Why do they have different standards, anyway? A vehicle is a vehicle, sort of, when it comes to emissions.
jasondj@ttrpg.network 8 months ago
CAFE should just differentiate by unibody and body/frame.
Make unibody have a high requirement.
You want a truck? You can have a truck.
And get rid of paying your way out of your mileage requirement. Or at least raise the rate astronomically.
rchive@lemm.ee 8 months ago
BlackVenom@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I’m not sure what parent is after exactly.
Body in frame is an older way of making cars but it’s far easier/cheaper to make thos heavy duty and modular (e.g. an f250 can be a pickup, tow truck, ambulance, dump truck…)
Unibody is more modern.
Most people can live with a unibody truck (Maverick,Ridgeline,Colorado).
I don’t thing there’s causation between unibody and body on frame as far as fuel consumption is concerned.
We’d need a mechanism that incentives smaller vehicles without impacting the services relying on the heavy duty vehicles…
A Maverick starting at like $24k and an f150 at $35k isn’t enough…
IMALlama@lemmy.world 8 months ago
The maverick and didgeline are both unibodies, but the colorado has a frame.
That said, cafe seems to encourage larger footprints. See: …wikipedia.org/…/Corporate_average_fuel_economy#:….
jasondj@ttrpg.network 8 months ago
Right, CAFE is heavily influenced by footprint (as in actual wheelbase square footage)
So if unibody “SUVs” are being used to raise the average of the “truck fleet”, I’m saying, change the system so they are bringing down the average of the “cars” segment.
Javi_in_4k@lemm.ee 8 months ago
This is basically what we already have. What we should do is require drivers to have a CDL to drive body on frame trucks.