power since they can’t rev out. Ie an airplane engine attached to a direct drive prop, very common, can only rev to about 2500rpm depending on the size of the prop.
It's because aircraft engines are hilariously overbuilt for reliability. It'd be like taking an LS and tuning it to only make 150hp, but be able to handle running there indefinitely.
In 1972 they swapped from measuring Gross Horsepower (no accessories, open headers, fine tune) to measuring Net Horsepower (full accessories and exhaust, standard tune) so the power ratings aren't comparable
Plus the manufacturers had a habit of using ringers so the brochure numbers looked nice
Those days were a direct result of way overbearing emissions regulations. That era never would have happened if we remained emissions free. Now I will say emissions aren't a bad thing. I appreciate clean air. We are so far into emissions technology that this likely won't change much or anything at all really. We have such advanced tech that we can make ridiculously efficient engines without emissions regs
No they didn’t. American cars of the 60s and 70s were notoriously unreliable. I had cars that I changed starters, alternators, carbs two or three times in 100k of driving. Nowadays, I’ll go 200k and never have to deal with this.
Chemical cleaning alone won't do anything against the hard baked on carbon. You've gotta pull the intake manifold and mechanically scrape them.
Pros use media blasting, but being a home gamer I just do it with picks and zip ties. Takes me 4-5 hours from start to finish, but I work slow
You're living in a fantasy world. I used to hear of starters failing all the time in the 90's. Now it's unheard of. And that's just one example.
Cars are objectively far more reliable now than they ever have been.
No, if I can fix a can in my driveway for $100 and an afternoon, but your modern car has to be at the dealer for 2 weeks, would you not argue the older car is more reliable since it can be driven?
At least make a fair comparison. Most dealerships and mechanics are backup at the moment and have been for years. It doesn’t matter how modern the car is, they might not get to you for weeks.
There are repairs and maintenance that can still be done at home on modern cars as well. Not everything requires a computer to do.
Subaru CVTs are very solid. When I was researching buying an Outback basically everything said the CVTs last forever as long as you change the fluid every 70k miles or so.
Hell, mine currently has about 100k, CVT runs smooth as butter. Nissan's shitty CVTs gave them all a bad name.
I’ve got a standing $20 bet with my dad that the tranny in his Legacy will shit before the tranny in my wife’s Escalade. We’re probably looking at push, to be honest.
You're falling for that old-guy trap where you have a really skewed view of reality because you're only looking at problems. My elderly aunt and uncle do that, too - they watch a certain news station every day that reports on how horrible and dangerous the city is, and now they're literally too scared to come into town. It's really sad how some people live in a different reality that's completely isolated from facts.
To be clear, cars are more reliable now than ever, whether or not you understand that.
I have two Teslas, never had this happen to me though I have had to replace the windshield washer fluid more than once! So, I’m with you on the excessive maintenance of modern cars.
Pre-fuel injection, actually. I own a 1987 Ford with a 460. It was literally the last year with a carb. It runs beautifully. Except that occasionally, when it's hot, it starts dropping RPMs very suddenly when I'm moving. I think it's vapor lock.
Fuel injected cars don't have that problem. Carburetors do. '80s cars are plenty reliable so long as they have fuel injection.
They are also more expensive to replace and have a much shorter life span and are very unforgiving is you forget to change the cvt fluid on time. Most people don’t maintain their cars properly. Newer cars are a lot more precise about when you need to change out fluids. Gone are the days that one could skip an oil change or a transmission service on a 90s Camry and not have the cars engine or transmission blow up. Cvts are very sensitive. Once you notice any issues with the cvt.. the damage is done and you’ve cut the life span of the CVT drastically. 2nd owners of the cars will get hit with major repairs because the first owner didn’t do what was required which will effect resale value’s. New cars have planned obsolescence built in from the factory. Old Toyotas and Honda didn’t. New ones do.. if it has a cvt in it.. it has planned obsolescence. Also never go more than 5k miles on an oil change. Never follow the 10k mile oil change intervals. And do your cvt transmission fluid every 30k miles
Fuel economy rules are already printed on the big signs outside every station, like $3.39 regular $3.59 mid grade $3.89 premium.
But EVs costs less than 1/3 as much per mile to run. It’s only a matter of time.
The people that care about this change likely don’t want to MAKE an EV. Their bottom line is at risk when they build cars that don’t need much maintenance. And big oil for sure doesn’t want a single EV on the road.
Not everyone cares specifically about fuel economy and maintenance costs. One battery replacement will dwarf the maintenance costs of an ICE engine if/when that happens.
I'd rather have a fun car, that costs more to operate, than a bland car that is cheaper. People have different desires when it comes to cars.
Agreed, different priorities for different folks. My EV6 GT is definitely not bland though, and the 10 year warranty makes battery issues into a non-issue.
How's the engine? The lackluster reviews of the 3.6L V6 are the main thing holding me back from trading in one of my Giulias...well that and no one has been willing to let me test drive one of the blackwings.
It was driving a Giulia that really sold me on it over an M3/ATS-V.
It's very... effective. It's not nearly as manic as something like an S58, but it's strong throughout and pulls cleanly to redline.
I think it sounds better than an ATS-V, but the chassis and manual trans remain the stars of the show.
I had a base Giulia for a couple years before getting it and there's always a part of me that thinks a Quad would be amazing, but it'd be hard to leave the stick behind now.
But hey, if you have two...
does this mean we get a real Honda Accord that gets 30 mpg with a manual? no. is he gonna bring back Holden? no. the only good thing is stellantis might bring back the hellcat
Best possible outcome from this is that small ICE cars start getting made again, but as others have pointed out given the overall environment of uncertainty I don't see the automakers taking any big risks like this. More likely they probably use it as an opportunity to keep the lineup in place as long as possible, punt on R&D, and China will lap the US on EVs even harder than they're already going to
Close to my take as well, although I suspect we'll see an arms race in thrill engine options for pickups and muscle cars.
For the oil-funded GOP, I think this is an attempt to wall off the US as a last refuge of oil indulgence while the rest of the world moves on.
Close to my take as well, although I suspect we'll see an arms race in thrill engine options for pickups and muscle cars.
For the oil-funded GOP, I think this is an attempt to wall off the US as a last refuge of oil indulgence while the rest of the world moves on.
A lot of the commentators here seem to be forgetting that automakers still have to meet emissions standards. That combined with the fact that people still prefer there vehicles to have better fuel economy means we probably won’t see any changes.
Reddit does NOT undeerstand the difference between emissions and fuel economy, last time I mentioned it on this website people got extremely angry, isulted and downvoted me.
a lot of people ITT also seem to forget about we also switched away from leaded fuel in the 70s, which directly led to much lower compression engines, which resulted in much less power.
Leaded gas had some to do with the power dips in the 70s. First big drop was they had to start publishing power numbers differnetly, that means as the engine sits in a car how much power does it make, prior to that the engines were tested on an engine dyno with custom exhausts and no alternator, power steering pump, high rise intakes etc, etc.
1971 Camaro Z-28 had 355 HP
1972 Camaro Z-28 had 255 BHP
Exact same engine. 350, 4-BBL 9:1 compression,
All these f*cking sheltered people ITT lmao. You guys don’t know dirty air until you’ve been to any Chinese city or India.
We aren’t going to reverse course and still building smog machines. People care about MPG still. People just don’t want stupid shit like auto start/stop.
LA used to have horrible smog like Chinese and Indian cities. It’s why California is so gung ho about emissions and fuel efficiency in the first place.
Considering the proliferation of large trucks and SUVs that skirting CAFE regulations created, I hope this at least means we can have some sedans again.
This allows them to add new things. They don't have to change their current vehicles but they can add tings that they might not have been able to previously.
I don't think auto makers will retool their product line over this, especially since this might be short lived. But it'll only take one or a few companies to gamble on offering an additional larger/more powerful engine option in an existing car, at a profitable upcharge of course, using an existing engine from their lineup, and if it sells like crazy other companies will want in on it.
The CAFE standards have always been worthless trash. It's the reason why we have giant trucks that get 20 MPG.
Bigger trucks have less MPG standards. It's completely counterintuitive.
The US is a small market of 350 people ... every other market will keep the Fuel Economy Rules. Guess where the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese Automakers are going to be heading with their research and development? Hell, even F1 is pushing economy and hybrid systems
It likely has little to do with the cars that are popular in Europe and Asia. The big potential winner here is the truck and large-displacement sports/muscle market which is mostly an American thing.
For what it's worth, CAFE standard loopholes have at least somewhat contributed to the rise in light truck and SUV sales over the last few decades. I wonder if removing CAFE standards altogether would allow sedans and smaller vehicles to make a comeback. (Probably not)
What do you mean somewhat?
They are the direct result of the law. The vehicles keep getting bigger to meet less strict requirements based on wheelbase.
Cafe standard has certainly contributed to hybrids that get the exact same mpg while weighing 1000lbs more than the previous model and being way more mechanically complicated. I don't get how the Toyota sienna gets like 40mpg while the new tundra gets worse real world mpg than my old raptor. Also new BMW m5 like wtf
The technology has improved, but engine downsizing is as much about reducing emissions as it is about fuel economy. Turbocharging *can* help improve efficiency, but not when the turbos are constantly being used.
CAFE standards were more lenient on light trucks, and encouraged manufacturers to build and market them..more aggressively. Imagine how efficient smaller sedans or hatchbacks could be if manufacturers spent that much effort into making them.
Did the rules help improve fuel economy? Are we really better than we were decades ago? Not really. The Geo Metro was a truly revolutionary automobile. It was priced for the masses, it was extraordinarily reliable, and it managed to get 46 mpg on the highway. Hell, most hybrids nowadays have a hard time competing with this early-90s vehicle when it comes to fuel efficiency.
Honda could go back to their old high revving K series engines again instead of the shitty little 1.5t in everything! Imagine V6 engine options in Toyota Tacoma's again? Absurdly reliable V8's in Tundra's again!
Will this mean change? There is always the concern of the administration changing in the future and fuel economy rules becoming strict again. At most I can see car manufacturers delaying implementation of hybrids and electric vehicles.
Policy [discussion is welcome](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/wiki/politics). However, if your post involves politics AND CARS, please consider submitting to /r/CarsOffTopic.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm glad. The pivot to turbo inline 4s and EVs from the last administration have been disastrous for consumers and manufacturers. Just look at the negatively panned "AMG" C-Class and the unreliable Toyota Tacomas in recent years. And don't even get me started on the Dodge Charger EV.
The fact that this was shoved down to consumers was absolutely draconian and anti-consumer. It seemed like everyone in the US would be forced to be driving turbo inline 4 all for the sake of virtue-signaling. Let people have choice, albeit EVs, V8s, inline 6s. No one will be happy with a truck and/or SUV that has a turbo inline 4. Just a mess waiting to happen.
Let’s bring the hummer back and see how the market reacts. Republicans like to destroy everything that the democrats build to just be the dicks that they are without rhyme or reason.
To all the people saying manufacturers aren’t going to change what they’re doing - Stellantis literally announced they’re bringing back their hemi engine. Thats even written in the article!
We’re living in stupid times
Headline is incorrect. Effectively, practically, whatever the strictest state emissions laws are Will govern what type of vehicles get developed, because manufacturers are not going to develop different vehicles for different state standards.
There is more to it than that. It was a waiver carved out for a couple specific categories of vehicles. This doesn’t invalidate my point. California’s vehicle requirements didn’t just vaporize, they are still some of the strictest in the country and will continue to drive vehicle development in the US market.
If that's the case then the 25 year import law should be voided because it is practically solely for emissions related issues. That's the reason Mitsubishi stopped importing the Lancer, Lancer Ralliart and Lancer Evolution to the US market. The US market has been heading towards EV mandates for the past 20 years and they didn't sell enough AWD Lancer models in the US to make paying for the emissions conversion worth their time. Mitsubishi has still been making them in Japan from my understanding but once the final 2016 model left the Japanese factory in 2018 they stopped. But as for their American market face, they have become a completely EV manufacturer even tho they still manufacture petrol and diesel powered vehicles in Japan.
It's a shame how so many folks in car communities see this as a good thing, it's not. Fuel economy standards encourage more efficient drivetrains which benefit everyone from reduced fuel consumption.
They're still going to have to comply with Canadian, European etc laws everywhere else so the vehicles are still going to be efficient because efficiency sells. Especially when gas is expensive. They're just not going to have to make huge vehicles to get around cafe regulations and stuff. Compact trucks and cars? Yes please
GOOD! Let's see vehicles produced that customers actually want instead of what the government wants. The CAFE standards sucked and were a detriment to vehicle production,a classic example of government people making rules for something they know nothing about
Good. It's now such a ubiquitous desire amongst the car buying public that arbitrary targets are no longer necessary and are only hampering automakers. 99% of people buying cars want better economy, it will continue to be a goal for the automakers to provide, dont over regulate it.
I thought this was about cars? Down votes for appreciating simple, reliable car? Car companies have to make a profit and spending thousands on trying to get 1 more MPG means we get complicated experiments. Backing off will be way better, in my opinion. Now they can make both, if the interest is there.
People will choose cars with better mileage. All this really means is other manufacturers will not have to pay Tesla Billions to buy credits. It is great for consumers.
In the long term it doesn’t really matter. As others have said manufacturers are going to reverse course on efficiency standards. Same thing goes for appliances. Nobody wants a dishwasher that uses more water and electricity, they simply wouldn’t sell. It’s almost as if the free market works like it’s supposed to sometimes.
I mean, that's great and all, but I doubt many manufacturers are going to go all when it's likely to get turned back around in 3 years anyway (if not overturned in court before then).
But in the meantime what do I gotta do to get a little pickup with a v6?
If you're talking like Ford Ranger sized, just buy another Ford Ranger. Or a Tacoma. Or a Frontier. Or a Colorado or Canyon.
I didn't say "new" though.
First gens were only two inches longer, one inch wider, and two inches taller.
The slight downside was you could only get the Atlas 4 and 5 cylinders or a 5.3 really late in the game.
Does this mean we can have small cars and sedans again? Or will automakers use this to keep us in big SUVs and trucks, but with gas guzzling V8s instead of Turbo I4s?
[Rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/about/rules/) "No memes, trolling, copypasta, or low-quality joke posts or comments."
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I love this. Finally we can get International market vehicles and car companies can actually make good shit again without having to worry about bullshit EPA rules. This is what i and many other car guys have wanted for years.
People have been saying that for 10 years, and pretty much every manufacturer has walked back their promises on evs. They're not selling in the numbers people thought they would. Hybrids are selling more. And hybrids make more sense, considering they eliminate range anxiety entirely while also using fewer rare resources
>Hybrids are selling more. And hybrids make more sense
Hybrids are the best form of combustion cars but they are not EV alternatives because they still require fossil fuels.
>while also using fewer rare resources
Except for all of the petroleum used. They pollute significantly more over their lifespan because they still require combustion. I like hybrids quite a lot (every new ICE should be a hybrid) but the greenwashing of their emissions compared to EVs is getting pretty tiring.
> EV alternatives because they still require fossil fuels.
There's not a single energy market in North America that does not use fossil fuels. Even if an area claims they do not (*cough BC *Cough) they are still tied to an interconnect and depend on fossil fuels. While there are a few and I mean a few people out there who have built a solar panel system large enough to charge their EV, the vast majority of EVs are still utilizing fossil fuels.
An EV will go further with the same amount of energy burned in a fossil power plant than in an ICE because power plants are significantly more efficient. The result is [fewer emissions per mile even when using energy from fossil fuels vs combustion cars](https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle-myths). Additionally EVs can be used without fossil fuels, ICE cars (including regular non-plug-in hybrids) cannot.
All of the energy used to charge my EV comes from hydroelectric dams near me, I've checked with my provider and that's where they source their energy from. Even if a power grid is not 100% renewable all the time the places where it is have *significantly* lower emissions per mile in an EV.
We are not going to run out of oil anytime soon. There's a lot of fear mongering that someday we will, and maybe we will. But that is a far off time, and more realistically we're going to have to stop ourselves due to the environmental damage we're doing extracting the oil then we are likely to run out.
>We are not going to run out of oil anytime soon.
The problems with burning petroleum for propulsion stem from the emissions more than anything else, the exhaust pollutes our air & oil extraction is very harmful to the planet. I'm not necessarily against using oil but the way we currently use it so casually is extremely wasteful & harmful for us.
The issue with regular hybrid greenwashing is that they maintain the status quo of requiring petroleum consumption for propulsion. They don't break that [always burning gas] cycle the way EVs do, thus they cannot be legitimate alternatives. Painting them as alternatives implies that they're less environmentally damaging than they really are. EVs aren't exactly good for the environment either (because they're cars) but the severity of harm is drastically lower than a (non-plug-in) hybrid. Hybrids are non-hybrid alternatives.
I'm not trying to look at them as a substitute for gas cars. I'm looking at them as a way to continue convenient personal transportation economically and practically. EVs don't make sense the way a gas car does to most people. Hell, somebody figured out that doing a road trip in an EV a few years ago was actually more expensive than doing the same in a reasonably efficient ICE car.
Hybrids are, for most people, the sensible middle. You don't need to install a charger in your home. You don't need to worry about running out of charge. They're cheap, they're reliable, and they're economical.
>I'm not trying to look at them as a substitute for gas cars. I'm looking at them as a way to continue convenient personal transportation economically and practically.
You're proposing them as an alternative to EVs which is the problem. They're not EV alternatives.
>Hybrids are, for most people, the sensible middle.
Describing them as a sensible middle is exactly what I'm talking about, they are still gas cars that require gas to function. They cannot be driven with wall-power. They're not an in-between drivetrain because they're still gas (or in rare cases diesel) cars. The actual in-between drivetrains are PHEVs and EREVs which can function as ICE cars or EVs.
Again I'm a big fan of hybrids, I owned one in the past and am a huge proponent of them. Just not as alternatives for EVs because that's not what they are. They are alternatives to regular non-hybrid cars.
>Hell, somebody figured out that doing a road trip in an EV a few years ago was actually more expensive than doing the same in a reasonably efficient ICE car.
This is true but it's offset by much lower residential rates for most of the charging you do. A hybrid would need to get over 200mpg in my area to match the $0.02/mi I pay for my EV at home.
I explicitly am not proposing them as an alternative to evs. I'm saying they make more sense then EVS as an alternative to pure ICE-powered cars. You do not get to dictate what my argument is.
you can do all the mental gymnastics you want, including deciding you know better than I do what point I am trying to argue, but that doesn't make you right. Just because you've decided it makes perfect sense for you does not mean it makes perfect sense for the general public to switch to an EV.
>I explicitly am not proposing them as an alternative to evs.
When you said
>And hybrids make more sense, considering they eliminate range anxiety entirely while also using fewer rare resources
you were describing hybrids as EV alternatives.
No, I was describing hybrids as personal transportation, which is the point. I was describing them as alternatives to gas cars. My arguments only makes sense in that context. You're trying to reframe somebody else's argument so that you can be right on a technicality.
Except range anxiety for most people is completely overblown. Range on my standard batter lightning has been an issue exactly 3 times since I bought it 2 years ago. And my work commute is longer than the average.
The perception is still there. Nobody is doing a whole lot more than 200 miles in a straight shot. Any EV can meet pretty much the basic needs of your average American. Yet people still look at it as a problem. They don't worry about it for hybrids. And hybrids have the advantage of not needing a home charger.
Possibly, but that $7500 tax credit is going to hurt not to have.
Manufacturers are going to have to either reduce prices, or try and sell cars an entire price category above where they are selling now.
The Model 3 is going from a $35k car to a $43k car.
Literally one post above the comment section is people saying that car manufacturers will NOT remove auto start-stop from their cars bc people would not buy a car that gets 1 MPG less on paper. One post below the same people are panicking that manufacturers will suddenly sell cars that get 10 MPG less. So typical.
[Rule 3:](https://www.reddit.com/r/cars/about/rules/) "No memes, trolling, copypasta, or low-quality joke posts or comments."
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good. Maybe now I can buy a Truck without all of DOD and AFM that has killed my last two under 100k miles. If you buy a 60k pickup you shouldn't have to fear an early death because of stupid cafe standards. BTW, the air was fine in the 70's before this bullshit.
To all the people hoping that this means smaller cars and truck, I have some bad news for you. That's not going to happen.
Automakers lobbied for the rules as they were to justify only building vehicles that were the most profitable, which is larger, bloated vehicles. They didn't want to build small vehicles before, and they don't want to build them now. CAFE was just a convenient excuse. Don't worry, they'll come up with a new excuse soon enough.
CAFE regulations are half the reasons that our streets and roadways have been taken over by behemoth trucks and SUVs. They're the reason that Ford doesn't sell a single CAR in America, other than the Mustang.
Bit of a red Herring that last statement about the return of the hemi. If your customers won’t buy your new straight six and your sales fall off a cliff……………
It is going to be an advantage to the European car makers who can't make US-spec cars to meet the CAFE standards. Also light trucks that were required to have at least 60MPG to meet CAFE standards for being too small may get a chance now.
Because as a collective whole mostly mouth breathing fuktards with no care beyond the next few minutes, we're going to burn ourselves to the ground. Aren't we?
743 Comments
SwiftCEO@reddit
ahorrribledrummer@reddit
ArachnidUnhappy8367@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
mini4x@reddit
wysoft@reddit
mini4x@reddit
Mimical@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
skunk-hollow@reddit
TzarKazm@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
icecream_specialist@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
mini4x@reddit
maveric101@reddit
Responsible-Camp-151@reddit
blackcyborg009@reddit
xlalalalalalalala@reddit
solarpurge@reddit
claspen@reddit
CounterSeal@reddit
opman4@reddit
skunk-hollow@reddit
Lenny_Vidivici@reddit
dstew74@reddit
Lenny_Vidivici@reddit
mini4x@reddit
Godzilla2y@reddit
bikedork5000@reddit
w0nderbrad@reddit
Falanax@reddit
icecream_specialist@reddit
marbleduck@reddit
Jonathan358@reddit
Abi1i@reddit
varezhka11@reddit
Such-Bodybuilder-356@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
mini4x@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Killbot_Wants_Hug@reddit
itsnottommy@reddit
nonaveris@reddit
Old_Letterhead6471@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
sohcgt96@reddit
testthrowawayzz@reddit
sohcgt96@reddit
itsnottommy@reddit
Gah_Duma@reddit
outofdate70shouse@reddit
nonaveris@reddit
ATL-East-Guy@reddit
nonaveris@reddit
KG8893@reddit
Hooddub1@reddit
CantSeeShit@reddit
dagelijksestijl@reddit
BoringBob84@reddit
youtheotube2@reddit
BoringBob84@reddit
sohcgt96@reddit
The_Bucket_Of_Truth@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
risarnchrno@reddit
BoringBob84@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
BoringBob84@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
BoringBob84@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
BoringBob84@reddit
jwreed4130@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
jwreed4130@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
jwreed4130@reddit
testthrowawayzz@reddit
CantSeeShit@reddit
thelangosta@reddit
munche@reddit
Thomas_633_Mk2@reddit
Adjective_Noun1312@reddit
Marshall_Lawson@reddit
Thomas_633_Mk2@reddit
XxRoyalxTigerxX@reddit
_f00lish_@reddit
dstew74@reddit
_f00lish_@reddit
dstew74@reddit
_f00lish_@reddit
Marshall_Lawson@reddit
WhiteNamesInChat@reddit
Briggs281707@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
Beekatiebee@reddit
_Toast@reddit
TMC_61@reddit
SeriousMongoose2290@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
lostfate2005@reddit
Oil_McTexas@reddit
munche@reddit
ManufacturerBest2758@reddit
Adjective_Noun1312@reddit
ManufacturerBest2758@reddit
maveric101@reddit
FuzzelFox@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
hatsune_aru@reddit
Adjective_Noun1312@reddit
hatsune_aru@reddit
_f00lish_@reddit
donnysaysvacuum@reddit
Gregarious_Raconteur@reddit
hutacars@reddit
Gregarious_Raconteur@reddit
Scrimps@reddit
Ab47203@reddit
MervinDPerv_Esq@reddit
SNRatio@reddit
MervinDPerv_Esq@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
bojangular69@reddit
ahorrribledrummer@reddit
fatalrip@reddit
tiagojpg@reddit
dagelijksestijl@reddit
tiagojpg@reddit
dagelijksestijl@reddit
tiagojpg@reddit
intern_steve@reddit
caterham09@reddit
christobevii3@reddit
stakoverflo@reddit
JC-Dude@reddit
rodimusprime119@reddit
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
GOD-PORING@reddit
AnimalShithouse@reddit
BraveFencerMusashi@reddit
AnimalShithouse@reddit
darkbro66@reddit
Annihilating_Tomato@reddit
Justame13@reddit
velociraptorfarmer@reddit
warfighter187@reddit
Disrupt_money@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Dopplegangr1@reddit
ButtfuckerTim@reddit
Eyem_human@reddit
youtheotube2@reddit
Disastrous-Pin8364@reddit
gav_abr@reddit
Splenda@reddit (OP)
gav_abr@reddit
Splenda@reddit (OP)
gav_abr@reddit
Drunken_Hamster@reddit
Splenda@reddit (OP)
Drunken_Hamster@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Drunken_Hamster@reddit
Logitech4873@reddit
nonaveris@reddit
johnbss66@reddit
discosoc@reddit
hermitcraftfan135@reddit
AndroidUser37@reddit
su1ac0@reddit
sohcgt96@reddit
su1ac0@reddit
sohcgt96@reddit
trackdaybruh@reddit
stoned-autistic-dude@reddit
Pseudonym_741@reddit
takumidelconurbano@reddit
dakta@reddit
gumol@reddit
hermitcraftfan135@reddit
gumol@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
hermitcraftfan135@reddit
Tony-cums@reddit
HaggardSummaries@reddit
stonklord420@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
stonklord420@reddit
SaturdaysAFTBs@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
Falanax@reddit
thisisinput@reddit
xt1nct@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
flapsmcgee@reddit
jondes99@reddit
Gan-san@reddit
bojangular69@reddit
ryuranzou@reddit
DropCold1010@reddit
ericsscarcare@reddit
Glittering-Breath538@reddit
soya-samosa@reddit
V8-Turbo-Hybrid@reddit
1nconspicious@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
Seeking-Direction@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
AllTearGasNoBreaks@reddit
FrattyMcBeaver@reddit
AllTearGasNoBreaks@reddit
o0260o@reddit
AllTearGasNoBreaks@reddit
FrattyMcBeaver@reddit
AllTearGasNoBreaks@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
gimpwiz@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
newtonreddits@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
newtonreddits@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
newtonreddits@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
newtonreddits@reddit
SnikySquirrel@reddit
caterham09@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
caterham09@reddit
SnikySquirrel@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
caterham09@reddit
Drenlin@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
maveric101@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
maveric101@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
ludicrous780@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
Erlend05@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
abattlescar@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
PxndxAI@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
abattlescar@reddit
abattlescar@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
gimpwiz@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
gimpwiz@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
PlatinumElement@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
caterham09@reddit
Koil_ting@reddit
hi_im_bored13@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
caustictoast@reddit
rumplydiagram@reddit
caterham09@reddit
armchairracer@reddit
caterham09@reddit
armchairracer@reddit
caterham09@reddit
Erlend05@reddit
caterham09@reddit
caterham09@reddit
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Koil_ting@reddit
Intro24@reddit
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Koil_ting@reddit
FormulaJAZ@reddit
caustictoast@reddit
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Upbeat-Armadillo1756@reddit
BiscuitChief@reddit
UncommercializedKat@reddit
MegaWattson15@reddit
WigglingWeiner99@reddit
Stubbornslav@reddit
neanderthalensis@reddit
__-__-_-__@reddit
One_Weird2371@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
neanderthalensis@reddit
Figgler@reddit
aw3man@reddit
shiggy__diggy@reddit
neanderthalensis@reddit
Complex-Muffin4650@reddit
RedlyrsRevenge@reddit
leedle1234@reddit
Captain_Alaska@reddit
leedle1234@reddit
Captain_Alaska@reddit
leedle1234@reddit
Captain_Alaska@reddit
leedle1234@reddit
Captain_Alaska@reddit
leedle1234@reddit
Captain_Alaska@reddit
caustictoast@reddit
lovsicfrs@reddit
PidgeyPotion@reddit
thefanciestcat@reddit
turb0_encapsulator@reddit
nonaveris@reddit
turb0_encapsulator@reddit
nonaveris@reddit
EngineersAnon@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
tlivingd@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
tlivingd@reddit
ludicrous780@reddit
Puppysmasher@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
AfrArchie@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
According_Flow_6218@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
According_Flow_6218@reddit
WallyWendels@reddit
smexypelican@reddit
hatsune_aru@reddit
smexypelican@reddit
hatsune_aru@reddit
smexypelican@reddit
3klipse@reddit
WallyWendels@reddit
tlivingd@reddit
Marokiii@reddit
According_Flow_6218@reddit
2Stroke728@reddit
According_Flow_6218@reddit
2Stroke728@reddit
According_Flow_6218@reddit
hatsune_aru@reddit
2Stroke728@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
SNRatio@reddit
intern_steve@reddit
gumol@reddit
grunkfest@reddit
CarpeNivem@reddit
Gregarious_Raconteur@reddit
hatsune_aru@reddit
tlivingd@reddit
bandito12452@reddit
__-__-_-__@reddit
not_a_gay_stereotype@reddit
__-__-_-__@reddit
Riverrattpei@reddit
CBH_Sustainability@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
Burnt_Couch@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
Burnt_Couch@reddit
lee1026@reddit
Burnt_Couch@reddit
AndroidUser37@reddit
SchruteFarmsBeetDown@reddit
lee1026@reddit
hutacars@reddit
Lord_Ka1n@reddit
metengrinwi@reddit
9e78@reddit
9e78@reddit
Visible_Quarter_8129@reddit
Such-Bodybuilder-356@reddit
Dirty_Dragons@reddit
V48runner@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
V48runner@reddit
Marokiii@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
ps2cho@reddit
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
ps2cho@reddit
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
ps2cho@reddit
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
leedle1234@reddit
ps2cho@reddit
leedle1234@reddit
Hunt3rj2@reddit
manosiosis@reddit
caterham09@reddit
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
woowoo293@reddit
Macgyver452@reddit
BimmerJustin@reddit
olov244@reddit
DetroitLionsEh@reddit
hi_im_bored13@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
BusNatural3731@reddit
SirLoremIpsum@reddit
Dazzling-Rooster2103@reddit
mopar39426ml@reddit
Unlucky_Situation@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
Ch4rlie_G@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
Ch4rlie_G@reddit
The_Bucket_Of_Truth@reddit
WingerRules@reddit
poketape@reddit
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
truthputer@reddit
vdek@reddit
shortyman920@reddit
Merican1973@reddit
nonaveris@reddit
Rahyan30200@reddit
markeydarkey2@reddit
lesbaguette1@reddit
RBJ_09@reddit
icecream_specialist@reddit
shiggy__diggy@reddit
mini4x@reddit
icecream_specialist@reddit
mini4x@reddit
icecream_specialist@reddit
mini4x@reddit
icecream_specialist@reddit
mini4x@reddit
icecream_specialist@reddit
Accomplished-Exit136@reddit
mini4x@reddit
Doctah_Whoopass@reddit
DOUBLENINERBOY@reddit
nonaveris@reddit
rei_wrld@reddit
ChefButcherMan@reddit
mgobla@reddit
phalanxs@reddit
mgobla@reddit
phalanxs@reddit
doscomputer@reddit
mgobla@reddit
start3ch@reddit
Koil_ting@reddit
ChefButcherMan@reddit
Figgler@reddit
AnimalShithouse@reddit
Kornaros@reddit
AnimalShithouse@reddit
Noobasdfjkl@reddit
Shart4@reddit
SimpleImpX@reddit
ChefButcherMan@reddit
Disrupt_money@reddit
ChefButcherMan@reddit
SimpleImpX@reddit
ChefButcherMan@reddit
Fit-Presentation-778@reddit
deepspectre@reddit
swollennode@reddit
Splenda@reddit (OP)
TheAppropriateBoop@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Affalt@reddit
Vazhox@reddit
jdrvero@reddit
Splenda@reddit (OP)
jdrvero@reddit
Complex-Muffin4650@reddit
Knotical_MK6@reddit
doscomputer@reddit
13Vex@reddit
shdujssnensisishs@reddit
METTEWBA2BA@reddit
13Vex@reddit
xxBrun0xx@reddit
Roboticide@reddit
mini4x@reddit
Complex-Muffin4650@reddit
doscomputer@reddit
Baron_Ultimax@reddit
TopHatTony11@reddit
andrewia@reddit
Kornaros@reddit
Captain_Alaska@reddit
unmanipinfo@reddit
caustictoast@reddit
avoidhugeships@reddit
caustictoast@reddit
brucecaboose@reddit
AVeryHeavyBurtation@reddit
CrabWalkIntoIt@reddit
brucecaboose@reddit
CrabWalkIntoIt@reddit
evanzfx@reddit
BigJellyfish1906@reddit
jib661@reddit
Captain_Alaska@reddit
caterham09@reddit
Baron_Ultimax@reddit
ThePretzul@reddit
Captain_Alaska@reddit
velociraptorfarmer@reddit
Riverrattpei@reddit
Capri280@reddit
Captain_Flannel@reddit
Ftpini@reddit
wyo_rocks@reddit
jib661@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
MarsRocks97@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
MarsRocks97@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Knotical_MK6@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Knotical_MK6@reddit
Realistic_Village184@reddit
Shmokesshweed@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
SwiftCEO@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
A_Very_Brave_Kiwi@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
SwiftCEO@reddit
SteveS117@reddit
A_Very_Brave_Kiwi@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
caterham09@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Shmokesshweed@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
ChangelingFox@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Fact0ry0fSadness@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Realistic_Village184@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
SoyMurcielago@reddit
Ok-Improvement-3670@reddit
Baron_Ultimax@reddit
caterham09@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
E400wagon@reddit
TooManyCarsandCats@reddit
Truck_Dog_SmokedMeat@reddit
ohnosevyn@reddit
Nomad624@reddit
AndrewCoja@reddit
element515@reddit
besselfunctions@reddit
sl0wjim@reddit
besselfunctions@reddit
Content_Godzilla@reddit
besselfunctions@reddit
Local_Cantaloupe_378@reddit
not_a_gay_stereotype@reddit
ahorrribledrummer@reddit
Local_Cantaloupe_378@reddit
TheGT1030MasterRace@reddit
MrBensonhurst@reddit
not_a_gay_stereotype@reddit
Fatigue-Error@reddit
Oracle_of_Ages@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
FormulaJAZ@reddit
Electronic-Chain8396@reddit
ajkeence99@reddit
Electronic-Chain8396@reddit
ajkeence99@reddit
Electronic-Chain8396@reddit
Weak-Specific-6599@reddit
KellerMB@reddit
soxfan913@reddit
KellerMB@reddit
soxfan913@reddit
xxBrun0xx@reddit
Poohs_Smart_Brother@reddit
DangerousAd1731@reddit
Cool-Childhood-6737@reddit
DangerousAd1731@reddit
rei_wrld@reddit
Razathorn@reddit
Marokiii@reddit
Shart4@reddit
Splenda@reddit (OP)
Splenda@reddit (OP)
SnikySquirrel@reddit
mgobla@reddit
jib661@reddit
mini4x@reddit
bloodypython@reddit
ColdCouchWall@reddit
SnikySquirrel@reddit
ColdCouchWall@reddit
Shart4@reddit
CrypticQuery@reddit
reactor4@reddit
ajkeence99@reddit
Bluecolt@reddit
Dirty_Dragons@reddit
aaffpp@reddit
ajkeence99@reddit
_Thorshammer_@reddit
jaaagman@reddit
Dirty_Dragons@reddit
donnysaysvacuum@reddit
icecream_specialist@reddit
jaaagman@reddit
Sprinklypoo@reddit
wes7946@reddit
AfrArchie@reddit
HispaniaRacingTeam@reddit
Beneficial-Focus3702@reddit
Goonzler_Acts@reddit
QTom01@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
UkNomysTeezz@reddit
yesrod85@reddit
xstanloona@reddit
Bill2730@reddit
StonerMetalhead710@reddit
Capital-Water2505@reddit
apoca1ypse12@reddit
buffilosoljah42o@reddit
Vegetable_Yard_2948@reddit
Weak-Specific-6599@reddit
besselfunctions@reddit
Weak-Specific-6599@reddit
Bradon2508@reddit
A-Queef-In-The-Night@reddit
markeydarkey2@reddit
Bonerchill@reddit
not_a_gay_stereotype@reddit
Lord_Ka1n@reddit
Striking_Ad_7283@reddit
hundredjono@reddit
THEREALCABEZAGRANDE@reddit
LocalStraight@reddit
LocalStraight@reddit
rei_wrld@reddit
UpvoteMagnet99@reddit
Jonathan358@reddit
avoidhugeships@reddit
rei_wrld@reddit
TundraSR5@reddit
Jimmytootwo@reddit
Designfanatic88@reddit
blade740@reddit
rei_wrld@reddit
Jamaican_Dynamite@reddit
blade740@reddit
Jamaican_Dynamite@reddit
rei_wrld@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
BWFTW@reddit
ItNeverRainsInWNC@reddit
braytag@reddit
flippin_ruckus@reddit
popgenie23@reddit
twoheadedhorseman@reddit
bluekkid@reddit
Significant_Play_713@reddit
slopecarver@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
markeydarkey2@reddit
BannytheBoss@reddit
markeydarkey2@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
markeydarkey2@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
markeydarkey2@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
markeydarkey2@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
rmusic10891@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
Count_Dongula@reddit
Dazzling-Rooster2103@reddit
IndependentZinc@reddit
JeanPaul72@reddit
Everyilm42900@reddit
explosiv_skull@reddit
AFB27@reddit
mgobla@reddit
researchanddev@reddit
deleted_by_reddit@reddit
AutoModerator@reddit
Wile-E-Coyoteee@reddit
BannytheBoss@reddit
idksomuch@reddit
misterglassman@reddit
robk11@reddit
Own-Village-3274@reddit
CBH_Sustainability@reddit
Myusername468@reddit
Electronic_Algae5426@reddit
lvbuckeye27@reddit
DocSchmuck@reddit
oneonus@reddit
six_six@reddit
ComprehensiveKiwi666@reddit
Trades46@reddit
Daryltang@reddit
Due_Percentage_1929@reddit
XCCO@reddit
wakeupabit@reddit
brazucadomundo@reddit
JustinMagill@reddit
dirty_cuban@reddit
kon---@reddit
Outrageous_Sand_8226@reddit
skinnymatters@reddit