4 ms·
The problem I believe is CAFE (fuel economy) regulations. For light trucks, the required fuel economy to avoid a penalty is based on the "Footprint" of a vehic
by cameldrv 7y ago
The problem I believe is CAFE (fuel economy) regulations. For light trucks, the required fuel economy to avoid a penalty is based on the "Footprint" of a vehicle, which is width*wheelbase. [1]
An F-150 with a long bed is expected to get 25.25mpg. The new Ranger is expected to get 30.25mpg. The F-150 actually gets 22, and the Ranger gets 26.
My understanding is that it's difficult to build a smaller truck that gets the required mileage. The result is that the new Ranger is the size of the F-150 from 15 years ago or so. You simply can't buy a compact pickup truck like the 90s Tacoma or Ranger.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy (scroll down to Agreed standards by model year, 2012–2025)
- theluketaylor 7y agoAn excellent example of a well meaning regulation with weird real world consequences. The new EU directive to hit 95g CO2/km is a much better regulation since it directly measures the goal: less carbon emitted. It also measures the fleet more directly, unlike CAFE that carves out tons of categories. It does allow for the double counting of EVs for a few years which incentivizes doing the R&D on EVs rather than paying penalties.
- Ndymium 7y agoThe issue with the EU directive is that it measures emissions just from the tailpipe, not for their lifetime. So an electric car always has 0 emissions even if driven on coal electricity. And a biogas car would have the same as a natural gas one. This hurts things like biogas needlessly. There have been efforts to change this, don't know their status.