It's no big surprise really given the current climate of things (no pun intended) but it seems that day might be here.
I predict the manufacturers will go to "voluntary compliance" at first. But then to whatever is cheapest.
what are the broad ranging implications? I noticed the "coal rollers" on YouTube are having a field day.
Oh boy... ibtl.
That out of the way....
There are still regulations in almost every other country. The way manufacturing and sales work, I think it would be difficult and or more costly to have a different design for foreign and domestic vehicles.
That being said, I know that car manufacturers have been doing exactly that with both foreign market vehicles and with California market vehicles.
We shall see how this goes.
wvumtnbkr said:Oh boy... ibtl.
That out of the way....
There are still regulations in almost every other country. The way manufacturing and sales work, I think it would be difficult and or more costly to have a different design for foreign and domestic vehicles.
That being said, I know that car manufacturers have been doing exactly that with both foreign market vehicles and with California market vehicles.
We shall see how this goes.
It shouldn't get locked if posters just stay respectful like they do 99.9% of the time on this forum. It's one of the few forums where that's the case. And if we can't have constructive discourse on what's going on in the real world then that's sad and quite a detractor from any value the forum may have added to our hobby.
I'd like to see someone more knowledgeable on the laws weigh in, but a brief scan shows that 18 states have adopted Californias ZEV standards, 19 have adopted CA LEV standards, and 11 have adopted the CA ACT standards.
Those 18 states make up approx 38% of the population.
I can see a world where auto manufacturers capitalize on small differences (like CA only models mentioned earlier), but their core powertrains are going to need to be capable of being clean.
Even if the automotive sector is deregulated I think there will still be some consumer/ market pressure on automakers to produce clean burning cars. Plenty of customers don't care or are actively anti-emissions regs, but plenty of consumers do care. It might come down to private testing agencies/labs (Consumer Reports, etc) providing emission scores by model.
I seriously doubt consumers are going to see lower car prices due to deregulation- if automakers have to spend less on compliance, that's going straight to the shareholders & or executive compensation
People do not want to live in smog era LA. The most populous states will drive clean emissions. If you can't sell to 70%+ of your customer base you won't make money. So cars will continue as they have been. There might be some rockiness but chances are in four years all these regs will start rolling back in so I see nothing of substance changing.
TravisTheHuman said:I'd like to see someone more knowledgeable on the laws weigh in, but a brief scan shows that 18 states have adopted Californias ZEV standards, 19 have adopted CA LEV standards, and 11 have adopted the CA ACT standards.
Those 18 states make up approx 38% of the population.
I can see a world where auto manufacturers capitalize on small differences (like CA only models mentioned earlier), but their core powertrains are going to need to be capable of being clean.
When I retired, for the most part, all of the US's emissions was governed by CARB, as the most updated EPA laws gave OEM's the opportunity to decide between the federal or the Green State standard- and at the time, the federal standard was more difficult. The idea was pretty clear, to make a single US standard.
This actually started off many years ago, I can't remember when this started off.
So it's actually possible that the EPA could "bail" and still force OEM's to follow California's rules.
But still, I also think car companies will hesitate to take all of the stuff off cars when thing can change again in 4 years.
Enforcement of laws looks to be far less likely.
One charged thing, from a pure morality standpoint, why do people celebrate polluting?
yeah, I think states will still do their own thing if they care about their constituents' health.
Clark County in Nevada did away with their classic car exemption because air quality went down from people using old trucks to commute.
flat4_5spd said:I seriously doubt consumers are going to see lower car prices due to deregulation- if automakers have to spend less on compliance, that's going straight to the shareholders & or executive compensation
big yep.
The lawsuits have already started and there will doubtless be many more in the days to come, so as far as the general population is concerned nothing is going to change in the short term.
I know it isn't always to see the benefit of regulations, some are really easy to see others are harder. But every time I roll down the road behind a pre 80's vehicle I am thankful for the EPA and vehicle emissions regulations. I know there were some dark times and some rules seem insignificant or burdensome but in the end we got efficient, powerful, long lasting cars. A lot of that goes back to innovations forced by emissions regulations.
In reply to NY Nick :
Very true.
Don't be mislead by the title, not anti-emissions at all:
While passenger car buyers probably won't want dirtier cars, diesel guys are gonna be over the moon about this. They hate emissions equipment with a passion, since it adds a ton of complexity and cost while often being the source of reliability problems. Not just truck guys - farmers and construction companies often hate the higher costs and increased downtime, and I can understand their concerns. I prefer not following behind big stinky trucks but I can see the flipside POV.
Ultimately though I think everyone's right, this probably won't make a huge difference on a day to day basis for most of us before things change again.
As a certified bro dozer/coal roller, I am sad that the things we used to be able to do are/were tougher to accomplish these days and require workarounds like getting tunes and parts from Canada, repair shops turning away modified vehicles for fear of getting lawsuited to oblivion, and small businesses having to shutter their doors for fear of getting bankrupted by selective enforcement.
Emissions testing for non-commercial vehicles to me seems super silly. General percentage wise, modern cars are built so clean that even a few bad apples will not make a drop of difference in the whole. Tier IV emissions on off-highway equipment is dumb. Diesel catalysts and DEF are dumb. Not gonna go down this path too far but if Uncle Sam doesnt have to do it neither should the general population. Good for the goose, good for the gander and all that.
But. And its a big but.
Go spend a week in Monterrey. You will be extremely happy for the US emissions laws. The difference is wild. I go there a fair bit and if I spend more than 2-3 days in town I get physically ill and its not from too many tacos and cervesas.
The short answer is no.
While I understand why the MSM presents information in a "the sky is falling" way (it sells), government regulation is a process that takes time (usually). Some entities make the law and task other entities to implement the law by making rules. In the case of EPA, usually the rules are handed to states and the states develop implementation plans (SIPs). This process takes years because not only does a proposed rule have to pass the hurdle of federal acceptance, it also has to go through the same process at the state level. This means it is argued over on the House and Senate side at both levels. There is also a public review period and the most significant hurdle to any rule change is litigation. Almost all rules are challenged to some degree. The most controversial are kick around a lot and for a long time.
Usually the rule is gutted or otherwise altered to no longer accomplish the original goal or diminished in some way. I'm surprised anything ever gets done, honestly.
I'll exclude executive mandates from the discussion for various reasons, but they often get overturned.
Specifically, however it gets presented, this will get litigated. Even if the deregulation survives whatever vetting process is to come, I seriously doubt vehicle manufacturers would make any significant changes because: 1. change can be expensive, 2. sophisticated systems don't like sudden, significant changes. 3. they have long-range plans and developments already in progress under established guidelines, 4. liability for backsliding when things get litigated and changes are rescinded.
My Dad told me a story once that explains how rule making generally works, both at the state and federal level. He worked for Georgia-Pacific back when they were in the timber business. He managed all their sawmills in three or four east coast states. He'd go to Atlanta for these meetings with the big wigs to present budgets. He noticed that his counterpart would always ask for a lot of new equipment, like 30 new bulldozers every year. The big wigs would squawk and complain and tell him he could have 15 or 20 and to be happy about it. Dad asked him about this and the guy said he only really wanted 10, but asked for 30 knowing he be offered less and likely would still get more than he actually wanted and definitely more than he needed.
That's the way regulation is developed. Everybody does their dance, people huff and puff, and ultimately sometimes things change a little bit. We just live is a time where extremism gets attention and keeping people agitated sells product. I wouldn't hold my breath on any of the proposed changes being celebrated/lamented currently. I am hopeful that I'll be able to gas up my Torino with some leaded high-test in the future. Seems like there's enough condors and bald eagles flying around nowadays. I've got detonation and receding valves over here.
alfadriver said:One charged thing, from a pure morality standpoint, why do people celebrate polluting?
right?
I thought the whole "You don't E36 M3 where you eat" thing was pretty well understood
If I were a manufacturer, I would not count on this sticking. The US is proving to be very erratic and unpredictable, and it's quite possible there will be a complete u-turn in four years. The safe option is to keep building to the CA specs.
As an aftermarket shop, we'll probably take the same tack. In the past year, we've spent the equivalent of a new car on emissions testing to prove our stuff is clean and can be sold in CA. The latter isn't going to change, and in four years we may once again be happy to have those certifications.
I'm not looking forward to the celebratory coal rollers, though. I ride bicycles and drive convertibles.
In reply to 93gsxturbo :
To me, the reliability issues around some of the diesel emissions equipment are just inexcusable at this point. It was one thing when the requirements were new and manufacturers were still figuring it out. But at this point, DPFs and such have been around for long enough that they certainly could have figured it out if they cared. But it feels like people keep buying their crap even when it barely works, so the manufacturers just don't care to fix it.
In reply to rslifkin :
Are they really that unreliable, or is it just the perception of the systems? I really don't know. Compared to no system, sure, it's less reliable. But compared to the alternate?
What I do know is that SRC is the current state of the art and no other technology is nearly as effective. So effective that a brand new 4000 passenger cruise ship has SRC and injection as part of it's emissions system.
For everyone who thinks SCR is a bad idea, I will remind you that you can become an instant billionaire if you solve the emissions problems with a cheaper and more effective way. Regardless of what the US is doing, the EU is still there, and they still lean toward diesels. So solving the emissions issues is a massive, massive opportunity.
Trent said:alfadriver said:One charged thing, from a pure morality standpoint, why do people celebrate polluting?
right?
I thought the whole "You don't E36 M3 where you eat" thing was pretty well understood
Yes. This. Yes. I understand the need to not overrgulate but I'm not going back to burning rivers.
I remember taking a skateboarding trip to Claremont, near Los Angeles in 1979. There were beautiful mountains less than a mile away which I never saw through the smog. Skateboarding was a matter of riding for 45 minutes or so till the point where I couldn't proceed because I was coughing too hard. At which point I would drink a soda while my body recovered. Lovely times.
I understand that regulation can become an ever tightening screw and that at some point the regulators need to back off, but there needs to be a balance.
In reply to alfadriver :
Yes. Scr is used because it is the only technically that worked reliably. No one is mandating scr. They mandate the levels and it's up to the manufacturers to meet them.
Caterpillar tried using other means and literally couldn't do it without junking engines left and right on OTR trucks. It was so bad they stopped making OTR engines. They left. Good bye. Can't do it. Shuttered the plant.
this is the best tech we have to meet the emmisons levels. If there was better we would do it.
In my experience, testing with Cummins on dodge ram product and heavy duty product, the less hard your run the engine the worse dpf's plug. Most people complaining about this stuff don't run hard enough or hot enough regularly. Think grocery getter. Same issue with vanes sticking on Vgt turbos. Runn them harder they last longer. Puts around and they stick.
In reply to Keith Tanner :
I agree with you. These won't stick now or with a future administration. I'm not aware of anyone beyond E36 M3ty gross polluting industries like mining who are celebrating.
I would guess that this will result in less of a rollback, and more of a lack of tightening.... until it's reversed.
I saw nothing in that video that mentioned stripping away all regulations and returning us to the 1970's. It mentioned less regulation and more careful consideration of future regulation. Which makes sense to me. There should be cost benefit analysis done on proposed regulation- what are we getting in return for what we are we giving up. We should also look back at previous regulation and make sure that the benefits are worth the cost. Some people believe any improvement is worth any cost, some that no improvement is worth any cost. I think that we all agree that the latter is unreasonable, but the former is just as unreasonable yet seems to have much greater acceptance. The best answer is likely in the middle, and this just sounds like an attempt to make adjustments to find that happy medium. We appear to be at a point of diminishing returns and the incremental improvements that we are seeking are coming at ever higher cost. I'm all for taking a closer look at those regulations.
Edit: Reading through some of the above posts, I think a lot of people misunderstand what deregulation means. It doesn't mean no regulation. It means selectively rolling back specific regulations.
As there is no detail on this at the moment I feel like there is nothing to comment on.
When the actual reg changes hit we'll see what the specifics are.
The pipeline for these changes is such that as a manufacturer I wouldn't be in a hurry to start making changes.
You'll need to log in to post.
