That was no idle statement. Many of them HAVE gone out of business...often becaue of regs.

 

What carmakers have gone out of business because of CAFE regs? List them. And remember divisions of one carmaker aren't companies in and of themselves, so no Saturn, Oldsmobile etc. Also for those that have gone out of business please describe how CAFE regs directly caused them to do so.

Thats total BS lol

 

No, it is not B.S. It is a part of automotive history. Regulations HAVE played a role with a number of companies not making it here in the U.S. Alfa Romeo, in 1994, left the American market, partly because of poor sales and a negative public-perception, and partly because of increasing emission and safety-regs that the company felt was simply not worth the expense for their few sales. They were to come back, of course, some 20 years later.....but are still having a very difficult time and are hanging on by a thread.

Sterling, Isuzu, Suzuki, Daihatsu, Daewoo, Peugeot, Renault, Triumph, MG, AMC......there is a long list of companies that didn't make it here in the U.S. market, partly because of, like Alfa, poor sales/bad reputation, but partly because of the pressure of having to meet ever-increasing regs. Mitsubishi is still here, but not by much, and their American future is also in doubt.

 

Alfa Romeo is still in business and is back in the US. None of those companies you mentioned left the US because of regulations...it was because buyers didn't want their products. Anyways it makes no sense because most of those are european brands and asian brands and regulations in their countries of origin are stricter than here!

Nice goalpost move BTW, it was "many went out of business because of regulations" now its "these fringe companies left the US partly because if poor sales but also possibly because of regulations" lol, classic.

 

Yes, I said because of regs.....but that does not mean 100% because of regs. Other factors are sometimes involved. That's not moving goal posts...that's just considering the crossbar, which connects the two posts.


But is is a economic fact that some smaller companies simply couldn't absorb the cost of increasing regs here in the U.S....they are even having trouble in Europe, with THOSE regs.

 

Its ridiculous. Regulations have not put any carmakers out of business.



Their regs are STRICTER than our regs lol. Your whole argument makes no sense.

 

They are stricter in some things but not in others.

Nothing I post ever seems to make sense to you. I sometimes wonder why I waste my time here typing.

 

Please list some ways in which they are not as strict in Europe as they are here. Really the only area is when it comes to diesels, and in the US we have very few diesels.

You say a lot of stuff that is just totally not true, thats the problem.

 

You're right. 57 years of driving, reviewing, writing, shopping, auto shows, doing some of my own work, and test-drives have taught me absolutely nothing LOL.

I'm out of this discussion. Have a nice evening.

 

So...where are all the carmakers who have gone out of business due to regulations like you said? You're not able to list one. Nor can you list the ways in which European regs are less strict than ours...yet you said very confidently both were true. Someone's age doesn't make them an expert at everything.

 

The irony is that rolling back EPA standards effectively increases consumer US fuel consumption and further sets the US industry back from an innovative POV….

The United States should have the strictest emissions goals out of any country in the world.

 

@mmarshall I would urge you to reconsider because you do make a point. I posted a link about a presenter who contends that the decline in American automakers' production of sedans, such as the Ford Fusion, is not due to a lack of consumer interest, but rather because these companies struggled to comply with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for sedans. In contrast, the standards for light trucks, including crossover SUVs, are simpler for automakers to achieve, prompting the phase-out of sedans in favor of crossovers.

Additionally, the mindset of needing to drive an SUV—stemming from early models suggesting that SUVs provide better safety in accidents—has likely fueled demand for these vehicles. This perception reinforces the trend towards crossovers, creating a significant advantage for them in the market.

Automakers like Toyota and Honda, known for their proficiency in manufacturing small, fuel-efficient cars, have successfully continued producing sedans that meet high standards. Furthermore, higher vehicle prices translate to larger financing margins and improved overall capital efficiencies for manufacturers.

Thus, the limited availability of sedans in North America results from the American Three automakers deliberately restricting supply, rather than from a decrease in demand for these vehicles.

 

This is just not true.

 

I agree with you in principle, but there’s a lot of space between “Sorry Ferrari, but all your cars need to make 50mpg”, and “do whatever you want”. I’d agree with much more lenient restrictions on low-volume models, but zero restrictions is a non-starter.

 

Thank you. You are correct, and also make a good point.

What you say about the loss of sedans is generally true, but it is also true that crossovers, in general, have become desirable to a lot of buyers, because of their interior-versatility and ability to easier-navigate bad weather than many sedans. After many years of sedans and coupes, I became a convert myself.